But here are some of the things the newer designers do that stand out to me.
-Very basic shapes form the monsters.
the very definition of basic
-Minimal details in muscular structure on more formed monsters.
Not sure what you mean by more formed, but this guy is humanoid and no visible muscles
-Odd or abstract color combinations.
evolves from a yellow duck. Changes to blue, why?
-Being very loosely based on an animal with some designs while being heavily based on animals in other situations within the same gen - which is inconsistent in design.
in the very same gen as
- Relying heavily on a concept itself rather than implementing it into the monster. As in the monster precedes the concept, it should be vice versa really.
Nothing about this pokemon makes sense. Kanghaskan are born with baby kanghaskans already in their pouch, yet they're all female, and the babies never grow. Instead it entirely relies on the concept of a mother protecting its child.
All the pokemon listed violate at least one or more of those rules. And here's the thing... I LIKE all these pokemon. I love them even. But they fall victim to the same traps and shortcomings when you actually apply the critical microscope you put on the other gens. And that's not to say the newer gens don't have bad pokemon, but the cry that they are somehow not trying as hard, or fall short of these weird standards just doesn't make any sense to me.
Something has to be at the bottom, and that's definitely Hoenn for me. The entire third generation seemed like a step backwards from generation 2, but at least it only got better from there.
