[Wings of Fire]

I'm starting to see a pattern in repetitive game serieses.

Game K1 was good.
K2 improved on K a lot.
K3 only improved on K2 a little.
K4 was actually slightly worse than K3.

Now, original fans of the K series would say K1 was the best out of nostalgia.
People who started with K2 would say that K2 was better, as even though it reused K1's mechanics, the total quality was higher.
K3's generation would probably admit that K2 was the best, as though K3 was of the most polished quality, the innovation of K2 makes playing that seem somehow more genuine.
All three generations would hate K4, as it had no innovation and total quality below the sum of its parts.

Someone who never played any K could be said to be of the K4+ generation. Their experiences will be based on what they have seen most recently. Herein lies the question.

K4, subjectively speaking, is a bad game. It's worse than its predecessor. However, objectively speaking, it's better than K1, as it still incorporates the improvements of K2&3. The K1 generation would be outraged, but would that asessment really be wrong?

Later Pokemon games apparently contain less dramatic improvements than the previous ones. But if I, as a new player with no loyalty to speak of, just want to have fun, are they really such a bad idea?

I think that's a pretentious load of shite and will tell you that every generation of Pokemon is at least 'Very good' with G2, G4-2 and G5 being 'Amazing'.