>>719083604
>. The performance does matter. The artstyle does. The conveyance does.
Let's be honest that's about 5% of a game's overall score.
2 if its a turn based game.
After all, if we all went by that kind of scale of importance any game prior to gen 7 would be considered unplayable but you don't see anyone saying Star Fox is terrible.
Also performance and stability are the same thing.
Anyway, the point is that your standards have been ruined by years of
>4K REALISTIC GRAPHICS
>YOU CAN SEE THE BALLS ON THAT HORSE SCRUNCH UP WHEN IT'S COLD
>LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL HAIRS ON HIS CHINNY CHIN CHIN
>WATCH THE VITILIGO PROGRESS IN REAL TIME!
On top of that I doubt you've even played more than just pokemon to even be able to judge it as a game against others in it's genre.
Don't get me wrong though, I can see the consessions pokemon has made over the years but being bad relative to its own series isn't the same as being a bad game as a whole. At the end of the day it's the go to tamer to this day for a reason, even without dlc it has more than most other tamers so you can make more varied teams each run, not to mention evolution isn't a tedious grind where a game like Digimon would just make you want to stop playing if you wanted to get one of the more interesting megas for your team, speaking of evolution SMT nixxed evolution in 5 as well so now fusion is the only option.
Equips are also surprisingly rare in tamers and are often just limited to straight stat buffs or resistance and immunity to status effect items rather than effects like swapping a mon out upon being hit, raising or lowering weight or even as simple as health recovery under certain conditions but I'm rambling now.
The point is that, graphics and performance aside, pokemon as a game is superior to it's competitors even in the sorry state it's currently in.
But you're probably just going to screech tendie and shit your pants because you can't argue against any of this.