What wrong with these 72 Pokémon?

>>28251578
Objectively/subjectively nothing at all

Nothing other than some wrong typings, and that there are only72

>>28251578
Not too much but the games didn't really do a good job of making people like them

the Pokemon designs themselves were not the problem with xy.

>>28251578
I just realized gen 7 had lots really good pokemon. The only ones I dislike ate chesnaught and diggersby.

>>28251578
Braixen still exists, but other than that, they're pretty good.

>>28251578
Furbait there in the middle is the only one I really have a problem with

At least its evolution is cool

>>28251578
Chesnaught.

The other 71 are fine.

they inhabit a region populated by scrub npcs

They look good considering the blunder Gen V was, gen VI also did the new Lucario right, people loves Greninja.

Still can't fix ice types.

>>28251603
>the games didn't really do a good job of making people like them

But Greninja is the most popular Pokemon in nearly a decade. That sounds like a big success. Actually, most of the Dex is great, and even today I am still surprised people slept on some great ones like Tyrantrum. I genuinely expected him to become super popular even among oldfags, but people hardly ever bring him up.

>>28251578
Nothing

>>28251578
Theres a few duds, but overall the best batch of mons since gen 3.
Quality>Quantity

>>28251578
besides the fact there are only 72, nothing

>>28251578
>Only 72 of them
That's the problem.

>>28251578
Only 72 of them.
Too few new pokemon to make each other shine. Pokemon are a complimentary thing and there's just too few to compliment each other.

>>28251578
>Only 72 means some types only got one or a couple new mons
>Carbink doesn't evolve into Diancie
>Hoopa
>flesh bows

Nothing.

>>28251578
>Heliolisk gets its energy from the sun
>is actively hurt by harsh sunlight in 2 of its 3 Abilities
>can't learn fucking Solarbeam
>or Morning Sun
Also:
>Noivern is a sub-standard Crobat that's only available on Victory Road

>>28251578
Most of them are fine, if only they didn't fuck up the starters final evolution.

Seriously, what's with gamefreak and bad fullly envolved starters design in recent gens? They make so many good designs for common pokemon, but yet manage to fuck up the starters final forms.

>>28252432
>Seriously, what's with gamefreak and bad fullly envolved starters design in recent gens? They make so many good designs for common pokemon, but yet manage to fuck up the starters final forms.

Since that's a very subjective topic, you're never going to get a real answer.

>>28252432
Well, there's two reasons for why things are divisive. The first is that starters are a pokemon everyone gets. Everyone has higher standards for them, and since they're the first you see, people also have different expectations for what they'll be.

Compound this with the fact that they've made more statements recently saying that they're trying to make final evos for starters more of a 'surprise', and you get what we've had lately, less stuff like earlier starter lines where they mostly just increased in size but stayed roughly the same, and more last minute twists of concept.

A fire fox mage or ninja frog would have gone over just fine if they were random other mons, but the fact that people were expecting their cute fox starter to become Kyubimon or their bubbly frog to fly around on a cloud of them meant disappointment was inevitable.

Whether you think breaking such expectations is good or bad doesn't matter, as much as it leads to starters being heavily divisive.

Personally, I've had one final evo in the last three sets that I've still liked, so they're at least doing something right. I think the main thing they need to focus on is what draws somebody to the first stage to begin with, and make sure they aren't turning people away from that as it evolves.

Nothing, quality over quantity my friend

>>28251578
my only issues are that there are few bugs (one line only come on) and that we got two grass/ghost lines right next to each other when the jack-o-lantern could have been grass/fire.

>Only one cross-gen evolution
Why?

they were in a shitty game

>>28253774
gen 5 had none

pretty sure cross-gen evolutions are done for except for eeveelutions

>>28253821
as one of the few people who actually like almost all of the cross evolutions, this upsets me because it's probably true

>>28251689
>They look good considering the blunder Gen V was

ebin

>>28251578
Nothing. For all of its flaws, pokemon design was not one of X and Y's problems.

>>28251578
Making them the rarest Pokemon in their own region.

Is this a social commentary on France losing its own demographics and being replaced with outsiders. Same with America being roughly half original, but France being barely native?

>>28251851
Not that anon but the issue is that you're much more likely to encounter older pokemon than you are the actual new pokemon in XY

>>28256243
That just makes finding new Pokémon even better.
Just like it was in Johto.

>>28251578
Nothing

Goodra and heliosk.

>>28257562
Nice meme

>>28251578
Pretty good set, starters are kinda meh but that seems to be a trend. Box legendaries are among the best in the series IMO.

>>28253935
I feel like it could happen, but most of the time they'll opt for Mega instead

>>28251578
Actually OP, I like Gen VI's mons. It's just one of the few things I like.
But, you know, xy's story, npcs (Some exceptions), the geography of Kalos (A Kanto with a snowy area) makes Gen VI a really bad Gen.

>>28251578
>72
there's your problem

>>28251642
did you digest them too?

>>28252346
how is noivern even related to crobat? They don't do the same thing, they don't have the same typing. It's like saying pikachu is a subpar charizard

Nothing