Pokémon Let's Go, Pikachu! & Let's Go, Eevee! (Switch)



  • @mbun said in Pokémon Let's Go, Pikachu! & Let's Go, Eevee! (Switch):

    I guess you stay away from all social media and "news" sites whenever new generations come out.

    I really do, there's not much of value to be read on Twitter or YouTube comments, they're just hives of negativity.

    Why would GameFreak cater to a vocal minority for 8 years straight?

    What I meant is that considering the ladt few games as pandering to this crowd feels overblown to me. Yes, Let's Go is all about Gen 1, because that's the one the Pokémon Go playerbase is most likely to be familiar with and it's a "safe" choice for a mainstream test-the-waters-for-cheap remake on Switch. But apart from the Alolan forms in SuMo, I don't see how Gen 1 has been given priority in the last few games?

    Anyway, we know we'll get a proper new gen next year with hopefully deeper gameplay options for those who want it, so let's wait and see. No harm in Let's Go existing as it is, it's a stop-gap release before the main event.



  • @axel said:

    But apart from the Alolan forms in SuMo, I don't see how Gen 1 has been given priority in the last few games?

    I skimmed it above. Stuff like being given a second starter in XY from Kanto with Mega Evolution as a focus, overshadowing the Gen 6 starters themselves. We only even got Gen 3 starter mega evolutions, because the focus of the games they came from was Hoenn as they were remakes of Gen 3. No other generations got or get the same special treatment outside their specific remake games.

    Anyway, we know we'll get a proper new gen next year with hopefully deeper gameplay options for those who want it, so let's wait and see.

    Depends on the definition of proper. If it is like SuMo, then it won't be what long time fans are looking for. Sure we can wait and see, and of course I hope it turns out that Let's Go being extremely casual means they'll go hard the other direction for Pokemon 2019, but where the franchise is right now and how well Let's Go is selling leaves no room for optimism.





  • I've been playing Pokemon for at least 15 years and I have never, ever seen a shiny in the wild. Ben plays Let's Go Eevee and finds a shiny Kakuna in less than two hours. I'm not sure if that's because the shiny rates are increased in Let's Go or he just happens to be lucky though.

    While I don't own a Switch (high on the list of desires right now), I still don't think I'd be too eager to purchase this one. It leans very heavily into how cute it is, which is fine, but it doesn't really do much for me personally. I'd pet my Eevee/Pikachu once and probably not return to it after that.



  • @sabotagethetruth said:

    Ben plays Let's Go Eevee and finds a shiny Kakuna in less than two hours. I'm not sure if that's because the shiny rates are increased in Let's Go or he just happens to be lucky though.

    The base shiny rate is the same as it has been, but using Lures increases the rate. Doing Catch Combos also increases the rate. I don't think Ben did either, but the reason he still got one so fast is that Pokemon are constantly spawning on the overworld, which is a chance for each to be shiny, and when you see a shiny spawn you can run over and get it, which inherently makes them way more common than loading into random encounters one at a time. They're so common in this game it kind of ruins their specialness, but that's not something I can blame on this game when chaining has been doing that for generations now.



  • 0_1542579313072_IMG_20181119_011405.jpg

    I just got my first shiny EVER in a pokemon game (excluding the red Gyaradosin gen2), after 35 combo and maybe 2 hours of farming Magikarp next to the mewtwo cave.



  • So it seems Let's Go is having worse sales at launch in the UK but maybe better everywhere else? Also seems to be selling quite well among non-gamers, which hopefully won't trigger a Wii 2.0 situation within Nintendo.



  • The install base of the Switch is much smaller than that of the 3DS when SuMo launched though, so that could explain the difference to some extent.



  • @axel Install base is still pretty good. The real reason there's such a difference is because Pokemon GO isn't the extremely popular fad it was at the launch of Pokemon SuMo. Even though this game was designed to rope in GO players and get core players to play GO, since GO lacked the substance of the main series the fad died, and the playerbase shrunk significantly over the last two years. This mostly reflects the difference in the size of that playerbase now. Install base of the Switch doesn't really matter, because if there was a crowd of GO players chomping for Let's Go like they chomped for SuMo 2 years ago, they'd just buy new Switch systems to play it on.



