PDA

View Full Version : [B/W] What happened to the old simple Pokemon?


Pages : [1] 2

Aquila
June 2nd, 2010, 02:39 PM
Well, basicly this thread is just a cry of irritation as once again it seems that the new Pokemon will be exaggerated with random objects and signs infiltrated in their being/body(whatever you call it). I have seen the new pokemon starters and legendarys and find them together with the 4th generation massivly exaggerated and too "fancy". The reason I like Pokemon, is mainly because of the 1st and 2nd generation who had simple pokemon with no "ultra"-shields and random trees on their back. There are of course some exceptions in the 4th generation, but they are rare. Pokemon is getting uglier every generation.

NotchedEarPichu
June 2nd, 2010, 02:42 PM
I agree with you all the way
Good point

Hybrid Trainer
June 2nd, 2010, 02:44 PM
I completely agree with you, the third generation went a little bit off the rails but OMG the fourth completely killed it.

Romantica
June 2nd, 2010, 02:48 PM
I miss the original styles too. But at the same time it's always interesting to see what they come up with. I just hate when they start to look like Digimon or something off of the those other shows.

Aquila
June 2nd, 2010, 03:00 PM
I miss the original styles too. But at the same time it's always interesting to see what they come up with. I just hate when they start to look like Digimon or something off of the those other shows.

Like Dialga and Palkia. Unnecessary if you ask me.

Shiny Shaymin
June 2nd, 2010, 03:04 PM
I completely agree with you, the third generation went a little bit off the rails but OMG the fourth completely killed it.

^ Excactly. First and second gens were fine, in the the third it started to get a little weird… but Diamond and Pearl just killed Pokémon. I really hate how complicated the new legendaries are, and even the starters are a bit too detailed.

The reason I like Pokemon, is mainly because of the 1st and 2nd generation who had simple pokemon with no "ultra"-shields and random trees on their back.

Same here. Around the same time Pokémon came out, things like Yugioh and Digimon came out too… and they just seemed to “fancy” to me, so I went with Pokemon. I really hope the other Pokémon don’t get as over complicated as Digimon. It’ll really ruin it.

ichuesther
June 2nd, 2010, 03:05 PM
Like I said in another thread, I can't limit appearances in Pokemon.
I have to admit there is a slight change in how the Pokemon look, but I don't see anything bad about it.
I think the new Pokemon look awesome (aside from the starter pokemon, but whatever), but that's just my opinion.
And I do somewhat agree with you, I do like the older generation Pokemon better than the current ones ^-^

Electrovenom
June 2nd, 2010, 03:08 PM
Well, basicly this thread is just a cry of irritation as once again it seems that the new Pokemon will be exaggerated with random objects and signs infiltrated in their being/body(whatever you call it). I have seen the new pokemon starters and legendarys and find them together with the 4th generation massivly exaggerated and too "fancy". The reason I like Pokemon, is mainly because of the 1st and 2nd generation who had simple pokemon with no "ultra"-shields and random trees on their back. There are of course some exceptions in the 4th generation, but they are rare. Pokemon is getting uglier every generation.

Well said and I agree. Though there are some exceptions as you say. I quite like the Shinx family.

WriteThemWrong
June 2nd, 2010, 03:08 PM
pokemon in general is getting more complex. as more pokemon are added the new ones have to have something that sets them apart from the old ones. besides, once pokemon established itself it was free to experiment and be creative, now that's a sign of progress if you ask me

Horizon
June 2nd, 2010, 03:09 PM
Better get used to change, people.

Hybrid Trainer
June 2nd, 2010, 03:12 PM
I just thought, it isnt really the games fault. its the consoles fault. if it werent for the increase in the graphics quality they would still have simple sprites and not these weired complicated ones they have now that look like Digimon.

WriteThemWrong
June 2nd, 2010, 03:15 PM
I just thought, it isnt really the games fault. its the consoles fault. if it werent for the increase in the graphics quality they would still have simple sprites and not these weired complicated ones they have now that look like Digimon.
so you'd wanna play variations of pokemon with the same graphics as red and blue?

Storm_has_formed
June 2nd, 2010, 03:24 PM
what is with all these digimon comparisons! I honestly do not see why people complain about the designs. If it stayed simplistic people will complain about the lack of interesting ideas, so no matter what they do not everyone will be satisfied. Could you honestly say that they could have made 500+ simple designs?

Hybrid Trainer
June 2nd, 2010, 03:25 PM
so you'd wanna play variations of pokemon with the same graphics as red and blue?

i wouldnt mind that at all.
i still play the classics cos there so cool looking.

Kirbychu
June 2nd, 2010, 03:31 PM
1st gen is good, but the Pokemon are a bit simple. Just look at Persian, it's literally just a mountain lion with a gem on its head. Rapidash is a horse with a fiery mane, Pidgey is just a bird.

2nd and 3rd had it right. Some of the 3rd gen Pokemon were strange but it was a good batch.

4th is garbage, I don't even want to talk about it.

I'm liking the 5th gen Pokemon so far. They're looking better than the 4th, at least. My favorites are Zekrom and Smugleaf.

KejiBebi
June 2nd, 2010, 03:32 PM
Most of them are quite ugly, the voices are weird in the anime, and the names are unoriginal. But no matter what I'll keep buying the games and playing them, as there are always exceptions and always ones that I do happen to like. :3 (although there were many more that I liked in the 1st and 2nd gens)

shookie
June 2nd, 2010, 03:38 PM
This happens with every media franchise. This argument can also be equally supported on both sides. Honestly Horizon pretty much summed up the entire point pretty well.

If Pokémon followed the same guidelines as they had in the first generation, as in, they kept the same design ideas, then people would complain that the future designs look too similar. It's bound to happen eventually when they start breaching numbers in the thousands, but that's better than in the hundreds. If they had the same exact graphics while technology around them kept expanding, then they'd be considered obsolete really quickly.

Also, the one-up they have on Digimon is the fact that every species of Digimon have extremely similar characteristics, the most obvious being the eyes. Nearly every family of Pokémon have different face and body styles even between their own evolutions, so they're all unique in a way.

Timbjerr
June 2nd, 2010, 03:41 PM
You know, if you stop complaining about the new pokemon just because they're not just like the original pokemon, and just play the games as casually as you played the original games, the new pokemon will grow on you. >_>

I hated the genIV pokemon when they were all leaked, but I'm indifferent at worst to most of them. =/

blazez3212
June 2nd, 2010, 05:10 PM
I actually like the first 3 gens and alittle of the 4th but guys just think of would like like them to created 5 gens of pokemon game with only 2 gens of th same pokes its best for a little change + digimon was crap from the beginning Digimon was based off pokemon so anyways get used to the change that will come

SinisterEternity
June 2nd, 2010, 05:57 PM
Yes I do agree that the two first generations look better than the 4th and 5th one. :/
I actually like Reshiram and Tsutaja though !
BUT I wonder how the new Pokemon of Isshu will look like ">__>

RyanGT
June 2nd, 2010, 05:57 PM
I remember the days when there was no such thing as EVs, IVs, Natures, or even Shiny Pokemon. Ahh those were the good old days of simple Pokemon.

Niprop
June 2nd, 2010, 06:07 PM
They show up from time to time. Porygon-Z and Drifloon are perfect examples of simplistic Pokémon from generation IV, and I'm sure Black and White will have their own simple Pokémon too.

Raikt
June 2nd, 2010, 06:11 PM
Uh, so you remember when Pokemon didn't exist? Even if they were called something else, EV's and IV's have always been in Pokemon, along with shinies. This includes Generation I.

shookie
June 2nd, 2010, 06:14 PM
I remember the days when there was no such thing as EVs, IVs, Natures, or even Shiny Pokemon. Ahh those were the good old days of simple Pokemon.
EVs and IVs have always existed in some capacity :p they're just in a much more comprehensible structure now.

beca
June 2nd, 2010, 06:19 PM
It's mainly the names that I find a bit...over the top. I mean come on, Regigigas? o_o that could be Quagmire's new catchphrase.
Floaroma Town isn't much better either. The simple ones like Cerulean City were fine xD
But hey, at this point I'd have ran out of ideas too. :P

Dillon_68
June 2nd, 2010, 06:30 PM
The world isn't the same as it was 10 years ago, face the fact that the world is changing and games are tweeked to suit the current trends. I mean, nowadays, people want 3D or HD graphics. Would people buy PS3's if it had graphics like the NES? No.

An Imperialist named Dak
June 2nd, 2010, 06:32 PM
oh yeah because a turtle with CANNONS in its back and a frog-dino having a giant plant-mushroom on its back isn't exaggerated and simple at all.

Stop wearing your nostalgia glasses and try coming up with 500+ unique pokemon because ONE guy comes up with at least 80% of the designs.

RyanGT
June 2nd, 2010, 06:33 PM
Uh, so you remember when Pokemon didn't exist? Even if they were called something else, EV's and IV's have always been in Pokemon, along with shinies. This includes Generation I.

I'm talking about Red and Blue. There were not shinies in those games. And no one EV trained their pokemon, or IV bred in Red and Blue either.

shookie
June 2nd, 2010, 06:40 PM
And no one EV trained their pokemon, or IV bred in Red and Blue either.
That's because you didn't have to. It was possible to max out all of the stats using the system in the original games. The variables and terminology have changed over the few years, but the mechanics have been there from the start.

Magmarizer
June 2nd, 2010, 06:58 PM
The reason I like Pokemon, is mainly because of the 1st and 2nd generation who had simple pokemon with no "ultra"-shields and random trees on their back. .
I agree with the above posters. what about pokemon with random bulbs on there back?

Floaroma Town isn't much better either. The simple ones like Cerulean City were fine
"oh wow look at this town! it looks just the same as the last. and the one before that. and before that."

After a while it gets old to see the same type of town over and over agian.

FlameShocker
June 2nd, 2010, 07:13 PM
I have no real opinion on how the new(ish, meaning fourth generation) ones look. I was thrilled that they weren't doing the crap they'd done for third generation (barely any changes to evolutionary families with third generation). My only real complaints about fourth generation are Stealth Rock and Infernape outclassing Blaziken. In any case, I hope the crap of third generation won't be repeated in the fifth one.

