>>35132107>someone criticizes the same three new gen designs and implies they're indicative of the declining quality of designs in general, while also referring to them only by their design basis instead of by name, as if to indicate it's the very concept of the design that's bad rather than the specific execution or aesthetic quality of the design>"you do know every gen has pokemon whose design concepts are similar to the ones you're criticizing and are guilty of the same flaws you claim make a design inherently bad, why is it only the newer pokemon you ever complain about">"OH I TOTALLY THINK LIVING MAGNETS AND RADIOACTIVE MOON JIZZ ARE SHITTY DESIGNS TOO, I JUST CONVENIENTLY FORGOT TO MENTION THEM UNTIL YOU REMINDED ME HOW HYPOCRITICAL I WAS BEING!"or
>"THOSE DESIGNS HAD CHARM AND PERSONALITY AND (INSERT MEANINGLESS NOSTALGIAFAG BUZZWORD HERE) AND ALSO THEY'RE OKAY BECAUSE THEY'RE BASED ON (INSERT TIRED CLICHE VIDEO GAME OR ANIME TROPE HERE) BUT THE NEW POKEMON ARE BASED ON (ORIGINAL CONCEPT THAT ISN'T OVERDONE IF IT EVEN EXITS IN OTHER MEDIA AT ALL) OR (MYTHOLOGY OR FOLKLORE I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT AND WILL PRETEND DOESN'T EXIST OR DOESN'T COUNT) AND THAT'S TOTALLY UNCREATIVE AND THEY'RE RUNNING OUT OF IDEAS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"People wouldn't respond that way if you said you thought the designs were ugly or poorly executed instead of saying Pokemon aren't allowed to be based on those things to begin with nigger.