  • @mbun I think that just means the expectations were lower than a main line pokemon game and it came pretty close to those numbers (bar Sun/Moon which was around the initial Go hype)



  • @tokeeffe9 said:

    it came pretty close to those numbers (bar Sun/Moon which was around the initial Go hype)

    If you think of XY as 100% of the usual Pokemon fanbase buying it and SuMo as 100% of the usual Pokemon fanbase buying it, plus 50% of nongamers buying in, then Let's Go is probably 75% of the usual Pokemon fanbase begrudgingly buying it cause first Pokemon game on the Switch and your tv without sold separately stuff, mixed with impatience for waiting until 2019 for the real deal, plus 20% of nongamer GO audience buying it.



  • In Mewtwo cave there's 1 floor with a lot of hidden items ( BTW Pikachu tail will start twitching if you come near a hidden item), apparently they re appear every 10-15 minutes and there's a chance of a master ball will appear in one of the hidden spots.





  • Btw... for everybody who hasn't figured this out yet: The Pokeball Plus has "all three Buttons" for Pokemon Let's Go. The sometimes needed "Y" Button (for example for sorting the poke box) is accomplished by "shaking" the Pokeball Plus.

    I bought a switch for Pokemon Let's Go and after playing now for around 10-15 hours... I don't get the hate and I don't get the "it is not a real Pokemon game" or "only for casuals".

    For me Pokemon Let's Go is a full Pokemon title and I even want some of the changes to continue into the Core Series.

    But I also had my fun with Sun & Moon and X/Y. Titles, which also got much hate from self proclaimed "oldschool / hardcore" fans. So maybe I'm not a "true" fan? Man... I'm so frustrated with this part of the close minded fandom culture. Although I don't want to say, that there is nothing to critizise in Pokemon Let's Go or that everybody "has to" like the game. Tastes are different after all.

    Pokemon Let's Go

    But, nobody can claim that Pokemon Let's Go has less features, depth or content than the original Pokemon Yellow. Yeah... abilities, held items and breeding are not in the game (but these were introduced in later generations anyways). Also nobody can deny that Pokemon Let's Co added a lot of features from later Pokemon Games (for example mega evolutions, alolan pokemon, gender choice & clothing for player ...) including some new content (like the master trainers in post game) and new comfort features (like poke box in your bag). Everything else is from the original or has at least a replacement (with the exception of the minor Rocket Game Corner).

    In summary: Pokemon Let's Go has factual more depth and content than the original Pokemon Yellow). What you can argue about is, which other features from later Pokemon Gen's should have been also added and which Changes or Replacements (Pokemon Go Catching instead of Wild Pokemon Battles?) is or is not to your personal taste.

    Pokemon Let's Go

    Personally I love the new Catching mechanic. It eliminates the need for pointless fights (one or two wild pokemon against 6 of my pokemon... guess who will win) and concentrates on the real source of suspense in wild pokemon encounters (the catching itself). The mechanic itself is fun, way faster than a fight (therefore creates a better flow while "grinding") and realizes some much needed variety between all the fights with trainers (which occur much frequent to balance for the replaced wild pokemon battles). So you still have enough battles. There are ways to improve this system (curve ball? training fights to help experiment more with your battle party?), but I like this change.

    Another change I love is the roaming Pokemon instead of the old random battles. Now I can choose which Pokemon to hunt and which to avoid. Also the world feels way more lively seeing all the Pokemon wandering around.

    Pokemon Let's Go

    EV training is replaced with Awakening values and feeding Candy to your Pokemon. I also like this new system in theory but in reality it is way to overpowered. If you use it, you elimante every last bit of challenge in the game. So it needs some balancing and changing.

    I don't miss the old Safari Zone (replaced with Pokepark Go) and most of the other changes I can at least understand or even prefer them in Let's Go (for example HM replacement and riding your Pokemon instead of a bike). I think, I mostly miss breeding and a bit more challenge in trainer fights. Why trainers still mostly fight with only one or two (under trained) Pokemon against my full party? I never understood that, but I also never played Pokemon for the "challenge".

