>>54509570When a 2D sprite makes a clunky move, it's less jarring than when a 3D model makes a clunky move because the 3D model looks like it SHOULD be able to move fluidly while the 2D sprite is less flexible by default. When a 2D sprite "moves" it's quickly displaying a set of a dozen or so frames where the pixels are in slightly different locations, giving the impression of movement. When a 3D model moves, the model itself is moving and the game displays its position by changing the color value of the pixels that represent that model. In the case of good models, this results in fluid animation and intuitive positioning of the limbs to perform actions. In the case of pokemon and their low-effort modeling, this results in 3D models not moving correctly and creating a jarring effect that pulls you out of the game. There are a ton of examples of this available if you google "bad pokemon animation", but it becomes more and more of a problem as pokemon games go on more sophisticated platforms, because nothing about pokemon combat animation has changed since the days of Pokémon Stadium.
It also doesn't help that the colors are more washed out in 3D and the neutral position of the models looks much less exciting than the poses struck by most sprites. That's not a 2D vs 3D issue, that's a Gamefreak issue. If the pokemon games were made to look good rather than being made to cost as little as they can get away with, then we wouldn't be arguing. Unfortunately, the whole point of the 3D modeling is to reduce the amount of work required to add pokemon into a new game, since they can just import the same models and have the new game render them.
