The positive up front: Wild Pokemon you can actually see, pet Pokemon you can ride at will (though with wasted potential), 3D models of iconic G1 characters, and the title characters do look cute in close-ups.
That said, I voted skip. I feel it only fair to mention that I haven't bought a main Pokemon game since Black, I don't plan to again pending a major change, I don't own a Switch, and I don't have any immediate plans to buy one, so maybe my vote there hardly means anything, but...holy crap; these games look dull. By that, I don't just mean they look like something other than what I think Pokemon should be, or that they look like they're aimed at casuals, or that its core gameplay bores me, although all of those are pretty true; I mean that I haven't seen anything in these games that sets them apart from the crowd, which I think is a Pokemon spin-off first.
Yes; I am treating these as spin-offs, rather than main series games, so I'm not beating on them for not measuring up to those standards. I've long accepted that spin-off games tend to be "smaller" than the core RPGs. However, in the past, spin-offs always added in something to compensate; something noticeable. Mystery Dungeon gave us the ability to play as Pokemon themselves, gave us fights in an actual physical battlefield, gave the Pokemon personalities far beyond what they displayed in the RPGs, and told a genuinely emotional story. Colloseum had better graphics than handhelds could do at the time, and a unique story of an adult hero, with a girlfriend, whose role was primarily to battle evil rather than to catch 'em all and be a master. Poke Park gave us real-time gameplay. Conquest gave us a crossover and was a long-requested Pokemon map strategy game. Pokken was a long-requested tournament fighter. Pokemon Go has real-world map integration.
The problem with these games is how much they lack unique identities of the sort those past spin-offs had. The brass can remind us all they want that these aren't supposed to be core Pokemon RPGs, but the Let's Go games resemble the core RPGs so much more than any other spin-offs, that's the lens many people are inevitably going to judge them by. Being semi-remakes of Red/Blue/Yellow gives people expectations; not to mention that since most of the people who obsess about G1 nostalgia are adults, by simple laws of time, they are going to notice how infantile the games seem to be trying to be, with simplified battles, faster leveling, checks for type-effectiveness, a pay-to-win feature (Yuck!) to get Mew, a friendly rival, and of course, the cute aspect of Pokemon cranked up with the starters. It's not that we adults are intolerant of infantile things, but this combination of things that seem softened up for children and things that seem nostalgic primarily to adults just seems wrong. That, and when we were children we did fine without that softness.
These games seem to take away too many features, add too few features, and retain the sorts of features that arguably don't deserve retention. Does anyone like grids? I get that the Pokemon and humans of G1 are nostalgic to some, but does anyone really care about the map layouts of those games? Does anyone like having progress dictated by moves unlocked at specific times to pass inconvenient obstacles? I sure don't. The single biggest sensation I get whenever I look at these games is the last sensation I feel I should get when looking at a more juvenile Pokemon product: They're ugly! I cannot say that about the anime, or flash games, or PokePark games; they obviously aim young and innocent, but they're pretty. These games dredge up the maps, shapes, and proportions of ancient Game Boy games as though gaming never moved on, and just make them more glaring by putting them in high-definition 3D. The greener and more visibly populated by Pokemon that forests get, the more inappropriate their square layouts look. Then there's the ostensible cities whose paltry amount of buildings would struggle to qualify them as truck stops, whose buildings are obviously too small for their interiors; tolerable when lack of memory was an issue, but hardly desirable on a new console with much more power. Also, I don't like big heads on people.
Then there's the Pokemon Go side of that equation; I get that the game has/had a following, but was it really on account of the simplified battle mechanics? People maybe tolerated them, but did they prefer them? If not, then trying to cater to that crowd with a game that takes away the real-world integration while keeping the dumbed down gameplay is missing the point, hard.
Above all else, the Let's Go games feel like they have no niche. They may gain one, but I can't see what it would be. They may not be objectively bad games, but I cannot think of anything these games offer that another, older game didn't already do better, save for the increased role of the starters--and the verdict is out so far on whether that will really be enjoyable. I'm already worried about whether they retain a four-move limit, given that they now seem to be your only HM slaves.