    And Pokemon Let's Go looks and sounds just beautiful. All in All... for me personally it is not only a full Pokemon Title it also is one of the best (or at least most charming) Pokemon Titles, which I ever played.

    Pokemon Let's Go

    To all the haters: Please at least try it yourself and stay as open minded as possible while doing it. Not every change is bad and every Pokemon Game so far had its own set of problems...



  • @guthwulf said:

    Personally I love the new Catching mechanic. It eliminates the need for pointless fights (one or two wild pokemon against 6 of my pokemon... guess who will win) and concentrates on the real source of suspense in wild pokemon encounters (the catching itself).

    My problem with that attitude is that the wild Pokemon fights were hardly ever about who would win in a 6v1 or so battle, but rather about you marching through a wild area, constantly skirmishing with wild Pokemon, whom you gained experience for beating or new teammates for weakening and catching, (reward) but also would constantly wear down your team between Trainer battles. (risk) It was something to always think about and consider whether to push forward recklessly, use medicine, or retreat to the Pokemon Center before continuing on. Without the battles, there's zero threat to any "dungeon" type area in the game. Basically just a cakewalk of catching less earned, "free" Pokemon between every Trainer fight, and since the Trainers are the only things that can harm your Pokemon, and they are not only not random encounters but stationary targets you can see coming, as long as you're not playing with your eyes closed then there's effectively zero threat of ever losing.

    Compounding this issue is always having your PC box with you, so even if some of your Pokemon were low on hp and you didn't want to use medicine to heal them, you could just swap your active ones with others in your box and continue on with those instead. Since the game is all about catching lots of Pokemon, you have a near inexhaustible supply to do this with. I know people say it's so "convenient!" To me it feels like an unnecessary level of convenience that breaks the design of the game entirely by trivializing traversal through the world and encounters against trainers in sequence. Hell, this means when facing the Elite Four you can change your entire team between every battle to have a whole team of full fresh and healed Pokemon super effective against whatever type the next Trainer you're fighting is stocked with.

    Like, you've admitted in your post how insanely broken Candy and Awakening Values are, but even ignoring that this whole game is full of seemingly uncaring changes that absolutely obliterate any sense of balance in the gameplay or even core design of this as a game in the first place, to what end? Maybe you enjoy the power fantasy of steamrolling absolutely everything you come across and endlessly winning, but I just don't see the point to it at all. If you're going to go that far to completely negate the point of earning Pokemon, raising Pokemon, choosing clever movesets, strategizing when to use which ones, and managing your resources the whole time as everything is free, then why is the battling even an element of the game at all at this point? Why aren't you just walking through the Pokemon world as not a trainer, but a groomer or something, admiring all the other aspects of the world besides the battles? I mean you'd still get to trek across the region, see the cute Pokemon following and riding animations, meet other Trainers and Pokemon, etc. It would just make more sense.

    That's my fundamental problem with this game. Just feels like in leaning so hard into making sure anyone can beat it that it is having some sort of identity crisis and people just don't care or even really question it as it is the first mainline Pokemon game on console, and there's lots of cute shit in it so you don't think as much about how it has been three hours since the last time any of your Pokemon have even been at risk of fainting. Just throw a bunch of shiny Pokemon at people and they'll get excited and not think about how there's a move with 100% burn chance that also has high base power or only 18 ride Pokemon pulled from a dex of 153. Yes there's plenty larger size Pokemon left that they could've utilized for that. Hell, there's only like 2 you can surf on and 1 of the 2 is the traditional Lapras. That must mean they're all quality riding animations at least right? Nope, your partner Pokemon stays magically glued to your head for the majority of them. Oh, and if you get too close to any object for even a second, the Pokemon fly back into their ball jarringly and reappear just as jarringly once you have enough clearance.

    I don't get the hate and I don't get the "it is not a real Pokemon game" or "only for casuals".

