>>29628626I don't think Wynaut is as bad.
It has the cute card going for it, and one could say that its legs are simplified and not indicative of actual anatomy. Many baby Pokémon have stubby limbs like that.
Magmar is bad because even taking stylization into account the anatomy still doesn't make sense. There's also the inconsistency of the design - parts of it are very simple, while other parts look complex. It looks like a mashup of two completely different Pokémon. I wanted to use Magmar as an example because it's on the extreme end of bad and it's very easy to see why.
Here's an example of a Pokémon that doesn't have that inconsistency problem. Tyranitar is a fan favorite for very good reasons, it's an objectively good design. Drop any bias you have about it being "generic" or too closely based off of something else - that's irrelevant. We're looking at the execution of the design, which is objectively good. We can see that its body looks like it's made of a hard carapace-like material. The entire design is consistently complex - compare Tyranitar's limbs to Magmar's. We can actually see how it would walk. The color scheme of green and blue works well and is very appealing to the eye.
No, I'm not saying that Magmar should look like a red Tyranitar. And I don't think Magmar should look like literally my mom's animal, either. I'm saying that Magmar should have consistency. And the entire point of this thread is, again, you can like something and acknowledge its flaws.
Lastly:
>OP, stop using the word objectively! It's not true, designs aren't objectively good or bad! If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need for a board like
>>>/ic/, because EVERYONE would be a good artist. Yes, designs are subjective, but they're not 100% subjective. Character design is a pretty complex thing. Liking something doesn't mean it stops being a bad design. We've already got people crawling out of the woodwork to defend Alola Persian.
