I tell you what, I'll use what I want. And you can judge it in whatever way you think is "cool" or whatever.

And, no, a huge placement of your opinion is nostalgia (apparently), seeing as you're the one claiming such stuff; that's not how I generally judge stuff, and especially not when I'm actually judging it today in a situation like this. I actually look at things from a position of the rules and systems that govern them, especially when it comes to stuff like this.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, and if you do have any talent or skill in the area of art & design as you claim then you should know better, but the old Mega Man character art/design is simply better then the new Mega Man character art/design, and any artist who has any level of taste and talent whatsoever would be able to see this immediately, without any debate.

That's been my stance since the get-go and it's my stance now, and it won't change based on what you say because it's basically an objective fact—if you have any clue about good art versus mediocre art. And it has nothing to do with nostalgia here, at all.

I don't know how I'm supposed to explain this stuff to you any clearer if you don't already get it, but how about a REALLY simple example:

Purple is a complimentary colour to yellow on the colour wheel, right? I presume you know at least this much about basic art & design. So, if someone says to you "I have a purple jacket and I'd specifically like the most complimentary colour of trainers to go with it" you'd should suggest yellow (or green, based on the particular wheel you look at), if you have the slightest clue whatsoever about complimentary colours or colour theory at all. If you said something like red, you'd have picked one of the worst colours you could choose as a specifically complimentary colour to purple (brown or black would be even worse complimentary colours—and black isn't even a colour). That's what's known as a bad understanding of basic colour theory, and it would be something a bad artist would likely do but not something a good artist would do—without very specific reason.

So, it is entirely possible to make choices that lead to what is generally considered bad art and visa versa. Bad art might, for example, be a clown costume that's all muddy browns and blacks. You might personally love it; it's still bad art based on the criteria of designing a clown costume. And that's an objective fact outside of your own personal taste. UNLESS, of course, the clown was designed to be some demon murdering clown or something maybe.

That simple concept applies to every single aspect of almost any piece of art (unless you're trying to be some kind of douche "modern artist" or "time based artist"), be it the colours, the proportions, volumes, the line of action, the silhouette, the rule of thirds, symmetry, asymmetry, whatever. . . .

The original Mega Man character design simply gets a whole order of magnitude of those rules more correct than the new Mega Man design and serves its entire function better, ergo it is objectively a better piece of art and character design. Doesn't mean you have to like the old more than the new, or anyone else for that matter, but if you pick the old over the new it's almost certainly because you have a combination of **** taste and no clue of what constitutes good looking art, as defined by hundreds-thousands of years of establishing the rules that we use to actually teach, and then measure and judge good art vs art done by a monkey wiping its ***.

So, no matter how much you argue your side of this case, the old Mega Man character design is better than the new Mega Man character design. It just is, and any artist worth listening to would say similarly. Why these particular artists went with crap art is totally besides the point; it's still crap art, all things being relative.