PiPVoda
June 3rd, 2010, 09:33 AM
I don't see why some people are complaining about the designs. Like already mentioned there has to be a way to differentiate between old pokemon and new pokemon and as times progress designs change. The newer pokemon are just as simple-designed as the older generations. It just appears to some of you that they're not. I mean come on I have yet to see a pokemon with a helicopter, an AK-47, and a flame thrower strapped to its back so until then most pokemon are simply designed in my opinion.

Another thing, if you aren't pleased with the designs then don't play the games. Really, it's just as simple as that. I'm not trying to sound rude, but it just irks me when people complain about things like these when Game Freak spent YEARS developing it trying to please pokemon lovers everywhere. We should all be thankful we have so many pokemon and that pokemon didn't take some long hiatus like Digimon has after the 2nd or 3rd gen. Coming up with so many new pokemon has to be tough. I know for sure I would have never been able to design Reshiram, Zekrom, Zoroark/Zorua, or the starters on my own. :D

Bluerang1
June 3rd, 2010, 09:52 AM
You're right, getting more complicated and extra not very "Pokémon" but, it's the future! Things move on! I like the change if you as me.

Cold Fusion
June 3rd, 2010, 10:09 AM
Yes, I think many miss the old games but you can keep the old consoles and play them if you wish and when ever you like. Whip up your Gameboy Colour (if you still have it that is) or whatever it is you want to play and give the old games a good whirl, that's what I do. Technology is growing up and so are the games, who nowadays would want the NES now? Not many people I know would want it, or may never have heard of it. Everybody (well, nearly everybody...) is all: "Yay, I have PS3 all that high definition stuff on my screen that rocks my socks off!" If you miss the old classics, go back to them, even if it's the Gameboy Colour you can only get to.

As for the designs, why complain? You're getting a good game to entertain you for a while, right? It's not like they're going to the extreme, I agree with PiPVoda here, the designs are still pretty simple. Maybe they're ugly to you, but it's a load of pixels on your consoles screen. Get over it. You're getting a treat of a game with some new styles, I bet it takes hours (Such an understatement) maybe even to think of all these designs even if they're basing them off other Pokemon from the previous games. I'd say just be glad they haven't dropped the whole Pokemon subject and enjoy past and present games!

Charmageddon
June 3rd, 2010, 11:55 AM
I don't the the more complex designs either, I feel that they try to hard to be "epic and kewl". However, I believe that such designs, while they have increased in number since Gen I, are still in the minority.

ase
June 3rd, 2010, 12:07 PM
just play the game ppl its called change if Game Freak didn't add all the graphics onto the pokes, it would have went out of business a Long time ago

HugSomebody
June 3rd, 2010, 12:10 PM
As new Pokemon increase, simplistic designs will decrease. The creators have to get creative and make a distinct difference between all the Pokemon (especially parallels of different generations, such as Meowth and Skitty) and to do this, they have to make the Pokemon a little more complex. I personally see nothing wrong with this; it's interesting to see what new designs are brought to the table. =D

Dubstep
June 3rd, 2010, 12:14 PM
For the most part I agree with you (Rotom WTF), but there have been some cool Pokemon in 4th and 5th gen. Leafeon and Lucario, anyone?

I wish they'd focus on new things besides new Pokemon, though. If they didn't have to whip 50+ new species out of their rears every couple of years, it might not be so bad.

Xyrin
June 3rd, 2010, 12:39 PM
I don't see why some people are complaining about the designs. Like already mentioned there has to be a way to differentiate between old pokemon and new pokemon and as times progress designs change. The newer pokemon are just as simple-designed as the older generations. It just appears to some of you that they're not. I mean come on I have yet to see a pokemon with a helicopter, an AK-47, and a flame thrower strapped to its back so until then most pokemon are simply designed in my opinion.

Another thing, if you aren't pleased with the designs then don't play the games. Really, it's just as simple as that. I'm not trying to sound rude, but it just irks me when people complain about things like these when Game Freak spent YEARS developing it trying to please pokemon lovers everywhere. We should all be thankful we have so many pokemon and that pokemon didn't take some long hiatus like Digimon has after the 2nd or 3rd gen. Coming up with so many new pokemon has to be tough. I know for sure I would have never been able to design Reshiram, Zekrom, Zoroark/Zorua, or the starters on my own. :D
I completely agree with you! Stop complaining people.

Guy
June 3rd, 2010, 01:05 PM
Better get used to change, people.

You know, if you stop complaining about the new pokemon just because they're not just like the original pokemon, and just play the games as casually as you played the original games, the new pokemon will grow on you. >_>

I hated the genIV pokemon when they were all leaked, but I'm indifferent at worst to most of them. =/

The world isn't the same as it was 10 years ago, face the fact that the world is changing and games are tweeked to suit the current trends. I mean, nowadays, people want 3D or HD graphics. Would people buy PS3's if it had graphics like the NES? No.

oh yeah because a turtle with CANNONS in its back and a frog-dino having a giant plant-mushroom on its back isn't exaggerated and simple at all.

Stop wearing your nostalgia glasses and try coming up with 500+ unique pokemon because ONE guy comes up with at least 80% of the designs.

I don't see why some people are complaining about the designs. Like already mentioned there has to be a way to differentiate between old pokemon and new pokemon and as times progress designs change. The newer pokemon are just as simple-designed as the older generations. It just appears to some of you that they're not. I mean come on I have yet to see a pokemon with a helicopter, an AK-47, and a flame thrower strapped to its back so until then most pokemon are simply designed in my opinion.

Another thing, if you aren't pleased with the designs then don't play the games. Really, it's just as simple as that. I'm not trying to sound rude, but it just irks me when people complain about things like these when Game Freak spent YEARS developing it trying to please pokemon lovers everywhere. We should all be thankful we have so many pokemon and that pokemon didn't take some long hiatus like Digimon has after the 2nd or 3rd gen. Coming up with so many new pokemon has to be tough. I know for sure I would have never been able to design Reshiram, Zekrom, Zoroark/Zorua, or the starters on my own. :D
All these posters here have it right. Every time a new generation comes out, people are always bringing up the same exact complaint. "Pokémon has become so unoriginal. Nothing beats the older Red and Blue days where things were so simple. " Well, that was about fourteen years ago since Red and Blue, and to be honest, what we have now is a lot better than what we had before. Yes, yes, I did say that what we have now is a lot better than before. For one, all the Pokémon back from the 1st and 2nd Generation were all very simple. I think when Pokémon became established and realized they could take risks in bringing more to Pokémon is when they started to develop even more. They became more unique in their own way. So, it isn't just a blue turtle with a shell anymore, it's something more than that. Actually, Pokémon hasn't even overdone anything with Pokémon yet. They are still relatively the same and simple as they used to be, just with a little more. So, in all respect, I think it's time a lot of players stop comparing the newer generations to the older generations. Now, that is pretty old and unoriginal if you ask me, since it happens every time. If anything, compare the new generation to the one before it, not one so many years back. It doesn't make any sense to compare Red and Blue to Black and White since they are two way different generations from two different eras in time. Pokémon is still Pokémon, nothing about that has changed.

As far as the graphics go, I would have quit Pokémon years ago if it had stayed like RBY and GSC. They were great at that time because nothing better was out. Now however we've been given more technology and larger spaces to work with. Like someone mentioned earlier, playing through city after city that looked the same got really old. At least every new generation we get now, each city has some new aspect to look forward to and the new graphics help with that ... a lot. So, if you're tired of what Pokémon has become now, then stop playing the newer games and stick to the older generation if that's what pleases you so much.

Saying this as easily as possible, but Pokémon isn't what it used to be. It's changed, so get used to it already and stop crying over something so old of a matter already. Not meaning to sound rude or harsh, but I'm just being direct to the topic at hand and giving my voice over the matter. That is, Pokémon is still Pokémon, change is expected, and it's tiring to see people keep comparing every new generation to the first generation [Red/Blue/Green] and then complaining about it.

dieter57
June 3rd, 2010, 01:24 PM
^epic win!^
couldn't agree more.
you win the thread.

cobraman228
June 3rd, 2010, 01:50 PM
All these posters here have it right. Every time a new generation comes out, people are always bringing up the same exact complaint. "Pokémon has become so unoriginal. Nothing beats the older Red and Blue days where things were so simple. " Well, that was about fourteen years ago since Red and Blue, and to be honest, what we have now is a lot better than what we had before. Yes, yes, I did say that what we have now is a lot better than before. For one, all the Pokémon back from the 1st and 2nd Generation were all very simple. I think when Pokémon became established and realized they could take risks in bringing more to Pokémon is when they started to develop even more. They became more unique in their own way. So, it isn't just a blue turtle with a shell anymore, it's something more than that. Actually, Pokémon hasn't even overdone anything with Pokémon yet. They are still relatively the same and simple as they used to be, just with a little more. So, in all respect, I think it's time a lot of players stop comparing the newer generations to the older generations. Now, that is pretty old and unoriginal if you ask me, since it happens every time. If anything, compare the new generation to the one before it, not one so many years back. It doesn't make any sense to compare Red and Blue to Black and White since they are two way different generations from two different eras in time. Pokémon is still Pokémon, nothing about that has changed.

As far as the graphics go, I would have quit Pokémon years ago if it had stayed like RBY and GSC. They were great at that time because nothing better was out. Now however we've been given more technology and larger spaces to work with. Like someone mentioned earlier, playing through city after city that looked the same got really old. At least every new generation we get now, each city has some new aspect to look forward to and the new graphics help with that ... a lot. So, if you're tired of what Pokémon has become now, then stop playing the newer games and stick to the older generation if that's what pleases you so much.

Saying this as easily as possible, but Pokémon isn't what it used to be. It's changed, so get used to it already and stop crying over something so old of a matter already. Not meaning to sound rude or harsh, but I'm just being direct to the topic at hand and giving my voice over the matter. That is, Pokémon is still Pokémon, change is expected, and it's tiring to see people keep comparing every new generation to the first generation [Red/Blue/Green] and then complaining about it.

Epic WIN!

This good person summarized everything I wanted to say.

