should someone tell them

Name one.

Ditto is a purple blob with 2 eyes and a line

And? He was a revolutionary design, a Pokemon that transformed into other Pokemon. There is more to a Pokemon than its bare appearance.

You had a cool designed animal like Pokemon that could do that in Mew. But your last line is true

krabby is just a crab

Besides all that, you said look bad, not are just animals.

1. krabby is just kinda lazy for a pokemon design.
2. MR MIME

Krabby, you may notice, does not actually look that much like a crab. While it shares a couple features, it also differs in its eyes and has a thicker shape than a crab does. Mr. Mime is an original idea, pretty creative, actually, what do you mean by that comment?

While Mr Mime is a creative idea, it looks too creepy and humanoid to be a Pokémon. This isn't even counting all the other bad Gen 1 designs.

Geodude for example, is a rock with eyes and arms.

Yes, and? What is bad about a design for a Pocket Monster being a rock with arms? It becomes a bad idea about Gen 3 with Nosepass, another rock with arms.

It feels a bit lazy, even for Gen 1.

Rock with arms is pretty dang creative. There haven't even been many mythical creatures with that basis.

I disagree entirely. There is no such thing as a rock with arms. There is such a thing as a bass.

Yet it just seems lazy. I get that it was Gen 1 and they were inventing what a Pokémon was but that does not stop a Pokémon from looking like not much thought was put into it. Geodude looks like a filler Pokémon just like Basculin 4 generations later. It seems like it was just made to fill slots and have a Pokémon other than Zubat to be in caves.

They were inventing what a Pokemon is supposed to be. If there is a Generation One Pokemon which you think doesn't look like a Pokemon you are the one with the mistaken perception, and it is no wonder that you like all of the new, generic designs which look like you put some of Gen 3, 4 and 5's Pokemon into a blender and then poured that result into a cat-shaped mold.

My argument rests on the idea that they look too similar to real world animals. Not that they look bad.

Then say that and not that they look bad.

If a Pokémon looks like not much thought was put into it and was too much like a real world animal , even if it was a creative concept, it is bad in my book. Besides, a few days ago I said it was my opinion hoping to end the argument but it is still going. This is because you responded to keep the argument going. In fact, why should I be concerned with your opinion at all? Tell me the answer to that.

No more than the reason I am concerned with yours. You are a human as well as I am, and the ability to reason is one of humankind's classically accepted traits. To interrogate the opinions of other humans is a classical pastime of our race, and it also informs much of our core beliefs. Although the opinions regarding Krabby are not particularly important, other people's opinions concerning matters of morality and the like very much are. Thus this is a sort of training for important discussions. So knowing your opponent is very important.

Yes, a one foot four inch tall orange and cream colored crab with good attack and defense. The first pokemon to be based on a crab, rather than the seventh to be based on a monkey. Everything in Generation One already has the advantage of being the first of its kind. Even if it is similar to an animal, it is not another rendition of the same idea for a pokemon. I don't mind if a Pokemon resembles animal, it's a matter of making the fifteenth rendition of the same animal, or just saying, "Here's Jenga, it's a Pokemon now, enjoy our original content." Generation one was inventing what a Pokemon is and can be, the other Generations mostly followed that sort of ideal, but when all of your new starter designs look like, "Yeah, that's a Pokémon." You are doing something wrong. They don't look like you took a turtle and made it a grass type pokemon, they look like you took another pokemon and made it a grass type pokemon. Here is grass type Litten, fire type Totodile, and Ducklett if it looked more masculine.

I don't really care if Krabby was the first crab Pokémon. Tentacool and Tentacruel were the first jellyfish Pokémon and they at least took some artistic liberties. the Charmander line were the first lizard Pokémon and they did that too. My point is that just because a Pokémon was in Generation 1 doesn't excuse it from being a lazy design. Even Kingler had some artistic liberties with a giant claw. Krabby has nothing. It is just a plain, boring crab. Generation 1 did use artistic liberties with it's designs. That's how we got Mew and Blastoise, some of the best Pokémon ever made in my opinion. In fact, go back to ''in my opinion''. It is just my opinion. You can have your opinion and I can have mine. End of story.

Have you ever seen a crab in real life? Krabby is certainly as different to a real crab as squirtle to a turtle, or Blastoise for that matter.

Squirtle has more deviations than Krabby and has the advantage of being a good character in the anime which makes it my favourite Pokémon. all Krabby changed was the eyes and had a barely different colour.

Again, have you ever seen a crab in real life? Squirtle does not have more changes than Krabby.

Krabby changed the shape, eyes and colour. Squirtle changed tail shape, eyes, colour and you could see that thought was put into the design as it was a starter. Krabby has nothing going for it other than the points you have made already.

"You could see that thought was put into it" I say the same thing about Krabby. It's a matter of you not seeing the same degree, most likely because you are more accustomed to seeing Squirtle as a Pokémon than Krabby.

That is true. Yet Squirtle actually has a cult following while many complain about Krabby. Riddle me that.

People like turtles more than crabs. At least, they did when the game came out. Thus people latched onto that. If it came out now in the age of the Krab rave, I bet Krabby would have a cult.