PDA

View Full Version : [B/W] Charizard-like Pokémon in Gen V?


PokéToast
May 28th, 2010, 03:42 PM
http://www.digimon-generation.org/bilder/adventure/greymon.gif

Just a play with humor, but really... is anyone else scared that B/W is seeming to turn into a form of Digimon?

Bluerang1
May 28th, 2010, 04:14 PM
The Legends don't look very "Pokémon". But then again, what is "Pokémon"?

lx_theo
May 28th, 2010, 04:34 PM
The more realistic looking detail you add to a Pokemon, the less it feels like a Pokemon.

PiPVoda
May 28th, 2010, 04:37 PM
lx_theo: couldn't have said it any better! Though I fail to see the 'realism' in Zekrom and Reshiram.

Poster, I don't think they resemble digimon as much now as I did when I first laid eyes on them. Actually I'd say they pass Dialga/Palkia and maybe even Kyogre/Groudon in looks. **possibly even lugia/ho-oh but I don't wanna upset the j-lovers tonight^^**

Niprop
May 28th, 2010, 04:42 PM
I don't see digimon at all. If anything, the two legendary Pokémon are Arceus-like in appearance, and the dark one has similarities to Palkia.

lx_theo
May 28th, 2010, 04:48 PM
Picture as reference for me and others:
http://i46.tinypic.com/10ptu2e.png


@PiPVoda

How do I phrase this... The best way I can think of is comparing two similar legendaries, Lugia and Reshiram. Lugia exemplifies a more simple beauty to the designs that has become more of a Pokemon feel. The difference is two thing primarily. Cartoonishness (real word?) and the detail of the details. A traditional Pokemon feeling Pokemon tends to have a more cartoonish look to it, these are slightly more, as I'd call it, matured in that sense of design. What contributes to that is the the detail in the detail. A small addition of detail all around can add a more realistic look, like instead of just looking liked the feathers on Reshiram are implied by the design, like on Lugia, it actually looks like it has feathers throughout it.

At least that's how I see it. Its not a bad thing, though.

Elise
May 28th, 2010, 04:50 PM
I think there are a few elements of digimon if you are actually looking for them. I honestly didn't even think of it until other people mentioned it. I think the designs are pretty nifty actually and just like every new legendary, it's going to look odd until we've gotten used to them.

RedBaron474
May 28th, 2010, 05:11 PM
I agree with lx_theo in the fact that when you add more detail they look less pokemon like and more digimon-ish. They have in fact tried to put more and more detail into the pokemon (particularly legendary pokemon) each generation and in my opininion strayed rather far from the original.

Heres a little something to show how they've put more detail into pokemon throughout the generations:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2hrh2jc.jpg

dieter57
May 28th, 2010, 05:26 PM
i don't see digimon in them at all. i see two awesomely pwning legends in what i expect to be the sweetest pokemon games so far!

musesum626
May 28th, 2010, 05:28 PM
I personally love the fact that they have a lot of detail. It makes them look more intimidating, which is how powerful legendaries should look. It may not have the same "feel", but did you expect Ken Sugimori to stick with the same style? I just like them, and I don't pay attention to Digimon, so I don't care if they look like 'em. Basically what dieter57 said.

lx_theo
May 28th, 2010, 05:29 PM
i don't see digimon in them at all. i see two awesomely pwning legends in what i expect to be the sweetest pokemon games so far!

I thinks its more of a leaving from the Pokemon feel than more like Digimon. Thats probably just the next closest people could associate it with. How much it does is more closely associated with whether you take your personal opinion and feel of a Pokemon feel from earlier or later generations.

Rei Shingetsu
May 28th, 2010, 05:31 PM
I've never think the new ones look even like Digimon, in fact, I really like the fact there are more and more Pokemons, and I really love how they turn'ed out!

