>>13012795I will refute your arguments specifically.
>the distinction between these and Gen V is that they are...vague ideas for Pokemon, they're supposed to be strange.>But that pales in comparison to very specific weirdnessWhy? You're stating something without explaining it here. Something like Klink is really no more "specifically weird" than Magnemite, and likewise Garbodor is sensible. Maybe it's a Grimer in a rubber bladder, maybe the toxicity of the trash grew bacteria, it's no more farfetched than Grimer, Corsola, Electrode or any other earlier generation Pokemon. Arguing that "it's just a trashbag" isn't really any argument at all when Grimer is "just sludge". If you like the design better, that's possible and fine, but don't claim that a design is objectively better because you think garbage is more specific than sludge (even though sludge could be anything greasy and opaque and fluid and garbage could be literally anything slimy and lumpy in a garbage-bag covering).
A poltergeist is a sensible design for a Pokemon, as far as being a "vague idea" is concerned. Arguing that it looks like a "reject" from other media shows that you're grasping at straws, especially since you drew no similarities between Rotom and the compared media (hurr durr Pokemon and Digimon are both monsters)
>My least favorite types of Pokémon are the kinds that don't even look like sentient beings (I don't mean ones that don't look like living things like Voltorb/Magnemite/Unown, I mean ones that don't look downright soulless)>Like those weird ice/steel/nonorganic material types...with no eyes or anythingBesides saying that they "look soulless" you're really not making an argument here. You're just saying that you think it was okay before for Pokemon to be inorganic but now it's not. Cryogonal has more of a face than Magnemite, for example, so why should he be "soulless" while Magnemite isn't?
Your argument is "I think the old ones are better so they are."
