>>28286825>>28286802I can't say what exactly makes something well-designed or poorly-designed because that is all subjective, like you've all said.
It was more to provide an example - that Pokemon can be ugly but also well-designed, and Pokemon can be ugly but also poorly-designed. I believe Megmar is poorly-designed, and ugly, but it's not poorly-designed because it's ugly, it's poorly-designed because of other factors. Does this make sense? I can't tell.
Making this post
>>28286730 was a mistake and I apologize for it. The point of the image wasn't to put forth my opinion but that post made it seem like it was.
Though, to defend my opinion: Kyurem is well-designed because it is designed as a gruesome, hideous outcast, a reject from society. It is cast aside and shunned, frozen in place and shit, I'm not actually well-versed in the lore. Its entire body looks mangled and the Pokemon is hunched over, with parts of its body completely frozen. It's obviously very uncomfortable and in pain, and very angry.
That's why I think it's a good design - it pulls off the hideous monstrosity thing very well and the trope of a beast that's been cast away and has a huge grudge against those who marred its visage, or something. Kinda like Doctor Doom.
I think Magmar is a bad design because nothing about it makes any sort of sense and it just doesn't work together. I honestly can't make heads or tails of the design. Barbaracle is more of the "good concept, horrible horrible execution". It would work a lot better if it didn't have such a fucked up head/face.