Roxas358
May 28th, 2010, 05:31 PM
I think there are a few elements of digimon if you are actually looking for them. I honestly didn't even think of it until other people mentioned it. I think the designs are pretty nifty actually and just like every new legendary, it's going to look odd until we've gotten used to them.

The part I emphasized in tha quote is completely true. It took me months to get used to all the new Pokemon (and everything else) from Diamond and Pearl, so naturally it'll happen in Black and White too.

Esmas
May 28th, 2010, 05:34 PM
Well I'd say Reshiram looks more Digimon-like to me, as its face seems to resemble Greymon in my opinion. Zekrom looks perfectly great. But then again, the previous generation's legendaries were even more 'realistic', or whatever. I think it's just the art style that makes it look more real, as it's beginning to become more 3D-ish.

Bloothump
May 28th, 2010, 07:47 PM
I agree that the new pokemon are closer to digimon than first gen, but really, I don't think the simplistic design of the original pokemon could survive today.

@lx_theo,
What you're saying is not entirely correct. I have to say, pidgey looks a lot kore realistic than Swablu. I beleive the more complicated the designs get, the more they are associated with digimon. I still love the designs, no matter what. They truly look like fantastical, legendary creatures.

lx_theo
May 28th, 2010, 07:59 PM
I agree that the new pokemon are closer to digimon than first gen, but really, I don't think the simplistic design of the original pokemon could survive today.

@lx_theo,
What you're saying is not entirely correct. I have to say, pidgey looks a lot kore realistic than Swablu. I beleive the more complicated the designs get, the more they are associated with digimon. I still love the designs, no matter what. They truly look like fantastical, legendary creatures.

The difference is that the design was realistic, not the details. It was a cartoon bird based almost directly off of a real bird. But it looked cartoonish. Its not fair to compare the newer ones, becasue unlike the first gens, they take a simple cartoonish first form and make the later forms that detail realism I've been talking about. They used to simply take the earlier form designs while keeping the cartoonishness and build on it rather than a complete overhaul.

JakeClowd
May 28th, 2010, 08:17 PM
I see your point about the detail. While Mew Two has mostly flat bases and solid colors (Which I'm not saying is a bad thing), Lugia has the back feathers and wings, Raquaza obtains horns and lots of detail lines along the side of his body, and Dialga has a much greater sense of detail and realism.
How ever, I see this only as an acomplishment to how pokemon itself as a whole is evolving. I personally look forward to the new legendaries and pokemon to come.

I do believe that the designers are running out of ideas. If you take a close look at them, you'll see resemblances to previous pokemon. Zekrom, for example, has an underside similar to that of Palkia.
And what's with the tails???

Ninja Caterpie
May 28th, 2010, 08:23 PM
Does it feel the same as the original Pokemon? No.

Is it a bad thing? No.

The thing is, in the game, the sprites are all going to be in the same style. You can't put that much detail into a small sprite of, what is it, 64x64?

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire
May 28th, 2010, 09:04 PM
Well they did say that we were going to be left asking if this is really pokemon... the legendaries are like Pokemon meet's digimon! which I like!

Germaniac
May 28th, 2010, 09:34 PM
Huh? I loved them, they doesn't likes Digimon at all, Pokemon is much better than Digimon

Elise
May 28th, 2010, 10:09 PM
I dunno, I felt like the fourth generation became more cartoon-ized than the previous 3 generations. Maybe a bit more of a "cutesy" factor, if you get what I'm saying. I don't think it would be a bad thing if the fifth generation got a little more, well, serious.

Compare the starters, if you will. Yes, they are all cartoons, but turtwig and bulbasaur are completely different styles of art, to me. Bulbasaur looks like it could actually work, whereas I feel like Turtwig's head would make him fall over because it is too big for his poor body.

