One word that stuck out the most to me in your reply was "linearity." Progression in an RPG should not be restrictive based on hitting certain points. In my opinion, Pokémon could learn from the very first Zelda game (and now Breath of the Wild) by allowing trainers to fight gyms, or whatever leader system is in place, in whichever order they prefer. This would allow each player to have their own unique journey while still providing a challenge and story for them to follow. It could be a reverse Metroid: Other M situation where we as players are so used to linearity, that if we were to experience something new in the series, it would be akin to playing Metroid Prime for the first time. Perhaps being open world isn't the problem, but, as other members have pointed out below, it's really the lack of choice which is present in Pokémon. Whether it be progression, customization or even team building, we need more decision making for a fresh experience.
No worries. I understand where you're coming from. Customization as a player is something that Game Freak has been trying to implement in the past few generations, but I can see how players may want more than a wholly generic avatar. The rival system seems to have gone downhill. I see it less of offering a challenge and more of an annoyance when I see what should be a challenge as more of an attempted comedic filler.
Indeed, the inclusion of so many mini games has become a bit of a distraction. I understand the want for players to interact with their Pokémon, but so far it's seemed very phoned in. It's almost as if the developers have many ideas and just throw them all in without much inner development or consideration. What could be made into some sort of great mechanic is usually brought down to a simple level and thrown in haphazardly, typically to not return in future installments, which takes away a level of consistency. For example, berry use has been all over the place since its inception in the second generation. Next time, perhaps we'll find berries lying around in tall grass. Who knows.
A good example of inconsistency can be seen in the development of ORAS. at ORAS returned, albeit temporarily, to a tiled movement system, even after XY attempted to break away from it. While this isn't mini-game related, it does highlight a lack of development consistency. To be fair though, ORAS was developed by Game Freak's Team B, while new generational core games are developed by Team A. At any rate, it still doesn't excuse the vast other inconsistencies present in the remake.
Great point! Originally I had considered using Dragon Quest as an example, but used Final Fantasy for the sake of using a series I'm far more familiar with.
No worries. Although I've worked with these brands in a professional manner and am a lifelong fan, I'm always willing to provide a critical analysis of them. If you love something, you should be constructively critical of it, so that it can grow. That said, I do remind myself of the many wonderful things these brands and games have shown. While I see areas that can be improved, I also try to look for elements which should be appreciated and not overlooked.