>>39233022every time I see this I have new things to say
>ambiguousAmbiguous means "unclear as to interpretation". Every single Pokemon on the right makes at least three references to an animal, phenomenon, or character. They are cartoons: simplified versions of things that intensify their characterisations. So, Machop is quite clearly a bodybuilder with reptilian features. It exemplifies the fighting type, and its reptilian features do not deliberately describe any living species. I must credit the designer's naivety in crafting something that would fight while drawing occasionally from nature to support that character, but the character isn't especially "ambiguous" for it. Like many Kanto designs Machop's is unaffected.
>hybridThis is a cipher for "ambiguous" when use of that word is tenuous. To demonstrate ambiguity the hybridised components are specified; conversely, "ambiguous" is indicated where an origin is not known, ignorance that is the gist of this contrasting image. Marshadow for example is a personified shadowboxer based on a Nightmarcher and Menehune person. If you wanted you could identify ten more genuine inspirations that aren't made too obvious by a design that is very clear on character.
>monsterScyther, Tentacool, Slowbro, and Abra are other good examples of the Pokemon as a manticore of congruent elements in support of a solid character rendered foremost. I feel this applies to newer Pokemon that nonetheless are more describable as animals than monsters. Although I find this image's reductive reasoning and cherrypicking to be a little frustrating, I can't refute the naivety of Gen 1 designs as being hugely appealing. I also accept that Fennekin having a big head cannot be explained as distinguishing it from Eevee, because Zorua has a big head too. On the other hand, in many cases naivety serves no good, particularly the evolutions of many Kanto Pokemon that gain a head or two, or just get bigger/angrier.
