>>35382805>You're even twisting the definition of the term "analogue"I know I'm late to the discussion anyway, but I wanted to point out that you're the one confusing "analogue" with "rehash" as if they're the same thing.
Two things can be considered analogues as long as they have something minor common, even if it's just one single characteristic. This doesn't mean it's bad, it just means they are comparable. Superman as a character for example has many analogues, and many of them are loved and have well executed storylines.
Most of what you posted are analogues in some way or another, yet you seem to think that makes them inherently "uncreative". You seem to think that all analogues are rehashes, which is not true. Check out the definition of "rehash" here in the pic related.
For example, the last pic you posted compares Excadrill with Sandslash. While they can be considered analogues thanks to the stats, body shape, ability and the fact that they both transform into something (spike-ball and metal drill), nobody would argue that Excadrill isn't "significantly different" enough to not be considered a rehash.
You're basically comparing a spiky armadillo with a metal-drill mole and saying the second concept is a rehash of the first: yet Excadrill's idea couldn't be more original even if it tried.
A lot of the comparisons you pointed out are different enough either in design or in concept to avoid being "lazy rehashes".
They are still analogues, but there's nothing inherently wrong or uncreative about that.
Hell, the concept of an analogue itself has nothing to do with creativity.