>>36646746Half-agree. I like a great deal of post-gen 2 mons and I don't believe gen 1 mons have some intrinsic quality that makes them better than newer additions, or that the series wouldn't have been so popular if kids back then had Treecko/Torchic/Mudkip instead of Bulbasaur/Charmander/Squirtle. BUT turning the games into a massive franchise with seven sets of Pokemon in one game was a mistake. The "gotta catch em all" mentality is on death's door, and who can blame modern players for not wanting to do that? When gen 8 rolls around next year we'll be in the neighborhood of 900 Pokemon, who wants to do all that shit with all the trading, breeding, and events involved? The cry of "overdesigned" has been mocked to death here and everywhere, but while it doesn't detract from most of the mons the label is slapped on as individual designs, it does speak to the fact that the artstyle has changed over the past 20 years and "Pokemon" is no longer a homogeneous group. You're absolutely right that newer gens no longer complement the first, there are 6-7 sets of designs lumped into one game. Even the gameplay suffers from this, because devs have to cram as many mons as possible into one set of games and balance around all these threats for multiplayer.