Anyway, that's off subject. Different. Is. Good. Sometimes. :)

revelp8
May 28th, 2010, 10:17 PM
reshiram really does (to me at least) looks like a giant chicken with a face of a dog. A thought occurred right now as seeing is this pokemon is mascot for white, that it might actually be an ice type, which would be the closest type for the color white...since there isn't a "light" type. but hey, whose to say right? dark and steel were added in 2nd gen and i suppose ghost did too, in a sense

zekrom looks very sleek in his design, im just not found of that huge tail-thingamajig in the back. it looks like a bee sting kind of tail :T we might have our dark/dragon dual typing as well.

But that is just me speculating of course

Livewire
May 28th, 2010, 10:28 PM
The part I emphasized in tha quote is completely true. It took me months to get used to all the new Pokemon (and everything else) from Diamond and Pearl, so naturally it'll happen in Black and White too.

your comment is win. Gamefreak's M.O the past few gens has been taking the simple pokemon idea and constantly changing and adapting it - taking each new gen above and beyond the previous ones, in design, graphics, gameplay, everything. when gen IV came out people were freaking over the new designs and im sure their were a million of these "OMG they're Ugly! WTF!?" threads directed at the gen 4 pokes, and even some of the gen III ones as well. once we play the games for awhile they'll fit right into the pokemon universe.

aside from that, ill be buying white because the black legendary is dope. he's looking like a dark/steel type, which would freaking rock. (aside from a 4x fighting weakness >_<)

Galukxy
May 28th, 2010, 10:41 PM
I think they're awesome and they don't seem to remind me of Digimon in anyway at all.

reshiram really does (to me at least) looks like a giant chicken with a face of a dog.

I agree with this though. I thought the same thing whilst viewing them on Serebii,
But these are only the game like Pokemon images. Aren't they? So, they'll probably look slightly different in the Anime if they show up of course.

Åzurε
May 28th, 2010, 10:48 PM
I just looove how the complaints increase as the sprite resolution goes up.

Generations one and two were obviously the most similar, but even they had their differences. Raikou, Suicune, and Entei are probably the most "untraditional" pokemon as compared with the first 150.

Essentially, the art style seems to be what people don't like here. Using the above examples, Mewtwo (this is expanded from JakeClowd's post) had little shading, and has only two major colors. Lugia had 3, and more shading. Rayquaza's body seems to be textured slightly, and while mainly green one also obviously sees yellow and red and black. Finally, Dialga simplifies a bit, but has a different tone, almost like something extraterrestrial. Then we have Zekrom, even more alien-seeming than Dialga, with an almost-inorganic texture and iridescent accents. Pokemon designs started off easier to relate to (lab experiment, okay, disbelief suspended), and progresses farther out (wth is this thing? [answer: an original fictional being]).

TL;DR: The designs just get harder to cope with as they use up basic ideas, and the art style changes to reflect that.

Myles
May 28th, 2010, 11:08 PM
I also thought the cartoonishness increased a bit with Gen III and then continued on like that with Gen IV. Sure the legendaries are a bit more detailed, but look at Krabby vs Corphish to see what I mean.

Åzurε
May 28th, 2010, 11:10 PM
Yeah, it's a vibrancy thing too. Brighter Pokemon "don't look like Pokemon" either.

>Feelings<
May 28th, 2010, 11:46 PM
The fire and water starters are much more cartoonish looking to me than most other Pokemon in older generations, lol.

I like the new Legendary Pokemons in terms of looks.
They looked a lot like Digimon at first look, but it's not like Digimon is that bad or anything.
And no, it has nothing to do with senses of realism added to make them look like Digimon.

Reshiram is something I'm almost sure I'll love, and Zekrom is good too, though its similarity to Palkia makes it seem like originality in design, and good designs themselves will run out soon.
I personally just love the simplicity of Pokemon, and would hate to lose it. Details is good, but not the unnecessary ones. I wouldn't like a Lugia with five colours, horns, and lines on the body, though I'd like a more defined fur-like feel like that or Reshiram.

Bluerang1
May 29th, 2010, 12:23 AM
I agree with lx_theo in the fact that when you add more detail they look less pokemon like and more digimon-ish. They have in fact tried to put more and more detail into the pokemon (particularly legendary pokemon) each generation and in my opininion strayed rather far from the original.

