>>58857581This is exactly the opinion I expect unsophisticated normies to have, it seems to be the opinion people have in this thread, and I'm sorry but it's just wrong.
Slapping key/concept art on a cover is NOT superior to the clean and simple design that mainline Pokemon covers have.
This
>>58855901 here might be a technically complex piece of art but that doesn't mean it's suitable to throw on a product that sits on a shelf or an advertisement. Even as a painting that would sit in a gallery it's not interesting just by virtue of being intricate or elaborate.
>>58857329 Then with something like this it seems like people have this ridiculous idea that more characters shoved into something = better. This is literally the same artist just with more characters. Doesn't make it better for a game cover or better as a piece of art.The whole reason Pokemon covers are good AND effective is because they are simple, clean, and they convey what the game is about. You're choosing ONE monster, ONE color to START. Sure you could shove every 151 Pokemon on that cover, you could shove an intricate story scene on the cover, but the cover is NOT THE GAME. It's merely the FIRST thing the player sees before they even play the game. It's a taste of the game to build interest and it's an association in the audiences mind. It conveys a mood and a feeling and a style. More brushstrokes, more characters, more stuff does not automatically convey it better.
In the world of art and design clean and simple usually is better across the board. Things don't become iconic by chance. Clean simple things become iconic because they have the power of association and mystery behind them. A lot of people have this nonsense idea that complexity in art is a virtue and it simply isn't.
