Delphox is another one of those that looks better animated than in it's standby pose. It's animations make it look like a fox wizard, but just standing there it looks like a red sequoia with fur, a tree-fox. Luckily the official art is way more flattering. But Braxian is still cooler looking, which is probably why it got the spot in the new fighting game.
New unpopular opinion: Are pokemon games actually way harder than we think?
If you're on smogon, you probably are pretty good at pokemon. I certainly haven't been challenged in-game since gold and silver (unless it's a nuzlocke). But my sister who was never really into the games just picked up X and I have been watching some blind let's plays by people also new to pokemon and I've been noticing some things. Mainly that if you don't know what you're doing, POKEMON IS A REALLY HARD GAME.
So for this list I'm assuming the player relies entirely on information presented in-game, no looking stuff up on the internet just cold turkey.
1. Type match ups. While some visual clues are easy (grass, water, and fire), some aren't at all. If you took a look at Mawile, could you actually tell what type it is? So in-game you now have to get by on trial and error to figure it out, so hope you guess well. The most common thing I saw was regarding what was and wasn't weak to ground. I saw a trainer try using earthquake on Weezing to be stymied on why it didn't work. It took this knowledge and misapplied it to Venomoth and Magenton, thinking that because they were floating they couldn't be hit. They also tried hitting Dragonite with it, since it's pose in HG/SS looked like it was standing and couldn't figure out it was part flying (they assumed levitate when it didn't work).
The problem is that beyond the most basics of basics, the game assumes you learn from the pokemon you catch and raise, which means a lot of catching a raising. And that's not including "post-game pokemon" that the player never gets access to and tend to just pop-up as the final boss. Pretty bad if the trainer doesn't have a mono-type team.
2. Raising pokemon. Pros can pick about three of the best and roll with it (or just one). Newbies tend to get "alt overload" in that there are soooo many options that they keep switching 'mons in and out as they test each one. This would mean that trainer exp (the easiest way to level up) gets spread out thin. I think this is the reason behind the revised exp share in gen 6, so that testing pokemon isn't so punishing in the long run.
3. Advanced concepts are just flat out never mentioned. Effort Values barely got a whisper until Gen 6, and Individual Values are still left a mystery. While these aren't as important in-game, they still play a very important part in-game (I had a charmander with a 1 IV in Sp.Atk, and boy did it show. Didn't find out until post-game). Nature effects also weren't made explicit until HG/SS, and they have a more clear and present effect even in-game.
But this isn't just stats, other advance concepts barely get a mention too. Like move combos (one guy thought his game glitched when he got KO'd by earthquake while using dig, another to a mold breaker earthquake on levitate. Earthquake sure pops up a lot for a simple move), correctly using substitute, another guy thought that his lowered stats would stay for the entire battle (so he got his pokemon KO'd rather than switch).
I guess this all comes from living in the information ages versus a video game focusing on exploration, and how a game designer can find balance. If you know what you're doing (like, having a full pokedex like Serebii's), these games are simple. If not, these games are pretty darn hard. But you are expected to design a game to stand on it's own feet, so they turn to things like the EXP share.
