Quoted By:
The battle system has endless emergent depth from a simple set of timeless rules which I think is the hallmark of a good game (Chess, Minecraft, programming). The gameplay loop in singleplayer allows stuff like fanmade games and nuzlockes to be built on top of. Monster design has no competition.
It's the implementation in the single-player streamlined experience that's not up to par. Cutscenes and handholding mechanisms can fuck off. Nintendo consoles are not and will never be able to host 100+ GB AAA "games" (movies for illiterate monkeys) so why spend resources for a poor imitation?
Imagine if the resources were spent on well-designed maps worth exploring both as an investigative exercise and a spectacle (not the 'open-world' bullshit of empty promises that sells you the idea of freedom when it's just asset recycling and illusion of progress that tickles gamer brains) and provided better integration of the Pokemon into the Pokemon world.
Or a difficulty system for veterans instead of "Charizard Flamethrower hur-durr everyone ded cuz me overleveled". Battle Towers already implement caps on team size and levels and in the older generations, on legendaries. Not going to beat a dead horse over performance issues.
I'm not going to pretend I'm familiar with Gamefreak and Nintendo's interoperations, but it's baffling that the polish and focus on user experience found in Nintendo franchises like Mario (Kart), Zelda, etc. are absent from the recent Pokemon entries. They could have a monopoly on monster collection till the Sun dies - how many humans that ever lived are more famous than Pikachu? - but insist on mediocre titles and wading in regressions.
