>>47798063it's a bit hard to elaborate on since i'm currently running on 4 hours of sleep and 5 sodas, but here's a bulletpoint list of what I generally consider good design in terms of pokemon
>good execution (right balance of subtlety and unique features, a good example of this would be Tyranitar imo since it retains its obvious godzilla inspirations while also putting a unique twist on them that helps it stand out and look great)>looks like a genuine living creature that could feasibly be found in the wild and/or looks like something that could've naturally evolved into its current form (the primary cause of my hatred for jobmons, how the fuck does being a soccer player help a rabbit survive out in the wilderness??)>passable enough appearance (this isn't a huge factor for me, but a mon has to at least look appealing to the eye to avoid my shitlist. mons like eternatus or electrode just look unappealing, and their unappealing features don't help perpetuate their concepts in any way shape or form so they lose lots of points in my book, whereas pokemon like weezing or grimmsnarl are fine since their ugly features are parts of their concepts and sometimes the whole point of their designs)>clever/unique concept (not a huge factor either but if the design has a clever concept behind it i'm more inclined to like it at first glance)>if it's inspired by a manmade object, it shouldn't just be the object with a smiley face on it (if stonjourner didn't exist this point would not have to be made, also beldum is the best objectmon and I will fight anyone who objects)>it has that one "spark" that makes it feel like a pokemon (this is barely a point and really something to be taken with a grain of salt, but I have a masuda mindset when it comes to this; by which I mean I have a soft spot for pokemon who really exemplify the series' monster design. it's really more of a know-it-when-you-see-it kind of thing, so not much of a serious argument.) 