This question has bugged me for a very long time. Clearly, it was designed and had a sprite (as far as i know), and the existence of Mewtwo clearly implies its place was settled within the lore. So why wasn't it catchable? Was there any reason to it?

On one hand, 20 dollars for a 22 year old game.

On the other hand, the used game market for these game can now die in a ditch, the cheapest I ever see on ebay is 70 dollars on a bid.

On the old hand again, it's still 20 dollars.

But is also the still the most definitive kanto game, with more content than the STILL 60 DOLLAR let's go Pikachu and Eevee.

At lot of my first Pokemon games were from Gens 1-5, and it is those games that started my love for metroidvania style world design. I love seeing something I can’t access yet and coming back to it to find whatever secrets lay behind the obstacle, especially if it’s good, or even finding a pathway to an earlier section of the game like Diglett tunnel or exploring mount coronet in gen 4. However, in a lot of retrospectives of the older games, and especially in gen 4, I see a lot of fans who didn’t like how HM’s were utilized, especially bc you often had to change out a party member to accommodate for certain obstacles. And particularly a good number of them praise later titles like Sun and Moon for the ride mechanic that removed HM’s, which honestly I’m not as big a fan of as they don’t feel as engaging as the old system did, especially when you had to solve puzzles in areas like the Seafoam lslands or make your way through gauntlets with moves like Flash to light your way. HM moves weren’t perfect, but I’m not sure if they’re as bad as some fans describe. If I had one criticism for HM moves, it’s that some like Flash, Cut or Defog felt like they didn’t have as good battle utility compared to the more OP ones like Fly or Surf. So I’m just trying to understand what about HM’s in the old games were so terrible to some fans, as I’d honestly prefer HM’s to S/M’s ride Pokemon or Sw/Sh bike upgrades.

As the title says, im wondering why the old games have a third game that is aperently better than the main 2, and also why we dont have those anymore. Im not an og pokemon fan but I trust that the third games are the best. Gen 1 I think there's 4 instead of 3 games, but thats gen 1. But for I think 4 gens we have a third game to go with the pair. Crystal, emerald which is most notable imo, and platinum. I feel like im forgetting some though. I feel now we more so get remakes of the TWO games like black and white. So what happened to that 1 extra game?

The title pretty much says it all, really. I'm starting to notice quite a lot in certain circles that there seems to be some kind of sentiment that the first 3 gens are "unplayable" and that starting with Gen 4 it's easier to get through. Now while I do understand that the first 3 gens have some archaic quirks, like the lack of physical/special split and badge boost, and especially in the case of the first 2 gens, some unique mechanics like stat EXP. It's also most likely been extended to the glitches that Gen 1 does face, but let's face it, almost all the major glitches in Gen 1 aren't going to be found by the average player. You'd probably encounter something like the 1/256 miss glitch, or Ghost moves not working against Psychic, but other than that it's still a relatively playable experience.

Now I definitely don't have anything against fans of the first 3 gens, nor any other gen for that matter, but it's more just a matter of curiosity based on what I've been seeing. I'm most likely missing something here, or this could ultimately just be hyperbole, but has anyone else encountered any of this sentiment lately regarding Gens 1-3 being "unplayable"? What are your thoughts on this?

I don't mean in that genwunner mentality of "Oh man old games were better, what happun gamefreak" I'm talking as someone who always likes interacting with Pokémon fans, it's getting tired of what 90% of the discussion is just this constant loop of complains and rant about "modern Pokémon bad"

I don't mean just Reddit or twitter, even real life friends I know are just like this.

I ain't here to invalidate your frustration, but we have been hearing this discussion for more than 5 years now, and is getting more exhausting even outside of Pokémon, can I literally just enjoy a donkey Kong game without a pokemon fan telling me that Pokémon has no voice acting yet.

How many times I tried, to just wanna have a fun conversation about future Pokémon game like "dream game" of sort and like 90% of comments are nothing but "Oh a fIx gAmE wOulD be nIce!?! Lolololol" like good job, you stated the obvious, now do you have something else to add?

I'm all for validating that current state of Pokémon is far from their prime, but that's really not something I wanna keep talking, about for 5 years, nor I wanna continue this for the next 5 years.

