• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Thoughts on the Upcoming Pokemon Switch Game?

Mr.Fiend

Everything stinks

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
BOTW and Odyssey, arguably, have different quantities and qualities of content from each other, depending on perspective. To many - most, in fact, if that’s not been clear to you for dozens of post - find LGPE to have a quantity and quality of content that justifies the same dollar value.

They have much bigger worlds and much more content. Odyssey has literally hundreds of Power Moons to collect (880), and BotW has 120 shrines, 900 Korok seeds, as well as numerous other sidequests (such as filling the Hyrule Compedium). And both of them are massive, open world adventure games. LGPE's 153 Pokemon (not all of which are even catchable without trading) and Master Trainers and its smaller, more linear region simply don't measure up.

No. The quantity of content in this franchise depends heavily on repetition and the amount of it an individual consumer can or will take part in. But by all means, please provide measurements and quantify the content in this game compared to others - I’m eager to see such numbers.

Repetition is padding, you can't really count that towards content. The objective measurements of this franchises are things like the size of the regions and areas (which again, we can't really measure the exact size but we know it's FAR smaller than games like BotW and Odyssey), the number of Pokemon to catch, the number of extra features there are and how much time they take to complete, etc.

Uh... yes, this is an opinion. None of what you have just said is objective.

No it's not. The graphics have only really increased in HD textures and it offers far smaller worlds and far less to do. That is all objective.

These were never going to be less than the price of literally any game in the series, and were never going to be the price of games on a seven year old handheld-only console. You know this. We all know this. It has always been known.

They're intentionally cheap and stripped down games designed to sell to mobile gamers, who are known to pay very little for video games. It's a cheaper game for a cheaper audience, making the game cheaper makes perfect sense.
 

Sαpphire

Johto Champion
They have much bigger worlds and much more content. Odyssey has literally hundreds of Power Moons to collect (880), and BotW has 120 shrines, 900 Korok seeds, as well as numerous other sidequests (such as filling the Hyrule Compedium). And both of them are massive, open world adventure games. LGPE's 153 Pokemon (not all of which are even catchable without trading) and Master Trainers and its smaller, more linear region simply don't measure up.

Repetition is padding, you can't really count that towards content. The objective measurements of this franchises are things like the size of the regions and areas (which again, we can't really measure the exact size but we know it's FAR smaller than games like BotW and Odyssey), the number of Pokemon to catch, the number of extra features there are and how much time they take to complete, etc.

No it's not. The graphics have only really increased in HD textures and it offers far smaller worlds and far less to do. That is all objective.

They're intentionally cheap and stripped down games designed to sell to mobile gamers, who are known to pay very little for video games. It's a cheaper game for a cheaper audience, making the game cheaper makes perfect sense.

1) The point, which you seem to have failed to grasp, is that you can’t just say “it’s smaller than the largest open world ever and this Mario game, so it can’t be $60.” That’s not how this works. Those games are produced in vastly different contexts and franchises, and there isn’t a one-size-fits-all way to classify which games are and are not $60. Some franchises, mind you, are also worth inherently more; the Pokémon branding alone causes the content to be more valuable than, say, a Mega Man game (to cite one recently released at a lower price). Similarly, the Zelda and Mario brands are enough to inherently warrant a higher price, with the quantity and quality of the content being secondary. I don’t care how big either of those games were - I don’t care that this one is smaller. That isn't the only variable correlated with the price of a game on the Switch, and again, is not something you can actually quantify in anything other than relative terms.

2) Those quantities that you’re mentioning - several of which you admit cannot be directly measured - are only comparable to other Pokémon games on the Switch. Not to games from another franchise, not to games on another system. Guess what we don’t have yet? Other Pokémon games on the Switch. A main series Pokémon on the Switch is, like a main series game in other major franchises, $60, a price determined by status and billing rather than content and perceived quality.

3) The graphics have not only improved in textures; you’ve already been shown untextured models that show that polygon count is up, and I’d wager you could find plenty to suggest that other aspects - like motion, for example - have improved as well. To make the claim that things haven’t improved, you’re going to need to source that, since the only person I’ve seen source their statements is the person who demonstrated to you that these models are better.

