Never have I hated a Pokemon design more than Zacian. Pokemon using or wearing objects isn't a new thing. So why am I singling out this poor doggo for holding a sword in its mouth? If that's considered bad design, then what about Machamp (belt), Farfetch'd (leek), Klefki (keys), Timburr line (wood and steel beams), Honedge line (literal sword), and etc? Well, that's what I'm about to explain. The thing is that those Pokemon ARE the WEAPONS.
Can a steel beam be used as a weapon? Yes, but that's not its primary usage. It's mainly used for construction, and it's used to emphasize the Timburr's line strength. Take that away, and Timburr plus its evos still have their strength. For Machamp and Klefki, they are just accessories. The same goes for Farfetch'd. None of these Pokemon NEED those objects. As for the the Honedge line, it's not a problem because the Pokemon themselves ARE the weapons.
That's why I find Zacian's design to be jarring and inconsistent with the rest of the Pokemon world. We're using Pokemon to fight. They are literally bio-weapons. Zacian, however, is just a dog with a weapon in its mouth. Unlike the others, Zacian isn't the weapon, its sword is. You might as well take its sword and fight the Pokemon yourself. Not to mention that its motif is the sword itself and not the dog. Take the sword away, and it's just a dog. It will have lost its distinctive feature and won't be a counterpart to Zamazenta anymore.
Each of the aforementioned Pokemon have their own motifs. The objects are there to emphasize them -- not to be the spotlight. Zacian's design has it as the opposite. To say that they're the same is absurd. That's like saying Machamp using guns is the same as it wearing a belt simply because they're both "objects". How they're used in the design matters. To put it simply: context matters. If Zacian is nothing without the sword, then it shouldn't have it in the first place. I hate this doggo. Glavenus did the whole sword thing better. God, can you imagine Glavenus just holding a sword in its mouth and charging at you?
Can a steel beam be used as a weapon? Yes, but that's not its primary usage. It's mainly used for construction, and it's used to emphasize the Timburr's line strength. Take that away, and Timburr plus its evos still have their strength. For Machamp and Klefki, they are just accessories. The same goes for Farfetch'd. None of these Pokemon NEED those objects. As for the the Honedge line, it's not a problem because the Pokemon themselves ARE the weapons.
That's why I find Zacian's design to be jarring and inconsistent with the rest of the Pokemon world. We're using Pokemon to fight. They are literally bio-weapons. Zacian, however, is just a dog with a weapon in its mouth. Unlike the others, Zacian isn't the weapon, its sword is. You might as well take its sword and fight the Pokemon yourself. Not to mention that its motif is the sword itself and not the dog. Take the sword away, and it's just a dog. It will have lost its distinctive feature and won't be a counterpart to Zamazenta anymore.
Each of the aforementioned Pokemon have their own motifs. The objects are there to emphasize them -- not to be the spotlight. Zacian's design has it as the opposite. To say that they're the same is absurd. That's like saying Machamp using guns is the same as it wearing a belt simply because they're both "objects". How they're used in the design matters. To put it simply: context matters. If Zacian is nothing without the sword, then it shouldn't have it in the first place. I hate this doggo. Glavenus did the whole sword thing better. God, can you imagine Glavenus just holding a sword in its mouth and charging at you?