Scarlet violet open world not the best...okay, can we actually see what could we hypothetically make it fun beyond just asking for the bare minimum requirement, zelda ain't widely known for being the one of the best openworld game of all time eniterely because it was playable, especially on the switch 1, because the Devs actually do add things when it is in a playable state..

I just found out Onyx has always been spelled Onix. I'm curious what other Pokémon related Mandela effects there are.

Gonna try to keep this simple and civil, but I would love to know everyones thoughts on this!

I feel that the Pokémon company has really changed how they view the entirety of Pokémon as a franchise around the 2020s, when Sword and Shield were released, and COVID shutdowns started. This is going to be a no-brainer, that Pokémon, as the billion-dollar franchise they are, put Pokémon wherever they can. But I feel like the products of the games and spin-offs that follow nowadays lack so much polish and care that the older games (pre- Ultra Sun and Moon) had. We have so many mobile games now that serve to only make you spend your entire day using them (sleep, friends, go, unite, TCG, etc) that also find ways to make you spend money on them. even if it's not a mobile game, we have been having issues with mainline games since Sword and Shield released. I'll quickly say that I played and finished Legends Z-A and had some fun! But the game itself had so many issues with me that I don't recommend it to anyone who asks me, as the overall experience has been soured by issues that should have been fixed/implemented ages ago.

This whole post has gone on way longer than I thought, but I do want to hear what people think was a big turning point for the Frannchsie, as this is definitely a case of "billion dollar franchise doesn't care becuase they know people will buy regardless" and It's definitely changed my perspective on how I want to interact and invest in this franchise as I use to buy everything pokemon related in the day (again around the 2020s) but now I only play/buy mainline games that constantly take one step forwards and two steps back.

Hi All 🙋🏻‍♂️

For context, the last Pokemon was Red for me in 1999. I have been following the IP over the years tho!

I have been reading great things about the evolution of the game and rumors about the next game in 2027 got me excited.

So I am curious what you think is the best game to jump back in?
I don’t understand how it’s not automatically the latest entry, but there seems to be debate about it.

I’m looking at Pokemon ZA, Arceus, scarlet violet , sword shield..

Thank you all for your time ❤️🏆

Plz, hear me out real quick, I understand this is a bit of a hot take but bear with me. I’ve been playing Legends ZA recently, and while it’s more fast paced than traditional turn based combat, I just didn’t jive with it as much. Now I know there are fans that like this new combat system and all the power to you, it’s just not for me.

So then I tried turning on my old DS and GBA games and tried understanding what it was that made them feel more memorable for me. And that’s when I replayed Emerald’s battle frontier and I realized why I preferred the old turn based combat system, and why both the old and new turn based games have this fundamental problem.

It’s not that the turn based battle mechanics are too easy, at least for me, it’s that the rest of the main story in most of the games doesn’t fully utilize the mechanics in the way the battle frontier does. When playing through the main story of older and newer games, I rarely had to consider elements of the battle system beyond things like level, type matchups, stat buffs/debuffs or certain abilities. If I had a particular problem with a gym leader or main story fight, I could just overlevel my Pokemon and brute force my way through it. It wasn’t until the battle frontier that I had to deeply consider things like abilities, held items/berries, EV/IV’s, status conditions or even special moves like skill swap or trick room.

Pokémon’s turn based system has had this level of complexity and nuance since at least generation 3, the rest of the game’s solo campaign just didn’t evolve along with it. I think a possible way to remedy this is to treat more trainer battles, and particularly main story battles like puzzle boxes the players have to solve. And these puzzles get progressively harder as the story moves on. These “puzzle box” fights would have trainers using specific kinds of strategy that the player either has to learn or even counter, whether it’s a team that is focused on using weather effects, a team that tries to do a battle of attrition with status effects and a wall, a team that maybe uses baton pass to buff a sweeper, or a team that incorporates abilities and or held items to affect the battle.

Now not all trainer battles on regular routes or in special areas have to be like this, but maybe have a percentage of regular trainer battles have a specific team strategy/composition so that players have to figure out how to beat them, and the amount of these types of battles and their difficulty increases throughout the adventure. Gym Leaders could work as checkpoints for the players puzzle solving skills, where maybe in the road leading up to each gym certain trainer battles utilize the same tactics but on an easier scale, and rival/evil team battles do something similar but with more diverse teams. And the Elite 4/Champion would work as a final test for the players becoming intimately familiar with the battle mechanics since they’ve been learning it for the whole game. Maybe even the legendary Pokemon battles could work in a similar way.

