TymanTheLong said:lethelerror said:I enjoyed monster sanctuary.
The problem with games trying to be or likened to Pokemon is they are not Pokemon, something that cant be fixed
In a way I don’t want them to be. There are elements of Pokémon that are kind of timeless, but a lot of it is crufty and I don’t want a 67th version of the same game but a bigger Dex.
It’s like playing MTG (the card game) post about 2010, land cards were a neat solution in the 90s but they also aren’t fun and cause problems, there’s better systems in newer games.
A game that evokes the same good feelings of Pokémon without trying to be it is probably the sweet spot.
EDIT: I hear they’ve removed a lot of the grindy awfulness in creating a competitive team, that’s good news. But I only ever did that to spend time with my kid, I don’t want to touch that world again. More power to the people who’re lifelong fans and can stick with that.
Yeah, a big issue with mainline Pokémon games is that they’re so successful that Game Freak has been reluctant to enact meaningful change to the format and outside of extra mons and a new battle gimmick each gen, it gets pretty stale. Loved Ooblets and how it subverted the ‘battle’ aspect, and Temtem fully committing to 2v2 and even using competitive rule sets in solo endgame was awesome to me - it was able to fully leverage the fact that it wasn’t part of a franchise primarily aimed at kids and double down on something that a lot of older players actually play Pokemon for.
As for your edit, correct, it has never been easier to make a comp team in Pokémon. Can’t speak for the new games yet as only just started, but in Sword/Shield, you could manipulate IVs, EVs, Nature, Ability… basically everything with the exception of egg moves. The game could give you a mon with the worst stats, moves, Ability, and Nature and you could STILL make it competitively viable with a bit of investment, plus breeding is easier than ever to help get a head start.