>"The design isn't bad! Taste is subjective!"

>>32531063
Subjective has officially become my most hated word of the year because it's a buzzword utilized to run away from the fact that there is such a thing as objectivity.

File: shutterstock_338992685.jpg (77KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1000x667px

"You might not have enjoyed Pokémon Sun and Moon but for me they are the best first versions in the history of this franchise!"

>>32531063
Is there such thing as an objectively bad design though? I'm not an artist so I know fuck-all about colors and shapes and shit. But what design would be considered to be objectively poor?

>>32531101
eeveelutions

>>32531101
Primarina and Incineroar

>>32531101
tsareena

>>32531101
my least favourite

>>32531110
t. owlcuck

>>32531110
>STILL being an owlfag
>STILL being this butthurt

>>32531111
FOOTFAGS BTFO

File: 6ff59710abb10854bfc976a89ebd8279_you-activated-my-gtfo-card-yu-gi-oh-trap-card-meme_550-600.png (663KB, 550x600px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 550x600px

>>32531063
>This Pokemon has deep lore so it makes up for the design
>At least it didn't become this

>>32531101
Lucario, Braixen, Delphox, Zoroark, Popplio, Brionne, Jynx, Stantler, Primarina, Chespin, Quilladin, Chesnaught, Volcanion, Hoopa (both forms), Incineroar, Stufful, Bewear, Lycanroc-Midnight, Dhelmise, Keldeo, Genies (all six forms), Arceus and Darkrai.

My sense for design and taste isn't perfect, but I am fairly certain that I have one of the most refined and mature taste on this board, so I believe that it's a good idea to simply agree with me, if only so you don't embarrass yourself in front of /vp/.

>>32531110
>>32531166

Why are owlcucks so delusional?

>>32531063
>>32531079
But taste is objective, anons.

>>32531166
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio

File: 1494256540141.png (226KB, 492x388px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 492x388px

>"Its good in Trick Room!"

>>32531199
*subjective fuck

>>32531166
You were probably the autistic kid nobody invited at their party who got bullied at school.

>>32531079
Well tell me then, what's objective in taste?

>>32531085
That's slightly not true, B/W exist. But yeah, almost.

>>32531331
>look ma I am projecting!

Really, I think it just depends. There are a shit ton of Pokemon now, and different people are gonna like different things. It's like animals in real life; there's a zillion of them, but someone out there is gonna like at least one, and there's at least one for everyone.

Unless you just don't like animals in general in which case what the fuck is wrong with you

File: 1483941737141.png (74KB, 200x240px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 200x240px

>Caring what some fuck on 4chan thinks of your favorite pokemon.
>Needing validation from an underaged.

File: 6989213290_5624e05dab_b.jpg (190KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 960x600px

>>32531063
>oh no, somebody countered my shitpost with logic! Better shitpost harder!

File: 1494534740562.png (1014KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 1280x720px

>>32531496
This. /vp/ is a miasma of hate and shitposting. If you're really that insecure about your tastes, then perhaps throwing your honest opinions against this site and expecting everybody to validate them is not something you should do, mate.

>>32531199
>>32531351
>>32531101
Fuck you
You can't bring poop to a 3 star restaurant and say "My dog thinks it's delicious" then serve it to your customer.
GF is that poop serving chef, and people like you are bitches with shit taste that needs to be put down.

>>32531101

imo there's no bad designed pokemon, because that's just impossible [except most of fake mons] pokemon have very specific style

File: photo (1).jpg (114KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 900x900px

>>32531610
>"HEY GUYS! LOOK AT ME! I CAN USE ANALOGIES! EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T APPLY TO THING I'M USING IT FOR!
You have to be 18 or older to post here faggot.

File: Smug mug.jpg (38KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x500px

>>32531632
Sure faggot with no actual argument.
I'm probably older than you.

>>32531101
The one you like.

>>32531646

then it's so fucking sad...

>>32531063

ummm...

how does bad design apply when everyone like different things?

File: Gopnik.jpg (61KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x450px

>>32531646
My argument is that you're shitty "I just came back from middle school and learned analogies are a thing" doesn't even apply to this situation.
And I'm not 11, you fucking brat. You don't sound smarter, you look like a fucking brat.

