>>41492300Sometimes I rate things highly not because they appeal to me personally, but because I feel like I can't deny that thought and effort went into them *for what they are.* If I long wanted a wolf pokemon, I think I'd be satisfied with Rockruff line, so I felt like it earned a 5/5 on a scale of "wolf pokemon," if that makes sense.
And while Unova rehashed a ton of old concepts, I feel like it did so fairly drastically (i.e. Excadrill is an entirely different idea in almost every way from Dugtrio, despite the same animal basis), and added a bunch of radically new creature concepts at the same time like a haunted coffin, a psychic embryo, a lot of weird experimental stuff.
To me the ideal Pokemon gen is an even mix of radically new and "classic" concepts, and I feel happy if there's even like 5 pokemon designs I can add to my top favorites. If a gen has a mix of things I love, feel neutral on, and don't like at all then I know it has a strong variety and a little something for everybody and would have to call it a win all around. If a gen was JUST shit I'm known for liking, like it was 100 poisonous bugs, I think I'd be pretty disappointed by it and those things I like wouldn't even feel special.
