Quoted By:
I like Kingler and Crabrawler though. I don't see the point of comparing two designs made 20 years apart, probably by different designers. Plus apart from maybe gen VI where there's so few of them, for every gen you can compare Pokémon and get an idea of a general aesthetic, often related to that region. Gen III is tropical colours, gen IV is cold hues, gen V is colourful. I really like gen I but the aesthetic for it *is* animals with mild elements separating them from real life animals and fantasy creatures i.e Seel having a horn when it's not explicitly a narwhal, i.e they drawn elements from more than one thing. Maybe that's just a thing now, combining type with design basis and designing it accordingly i.e claws = boxing gloves so Fighting typing makes sense. Whereas gen I has more natural types for the design basis which is why there's so many Normal, Water and Poison. In gen I they didn't have to worry about differentiating Kingler from other crab Pokémon. So yeah, what am I saying is, you can't say a new Pokémon doesn't look like a Pokémon because as canon Pokémon, they literally are by definition. Who's to say new mons have to conform to the gen I aesthetic of natural colours, angry eyes and simple design basises? We've deviated from that now. Simple or detailed doesn't mean better or worse. Also worth noting gen I mons had to fit within a small sprite so details might have been omitted.
