>>37801688welp, scorbunny still looks like a knockoff torchic even in silhouette. part of why I like him I think, I liked the original, so of course I like the sequel.
Bulbasaur is a little too blocky to make out exactly what's goin on. But the back lump has the top of an onion bulb or dumpling. And the legs look like a pachyderms except it has claws. You might mistake the cat ear for a horn though. Or assumed it was some kind of absolute unit of a cat. It works well enough.
squirtle's tail is very confusing as to what it's supposed to be, and you'd never guess it has a shell. I'd probably suggest emphasizing the lip of it up near the back of the neck to make the rotund nature obviously a shell not just general chunkiness. Though it does have reptilian feet, as a slight clue. And unlike the other two genwun, gives no clue as to its element. Overall, kind of a failure.
However, charmander's art, by this metric is absolutely perfect. One look and you know everything about it just from silhouette. Upright baby dinosaur, tail on fire.
sobble tells absolutely nothing. I wouldn't even begin to know where to assign body parts on the sillhouette but that doesn't matter because even in full color nobody can figure out its family theme, and most argue about its species. Its name in every language suggests sadness, but its posture and motion give no clues thereof. Squirtle was mediocre but this is an absolute garbagefire. I don't "get" your idea but I should at least be able to know it by looking.
grookey based on tail and ear shape, as well as tripedal pose is either a cat, monkey, or squirrel. Too low to be horns, would be weird to be gastly eyes given the size of the rest of the body. Ears so low suggests probably monkey. Regardless of species, it clearly has a stick in its hair caveman hairbow style, or maybe the "hair" is leaves and there's just a branch balanced on its head? In any case, gets across monkey and relation to plants. overall about as good as bulbasaur.