4) You have no way of supporting the accusation that they are “intentionally cheap.” That is you projecting your personals, subjective assessment into the developers. The “cheaper audience” of “mobile gamers” is clearly buying this console game in droves, and console sales increased by a massive proportion as a result of their interest. You have no argument here - they’re paying the game’s price and have determined it to be the fair market value. That price and value is $60. That’s not going to change, and you don’t get to be the person to say it’s wrong. The market has decided and repeatedly demonstrated that you are wrong - and in the end, that’s literally all there is to this.
 

Nockturne

Well-Known Member
If repetitious content is just padding and not actual content then you can't reasonably cite the korok seeds as an example of BotW's content. Heck even some of the shrines were a bit samey. And I haven't played Odessy but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess there weren't 880 totally distinct puzzles/challenges for each one?

If collect-a-thon's are your thing and help justify a $60 price tag then cool you're totally entitled to that OPINION, but don't act like they are any less repetitive or more creative than something like the Master Trainers in LG.
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
1) The point, which you seem to have failed to grasp, is that you can’t just say “it’s smaller than the largest open world ever and this Mario game, so it can’t be $60.” That’s not how this works. Those games are produced in vastly different contexts and franchises, and there isn’t a one-size-fits-all way to classify which games are and are not $60.

Hell, with that argument, any game that isn't an open world RPG isn't worth $60.
 

Ducolamia

SAYYYY WHAT???
If repetitious content is just padding and not actual content then you can't reasonably cite the korok seeds as an example of BotW's content. Heck even some of the shrines were a bit samey. And I haven't played Odessy but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess there weren't 880 totally distinct puzzles/challenges for each one?

If collect-a-thon's are your thing and help justify a $60 price tag then cool you're totally entitled to that OPINION, but don't act like they are any less repetitive or more creative than something like the Master Trainers in LG.

To give some perspective Oddessey is a collection of moons for each level, but the game does do a good job of having some variation to it by spreading them out more and having more moons in each levels than required. That way. You can explore to your heart's content. It makes going through the game much easier than in something such as 64 in which you did had some required stars you needed to progress.

I personally HATE collectathons. It's very repitious and usually when games try to vary it out it just becomes even more of a chore. I can safely say Oddessey avoids that.

However I would also argue the game has it's flaws. Some of the boss battles are awful and having Bowser as the last boss AGAIN is annoying (but not to the extent such as in other games.

The point I'm trying to make is that in regards to LGPE, the master trainers are nice side challenge if you choose to do it (and mess with the AV system). I personally have no interest in battle facilities in Pokemon. Even the famous ones such as the PWT don't quite appeal to me, but I understand there are some people who would like that.

So even if they don't have things like that, I'm sure there are plenty of people who will find other things to be enjoyed by such as the partnership (which is cute) and just going through Kanto again.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
1) The point, which you seem to have failed to grasp, is that you can’t just say “it’s smaller than the largest open world ever and this Mario game, so it can’t be $60.” That’s not how this works. Those games are produced in vastly different contexts and franchises, and there isn’t a one-size-fits-all way to classify which games are and are not $60. Some franchises, mind you, are also worth inherently more; the Pokémon branding alone causes the content to be more valuable than, say, a Mega Man game (to cite one recently released at a lower price). Similarly, the Zelda and Mario brands are enough to inherently warrant a higher price, with the quantity and quality of the content being secondary. I don’t care how big either of those games were - I don’t care that this one is smaller. That isn't the only variable correlated with the price of a game on the Switch, and again, is not something you can actually quantify in anything other than relative terms.