>>32531680

that's it, it's impossible to tell if something is good or bad when it comes to personal tastes

>>32531690
>Muh argument
>Then McCarthysm
>Then an inaccurate strawman
>maymay
Sure I can also bring more *heavy words into this if you this if that makes me look younger to you

>>32531610
give me an example of a Pokemon that fits this analogy anon

File: LaughingWhorcs.jpg (296KB, 1920x789px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1920x789px

>Some made a perfectly valid claim!

>>32531085
Sun and moon were a great step forward for the franchise.

>>32531107
no

>>32531410
>no u

>>32531725
Food analogies have been overused to the point of meaningless. No restaurant servers poop ever, and no human being would willingly serve it to even their dog. No human, intelligent or autistic would ever say the "Well my dog likes it!" Not only that, you're assuming above people don't have the same favorite pokemon as you do, so how do you even know they have shit taste, when you probably have lucario fursuit stored right in your closet.
Fuck off you reddit-tier child.
>>32531740
You didn't even fucking try.

File: Bewear.jpg (7KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x225px

>>32531738
Need another?

>>32531101
Ice Cream
Trash

File: 1490207598906.png (112KB, 224x220px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 224x220px

>>32531790
>hating Bewear

File: 1477173768298.png (11KB, 207x210px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 207x210px

>>32531808
So do you really think there's only 2 posters?
>>32531790
>Objectively bad
Since you want bad food analogies, it's like a bland mash potatoes. Not bad, just missing some butter or pepper and salt.
>>32531802
At least try something other than barrel bottom, I've seen worse. Remember Amoonguss? How about a non-5th gen mon like goodra?

File: 59212932_p0.png (402KB, 938x1000px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 938x1000px

>>32531063
Lord forbid people are allows to like different things and have different tastes. Yeah there're a few pokemon designs I'm not a fan of, but I'm not gonna be petty and rag on them any chance I get if others like them.

>>32531825
Its just a fucking teddybear. Shit took like, 0 creativity

>>32531873

c'mon! bewear have fucking quality, I hated it at first but now it's absolutely FAV!

>>32531885

it's a joke mon, it's not supposed to be take for serious

File: 1494678597495.jpg (84KB, 1078x810px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1078x810px

>>32531873
>Its just a fucking teddybear. Shit took like, 0 creativity

>Its just a fucking dog. Shit took like, 0 creativity
>Its just a fucking cat. Shit took like, 0 creativity
>Its just a fucking bird. Shit took like, 0 creativity
>Its just a fucking fish. Shit took like, 0 creativity
>Its just a fucking horse. Shit took like, 0 creativity
>Its just a fucking dinosaur. Shit took like, 0 creativity
>Its just a fucking mole. Shit took like, 0 creativity
>Its just a fucking bug. Shit took like, 0 creativity
>Its just a fucking rock. Shit took like, 0 creativity
>Its just a fucking rabbit. Shit took like, 0 creativity
>Its just a fucking lizard/dragon. Shit took like, 0 creativity

This is your argument for the majority of designs.

File: 1494476193098.gif (884KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

884KB, 500x281px

>>32531909
>Replying to a shitposter replying to a shitposter
How meta can we get?

>>32531903
And?

File: 1477330841269.png (16KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x500px

>>32531943
And the baitposter reveals himself.

>>32531943
You're hard to please I see.
>>32531954
Anon please. Keep it civil.

File: 1494561548291.jpg (137KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1280x853px

>>32531903
>it's just a fucking animal
>it's just a fucking inanimate object
>it's just a pile of matter
>it's just a collection of atoms and molecules

Come on GameFreak, step it up.

>>32531903
Bewear is literally a copy and paste of a teddybear. At least geodude had the slightest bit of creativity. And what do you mean "all of "my" arguments? Keep making assumptions jackass
>inb4 we get kitchen appliances as pokemon and vp defend them with "muh subjectivity"

>>32531970
So what's teddiursa's excuse then? Nostalgia?

File: Rotom_All.png (245KB, 673x529px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 673x529px

>>32531970
Anon I got bad news for you

File: Adeptus_mechanicus_by_cribs-d4b4afs.jpg (24KB, 250x401px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 250x401px

>>32531970
Is there a toaster or blender pokemon?
Asking for research. And something I wank my cyberdong to.

