> GF makes a Pokémon > It's not cute or badass >

This.
I actually like trubbish's design and I always hate when people who've never played bw say they don't like the game because there's a trash pokemon.

Saved

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who likes every pokémon. Maybe because i still have the brain of a thirteen year old,but i just dont dislike them.

>>29147741
It's probably because you don't have the brain of a thirteen year old that makes you appreciate their designs.

>>29147741
OP here. You're not the only one. I like all Pokémon, some more than others, but I don't hate anyone. My favorite is one of the most hated Pokémon (it's not Garbodor, it was an easy example in my post), and my second is one of the most loved, and I could say many reasons for arguing my favorite is well-designed even if it's ugly.

File: 17456104.png (207KB, 780x854px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 780x854px

I'm the one who made the concept vs execution thread yesterday you're probably lying talking about.

There's a difference between ugly and poorly-designed. Your example is Garbodor, which I believe is one of the rare cases of bad concept, good execution. There are others that may disagree with me, and that's fine.

Anyway, a Pokémon can be ugly and well-designed. I used the example of Venusaur and Magmar last thread. Magmar is not a good design; nothing about it works well together. Venusaur is a good design, as it looks monstrous and powerful without being a clusterfuck of colors and shapes.

I can think of lots of non-ugly Pokémon with a bad execution.

Bewear. It isn't ugly, it's more off-putting. Terrible execution.
Zapdos. Its anatomy makes no sense. It doesn't look like it can move any part of its body.
Roserade. One of my personal favorite Pokémon, but why oh why do the bouquets look like that?
Manectric. The design just doesn't work.

This is all opinion. You can disagree. Just understand the separation of concept versus execution. Many people don't value them equally.

Your point about Game Freak not making ugly designs is stupid. Who cares what Game Freak thinks? They've been making poor designs since the first generation. This has nothing to do with Game Freak.

>>29149475
Ignore the "lying" in the first sentence, posting from phone and didn't notice it.

>>29147778
People are allowed to not like things you like and still have valid opinions. You won't be convincing anyone to agree with you like that

>>29147352
>do you remember any non-ugly Pokémon who you think that has a BAD execution?

Yes. Klefki all having the same keys bothers me. Its cute but that was a bad execution of the concept. Pallosand isn't ugly, but just entirely uninteresting. Stantler having the big nose AND big tail makes it look off, would have been better with one or the other. Tseena or whatever is too middle heavy.

There is certainly a difference between an ugly Pokemon and a badly designed one. I think Bruxish looks ugly but I don't hate it at all.

Just because GF had some non standard idea in mind doesn't mean it will be free from being criticized as simply failing and looking bad. There is no obligation for anyone to love every Pokemon

>>29149475
You're confusing opinions with facts. That's all.