>>51186157Fantastic that, to make your point, you had to take out the "almost" from my claim: "pokemon were almost exclusively designed in/for 2D media"
The odd token 3D spinoff game or a handful of terrible CG cards don't really contradict the claim that pokemon were, again, almost exclusively designed in/for 2D media. And again, I'll refer to the original sugimori concept art, other promotional illustrations, game sprites, anime, cards, etc. All of these designs have their origins in 2D media, and that's not a value claim, that's just a descriptive fact.
>nothing in the designs of Pokemon has ever been about 2d. they are 3d animalsDo you understand anything about design or illustration? You're talking about "form." Of course 2D media like paint, ink, sprites, etc. take form into account. It doesn't mean these are somehow three-dimensional, it just means they're designed to give the illusion of depth and weight. We would never look at Saturn Devouring His Son and say, "wow, what an exceptional work of 3D art."
>they went on full blown complex designs ignoring how hard it'd be to make the toysYeah, you're right, they were designed with two dimensions in mind, and little thought was given to how they'd be ported over to 3D media.
>You're actually that down syndrome to believe you can make *designs for 2d*Yes, when you're working with 2D media like illustrations or sprites, you're making designs in/for 2D. This is just completely tautological.
If someone makes a 3D render of Guernica, does that mean Guernica was created as a piece of 3D media? It might show we CAN adapt Guernica to 3D media, but it remains that all the decisions in the creation of Guernica were made with 2D media (paint and canvas) in mind. I don't even see how you can argue against this basic premise.
So just bite this bullet, admit I'm right on this point, and keep going. You can admit this while still claiming, for all the reasons I've given, that models are better than sprites.