Do you really want old R/B/Y or G/S/C Graphics or Pokemon style anymore. No, if it was still like the ol' 8 bit days, I would not be playing Pokemon anymore. Change is a good thing. I love most of the Gen III and IV Pokemon, Lucario being my favorite. Get a grip, play the game, and have fun :)

dr.feelgood11
June 3rd, 2010, 01:51 PM
i kinda agree with you but personally i like the way that creators try to create newer sleeker pokemon, it's true that some of them are complete fails (drapion for examlple) but a lot of them are pretty badass (gallade) i do sometimes wish that they can go back to the basics of the 1st gen but then again i'd like to see what new ideas and add-ons they come with

For the record i don't approve of the new starters except for Tsutaja (the snake obnoxious looking one) But i approve of the 2 legendaries and Zorua/Zoroark

Also, Hiiro just won this thread with that argument, no ifs ands or buts

altariaking
June 3rd, 2010, 04:11 PM
hooray, black and white are finally here!
wow, it's a new pokemon, let's see what it is!
a blue ball with eyes! awesome!

in case you can't tell, i'm being sarcastic.
if you don't like what's new, chuck your xbox out the window and go play pokemon blue like a good little boy.

TheAppleFreak
June 3rd, 2010, 04:40 PM
I'd post a long rant explaining how times are changing and that you have to get used to new things, but Hiiro already said it.

I for one think that many of the Gen IV Pokémon are actually rather creative, even if they bear similarities to older species. And some of the Gen IV Pokémon were very creative and epic in their own right (Garchomp, anyone?). Admittedly, there were a few blunders (Probopass) in Gen IV, and the same will be said about Gen V, but in time it'll just grow on us. Disengage the nostalgia filter and prepare for the future, because it'll be here whether you like it or not.

Choy95
June 3rd, 2010, 05:19 PM
I miss blue version :( and the yellow version cause pikachu follows u around

GoldvsRed
June 3rd, 2010, 06:09 PM
The way I see it, the Pokemon get uglier whenever people complain about them. Art styles change, for better of for worse. I, for one, actually thought that the Gen. V Pokemon (the revealed ones, that is) looked much simpler than the Pokes of Gen. III and Gen. IV.



Actually, I've decided that its not that Pokemon's going downhill, its just that we're growing up. Simple as that.

Toa Hyro
June 3rd, 2010, 06:31 PM
All these posters here have it right. Every time a new generation comes out, people are always bringing up the same exact complaint. "Pokémon has become so unoriginal. Nothing beats the older Red and Blue days where things were so simple. " Well, that was about fourteen years ago since Red and Blue, and to be honest, what we have now is a lot better than what we had before. Yes, yes, I did say that what we have now is a lot better than before. For one, all the Pokémon back from the 1st and 2nd Generation were all very simple. I think when Pokémon became established and realized they could take risks in bringing more to Pokémon is when they started to develop even more. They became more unique in their own way. So, it isn't just a blue turtle with a shell anymore, it's something more than that. Actually, Pokémon hasn't even overdone anything with Pokémon yet. They are still relatively the same and simple as they used to be, just with a little more. So, in all respect, I think it's time a lot of players stop comparing the newer generations to the older generations. Now, that is pretty old and unoriginal if you ask me, since it happens every time. If anything, compare the new generation to the one before it, not one so many years back. It doesn't make any sense to compare Red and Blue to Black and White since they are two way different generations from two different eras in time. Pokémon is still Pokémon, nothing about that has changed.

As far as the graphics go, I would have quit Pokémon years ago if it had stayed like RBY and GSC. They were great at that time because nothing better was out. Now however we've been given more technology and larger spaces to work with. Like someone mentioned earlier, playing through city after city that looked the same got really old. At least every new generation we get now, each city has some new aspect to look forward to and the new graphics help with that ... a lot. So, if you're tired of what Pokémon has become now, then stop playing the newer games and stick to the older generation if that's what pleases you so much.

Saying this as easily as possible, but Pokémon isn't what it used to be. It's changed, so get used to it already and stop crying over something so old of a matter already. Not meaning to sound rude or harsh, but I'm just being direct to the topic at hand and giving my voice over the matter. That is, Pokémon is still Pokémon, change is expected, and it's tiring to see people keep comparing every new generation to the first generation [Red/Blue/Green] and then complaining about it.
This is right stop complaining and get over it already.

Haza
June 3rd, 2010, 06:40 PM
I would find the series boring if it kept it's basic boring designs, especially this late.

locoroco
June 3rd, 2010, 06:45 PM
good point id post a long rant but some1 alredy did and i make way to many grammar mistakes. peoples get used to the fact that everything changes if i must say you cant expect to be with the same old things just because you like them(well you could)but you have got to let go.i liked red and blue also the gsc deries but i cant say that i dint love fire red or leaf green and i cant say i didnt love heart gold and soul silver id be liying if i did my point is that things change either for the worst or for the better. reshiram and the other 1 i forgot the name look extremly simple they just have a lot of details thats it but they are simple zoura and zoroark are simple too they look like remixed versions of eevee and lucario i guess that you cant say their not simplistic because they are.try coming up with atleast 100+ pokemon designs each gen its not easy right get used to change everything will change example:cars they making a change to hybrid i atleast love the sound that gas guslers make but we are running out of fuel 1 day it will be a law to atleast own a hybrid car(i hope its not true and that it never happens).i say get used to it(not trying to sound rude or anything).

BleuVII
June 3rd, 2010, 06:54 PM
You know, Pokemon still has a lot of simplicity in it. Piplup and Chimchar were both very simple, as was Shinx, Pachirisu, Drifloon, Buneary, and a whole host of others. Honestly, I thought that Gen IV had much better pokemon than Gen III. I became interested after seeing Piplup, Chimchar, and Turtwig on a McDonald's ad in Japan. I hadn't been interested in pokemon in years. So I thought that was something.

hayner225
June 4th, 2010, 11:54 AM
The creators are losing their creativity. I agree. The pokemon are looking more like fanmon.... come to think of it, the fan made pokemon look even better. They should make a contest where everyone makes their own pokemon and some get picked for the game.

empty streets
June 4th, 2010, 12:02 PM
I also agree that the pokemon are getting uglier. I liked the 2nd, 3rd generations and some pokemon from the 4th. I won't judge the 5th gen yet, but the starters do bug me.

Mew~
June 4th, 2010, 12:59 PM
What happened to the old simple Pokemon?

Let me see... They got better LOL More better looking powerfuler and less like normal animals! What pokemon should look like! :D

Horizon
June 4th, 2010, 01:04 PM
The creators are losing their creativity. I agree. The pokemon are looking more like fanmon.... come to think of it, the fan made pokemon look even better. They should make a contest where everyone makes their own pokemon and some get picked for the game.

Oxymoron alert right there. They're losing their creativity by making more vibrant and detailed designs?

Adventure
June 4th, 2010, 01:12 PM
The thing I'm the most bitter about, is the legendaries.

Nothing wrong with them becoming plusiers numbers for each new gen, but they all look like robots now. Or wierd dolls. I liked Lugia and Ho-oh, they still had faces! And Mew and Mewtwo were a bit mysterious. I can stand some of the newer ones, like.... hm... Giratina. It's ok, especially in it's other shape. But the gen III legendaries can just go back home and stay there.

But meh. This is just me rambling like I've done in methinks many threads like this before.

I believe it's about how you feel about the games. We oldies who played the first ones when we were young and discovered pokémon, most of us (I assume) like gen I and II better. I think I've heard many of those who started playing pokémon when later generations were about thinks that they don't look too bad. And many of those who still do think gen I and II looks better, probably gets pepped up to think so by the oldies.
Maybe.

BleuVII
June 4th, 2010, 02:16 PM
We oldies who played the first ones when we were young and discovered pokémon, most of us (I assume) like gen I and II better. I think I've heard many of those who started playing pokémon when later generations were about thinks that they don't look too bad. And many of those who still do think gen I and II looks better, probably gets pepped up to think so by the oldies.
Maybe.

Well, I'd guess so in some cases, but I would definitely be the exception to the rule. I played Gen I and didn't think that a lot of the pokemon looked very good. I felt like the creators were just running out of ideas when they passed the likes of Farfetch'd, Lickitung, Doduo, Dodrio, and some others. When Gen II came out, I took a look at the pokemon that had been highly publicized--the starters, Marill, Donphan, Ho-Oh, and Lugia--and thought that they all looked hideous. With the exception of Donphan, I still feel the same way. That made me skip Gen II entirely. Gen III came out, and one look at Treeko, Torchic, and Mudkip made me think that it wasn't for me. Looking at some of the other designs from Gen III, I think it was a wise choice. As I said before, it was when I was in a Japanese McDonald's that I first saw Gen IV pokemon, and it re-kindled my interest because I thought the designs were so good.

Numbers
June 4th, 2010, 02:25 PM
^ Excactly. First and second gens were fine, in the the third it started to get a little weird… but Diamond and Pearl just killed Pokémon. I really hate how complicated the new legendaries are, and even the starters are a bit too detailed.



Same here. Around the same time Pokémon came out, things like Yugioh and Digimon came out too… and they just seemed to “fancy” to me, so I went with Pokemon. I really hope the other Pokémon don’t get as over complicated as Digimon. It’ll really ruin it.

But you have the new starters as your Avatar and in your sig? lol xD
I agree though, I like the older stuff, it's more simple and better. But at the same time we better get used to change. Plus it's always interesting to see new things they come up with.

Spinosaurus
June 4th, 2010, 02:28 PM
Awesome, ugly, pretty, cute, disguting.
I don't care what would these Pokémon look like, I just pick my favorites and play.

I prefer ugly Pokémon over cute Pokémon anyways. :P

dieter57
June 4th, 2010, 03:09 PM
I miss blue version :( and the yellow version cause pikachu follows u around

get a pikachu and walk around in kanto in SS/HG.
same thing.

kw2tsg1
June 4th, 2010, 03:18 PM
The originals were great. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree on that in some shape or form. The newer gens are getting a bit fancy/crazy looking but it is interesting as to what they come up with.

batmon
June 4th, 2010, 03:29 PM
I'm sure if the generations were reversed, people would think that Gen I is too simplistic and not creative. Every gen has horrible pokemon, take your nostalgia goggles off and judge fairly.

