>>37892678I don’t think so, when it comes to something like artistic design of monsters where whether or not the design is considered good is subjective experience, the more designs the more of a chance Gamefreak will hit on something someone likes.
But if we’re goig to pretend that anyone’s individual personal tastes can be an authority here - we have already seen that the “quantity inherently means less quality” idea is wrong when it comes to Gamefreak.
>gen 1151 mons introduced, dex is well loved
>gen 2100 mons introduced, dex less loved but still highly regarded
>gen 3Introduced 135, dex is highly regarded
>gen 4107, dex is not so loved
>gen 5156, dex is hated by some, loved by others. Best description would be a lot of people’s least favorite mons are here, but a lot of people’s favorite mons are also here. People began disliking starters here.
>Gen 672, dex is also divisive, it seems most people have a poor opinion of it but others like almost all the new designs - even fans tend to say the game didn’t feel like it had enough new mons
>Gen 780 new Pokémon, not counting form changes or re-skins. Regional designs are a great concept but shouldn’t be counted as new mons, while the design is new the feeling of discovering an Alola Meowth is NOT the feeling of discovering a new mon. A lot of the 80 introduced are legendaries, and a big problem with the Gen 7 dex is for many great pre-evos are ruined by bad evolutions, adding a feeling of disappointment and restriction in team building no other gen matches (gen 4 may come close for some). Biggest problem is disappointment in all the starters right out of the gate.
There’s only one game where people hated it and it added a ton of Pokémon, the more consistent “pattern” is the less Pokémon, the more people hated the game.
