Lluc
Not a Very Well-Known Member
This is an accusation that I often see thrown around whenever there is discourse about the forced EXP share. Whenever someone defends the EXP share it's because "the older games were grindy and this means you don't have to grind anymore".
However, I've seen players object to that saying "You don't need to grind to beat the Pokemon games, these are games literally meant for children. I am able to do that! That sounds like a skill issue." There are even successful youtube playthroughs out there where people give themselves a "no grinding" rule or even beating the games with a "no experience points" cheat (even beating Red in both GSC and HGSS!) There's also the point that most JRPGs are designed to have their bosses be stronger than the player which suggests that players are intended to fight boss trainers at a level disadvantage, not at the same level.
Then I've seen the other side of the argument respond to the proof of concept that the strategies used in "no grinding/exp" playthroughs are wayyy too impractible and RNG-reliant that you may as well just grind. I remember when I used a youtuber's HGSS monotype Bug playthrough with a "no grinding" rule as an argument that you don't need to grind to beat the games without the XY-styled EXP share, I got a response that was "Did you even watch the playthrough yourself? That player heavily relied on the RNG from Scizor's Attract to win against the champion. It must have taken several resets to win that battle."
While it is true that you never needed to grind to beat a Pokemon game, was it really the most practicable choice to most players before the modern EXP share?
However, I've seen players object to that saying "You don't need to grind to beat the Pokemon games, these are games literally meant for children. I am able to do that! That sounds like a skill issue." There are even successful youtube playthroughs out there where people give themselves a "no grinding" rule or even beating the games with a "no experience points" cheat (even beating Red in both GSC and HGSS!) There's also the point that most JRPGs are designed to have their bosses be stronger than the player which suggests that players are intended to fight boss trainers at a level disadvantage, not at the same level.
Then I've seen the other side of the argument respond to the proof of concept that the strategies used in "no grinding/exp" playthroughs are wayyy too impractible and RNG-reliant that you may as well just grind. I remember when I used a youtuber's HGSS monotype Bug playthrough with a "no grinding" rule as an argument that you don't need to grind to beat the games without the XY-styled EXP share, I got a response that was "Did you even watch the playthrough yourself? That player heavily relied on the RNG from Scizor's Attract to win against the champion. It must have taken several resets to win that battle."
While it is true that you never needed to grind to beat a Pokemon game, was it really the most practicable choice to most players before the modern EXP share?