Let's Talk about Pokemon Let's Go, and how it was the right direction for the franchise.

[Aulos]

Graphically speaking, Let's Go follows a more traditional evolution of the gameboy games. The melding of the chibi art in the 3D world is more recognizably Pokemon than the more anime style prevelant in sword and shield. The art style, while clean, also looks more toyetic - something more befitting of Pokemon. Let's Go's chibi models also allows for following Pokemon and Ridable Pokemon to be far more efficient in the games. Following Pokemon in Sword and Shield loses its charm considering your camera usually faces away from the Pokemon. While in Let's Go, the following Pokemon is always on the same screen as yours. To simply put it. Let's Go's graphical style is something that gamefreak should revert too. Moreover, it's Pokemon. Pokemon has been Chibi since its inception and changing it was a huge mistake.

This is actually part of why I strongly dislike LGP/E. It's based too much in the past, and by the past I mean a Gameboy game. You're exploring the same tiny little square locations that were in the original GB games, instead of them actually reimagining the region to look more like it was conceptualized. Trying to emulate the GB style just holds everything back. And if I wanted that style, I'd just play the originals or FR/LG. I see no reason whatsoever for LGP/E to exist. They either should have done something ambitious in reimagining them or not bothered at all. Kanto did not need this.

 

[Esserise]

And if I wanted that style, I'd just play the originals or FR/LG. I see no reason whatsoever for LGP/E to exist.

Well, by 2018, FRLG were 12 years old and out of print, so for people who don’t already own one of those games as well as a GBA or DS, that’s not really an option. And while the originals are available on the 3DS Virtual Console, I don’t... think many people today, particularly more casual players, would have the patience for those. I actually do think it was about the right time for Kanto to get a modernized remake. They’re the most iconic games, and Pokémon had just been graced with a massive resurgence in popularity. The math kinda does itself.

 

[Bolt Strike]

Well, by 2018, FRLG were 12 years old and out of print, so for people who don’t already own one of those games as well as a GBA or DS, that’s not really an option. And while the originals are available on the 3DS Virtual Console, I don’t... think many people today, particularly more casual players, would have the patience for those. I actually do think it was about the right time for Kanto to get a modernized remake. They’re the most iconic games, and Pokémon had just been graced with a massive resurgence in popularity. The math kinda does itself.

I think the point was there wasn't much reason for Kanto be so religiously similar to the originals in design, not as much that a Kanto game wasn't needed period. Honestly, I think describing LGPE as "modernized" is pretty laughable considering the stubborn insistence on sticking with the same Pokemon selection, same blocky region design, same empty story, and same lack of extra content and features. Hell, they even went as far as retconning out major mechanics introduced later like held items, breeding, abilities, and cross gen evos! Slapping an HD coat of paint on a game that is still very much designed like the 1996 handheld game it was isn't what I would call modernized, if anything because of all of the removals and simplifications I'd call it regressive. You want to talk a modernized experience, wake me up when they fix things like Lance and Agatha having to use duplicates/Pokemon not of their types because they couldn't be bothered to add in more Dragon or Ghost types that aren't regional variants, the whole region feeling like it was made of legos and flattened by a steamroller, the story consisting of characters that are pretty much generic punching bags or NPCs going around in random events that feel almost unconnected, or giving actual sidequests and QoL features that bring it up to par with newer games. It's never going to feel modern as long as they keep holding the game's design back because "muh nostalgia!", if they really want it to feel modern it needs to be designed as if they were building it from the ground up on the Switch, not recreating it tile by tile from the Game Boy. There was no reason it had to be this way, the casuals probably would not have cared and might have even appreciated it.

I do think it was an appropriate time for another Kanto game, but not another copy/paste job and definitely not one as simplified and casualized as LGPE. I wanted to see a BW2-esque sequel or some other type of dramatic improvement over Kanto that puts the likes of RBYFRLG and GSCHGSS to shame and puts Kanto more on par with newer regions in design, gameplay, and story.

