| PhantomLink said: @kupomogli The same thing could be said of many games that have single player and multiplayer, seriously man. And what about other RPGs? You can use the same 3 characters in Final Fantasy XII a beat the game without any kind of strategy (Not bashing, FFXII is one of my favorites RPG) Golden Sun series offer a Djinn system in which you can assign a certain number of Djinn to the main characters, different combinations of Djinn enable different classes, but in the same way you can beat the game with the default combination of Djinn for each character. Even if you can beat the two games I mentioned without strategy, they offer many posibbilities in party creation. |
It feels a lot different in Pokemon. In Pokemon, you'll be completing entire gyms in single player with one or two Pokemon. If you can one shot every gym members Pokemon with an attack that does normal damage there's absolutely no need to bother to change party members to finish the battle any faster. By changing members and attempting to use any strategy, you're actually taking longer to defeat your opponent in Pokemon. In Pokemon the attacks even when animations are off take a long time, changing out your Pokemon takes a long time. Literally everything is slow in Pokemon and when the difficulty is as easy as it is, it makes for a much worse experience. If they're going to have some brain dead difficulty atleast speed up the battles.
For your question in comparison. Putting forth some additional strategy in your average RPG is actually benefitting you to finish it more quickly. Some games may not require you to do so and can be completed regardless, but they add a noticeable benefit by doing so. Very rarely is there an RPG that you go to new areas and one shot every opponent you come across.