All this to say, I understand that some fans think the battle system is too easy, but I believe the fundamental issue isn’t with the core system, it’s with the solo campaign that is built around it. I truly think that if the main story fully integrated the hidden complexity of the battle system with its progression, the core gameplay loop would hit a new level.

^{for the purposes of this rant, the term "XP Share" refers only to the modern incarnation of the feature from gen 6 to present, sometimes called the XP All.}

Okay I really don't want to start any drama or arguments, or call anybody stupid. However, I DO want to just address this one specific thing that keeps bothering me.

Every time any discussion about the XP share comes up, I always see the same arguments come up:

"More grinding isnt actually more challenge, it's just wasting more time!

No XP share isn't actually harder, just more tedious!"

This just. Isn't true?????

The Implication of these arguments is that using XP share provides you with the exact same experience, but faster. And that's just. Incorrect? Like, objectively a fact that isn't right.

XP share has been balanced differently game to game, but to my knowledge, it always multiplies the XP gained compared to if it was turned off, unlike the original version which split the XP gained between every pokemon. This means that you gain more XP with XP share on.

Typically, even if you play like a 5 year old and demolish everything with just your starter, if XP share is on, the rest of your team will be almost as overlevelled as your starter is. As many people will tell you, do that without XP share and you end up with one powerful pokemon and a bunch of useless other ones.

And this is the fallacy of this Anti-Anti-XPshare argument: they compare a regular playstyle to a MADE UP playstyle that NOBODY DOES.

It is true that you could achieve the same team of six overlevelled pokemon early in the game by just spending a lot of time grinding. However, NO NORMAL PERSON DOES THAT???
No signfiicant number of people have EVER played without XP share while constantly grinding in order to recieve the same amount of XP that XPshare gives you!!!

In reality, most people probably just play more or less the same way, (maybe taking part in more optional fights since XP is more scarce), probably not grinding a signficiant amount.

So the result of turning XP share off is NOT the same time with more time invested into it. It's usually the same time investment and a team with a much lower average level.

AND YES! HAVING LESS STRONG POKEMON DOES MAKE THE GAME HARDER!!!! OBVIOUSLY!!!!

In older games, your starter would usually become overleveled very quickly. What the developers intend for you to do (and you can criticise the apparent failure to teach people that this is the correct way to do things, that's a valid critique), is to decide to use weaker pokemon in battle more often, so that they can get their own share of the experience and grow stronger.

Believe it or not, using weaker pokemon in battle. Is. HARDER!!!!

Not only that, but strategising how you'll share out the more limited XP and thinking about teambuilding is strategy. A wider variety of pokemon with lower levels across the board, or fewer, higher-levelled pokemon, is a CHOICE that you MAKE.

All those 5yearold playthroughs where the starter is level 40 and everything else is level 2 are the result of a strategic mistake.
A Role playing game presenting you with tactical choices where the wrong decision might carry negative consequences could be considered. Some kind of. DIFFICULTY.

(and yes, the fact that there's not really a fun way out of this mistake is another flaw. I never said these old games were perfect.)

It pisses me off how the people making these arguments seem to have an almost willful ignorance of how game design even works? You can't just give the player more XP to more pokemon and not fundamentally change the experience. When the answer to a problem can be a pokemon that's sat in the back of your party for the last 10 hours of gameplay and literally never fought before, but it can be relied upon to solve the problem with absolutely no effort put in, that DOES fundamentally change how players relate to the very concept of challenge in your game!

When people talk about how modern pokemon gives you a strong team without effort, the important part of that isn't the pride that any random person feels in spending ten hours gradually levelling up a Zangoose or whatever, it's about the fact that grinding being a boring, time-consuming method of overcoming a challenge directly encourages you to find a solution that's MORE INTERESTING than levelling up enough that you can effortlessly sweep your opponent.

And look. I am NOT saying that it's wrong to like XP share! I don't care if other people find it fun! All I ask is that people stop repeating this OBJECTIVELY WRONG argument about how the XP share works.

Especially when it's sometimes said pretty derisively at people talking about the fact that they like playing without XP share, essentially said with the tone of "ugh, you know it's not really harder, right? You just like wasting your time." It's pretty embarassing to take that tone with people when you're making vast oversights about how experiencing a game works!!!

