>>27043576Even for 1996 they weren't great combat systems. They were buggy as fuck, and poorly balanced. Need I remind you that the original SMT outperformed Pokemon in nearly every category, despite being a decade older? Or that just a year later, the juggernaut that was Final Fantasy Seven came out? Pokemon isn't a great RPG now, and it wasn't then, even within its own safe space niche of "mon" series.
Over a hundred playable creatures: Of those over a hundred, once you factored in evolution, that number looks a lot closer to around 60ish. Once you factor in the ones that are shit, that looks a lot more like 30, which is on-par with other rpgs with generic characters available, and not even close to other "mon" series at the time.
Rng capture rates: I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that implementing a modifiable rng for a mechanic is praiseworthy? The only reason I'm confused is that this is a basic feature of almost any game, ever. Maybe I missed your intent, but whatever.
Pokemon's only claims to fame were being a passable game on handheld consoles, since most everything else was a port with the piss taken out of it, or straight-up garbage. The other claim is being an autistic deathtrap, being designed from the inside out by one.
