>>38818079It's not hard to understand because I'm an artist myself.
Drednaw's skin is actually more desaturated than Squirtle's, at least the base color, for one. For another, there's plenty of official art of squirtle with more saturation.
Further, The difference in saturation we're talking about here is literally like, a sixth of the total possible range of saturation. If that much makes or breaks whether or not you think a design is "shit", you're too uptight to have your opinion taken seriously.
You also have to remember that, like it or not, the primary audience for Pokemon is children. Vivid colors are more often enjoyed not just by them, but many adults, too. If anything though, the colors on Drednaw are still less than half full saturation.
Personally, I wouldn't use these colors on Drednaw if it were my design choice. But I guarantee you the marketing side of GF decided that colors needed to be brighter a long time ago. Keep in mind that Pokemon are not designed for you or me -- they are designed to have a balance between specific and generic, where some shapes are simplified while others are detailed, depending on the Pokemon. It's why Squirtle is actually made of simpler shapes overall than Drednaw, but I guarantee you genwunners won't compare these two mons to try to "prove their point", because it proves that their point is flimsy, inconsistent, and only applicable in a few cases. And even then, not everyone enjoys the same takes on shit. Compare Honchkrow and Corviknight. Honchkrow is a lot more simplified yet cartoony/exaggerated than Corviknight, when supposedly nu-gen Pokemon are all basic shapes and gimmicks. Same with Mareep vs Wooloo. Mareep is a sheep with cartoony features and tacked on characteristics, while Wooloo is a semi-cartoon goat with a more realistic color scheme and features, such as its eyes.
My point isn't that any of these are superior to another. My point is, style is a thing and apparently you're just an elitist.