Heres a little something to show how they've put more detail into pokemon throughout the generations:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2hrh2jc.jpg
NOW I see what the difference is between Pokemon and Digimon. Those all look Pokemon-ish bar Mewtwo. It looks Digitalised.

Horizon
May 29th, 2010, 01:15 AM
People just dislike change and try to pick faults that aren't there, in my opinion.

From reading this thread, it seems to me that people think having more detailed and life-like creatures is a bad thing.

shengar
May 29th, 2010, 04:05 AM
Maybe it just me paying attention to Digimon as much as i did to Pokemon. When I'm saw the Legendaries for first time, i can't think another but Digimon. In my opinion, Pokemon back day emphasized "simplicity" compared to Digimon that emphasized "details". What makes Charizard and Salamence great? their simple design. Its not a bad thing to add more detail to Pokemon if they do it right, just look at Crawdaunt.

Mew~
May 29th, 2010, 08:48 AM
I don't really know why you people are comparing Pokémon to Digimon... If they were both made by the same companys etc, then I would see some of your points but it's not like ken sugimori went and watched an episode of Digimon and somehow magically turned a drawing from GeoGreymon into Rekrom... THIS IS MADNESS :3 Plus, pokemon was created before Digimon right...? Well then instead of basically saying pokemon is a ripoff of Digimon... say Digimon is a ripoff of pokemon...
Oh and whats with the title? Charizard like pokemon in Gen V? Why would you want that? That would just be so unoriginal! Unless you ment the new pokes look like charizard...? Which quite frankly makes no sense looking a pokebu and charizard... xD
Oh p.s. I think Reshiram Looks great! How the hell does it look like a chicken..? I think its sort of a mix of Angle/Winged Beast

Bamboo Basara
May 29th, 2010, 12:35 PM
I suppose the new Pokemon look a little Digimon-ish, but I don't think that's a bad thing. They're finally starting to get creative with their designs. I think they're much, much better than the Pokemon that look like very slightly altered versions of real life creatures (I'm looking at you, Ledyba.)

Dubstep
May 29th, 2010, 01:21 PM
They don't look very Digimon, but they don't look very Pokemon either. The new legendaries just remind me immensely of a lot of dragon drawings I see around the Internet... Might as well be ganked off DA or something.

*Firestar*
May 29th, 2010, 01:41 PM
To be honest, I don't like the new Legendary sprites. They look all wrong, unlike how Pokemon has been for the last four generations. The starters also look very unappealing except for Tsutaja so far, however, Zorua and Zoroark have appealed to me fairly well, but its not Pokemon per sé. I liked it as it was, and Pokemon seems to be evolving a bit further than it was meant to. Nintendo are running out of design Ideas and are just putting random things together without any real thought anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't look right.

DXrobots
May 29th, 2010, 06:49 PM
they don't look that much different from Gen IV at least to me. When I first saw the black dragon I thought it looked like something from yugioh or Final fantasy

Jarate
May 29th, 2010, 07:33 PM
THESE are Digimon:

*some Pictures of Digimon*

And...Those are some of the most detailed Digimon ever created. There are many Digimon just as detailed or less detailed than Zekrom. The level of detail isn't what makes Zekrom digimonish so much as it's the way the head was drawn, the overall feeling from the Picture, and other things.

Ravecat
May 29th, 2010, 09:07 PM
Digimon just as detailed or less detailed than Zekrom.
Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Both Digimon and Pokémon come in detailed and less-detailed varieties.

Though yes, you won't find Pokémon at all as detailed as the ones I posted.

Jarate
May 30th, 2010, 06:40 AM
Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Both Digimon and Pokémon come in detailed and less-detailed varieties.

Though yes, you won't find Pokémon at all as detailed as the ones I posted.