 

[Esserise]

I think the point was there wasn't much reason for Kanto be so religiously similar to the originals in design, not as much that a Kanto game wasn't needed period. Honestly, I think describing LGPE as "modernized" is pretty laughable considering the stubborn insistence on sticking with the same Pokemon selection, same blocky region design, same empty story, and same lack of extra content and features. Hell, they even went as far as retconning out major mechanics introduced later like held items, breeding, abilities, and cross gen evos! Slapping an HD coat of paint on a game that is still very much designed like the 1996 handheld game it was isn't what I would call modernized, if anything because of all of the removals and simplifications I'd call it regressive. You want to talk a modernized experience, wake me up when they fix things like Lance and Agatha having to use duplicates/Pokemon not of their types because they couldn't be bothered to add in more Dragon or Ghost types that aren't regional variants, the whole region feeling like it was made of legos and flattened by a steamroller, the story consisting of characters that are pretty much generic punching bags or NPCs going around in random events that feel almost unconnected, or giving actual sidequests and QoL features that bring it up to par with newer games. It's never going to feel modern as long as they keep holding the game's design back because "muh nostalgia!", if they really want it to feel modern it needs to be designed as if they were building it from the ground up on the Switch, not recreating it tile by tile from the Game Boy. There was no reason it had to be this way, the casuals probably would not have cared and might have even appreciated it.

You hate the games, and that’s fine, but they still work for the vast majority of people. I don’t get why you can’t accept that?

Like, when I called LGPE “modernized,” I didn’t have an agenda. I wasn’t setting out to prove anything. I’m not talking about how they stand up to The Witcher 3 or even how they could have been better on their own merits - their playability relative to the originals and FRLG is all that matters in the context of what I was saying. They take the RBY base and bring it up to speed with the more recent games in a lot of ways that people would (and did) appreciate. Simple as that. They’re not my favorite games in the series or anything, but whatever.

 

[Bolt Strike]

You hate the games, and that’s fine, but they still work for the vast majority of people. I don’t get why you can’t accept that?

Exactly. For anything to really be progress it needs to give us more options, not less. This is doubly true with anything in the tech industry, as tech is constantly being replaced every few years so in order to incentivize those constant upgrades they need to be able to market how the new product can do more things better, faster, stronger than the old product you already have. If some of you are wondering why expectations are so high, this is why. Expectations aren't going to go down, they're constantly raising because of the way this model works. It's not so much that fans are unpleasable, it's that what was enough back in 1996 is not enough in 2021 (and even less so when you compare handheld to console, even console games in 1996 are the same or better than SwSh in a lot of areas except graphics) and Game Freak has refused to grow with the industry. At any rate, yeah, LGPE being stripped down is a large part of the reason why it feels like the exact opposite direction Pokemon should be heading in.

^Pretty much this. In light of the way the tech industry works, and especially the console industry works, the vast majority of people still accepting what Game Freak gave them with LGPE says a lot about those groups of fans, most if not all of it very bad. Namely, that they'd buy pretty much anything with Pokemon on the box regardless of quality or comparisons to other, better products. That's not how a rational consumer looking to actually get their money's worth acts, they'd be comparing LGPE to past Pokemon games and other Switch games and deciding whether or not to buy the game based on that. If they were doing that, games like LGPE and SwSh wouldn't be selling this insanely well right now. Not to say that people aren't allowed to like the game, but there's most likely much less than 10 million people who would like LGPE that much and there really haven't been a lot of convincing arguments as to why it is worth it that much.

Like, when I called LGPE “modernized,” I didn’t have an agenda. I wasn’t setting out to prove anything. I’m not talking about how they stand up to The Witcher 3 or even how they could have been better on their own merits - their playability relative to the originals and FRLG is all that matters in the context of what I was saying. They take the RBY base and bring it up to speed with the more recent games in a lot of ways that people would (and did) appreciate. Simple as that. They’re not my favorite games in the series or anything, but whatever.