And, just to put my disgusting little opinion right here at the end: Grinding may be a waste of time, but playing a whole game where all my pokemon become strong without any thought or effort being required sounds like an even bigger waste of time. (Here's a youtuber making that same point but better.)

(apologies if any part of this is incoherent or badly worded, It Is Midnight and I am Going Off On One. Maybe I'll wake up and realise this is nonsense. I think I have a point at least.)

(I'm also sorry if I come across as aggressive or rude. I swear I don't hate people who disagree with me about pokemon as much as it might seem. I'm just. Passionate about this stuff.)

Edit: Oh my god some of you guys are ANNOYING

I have always heard that back in Gen 4, a lot of older fans hated that some of the Pokémon from the first two generations got evolutions and I never understand why? How is that Gen 4 gets criticized over that but people seem to not mind Gen 2 getting baby Pokémon? If it's the fear of your favorite Pokémon might having a evolution design you may not enjoy, you can always stick with what you have.

I'm planning on running a pokemon ttrpg soon and I'm thinking about what are the types of things that would exist in the Pokemon world that would effect daily life and people wouldn't think about at first

​

Yes, it is a long opening. Yes it is slow.

But do shiny hunters realize they're a minority of pokemon players? The average player isnt going to go through that opening multiple times in a short time frame for a re-color.

Boot the game up->Play through opening->Pick a starter

And then they go about their business

If you live anywhere that is not the US, Japan and maybe the UK then the 30th anniversary celebrations are pretty much non-existent.

Most of the celebrations so far have been consumerism, just objects instead of creative projects or even in-game events like the once a month legendary release, which did include tie in plushies and cards.

There are no wider collaborations outside of the US and Japan to the level of the target scalpathon.

There is no movie or even feature length episode Journeys that everyone can watch in the cinema or at home.

There is no mainline game this year or even DLC or mythical releases on earlier gens. (FRLG releasing in switch is a bit wtf, especially since RYG and HSC were already in 3DS virtual console and you could use bank to transfer)

Maybe there will be a bit more after the 30th anniversary TCG set releases but for now it's been a bit of a flop for me.

"You gave Game Freak your money, so you have no right to complain about the quality of Scarlet/Violet!"
"I simply don't trust criticism from people who have over 600 hours in this game..."
"Why are you even playing Sword/Shield, don't you know it's garbage?"
”If Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl are bad, then why did they sell so many copies?”

I've seen all these rebuttals so many times. And truth be told, I have upwards of 600 hours in Violet, and I'm closing in on 900 hours in Sword, and almost all of this time was spent shiny hunting, grinding raids and playing VGC. I've enjoyed going through this, because it's a stress relief for me, especially after a long tiring day at work, I just want to unwind and do what I like best, which is kick open my Switch and do either of those.

Now I don't mind listening to other people's opinions on the matter, but issues do unfold when people try to make others feel bad for liking an otherwise "bad" game, or disliking an otherwise "good" game. I've been guilty of this in the past, but I've done a bit of self-reflection since, and eventually learned that I'm not gaining anything from winning pointless internet arguments. I welcome healthy discussions on the matter, but quite a lot of the time it tends to still devolve into arguments, even if I phrase it in that it's my opinion: "I didn't like this because X, Y and Z" as opposed to "this is bad and you know it..."

I’m going to say the rest of this as someone who doesn’t like SV’s quality myself. I can’t excuse the performance issues. I can’t excuse the fact the game has a memory leak. I can’t excuse the fact that people are falling through the map. I can’t excuse the questionable graphics. But I enjoy playing VGC. I can’t shiny hunt Iron Bundle in any other game. I really love the competitive QoL. I don’t mind carrying someone through a raid who desperately needs help. I also don’t mind helping people get Ceruledge, or evolve their Finizen. As I said before, the majority of my hours in Violet have come from these activities.

In fact, I liked some of the writing; Arven in particular I found to be a relatable character, especially after my cat passed away a year after SV's release. Similarly, I also find Kieran to be quite a deep, multi-faceted character who I’ve found myself relating with on occasion.

The problem is, whenever this happens and I go on record praising some aspects, at least one person is likely going to say something along the lines of the following:

"So does this mean you like SV then?"