Volroc
June 4th, 2010, 04:34 PM
i think they should balance out old classic design with new designs XD

i love ZeKrom (i capitalize the K to remember the correct pronuniaction lol)
i tihnk hes the most badass jet lookin dragon yet :3

dieter57
June 4th, 2010, 04:39 PM
isn't he they only jet lookin dragon yet? derp.
and i agree.
balance the designs just a little bit.

shot571
June 4th, 2010, 04:54 PM
Awesome, ugly, pretty, cute, disguting.
I don't care what would these Pokémon look like, I just pick my favorites and play.

I prefer ugly Pokémon over cute Pokémon anyways. :P
Lol I thought you were talking about Numbers's sig.I was just like What is he on about. :p
I like the legendaries and the starters are ok. grass and fire are ok. water though sucks imo. I reckon they are making them slightly more detailed to stop people comparing pokemon. e.g. bidoof + piplup = new starter. Plus now they can do more with the fames now since they have better technology. I agree they don't have that 'original' pokemon feel but they are pokemon none the less. Pretty good ones imo.

BleuVII
June 4th, 2010, 10:04 PM
i love ZeKrom (i capitalize the K to remember the correct pronuniaction lol)

Not quite there Volroc.:cheeky: Japanese can't do consonant blends like "Kr", since all consonants (with the exception of 'n') must be followed by a vowel. So the Japanese is Zekuromu, which could be better romanized as Zek'rom.

Nikorasu
June 4th, 2010, 10:39 PM
UGH i hate the new generations. Everything is bad about them, their pokemon, storylines, how many ****ing legendaries they have to have. :\

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=ramblingsofsomeretards.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Framblingsofsomeretards.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F1270797910960.jpg&sref=http%3A%2F%2Framblingsofsomeretards.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F01%2F1966%2F

Gf D/P/Pt

DarkPrince304
June 4th, 2010, 10:48 PM
If the people say Pokemon isn't like the way it was before then I blame the anime for it.
The Pokemon games are just getting Better and Better.
These games are gonna be the best Pokemon Games.
These are packed up with loads of new features.
Well they are making new Pokemon. Of course they'll use new designs. It can't get any simpler.
It's creativity people. I personally want the Pokemon to look more deadly :P
I guess Zoroark can own some handful of old Pokemon.
Just look at him he must be fast! :)

Timbjerr
June 4th, 2010, 11:00 PM
I dunno, it might be the fact that I'm a fair bit older than others who have been in the series since the beginning (I'm currently 23, and started playing Pokemon when it came out when I was 11), but Pokemon games don't hold as much nostalgic factor to me as things from my earlier childhood (Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, Disney movies back when they were good...), so nostalgia doesn't really impede me when I judge a pokemon's design objectively. I see Bulbasaur, Chikorita, Treecko, Turtwig, and Tsutaaja as fairly equal in stylistic design when I compare them. =/

Ninja Caterpie
June 4th, 2010, 11:11 PM
The creators are losing their creativity. I agree. The pokemon are looking more like fanmon.... come to think of it, the fan made pokemon look even better. They should make a contest where everyone makes their own pokemon and some get picked for the game.

Right, of course, because three magnets stuck together is so much more creative than a starship-like machine with magnet "guns". And, of course, a brown bird is more creative than a flowery hedgehog. Cool story, bro.

Adventure
June 5th, 2010, 12:26 AM
Well, I'd guess so in some cases, but I would definitely be the exception to the rule. I played Gen I and didn't think that a lot of the pokemon looked very good. I felt like the creators were just running out of ideas when they passed the likes of Farfetch'd, Lickitung, Doduo, Dodrio, and some others. When Gen II came out, I took a look at the pokemon that had been highly publicized--the starters, Marill, Donphan, Ho-Oh, and Lugia--and thought that they all looked hideous. With the exception of Donphan, I still feel the same way. That made me skip Gen II entirely. Gen III came out, and one look at Treeko, Torchic, and Mudkip made me think that it wasn't for me. Looking at some of the other designs from Gen III, I think it was a wise choice. As I said before, it was when I was in a Japanese McDonald's that I first saw Gen IV pokemon, and it re-kindled my interest because I thought the designs were so good.

That's cool :) there sure are many different people playing pokémon. Probably good that gamefreak can make everybody happy in some way.

I'm more for the cute pokémon... naturally my favourite gen is II, with Flaaffy, Chikorita, Jumpluff, Marill and the likes :p

UGH i hate the new generations. Everything is bad about them, their pokemon, storylines, how many ****ing legendaries they have to have. :\

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=ramblingsofsomeretards.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Framblingsofsomeretards.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F1270797910960.jpg&sref=http%3A%2F%2Framblingsofsomeretards.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F01%2F1966%2F

Gf D/P/Pt

Now now. I think the storylines get more and more interesting. Johto and Kanto didn't have much of it, Hoenn was epic (for a pokémon game) and I haven't played through Sinnoh but it seems even better.
But this thread wasn't about the storylines.

And that comic is win.

A Pixy
June 5th, 2010, 04:47 AM
You call it simple, I call it lazy.

That, and the 4th Gen near the 2nd Gen in terms of gameplay.

You know, where it matters.

zNickhs
June 5th, 2010, 05:24 AM
Agree ;/

The old pokemons were more... cutie *0*

Diglett
June 5th, 2010, 06:01 AM
They're looking more and more ridiculous every generation, and they're being over-powered. That's why I stopped playing Yu-Gi-Oh because of the over-powering of the cards.

Adley
June 5th, 2010, 06:05 AM
What do you expect? With the technology available to add more details, why shouldn't GF use them? I will admit they look a little.... strange, but I thought the same about GenIV and now its my second favorite gen.

drivr3joe
June 5th, 2010, 07:12 AM
UGH i hate the new generations. Everything is bad about them, their pokemon, storylines, how many ****ing legendaries they have to have. :\

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=ramblingsofsomeretards.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Framblingsofsomeretards.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F1270797910960.jpg&sref=http%3A%2F%2Framblingsofsomeretards.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F01%2F1966%2F

Gf D/P/Pt
lol perfect agree all the way

jbs829
June 5th, 2010, 07:23 AM
all i have to say is if you're complaining so much about the pokemon and how much you hate it, then stop playing the games, otherwise you're just being a hypocrite

Leonardo10
June 5th, 2010, 08:33 AM
I actually don't really mind the changes Pokemon are taking, even thought I found Gen III Pokemon so ugly, I mean seriously, a burning chicken and a Grass lizard? I had no regrets in choosing Mudkip thats for sure.

Jerme
June 5th, 2010, 08:51 AM
3rd gen was horrible, i only liked
treeko and evos
absol
corpfish & crawdaunt
aggron
tropius
cacturne
salamence

most of the rest were almost ok, or garbage

Dillon_68
June 5th, 2010, 08:55 AM
I think that 3rd Gen was the most creative.

alster08
June 5th, 2010, 11:41 AM
I also agree. Look at all the legendaries now. All fancy and upgraded. Remeber Mew. He is a legendary and has simple looks.

Omn
June 5th, 2010, 11:56 AM
I despise every single legendary after third gen cause they became so complicated and then they began to give a story on how they helped create the pokemon world and then they come out with the pokemon god arceus pokemon was never supposed to have a god its just makes me so mad

chikorita125
June 5th, 2010, 12:22 PM
i liked the 4th gen pokemon, but the first gen was the most creative

Zekermei
June 5th, 2010, 01:41 PM
The reason why most of us think this is simply because we've grown up,and that the pokemon now arn't like the pokemon we had back then.

Nikorasu
June 5th, 2010, 01:46 PM
Ok, ok i know my writing wasn't good but the comic was. But seriously, every legendary has a storyline, Rotom has that one about wanting to take over the world so killed those two people (Thats just a rumour i think, don't know.) Arceus has that egg story and created the world and everything. Yawn cba.

I hope B/W are better then the last game.

Powerflare
June 5th, 2010, 02:00 PM
My take is that the first and second generations were the best. I like the 2nd generation Pokémon a bit more (the whole 2nd gen, actually), but only a little bit, just because the first generation seemed just a little bit too simple, but it was still great. I personally enjoyed the third generation, and yes, I can see people's point about how it escalated... but I don't think it was that bad. In fact, Pokémon Ruby Version was my favorite game for years. 4th generation went way over the top. I actually loved it all at first. But then I looked back at everything else and thought "come on, this isn't like the Pokémon I know!" To me, 5th generation doesn't seem really bad actually. I think it will be interesting to see what will come in the future.

Yoshimi
June 5th, 2010, 02:12 PM
The stupid is strong in this thread.


I'm glad that the simplicity is gone. I cannot emphasize enough how stupid a design Muk and Koffing was. I'd rather have a badass poison dart frog than a blue turtle. All generations had their good and bad pokemon. If you took your nostalgia glasses off, you would see that instead of mindlessly jumping on the hate bandwagon.
UGH i hate the new generations. Everything is bad about them, their pokemon, storylines, how many ****ing legendaries they have to have. :\
I'm just wondering how the last part was ever a valid argument. Can anyone please explain?

GreenStorm
June 5th, 2010, 03:09 PM
all i have to say is if you're complaining so much about the pokemon and how much you hate it, then stop playing the games, otherwise you're just being a hypocrite

He's just expressing his thoughts on the new generation. No need to be so negative. As you can tell, MANY people feel the same way, including me.

MagitekElite
June 5th, 2010, 03:40 PM
I miss everything that use to be Pokemon. The better Pokemon, the designs, the style, the music...everything.

Before Ash became a pimp and switched women and Pokemon around like clothes *sigh*

I wish it would go back to the simple times. :c

batmon
June 5th, 2010, 03:52 PM
i liked the 4th gen pokemon, but the first gen was the most creative

Not creative at all, Magnemite the Magnet. Really?

The Exorcist
June 5th, 2010, 03:57 PM
Yeah, agreed. I even thought that Diamond and Pearl were going a bit too far... I wish it was the original 386 :(

Jerme
June 5th, 2010, 04:17 PM
Not creative at all, Magnemite the Magnet. Really?

that and digletts evos had 0 creativity..they just put more of them together

batmon
June 5th, 2010, 05:20 PM
Yeah, Dodrio gains an extra head, Ekans and Arbok is just snake and Kobra backwards. I only thought a few Gen I pokemon were creative tbh, most were just animals recolored or objects.

