>>32895506I actually like all of these except:
>Tsareena lineI get the idea, long leg pokemon = grasshopper, fine, but you literally cannot get a proper idea on what the actual pokemon looks like without knowing it beforehand just by looking at this representation of it, which is bad; if you show this purple grasshopper to a normie they'll 100% of the time say that it is a grasshopper pokemon, not a fruit pokemon. I'm not entirely sure if bounsweet and steenee are supposed to be 2 different cocoon stages or actual, unrelated species of fruit altogether.
>BuzzwoleWhy turn what is very obviously a mosquito into a mole cricket or a mantis? the artist could have literally just made a species of giant tropical mosquito that has such a bulbous exoskeleton that it looks buff. Misses the point.
>CelesteelaIt is pretty obvious that the artist's idea is to animalize all the pokemon and I can respect this goal, but for celesteela this just doesn't work unless you turn it into a very weird kind of giant, bagworm-looking mecha-insect. Xurkitree is represented for what it is, a weird tree, but celesteela just couldn't be kept as a sentient rocket, nope. This also applies for magearna, in a way.
>Guzzlord and NecrozmaThese two are where you can see how the artist is struggling to animalize designs that are clearly not supposed to mesh well with real life creatures: in guzzlord's case, the only actual animal that doesn't look out of place to represent it is an anglerfish: the tiny details like the wings, second pair of arms and crown-like head can all be easily worked into things that an anglerfish would have. But they chose a crocodile-like reptile, included bat wings and small arms in the head that make no biological sense, and moved on. Makes me wonder why they could do this here and not for tsareena or celesteela.
Necrozma here looks like no animal I have knowledge of. Reminds me more of those humanoid bats from the future in primal than any actual animal that exists.
