>>32749748>so why don't we just have evey pokemon be a different type of anthropomorphized shit? we can have diarrhoeamon, rabbit pellet mon, big fat log monStrawman fallacy. Drop that shit.
>>32749771>No, you're not following because you're simply unable toNo, I clearly get what you're saying. I'm saying it's just not as much of an issue - it's normal at this point to have a group of overly powered Pokémon that also are not banned in tournaments. I'm also saying there are worse offenders, like many Pokémon not having a movepool that go along with their stats.
>Dropping the series = not playing it at all. Dropping the series, as it is now, is also dropping it. You don't have to drop something "entirely".
>criticize the new games objectively>objectivelylel your criticism isn't objective, get over yourself.
>Newsflash nostalgia doesn't have to be involved in order to appreciate how good a game is, retard.In your case that's clearly how it goes. You do not view the strengths of the new games as they are, you only do so by comparing them with the older games. Nostalgiafag.
>>32749786>but Pokémon isn't marketed to children exclusively and hasn't been for years, everyone knows this.Surprise surprise, Pokémon may not be marketed to children exclusively... but mainly, it is. Besides, the YW thing was an example.
>Art is subjective but not when you're trying to sell itYou don't know what art is. It is subjective to the eyes of the beholder. Older people like the older drawings of Pokémon (i.e. old Sugimori style) because it reminds us of old fantasy books; the newer drawings are marketed to children because cutesy and over-the-top designs are what sells.
