Starting pokemon are far too strong and their inclusion make the games less fun for casual playthroughs
>You can complete the entire game by training this one pokemon alone
>Even from the start your pokemon is better than that of all the ordinary trainers you meet, dampening any sense of progression
>Even if you do decide to train up a full team, any wild pokemon you catch that are the same type as your starter are useless, because the majority of the time, your starter is straight up superior
>The game guilts you into not boxing your starter with themes of 'coming a long way together' and a 'journey' even though you were always the best and likely never faced any trouble

So if you shouldn't just be given a starter pokemon, how should the games start?

I think the games should start with the player having to go and find their own shitmon in the wild (something weak like a rattata or a caterpie that can be caught or befriended without having a pokemon battle it first). This way the player is forced to think more about team composition, and is actively encouraged to change and diversify their team as they progress.
The starter trope could be used around the middle of the game, rather than at the start, where the player could choose one of three pokemon eggs, depending on what type they think their party needs (fire/grass/water). By giving the player such a strong pokemon later in the game, it is less game breaking, and the fact that you receive it as an egg means you still get the experience of raising yourself if you choose to do so.
This also means that players in general will have more diverse teams, making the game more fun when playing against friends, or even talking about their experience with the game itself.

We've already seen the removal of HM's (a longstanding trope) vastly improve gameplay in the recent , so why not ditch starters for something more fun and engaging too?

Thoughts?