>>32531992
>They don't count because reasons

File: ahh.jpg (147KB, 591x353px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 591x353px

I don't have anything to contribute but I found this reaction image and quite liked it.

File: adeptus_mechanicus_by_fredrikeriksson1-d9qtxhu.jpg (153KB, 1024x1316px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1024x1316px

>>32531992
This makes the cyberdong happy

File: rotom_pokedex_by_jennyjams-da58jn5.jpg (223KB, 1010x792px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1010x792px

>>32532006
They don't count because it's a poltergeist, dummy. An electric poltergeist that takes on a secondary type of whatever appliance it possesses. Pretty creative to me.

>>32531980
teddiursa it a copypaste too.
And ofc rotom doesn't count I was thinking more like a ladle with arms and legs with a face. Rotom's design also merging with its "ability" to change its typing is a huge success at creativity imo

File: ydZ21r2en1k.jpg (37KB, 226x193px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 226x193px

>>32532022
Very nice, Anon

It is subjective

Like how some people thing high school musical is quality entertainment....

>>32531790
I think that Bewear and Stufful are inspired on red panda and merchandising.

File: 1489365126983.gif (1MB, 321x388px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 321x388px

>>32532143
Are you from 2007 anon???

File: 1469395312455.png (121KB, 509x442px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 509x442px

>"It's not a bad design if it was intentionally designed to be bad!"

>>32532225
Is that an example?

>>32531496
>>32531589
Hate. Shitposting. Autism.
All 3 negative traits lived together in harmony within /vp/. Then, everything changed when common sense attacked.

File: reigen.jpg (99KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1280x720px

>>32531063
Except taste is subjective and there aren't any objectively bad designs. What you just said is true. Declaring something is objective is like "Pokemon Gold and Silver, objectively speaking, sold more than Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire". It must be absolute fact. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

>>32532263
desu I don't see a difference
I wish common sense would hurry the fuck up and come to this board already

>>32532314
>elemental monkeys

>>32531063
>>32531079

>pokebarneyfag is so unaware of what pokemon is she doesn't even bother using pokemon pics anymore

What a lazy sleazy shill you are, pokebarneyfag.

>>32531610
I remember when you shitposted about Smash. You pretended to like Memelee back then right?

Shame /v/ bans you on sight now, OP.

>>32532323
Yeah, they're elemantal monkey. They're monkey, with an elements added to them. And ?

>>32531610
>restaurant
okay billy, you can shitpost in this place all you want, but if you're bringing your bullshit food analogies in this board, I'll kill you

>>32531790
>2017
>still pretending to hate Bewear

That one lasted what, a week? You could very well bring back your sonic 06 may may.

File: 1477288931413.jpg (24KB, 540x435px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 540x435px

>>32532343
>Unovaborts defending bad gen 5 pokemon
Everytime

File: 283927489235.png (503KB, 836x955px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 836x955px

>>32531111
Fuck you. Tsareena is a goddess.

File: 1472826245350.jpg (62KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 680x680px

>>32532392
When will this thicc meme stop???

>>32532323
Please point to what factors makes them "objectively" bad.

Though really, you can't. You can say they're objectively less popular than other mons, or that they're objectively less used than other mons if you can find sources, but you can't say their designs are objectively "ugly" or "bad" just because you dislike them.

File: tsareena tum.png (389KB, 1110x1300px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1110x1300px

>>32532401
N E V E R

I think someanons confuse "I think it's ugly" with poorly designed. A Pokemon no matter how aesthetically (dis)pleasing it may seem has a good design if it functions as its creator intended and if it does a decent job at showcasing those concepts to the viewer, either appearance or lorewise.
For instance, I guess you could say that Diglett is poorly designed because it seems to fail at showcasing its core function (digging) because it appears to lack visible claws or a body which allows to easy movement through the soil, but it's not generally considered ugly (I mean "I" like it). And yes, I'm aware that Diglett is based on a whack-a-mole, which it does a good job at. I just needed an example. Things are almost never that plain and simple, though, because there are so many variables and other shit to think about like "Is the Pokemon creator's intent always known or made clear?" or "Do kids really give a shit?" Garbodor suffers from this because some people say they hate its "design" when they really mean to say it's ugly, which I agree that it is. I hate it, but its creator wanted to create a goofy garbage monster, and that's what Garbodor is. Also, there's a big difference between drawing an intentionally ugly thing and a thing being ugly because its artist is shit. All Pokemon are the former. Think about that for a moment.