Dillon_68
June 5th, 2010, 07:08 PM
Pidgey = Standard Bird.

Voltorb evolves into a version of itself with the color's flipped around. Voltorb is basically a Pokemon based off a Pokeball.

Seel is a seal. -_-

And you guys said that the simpler Pokemon of the early gens were better, pshh. They are classic, however, because they started the Pokemon phenomenon.

Ninja Caterpie
June 5th, 2010, 07:11 PM
i liked the 4th gen pokemon, but the first gen was the most creative

Because joining three of the same thing together to evolve it is creative. Because a seal with a horn is creative.. Because a purple sludgeball is creative. Because...

yeah, you get the idea, right?

Pokeyomom
June 5th, 2010, 07:30 PM
I think the simplicity of the old gens is what made them appealing. Complexity and simplicity are both appealing, but only to a point. The motif of simplicity can only go so far until the designs start getting more elaborate.

I personally think a prescribed change with an equal amount of the norm left (for nostalgic purposes), is great. It's a hit or miss affair. Not all the new pokes will be beautiful. It's all good, and none of us should really take it that seriously. If you truely despise the new designs, then don't buy the games. Simple as that:)

(I will harp on all of you dissing the old gens on the tense of "o it's just a magnet, a mole, etc". I loved that magnet foo'. That magnet is the grandaddy of your beloved steel pokes!:D)

Becki
June 5th, 2010, 07:32 PM
i have to agree, they should add changes to the game yes, but simplicity in the designs of new pokemon would be much better. It looks as if to me for gen 5 it will be as bad or worse as gen 4. Bring back the old style of 1 and 2!

`MorningSun
June 5th, 2010, 07:39 PM
I don't really mind the style of it just as long as its not to complex. As most people are saying simplicity I guess. Nothing TOO simple but nothing TOO complex.

Bamboo Basara
June 5th, 2010, 07:59 PM
I'm just happy they're finally getting creative. Gen 1 and 2 had some real duds in the creativity department. Pidgey, Persian, Diglett, Dugtrio, Seel, Krabby, Kingler, Grimer, Muk, Voltorb, Ekans, Arbok, Electrode, Exeggucute, Ledyba are some prime examples. Most of them are real life creatures with some very, very minute distortions.

Aggressor
June 5th, 2010, 08:04 PM
I don't really care how unoriginal 1st Gen was, it's just IT, you can't leave them out of anything. Also, 2nd Gen didn't have a lot of new Pokemon. 3rd Gen was the most creative. 4th Gen... was interesting, but still typical. Black & White is just TOO FAR. :(

Ravecat
June 5th, 2010, 08:08 PM
All generations have good and bad.

You're all just being nostalgic.

DarkPrince304
June 5th, 2010, 09:44 PM
i liked the 4th gen pokemon, but the first gen was the most creative
I thank you for saying this.
Because of you now many people are able to express their true thoughts about the 1st Gen about being so un creative.
Awesome Guys.
Pokemon just got creative since the 3rd Generation! :D
2nd was a little creative too a little bit.
We like the 1st Gen because when most of us was little the anime was new and it was awesome. (Anime not the Pokemon)
And the 2nd one because it was first time on the TV for a new Generation.
We are just being nostalgic. Just compare them. 5th Gen is awesome in every aspects! ;P

Sweet Smoochum
June 5th, 2010, 10:58 PM
The good thing about the new games is in fact that some of the old Pokemon ARE included. You don't have to use any of the new Pokemon. You could use Gyarados, Machamp, Golbat, Tentacruel, etc as your team. I personally love a lot of Pokemon ranging from 1st to 4th. Some I'd like to name are: Vulpix (SoulSilver made me fall in love with it) Solrock, Banette, Croagunk, Stunky, Dusknoir, Mightyena, Swampert, Grovyle, Beautifly, Skitty, Torchic, Sableye, Altaria, Loudred, Grumpig, Cacturne, Zangoose, Torkoal, Duskull, Walrein, Glalie, Clamperl, Luxray, Torterra, Driftblim, Honchrow, Togekiss, Porygon-Z <333, Roserade, Leafeon, Glaceon, Pachirisu, Buneary, Piplup, Monferno, Froslass, Scizor, Teddiursa, Phanpy, Bulbasaur, Seel, Squirtle, etc.

Basically, there are a lot of Pokemon I adore. If it wasn't for GF making new Pokemon, I would have stopped long ago. The main reason why I got back into it was because I played Gold version in 2003 at my cousin's pool party. I saw the new Pokemon, and I loved the gameplay of Gold version as well. Personally, I love the new designs they come up with moreso than the old ones. I appreciate the artwork. I love the new legendaries. The color scheme is simple, but the designs are lovely. I also love the new starters for fifth gen, and I'm undecided about which I should choose. =)

Cyberglass
June 6th, 2010, 07:09 AM
As someone who grew up when Red and Blue came out, I must say I like the first two generations the best. However, the Pokemon designs appeal to me solely because of nostalgia, not creativity (although, they were more creative at the time than any competitors).

I was actually going to quit Pokemon after Silver, since I was satisfied with where the franchise was, and Gen. II was far superior in graphics and gameplay to Gen. I, while including the entire area of Kanto. However, I recieved a copy of Ruby as an unexpected gift and was immediately hooked by the creativity of the Pokemon. Despite my dislike of Treecko and Torchic which prompted me to pick Mudkip, I enjoyed the designs of nearly every new Pokemon. They were different, yes, but that was not a bad thing. It opened up my world of Pokemon because I realized that it didn't have to be exactly like earlier games to still be the same Pokemon experience I had come to enjoy. The beauty of the graphics and new environs just made it that much more appealing.

When Diamond and Pearl came out, I was much more unsure about the designs, but they have grown on me over the years because I gave them a chance. And as they have done so I notice more and more that they are still in almost the same style as earlier Pokemon, they do have that "Sugimori touch", and I just couldn't see it before. And from what I've seen of Gen. V, the designs are much better and much easier to recognize as Pokemon than Gen. IV was.

Now, I still have newer Pokemon I don't like the designs for (e.g. Nosepass, Hippopotas) but there were also older Pokemon that didn't grow on me until their newer graphics and movesets in Gen. III, such as Farfetch'd, Lickitung, Aipom, Igglybuff, etc. (well, I still don't like the look of Igglybuff).

So basically the point of my rambling wall of text is to give the new guys the benefit of the doubt and don't compare them to the earlier Pokemon until you have the chance to get used to them. Nostalgia vs novelty always skews the balance too much to render objective judgment now.

Forever
June 6th, 2010, 08:23 AM
They all seem kind of simple to me... just guess things as a kid stick out more than things now, well, in terms of Pokemon. Either way the Gen 5 Pokemon that are already announced I prefer them more than the D/P Pokemon, which could be a sign of it improving kinda.

Shining Meganium
June 6th, 2010, 08:55 AM
I agree that they are seriously over complicating it. I think it started going wrong at gen 3 with blaziken which looks a lot like a digimon. Well... at least gen 4 was original. Perhaps in gen 5 they'll make some more new pokemon concepts like mothim and lumineon.

A Pixy
June 6th, 2010, 09:07 AM
All generations have good and bad.

You're all just being nostalgic.

This sums it all up.

I hate when nostalgia blinds people from the truth.

I was going to tl;dr, but I don't need to now.

riddleraven
June 6th, 2010, 11:11 AM
Yeah... I hate the new starters. They are the ugliest things I've ever seen! When I saw them I thought, "Ok. Maybe this is the point where I'll (finally) get out."

It's not all about the starters but it seems like as good of a time as any to just stop with the new games and focus on the old ones. :/

GunSaberSeraph
June 6th, 2010, 11:15 AM
Yeah... I hate the new starters. They are the ugliest things I've ever seen! When I saw them I thought, "Ok. Maybe this is the point where I'll (finally) get out."

It's not all about the starters but it seems like as good of a time as any to just stop with the new games and focus on the old ones. :/

But Gamefreak already did that twice. FireRed/Leafgreen and HeartGold/SoulSilver were made to cater to older generations.

riddleraven
June 6th, 2010, 11:48 AM
But Gamefreak already did that twice. FireRed/Leafgreen and HeartGold/SoulSilver were made to cater to older generations.

I didn't mean that about the catering. I mean that as an individual player *I* will focus on the old games and not even bother with B/W since they look dumb.

But I read on another thread that they might be the final games? If that's true, I'll probably go ahead and get them just so that I'll be able to say I've played them all. And maybe they'll have some cool features that will be fun, idk.

It's only the fact that these games SEEM to never stop being made that makes me want to quit getting new ones.

Guy
June 6th, 2010, 12:27 PM
As someone who grew up when Red and Blue came out, I must say I like the first two generations the best. However, the Pokemon designs appeal to me solely because of nostalgia, not creativity (although, they were more creative at the time than any competitors).

I was actually going to quit Pokemon after Silver, since I was satisfied with where the franchise was, and Gen. II was far superior in graphics and gameplay to Gen. I, while including the entire area of Kanto. However, I recieved a copy of Ruby as an unexpected gift and was immediately hooked by the creativity of the Pokemon. Despite my dislike of Treecko and Torchic which prompted me to pick Mudkip, I enjoyed the designs of nearly every new Pokemon. They were different, yes, but that was not a bad thing. It opened up my world of Pokemon because I realized that it didn't have to be exactly like earlier games to still be the same Pokemon experience I had come to enjoy. The beauty of the graphics and new environs just made it that much more appealing.

When Diamond and Pearl came out, I was much more unsure about the designs, but they have grown on me over the years because I gave them a chance. And as they have done so I notice more and more that they are still in almost the same style as earlier Pokemon, they do have that "Sugimori touch", and I just couldn't see it before. And from what I've seen of Gen. V, the designs are much better and much easier to recognize as Pokemon than Gen. IV was.

