>>24562982While I will agree later designs were more complex, that was out of necessity, because otherwise they'd look same-y.
Even if this is ebin, I'm sure there are people who feel this way even to a slight degree, so I'll actually talk about something important:
How a design looks or feels is subjective. It's agreed-upon by some groups, just as there are those that believe Gen V had only garbo designs, that every gen has shitty Pokemon and well-designed Pokemon.
But that's not the point. It's that, again, which Pokemon a person thinks looks "good" is subjective. "But anon I mean the designs look bad!"
The ice cream cone which is actually an icicle that snow formed on? The trash Pokemon? Not only that but you need to consider that Pokemon developed based on their environment. Would you not expect the fucking New York-based region to have a Pokemon made out of garbage? If you mean the designs don't make sense, which is what I think some people mean, then there you go.
If you mean they're badly-designed, then please, enlighten me on how Pokeball, upside-down Pokeball, slime puddle, or larger slime puddle are so great in their simplicity. How about the blob of goo? Those were great designs, right? Completely inspired and original :^) Just like the rounded cylinder shape that sticks out of the ground and has eyes and a nose. Oh yeah and lest we forget "Eye-magnet" or "Eye-magnet x 3".
What is the criteria for "atrocious designs", and why don't people harp on every generation for having those designs? You could deconstruct Pokemon from any generation and insult them and say they have bad designs. It's easy.
