>>46857132Not that anon but I like both DQ and Pokemon for their lighthearted tone and (in the older games' cases) going for a show, don't tell form of storytelling where the player takes initiative to learn more about the world and fill in the blanks there.
I don't think anyone's arguing that Pokemon should shift its identity to be like DQ, a lot of the strengths of the former come from its free-form party building mechanics, its setting, and compared to other monster collectors, having the base mechanics be as simple and RNG-free as possible (for example, DQM's scouting system relies on percentages based on the party's attack stat, while Yokai Watch is entirely RNG-based without grinding food.) It's simple and easy to get into. I think when people bring up Pokemon's weaknesses or compare gameplay mechanics to other monster catchers, it probably comes from a place of trying to take the good of other franchises into Pokemon, while keeping the good of Pokemon/what makes it as a franchise so unique instead of overriding it, in a sort of "competition breeds success" way. I don't think anyone advocates for having weapon equips DQM has and carrying that over to Pokemon, or using YW3's slider-based combat instead of Pokemon's, for example.
Also mainline DQ and Pokemon are entirely different beasts and shouldn't be compared at all. Even DQ5, which is a monster catcher, handles itself as a game so differently from Pokemon that comparing the two outside of both being an RPG would be disingenuous.