Bring it up to what speed? Again, the games are mainly an HD coat of paint. The games do very little differently from RBY and FRLG, and most of what they did do differently is very divisive and regressive. So what exactly are they "modernizing" that a VC port of the older games isn't? If you're going to use the word "modern" to describe these games, you should have something to back up that description.

 

[Minya_Nouvelle]

Bring it up to what speed? Again, the games are mainly an HD coat of paint. The games do very little differently from RBY and FRLG, and most of what they did do differently is very divisive and regressive. So what exactly are they "modernizing" that a VC port of the older games isn't? If you're going to use the word "modern" to describe these games, you should have something to back up that description.

This is a really confusing statement. Why don't the updated graphics count for anything? FRLG are honestly kind of ugly. LGPE has a nice charm to it. Being 'tile-based' doesn't make it automatically bad. I'm honestly a bit in love with the way the game looks. Obviously, it shouldn't be the art style for every game going forward, but it works for a Kanto remake.

It's modern in terms of Pokemon; it has the new alolan forms and mega evolutions and Fairy type
It has the physical/special split. (seriously, playing without this is just... I can't go back)
Updated movesets; bug types aren't unusable; etc.
Its not sluggish and grindy.
It has fan service that the old games didn't.
I can catch pokemon like Chansey and Rhydon much earlier in the game and actually use it on my team (which I did).
It has gym leader rematches with mega evolution.
It has following and riding pokemon. The following pokemon actually have some personality and will run off and get distracted by things.
It has cute costumes for me and my partner pokemon.
It's actually pretty balanced and challenging all things considered. Way more challenging than FRLG
I thought the coach trainers were well implemented and fun.
I actually enjoyed battling the Master trainers a little more than the generic battle tower shenanigans.
Shiny Hunting via combo method

Namely, that they'd buy pretty much anything with Pokemon on the box regardless of quality or comparisons to other, better products. That's not how a rational consumer looking to actually get their money's worth acts, they'd be comparing LGPE to past Pokemon games and other Switch games and deciding whether or not to buy the game based on that. If they were doing that, games like LGPE and SwSh wouldn't be selling this insanely well right now.

I see this sentiment a lot and I see no proof for it. But first of all, this isn't a vacuum cleaner we are talking about. A video game is not an objective thing. You don't decide not to buy SwSh because ??? is going to 'get the job done better'. The 'job' is entertainment; which is subjective. And while its wasteful to buy more than one vacuum, you can own multiple games and play multiple games. What are you even getting at? Why should I compare Pokemon to other Switch games? Pokemon gives me a unique experience that I can't find anywhere else. Its an experience that has potential for improvement sure; but its still an experience that I enjoy. And its a experience I enjoy more than most other games. Its colorful. Its fun. Its not stressful. It has tons of replay-abilty. Monsters are more appealing to me than other monster collectors; etc. Assuming that the majority of people who buy Pokemon do so without thinking about whether it would be an enjoyable experience is more irrational, imo. I bought LGPE because it looked like something that I'd enjoy and I did. It doesn't have to be a complex decision making process to be rational.

 

[Bolt Strike]

This is a really confusing statement. Why don't the updated graphics count for anything? FRLG are honestly kind of ugly. LGPE has a nice charm to it. Being 'tile-based' doesn't make it automatically bad. I'm honestly a bit in love with the way the game looks. Obviously, it shouldn't be the art style for every game going forward, but it works for a Kanto remake.

They do count for something, just not much. How the game looks doesn't really have much impact on the gameplay, which is the larger factor in the entertainment value. The tile based design though, that does, and I classify that more as level design than graphics. The small, cramped, tile based level design is far too simplistic and dated to be satisfying to explore in this day and age.

I see this sentiment a lot and I see no proof for it. But first of all, this isn't a vacuum cleaner we are talking about. A video game is not an objective thing. You don't decide not to buy SwSh because ??? is going to 'get the job done better'. The 'job' is entertainment; which is subjective. And while its wasteful to buy more than one vacuum, you can own multiple games and play multiple games. What are you even getting at? Why should I compare Pokemon to other Switch games? Pokemon gives me a unique experience that I can't find anywhere else. Its an experience that has potential for improvement sure; but its still an experience that I enjoy.

