Lol, it is a paradox. People working hard everyday are lazy and owe you.... you being a person who doesn't even want to work. Talk about being hypocritical. Enjoy though man, got to spend your time doing something I suppose.  

First HD jump for the main series. They should started totally fresh and have none of the other Pokemon. Build this up as Phase 2 Pokemon, which each group after this utilizing Pokemon introduced in Sword/Shield and it's sequels. Then, after like 5 generations have passed, we can have a mega crossover Avengers style game with all 10+ generations of Pokemon. It would make all the old ones feel new again after not having played them for so long.

Doubling down on that desperate strawman, further proving you have no actual arguments.

I play most Pokemon games, and while I don't know exact numbers, it's usually the case that around 300 ~ 400 Pokemon can be obtained in a single game. The difference is that in the past there were ways to obtain them all in a single game. But has that always been the case? I remember when Ruby and Sapphire came out you could no longer trade with RBY and GSS.

Could GF be planning on releasing another main installment on the Switch which will be compatible with this one, and slowly all of the Pokemon will be obtainable. This would be a good reason to explain why not all of the most popular Pokemon are in this one game, as they want to distribute them evenly.

But overall, the disappearance of the National Dex is disappointing, but not unexpected, and 400 Pokemon is a solid amount for being within a single game. I doubt anyone truly expected more than this. But at the same time, those that are claiming to prefer having a lower amount are also full of themselves.

If you were expecting 600+ Pokemon, that would probably be a first. I'm more concerned with the MC of this game, and whether it's going to be good or not.

Honestly don't care. Still going to buy it and play it. Already caught them all once, was incredibly frustrating to X pokemon from some event that isn't in your country.

This wasn't the standard though, every Pokemon game prior to Let's Go had all Pokemon in the game even if they weren't all catchable in the wild.

That there's only 400 Pokemon in the game isn't an objective value? That this is less than a 13 year old Pokemon game is just a judgmental tantrum? Are you perhaps in denial? I think so!

I barely get a quarter of 400 Pokemon in all of the main games I've played :P

I get some people are disappointed, but I think total amount of Pokemon is only part of the game. A significant part of it, sure, but not a determining factor on whether or not I buy it or not. Because there's more to the games than the total amount of Pokemon.

I've read some previews and most are pretty positive about the games. I'm looking forward to it.

So you'd buy the game even if it had no Pokemon in it!? You're paying more for less but surely you wouldn't pay more for absolutely nothing. xD

It's silly to try and downplay what a big deal this is, it's the freakin namesake. Literally every facet of the games involve Pokemon, without them there is no game.

Diminishing returns.  At a certain point, when there are more Pokemon than I'll ever actually use or even catch, the additional Pokemon will add nothing to my enjoyment.  There are also potential metagame benefits to having a smaller number of Pokemon.