>>56240564It's not about being easy, it's about the willingness to engage the game. My post wasn't about difficulty, it was about analyzing the thought process of insisting on ONLY playing pokemon the "optimal and correct" way. There's a reason why people like playing the "wrong" way, and that's for fun. Whether through arbitrary set rules or just using different pokemon.
>>56240588But made better for who, exactly? I'm not going to pretend for a second that pokemon has been all that deep, but there's a low skill level they aim for to appeal to a broad audience. It seems as though that you want greater challenges in the main game campaign. But outside of post game facilities and online battles with people, you're not getting that in these games. I don't believe that pokemon games need to be hard to be good, and what's easy to you could be difficult to others, mainly younger children. People choose to use those handicaps for fun, catching and using different pokemon are what the games built their identities around, and its why the type system exists in the first place to incentivize using different pokemon. Plus, people get sentimental value out of using certain pokemon under certain rules (like the famous nuzlocke playstyle), and the bonds with those little pixels and beeps are the long term reward for playing these games. When you beat the game, the game's over, but those memories aren't.
If you dislike engaging with the main feature of catching and training pokemon, dislike the games being easy without "obligated handicaps", and don't care for the other features in these RPGs, then the only reward left is levelling up, and plain numbers are very vapid rewards that rely more on addiction than genuine happiness. When the game is over, you realize that you didn't enjoy it at all.
