You would really hate Magic, then.
Pokemon is different in a sense, that every rare Charizard needs a Charmander to be played, immediately having at least one common card elevated to the "playable" status. Of course, once the format focuses on "big basics" like with EX-es and TT-s, this flies completely out of the window.
No matter how powerful you'd make a common, it would still be bulk, because it is a common. At best you could make one common stand out (like evolution Eevee), but that would promote needless power creep. We should rather cross fingers in hope that V-Pokemon aren't just basics.
You just named
one of the many reasons I never got into MtG. Another was the idea that they "needed" to intentionally design and release cards that weren't intended to be useful, for the folks who like to "discover" what is good, or want to come up with creative uses for bad cards. That is literally planning to fail; they'll mess up on cards they intended to be good so it isn't needed.
Even if they didn't, I have to wonder if that represents a large enough portion of the customer base to make it a good idea, y'know?
Let's not worry about any of that, though. Rarity schemes are totally artificial
but they're an effective sales tool, so they are
not going away.
So let's justify them. Instead of making higher-rarity cards "good", let us just set aside more complex effects and the like for them. This way, simpler cards are easier to obtain (good for new players), and more complex cards take a bit longer to fully appear in the metagame (good for anyone wanting coherent rulings). Because Evolving Basic Pokémon and Evolutions
need to be better.