Well you did say this isn't even pokemon. So yeah, who are you to say that again? How do you even define what should or shouldn't be a pokemon? Because it reminds you of Digimon or DBZ? Lmfao. If you have an opinion that these pokemon don't look great, that's fine but saying they don't look like pokemon is just foolish.
How is it foolish when the company completely overthrows their principles and attitudes?
Pokemon used to treat evolutions as one-way tickets. No turning back. It's actually Digimon-formula where little monsters change their name, shape and attacks only for a certain amount of time, before reverting back to base. Pokemon using this formula just doesn't make sense, franchise-logic wise. It's inconsistent. And the thing that I
personally hate by far the most in any fiction is inconsistency.
Sure, it's up to the Pokemon Company what they do with their franchise, but not everything they do is automatically consistent with their own, already implemented mechanics and "rules".
Same happened with Kishimoto when he screwed over his own logic with implementing nonsensical new stuff during the war-arc, to be more precise.
Also, the new z-whatever attacks just look really like DBZ battle stuff, where small, relatively weak Pokemon can use attacks that even a lot of legendary Pokemon couldn't do in the past. Again, inconsistent. I don't care much about what may be interesting gameplay-wise, so that's that. If you don't have a problem with it, fine, enjoy it.
I used to be a passionate Pokemon-fan, so, sorry for being pretty salty for now.
