Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee announced for the Switch(as well gen 8 game)

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,651]

1 minute ago, JCKane said:

Water down version of yellow?  Well it was confirmed to be a Pokémon Yellow Remake.  And minus the 'Wild Pokémon mechanic' everything else has been upgraded from the 1999 Gameboy game that is Pokémon Yellow.

However, I do see the point on the price tag.  Considering not even the main series 3DS games were  $60... but umm... where does it say the price tag for the games?

That's my main issue. The wild Pokemon thing is a big subtraction for me. Might not be for others but I don't like the idea.

As for the price, Amazon has the games up for pre-order and they are indeed $60.

[JCKane 345]

1 minute ago, Kyoshi said:

That's my main issue. The wild Pokemon thing is a big subtraction for me. Might not be for others but I don't like the idea.

As for the price, Amazon has the games up for pre-order and they are indeed $60.

and you're sure it doesn't come with the Pokeball plus add-on?

As for the wild pokemon thing... I honestly understand.  Personally, I still planning on enjoying the game aside for that, but I get where you're coming from.

[Will Guide 21,362]

14 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Exactly and that is why I think it should not be priced at $60. $60 seems a bit too much for what appears to be a watered down version of Yellow. There are ideas I definitely like about it, the co-op aspects looks dope, but for now I simply do not like the price point.

But I thought the money was to pay for the Poke ball accessory as well as the software.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,651]

6 minutes ago, JCKane said:

and you're sure it doesn't come with the Pokeball plus add-on?

As for the wild pokemon thing... I honestly understand.  Personally, I still planning on enjoying the game aside for that, but I get where you're coming from.

 

3 minutes ago, SwitchGuy2018 said:

But I thought the money was to pay for the Poke ball accessory as well as the software.

I see nothing yet on Amazon stating that it will come with the Poke Ball, but it might, I am not entirely sure on that.

I may just need to see more. I am interested in this for sure, but I am skeptical for now.

As a side note: Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu Edition is currently #1 on Best Sellers Rank for Nintendo Switch games and #3 for video games in general. Just on pre-orders alone. That is nuts.

[JCKane 345]

3 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

 

I see nothing yet on Amazon stating that it will come with the Poke Ball, but it might, I am not entirely sure on that.

I may just need to see more. I am interested in this for sure, but I am skeptical for now.

As a side note: Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu Edition is currently #1 on Best Sellers Rank for Nintendo Switch games and #3 for video games in general. Just on pre-orders alone. That is nuts.

I mean aside for the wild Pokémon thing.. it IS a 'core' Pokémon game on the switch... or as close as we'll be getting until 2019.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,651]

3 minutes ago, JCKane said:

I mean aside for the wild Pokémon thing.. it IS a 'core' Pokémon game on the switch... or as close as we'll be getting until 2019.

That is why I do want to see more. I want to know more about the wild pokemon thing and see what else is being done with this remake. Pokemon Yellow is one of my favorite games ever so I might buy this, but I will wait for more information.

[JCKane 345]

1 minute ago, Kyoshi said:

That is why I do want to see more. I want to know more about the wild pokemon thing and see what else is being done with this remake. Pokemon Yellow is one of my favorite games ever so I might buy this, but I will wait for more information.

Yeah I wanna know more information too.  I mean, What happens if you don't have any pokeballs and you get into a wild Pokémon battle?

[Envy 6,175]

7 hours ago, Kyoshi said:

That's my main issue. The wild Pokemon thing is a big subtraction for me. Might not be for others but I don't like the idea.

As for the price, Amazon has the games up for pre-order and they are indeed $60.

Wow... $60 is outrageous for these games. They aren't even impressive modern remakes of Yellow. They're scaled very small and have HD version of Generation VI visuals. Even if one could get past the visuals, the scale of the games is just so small and cheap. What a bizarre world we're living in when a game like this is priced exactly the same as Breath of the Wild.