Now, I still have newer Pokemon I don't like the designs for (e.g. Nosepass, Hippopotas) but there were also older Pokemon that didn't grow on me until their newer graphics and movesets in Gen. III, such as Farfetch'd, Lickitung, Aipom, Igglybuff, etc. (well, I still don't like the look of Igglybuff).

So basically the point of my rambling wall of text is to give the new guys the benefit of the doubt and don't compare them to the earlier Pokemon until you have the chance to get used to them. Nostalgia vs novelty always skews the balance too much to render objective judgment now.
I thought my tl;dr was good, but this pretty much covers another point of view I share. Every generation that comes out, people are quick to speculate on how these games will be rubbish compared to the originals without first giving it a chance of at least playing through it. Basically what they're doing is "judging a book by its covers" to put it simply.

My favorite generation thus far is Generation Three, not because it was my first game, but because it was a major step up since the Second Gen in that it took a great change in graphics and made all their new Pokémon quite creative compared to the simple ones from the previous two (not saying they aren't great, because there are a fair share of 1st and 2nd Gen Pokémon that I like). However, when I first saw Treecko and its evolutions, I simply despised it. I never once wanted to choose it, until one day I restarted my game after many times before and decided to go with it just for the heck of it. You know what? After giving it a chance, Treecko's line of evolution ended up becoming my favorite starter thus far - and still remains so today. Point is, before you're quick to judge the new Pokémon and diminish them to the older generation Pokémon, give them a chance.

I didn't mean that about the catering. I mean that as an individual player *I* will focus on the old games and not even bother with B/W since they look dumb.
My point exactly. People are judging Black and White too soon before even giving it a try. They could "look" dumb, but that says nothing about the games right now other than a mere opinion to compared to what it actually may be like.

But I read on another thread that they might be the final games? If that's true, I'll probably go ahead and get them just so that I'll be able to say I've played them all. And maybe they'll have some cool features that will be fun, idk.

It's only the fact that these games SEEM to never stop being made that makes me want to quit getting new ones.GameFreak is a company, and like all companies their goal is to keep making money. As long as Pokémon is still a popular franchise and continues to grow as it is today, then there will always be more Pokémon in the future and more games to come with it.

Agent Clank
June 6th, 2010, 03:07 PM
Well, basicly this thread is just a cry of irritation as once again it seems that the new Pokemon will be exaggerated with random objects and signs infiltrated in their being/body(whatever you call it). I have seen the new pokemon starters and legendarys and find them together with the 4th generation massivly exaggerated and too "fancy". The reason I like Pokemon, is mainly because of the 1st and 2nd generation who had simple pokemon with no "ultra"-shields and random trees on their back. There are of course some exceptions in the 4th generation, but they are rare. Pokemon is getting uglier every generation.

Well Pokemon has to change.
It has to get Different or People are going to get Bored and not Play it anymore.
I like how the 5th Generation Pokemon look so far.
I liked all the other Generations too.

Elise
June 6th, 2010, 03:30 PM
Myself, I feel a bit like I'm on a swing about this subject. Sometimes I'm really optimistic about the changes and other times I really don't want anything about pokémon to ever change. We can't have it both ways though, either way a certain portion of the pokéfans are going to be disappointed and others are going to be stoked. That's just the way it goes.

In the end, even though Gen IV pokies didn't do it for me, I still enjoyed the game because it's pokémon and it transports me to a time when there were only 150 pokies and I didn't care about stats :). I'm super hopeful for Gen V, too. The starters look like good pokémon design to me, and the legendaries are okay. They just look a bit funky to me still because I haven't gotten used to them I suppose. (:

Serin
June 6th, 2010, 04:20 PM
Well, I've spent a while examining all of the sprites of every generation on one sheet, and this is what I've observed:

The sprites from the 4th generation use noticeably darker colors, and is more variety in colors as well. Most likely because of the lack of technology before (Pokemon used to be limited to the amount of colors...Not sure exact details but it was something like 8 bit, now it's 32 bit? Again, I'm not too knowledgeable about that so don't take my word for it.)

And the Pokemon seem to be more cartoonish while the first and second generation Pokemon seemed fierce; actual monsters that tear each other apart. This could be because of the strictness of media these days. Notice how Pokemon don't get severely injured anymore with bruises and scratches and things (second or first episode of Pokemon, Pikachu gets it's ass kicked by a bunch of Spearow) and there is a noticeable lack of violence as well. So most likely Pokemon is trying to make the species more kid friendly.

We might as well be prepared for change, as I'm sure most of us here that are complaining are in our teenage years and we have been brought up with Pokemon Red and Blue when we were just 4, 5, or 6. As Obama has said numerous times, it's time for change. :P

Waki Tobaye
June 6th, 2010, 05:39 PM
I just hate when they start to look like Digimon or something off of the those other shows.
This^. That part of your post is exactly what I think.

Pokemon will be exaggerated with random objects and signs infiltrated are pretty ugly; but look at in their being/body(whatever you call it). What about Steelix? Nidoking? heck, even Blastoise has "random objects" on it. Cannons on a turtle? That's what I'd call random. And before you say that they were creative, look at newer Pokémon like Metagross, who also has a creative design. BTW, I'm not saying that Blastoise is bad. It's actually pretty good.


Almost everyone of us thinks that Pokémon like Palkia, Tangrowth, Rhypherior, Probopass, Bastiodon and Lickylicky are bad-designed and ugly. Actually, they are. But just because 5 - 10 Pokémon are bad IYO, doesn't mean that 4º gen sucks. Don't make thinks general. Riolu and Buneary are pretty good, for example.

I actually think that 3º gen Pokémon are pretty cool, along with some 4º gen ones. Nostalgia is just playing with your frail mind. Don't let it win.

Jerme
June 6th, 2010, 05:41 PM
yeah did people used to complain about steel cannons on a turtle?

Dillon_68
June 6th, 2010, 07:24 PM
My favorite generation thus far is Generation Three, not because it was my first game, but because it was a major step up since the Second Gen in that it took a great change in graphics and made all their new Pokémon quite creative compared to the simple ones from the previous two (not saying they aren't great, because there are a fair share of 1st and 2nd Gen Pokémon that I like). However, when I first saw Treecko and its evolutions, I simply despised it. I never once wanted to choose it, until one day I restarted my game after many times before and decided to go with it just for the heck of it. You know what? After giving it a chance, Treecko's line of evolution ended up becoming my favorite starter thus far - and still remains so today. Point is, before you're quick to judge the new Pokémon and diminish them to the older generation Pokémon, give them a chance.

This paragraph captures my feelings perfectly. I loved Gen. 3. It was so innovative, and it came out at a significant part of my life, which gives me a blast of nostalgia just thinking about it. I mean, I was blown away by the improved berry mechanics (which Johto introduced), the GBA graphics, and the new "natures". (which I had no idea of what they did initially, I was only in the 4th grade. I just thought it was a cool personality, lol.) Me and two of my friends all got seperate starters, which bumped up the fun factor. I love Torchic, which has been my only starter from that gen. Ahh...memories.

What I'm getting at is that no two people will have the same taste. I may like Hoenn the best, but there are aspects of every other Gen that I adore. For example, my favorite storyline is G/S/C. My favorite starter is Piplup (although I have a feeling Mijumaju will top that). And you have to give props to the Gen that started it all. I came into the game at age 5, with Blue version, so I have experience. Point blank, no matter what, Pokemon will be Pokemon. I don't think it has became to complicated untill we begin to drive Pokemon, a la a vehicle Pokemon or something outrageous like that.

PS: I had the same experience with Chikorita. For years I used Feraligatr and Typhlosion, but after picking up Chikorita, I never gave it up!

Zeta Patchouli
June 6th, 2010, 08:00 PM
You know what this thread reminds me of? This.

The Pokémon was always better before (insert current generation here). Usually either centered around complaints that new Pokemon are not as "cool" looking as older ones, or complaints that adding extra evolutions have ruined that Pokemon forever. Diamond/Pearl also had the usual complaints, plus claims that a dramatic re-balancing of all the moves (creating "special" and "physical" categories) ruined competitive battling forever.

The main reaction to HeartGold and SoulSilver seem to be "OMG they replaced Kris with Lyra! Ruined FOREVER!

OMFG the grass looks slightly different! Ruined FOREVER!

The game has more detail?! It's RUINED 4EVER!!!

Whitney's Miltank is one level lower in HG/SS?!?! EPIC FAIL GAMEFREAK

Perhaps a little conspiracy theory to go with it? "JUNICHI MASUDA IS BLACKMAILING THE ALMIGHTY TAJIRI-SAN TO TAKE OVER POKEMON! IT IS RUINED 4EVER!"

Lopunny, Gardevoir, et al led to cries of "FURRYMON" across the Internet. A Japanese video game with Cute Monster Girls? That's just crazy talk.

As soon as his silhouette was revealed, Zoroark was accused of being a Replacement Scrappy of Lucario. Seriously, WHAT?!

When people saw Pokemon from 3rd and 4th Gen: Pokemon look like robots instead of animals?! RUINED FOREVER!

The Tin Tower is now called Bell Tower. THE END OF THE WORLD IS COMING!!

The titles of the new games are BLACK and WHITE?! Oh no the, series is now absolutely going emo/racist by the NAME ALONE!!! It has been RUINED FOREVER!!!

The starters for Black and White have been revealed. People are, you guessed it, screaming 'RUINED FOREVER!'

The in-battle sprites are now animated. But the back-view sprites look low-res and blown-up! Nintendo doesn't care about Pokémon anymore!

The legendaries for Black and White were just revealed. What?! Black on white and white on black?! The black legendary slightly resembles Palkia?!! NO, NINTENDO, YOU SUCK YOU RUINED POKEMON!!

This is the entire quote from the pokemon section of Ruined FOREVER (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER), pay attention to the bold. THIS is what the people with the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses keep adding to, and it's getting annoying. The newer pokemon aren't that bad. In fact, they're probably more creative then the old ones, because Gen 1 was basically animals with superpowers, with a couple of exceptions.

EDIT: Decided to quote more from TVTropes, because it still applies beautifully to this. This is from the 'They Changed It Now It Sucks' (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) section.


