Nacli line: "How is this considered a pokemon?" Well, I mean, it's pokemon because it's in a pokemon game - we've had rock pokemon like Geodue which was a rock with a face and fists - why can't we have a salt-rock pokemon? You're not explaining why the design looks bad.

"Tinkatink line - both cool or cute" But what makes it a pokemon? Because it's cool and cute at the same time? How is it a good design?

"Orthworm - what even is that?" ... It's a worm. That's literally a play on earthworm. You can have your preferences, but you're not making an argument as to why the design is bad. You're saying it's bad and leaving it at that. Which, preferences are fine, but you're not

"these newer designs are hit and miss" Gee... I wish you could explain why.

"Cool starter pokemon like Blastoise, Samurott, and Empoleon to Quaquaval? What even is that? Look at that design, its horrible." Again, you're not explaining why the festival duck is a bad design - You can dislike it, but all you're doing is saying its a bad design without

"Regoinal variants like Tauros - They made him black and swapped out his horns here and there" Which is what regional variants are - they literally are differences in pokemon - It's been like that for a long while - like Vulpix: They made it white and changed it's hair.

Though I love how you just decide to use the shittiest pictures you can get of these pokemon - like, let's just ignore the elemental details on them, and really downplay them. What even is the complaint here? Recolors? Cause... Guess what? Palworld does the same thing dood.

"Wooper - Colored it brown in photoshop and called it a day" Cept they didn't? Changed the parts of it's head and the symbols on it's body... And I love how he's leaving out Clodsire. I guess whatever doesn't fit the narrative I suppose.

"Palworld's designs are pretty fun - look at these sheep with the guns" First off, that's from the trailer of Palworld, which didn't really represent the final product. Secondly: Lamball isn't usually depicted with it the gun - It's an accessory, and not even a part of its

"Look at these pals, you've got a white angel dragon" Yeah, cause pokemon never did that... Oh, hello Reshiram.

"A leviathan" Pokemon never did that before.

"And a goofy looking guy" You will literally slam Stunfisk right after this - a goofy looking guy. But if we're talking about goofy looking pokemon: Quagsire.

But let me point out something before I rip more of this video apart - Palworld does recolors, something he slams pokemon for doing for regional forms: So it's okay for palworld to do it, but Pokemon can't?Even all three of the designs he just talked about - Relaxasaurus,

Why is it okay for Palworld to do that when they have such a small roster, but it's bad for pokemon? Also, he never actually names any of the pals, kinda weird.

"Stunfisk" Why are you bringing up Stunfisk? That's a gen 5 pokemon, ya know, introduced 15 years ago? That wasn't introduce in the last few generations. Didn't even bring up Galarian Stunfisk, which would be fair game since that was in Sword and Shield.

Literally the only argument he has to make for why a design is bad is Mega Starmie, which I think is a bit too weak of a design too, but mainly because it breaks too many conventions for Megas. But most of this is hypocritical without actually explaining why these designs are

Palworld gets a pass for recolors for some reason, but pokemon is lazy for it? Look, like and dislike whatever designs you want, but this won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with your mind set. You didn't even use any of Palworld's actual original designs

Tarantiss being a prime example of one of Palworld's actually well done original ones - but you chose designs that shared elements/cores with pokemon and acted like pokemon never did that.

This isn't a discussion on whether or not palworld is original or if they stole designs or whatever - this is how one guy didn't even bother to do the bare minimum to explain why Palworld is better design-wise than pokemon

like again, you can like or dislike, or have a preference - but if you're making an argument as to why one design is better over another, could you at least TRY to explain and put some effort?

Man, dat timing, now ain't that a hoot? https://x.com/Manga_Kamen/stat...

@Manga_Kamen I don't think palworlds monster designs are better than pokemon's they are equal imo. If we being honest palworld just has better graphics and pricing. His points had no actual backing and NO ONE SHITS ON MY BOI WOOPER

@aocrown Debatable - depends on the monster like: No excuse for this one.

@Manga_Kamen I just want to enjoy monster tamers And its not like pokemon is innocent of this either however. Look at a hood chunk of gen 1 pokemon that are clearly trying to be dragon quest inspired (which also did this before pokemon with dq5) You don't need to like it, just look away

@SilviaDragonfr1 Nope, and that comparison is stupid, especially if you have an ounce of design skill - unless you think Growlithe is a tiger

@Manga_Kamen If Nintendo wants to keep its own damn franchise all to itself, that's fine. Now, wanting to prevent competitors from playing emulators, fangames, and games based on it through a monopoly strategy is absurd.

@R0N3Y33 I mean, I agree - Hell, I was a victim of the Nintendo Creator's program YEARS ago... but we're not talking about that.