>>35577739>gen 1pretty accurate but you could nitpick a lot more common trends in gen 1 pokemon
>gen 2accurate. thats moreso how gen 2 is different from gen 1 than gen 2 as a whole though. a lot of gen 1 trends carry over to gen 2
>gen 3accurate
>gen 4the points listed are accurate, glad someone else noticed the arbitrary spikes. but for some reason the picture doesnt look like a gen 4 pokemon. yeah gen 4 made a lot of bulbous evolution but i dont think the gens average design is THAT round
>gen 5the points make sense when you think about it and the design isnt that far off but it could be better. i think its too round and not animal-like enough because really when you say gen 5 pokemon are humanlike, aside from a few like throh sawk and some legendaries, its more of "animals that have evolved to be sorta humanlike but not in an anthro furry way". i guess ill just say decently accurate
>gen 6accurate. i think it should list that gen 6 designs get more out there with the colors though. a lot of pokemon have more colors on them/complex gradients and i think this is mainly because of the switch from sprites to 3d. it really shows to me though and im surprised this person didnt pick up on that.
would love to see one updated for gen 7
