>>2246582Not that anon and I know this is bait but
It's not that the animation style is bad in and of itself, but it's more that it feels overused, even within individual sprites. For example, I think the animation on the robot could work if you think of the robot itself as being a clunky mess that's about to fall apart, but otherwise robots should be staying relatively still, because metal isn't alive. That said, I think the flashing lights, siren and the smoke puffs work fine. They're more "acceptable" to me to be moving so fast.
The example you posted is better to me, because you can see the body moving more than the armor. In this case, the armor moves along with the body, but the armor is animated so it doesn't look like it squashes or stretches at all. Instead it keeps its form while moving with the body. (same for the weapon)
In general though, the bouncy animation feels to me like Probertson is just animating everything "because he can" without any restraint. The best way I can describe it is like the animation equivalent of a kid constantly jumping up and down and screaming "look at me look at me!"
With all that said, my personal favorite probertson animation is the one that he and Dixon made of The Simpsons. The entire first half was not only relatively reserved, but it was more inspired by the original simpsons opening animation. I loved that they even included Marge's hair swirl turning animation. When the couch gag came up, it didn't even go straight into Probertson's famous tall animations, they had a static effect like things were "coming apart" and even managed to include more references during that. Basically, the entire first half felt like reserved build up, with the static section being a great transition into the climax that was Probertson's famous tall animations.
It felt more earned to have crazy animation like that, and it even felt satisfying to have it go all out when everything else was properly restrained.
