>>42875586>evolution isn't a sentient, rational actor and the majority of mons have childlike intelligence at bestI know that, evolution isn't some force, otherwise the two examples I mentioned, Humans and Pandas, would be drastically different species than they were today (if they were still around at all in case of the Panda).
>but with that said I don't mean existing in a "100% naturally evolved" way, just well-proportioned and generally animal/object-like designs that you can mentally translate into meatspace without getting a headache like bobbleheads and shit that wears clothesThis is exactly what I had a problem with. There are plenty of Pokemon that could translate into real life and still function (a few examples being the Linoone line, bird lines with appropriately proportioned wings like Fearow or Braviary, legit most Fish Pokemon), but what does that say about the design? Likewise, there are a monumental amount of Pokemon that couldn't but that DOESN'T make them bad designs. And then the line gets blurred, as in, what's STOPPING Hitmonchan from having a problem existing exactly? It has proper proportions for what it is, has means of getting food, viable predator and prey, possible habitats, etc. but I would be loathe to call it a good design. Likewise, I fucking love Oddish, Gloom, and Vileplume, but they wouldn't work in nature because their noodle limbs would literally not be able to support its large body.
Autistic rant over, tl;dr is: What exactly quantifies viable means of existing or not? And do those criteria make them good designs?
