JWeinCom said:
To be honest, I don't really feel like it, because when someone begins a conversation with a strawman argument, then insists on being absurdly literal I generally don't feel like continuing. But if you insist. One of the biggest complaints is in doing away with random encounters. Since the game is made based on Pokemon Go, it makes sense that the game would be more like Pokemon Go, in which you can see Pokemon, and choose which ones to engage. Similarly, it makes sense that the catching mechanics would be based on Pokemon Go. Another complaint is about the removal of features like abilities, held items, mega evolutions, etc. Which again, isn't an inherently bad thing, just a matter of audience. Fans of the main Pokemon games have had two decades to get into all of the various nuances, but to newcomers to the franchise, it's kind of intimidating, and somewhat bloated. If Let's Go is meant to be a bridge between mainline games and Go, then it makes sense to focus on the core rock paper scissors mechanics. Essentially, the complaints are that a game designed to be a simplified version of Pokemon and advertised as a simplified version of Pokemon is indeed a simplified version of Pokemon. |
If I insist, ha! More like you realized that you're a hypocrite if you don't, but the reason matters not! Well from your explanation it seems to come down to you believing a concept cannot be flawed, less is more, and options aren't good. I don't agree even slightly, but hey now I can understand where you're coming from and see you as more than just another blind defender your initial comment painted you as.
I will have to challenge your logic though. You say the game should be based on Pokemon Go which is why it's automatically good that there's no random encounters/wild battles, but shouldn't that also mean it's bad that Let's Go has trainer battles, an overworld, a story, no Pokemon besides Gen1, etc.? Those things are/aren't in PoGo afterall.
