By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lonely_Dolphin on 19 November 2018
Edit Thread
JWeinCom said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

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.

No.  It wouldn't mean I'm a hypocrite.  I'm free to spend my time however I like to.  Stating my opinion does not mean I am obligated to defend it against all comers.  If I don't feel like continuing a conversation, I don't have to.  And you are continuing to strawman me in the same way so I'm getting to that point. 

I did not say a concept cannot be flawed.  I just don't think this concept is flawed.  I'm giving specific examples, and you're claiming I'm making general rules.  It's vexing.  When you have a series that has really broad appeal like Pokemon, having a game that appeals to the more casual end of that spectrum is a good concept.  You can have a game like Metroid Federation Force that is simply flawed on a conceptual level, as it is something that really appeals to nobody.  Or you can have a game like Wii Music which is flawed as its core mechanics are not very fun.  I don't think Pokemon Let's Go falls into either of these categories.  

The reason you want to challenge my logic is because you are again turning everything I say into a sweeping generalization.  I said that it makes sense to include some mechanics from Pokemon Go, and take out some mechanics from the mainline game.  This does not mean that the game has to include EVERYTHING from Pokemon Go and exclude EVERYTHING not in go.  As I said, the game is meant to be a bridge between Pokemon Go and the mainline series, so you're going to have some elements of each.  The most important element of Pokemon Go is the catching mechanic.  So that's something that has to be in a game meant to appeal to Pokemon Go fans.  The most core element of Pokemon that you'd want people to become familiar with is the rock paper scissors battle system, the Pokedex, and the quest to the elite four.  So, those elements are present.  

Again, the goal for this game was an accessible Pokemon game, and there is I'm fairly certain, a large group of people who want that.  Complaining that a game made for people who would like a simpler Pokemon game is a simpler Pokemon game is like complaining that a pizzeria is serving pizza and not burgers.  If you want a burger, go to the burger place.  On the other hand, if you think there is something wrong with the pizza, then explain what it is and you may have a point.

But alas it would as I've shown already.

Sorry, I was assuming you would be consistent and fair with your logic.

Except Pokemon is already uber accessible, 3 year olds can beat it. Face it, the whole "it's for a different audience" angle is just GameFreak's excuse for being uber lazy n greedy by selling what is essentially Sun/Moon but with only 20% of the content at 1.5x the price. The correct analogy here is that we're complaining a pizzeria is serving pizza for full price but without the pepperoni, cheese, and tomato sauce. If you're fine with only getting bread instead of a full pizza, then fair enough, but so too should it also be fair that others aren't satisfied and expect more.