    Hopefully at least one of my points has shed some light on that. Also, by design the game is to get the casual mobile GO player crowd into the core series while also existing for younger fans to play coop with their parents, hence yes this was made for casuals, but casual doesn't necessarily have to be uttered with a negative tone or connotations in mind. Just a shame that even as a casual experience, rather than balancing it to be really easy, they seemed to just forego spending time trying to balance it at all.

    hate from self proclaimed "oldschool / hardcore" fans. So maybe I'm not a "true" fan? Man... I'm so frustrated with this part of the close minded fandom culture.

    You recognized how awfully broken Candy and Awakening Values are, so that's at least more than I can say I've heard certain others bring up about the game, who seem to not care about any of the flaws because "they're having fun with it" or ones who will straight up argue that those aren't flaws but just the way the game was designed, to which I would counter that this game's design is a lack of thoughtful design. This game makes choices that are opposite of proper game design to heavily stack everything in the player's favor at all times without ever really challenging them in the least, which I frankly find insulting to their intelligence. Yes, these days gamers are spoiled for choice and will often bail to the next thing if a game doesn't explicitly cater to all their "needs" and wants constantly, but I just am baffled by people's ability to find fun in something amounting to a virtual tour through Kanto, a mostly unchanged region many are already familiar with. One only possessing some semifancy new graphics, yet still even lacking polish even in that department with shoddy transitions, lack of facial expressions to convey emotion on NPCs outside the center of the story, limited offerings in new animations with many reused from SuMo and even within the same game, and not even a Day / Night cycle. Sure, Yellow didn't have it, but it sure would've been nice to finally see Kanto in this graphical "glory" at night. If visuals is going to be one of the few things I can point to that seems mostly positive, at least give me that. But it didn't.

    Please at least try it yourself and stay as open minded as possible while doing it.

    So I tried. I tried, and I'm just not into it what I found, for lots of reasons. Lots and lots and lots of reasons. I can accept that this game just isn't for me and that's fine, but after SuMo and now this, I am seriously concerned for the future of the core series of this franchise, and I am doubting they're ever going to get back to what made me fall in love with Pokemon and what I enjoy about the games, especially when people are actually buying and praising this. Why would GameFreak ever put effort into making another game, when they can just not balance anything and people eat it up?



  • @mbun said in Pokémon Let's Go, Pikachu! & Let's Go, Eevee! (Switch):

    This game makes choices that are opposite of proper game design to heavily stack everything in the player's favor at all times without ever really challenging them in the least, which I frankly find insulting to their intelligence.

    If I understand your post correctly, your reasoning boils down to this essential core argument. It is not challenging enough.

    Isn't that some distorted perception of the past? Never ever where Pokemon Core Titles challenging. Since the very first generation you could easily steamroll through 99% of all encounters with your overleveled starter and some decent secondary pokemon with just some exceptions in the end- and postgame. Yeah, you could just not overlevel your pokemon and this way artificially create some challenge in the game, but you can do that as well in Pokemon Let's Go.

    The challenge has always been in multiplayer with fights against real humans and their well trained pokemon, but never in singleplayer.

    The only challenge in singleplayer arose because the early games didn't explain their gameplay mechanics well, hid information from the player and because these games were completely new without todays internet as collaboration tool and information source. Sure Sun & Moon overdid it with hand holding and mouthfeeding every mechanic, but Let's Go so far strikes a good balance. Is Pokemon Lets Go on the "easy-scale" somewhat more easy? Sure, but Pokemon Lets Go is designed as Gatewaygame so I don't have a problem with that. Many of the (long needed) convenience features, I want also in future core titles. There are other ways to achieve some risk / reward and more challenge (mostly notable: make trainer fights more challenging with 6 pokemons right from the start). And lastly: nobody can recreate your very first personal experience with pokemon. That is long gone, since you now played many of these games.

    If "challenge (in singleplayer)" is the reason you fell in love with pokemon, than you must have played different games than me. I fell for pokemon because of completely different reasons. But ok, tastes and perception is different. If you want real challenge in singleplayer, than lets go is indead the wrong game for you. That doesn't make the game necessarily bad. It is just not for you. Personally I see some flaws and room for improvements in Let's Go like in every other game in existence, but I still love the game (including a lot of the changes) and are now looking somewhat optimistic forward to where the franchise is going.



