In the Pokémon World, I Will Eventually Become the Pokémon Champion

Is the author writing a setting or a novel? If it is a novel, does it require readers to read the data? If it is a setting, there is no need to use Shuangwen logic to promote it. Also when reading, the person is called me at one time, Jiang Xu at another time, and Jiang Xu at another time. Not just the protagonist, but also the supporting characters. The sentence connection is a bit like Stephen Chow's nonsensical movies, one sentence takes on two actions of two people. For example: "Dad just walked away. Jiang Xu walked to the back row. The teacher hasn't come yet. Jiang Xu fell asleep on his stomach." This is logical, but the author can't see it through the writing. There are also descriptions of time and details that cannot be overcome with data. I'm going to list them here. "(Qualification A+, physical attack 135, characteristics are sand-moving.)" "(Low level 200, Intermediate 1000, Advanced 5000)." Come on, come on, tell me what this is? Does it make sense? Abstractly, it's like reading a math book. The actual function of these data is only the classification of combat power, and there is no actual feeling. "The qualifications of the Mother-of-pearl Gopher are indeed A+. They were more than 20 meters away and arrived in less than 5 seconds." "After half an hour, the Mother-of-pearl Gopher has been reduced from the original 5 seconds to 3 seconds." "After practicing for half an hour, the Mother-of-pearl Gopher can finally use these two skills together skillfully." "After a day of training yesterday, the Mother-of-pearl Gopher has reached level 6." See for yourself, do you feel it? He has more water than the three younger brothers of the Tang family, but it's a pity that he was born late. There are also some chapters (such as Chapter 1) that have too much information, but you explain it directly to the readers, essentially thinking that we are pigs. In this case, it will appear that so many explanations are just water and cannot retain people, and it is almost equivalent to explaining in vain. Jumping out to explain is a taboo and will damage the structure. (Although there is no structure.) In short, I hope the author can be helpful. The book reviews I write are more logical than the main text.