>>40745593>if we need evidence, then we have to define what a Pokemon design isexactly, you are agreeing with me. I don't agree that they don't "FEEL" like pokemon because that's too subjective to define. My argument was that pointing out that it has been repeated time and time again is not the correct way to invalidate it. If you want to make a strawman, do it in a field, you midwit.
>>40745509The person who is in support of the argument that it doesn't "feel" like pokemon would have to build evidence such as what the criteria of what pokemon should look/feel like, and why most of the new ones don't follow such a criteria. The opposing viewpoint could just use the critieria against the argument, pointing out its blatant subjectivity and whatnot.