You can't just look at it in terms of direct comparisons to other monster battling RPGs, one of the things you learn on the business side of things is that anything can be your competition, even for ancillary aspects of your business. You're not just comparing the monster collection and the turn based battling to other similar RPGs, but the exploration to other adventure games, the online to other multiplayer games, etc. And you should really be seeing what those games offer for $60 to make their formulas entertaining and compare it to how Pokemon is doing the same thing. And for those other games, they're going all out to polish and make every aspect of their formula as entertaining and satisfying as possible, Pokemon is not.

And its a experience I enjoy more than most other games. Its colorful. Its fun. Its not stressful. It has tons of replay-abilty. Monsters are more appealing to me than other monster collectors; etc. Assuming that the majority of people who buy Pokemon do so without thinking about whether it would be an enjoyable experience is more irrational, imo. I bought LGPE because it looked like something that I'd enjoy and I did. It doesn't have to be a complex decision making process to be rational.

You can say the same thing for a lot of Nintendo games, and in the case of replayability, I would say LGPE is even one of the worst games in terms of replayability. Like, it's pretty much just beat the Elite 4, complete the Pokedex, and beat all of the Master Trainers. And that's not much, not compared to other Pokemon games and not compared to other video games.

 

[System Error]

I may not agree on every point you made - do agree on the artstyle! And i especially agree that LGPE handled walking Pokemon WAY better than anything else, if only for making it optional and letting you choose what you want to walk with, rather than forcing it to be the first slot (and only the first slot). But I don't disagree on the ones I don't agree on either. Except for the last one.

Not battling wild Pokemon and just throwing balls makes no sense in established lore. It gives you far less time to use your Pokemon in battle as well. But most of all: LGPE is one of the most obnoxiously grindy RPGs I've ever played. It's actually even worse than in most grindy games, just because of what you have to do to get experience.

Part of the reason why I lost interest in the game is because I'm expected to run into every critter I see and throw balls, just to level up my other critters somehow. I would never catch 30 Zubats in any other Pokemon game unless I'm trying to get one with good stats. Not in LGPE: you're expected to catch 30 Zubats for experience. Oh, and the mechanics are obnoxious and imprecise too, so you might not even be able to catch every Zubat you find. At least when I play something like an early Dragon Quest, when I'm grinding repetitively, I'm actually feeling like I'm playing the game. Not playing a minigame over and over and over again. This also really slows down gameplay: in most Pokemon games, just fight the trainers you come across and maybe a few wild Pokemon, and you're good on EXP. Not LGPE. Catch everything you see to keep up, sucker.

It's kind of a shame. I liked some of the things the game did: simplifying things was a nice retro experience, I love the Master Trainers concept, and expanding the story slightly. But that catching thing single-handedly made the game unfun for me.

Although I am trying to clean out my Switch backlog this year, as detailed in my blog. So uh, I guess I'm playing it anyway.

 

[GrookeyFan77]

SwSh looks better.

1. Graphically speaking, Let's Go follows a more traditional evolution of the gameboy games. The melding of the chibi art in the 3D world is more recognizably Pokemon than the more anime style prevelant in sword and shield. The art style, while clean, also looks more toyetic - something more befitting of Pokemon. Let's Go's chibi models also allows for following Pokemon and Ridable Pokemon to be far more efficient in the games. Following Pokemon in Sword and Shield loses its charm considering your camera usually faces away from the Pokemon. While in Let's Go, the following Pokemon is always on the same screen as yours. To simply put it. Let's Go's graphical style is something that gamefreak should revert too. Moreover, it's Pokemon. Pokemon has been Chibi since its inception and changing it was a huge mistake.

I don't like LgPe's artstyle this is 3D not 2D.

