>>52744923>Define "old artstyle".Gen 1 obviously, and Gen 2. Each gen (used to) have their own art style, but it didn't stray too far from the originals. Gen 2 compliments and is the closest to the original Gen 1 art style, and though it has a few things such as favoring more sleek designs or cuter ones, it still meshes perfectly with Gen 1. You'll notice many things which help make this art style cohesive such as the anatomy, proportions, design elements which repeat (toriyama eyes as an easy example), and how Pokemon are designed.
Gen 3 departs a bit from the older visual style, but still stays close enough where older Pokemon don't appear out of place. This trend continues, a gradual departure but still remaining in "it's a Pokemon" territory, though this can be debatable.
Gen 7, 8, and 9 though are intentionally done to be counter to this though. They intentionally avoid design element repetition (every eye looks different), every mon looks like it's from a different series. And when Gen 1 Pokemon are placed side by side with nu Pokemon, they don't look like they belong at all. Put Arcanine next to any of the Gen 9 dogs and ask someone who wouldn't know if these two creatures were from the same series or not.
>so are we going to defend shit like Lickilicky?We are talking about the gens as a whole, so regardless of my thoughts on Gen 4 this is a moot point.
>And are you really going to sit there and call Raticate visually appealing? This thing.It has a nice look. The fur looks great, the color scheme and anatomy is nice, what exactly is wrong with it? It's not "pretty", it's a rough looking nutria, but it conveys that in a pleasing manner.
Raticate doesn't detract from the Pokemon world with its existence like many new Pokemon do, where most are designed to be wacky over the top jokes.
