>>45440417>Why would you not appreciate a pokemon’s design to catch and battle with them?Because it's good and reliable
>Do you think pokemon would be better if they were all the same white blob with no discernible features?No? I never implied that. Still, many of them kinda look like that
>>45440447>So why, exactly, is it Charizard that got all the attention? Because fire element is the one that seems most powerful.
Pokemon preference is only 50% about design, experience and utility and/or story play a huge role in selection for those who actually play the game or watch the series.
Again, if design is the main factor that determines the quality of a pokemon and not one of many, why was Charizard never surpassed by the more imposing looking dragons that were made later on?
Could it be that these creatures simply didn't get an equally good plot in the anime or didn't serve the players equally well?