[Kai-rouken 146]

Idk why you people are surprised about the price tbh. I mean, Nintendo has been doing this kinda thing for years. I'm certainly not defending it, but c'mon guys you should know Nintendo likes to overcharge for their products. How about I provide a few examples to back up my point? The following 4 games are an amalgamation of ports, remasters, and remakes. Note, the descriptions for each game are in reference to how they improved upon the original release:

• The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD (Wii U) - $60 - Higher res, sharper textures, bloom lighting, lower frame rate
• Shadow of the Colossus (Ps4) - $40 - Much higher res, sharper textures, higher frame rate, much higher polygon count, all new assets for character models, fully restructured environments, decidedly current-gen lighting system.
• Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze (Switch) - $60 - Higher res in docked mode, lower res in handheld mode, slightly better loading times
• Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen (Ps4/ Xbox One) - $30 - Higher res, sharper textures, higher frame rate, better loading times

Then the Switch hardware as a whole is most assuredly overpriced from every angle. $300 for a system significantly weaker than even a base Xbox One? In 2017-2018 no less? You are aware that most people (at least people who were in the know tech-wise) considered both the Xbox One and Ps4 to be utterly obsolete from a hardware tech aspect, right?.... and that was when they released back in freaking 2013! To charge $300 for the Switch is absolute lunacy as far as I am concerned... lunacy that unfortunately seems to be paying off for Nintendo while simultaneously exploiting their ignorant consumer-base.

Oh, the Nintendo Switch is portable so that makes it free of any and all criticisms/ comparisons against the competition? Ok, then, in that case let's compare it to handheld gaming systems. 

• Switch - $300 at launch (a year and a half later, still no sign of a price drop)
• 3ds - $250 at launch (thing sold terribly until NIntendo wisened up and dropped the price down to $180)
• Ds - $150 at launch (a year later, dropped to $120; sold well at all prices)
• Ps Vita - $250-300 at launch (eventually dropped to around $200; sold horrendously regardless)
• PsP - $200-250 at launch (price dropped by $50-100 within the next few years iirc)

^As we can see here, Switch is significantly higher priced than all previous portable gaming hardware from the last two console generations. (Quick note: the $300 Vita was the 3G supported version which also included a data plan). Let's not stop there though. How about we compare the retail game prices for portable gaming systems?

• Switch - standard $60 (equivalent to current console systems like the Ps4/ Xbone) 
• 3ds - standard $40 
• Ds - standard $40
• Gba - standard $35
• Ps Vita - standard $40
• PsP - standard $40

Since we've established the Switch is overpriced when compared to even the handheld game market, let's skip on back to consoles again briefly...

• Switch Pro Controller (Not include with system) - $70
• Switch Left/Right Joycon Controllers (Included with system) - $80
• Wii U Pro Controller (Not included with system) - $50
• Wii U Gamepad Controller (Included with system) - $100-120
• Ps4 Dualshock 4 Controller (Included with system) - $60
• Ps3 Dualshock 3 Controller (Included witch system) - $50-60
• Xbox One Controller (Included with system) - $60
• Xbox 360 Controller (Included with system) - $50-60

^Get what I'm saying?

 

I'll admit the Switch is a pretty awesome progression in power/ performance over the 3ds or even the Vita, but that increase in performance is not anywhere near significant enough to warrant the absurd price differential. Nintendo fans should honestly not stand for this kinda thing and demand better from Nintendo, but alas we live in a world wherein people become emotionally attached to corporations and will defend their shortcomings as they would a family member... U_U

 

[Envy 6,175]

Certainly I agree with you about Nintendo overpricing everything. Even charging for their mediocre online services at all is overpricing. Another thing that Nintendo fans don't want to admit because they're blinded by "It's only $20!".

However, I think I'm surprised (well more appalled than surprised, lets be honest) with these Pokemon titles costing $60 for multiple reasons. First of all this is the first GameFreak Pokemon game on consoles. Second of all, the game is not even up to par with the Generation VII 3DS games. Like it's not even close. These are "Pokemon Lite". The scale of the region is incredibly small, and is just really pathetic. This is not a title to put up to $60 alongside actual Switch games, it is practically an Indie-quality title and should be priced accordingly.

"But it will make money!" I've been seeing that excuse a lot by Nintendo fans and I find it rather sad. It's like you say, some people are emotionally attached to a corporation and actually think so much about the company making tons of money that they don't care about the actual quality of the products being released. It's really sad. I mean I can tell you right now that GameFreak could have made a much better 'filler' Pokemon game for this year that would have maintained the core formula while allowing for Pokemon GO wild Pokemon battling to be optional and it would have sold extremely well as well, because mainline Pokemon entries always sell well. But instead they made a cheap, purely casualized experience and are now going to waste more time making more titles like it when they could be making the remakes I always praise them for or something else exciting... It's sad. They didn't have to make these games so narrow. Pokemon is already a casual experience.

