>>51418017What does that matter when we know knowing of the hide of those Pokémon? Consider that Pokémon don't wear clothing and instead what you see is their natural hide. But this is another instance of anthropomorphism rearing it's head, humans have five million hair follicles on average, the same as every other primate. On average human body hair is shorter and finer, if it wasn't we would probably look more like chewbacca but the fact is that humans are also covered in short, fine hair instead of the longer hair found in other primates. Even if they're bipedal their proportions are different, their limbs are different and even in comparison to stylized humans they're still very distinct and their proportions aren't exactly specifically human-like. The sawk example has proportions of a long armed ape more than specific human proportions. In reality bipedalism is more or less the only big thing they have in common with humans. Their faces? Non-human, their proportions? Bipedal but distinct. Their limbs? Less human-like than actual primates.
In many ways real life primates are more "human-like" than they are, or more accurately humans are primates that share the planet with other primates. This is why in our human-centric narratives such that of the English sailor or Hanno the Navigator there's an emphasize on how human, to the point that they get confused for humans, other primates are.
So to me the so-called "humanoids" are okay because none of them look human, we have other animals in the real world that could be argued to be more "human-like", or more accurately primate like than they are. In my opinion fantasy animals like Pokémon are in a pretty good range, there's no cosplay tier designs like the ones from Digimon. The only real issue would be species being more like characters but I think this gives Pokémon uniqueness.