  • Just wanna say, I'm really enjoying these conversations about controversial games like this and Fallout 76, it's refreshing to read respectful disagreeing opinions!

    @Mbun What you're describing is basically every JRPG's loop, go through many successive, but manageable, fights that wear you down until you reach the real challenge, the boss at the end of the dungeon. Good, modern JRPGs manage to make even those simple encounters challenging and not let you just spam the attack command (the Bravely series, Octopath Traveler for example did that really well). The older Pokemon games did have this loop, but never in a refined way, enemies were always dumb and never stood a chance.

    I too would love the series to present me with encounters that always keep you on your toes, enemies that adapt to your Pokemon's type, Trainers with complex strategies similar to those used by PvP players that make you think hard about your team's composition, etc. There's so much potential in this combat system, it's a shame they seem to leave it all to PvP to make the most of it. The singleplayer campaign has always been about introducing you to a new region, new Pokemon and learning the ropes.

    Now would they lose too many players if they made that change? Hard to tell, I imagine they could still lure in the casuals with fancy graphics and cool adverts and by the time they realize the game is actually challenging, too late, Game Freak's got your money!

    You know what would be perfect? A "Pokemon Tactics" game that would be all about strategic fights. That's the dream.



  • @axel said in Pokémon Let's Go, Pikachu! & Let's Go, Eevee! (Switch):

    A "Pokemon Tactics" game that would be all about strategic fights. That's the dream.

    Have you tried Pokemon Conquest? I wasn't a huge fan but it's similar to what you're suggesting.



  • @naltmank No but I just checked it out, looks interesting! It will be hard to get my hands on it now though, don't even have a DS anymore! A sequel to that on Switch would be welcome!



  • @guthwulf said:

    If I understand your post correctly, your reasoning boils down to this essential core argument. It is not challenging enough.

    No. The game can be easy, just be a balanced kind of easy. BW2 had a Challenge Mode and an Easy Mode. You can do Easy Mode without ripping apart the mechanics of Pokemon that keep it fair and balanced to do so.

    Isn't that some distorted perception of the past? Never ever where Pokemon Core Titles challenging.

    No. You actually had to expend some effort before to catch stronger Pokemon with tougher capture rates and to work your way through the dungeons to new areas.

    Since the very first generation you could easily steamroll through 99% of all encounters with your overleveled starter
    overleveled starter

    No. Then don't overlevel your starter. All you're explaining is grinding more than you need to and the game expects you to so you can bypass the strategic aspects of battling. It is your choice if you'd rather grind up to make every fight impossible to lose, but you're mistaken in assuming the games were designed for this to be the intended action for the player to take, rather than putting yourself on an even playing field with your opponents. Also, even if a player did choose to win by grinding it out, they still had to put the time into grinding their Pokemon up to higher levels to easily defeat opponents. There's still effort being applied there, just in earning brute force over thinking strategically. Play how you wanna play, but the games were designed so you could brute force fights if you were struggling to beat them at proper levels, not for you to skip straight to the brute forcing part to begin with.

    Yeah, you could just not overlevel your pokemon and this way artificially create some challenge in the game, but you can do that as well in Pokemon Let's Go.

    No. Grinding it out was never the intended way to tackle encounters. It isn't artificially creating challenge to not run around in grass for ages before the next tough fight and grind all your Pokemon even higher level than the Pokemon present in the grass through repeatedly knocking them out. The games are designed so you should never be required to do this, aside from a handful of special postgame fights, and even in the case of those, you only have to grind to about the level of the fight, not way above it! If the only way you can win Pokemon battles is overleveling your starter to blow through fights, then that's on you, but you have a twisted perception of the games to think this is what the devs are intending you to do. No wonder you enjoy these games if that's how you played Pokemon before and thought there was no other way to beat them.

    The challenge has always been in multiplayer with fights against real humans and their well trained pokemon, but never in singleplayer.