BotW and Odyssey are simply the most prominent examples. There are other Switch games which are offering far more content than LGPE, such as Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Splatoon 2. Furthermore, BotW and Odyssey are the most relevant comparisons on the Switch because they're also adventure games in high value brands. Just because a game's from a different genre or IP doesn't mean it's not comparable. And when you compare what the console games in Mario and Zelda have done compared to their handheld counterparts (see: Mario 64/Sunshine/Galaxy/Odyssey vs. the 2D Marios, hell even NSMB Wii and NSMBU vs. NSMB and NSMB2, and Super Mario 3D World vs. Super Mario 3D Land, the 3D Zeldas vs. the 2D Zeldas), it's always bigger. Even in circumstances when they don't open things up (as is the case with the console NSMBs and 3D World), which is usually the case, at the very least there are more levels and generally just more content. And they're not the only ones, look at any other IP that has had both console and handheld games (Kirby, Yoshi, Metroid, Mario Kart) and you'll see that they always provide more out of their console games than their handheld games regardless of strength of brand. The cost increases simply because it's on stronger hardware that they leveraged to make more ambitious games. LGPE is not doing this.

2) Those quantities that you’re mentioning - several of which you admit cannot be directly measured - are only comparable to other Pokémon games on the Switch. Not to games from another franchise, not to games on another system. Guess what we don’t have yet? Other Pokémon games on the Switch. A main series Pokémon on the Switch is, like a main series game in other major franchises, $60, a price determined by status and billing rather than content and perceived quality.

LOL what? Of course we can. Between other Pokemon games, even ones that aren't Switch games, we can most definitely compare common elements directly such as the number of Pokemon in a game, how many areas there are, etc. And we know that number of Pokemon is waaaaay down from usual because it's restricted to the first 151, whereas most Pokemon games nowadays have several hundreds of Pokemon, and there hasn't been any noticeable increase in the number of areas or region size. Beyond that, we can compare them based on how much time it takes to complete those tasks, and completing the Kanto Dex in LGPE doesn't take nearly as long as collecting all of those Power Moons, completing all of the shrines, or finding the Korok seeds. So yeah, LGPE just flat out loses.

3) The graphics have not only improved in textures; you’ve already been shown untextured models that show that polygon count is up, and I’d wager you could find plenty to suggest that other aspects - like motion, for example - have improved as well. To make the claim that things haven’t improved, you’re going to need to source that, since the only person I’ve seen source their statements is the person who demonstrated to you that these models are better.

All he did was show models. He didn't prove any sort of improvement, and in fact the comparison shows a lot more similarities than differences.

4) You have no way of supporting the accusation that they are “intentionally cheap.” That is you projecting your personals, subjective assessment into the developers. The “cheaper audience” of “mobile gamers” is clearly buying this console game in droves, and console sales increased by a massive proportion as a result of their interest. You have no argument here - they’re paying the game’s price and have determined it to be the fair market value. That price and value is $60. That’s not going to change, and you don’t get to be the person to say it’s wrong. The market has decided and repeatedly demonstrated that you are wrong - and in the end, that’s literally all there is to this.

They're intentionally cheap because they're providing lower than average content for a premium price, that's all there is to it. Fair market value isn't just determined by the Pokemon fanbase. It's determined by the market as a whole. And outside of the Pokemon fanbase, the market is paying $60 for far more content, so the Pokemon fanbase is accepting a lower valued game for the same price. Hence, they're not being smart consumers.

If repetitious content is just padding and not actual content then you can't reasonably cite the korok seeds as an example of BotW's content. Heck even some of the shrines were a bit samey. And I haven't played Odessy but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess there weren't 880 totally distinct puzzles/challenges for each one?

If collect-a-thon's are your thing and help justify a $60 price tag then cool you're totally entitled to that OPINION, but don't act like they are any less repetitive or more creative than something like the Master Trainers in LG.

Still nowhere near as repetitious as having you collect duplicates of Pokemon you already caught to grind for EXP. Even if some of the challenges were repeated, they didn't have you collect the ones you already got just to progress.

Also, half of the challenge in collecting them all was hunting through the overworld to find them in the first place. LGPE just puts everything right in the middle of the route and has you wander around until you find them, not navigate the level design to reach well hidden areas or solve puzzles to find them.
 

Lord Godwin

The Lord of Darkness
I recently got a reflection:
They could've given Lt. Surge Ace based on the game with Raichu for Pikachu and Jolteon for Eevee. This way he could mock you on not evolving your starter anime-wise and even give you the Thunderstone prior/post Battle (even though it won't work on the starter). It would also make sence as Trace has the opposite starter Evo.
 

