>>39029942Ok I actually like that Grookey a little more, but
1. That's a comparison of a new Pokemon with, not an old design, but somebody's speculation, so it doesn't indicate any design change.
2. In the post I was responding to I indicated that Meowth's proportions and features were just as if not more unrealistic than Scorbunny, so the design isn't all that different in that example
3. The design "principles" evident in gen 1 pokemon are actually common design elements. Although it's kind of interesting that many pokemon lines (Rhyhorn, Nidoran, Squirtle, Kangaskhan, Charmander, Lapras, Bulbasaur, etc) look related biologically, their having the same face and eyes restricts the roster of discrete personalities in gen 1. Certainly it would be absurd to make more of these kinds of animals. A priori the aesthetic was not an approach that can now be applied to new designs because usually that voids their individuality. In fact the repetition of design features creates the appearance of a bygone style that would clash with newer styles if newer styles were actually possible to determine. In fact they aren't, though people insist; newer games had a lot of design variety -- every pokemon has, by design, a different pair of eyes. So I agree that the designs are on the whole different, but because of less designs being similar, which is good.