    No. On top of what we're already gone into, Battle Frontier and other postgame facilities and fights of the past say hello. They straight up say in interviews these were designed for challenging the player, so don't try to deny it now or say something like "those only require you to grind breeding Pokemon for better stats and abilities" or whatever other twisted thing you'd come up with.

    The only challenge in singleplayer arose because the early games didn't explain their gameplay mechanics well, hid information from the player and because these games were completely new without todays internet as collaboration tool and information source.

    No. Sure, how much of a broken mess Gen 1 was, with it often implying the opposite of what was true, and the lack of internet or a strategy guide definitely increased the difficulty and made the players rely more on exchanging information and strategy with friends, but the games still were programmed with things like type effectiveness that added incentive to learning Pokemon types and which ones were strong against others over just grinding your starter Pokemon 10 levels over every encounter you were facing and spamming Flamethrower over and over. If that was the intention, like Pokemon GO, there wouldn't have ever even been types to begin with. The games from the very beginning with the Starter type triangle are designed to teach you this, and your rival picking a Pokemon super effective against the starter you chose is supposed to make you go out and catch other Pokemon to make up for that. Besides, all that said about the old games, I'm not even saying "Why can't everything be challenging like Gen 1!" I'm talking about the way Gen 5 was still challenging, which has nothing to do with the points you're trying to use as excuses for the games being challenging.

    Sure Sun & Moon overdid it with hand holding and mouthfeeding every mechanic, but Let's Go so far strikes a good balance.

    No. How is being able to add 200 to every Pokemon's stat at any level, to the point where a level 5 Pokemon can beat a level 65 Pokemon and your starter having beefed up stats and learning high power moves with 100% status chance or recovery attached that make every win absolutely free a good balance?

    Is Pokemon Lets Go on the "easy-scale" somewhat more easy? Sure, but Pokemon Lets Go is designed as Gatewaygame so I don't have a problem with that.

    No. It isn't designed to be easy though. Again, BW2 had an easy mode, where opponent's had lower level Pokemon and would make worse decisions in battle. Rather than doing any form of that, they've ripped apart systems that used to exist for the sake of balance to just let the players go wild with no attempt to wrangle it into any sense of challenge whatsoever. You can still have an easy challenge, but this just has no challenge at all.

    Many of the (long needed) convenience features, I want also in future core titles.

    No I'm fine with ditching EVs. Those were always poorly explained and very tedious to tap into, but AVs isn't the replacement we need for them as there's no balance whatsoever to them. I really don't think you need to carry your Pokemon Box with you at all times. The small gain of not having to visit a PC to change Pokemon isn't worth everything else it borks in the process. Maybe if we still had to deal with all kinds of HMs I'd be more willing to accept it as a way around being forced to carry Pokemon around just for that, but we've already solved that in other ways, so it isn't needed. If GameFreak wants to cut a compromise between the two, maybe they can start setting up PCs in routes between towns like how they set up NPCs who can heal your Pokemon on long routes between towns. That way they could still design routes with an intended amount of pushback required to traverse through them.

    There are other ways to achieve some risk / reward and more challenge (mostly notable: make trainer fights more challenging with 6 pokemons right from the start).

    No, every trainer is not supposed to be on equal footing. The Pokemon a trainer has is part of their personality and their place building the larger world of Pokemon we're exploring. They're not all supposed to be as special as the player. Some are just starting off. Some are worse trainers than others. Some are just adventuring with their favorites. Some were given specific Pokemon through various circumstances. Some are just trying to train specific Pokemon for specific goals. The games have actually been getting better at balancing this character and lore building with enjoyable battles for the player to tackle through having things like Ace Trainers on most the routes, so besides all the NPCs that exist to flesh out the world as a more realistic living place, you also get at least one entertaining battle per route, or would if Let's Go wasn't so stacked in your favor.

    And lastly: nobody can recreate your very first personal experience with pokemon. That is long gone, since you now played many of these games.