>>32531610
What makes your taste so fucking superior that everyone should adhere to it?

>>32532314
/vp/ is full of retarded manchildren, that's why

File: 1486665355673.jpg (49KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1280x720px

>>32531063
Subjectivity's a vague point.

It's easier to write it off to selective enforcement and accusing the critic of being inconsistent, like pointing out blind spots of their childhood nostalgia or asserting their issue is based how the franchise betrays their idea of what the franchise should be more than what was intended by GameFreak themselves.

>>32532155
Hmmm what are the kids still into?
Some people think Yuna's costume rework in FFX-2 was a "better design"

POKEMON IS HORRIBLE, YOU'RE HORRIBLE! NONE OF YOU SHOULD BE PLAYING POKEMON! NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO PLAY POKEMON ANYMORE! DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DIE, ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KILL THIS BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KILL THESE GAMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>32532225
>Putting words in others' mouths
A lot of times they don't concede a design is bad, they usually just say it's meant to be ugly.

To be fair, you can make something intentionally ugly and still make a design that makes sense

>>32532746
Well that brings up the discussion of a designers intent and execution of said idea. Which is determined by a third party opinion making all decisions about design subjective.
I feel like everyone who argues about design here hasn't even taken a basic grade school art class.

>>32532406
admitting they are good will corrupt the concept

>>32532950
They aren't objectively "good" either. They aren't objectively ANYTHING when it comes to opinion, because opinion isn't objective.

>>32532905
Come back in 6 years when you're old enough to post here.

Better yet, fuck off and don't come back.

>>32532970
you mean "when it comes to design", opinions are objetive

File: bait.jpg (41KB, 499x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 499x500px

>>32532990
No I don't you cretin, opinions are genuinely incapable of being objective. The definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

There is no such thing as a "bad design", because taste is subjective, but there can be designs that miss the mark, by either failing to embody what the creator intended to get across, or by failing to appeal to the intended market. That doesn't make them bad designs, and it doesn't mean someone who likes them has bad taste, but it can be indicative of a negative trend.

Taste is personal and subjective, it will never work nor make sense to tell someone to stop liking something because they have "bad taste". But you're fully capable of complaining that something is "badly designed", so long as you clarify that to mean "bad at doing what the design was intended to do", and not "bad to enjoy".

Taste is not "subjective" but it does vary widely and there is no such thing as a universal standard of taste

>>32533023
whatever dude, but your opinion is wrong

>>32533024
>There is no such thing as a "bad design"
I can tell you're not an artist.

>>32531063
Taste IS subjective, that's the point of the concept.
Quality, however, isn't.

>>32531079
Agree. "subjective" and "relative" have been ruining the west for like a century now.

>>32531610
And this gentlemen is what we call a Strawman argument pretending to be an analogy.

>>32533024
>There is no such thing as a "bad design"
>but there can be designs that miss the mark, by either failing to embody what the creator intended to get across, or by failing to appeal to the intended market.
You just defined objective metrics while claiming there aren't.

>>32531101
Honedge, Doublade are pretty much guides on how not to design objectmons.

>>32531478
>Unless you just don't like animals in general in which case what the fuck is wrong with you
I hate animals. And there's nothing wrong with liking your own species more than others.

>>32533055
By quality, you mean solely based on the skill of the artist right? Like, if an artist has little knowledge of art, his work will be objectively poor quality.

>>32532988
I will when you stop being a spaz too.

>>32533083
>By quality, you mean solely based on the skill of the artist right?
Designs skills at least. The worst designer of the franchise is good at drawing after all.

>Like, if an artist has little knowledge of art, his work will be objectively poor quality.
..no? You don't need knowledge of art. That helps but there's no direct correlation. With that logic anyone who finishes art school is a good artist b default.

