>>53018070>exceptions don't disprove tendenciesBlaziken was the literal tipping point though. Sugimori even outright said it was designed to push boundaries. This is essentially word of god versus the word of some faceless rando on a taiwanese quilt-knitting forum
>the overreliance on new forms of older pokemon is objective proof that they thought those new forms of old pokemon would work and sell betterNot really, given most megas were never pushed as hard as the ones given to ALREADY POPULAR Pokemon, and by far the most popular and pushed design to come out of the gen was an entirely new one. Megas were common because it was the new flashy gimmick and the work of implementing them was equivalent to making an entirely new mon anyways, on TOP of needing to translate every existing mon up to that point to 3D. It makes sense why Kalos had the smallest list of new mons of any dex when looking at the context-none of which involved them seemingly lacking faith in their marketability
>I don't have the time now, but in general newer designs simply MUST have a goofy element somehow incorporatedEven if you did have time you wouldn't be able to prove shit because this entire topic of discussion is so opinionated. Something goofy to you might be something cool to another, something ugly to you might be cute to another, etc.
>fair, but this was due to introducing babies.Even disregarding babies (which I'm not, because they're new Pokemon like it or not), There was a massive uptick in bobble-headed, round, or generally cutesy mons with simple noodle anatomy. Aipom, Wooper line, Hitmontop, Togepi line, Ledyba line, Gligar, Dunsparce, Hoppip line, Marill line, etc. etc.
>While I'd say they're just exceptions and it's more common now, they aren't even exceptions because they were made in a way where they improved the designs' coolnessmore opinionated garbage that's impossible to quantify, bravo
>z-z-zoomer!!@211We're done here, faggot