1. Musically speaking. This shouldn't be controversal here. Let's Go features a modern take of the classical soundtrack by offering an orchestrated soundtrack. Seriously, why did gamefreak revert to Midi sounds when its predecessor was orchestrated? It's 2020. No game should feature a midi soundtrack.

SwSh's tracks are better.

1. QOL features. Let's Go offers simple features without overdoing it. You have ridable Pokemon, you have following Pokemon, you have overworld Pokemon. These features are simple, organic and not overdone. They fit in the Pokemon lore. Meanwhile, Dynamax makes no sense. Lore wise, why would any world desire to have giant Kaiju monsters that could destroy an entire country? Let's go also allows a shoulder Pokemon, and you can dress him up. This is the first time where you can actually connect with your Pokemon. Sword and Shield loses that charm.

SwSh has following and overworld mons. Also Dynamax is not bad

1. Gameplay speaking. Let's Go actually offered a chance not to battle wild Pokemon. Seriously, this is the most boring and mundane feature in modern games and they had the right idea there. Of course, there should be a choice, however, just catching Pokemon was a more modern take.

Not battling wild Pokemon is more annoying because you need to catch to get exp

 

[Minya_Nouvelle]

They do count for something, just not much. How the game looks doesn't really have much impact on the gameplay, which is the larger factor in the entertainment value. The tile based design though, that does, and I classify that more as level design than graphics. The small, cramped, tile based level design is far too simplistic and dated to be satisfying to explore in this day and age.

Okay. See, the problem is that everything here is still just your opinion, and that's totally fine. But like, other games (not pokemon) have had HD re-releases and done even less with gameplay and graphics and still released at full price too. There is no standard that they have to abide by to do a remake. I don't understand why they would have to turn Kanto into some 'large scale' experience or not remake it at all. Sure, they don't offer anything in terms of exploration, but they aren't about that and that's fine. I just wanted a gen1 game that could be played with the convenience of today's QoL standards. It's not too simplistic and dated for me. Heck, I still buy and regularly play retro games and tons of other people do too. Pokemon doesn't have to and shouldn't try to live up to some imaginary standard of what a modern game should look like.

And you should really be seeing what those games offer for $60 to make their formulas entertaining and compare it to how Pokemon is doing the same thing.

I wasn't just comparing it to other monster games/rpgs. Problem. I don't like those other games. I don't like Mario Odyssey. I don't like Smash or Botw. I don't even like other non-Switch games like Watch Dogs and Assassins Creed and the plethora of Dark Souls-esque copy games. I don't care what content they have or how they implement it because I don't like playing those games. I don't have a reason to buy those games INSTEAD of pokemon. I still don't understand the argument. I would argue that Pokemon is pretty on par with Mario Odyssey in terms of content, but its a lot harder to compare games that are so radically different. It becomes very subjective.

You can say the same thing for a lot of Nintendo games, and in the case of replayability, I would say LGPE is even one of the worst games in terms of replayability. Like, it's pretty much just beat the Elite 4, complete the Pokedex, and beat all of the Master Trainers. And that's not much, not compared to other Pokemon games and not compared to other video games.

You could, but I couldn't. I really enjoying replaying pokemon games with new teams. It changes the gameplay in a way that makes the experience feel a little different each time and I like bonding with new team members. Most other games are going to be exactly the same on a replay. As such, I don't think I've replayed any of my other Switch games yet.

edit: grammar

 

[Bolt Strike]

Okay. See, the problem is that everything here is still just your opinion, and that's totally fine. But like, other games (not pokemon) have had HD re-releases and done even less with gameplay and graphics and still released at full price too. There is no standard that they have to abide by to do a remake. I don't understand why they would have to turn Kanto into some 'large scale' experience or not remake it at all. Sure, they don't offer anything in terms of exploration, but they aren't about that and that's fine. I just wanted a gen1 game that could be played with the convenience of today's QoL standards. It's not too simplistic and dated for me. Heck, I still buy and regularly play retro games and tons of other people do too. Pokemon doesn't have to and shouldn't try to live up to some imaginary standard of what a modern game should look like.