ShadowForce720

Well-Known Member
BotW and Odyssey are simply the most prominent examples. There are other Switch games which are offering far more content than LGPE, such as Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Splatoon 2. Furthermore, BotW and Odyssey are the most relevant comparisons on the Switch because they're also adventure games in high value brands. Just because a game's from a different genre or IP doesn't mean it's not comparable. And when you compare what the console games in Mario and Zelda have done compared to their handheld counterparts (see: Mario 64/Sunshine/Galaxy/Odyssey vs. the 2D Marios, hell even NSMB Wii and NSMBU vs. NSMB and NSMB2, and Super Mario 3D World vs. Super Mario 3D Land, the 3D Zeldas vs. the 2D Zeldas), it's always bigger. Even in circumstances when they don't open things up (as is the case with the console NSMBs and 3D World), which is usually the case, at the very least there are more levels and generally just more content. And they're not the only ones, look at any other IP that has had both console and handheld games (Kirby, Yoshi, Metroid, Mario Kart) and you'll see that they always provide more out of their console games than their handheld games regardless of strength of brand. The cost increases simply because it's on stronger hardware that they leveraged to make more ambitious games. LGPE is not doing this.



LOL what? Of course we can. Between other Pokemon games, even ones that aren't Switch games, we can most definitely compare common elements directly such as the number of Pokemon in a game, how many areas there are, etc. And we know that number of Pokemon is waaaaay down from usual because it's restricted to the first 151, whereas most Pokemon games nowadays have several hundreds of Pokemon, and there hasn't been any noticeable increase in the number of areas or region size. Beyond that, we can compare them based on how much time it takes to complete those tasks, and completing the Kanto Dex in LGPE doesn't take nearly as long as collecting all of those Power Moons, completing all of the shrines, or finding the Korok seeds. So yeah, LGPE just flat out loses.



All he did was show models. He didn't prove any sort of improvement, and in fact the comparison shows a lot more similarities than differences.



They're intentionally cheap because they're providing lower than average content for a premium price, that's all there is to it. Fair market value isn't just determined by the Pokemon fanbase. It's determined by the market as a whole. And outside of the Pokemon fanbase, the market is paying $60 for far more content, so the Pokemon fanbase is accepting a lower valued game for the same price. Hence, they're not being smart consumers.



Still nowhere near as repetitious as having you collect duplicates of Pokemon you already caught to grind for EXP. Even if some of the challenges were repeated, they didn't have you collect the ones you already got just to progress.

Also, half of the challenge in collecting them all was hunting through the overworld to find them in the first place. LGPE just puts everything right in the middle of the route and has you wander around until you find them, not navigate the level design to reach well hidden areas or solve puzzles to find them.

Bolt with all do respect I'm not sure why your still complaining about Let's Go at this point. Look I get that you don't like the Let's Go Games and I'm presuming that your not going to buy the games which is fine, just like it's fine to criticize the games however you need face reality you personally might not consider it worth it to buy the Let's Go games which is fine it's your right to choose whether or not you want to buy the games, however no matter how you try to argue the fact of the matter is the Let's Go games didn't flop and it's pretty obvious looking at the sales that a lot of people don't share your opinion and a lot of people thought the games were worth the money.

The point is no matter how much you try to argue it, Let's Go is not going to just magically flop all of a sudden just because you don't think it's worth the money, and it's not going to just magically have a price drop just because you don't think it's worth that much money. Let's go did pretty well and I won't be surprised if we get more let's go games at some point, and at this point no matter how much you complain about Let's Go is not going to make the price of Let's Go games go down or somehow convince a significant amount of people to not buy the games or take the games back.

Heck if you look at this thread most people that were criticizing Let's Go have pretty much said there piece on it and have moved on probably to looking forward to the gen 8 games that will come out next year.

I'm not sure why you still come to this thread and complain about Let's Go if you hate it or don't like it so much especially when your not going to buy the games.
It's like you would think you would move on by now and want to just look forward to the gen 8 games especially since they will likely get reveal in January, Feburary, or March of next year which isn't that far away.
Sure people can criticize the game but at this point your not coming off as legitimately criticizing the game but as some one who seems to have an obsession with the games and can't except the reality that the games that you don't like actually did pretty well.

