>>32290046>>32290094So let me get this straight.
>Lurantis>Has preying mantis features despite lacking the posture or a distinctly insectoid thorax or abdomen>Totally just a cartoon mantis>Scyther>Has praying mantis features up to and including a clearly insectoid body frame>Doesn't look *exactly* like a praying mantis>TOTALLY ORIGINAL CREATUREGood job. I actually fell for that. Enjoy your (you).
>>32290084And going after Trumbeak is just lazy. Even the Pidgey line looked like generic-ass birds. Hell, the only early route bird Pokemon that *doesn't* suffer from that is Hoothoot since it had that metronome subtheme going on. All the others? *They're literally just fuckin' BIRDS*
And I also notice that we're ignoring such things as Skrelp, Minior, and Ralts, or even things like Vikavolt, which, based on earlier logic would count since despite being based on a stag beetle, has basically a railgun for mandibles and goddamn jet wings, Kriketune, which while insectoid resembles a cello more than any actual insect, or Excadrill, which despite being a mole can turn itself *into a fucking drill*.
One could also point out that in addition to Pidgey, Rattata is basically a rat with a purple tail, Sandslash is just a pangolin with a shorter tail, and Caterpie? Why don't you google the Swallowtail Caterpillar.
I'm not saying there aren't some lazy ass designs in later generations, but my point has always been that Pokemon, from day one, has mixed more traditional animal designs with some that are more out there. Later gens have had their hits and misses, but the overall design philosophy hasn't changed as drastically as people seem to want to believe. It's definitely different and there is a distinct... wonder, we'll call it, to Gen 1's design philosphy because, as
>>32284601 put it, Gen 1 is what defined what a Pokemon *is*. It's the base against which everything that came after was inevitably going to be compared to.
