He is right in some basic ways but laughably wrong in more important things.
New designs have strayed from the monstrous designs of the first generation but mainly for the cute pokemon. New cute pokemon are for the most part designed to look like mascots rather than monsters that also happen to be cute, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all old pokemon were wilder or rougher.
Look at charmander. I never knew it had a spike on its back in gen 1 because I'm not a faggot and never picked it but despite of its supposed geewun wildness, most of its art show it as a cute and docile creature with soft edges, it almost never has a spike on its back now.
His GEEWUN scorbunny is pretty bad and looks like a neopet because he missed that part of the design philosophy of the original games included, intentionally or accidentally, some elements of character design.
Scorbunny is supposed to represent a sporty character that's always ready to improve itself or take on a new challenge, that's why it has fucking bandages on its body despite being a dumb wild animal. This shit is just a fuckin rabbit with a collar. At least give it the Dragon Ball eyes, it fits the character it's trying to portray.
It's not about whether the design is too simple or whether it's too complex, it's always going to be about making the concept of the pokemon work like these two
>>38272685Also, his point about nature sketch art is cute and all but it's irrelevant now that pokemon have desaturated 3D models. A more relevant idea would be that we need to put youtubers that still do skits on concentration camps, or that pokemon SHOULD NOT JUST BE FUCKING ANIMALS BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE MONSTERS MAKE THEM MONSTERS.