Let's not get started on those who believe that the first three games, Red/Blue/Yellow, are the only ones that count. Especially when they go against Gold/Silver, even though they fixed issues that the original had. What's this? My Mewtwo/Butterfree can't destroy everything with one Psychic/Psybeam? What an outrage! They changed evolution lines? Pokémon like Golbat and Seadra are made useful? Scandalous! They thought that a new region should actually contain new species of Pokémon?!? HOW DARE THEY RUIN SOMETHING SO PURE! Etc, etc. Odd thing is, some go on as to attack each generation for the point that it is not their generation's Pokémon, whereas the first two generations were only two years apart, technically still being in "their" generation...

This also leads, in later generations, to complaints that the new ones are "too unoriginal" and/or "too different" and that the 1st gen's Pokémon were the best and most original and most different. Despite the fact that a number of the Pokémon (while memorable) where...just bigger versions of the others. Muk is just a bigger Grimer, Electrode is a bigger upside-down Voltorb, Magneton is three Magnemites, etc.

Aaand now... many longtime fans are suddenly complaining about Generation Five's preview Pokemon. Complaints range from Zorark "looking like an emo Sonic The Hedgehog" to "The water one looks like it has a penis on its chest". "The new female character looks like a *****." is also a common complaint, even though it has been already explained that the characters are older than in other games.

Pay veeeery special attention to the one Bolder, Italicized, and Underlined.

Watch, when Gen 5 comes out, Gen 3 will be idealized, Gen 1 will be forgotten about, Gen 2 will still be popular, Gen 4 will be dogged like Gen 3, and Gen 5 will be like Gen 4 is now.

Ripley
June 6th, 2010, 08:15 PM
I am a fan of the good ol days (Simple Mewtwo and Mew), but I'm not gonna lie to you at all; I love the new legendaries. I am a fan of glam and accessories. I think Palkia and Dialga look awesome with all the extra stuff. I mean, when you keep adding more and more pokemon, you can't just make them simple, or you'll run out of ideas.

However, sometimes the glam is not tasteful. The Gen 5 starters look pretty funky, especially the water one. It looks like a teddy bear whose genes have been spliced with those of a Buneary.

Trap-Eds
June 6th, 2010, 09:38 PM
This is the entire quote from the pokemon section of Ruined FOREVER, pay attention to the bold. THIS is what the people with the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses keep adding to, and it's getting annoying. The newer pokemon aren't that bad. In fact, they're probably more creative then the old ones, because Gen 1 was basically animals with superpowers, with a couple of exceptions.

Lol. I loooove TVTropes. xDDD
I really don't see how Pokemon look like Digimon. I'm sick and tired of hearing that. And even if they do, so what? Did ya think Ken Sugimori or whoever else designs the Pokemon was gonna stick to the same old art style forever? People see one tiny hint of change and freak out. Urgh.

JakeG
June 6th, 2010, 10:52 PM
Gah stop complaining its being like over 15 years of creating and now around 600 or more Pokemon, I would like to see you guys do better at this time.

Some new Pokemon are actually really cool and to be honest I think they done an alright job with the starters/legends for how long it has being.

Chatot Lover
June 7th, 2010, 07:53 AM
I don't know, but some people always have something to complain about isn't it?
I mean, of course the new Pokémon look different compared to the earlier generations and I also like the 1st and 2nd gens best but I'm really wondering if you guys could do better.
At first I couldn't stand the Pokémon of the 4th generation but as I played Diamond I started to like more and more Pokémon and now I even find it better than the 3rd gen. As you may guess my very favorite is also among the 4th gen Pokes. I only find most of the legendaries ugly but the others are mainly good.
For now I like the new starters and the 2 legendaries dont look too bad either. I just don't see why some people find the latest PKMN too "fancy" looking. I have the feeling that most of you would also complain if the 1st generation was actually the 4th. Because we grew up with the 1st gen it appears more likeable to us since we've been used to it for a long time.
There are ppl on this thread who say "the 4th gen killed Pokemon" and still you apparently play it since you wouldn't be posting on a PKMN forum otherwise.
I dont really get this.

And no, I didn't read further than the first page.

shengar
June 7th, 2010, 08:43 AM
As someone who grew up when Red and Blue came out, I must say I like the first two generations the best. However, the Pokemon designs appeal to me solely because of nostalgia, not creativity (although, they were more creative at the time than any competitors).

I was actually going to quit Pokemon after Silver, since I was satisfied with where the franchise was, and Gen. II was far superior in graphics and gameplay to Gen. I, while including the entire area of Kanto. However, I recieved a copy of Ruby as an unexpected gift and was immediately hooked by the creativity of the Pokemon. Despite my dislike of Treecko and Torchic which prompted me to pick Mudkip, I enjoyed the designs of nearly every new Pokemon. They were different, yes, but that was not a bad thing. It opened up my world of Pokemon because I realized that it didn't have to be exactly like earlier games to still be the same Pokemon experience I had come to enjoy. The beauty of the graphics and new environs just made it that much more appealing.

When Diamond and Pearl came out, I was much more unsure about the designs, but they have grown on me over the years because I gave them a chance. And as they have done so I notice more and more that they are still in almost the same style as earlier Pokemon, they do have that "Sugimori touch", and I just couldn't see it before. And from what I've seen of Gen. V, the designs are much better and much easier to recognize as Pokemon than Gen. IV was.

Now, I still have newer Pokemon I don't like the designs for (e.g. Nosepass, Hippopotas) but there were also older Pokemon that didn't grow on me until their newer graphics and movesets in Gen. III, such as Farfetch'd, Lickitung, Aipom, Igglybuff, etc. (well, I still don't like the look of Igglybuff).

So basically the point of my rambling wall of text is to give the new guys the benefit of the doubt and don't compare them to the earlier Pokemon until you have the chance to get used to them. Nostalgia vs novelty always skews the balance too much to render objective judgment now.
This. For all new and younger player of pokemon, please don't blame us rambling about newer Pokemon just because nostalgia-tinted glass. It is a good memory back from we still 5-8 years old kid. Even for that simple Fire lizard or Frog that have bulb on its back, and three magnet conjoined together are such awesome thing for that day. It's not easy to get rid of that, believe me. Even me still have difficulties getting used to the change. Maybe some first gen player have no problem getting rid of their nostalgic memories, it's good for them. But believe me, in somewhere between generation 7 or 8, people who play Pokemon starting from generation will complain just as we are now first and second generation player complaining about the changes.

GoldvsRed
June 7th, 2010, 11:25 AM
It's not like Gen. I Pokes were completely simple, either; Rhyhorn and Cloyster are a real ***** to draw without any references. But, I think I'll have to agree with most everyone else. Our nostalgia glasses have been super-glued to our faces, and we can't pry them off.

Adventure
June 7th, 2010, 12:07 PM
It's not like Gen. I Pokes were completely simple, either; Rhyhorn and Cloyster are a real ***** to draw without any references. But, I think I'll have to agree with most everyone else. Our nostalgia glasses have been super-glued to our faces, and we can't pry them off.

Dito that XD I can still draw Pikachu and Jigglypuff, but not those more complicated things like Rhyhorn, though I used to be able to, teheh.

And nostalgia glasses isn't solely a bad thing. It's good that many like the old games still, rather than letting them fade away when newer generation games come, methinks.


-> Anybody know if Satoshi Tajiri was the designer of Gen I, or Ken Sugimori, or if it was people at Gamefreak?

shengar
June 7th, 2010, 07:30 PM
Both of them are people from gamefreak

Thunderhead
June 7th, 2010, 09:21 PM
I like the 3rd and 4th generation. I probley have more dislikes in the 2nd gen if you want to be fair.

When you want to talk about simple-ness in the 1st - 2/3/4 gen. Then lets look at some pokemon here.

Garaydos, Blastoise, Venusar, Magikarp, Nidoking, Nidoqueen, and Scyther. These guys here are just some of the more complex pokemon of this gen.

In every generation, there are simple pokemon, and there are complex pokemon.

I could go on and list what I think about each one, but it would just go as spam.


Also, are simple pokemon that are closer to ditto on the simplistic scale any worst than those that arn't? Some of my favorite pokemon (Electivire, Flygon, Metagross, and Dusknoir) are some complexed pokemon.

This is not because I go at them and see "NEW! MUST BE COOL", no I like these pokemon because there appearance isn't just something crafted up by throwing random objects here and there.

To sum this all up - Its pokemon, there has always been complex looking pokemon.

Aquila
June 9th, 2010, 04:24 AM
Garaydos, Blastoise, Venusar, Magikarp, Nidoking, Nidoqueen, and Scyther. These guys here are just some of the more complex pokemon of this gen.


When you say Blastoise is complex you kind of misunderstand.. Look at the faces of Venausaur, Blastoise, Rhydon, Nidoking and Nidoqueen.. Those are typical monster faces which, together with much more, drew me against Pokemon. Pokemon are more or less animals and mythic(but "real") creatures with a humanlike personality, which we see. Their similarities with real animals are much clearer in the first and second generation. In later generations, Pokemon have become much more unnatural with evolutions becoming much more unpredictable, and alot of focus on getting "newer" and "cooler".
Now the things I really dislike about the new Pokemon generation are the many unnecessary histories and abilities the Pokemon get through alot of unnecessary objects and sign that only make the pokemon more complex and more unnatural than what they originally were.
Look at Buneary. Too much focus on the background of the ears, turned Lopunny's ears into two massive ugly ears that are meant to be beautiful. Look at Shieldon. Too much focus on the shield makes his evolution a Battle-Pokemon only meant for strength rather than the hardworking animals you catch because they're cool.
Now look at Blastoise. The only unnatural thing is the guns he uses for water attacks. But it doesn't make us question the fact that he is a Turtle, because he doesn't change too much from the evolutions, and they don't throw too many objects that make us question the true nature of Blastoise.
Now take a look at Chimchar. His next evelution get's a ugly blue face which seperate Chimchar and Monferno to some degree. To end the entire group of evelution, Infernape has some major differences from Chimchar, and the fact that it's a Ape gets a bit hidden because of some unnecessary plates on his knees and elbows, and some sudden white fur that has grown. They also seperate him more from Chimchar so that Chimchar and Infernape do not look as related as for example Charmander and Charizard does. There are worse examples, but I won't make this post longer than it is.
Now the legendarys are specially ugly as they bring back more of the unnatural and überpower-feeling that made me dislike Digimon.