>>32533072
What's objectively bad about Honedge? It's very clever, the whole "lines of the sword make the face in the sheath" is a very clever idea, executed simply so that anyone can understand it. I'd say it hits all the marks it needs to, what's wrong with it?

>>32533072
Those are objective metrics, but they aren't related to taste. I can enjoy something while acknowledging that it's poorly designed. If someone makes coffee and leaves the grounds in it, they've done an objectively bad job of making normal coffee, but I know people who prefer their coffee that way.

>>32533054
I am, actually, but one perhaps a bit more open-minded than you.

Designs do have objective qualities, but those are all contextual. A design or piece of art can be bad in the context of "bad at following these rules of design", but it can be enjoyable all the same.

There's a fair bit of correlation between stuff that's been designed well, and stuff that people enjoy, but it's not absolute, and people's tastes still aren't influenced by objectivity.

>>32533099
It was an example. Obviously knowledge is only one factor of being good, but that was just the one I used in that situation. I could've said the artist had mental retardation or very little practice or any number of things. Don't overthink it when there's no need to.

>>32533100
>What's objectively bad about Honedge?
It's supposed to be a pokemon and pokemon are beings yet we only know it is a being because we are informed the eye thing is an eye. If you showed to anyone without telling him/her its a pokemon he/she will think its just a fancy sword.

> It's very clever, the whole "lines of the sword make the face in the sheath" is a very clever idea
It isn't. As the sheath is not the main body, its just a sheath. Faces are usually on the body anon.

The idea of a sword pokemon was awesome and its wasted on such shit.

>>32533111
>Those are objective metrics, but they aren't related to taste.
"bad design" means "the design is bad" not "you don't like the design". Taste is subjective. Quality isn't.

>I can enjoy something while acknowledging that it's poorly designed. If someone makes coffee and leaves the grounds in it, they've done an objectively bad job of making normal coffee, but I know people who prefer their coffee that way.
As you describe here.

>>32532392
it's absolute shit and you have embarassing taste. but you're clearly a degenerate so that's not surprising.

>>32533100
because is literally a sword

All of pokemon is bad. Get rid of all games now.

>>32533135
>It's supposed to be a pokemon and pokemon are beings yet we only know it is a being because we are informed the eye thing is an eye. If you showed to anyone without telling him/her its a pokemon he/she will think its just a fancy sword
It's a ghost.
It's still a being, it's just possessed a sword.

>>32533163
>It's a ghost.
And? That doesn't excuse shit.

>It's still a being, it's just possessed a sword.
Because you're told it is. You don't read that from the design. You just know it is because it's a pokemon.

>>32533135
It's an eye on the hilt and its tassel (seen on swords like a 'jian') is a ghost hand.

Doublade is less of it evolving/splitting into two swords and more of it gaining a second hand and another eye.

>>32533180
>It's an eye on the hilt
That you know its an eye because it has to be. Ditto for the hand.

>Doublade is less of it evolving/splitting into two swords and more of it gaining a second hand and another eye.
Doublade is just slapping two together and doubling the design's problems.

File: kasa-obake-by-richard-svensson.png (148KB, 300x498px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 300x498px

>>32533174
Reminder that this is a ghost in Japan.

File: honedge_by_xous54-d6ceprz.png (146KB, 745x649px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 745x649px

>>32533135
>It isn't. As the sheath is not the main body, its just a sheath. Faces are usually on the body anon.

The idea of a sword pokemon was awesome and its wasted on such shit.

Now your personal opinion is just leaking through. Come on anon. Just because it doesn't fit your arbitrary "where a face should be" definition doesn't make it objectively bad, you just dislike it

Plus, they thought of the whole "what if it just looks like a sword" thing while designing it, that's why the tassel is shaped like a hand and constantly holding the sheath. Obviously it's alive or something has posessed it.

Why reading /vp/ about objectivism make me feel like this board is full of underage

>>32533209
Whoops,
>The idea of a sword pokemon was awesome and its wasted on such shit.

Was supposed to be in greentext. My bad.

>>32533213
>Bunch of people tell idiot that he's wrong because he genuinely is wrong
>WAAAAAH UNDERAGE

Come on, anon.

