[I_Am_Nous]

To be fair, the rock/paper/scissors battle loop has 16 (17? Fairy type?) different types with many combinations to build a strategy on. This is why platforms like Pokémon Showdown exist, the "catch and train and breed and battle" loop is too tedious for my adult self.

I appreciate the battle system but the mainline games themselves were primarily designed for a younger audience.

[NeoTar]

There are eighteen Pokémon types. Initially fifteen, dark and steel introduced in generation II and fairy in generation VI.

[SpaceManNabs]

> too tedious for my adult self

What? You don't want to breed 100 pokemon in the same lineage to get one with the perfect (hidden) EV/IV stats, attitude, and moves? How lazy!!! At least do it for 8 pokemon so you have one good team!!!! Get off your ass mate. /s

Yeah I can't believe they thought this was a good idea lol. Glad they are making the system easier. But way too japanese games have grinding mechanics just for gear.

[debugnik]

> I can't believe they thought this was a good idea

I don't think they originally intended to make players minmax entire teams, but to give an edge to those who spent some time training and breeding the right way.

Anyway, most people I've met who played at tournaments either admitted (privately) to using hacked Pokémon or denied it while blatantly using a full perfect IV team with some shiny. (I've think they're cracking down on hacked teams harder now, though.) So I think anyone still grinding for their dream team is actually doing it for fun.

[I_Am_Nous]

Agreed, I feel like it's a hold over from when games were shorter and they had to add tedium to artificially lengthen the game, and since people were used to it they just never removed the tedium.

[thowaway91234]

Minmaxing in almost any game is excruciatingly unfun though, it's not unique to Pokemon. I can't think of a faster way to kill the enjoyment of any game than to try to minmax.

[SpaceManNabs]

Minmaxing in RPGs is kinda expected and pretty fun.

I am thinking:

1. most bioware games

2. most fromsoft games

3. RTS games

4. tower defense games

5. bethesda games since morrowind

Minmaxing there is a natural outcome and often makes the game funner (because otherwise the difficulty is a lot).

[thowaway91234]

Don't you just level up as high as possible in bioware or bethesda games? Not what I would consider "minmaxing". Skyrim is fun because I can get everything to 100 at whatever pace I choose but there is no "min" involved there for the most part. I haven't played one in a while but there really isn't an incentive to keep your level low in those games. There's only "maxing" with no "min".

Souls games have the community agreed level cap of ~125 for PvP matchmaking, so minmaxing makes sense here - but there barely ever any RNG involved in making a Dark Souls build and you just level up and beeline for the things you want while playing the game "normally" (beating levels and bosses, sunbro'ing to get additional XP along the way, etc..). That said, there's an argument to be made that when ignoring the multiplayer aspect that getting to level 300+ to beat NG+7 is way more fun than minmaxing a 125 build and trying to beat NG+7 that way (my preference, of course).

If there was additional RNG involved with weapon stats or anything like the EV/IV system in a souls game I would never play it, for sure. It's simplicity is what makes it amazing. It's why I hate the bloodgem and chalice dungeons in bloodborne, despite it otherwise being my favorite souls game.

RTS and Tower Defense games I'll give you, since the meta strategy is efficient resource management and maximizing damage to obliterate your opponents with as little resources used as quickly as possible.

[kjkjadksj]

You aren’t forced to play the game like that though.

[antifa]

You run out of things to do fast if you dont.