"Why are inanimate object pokemon often considered inherently less creative than animal based ones?"

I've always been a pretty big fan of a lot of inanimate object pokemon. Claydol, garbodor, chandelure, klefki... I just really like them. Now, I completely understand just not caring for inanimate object pokemon, but a complaint often leveraged toward them is that they're "uncreative".Of course, creativity is sort of a nebulous concept to grasp, and there's nothing wrong with liking something "uncreative" if it's just what you like, but I've always thought it'd trend towards the opposite? With inanimate objects, you have to think about how their shape would be adapted into a living creature. Of course, some like vanillite and voltorb /are/ just faces placed on objects... But is that less creative that adding fire to a horse? Is that less creative than just drawing a fox? Again, I don't think that "creativity" is necessarily a definable concept, but I think it's something worth thinking about. And even if creativity were measurable, liking something less creative isn't objectively wrong or anything. via /r/pokemon https://ift.tt/2K9vWxa