>>32533209
>Just because it doesn't fit your arbitrary "where a face should be" definition
/vp/ has to be the only place that considers expecting faces on bodies to be something arbitrary in any way.

>Plus, they thought of the whole "what if it just looks like a sword" thing while designing it, that's why the tassel is shaped like a hand and constantly holding the sheath.
If "it has something resembling a hand, its a being!!!" is the design philosphy then it shows it has little clue what a being is.

Fuck fuck fuck
Hate hate hate

Get out of pokemon, retards.

>>32533216
It´s ok anon, nobody care about your opinion anyways
>>32533229
Who are you quoting?

>>32533135
>Taste is subjective. Quality isn't.
Right, but people take this and run with it, claiming someone can have "bad taste" for enjoying bad designs. They don't, there's no such thing as bad taste, just taste that doesn't match your own. You can certainly shit on someone's reasoning for liking something (you just like X because it's popular/edgy/your fetish), but you can't shit on them for enjoying things that are badly designed, because "badly designed" only makes sense in the context of your taste. It's like an older generation shitting on a newer generation's music, it's non-nonsensical to claim modern music doesn't do what older music does, because it's not trying to do that.

The "quality" of the grounds-kept-in coffee being bad only makes sense in the context of someone who expects normal coffee. That same coffee could be considered expertly crafted in a different context.

>>32533237
The face IS on the body, it's on the sword. Putting on the sheath just reveals it. It's just a cool little gimmick and the mon is recognizable enough when unsheathed.

Also "If it has something resembling a hand, it's a being!!!" isn't a good design philosophy, but "It's floating and holding something with the hand AND has an eye, so it's a being" is.

>>32533265
>The idiot calling everyone underage because he can't formulate an argument was ACTUALLY the guy getting btfo about honedge

Holy shit, I knew it. What a child.

>>32531999
>>32532023
Who the fuck are you?

>>32533284
you are making many assumptions there
>>32533266
>there's no such thing as bad taste, just taste that doesn't match your own
but that just your opinon :^)

>>32533331
>but that just your opinon :^)

>he doesn't know the difference between a fact/conjecture and an opinion

Oh, I see what's happening here.

>>32533343
>he think his opinion is absolute
you already went full retard once, doesnt need to go again sophist scum

>>32533331
>but that just your opinon :^)

But it isn't. There can be taste that doesn't match what's popular or taste for things that are widely disliked, but that doesn't mean their taste is bad by any objective means. "Bad taste", as a concept, DOES exist, but only as a subjective term. You can hold the opinion that someone's taste is bad or good, but neither will ever be objective fact.

>>32533266
>The "quality" of the grounds-kept-in coffee being bad only makes sense in the context of someone who expects normal coffee. That same coffee could be considered expertly crafted in a different context.
There's two ways to go about it. Either one of the two sides is wrong or its good in one context and bad in the other which still means its objective.

>>32533272
>The face IS on the body, it's on the sword.
Except you said its on the sheath.

> Putting on the sheath just reveals it. I
...wat, you know you can see the ""eye"" when unsheathed right? Its right there on >>32533209.

>"It's floating and holding something with the hand AND has an eye, so it's a being" is.
But we only know its an eye because it has to.

Get rid of your games now.

>>32533401
>But we only know its an eye because it has to.

What? Could you reword that in english?

>...wat, you know you can see the ""eye"" when unsheathed right? Its right there on

I said the putting on the sheath reveals the "face" in the blade, not the eye.

>Except you said its on the sheath.

Please quote where I said it was on the sheath.

Congratulations /vp/, you've really become /v/ with these levels of autism. I didn't think it could get worse, but you've proven me wrong. Keep up the good work. :)

>>32533385
yes it is, i can say lucario have a better desing than honedge and if you rather honedge over lucario you have bad taste, you can like it of course but the bad taste remains

>>32533450
Bad taste to you, but varying taste to everyone else because it's not an objective factor.

Do I need to take away your internet privileges, because someone should totally do that.

>>32533462
that because you need to study design anon, or at least search "design" in the dictionary

>It is objective that subjectivity is subjective without objectivity but objectively taste cannot be subjective because subjectively it is objectively subjective
This thread in a nutshell

>>32533450
Are you that same illiterate faggot who keeps shitting up this board? Fuck off back to China or learn how to speak the goddamn English language you degenerate piece of garbage.

