>>46865365>imagine using "cancerous" as an insult. just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it has no appeal."Cancerous" is an insult because it describes something that has association with something else, and it eats away and degrades the quality of it. Pikachu does exactly that, it has only harmed the franchise, and done nothing good for it.
>by this logic should Slime not be the DQ mascot?It shouldn't be, no. If anything represents Dragon Quest it should be the main characters of whatever game or other iteration of the series that they pertain to. Though the Slime isn't nearly as bad in this case because Pikachu is just another assorted pokemon out of the near 900 out there, it isn't special or endearing.
>and the game allows you to catch those, you are not forced to use those "shillmons" if you don't want to, just box them.The franchise doesn't relay that, you're given absolutely no indication pokemon like Gorebyss, Carnivine, Hariyama, Magcargo and Basculin exist outside of the games because Gamefreak is too busy shilling Pikachu, Charizard and Lucario. If the marketing doesn't reflect the game then that's a failure on Gamefreak's part.
>you know absolutely nothing about marketing, should Mario or Mickey Mouse cease being mascots because one anon doesn't like the concept of a franchise mascot?Mario shouldn't be the "mascot" for Nintendo, and shouldn't be anything other than the main character of his own series. Same with Mickey Mouse (not that I care about western media though). Mascots are bland, derivative and regressive concept and if you're defending them because the current status-quo is that they're recognisable and make more money from retards, then you're putting profit before quality and entertainment.
