Give more details OP, I'm interested.
Monster Rancher is bigger on the simulation aspect than Pokemon's 'gotta catch 'em all' approach
You raise the monsters by picking their diet, resting them, directing their training, and entering them in tournaments as opposed to Pokemon's non stop grinding.
RIP Hare ;_;
Dubs decides the next word (six letters or less) for monster generating
Isn't Monster Rancher also the game where you can put a music CD into the console and it will use the audio to generate a custom monster?
I liek this game, only ever play monster 2 and 4
I tried the first GBA one and it was pretty shitty. I guess the awful translation and lack of explanation for the mechanics didn't help, but it seemed extremely shallow and significantly more grindy than pokemon, unlike your claim: while in pokemon you can just beat the bosses and meet new pokemon on the way, here the training process is literally A->A->[arrows]->A 3 times in a row then A->down->A->A once to make the monster rest until it's time for a tournament, at which time you might as well run it on auto since it's so boring anyway and your input only seems to have minor impact regardless of monster stats like speed.
Diet doesn't seem to do anything beside raw loyalty/tiredness adjustments which are indicated in the food selection menu anyway, training is a raw stat increase as dictated by the selected training, and there doesn't seem to be anything more complex than that (so nothing that could even remotely be said to be simulation).