    No, you seem to misunderstand me. I'm not looking at this game as not measuring up to the first time I played the Kanto games. Hell, that first time wasn't even particularly special besides the fond memories of discovering everything fresh and talking with friends about it. I played Red first, but it wasn't until Yellow where I was able to catch Wild Farfetch'd that I really was clicking into the fun of Pokemon, and it wasn't until Gen 2 Johto where I really fell head over heels for it. Gen 2 is where most of my nostalgia would stem from since that was the Golden Age of Pokemon where it was this massive multimedia phenomenon that you couldn't escape. But like you said, I've played so many of the games now, including the Gen 2 Johto remakes, and those are the games I was invested in from a nostalgic standpoint. Thankfully they turned out to be fantastic games aside from some subpar music remixes and the worst Safari Zone of the franchise, but that was back all the way at the tail end of Gen 4. It is almost Gen 8 now, and the Gen 2 remakes aren't even my favorite games anymore, in lots of ways they're goodbyes to the origins of Pokemon, final love letters to Pixel Pokemon and such as we move on to the 3D models and more complex environments and angles we have now. I've seen the mainline Pokemon series evolve and get even better than it was then during Gens 5 and 6. But along with that evolution, I'm seeing decay and devolution in the directions of Gen 7 and these games in particular. I'm not saying this from a nostalgia standpoint, but rather from a standpoint of comparing mechanics, game features, and things that used to exist for specific balance reasons getting crumbled to dust as we transition Pokemon between games and generations of audience enjoying them.

    If "challenge (in singleplayer)" is the reason you fell in love with pokemon, than you must have played different games than me.

    No, well I never overleveled my starter to force my way through encounters, so maybe there's some truth to us effectively having been playing different games.

    I fell for pokemon because of completely different reasons.

    No obviously I fell for Pokemon primarily for the Pokemon themselves, but when every battle is free it takes away from the joy of raising them to be strong enough to get through those battles to begin with. I also fell for the sense of exploration, but that's instead a problem I have with SuMo, not Let's Go, which just reuses Kanto's region design, which has plenty of good exploration. I've just already explored it, multiple times even, and Let's Go decided not to add anything new to explore in Kanto, like how Fire Red / Leaf Green had the Sevii Islands to explore. I'm not even upset about that though. Obviously the games are for people who haven't explored Kanto or just want to see how it has been updated, so while that isn't for me it also doesn't bother me. Just doesn't offer anything to me as a player either.

    If you want real challenge in singleplayer, than lets go is indead the wrong game for you. That doesn't make the game necessarily bad. It is just not for you.

    No, I still argue that the ways in which it completely snuffs out any sense of challenge is bad for everyone, especially if the games sell so well that GameFreak learns they don't need to actually expend effort balancing future games, because people are fine with steamrolling through everything. I worry about Let's Go from a perspective of where it will take the franchise next, as GameFreak learns lessons from every game they make and how they are perceived. People complained at the time about the story in Gens 5 and 6, so GameFreak gave up on trying to make a good story and instead just showered people in cutscenes in Gen 7. People complained about having to sit through those cutscenes, so GameFreak added a Cutscene Skip feature to Let's Go. They're always learning, but unfortunately people having different tastes often leads to them learning the wrong lessons it seems. They're never going to make everyone happy sure, even if they do pull off the series for hardcore fans and the series for casual fans, but complaining very loudly is all the longterm fans invested in the franchise can do to keep GameFreak aware of where they stand on the directions it is being pulled down. Sadly I fear sales numbers, voting with your wallet, is starting to overpower this feedback, to the point where they're shredding core game design to appease the widest audience possible. That's even more reason to be vocal about the changes though, to inform as many people as possible why these things that sound good on paper are actually really bad decisions and why this game shouldn't be getting supported as much as it is, so GameFreak can once again realize mistakes and course correct in better ways that can please a larger portion of the audience who wants to enjoy these games as a whole.

    @Axel said:

    What you're describing is basically every JRPG's loop, go through many successive, but manageable, fights that wear you down until you reach the real challenge, the boss at the end of the dungeon.

    Yep, that's exactly what I mean, and as much as people hate random encounters, it is a ways of keeping up the pressure of hostile areas as you traverse them. Maybe the new system of overworld spawning could work too, but I think at the very least you'd need some Species of Pokemon to make attempts to chase you down for a fight.