[Guest]

These games are "interesting", but I am going to pass on them for sure. Looks like nothing worth $60 to me personally.

[DonMaguz 1,023]

They look fine, but since I don't own a switch yet, I'll be waiting for the core gen 8 games.

[Courageous Thunder Dash 7,824]

I have very mixed feelings about this, as much as I like pokemon...it just seems...I don't know...

[Jeric 46,854]

2 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

Idk why you people are surprised about the price tbh. I mean, Nintendo has been doing this kinda thing for years. I'm certainly not defending it, but c'mon guys you should know Nintendo likes to overcharge for their products. How about I provide a few examples to back up my point? The following 4 games are an amalgamation of ports, remasters, and remakes. Note, the descriptions for each game are in reference to how they improved upon the original release:

• The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD (Wii U) - $60 - Higher res, sharper textures, bloom lighting, lower frame rate
• Shadow of the Colossus (Ps4) - $40 - Much higher res, sharper textures, higher frame rate, much higher polygon count, all new assets for character models, fully restructured environments, decidedly current-gen lighting system.
• Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze (Switch) - $60 - Higher res in docked mode, lower res in handheld mode, slightly better loading times
• Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen (Ps4/ Xbox One) - $30 - Higher res, sharper textures, higher frame rate, better loading times

Then the Switch hardware as a whole is most assuredly overpriced from every angle. $300 for a system significantly weaker than even a base Xbox One? In 2017-2018 no less? You are aware that most people (at least people who were in the know tech-wise) considered both the Xbox One and Ps4 to be utterly obsolete from a hardware tech aspect, right?.... and that was when they released back in freaking 2013! To charge $300 for the Switch is absolute lunacy as far as I am concerned... lunacy that unfortunately seems to be paying off for Nintendo while simultaneously exploiting their ignorant consumer-base.

Oh, the Nintendo Switch is portable so that makes it free of any and all criticisms/ comparisons against the competition? Ok, then, in that case let's compare it to handheld gaming systems. 

• Switch - $300 at launch (a year and a half later, still no sign of a price drop)
• 3ds - $250 at launch (thing sold terribly until NIntendo wisened up and dropped the price down to $180)
• Ds - $150 at launch (a year later, dropped to $120; sold well at all prices)
• Ps Vita - $250-300 at launch (eventually dropped to around $200; sold horrendously regardless)
• PsP - $200-250 at launch (price dropped by $50-100 within the next few years iirc)

^As we can see here, Switch is significantly higher priced than all previous portable gaming hardware from the last two console generations. (Quick note: the $300 Vita was the 3G supported version which also included a data plan). Let's not stop there though. How about we compare the retail game prices for portable gaming systems?

• Switch - standard $60 (equivalent to current console systems like the Ps4/ Xbone) 
• 3ds - standard $40 
• Ds - standard $40
• Gba - standard $35
• Ps Vita - standard $40
• PsP - standard $40

Since we've established the Switch is overpriced when compared to even the handheld game market, let's skip on back to consoles again briefly...

• Switch Pro Controller (Not include with system) - $70
• Switch Left/Right Joycon Controllers (Included with system) - $80
• Wii U Pro Controller (Not included with system) - $50
• Wii U Gamepad Controller (Included with system) - $100-120
• Ps4 Dualshock 4 Controller (Included with system) - $60
• Ps3 Dualshock 3 Controller (Included witch system) - $50-60
• Xbox One Controller (Included with system) - $60
• Xbox 360 Controller (Included with system) - $50-60

^Get what I'm saying?

 

I'll admit the Switch is a pretty awesome progression in power/ performance over the 3ds or even the Vita, but that increase in performance is not anywhere near significant enough to warrant the absurd price differential. Nintendo fans should honestly not stand for this kinda thing and demand better from Nintendo, but alas we live in a world wherein people become emotionally attached to corporations and will defend their shortcomings as they would a family member... U_U

 

Without validating your opinion (I don't really play the series much to have a strong view) I just want to say that I'm generally impressed when a member takes an discussion point in a topic (in this case the price issue previous mentioned by several individuals) and then creates an in-depth analysis and opinion of the company's pricing philosophy related to these complaints. 