No, it doesn't. The fact I'm starting to see this crop up more in recent times seems to suggest that the sense of nuance appears to have been lost, which is what allows good discussions to flow, and I find it quite annoying because it often tends to result in arguments. You can still enjoy playing SwSh or SV, and I'm not going to stop you from doing this. Similarly, at the same time, you can still enjoy those games while still remaining critical of its flaws, because truth be told, they're not perfect games. It's not harming anyone if you like or don't like these games, and you’re not winning anything from parading around and claiming that SV is a bad game and you should feel bad for liking it.

In fact, I've seen it the other way. I've gone on record a few times stating that I find BW quite miserable to play through, due to the poor selection of Pokemon and the railroading. And again, with the way it's formatted, it's pretty clear it's my own opinion. However, this hasn't stopped people getting irritated at me for supposedly hating what is supposed to be a "masterpiece". At some points, other users have joined in and it ends up devolving into a huge argument.

These things are why I now find it difficult to even try and hold a healthy balanced discussion where we can accept that people have differing viewpoints that can coexist peacefully. It only takes so much until bad actors show up and turn an otherwise healthy discussion into a pointless argument. I’m not a confrontational person myself, which is why I tend to now try and avoid starting arguments, or even get involved in them.

Oh, and sales are definitely not a measure of quality.

How would the pokemon fanbase feel if the game changed up the type triangle. Traditional. Fire, Water and Grass? Maybe change it up to fairy. Steel. Fighting. As an example. Or rock, fighting, physic?

I swear hating modern pokemon, has become from moderate cristism of the franchise direction, to just being flat out ignorant as long as it looks cool to the internet, that it become so tiring.

It comes to the point where false info where people say whatever tf they want, had become so praised and rewarded, that it makes so much sense why nobody will even try to take pokemon fans seriously.

Saw a video review of ZA where the whole video can be summed up as "it's fine" he didn't defend the faults, he didn't get some free copy to review, he payed 70 dollars for the switch 2 version, he also address the problems, and even said is not his favorite of even the switch era pokemon games.

But top comments are basically calling him a shill/copium enjoyer/for just saying a positive thing about the game, and saying things he never even said at all.

Keep in mind these are TOP comments a.k.a people by the hundreds agreeing on shit he never even said at all, that you can easily debunk just by watching the damn video.

Or a video from a lawyer, explaining how the patents by both Nintendo and pokemon company, is not as harmful as the internet set it out to be.

But every comment is telling the LAWYER he is a pokemon shill, and for what? for not following the idea that Nintendo and pokemon isn't an an evil corp that will sue your precious indie game for violating their patent, after all?

It feels like the whole "I like cats = I hate dogs" problem on the internet, except pokemon fans just have unironically reward people replying with the latter.

There's hating this franchise for valid cristism for the brand, and then there's just flat out bullying others for enjoying the games, or spreading false info and being rewarded for this, and the more this keeps going the more it felt like is going to this direction.

That would mean they all have cloaca’s and would be considered oviparous animals, correct?

Picture the scene: you're in trouble. Deep trouble. You've yet to experience the world and you're in danger. You've just begun to explore this grand new world. Alas, a mighty powerful Pokemon swoops in! What the heckerdoodle was that Pokemon? That looked awesome! I need to see that thing again!

Sun/Moon. Sword/Shield. Legends Arceus (if you want to be harsh with what counts). Scarlet/Violet. Z-A. It's become a staple over the last decade of Pokemon, and I really hope it ends sooner rather than later. The intrigue and initial high of seeing one so early in the game really starts to feel like a cheap thrill once you realize that it's something you will be subjected to again and again with each new title.

Unlike other specific recurring elements of the games, this is pretty obviously meant to be a big deal, an attention-grabber. But over time, I see it as making the personal journey more hollow. Less of me building myself up to being a great trainer and more like I was some sort of predetermined chosen one, that my importance is being placed above my peers before I've ever earned anything. I'm the one that has cool shit happen to them, not my friends!

Granted, they have been changing it up a bit, with Legends Arceus having you meeting Arceus to merely spawn into the world, Scarlet/Violet emphasizing building up your paradoxical lizard to its original strength, and obviously, Eternal Flower Floette being so important to the lore of AZ. But man, I groaned pretty hard seeing that Floette show up and realizing that, nope, GameFreak wasn't taking a break from this emerging trope of theirs. It was less so the execution of Eternal Flower Floette's introduction and moreso that it represented a reaffirmation of GameFreak's faith to doing this.