Look I'm not trying to rude here but with the way your going about things here it honestly seems like when the gen 8 games get revealed and a lot of people are talking about them you will be back in here criticizing games that aren't really that relevant anymore choosing to stay stuck in the past rather then moving forward.
 

Sαpphire

Johto Champion
They're intentionally cheap because they're providing lower than average content for a premium price, that's all there is to it. Fair market value isn't just determined by the Pokemon fanbase. It's determined by the market as a whole. And outside of the Pokemon fanbase, the market is paying $60 for far more content, so the Pokemon fanbase is accepting a lower valued game for the same price. Hence, they're not being smart consumers.

Okay before I bother to address any of the rest, is there literally even the most remote chance of you considering the possibility that the growing chorus of people telling you that you’re being unreasonable is right and you might possibly be wrong? Is this just going to continue as infinitum, or is there benefit in me expending the mental energy to pick apart each of your points and try to counter them? I’m legitimately curious, because I’m not interested in continuing if you’re never going to let up on your consistent (and frankly misplaced) derision of these games and those who bought them, as I’m not going to stop supporting them. We’re not going to get each other anywhere in that case, and I don’t want to waste your time or mine going in circles. Like, just - people (the market, the consumers, and a group of buyers who are not composed solely of fans) are buying the game at $60. It’s $60. So why is there even a debate about this? Do you really think that these sales just come from people being dumber than you about their money to blindly support a franchise, and not from normal people who think just they’re good enough and just want to have some fun? I’m trying to understand if I’m misreading your assertions here.
 

Mr.Fiend

Everything stinks
Bolt with all do respect I'm not sure why your still complaining about Let's Go at this point. Look I get that you don't like the Let's Go Games and I'm presuming that your not going to buy the games which is fine, just like it's fine to criticize the games however you need face reality you personally might not consider it worth it to buy the Let's Go games which is fine it's your right to choose whether or not you want to buy the games, however no matter how you try to argue the fact of the matter is the Let's Go games didn't flop and it's pretty obvious looking at the sales that a lot of people don't share your opinion and a lot of people thought the games were worth the money.

The point is no matter how much you try to argue it, Let's Go is not going to just magically flop all of a sudden just because you don't think it's worth the money, and it's not going to just magically have a price drop just because you don't think it's worth that much money. Let's go did pretty well and I won't be surprised if we get more let's go games at some point, and at this point no matter how much you complain about Let's Go is not going to make the price of Let's Go games go down or somehow convince a significant amount of people to not buy the games or take the games back.

Heck if you look at this thread most people that were criticizing Let's Go have pretty much said there piece on it and have moved on probably to looking forward to the gen 8 games that will come out next year.

I'm not sure why you still come to this thread and complain about Let's Go if you hate it or don't like it so much especially when your not going to buy the games.
It's like you would think you would move on by now and want to just look forward to the gen 8 games especially since they will likely get reveal in January, Feburary, or March of next year which isn't that far away.
Sure people can criticize the game but at this point your not coming off as legitimately criticizing the game but as some one who seems to have an obsession with the games and can't except the reality that the games that you don't like actually did pretty well.

Look I'm not trying to rude here but with the way your going about things here it honestly seems like when the gen 8 games get revealed and a lot of people are talking about them you will be back in here criticizing games that aren't really that relevant anymore choosing to stay stuck in the past rather then moving forward.
Because, looking at his past comments as well, bolt has a (mind the language here) hate boner for these games.
 

SBaby

Dungeon Master
The only minor thing with the game (other than the fact that my arm is getting sore from using the joycon to catch everything) is that I wish you could access the Settings menu in-game instead of having to exit the game and go back into it.
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
The only minor thing with the game (other than the fact that my arm is getting sore from using the joycon to catch everything) is that I wish you could access the Settings menu in-game instead of having to exit the game and go back into it.

I don't get what you mean.

Can't you just press Y to access the Options menu?
 
Top