Kudos. 

[Kai-rouken 146]

5 hours ago, Envy said:

These are "Pokemon Lite". The scale of the region is incredibly small, and is just really pathetic. This is not a title to put up to $60 alongside actual Switch games, it is practically an Indie-quality title and should be priced accordingly.

Has the size of the game been revealed yet? To my knowledge, this game will take place in Kanto (which, if memory serves, is a pretty substantially-sized region). Admittedly, it's certainly not the biggest or most robust out there, but at least it doesn't attempt to compensate for what it lacks in traversable landmass area by incorporating copious amounts of headache-inducing, jellyfish-thriving aquatic avenues which may or may not be described as "too much" by some detractors. "Incredibly small" seems a bit of an exaggeration, honestly. I mean, if it were to be a "neutered" version of Kanto (perhaps something reminiscent of the interpretations featured in the Gen 2 games and their respective remakes - G/S/C & HG/SS) then I'd see how that specific concern would be warranted, otherwise it seems... well it seems a bit like semantics, to be honest xD

And please, don't get me wrong, I would totally love to have my mind blown experiencing a Pokemon region the size of Xenoblade Chronicles X or even multiple regions fully featured within a single game. I think I speak for all Pokemon fans when I say that. BUT, quite frankly it isn't exactly reasonable to expect by any stretch of the imagination... A game like that would be so time-consuming and expensive to develop I'd imagine Nintendo simply wouldn't consider $60 per purchase to be an adequate profit.

There's also an argument to be made for quality vs. quantity, or perhaps more accurately in this case, "quality vs. size/length". A short game with a lot of effort put in, like Shadow of the Colossus for example, can be incredibly satisfying upon consumption; whereas a looong drawn out grind-fest, like any number of Korean MMORPGs, can feel like an absolute chore to sit through. Conversely, a short, small-scaled game like Jaws (Nes), can be extremely unfulfilling and leave you feeling like you didn't get your money's worth; whereas a long epic adventure like Fallout 3 immerses the player in this huge interconnected world and manages to provide thrills that are nearly unparalleled in any other form of media! At the end of the day, it is all dependent on the creative decisions and direction of the game, as opposed to the sheer playtime/ scope. As an example pertaining directly to the franchise in question, Diamond/ Pearl were exceptionally long with plenty of content to play through, however, myself and many others feel as though it is one of the worst Pokemon experiences in the entire series! I certainly wouldn't like a new Pokemon game to take cues from that abomination subjectively lackluster entry. However, Pokemon X/Y perfectly illustrate what happens when you go too far in the opposite direction. The games were fun for what they were, no lie, but when you play through a freaking Pokemon RPG (aka 40+ hours of your time) and the reward is an irrelevant side story featuring characters I do not give a damn about... well, let's just say you are bound to piss off some gamers that way lol. 

The perfect Pokemon game for me was either Pokemon Red/Blue or Pokemon Crystal... ah... the memories...

But, as I remove my nostalgia goggles, I see the objectively best Pokemon game as Emerald. Emerald was such a beautiful game, so much stuff to do, yet it wasn't a vexation of the spirit, like some "other" Pokemon games. What really seals the deal for me was the inclusion of the original Battle Frontier. To this day, the Battle Frontier in Emerald is hands down the best post-game content I have experienced in any RPG, let alone Pokemon. The absurd level of mastery required to face even half of the Frontier Brains was truly stimulating. And so much freaking diversity with the challenges in this facility to boot! I have to stop myself there or else I'll write about 1,000 more words gushing over my love of the Battle Frontier, or just Emerald in general. I never truly appreciated all these factors until replaying every gen of Pokemon over again in my adulthood. Gen 1 and 2 definitely weren't as amazing as I remembered em, but man oh man was Emerald something special...

Sorry for the freaking, massive wall of text above, like Jesus Christ... I'll try and restrain myself in the next section ^^;

 

5 hours ago, Envy said:

"But it will make money!" I've been seeing that excuse a lot by Nintendo fans and I find it rather sad. It's like you say, some people are emotionally attached to a corporation and actually think so much about the company making tons of money that they don't care about the actual quality of the products being released. It's really sad. I mean I can tell you right now that GameFreak could have made a much better 'filler' Pokemon game for this year that would have maintained the core formula while allowing for Pokemon GO wild Pokemon battling to be optional and it would have sold extremely well as well, because mainline Pokemon entries always sell well. 

