>>29135780A Pokemon doesn't need to fit those requirements to be a good design, like pic related. But there is a very big difference between CONCEPT and EXECUTION.
It's not a case of not getting the basis of the design. It's the design, visually, looking like shit. I don't give a shit that Vvanilluxe is so innovative and clever because it's an icicle that pretends to be an ice cream cone, I think it's a poor design because it looks bad.
There are very few cases in which a poor execution is made up for by its concept - Voltorb is the one that immediately comes to mind. It looks like shit, but it does have a legitimate reason for doing so, being the generic RPG mimic. Whether that excuses its poor execution is up to you, but it has a genuine reason to look like that, whether you like it or not.
>>29135854Reuniclus.
Translucent is the word I should have used.
What do patterns have to do with anything?
>>29135966There's nothing wrong with goofymons. And Pokemon can be ugly without being poorly-designed - Venusaur is ugly, but not poorly-designed. Magmar is both ugly and poorly-designed.