    Good, modern JRPGs manage to make even those simple encounters challenging and not let you just spam the attack command (the Bravely series, Octopath Traveler for example did that really well). The older Pokemon games did have this loop, but never in a refined way, enemies were always dumb and never stood a chance.

    Yea, but it is tough when Pokemon is also building a larger living world at the same time with it's NPC Trainers. Like mentioned earlier in my post, they've been getting better with at least including some on par challenging encounters per route alongside all the ones just meant to slowly wear you down. The only things I can really think of that they could do to improve this is to level gate the player or enlist a much harsher exp formula, but I don't ask for either of these things because some people genuinely enjoy overleveling and steamrolling through everything. Play how you wanna play. It is only a problem when, like above, people mistake that for the intended way to beat the games. I guess you could take a second crack at the difficulty options BW2 possessed, which mostly just level boosted or nerfed the Pokemon of trainers, but that triples the balance work GameFreak has to do, so it isn't ideal. On top of that, some players might just feel this makes the games grindier, since that's the only way they can think to beat those encounters. It isn't the same as the games you listed where you can introduce enemies with very specific weaknesses and patterns you need to follow to beat them, because every character is something the player can use as well, and the game has to remain accessible for a much wider audience than the games you listed.

    I too would love the series to present me with encounters that always keep you on your toes, enemies that adapt to your Pokemon's type, Trainers with complex strategies similar to those used by PvP players that make you think hard about your team's composition, etc.

    After the Nintendo fiasco with roms, they're hard to find, but people have made romhacks like that. It'd be fun to see Nintendo's crack at it, but those usually go so far to the point where they're frustrating, so I'm fine with them just having things like Whitney's Miltank where you do have to stop and think if you don't have the right Pokemon, but it isn't an ordeal to overcome.

    The singleplayer campaign has always been about introducing you to a new region, new Pokemon and learning the ropes.

    True, but there's always been a balance to it as well. You've always had to risk pushing on when your Pokemon are banged up to try and get to the next town, spend the time turning back to recover, or use up your limited resources to push on in a safer manner. You've always had to choose between a move that does a guaranteed burn or a move with a higher base power that only has the chance of inflicting a burn. You've always had to decide whether to take chances whittling a wild Pokemon's hp down a little more so you can capture them easier or whether to use more balls catching them at a higher hp so you don't risk accidentally knocking them out. You've always had to lock in a team of six Pokemon when you step into the Elite Four and do your best to keep them alive through the end. You still were being challenged. There were just options present so you could play it different ways and make different decisions that carried different difficulties with them, so it could be easy if you were willing to take the time and effort to make it easy. It wasn't free.

    Now would they lose too many players if they made that change? Hard to tell, I imagine they could still lure in the casuals with fancy graphics and cool adverts and by the time they realize the game is actually challenging, too late, Game Freak's got your money!

    Pokemon: Prepare to Die Edition. There's definitely an audience for it, but that's not the direction I want the franchise to go either, least not fully. I'm fine with it being a difficulty option or such. That'd be pretty sweet. I also want kids to be able to enjoy the games though, just not in a manner that treats them as idiots who can't take care of themselves at all.

    You know what would be perfect? A "Pokemon Tactics" game that would be all about strategic fights. That's the dream.

    Like @naltmank already said, Conquest sounds like exactly what you're describing. I played maybe half of it, and it is pretty fun, even if it is just a Pokemon skin on Nobunaga's Ambition or whatever. Skins on games can be fun though. I am a huge advocate of the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon series, and that's just a skin on other old Mystery Dungeon games, but at the same time most of them are so well made that they end up being the best versions of the genre. They aren't as traditional strategy as Conquest is, but there's definitely tactical thinking heavily involved as you pick apart and explore the hostile dungeons you crawl through, so that's maybe something else worth checking out. I'd recommend either Explorers of Sky which is still available on Wii U Virtual Console today or the 3DS game Super Mystery Dungeon if you want an entry point for the series. Avoid the 3DS game Gates to Infinity. Hopefully we'll get a Switch entry eventually, but no word of anything yet sadly.