There is simply no reason to put real effort into a spin-off Pokemon game in their eyes. Think about it from a strategic business perspective, if you will:

• (Chief Executive Officer) Mr. Ichi: "We'll begin development on Pokemon Let's Go with an emphasis on plenty of simplified gameplay mechanics, and the casual Switch owners/ Pokemon Go fans will eat it up!"
• (General Manager) Mr. Nii-san: "But, sir, what about all those 'core' Pokemon fans who want something more substantive?"
• Mr. Ichi: "Oh, those fans? Well, we know they cherish the precious Pokemon games of old... how about we set this game in Kanto, and have it feature only the original Gen 1 Pokemon! That way it will be simultaneously nostalgia-pandering for the old folks and easy for Pokemon Go players to understand! It's a win-win!"
• Mr. Nii-san: "Um, won't those 'old folks' be able to see through such a scheme with relative ease? What if they are insulted and start to boycott the game? That would be awful!"
• Mr. Ichi: "Pfft. Don't make me laugh. Despite how much they complain on the Internet, those old fans will be the first in line to buy it when Let's Go releases."
• Mr. Nii-san: "A-are you sure, Mr. Ichi?"
• Mr. Ichi: "Of course I am! But, I'll tell ya what, Mr. Nii-san. Since you seem particularly concerned, how about right after the reveal of Let's Go we make certain to mention that there will still be a "real" next gen Pokemon game in the works for all those 'core' fans. That way, no one will revolt, and, in the best case scenario, some of these people might even dip their toes into this game to experience the first ever HD Pokemon RPG in existance!

^Something along those lines lol. The point is, if these corporate heads know their fans will buy it regardless of its quality, what reason do they have to improve their product? There is no reason whatsoever. It is in the company's best interest to make as much money as possible while expending as little resources as possible. Whether those resources be time, effort, or money, it matters not. While this business philosophy may lack integrity in some areas, it is nevertheless a very effective method to utilize. It really is a shame that consumers of the modern era tend to gravitate towards accepting mediocrity whilst publicly shaming those who want better and dismissing their kind as "entitled". Consumers have the power to demand better from these companies, and if enough of them vote with their wallets, better products will eventually materialize.

-sigh- but I digress...

 

5 hours ago, Envy said:

It's sad. They didn't have to make these games so narrow. Pokemon is already a casual experience.

^ Very, very true. Pokemon is and has always been very accessible for all audiences. To make it even more casual is to essentially retard the franchise. Granted, it is only a spin-off, but as of now it does definitely seem to be the most casual of any of the games which resembles a "proper" Pokemon RPG. Only time will tell if this direction carries over to the mainline 2019 release... fingers crossed :/

 

4 hours ago, Jeric said:

Without validating your opinion (I don't really play the series much to have a strong view) I just want to say that I'm generally impressed when a member takes an discussion point in a topic (in this case the price issue previous mentioned by several individuals) and then creates an in-depth analysis and opinion of the company's pricing philosophy related to these complaints. 

Kudos. 

^ I'll consider that the highest of praise, especially coming from one of the most intellectually-minded members on this fine forums~ <3

Spoiler

No brown-nosing... I swear! Q.Q 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Kai-rouken

[Envy 6,175]

@Kai-rouken

We haven't seen the size of the game necessarily, but seeing as we're dealing with familiar territory, the locations shown in the trailer give us a good idea of the scale of the game.

For example, we can compare the part of Route 3 leading up to Mt. Moon:

Do you see what I mean? That area is Gameboy-sized tiny.

 

[Kai-rouken 146]

@Envy 

C'mon, that location is a mere pit stop MEANT to be small for the convenience factor. How about we compare the entire overworld maps instead:

Kanto

Johto

Spoiler

Hoenn

Spoiler

 

^I'll keep it at 3 for now, for the sake of bandwidth, but I think this is sufficient to prove my point. The disparity between map dimensions are negligible at worst. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that the game shouldn't be sold for $60, but not due to the region being "too small".

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Kai-rouken