I wasn’t surprised at how much people hated the Pok?mon game. We don’t need another Kanto remake, and Pok?mon Go isn’t a true Pok?mon game. I don’t know if Pok?mon fans actually like unlimited use of TMs, being able to max out all six EVs, gym requirements, objective waypoints on map (like seen in Pok?mon Sun and Moon), telling us if a move is super-effective, effective, or ineffective in a battle (also in Sun and Moon), or hyper training, but I know that the removal of popular features have turned off fans. If any of you Pok?mon fans are willing to explain what’s wrong with everything said in italics, please tell me. I actually like what I listed in italics, but I don’t know if they are good ideas or bad ideas.
I liked the unlimited use of TM's
(which I believe was done before Lets Go, correct me if I'm wrong). Getting more was either a waste of time going to the shop with your "way too much money because Pokemon showers you with cash" or unnecessary tedium trading. Alongside that, I'll add one of the very few features I liked from Sun/Moon was the removal of HM's since I no longer either needed to give one of my Pokemon moves I don't want but have to have OR bring along a Pokemon I don't like just because I taught it 4 HM's...But I'll say I didn't really like the way they did it. I would have preferred that as long as you have a Pokemon in your party that could use the ability, you just can. Would have much preferred flying on my Pidgeot than some random Charizard.
EV's I don't care about.
Gym requirements was awful. It's almost making it so that you can only do the gym if you can beat it, and at that point, what is the point? There's nothing wrong with the way it's always been: go into the gym, make an assessment of what type of gym it is then either give it a go with the team you've got or go and get/swap Pokemon to beat it. It was never really difficult to beat the gyms in any of the games
(unless you purposely went in underleveled with a team countered by the gym), but this extra level of "you're not doing it until you have X,Y and Z" was way to far in regards to coddling the player in a series that's never been particularly difficult to begin with.
Objective markers, again, unnecessary
(and introduced in Sun/Moon, IIRC) . It's never been particularly hard to find your way in Pokemon. Listen to what NPC's say
(you're usually forced into dialogue of where you need to go anyway, you can rarely miss it) and just go where you haven't been yet. It's linear progression until the end with very few places to get lost, objective markers just aren't needed. At best they're a waste of time, at worst they just encourage players to blindly follow the markers rather than exploring what little there is to explore in a largely linear world.
Telling us whether moves are effective etc. I didn't like. It just removes the need for the player to learn the game mechanics. You could argue that against Pokemon you haven't seen before it helps know what moves do/don't work against them, but to that I counter with:
1) Just use trial and error, a method that's proven successful since 1998.
2) Use your brain. If the Pokemon is a fish, they're probably weak to thunder attacks.
Hyper training I didn't care about.
A lot of the things I dislike about Pokemon recently are additions that further remove the need for the player to engage with the mechanics and use their brain, holding their hand through the game to absolutely minimise the player ever failing. Basically, features that bring the game closer and closer to the game essentially playing itself as it will out right tell you where to go, what to do and what option would work best in any given situation
(sometimes to the point of FORCING you to used the optimal option). What's the point in playing a game at that point?