Ah, I misread your point as, "Digimon are usually more Detailed than even Zekrom. Therefore Zekrom does not look like a Digimon."

Crobat
May 30th, 2010, 06:58 AM
to me pokemon are supposed to look like animals.. and i feel like with the legendaries they tend to go over board. like when kyogre came out i was like ok pokemon is taking a wrong turn here cuz i dunno wtf this is supposed to be. then the next generation they just didnt give a f*** and both every single legendary till this day i have no idea wth they are.

pokemon is definitely becoming more digimon imo.. sad but true

Myles
May 30th, 2010, 07:04 AM
Krogre is an orca (killer whale). The others are all types of dragons. And Pokemon are only sometimes based off animals. If they choose to not do an animal-based one that isn't 'not caring', it's just how it's suppose to be. There are plenty of Gen I non-animal-based Pokemon.

Yingxue
May 30th, 2010, 08:04 AM
to me pokemon are supposed to look like animals.. and i feel like with the legendaries they tend to go over board. like when kyogre came out i was like ok pokemon is taking a wrong turn here cuz i dunno wtf this is supposed to be. then the next generation they just didnt give a f*** and both every single legendary till this day i have no idea wth they are.

pokemon is definitely becoming more digimon imo.. sad but true

Not all Pokemon are based off animals, this has been stated a million times. Many of them are based off mythological creatures.

Bloothump
May 30th, 2010, 08:44 AM
I think a lot of people complain about how pokemon is running out of ideas when seeing gen 5 pokemon. However, I feel that if anything pokemon is only getting more and more unique ideas. I mean, look at the gereation one pokes. In specific, I'm talking about Eggsecute, Eggsecutor, Doduo, Dodrio, and Dugtrio. All have multiple heads with similar faces. That's five pokemon that share the exact same characteristic, and in three different evolution lines.

luckyduck
May 30th, 2010, 09:25 AM
digimon hell no...I don't care just enjoy the fact we're getting a new adventure and games to play geez people

The fire and water starters are much more cartoonish looking to me than most other Pokemon in older generations, lol.

I like the new Legendary Pokemons in terms of looks.
They looked a lot like Digimon at first look, but it's not like Digimon is that bad or anything.
And no, it has nothing to do with senses of realism added to make them look like Digimon.

Reshiram is something I'm almost sure I'll love, and Zekrom is good too, though its similarity to Palkia makes it seem like originality in design, and good designs themselves will run out soon.
I personally just love the simplicity of Pokemon, and would hate to lose it. Details is good, but not the unnecessary ones. I wouldn't like a Lugia with five colours, horns, and lines on the body, though I'd like a more defined fur-like feel like that or Reshiram.

dude i don't think they'll run out of ideas anytime soon that's like saying i can't do a thousand things in a month

Rich Boy Rob
May 30th, 2010, 09:37 AM
From reading this thread, it seems to me that people think having more detailed and life-like creatures is a bad thing.

This is what I find completely baffling. What does every one have against detail? In my books the more detailed they are, the better. Sure some of the earlier designs were simple, but some of them were equally detailed, for example Nidoking.
http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/thumb/c/c6/034Nidoking.png/210px-034Nidoking.png

cystar
May 30th, 2010, 09:51 AM
I think the legends dont look like didgemon butnot like pokemon either

WiiMann
May 30th, 2010, 11:13 AM
I have to admit i was excited about the starter's designs they're pretty awesome but the legends look more like freaking machines which is NOT cool. It's kind of depressing thinking the way Pokemon used to look like then the Sinnoh region kinda changed it. I say they stick with the cartoony looking Pokemon. Not machines or anything realistic.....

Dragonika
May 30th, 2010, 11:34 AM
Either way everyone is saying that theese legendarys are like digimon they still look awsome and everyone here is still gunna get the game ,,,.. sooo lets just be HAPPY :D lol



http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/ab177/twyangzii/Reshirambls.png

loliwin
May 31st, 2010, 12:53 AM
I think some of you guys arent used to detail, since I think you grew up with the classics, which had simple designs.

