Sup guys, let's try to get a decent discussion going on about Pokemon designs, and let's all try to be open-minded.

I think we can all agree that Pokemon designs have gotten more and more complex over time. I don't mean that to be an insult, but compare Excadrill and Charizard. I like both of these Pokemon, but there's clear philosophical differences in designing these. Charizard is simple, he's basically just a standard western dragon that's orange. That's all there is to it. It fits the concept of a fire-breathing lizard that can fly. Look at Excadrill, on the other hand. What's with those red patterns on his stomach? What purpose does that fit for a steel-themed mole? It serves none, it's just needless complexity.

That's just one example, and I'm not saying that literally all Gen I Pokemon are that simple, nor am I saying that all Gen 5 Pokemon are that complex. I'm not even saying that simplicity and complexity are bad, because I like a lot of both "simple" and "complex" Pokemon. The point I'm making here, is that the Pokemon design philosophy, after Gen 2, has shifted towards more "complex" Pokemon.

Now, is this a bad thing? Are complex Pokemon inherently bad? Are simple Pokemon inherently good? I've always taken the subjective approach, eg "Oh well man it's just your opinion. you just think gen I had better looking Pokemon because you grew up with it, etc". I've been questioning that approach recently, wondering if designs can be objectively valued, and if so, how could we possibly do that?

tl;dr - Can Pokemon designs be valued objectively, and if so, by what standard?