>>50647079Because they aren't individual unique monsters specifically designed to be different even slightly to capture specific interests of people? Sure you may not have had an interest in crows (Murkrow) growing up, but maybe had an interest in woodpeckers (Pikipek). Single digit iq post to be honest fampai
>>50647100>its still garbageAgain, to you sure. To someone else that had a sewaddle through their entire BW playthrough, the cards are worth a bunch, sentimentally speaking.
>the point of a collection is to have valuable cards earlier onAgain, an objectively wrong classification. Could it be that people possibly collect things they have a connection to? Things they're interested in? People have rock collections, coke bottle collections, stamp collections, all nameless, faceless things that for the most part are valueless. Does that make them any less of a collector or their collections any less of a collection? The idea that just because something isn't worth money, it isn't collecting is retarded. Stop projecting your own collection standards on other people.