I think they still look look pokemon. XD

vibratingcat
May 31st, 2010, 01:32 AM
there are a few ways that the pokemon can look like digimon...
-they are new. we're use to the 493 pokemon shown so its hard to adjust to differant ones. plus no one knows all the digimon so when we see something new, we associate with something that we havnt seen that much also. (if that makes sense)
-we usually see digimon as humanoids. zoroark, reshiram and zekrom have humanoid features, 2 arms, 2 legs and a head that sits on top. alot o the old digimon r similar to this.

shengar
May 31st, 2010, 02:36 AM
to me pokemon are supposed to look like animals.. and i feel like with the legendaries they tend to go over board. like when kyogre came out i was like ok pokemon is taking a wrong turn here cuz i dunno wtf this is supposed to be. then the next generation they just didnt give a f*** and both every single legendary till this day i have no idea wth they are.

pokemon is definitely becoming more digimon imo.. sad but true
Completely agree, although some Pokemon is based on robot (beldum family) and inanimate object(Voltorb and Magnemite family). they can make Pokemon from inanimate object, but when they add inanimate to animal based Pokemon, then i call it Digimonish Pokemon(Rhyperior hands having hole to shootof rocks, Magmotar hands, Rayquaza body parts) for this legendary case, its the tail that make them look like Digimon

This is what I find completely baffling. What does every one have against detail? In my books the more detailed they are, the better. Sure some of the earlier designs were simple, but some of them were equally detailed, for example Nidoking.
http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/thumb/c/c6/034Nidoking.png/210px-034Nidoking.png Read my post earlier. that's the point i'm trying to make. if they do it right, a quite detailed Pokemon still have Pokemonish look.
If they make humanoid Pokemon too much, i won't be suprised if in later generation Pokemon hardly distinguishable from Digimon. Pokemon shouldn't be too humanoid in my opinion.

dieter57
May 31st, 2010, 04:09 PM
i like more detail. it gives a more realistic feel to the newer gens.

Ayselipera
June 1st, 2010, 11:35 AM
The more realistic looking detail you add to a Pokemon, the less it feels like a Pokemon.

My thoughts exactly. The more they add to the newer Pokemon the less they actually look like Pokemon. If you look at the first and second generation they were fairly simple looking. They almost resembled the plants and animals they were based off of entirely. Now Pokemon look more mechanical then anything. At least I see robots in some of them. :(

Mew~
June 1st, 2010, 12:31 PM
I don't at all see why this disscusion of them looking like digimon is still going on! POKAYMON, DIGIMON - TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!
I don't really know why you people are comparing Pokémon to Digimon... If they were both made by the same companys etc, then I would see some of your points but it's not like ken sugimori went and watched an episode of Digimon and somehow magically turned a drawing from GeoGreymon into Rekrom... THIS IS MADNESS :3 Plus, pokemon was created before Digimon right...? Well then instead of basically saying pokemon is a ripoff of Digimon... say Digimon is a ripoff of pokemon...
Oh and whats with the title? Charizard like pokemon in Gen V? Why would you want that? That would just be so unoriginal! Unless you ment the new pokes look like charizard...? Which quite frankly makes no sense looking a pokebu and charizard... xD
Oh p.s. I think Reshiram Looks great! How the hell does it look like a chicken..? I think its sort of a mix of Angle/Winged Beast

Jerme
June 1st, 2010, 12:51 PM
digimon:
http://cdn2.ioffer.com/img/item/255/599/32/DigimonPoster8.jpg
http://www.enricogalli.com/Immaginisito/digimon1.jpg
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008CH44.jpg

compared to the 3nd picture, the legends look nothing like them. and pokemon in general will never look like em

matter fact most pokemon look nothing like the ones in the other pictures

Magmarizer
June 1st, 2010, 01:42 PM
The problem is that the pokemon dont match eachother. Compare the starters of Gen. 5 to the legendarys. The style isint the same. The starters look very cartoonish and the legendarys look realistic. its just not balanced. How could they even live in the same universe?

dieter57
June 1st, 2010, 01:57 PM
The problem is that the pokemon dont match eachother. Compare the starters of Gen. 5 to the legendarys. The style isint the same. The starters look very cartoonish and the legendarys look realistic. its just not balanced. How could they even live in the same universe?

