>>53128528>A single quote of Tajiri saying he based the idea of pokemon around kids catching bugs followed up by a bunch of highly speculative interpretation about how this totally means that the series is anti-difficulty of all kindsThis wouldn't hold up as proof anywhere.
>What people ask for, though, is harder fights within that paradigm, which doesn't really make any sense.I wanna address this specifically because it really misses the point. You can't just refer to fights as "Harder" as though that's an objective attribute something can have. Harder than what? Harder than easy? What's easy for some won't be for others. Harder than the current state of the series? You can't say that doesn't make any sense because the series WAS harder, WHEN tajiri made the games no less. If you mean even harder than that, then MAYBE you have an argument for that being against Tajiri's vision, but the series has already abandoned loads of stuff that was once core to the series identity, I could easily see someone arguing that doesn't matter and doesn't change the fact that the series would be "better" (read: enjoyed more by certain people) if the battles were harder and thus innately more satisfying. Like, don't you see? Your assertations about what is "good" and what is "bad" and what "should" be the case and what "shouldn't", they all exist in an enclosed loop, there's no objective metric for any of it, it's all just your taste and your opinion informing and reinforcing itself. That's why you can't actually prove it despite trying to pretend to by circling a sourced quote.
tldr you're not wrong, but neither is anyone else. You simply disagree, and you need to get to grips with the difference between matters of fact and matters of taste or else you'll find yourself dying on some pretty ridiculous hills when all anyone is trying to say is that they have a different opinion.
