You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
I have shown through my arguments that the new designs are worse because they enter a design-space that panders to the mass media market. As long as sequels are produced at the rate they have been produced, designs will continue to suffer. This is not nostalgia: this is an absolute empirical breakdown of what makes an effective character design. Understand that this is not a matter of tastes or opinion: there is such thing as a good design as much as there is a good thing as a bad design. Note I do not call this art, as this is a turbulent field when it comes to argument. Design, however, is a craft, a science.
These new designs are worse because less thought has been put into them. Taijiri conceived "Capsule Monsters" over many, many years. The generation I monsters are rife with character and good design sense. They are concise and characteristic, and most importantly, none look out of place among the others. The success of the franchise has undoubtedly effected the design choices of himself and the future directors: this is to the detriment of the overall design effectiveness of the Pokémon World. Understanding why this is takes equal parts understanding in the economics of child pandering and in artistic design. Pokémon is a perfect franchise for a few people, and those people are the shareholders.
This is not rose tinted glasses and this is not a matter of nostalgia, because there is reason beyond that to appreciate the original designs. The reason here is that those designs are preferred, and the reason they are preferred is because they are absolutely better. I challenge anyone with an arts background to argue otherwise.
I'm sure most of you aren't reading my original posts anyway, though, so I won't be bothered to refute beyond that.
In so far as the actual numbers of Pokémon introduced in Generation Four, I checked and you're right. While it is my mistake, this is largely irrelevant to my argument, as I'm sure you could see. Maybe you should try actually addressing my points instead of the technicalities?