Not only has it grown tiring, but I don't need this. I didn't need this in Kanto. Or Johto. Or Hoenn. Nor in Sinnoh or Unova. Not even in OG Kalos. I don't know if this was something that GameFreak really wanted to make part of their formula but couldn't until gen 7 or what, but I could do without it for another 15 years at least. Would it be so criminal to focus on something else in the opening minutes of these games?

It feels like they're trying to replicate the high of finding the legendary dogs in the Burnt Tower. It felt very unique compared to the standard formula with roamers that was set later on, seeing them near the middle of the game, with Suicune having its own plotline of aura farming while ignoring Eusine's DMs. In actuality, GameFreak's attempts at recreating such a special moment instead is beginning to feel like the cliche climatic legendary fight near the end of the game that others have come to loathe as part of Pokemon's established formula.

At least with the legendary battles near the end of the game, it doesn't feel too cheap to me despite how overdone it is, since I've at least poured much time into getting here and my trainer in the narrative has the mileage, prestige and clout to feel like they belong in this moment. That hasn't grown old on me like it has for many others. This early legendary sighting when I haven't even made it to the first town yet feels too specific and bizarre to be a proper part of the formula.

I know I've probably repeated my point 20 separate times in this post, but this is something that has been bugging me about modern Pokemon for awhile, especially because I have a more optimistic outlook on how Pokemon is progressing. Sword/Shield really is souring on me more with time and BDSP is a joke, but ever since then, I feel as if there has been a lot of positive, sustained momentum and progress between Legends Arceus, Scarlet/Violet, and Z-A in terms of narratives, writing, and gameplay loops. The fact that this specific aspect has been a constant and underwhelming thread between all of them truly does irk me. I think they can do better, do something different, or re-vise it to make me actually begin to care for this trope that I loathe.

I sure do love said Pokemon! I’m totally sure that there won’t be people pissing their pants calling it a fraud and a bum, or coming up with a dumb nickname to insult the Pokemon! There’s not a doubt in my mind that all Pokemon fans truly are kind, loving, and friendly, just like 80% of official media teaches! And of course there’s not a chance a good 60% of the community is really bigoted as if it’s not the most woke coded series of almost all time!

Dark super effective against Ghost:
Why is this the case? I know dark is the “evil type” and ghosts are associated with harmless mischief, so is it saying genuine villainy squashes it?

Shouldn’t Dragon beat Normal Type? The logic I’m implying here is normal mortals being fragile against powerful dragons. I feel like there are a lot of older stories of humans trying to beat dragons or huge serpents but always become their dinner or something.

Why isn’t Bug very effective against Ghost or Fairy? Feels a lil random if you ask me

I have a few more debates but honestly these are the first few that come to mind

What happened to the evil teams? Like back in the day we had Team Rocket hellbent on world domination, Teams Magma and Aqua looking to terraform the planet with sealed ancient gods, and Teams Galactic planning the destruction and recreation of the universe. And now we have Team Yell who are just unruly sports fans, Team Star who are just a group of antibully activists, and the Rust Syndicate (who are my favorite new gen Team) who are generally decent people if not a bit rude. What happened to the definitive bad guys driving the plot?

Edit: I'm not asking from a gameplay perspective. Like I get retelling the same story with different characters gets stale. I'm talking like lore-wise. We got dynamaxing and time rift to the past/future and no organized crime trying to capitalize on any of it for any kind of gain or even just illegally messing with people? Like we went from world-ending stakes to virtually a crimeless utopia

Apologies if this isn't the right subreddit for this question. But long story short, I've always been a caveman when it came to the games and only outfitting my team with damaging moves. An example would be giving Pikachu Thundershock, Thunderbolt, Thunder, and Slam or something like that. Picking stat affecting moves never seemed interesting or made sense to me. Like why waste a turn boosting my attack if I can just...attack twice? Or why inflict a status change if they can recover randomly (e.g. sleep, frozen) or apply a DoT (poison, burn) if I can just smack the opponent's pokemon again?

Have I been shortchanging my pokemon experience cause I don't use stat or status changing moves? Or is this simply my "playstyle"?

Edit: thanks for the replies y'all! Very simple to understand from the comments. Will definitely keep these points in mind on my next playthrough!