>>41716157>Regions (mainly Kalos) that rely on Kanto pandering lose their own identityWhat the fuck does "identity" even mean and how is it relevant to the game's quality?
>In doing so, you miss the opportunity to add interesting elements to the gamesHow is going for one linear forest map design over another linear forest map design "missing the opportunity"? The game plays the exact same either way.
>the postgame legend capturing of X/Y being Kanto legendariesThose legendaries wouldn't have magically been replaced with new Pokemon. Making new Pokemon requires more resources over using old ones.
>the professor that studies Totem Pokemon just being Professor Oak but with a tanThe entire point is that he's an "Alolan form" of Professor Oak the same way regional variants of Pokemon look similar to their other region counterparts.
>Why bother creating interesting gameplay elements and designs when you can just give Meowth and Charizard a new form?Meowth and Charizard having new forms are interesting gameplay elements.
>When you can just hand the players a Kanto starter with a mega evo and not even give the starters of the region that introduced the mechanic mega evos?And? What about it? How does this make the game worse?
>Why give the Galar starters Gigantamax designs when you can just give Charizard one?Why not give Charizard one?
>Why make Kanto sequels that expand on the region when you can just make Yellow again?So every remake ever is bad because it's a remake and not a sequel? Are you retarded?
>Why give Sword and Shield more dev attention when you can just make Yellow again?What does LGPE have to do with SS's quality? Why not blame every other Pokemon game that exists for SS's quality while you're at it?
None of what you described is an actual objective problem with the game. It's just you making up autistic rules about what the game should be and then getting pissy when it doesn't conform to it.
