Thread replies: 10
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
What is the missing variable in the equation? 2016-11-02 02:35:05 Post No. 29603795
[Report] Image search: [Google]
What is the missing variable in the equation? 2016-11-02 02:35:05 Post No. 29603795
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: delphox_by_xous54-d6pp43z.png (181KB, 574x764px) Image search:
[Google]
181KB, 574x764px
What is the missing variable in the equation?
Anonymous
2016-11-02 02:35:05
Post No. 29603795
[Report]
Bipedal Pokemon are not inherently shit. It's not simply that they are bipedal. Charizard/Blastoise are not bad Pokemon.
However, I believe there is a correlation. There is something that makes many bipedal Pokemon shit. So where is the line crossed? What makes them shit?
I don't believe it's being furry that makes them shit either. There are many bipedal Pokemon that are not furry and yet their designs are detestable in a way that seems to be linked to them being bipedal.
>>
When they look like fursuits
>>
They look less like actual animals, for one. There aren't nearly as many real live bipedal organisms
>>
the issue is more being anthro than being bipedal.
Nobody hates Charizard or Blastoise because 1. they start bipedal and 2. they still look like animal like creatures instead of humans in animal costumes.
>>
When they start out quadrupedal/are based on quadrupeds and turned bipedal for no reason
>>
>>29603839
I doubt there are many organisms on fire either.
>>
It's when the posture and ratio of limb-length to torso length resembles humans too much.
>>
>>29604012
this seems plausible
>>
>>29603795
They aren't shit, sorry. Different is not shit.
And Pokemon are not animals.
You could make the same "argument" with quadrupedal and objectmons, they're new and are using a different style
>>
>>29603795
Given that you posted my favorite Pokémon, I'm going to say there isn't a lot that makes it shit.
Thread posts: 10
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1