>>32533434
>What? Could you reword that in english?
We know Honedge's eye is an eye because we have to see a face in there and the closest thing we have is only one eye.

>I said the putting on the sheath reveals the "face" in the blade,
And the face is...

>Please quote where I said it was on the sheath.
>>32533100
"lines of the sword make the face in the sheath

>>32531166
Take out jynx and your spot on & not autistic, dude.

>>32533485
that's subjective, anon

>>32533492
at least I know more than one language

>>32533493
The face is visible IN the sheath, I didn't say it was ON the sheath. The face is on the blade, but the sheath frames it. I suppose you could say that the face is half blade, half sheath.

Just quit pokemon. All your problems are solved.

>>32533512
I see. Thogh that'd make the eye in the main body kinda pointless. But now i see it in a different way.

>>32533407
No.

>>32533450
This is actually a good way to explain why "subjectivity" is such a toxic concept. Thanks.

>>32533572
Why not? Everything you say says you hate pokemon. Just don't play it. Otherwise, you're only telling lies to yourself.

>>32533512
>>32533540
and you know what is funny?
You both are arguing about a piece of shit of pokemon

>>32531101
Yes, there is a thing such as objectively bad designs. Poor proportions, bad choice in colours, a cluttered design (note, a busy design isn't necessarily cluttered, cluttered is when a bunch of needless bits are put in), a flat design...

>>32533586
I don't hate Pokemon. I just righteously hate Pokemon species that taints the franchise merely by existing.

>>32533665
What taint? It's all about selling plushies, of course they're stupid. If you can't accept that, then be gone with you.

>>32533706
THAT´S A FAKEMON, IS NOT REAL, DELETE THIS!!

>>32533648
Give me an example, anon

>>32533174
>And? That doesn't excuse shit.
You clearly don't know how Japan and ghosts work

>obvious troll thread from notorious /vp/ shitposter gets 163 replies

you know what
fine
I hate pokemon now
congratulations, you win

>>32533833
Loser

>>32533833
you are weak anon

>>32533833
What exactly were you expecting?
Lower your expectations senpai, life will be easier.

>>32532314
>there aren't any objectively bad designs
>what is Lilligant

File: This is the face that reaps what you sow.gif (2MB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x280px

>>32534215
You can't hide from me you Tsreena fag. May she burn in the pits of PU forever.

>>32531557
Some shitheads on /v/ were arguing about subjective vs objective or some shit and it went on for hours. I'm guessing OP is one of them and is still buttblasted over it and decided to make a thread here for some reason.

>>32531063
>>32531079
>>32531085
>samefagging this hard
No one cares about your opinion OP.

File: 1490605373691.jpg (44KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 768x576px

>"Y-yeah, well I-I liked it!

>>32531110
>being this much of a fag
>not stopping starterwars

>>32531646
(You)

>>32532371
>Idiot without argumentation
Everytime

>>32533135
>If you showed to anyone without telling him/her its a pokemon he/she will think its just a fancy sword.

That's the point. It is supposed to looks like a real sword for luring human and taking there energy.

>>32531970
>At least geodude had the slightest bit of creativity

Its a rock with arms anon how is that creative

>>32532314
This

>>32532371
(You)

File: fvdcsjxnk.gif (67KB, 446x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 446x400px

>>32536612
>samefagging your thread 8 hours atfer the previous reply
OP, why are you so upset that people have different opinions than you when it comes to Pokemon? What happens when someone disagrees with you IRL? Do you literally shit your pants in rage?

>>32536866
Clearly he care about others opinions just like you care about OP

File: image.jpg (376KB, 900x800px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 900x800px

>>32534231
>Lilligant NU
>Tsareena UU

>>32531802
Garbodor is quite well designed. Vaniluxe is fucking dumb looking but it's definitely meant to look like that

>>32531101
Lickilicky

>>32536874
I wouldn't say "care" as much as "fascinated"

>>32536878
tsareena is pretty ass in uu so i don't know what your point is. it's going the way of ambipom where scrubs think it's good and keep it in a higher tier than it should be.