There's elements of subjectivity to it, but no, it's not entirely just an opinion. Thing is that video games are not solely defined by their graphics, they're not like movies where you sit down and passively watch stuff happen, you physically interact with what's happening and play an active role in the game's events. So for them to focus on upgrading the graphics in a remake and leave everything else nearly untouched, glossing over the defining aspects of the medium, almost defeats the entire purpose. Furthermore, the brain tends to dislike repetition when it comes to entertainment, repeating something over and over again results in diminishing returns. So if you're recycling content, it's not going to be as fun the second time around. Your tolerance for all of these practices may vary and that's where the subjectivity comes into play, but in general a copy/paste job isn't the way to recreate the sense of wonder and enjoyment that the original had.

Side note: as far as the exploration, exploration is a part of the core formula by virtue of the premise consisting of you adventuring across a large world. So that's always something they should be polishing and attempting to make satisfying in the game.

I wasn't just comparing it to other monster games/rpgs. Problem. I don't like those other games. I don't like Mario Odyssey. I don't like Smash or Botw. I don't even like other non-Switch games like Watch Dogs and Assassins Creed and the plethora of Dark Souls-esque copy games.

I think you're in the minority there. There are multiple Switch games that have sold in the 10s of millions along with Pokemon and while we don't know the overlap entirely it's probably very significant. Nevertheless...

I don't care what content they have or how they implement it because I don't like playing those games. I don't have a reason to buy those games INSTEAD of pokemon. I still don't understand the argument. I would argue that Pokemon is pretty on par with Mario Odyssey in terms of content, but its a lot harder to compare games that are so radically different. It becomes very subjective.

This is very closed minded. Even if you don't like those games, the notion that there's nothing Pokemon can learn from those games or adapt into Pokemon's formula is ludicrous no matter what your opinion is of other games. There are certain elements of those games that are comparable to Pokemon and could be used to improve Pokemon, such as exploration, sidequests and extra content, online modes.

And no, Pokemon is definitely NOT on par with Mario Odyssey. Odyssey's worlds are MUCH bigger and there's literally thousands of collectibles in the game as well as multiple different sidequests. Pokemon's more on par with 64 or Sunshine.

You could, but I couldn't. I really enjoying replaying pokemon games with new teams. It changes the gameplay in a way that makes the experience feel a little different each time and I like bonding with new team members. Most other games are going to be exactly the same on a replay. As such, I don't think I've replayed any of my other Switch games yet.

Usually when people talk about "replayability" they're referring to content outside of the main campaign, not restarting the game. And LGPE is sorely lacking that kind of replayability.

 

[Minya_Nouvelle]

Furthermore, the brain tends to dislike repetition when it comes to entertainment, repeating something over and over again results in diminishing returns.

This is an extremely broad generalization.

but in general a copy/paste job isn't the way to recreate the sense of wonder and enjoyment that the original had.

It's not a copy paste job, though?

Side note: as far as the exploration, exploration is a part of the core formula by virtue of the premise consisting of you adventuring across a large world. So that's always something they should be polishing and attempting to make satisfying in the game.

In a new game, I agree; but for a remake of Kanto; it just didn't seem necessary. I'm sure that, to people who didn't know Kanto like the back of their hand, the game still had some exploration to it. The birds and Mewtwo still have their dungeons.

I think you're in the minority there. There are multiple Switch games that have sold in the 10s of millions along with Pokemon and while we don't know the overlap entirely it's probably very significant. Nevertheless...

Yes, but I think you're still missing my key point: INSTEAD. I'm sure there's tons of overlap because people are allowed to buy multiple games. Deciding not to buy one game because it is 'not up to snuff' with a completely unrelated game doesn't make any sense.

Usually when people talk about "replayability" they're referring to content outside of the main campaign, not restarting the game.

Uh, no. I think I know the word you mean, but that's not what replay value is: Replay value - Wikipedia

 

[Bolt Strike]

It's not a copy paste job, though?