BECAUSE THEY ARE POKEMON!

they don't need a purpose, they don't need to look the same, they can be what ever they want!

that's what pokemon really is.

Rich Boy Rob
June 1st, 2010, 02:33 PM
My thoughts exactly. The more they add to the newer Pokemon the less they actually look like Pokemon. If you look at the first and second generation they were fairly simple looking.

This is what I find completely baffling. What does every one have against detail? In my books the more detailed they are, the better. Sure some of the earlier designs were simple, but some of them were equally detailed, for example Nidoking.
http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/thumb/c/c6/034Nidoking.png/210px-034Nidoking.png


Now Pokemon look more mechanical then anything. At least I see robots in some of them. :(

*Cough* Magnemite *Cough*

Illustration
June 1st, 2010, 03:02 PM
They don't look very Digimon, but they don't look very Pokemon either. The new legendaries just remind me immensely of a lot of dragon drawings I see around the Internet... Might as well be ganked off DA or something.

Exactly what I thought when I first saw them.

Anyway, they'll probably start to look more like Pokemon once you get used to them being in a Pokemon game and using them in battles and such. At least for me, they will.

Pikachukid
June 1st, 2010, 10:41 PM
For me, Pokemon will never resemble Digimon unless they suddenly start speaking. Oh wait...Yeah...

Seriously though Pokemon and Digimon are totally different. You guys are just tripping. I think the only passable "mons" that could cross over are Frigimon and Elecmon. Digimon into Pokemon. Yeah that's right. Digimon into Pokemon. They have different styles and aren't easily confused.


http://sm_angel.tripod.com/poster_digi.jpg
This here is a poster of some digimon. Look at Number 33 and 38. If Frigimon were shorter and couldn't talk human and just said frigi a lot he would look so much like a pokemon IMO. 38 could pass...probably...

Tanaki
June 1st, 2010, 11:23 PM
They don't bear much resemblance to digimon whatsoever. They're definitely a bit strange in appearance, but no less awkward than Dialga or Palkia were to me when I first saw D/P. Reshiram has an Arceus-like deity look to him, and has similar feet to Palkia, while Zekrom has a Palkia-like body build.

Ziraider
June 2nd, 2010, 03:04 AM
Digimon was just a rip off of Pokemon back in the day. They don't even show it anymore. So if I where to say anything about this it would be Digimon took designs from Pokemon

ichuesther
June 2nd, 2010, 03:00 PM
I can't limit Pokemon to a certain "Appearance", nor can I with Digimon, so I can't say anything about what "Pokemon" is becoming.
Pokemon is Pokemon.
It's been over 13 years since Pokemon started, it's bound to have significant differences as of now and then.
I actually like the new Pokemon. They look freakin epic :D

Ayselipera
June 2nd, 2010, 03:20 PM
*Cough* Magnemite *Cough*

I know what you're trying to get at, but even Magnemite has an almost rounded out cuter look then the newer Pokemon. At least I see it.

Doctor
June 7th, 2010, 12:15 PM
Now that somebody mentions it... Reshiram and Zekrom do look like Digimon. XD

And I like it! I've often been fascinated by the complicated designs of some Digimon, while I've mostly liked Pokémon because they're cute.

Though, I think Gen IV was moving pokémon designs more in the cartoonish direction, and judging by the new starters from Gen V, that's they way they're heading now as well...

Let's hope for more new pokémon looking a teeny bit Digimonish though. Because they're just cool like that. Go Reshiram!