>>37860329>>37860109You are not wrong at all and why the
>digimon!criticism was so used back then but slowly started to die.
You say gen5, but im no fool and can tell from even gen2 the consistency of pokemon design stated being shattered. New form of eyes, mouths, noses, ears and tails appeared and bit by bit, the line of what makes a pokemon a "pokemon" started to blur, from gen2 dot eyes, to gen3 weird markings, to gen4 overdesigns, to gen5 cartoony look, to gen6 megas, all of which all culminated on gen7, where the creators ACTIVELY tried to make something not look like a pokemon, breaking all form of rules, which is why i find it silly when nowaydays someone tries to throw the criticism of "it doesn look like a pokemon" at a random fakemon, when the "pokemon look" has long become either inconsistent as fuck or virtually non-existent.
Now before you call me a genwunner, i dont hate all of new gen mons, in fact a lot of them ae my favorites, but its annoying that some people still deny that overtime the philosophy behind the designs presented on gen1 were lost, either intentionally or not, and ty to paint that "all gens are al the same and the designs always were the same through all the games". They are not.
