i've the reasons and they biased.
and theres only a few ppl here tha have interest in pokemon. if you want your answer then you need to go a pokemon forum.
Tell me what are biased about them.
There are Big differences, they are new, and being new make them having new ideas and different things.
GBC Games now look bad, and GBA games will soon look bad with the new games were getting. So Saying.
Theres no real difference between GBA and GBC is complete BS.
thus, is why you can judge a game by replay value
In Crystal Version it was actually fun to try catch them all.
in Ruby and emerald it was a chore.
I agree with Cloud on that. It was fun in Crystal. Emerald felt like a chore.
In Crystal Version it was actually fun to try catch them all.
in Ruby and emerald it was a chore.
i'll give you that, but you never had to. its not like if you didnt you missed out on anything.
In Crystal Version it was actually fun to try catch them all.
in Ruby and emerald it was a chore.
It wasn't a chore and the pokemon games looked good for the times they came out.
another good point. yet that couldnt be helped cause they were on different handhelds.
Battle Frontier >>>>>facing Ash and a lot more challenging as well.
Much more challenging, Ash is a noob. 
anoter believer! thanks. if ash is still losing battles at this point after traveling three regions, then he deserves no credit.
People who say Emerald > Crystal are n00bs.
Seriously, Pokemon declined after Gold and Silver. Only now has the restoration began.
People who say Emerald > Crystal are n00bs.
Seriously, Pokemon declined after Gold and Silver. Only now has the restoration began.
QFT.
Ruby Saphirre and Emerald Were accedents.
i'm a noob? i've followed pokemon from day 1. and know way more than most ppl here.
ppl who say 1st and 2nd gen are better are the noobs, cause they fail to see that the newer gens builds on the game good points, and removed the flaws.
1st Gen and second gen Games, are better, and so is the show, the new stuff is just so predictable.. and team rocket is just annoying.
And once again.
People who say Emerald > Crystal are n00bs.
I'm no noob either, pokemon has improved on the flaws of each game every time. Cloud still calls Electric pokemon Thunder pokemon. Completly wrong.
Next topic: Shiny or non-shiny which do you prefer
I prefer Crystal over Emerald. You could go back to the Kanto region and battle against familiar faces. Plus, it still had Team Rocket, which is by far my favorite baddie group of the series. Teams Magma and Aqua were pansies, and Team Galactic are fashionably challenged (just like the main characters in D/P). Nowadays in the TV series, Team Rocket's moves aren't getting predictable. It's amazing how Ash and friends can't see through their disguises, however cheesy they are. And now they changed their motto again, and its even longer. (And in my opinion, I'd prefer the original any day).
Topic 2:
What's the big deal about shiny Pokemon, anyway? They have a different color. Whoop-dee-freaking-do. It's not like they can learn any new attacks. Besides, the only shiny I have come into contact with is the Red Gyarados in G/S/C. I don't think that the other shiny Pokemon give you anything like the Red Scale you got after battling it. Shiny Pokemon may be rarer than most, but they're HIGHLY overrated.
In previous generation (GSC maybe) shiny Pokemon had stat bonuses and were stronger. This is of course no longer the case, so they are worthless. The only point is if you want a shiny version of one of your favoured Pokemon (eg. me getting a shiny Pikachu) but if you see one catch it because of crazy trade value.
Personally, I see no point for them besides trading, hence why I only have two shiny Pokemon.
non-shiny. there are some that look cool, but most are bad. and plus theres no change in stats.
I choose Shiny, because I can get almost any Pokemon for them.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11