>>37866167>pokemons are usually based on animals, myths or a concept.and every other gen besides gen 5 has managed to do just that without making their designs be cringe worthy and juvenile
>are the quickest to judge without any knowledge (remind you of someone ?)i'm well aware of all of your coping lore you use to defend shit tier designs
>its okay for the literal ice cream with the silly face and a straw sticking out of it to exist because its based on an icicle!cringe, are you 8 years old?
>SO, yes, to avoid kids disliking the games, designs have to seem simple / juvenilethey quite literally don't though. that hasn't been the case for any gen besides gen 5 which drops the ball completely and throws wacky faces on everything, fails at anatomy completely and is filled to the brim with shit ideas and shit designs in general
>in both cases, what are you even doing here ?enjoying every game in the series that isn't from the disaster that is gen 5.
what are you doing here? seething about the new games for the past 10 (TEN lmao) years, and will no doubt throw a tantrum when sword and shield follow the trend that pokemon has been going in since they're widely loved by everybody except the trannies on this safespace board?
come on now lmao
>>37866191wew lad, i didn't say gen 1 was the pinnacle of difficulty as far as pokemon games go (which are never hard anyway)
USUM holds that crown
