>>39102737>Barely, but sure.If you can barely recognize that then you aren't qualified to judge designs.
>It is *just* a duck with plumage that resembles an inner tube.Since when were pokemon designs meant to have super deep origins? Squirtle's *just* a turtle with a swirly tail.
>it's simple, cartoony, and poorly drawnWho gives a shit? It's every bit as simple as Psyduck, hell - it's more complicated. If you're crying about simplified, cartoony designs in pokemon this is the wrong place for you, pal.
>it's not uglyYou've been complaining about its aesthetics for paragraphs.
>it's a poor referenceWhy? It's an awkward-looking duckling that grows into a swan. For something so offensively simple, you sure had a tough time grasping it.
>heart motifIt's cute and adds to the themes of youth. I'm waiting for that detailed analysis of why Psyduck's better. And since you failed to bring up Swanna, you're not allowed to bring up Golduck. Sorry, those are the rules.
>it's not ugly enoughFinally, something we agree on.
>my time is short,You've been posting ITT for about five hours now, my guy.
>I could go on and debunk every one of your pitiful repliesBut you won't, because you conveniently run out of time when you can't form arguments.