The Pokemon roster, map design down to individual tiles, trainer rosters, and storyline are almost 100% the same. I know technically it wasn't as simple as actually copy/pasting code from the original games, but in terms of the player-side impact, it feels like they did, so that's why I'm calling it a copy/paste job.

In a new game, I agree; but for a remake of Kanto; it just didn't seem necessary. I'm sure that, to people who didn't know Kanto like the back of their hand, the game still had some exploration to it. The birds and Mewtwo still have their dungeons.

Not a whole lot by modern standards. The dungeons are okay I guess, but the routes are too short and simple. Even if they haven't played a Kanto game before, they've probably played an adventure game of some kind that has much, much more than Kanto offers.

Yes, but I think you're still missing my key point: INSTEAD. I'm sure there's tons of overlap because people are allowed to buy multiple games. Deciding not to buy one game because it is 'not up to snuff' with a completely unrelated game doesn't make any sense.

Even if they can buy multiple games, there's only so many they can buy. Say you only have enough money for 2 games, and you have to choose 2 of BotW, Mario Odyssey, and SwSh. Or maybe if you really have the luxury to buy as many game as you want, maybe there's so many other games that you like better than the game falls so far down your list of priorities it's not even worth considering. If you're in those kinds of scenarios, and odds are you will be, it makes sense to completely skip over a game that's perceived as poor/not worth the money. The game doesn't exist in a vacuum, no matter how different it is from other games.

Uh, no. I think I know the word you mean, but that's not what replay value is: Replay value - Wikipedia

Regardless, that kind of replay value is much less prevalent in the industry, and in Pokemon's case it's less feasible because of the lack of multiple save files. And again, because you're proceeding through the same events all over again, the entertainment is diminished. Extra content is generally better for promoting continued engagement with the game because it's content that you haven't already experienced.

 

[RileyXY1]

I'm actually ashamed that LGPE had more work done on it than Sword and Shield did.

 

[swiftgallade46]

I'm actually ashamed that LGPE had more work done on it than Sword and Shield did.

??? I’m sorry, but in no way is this accurate.

 

[Johtoo]

??? I’m sorry, but in no way is this accurate.

He probably meant that lets go was more polished - which it was. Sword and shield obviously had more content, but the game looks like it was released 1 year too early. Everything about the game seems unfinished to me. The DLC even proves that by being more graphically sound and utilising the wild area far better.

 

[swiftgallade46]

He probably meant that lets go was more polished - which it was. Sword and shield obviously had more content, but the game looks like it was released 1 year too early. Everything about the game seems unfinished to me. The DLC even proves that by being more graphically sound and utilising the wild area far better.

That’s totally subjective. I found SwSh to be far more polished especially considering they were no longer using the cartoony style of LGPE. Plus, the DLC still is: Sword and Shield.

 

[KirbyBulba737]

*eats popcorn*

 

[Johtoo]

Yeah, i didn't expect this kind of activity to be honest. I personally just think Let's Go feels more like Pokemon to me. Sword and Shield plays like Pokemon, but it doesn't feel anything like it at all. I'll wait and see what they do with the diamond and pearl remakes, but I hope there is another Let's Go game so I can feel that classic Pokemon experience again.

 

[Bolt Strike]

Yeah, i didn't expect this kind of activity to be honest. I personally just think Let's Go feels more like Pokemon to me. Sword and Shield plays like Pokemon, but it doesn't feel anything like it at all. I'll wait and see what they do with the diamond and pearl remakes, but I hope there is another Let's Go game so I can feel that classic Pokemon experience again.

I saw this coming a mile away. LGPE is just a really controversial game that's rubbed some of the more hardcore fans the wrong way. Also, the thread title is kind of loaded because it's worded in a way that automatically assumes that people agree with your opinion on the game when they don't, and it just invites people to come out of the woodwork to disagree with you. I would rename the thread title to something like "Is Pokemon Let's Go the Right Direction for the Franchise?" so it's more open ended.