>>18527451Gen I has more generic mons because it's on a simpler system and the mons were designe to be 151, not more. Yeah, there's seel, Dewgong and a bunch of others, and they are pretty simple creatures, but there's nothing bad about them.
Charizard, Dragonair or Gyarados are basically staple Dragons, but they are still well designed and look unique. You cannot mix a generic Dragon from TLOTR with a Dragonite, or a Charizard. They have their things.
Yeah, Squirtle is just a blue turtle, and it still has an unique design. And I can go on with Weedle, Raticate, Muk, Ditto, Digglet, Onix, Golem, Zubat and all those mons. They are all simple, and that's what made pokemon the success it is.
Pokemon had the level of success it had in the 90s because for the most part, they are cartoon-like little creatures with simple but unique designs. If Gen III had been the first Gen, there'd be no Pokemon today. And the sales number of those game just go to prove it. The designs really threw away a lot of Gen I and II players.
I myself haven't finished a gen III game even though I have Ruby since 2004. The designs are bad, the music is bad, and the overworld looks a lot uglier than the much simpler gen II, which, btw, still has tons of features that Gen III lacks.