I thought the starters of generation 4 were cool.. But their evolutions destroyed them.

shengar
June 9th, 2010, 04:45 AM
When you say Blastoise is complex you kind of misunderstand.. Look at the faces of Venausaur, Blastoise, Rhydon, Nidoking and Nidoqueen.. Those are typical monster faces which, together with much more, drew me against Pokemon. Pokemon are more or less animals and mythic(but "real") creatures with a humanlike personality, which we see. Their similarities with real animals are much clearer in the first and second generation. In later generations, Pokemon have become much more unnatural with evolutions become much more unpredictable, and alot of focus on getting "newer" and "cooler".
Now the things I really dislike about the new Pokemon generation are the many unnecessary histories and abilities the Pokemon get through alot of unnecessary objects and sign that only make the pokemon more complex and more unnatural than what they originally were.
Look at Buneary. Too much focus on the background of the ears, turned Lopunny's ears into two massive ugly ears that are meant to be beautiful. Look at Shieldon. Too much focus on the shield makes this a Battle-Pokemon only meant for strength rather than the hardworking animals you catch because they're cool.
Now look at Blastoise. The only unnatural thing is the guns he uses for water attacks. But it doesn't make us question the fact that he is a Turtle, because he doesn't change too much from the evolutions, and they don't throw too many objects that make us question the true nature of Blastoise.
Now take a look at Chimchar. His next evelution get's a ugly blue face which seperate Chimchar and Monferno to some degree. To end the entire group of evelution, Infernape has some major differences from Chimchar, and the fact that it's a Ape gets a bit hidden because of some unnecessary plates on his knees and elbows, and some sudden white fur that has grown. They also seperate him more from Chimchar so that Chimchar and Infernape do not look as related as for example Charmander and Charizard does. There are worse examples, but I won't make this post longer than it is.
Now the legendarys are specially ugly as they bring back more of the unnatural and überpower-feeling that made me dislike Digimon.

I thought the starters of generation 4 were cool.. But their evolutions destroyed them.
You sir, are a genius. I think why dislike newer generation because of this.

myrrh25
June 10th, 2010, 11:58 PM
Uh, so you remember when Pokemon didn't exist? Even if they were called something else, EV's and IV's have always been in Pokemon, along with shinies. This includes Generation I.

Shinies were introduced in generation 2 :)

JakeClowd
June 11th, 2010, 12:13 AM
honestly, I don't know what youall are complaining about.
The new designs and well, everything, is just to show how far the gaming industry as a whole is coming. If it was simplistic, nobody would like it. I for one is, and always has been very excited about the new generations and I will be very disappointed when nintendo finally does give up on the pokemon franchise.

*With how much you guys are brutalling it, it may happen pretty soon*

And, another thing. Every body ask yourself this: What would it be like if Ninteno gave up and cancled the pokemon franchise for good. That would be like Final Fantasy suddenly stop making sequels. It would ruin it more if they were to stop. I'd rather play Pokemon til' i'm 25 then to have them stop. SERIOUSLY! Before you comment negatively on ANY forum, think about what it would be like if there was no Pokemon, no new Dex entries to look forward to, no ne region, no new story lines. There will be a day when pokemon dies. Lets try to make that some time into the future. thankyou.

long live pokemon, and have the day when it stops be very long off.

Cynder The Bloody Angel
June 11th, 2010, 02:43 AM
well i belive the dont have any good ideas anymore so they just create some new thingys well the best example for thes i s the whole 4th gen. and the starters of the 5th T_T the 1st and the 2nd gen where the best once the pokemon looks like pokemon and not like random nightmare thingys =O anyway ...

Katie_Q
June 11th, 2010, 03:07 AM
I actually like the new looking pokemon. fourth gen was a bit weird... but so far i like the look of the 5th gen pokemon. except that water starter piplup-wannabe thing. I think the newer gens are more interesting then the 1st gen. If pokemon didn't evolve like this, we would all complain it and we wouldn't have awesome pokemon games. Look around you, everything is evolving. things change. if the pokemon francise kept trying to be simple, they would all look the same. it's hard enough creating new pokemon as it is without trying to make it simple. And so what if the 5th gen ends up having a big story behind it? all the more fun, instead of just doing the same old thing in every single game.
Also imo the 5th gen legendaries have got to be the best in design so far, though i think they would still draw against lugia. lugias awesome.

Adventure
June 11th, 2010, 03:14 AM
Now, I've grown to like Mirjumaru's design. A sea otter! It's cute :o

Aquila
June 11th, 2010, 05:13 AM
Now about the 4 new pokemon that were revealed:
Chiramii is okay, The pidgeon is good except for the extremely straight line on the wing. Now the pink elephant is awful. The Mechanic-pokemon is even worse.

I would like the animals to be more realistic to compared to real animals, and I like the idea of Pokemon being only one type rather then overdoing a Pokemon by making it a multi-type with various abilities.

sonick808
June 11th, 2010, 06:40 AM
It's mainly the names that I find a bit...over the top. I mean come on, Regigigas? o_o that could be Quagmire's new catchphrase.
Floaroma Town isn't much better either. The simple ones like Cerulean City were fine xD
But hey, at this point I'd have ran out of ideas too. :P

Regigiggity would be a sweet evo

MetryoV
June 11th, 2010, 06:44 AM
I loved the 3rd gen of Pokemon over the 2nd gen but yeah, 4th gen was just...blah

GlitchCity
June 11th, 2010, 06:52 AM
I would have to dissagree with you on that, I simply love the 3rd and 4th generations. To me, pokemon was never simple, at any point. Since I went backwards in time (jumped from 3rd gen, to 1st gen) the old games were harder for me to play, which it was not simple at all lol. Pokemon is going to keep growing and people are just going to have to accept that, like it or not.

NA3LKER
June 11th, 2010, 07:15 AM
Better get used to change, people.

yes, i agree with you completely. you can just get used to the new pokemon.

manomow
June 11th, 2010, 07:39 AM
People stop comlainig, they are running out of ideas and they dont waqnt to resuse the same ideas TOO much. They have to expand into complexity. If you love the classic pokemon, play r/g/y/b/g/s/c/fr/lg/hg/ss. You have 11 choices out of 19 games.

Aquila
June 21st, 2010, 02:54 PM
People stop comlainig, they are running out of ideas and they dont waqnt to resuse the same ideas TOO much. They have to expand into complexity. If you love the classic pokemon, play r/g/y/b/g/s/c/fr/lg/hg/ss. You have 11 choices out of 19 games.

There's a balance. The new complex Pokemon seems to attract a few people and some seem to dislike the concept. They have renewed the 1st and 2nd gen-games once now, and I doubt they'll renew them again later on(there will always be 11 games out of 19->). That's why they at this rate will gain some fans, and lose some fans. I don't know if they will gain more fans than they'l lose. It seems like many of the original fans are already gone. I think Pokemon attract different people now, compared to before. It also seems like Pokemon is not as popular now as it was before.
NB! They don't HAVE to be more complex. They CHOOSE to be more complex. At the beginning Pokemon was a fairytale, now it's a computergame...

polkop
June 21st, 2010, 03:03 PM
The new pokemon attract new fan and lost some. It is normal.
Just know that the 1st generetion pokemon did the same thing.
Some people like them much, and some hate them to the death.
It is just a repetitive circle.

chanchimi
June 21st, 2010, 03:10 PM
Yeah, I liked the simplicity of 1st and 2nd Gen of Pokemon. I don't think it's bad that the designs are becoming more complicated and detailed, I only mind when they are a little too far out there.

When Digimon and Pokemon first came out, Pokemon was simple and Digimon was complex. I think Pokemon should stay simple, or they may start looking like Digimon! (Not that I'd mind if they looked like them, I love Digimon xD)

Jerme
June 21st, 2010, 03:12 PM
Yeah, I liked the simplicity of 1st and 2nd Gen of Pokemon. I don't think it's bad that the designs are becoming more complicated and detailed, I only mind when they are a little too far out there.

When Digimon and Pokemon first came out, Pokemon was simple and Digimon was complex. I think Pokemon should stay simple, or they may start looking like Digimon! (Not that I'd mind if they looked like them, I love Digimon xD)

sure as long as they dont turn into and rhino-dragon knights with swords and wings that speak english.

polkop
June 21st, 2010, 03:16 PM
Also, complexity is the reflect of today's society.
We always need to do better, look better and all those stupid complex thing that everyone follow.
And pokemon just follow the flow.
They make complex pokemon for complex poeple.

chanchimi
June 21st, 2010, 03:26 PM
sure as long as they dont turn into and rhino-dragon knights with swords and wings that speak english.

Yeah, if that happened.....

Let's just hope that it doesn't! ^^"

juanhbk1
June 21st, 2010, 03:55 PM
I love complicated pokemon I mean look at Dewgong and Persian it's a seal and a cat, I think these new pokemon are showing creativness.

MistahDude
June 21st, 2010, 04:00 PM
I dislike the grass and fire starter line in the 2nd gen. I like all of the 3rd gen starters. I dislike the water starter in the 5th gen. I dont like the water or grass starter lines in the first gen.

Each pokemon and generation has a different style. if you dont like it, dont buy the games.

PiPVoda
June 21st, 2010, 05:56 PM
Now about the 4 new pokemon that were revealed:
Chiramii is okay, The pidgeon is good except for the extremely straight line on the wing. Now the pink elephant is awful. The Mechanic-pokemon is even worse.

I would like the animals to be more realistic to compared to real animals, and I like the idea of Pokemon being only one type rather then overdoing a Pokemon by making it a multi-type with various abilities.

Okay, so you want them to be comparable to animals that you know of? Because remember there are over 1.5 million species on this Earth and newer pokemon could be designed off of ones not seen, possible even extinct. That would make them no less realistic than pokemon from the earlier generations.

In later generations, Pokemon have become much more unnatural
I can agree w/ what osme of what you said, but not all.


1) What is an unnatural pokemon? Are pokemon suppose to look a certain way? If so please inform me of how they are expected to be designed. To me, a pokemon is a pokemon. It's apart of a game that is meant to be for fune. I don't take things like 'unnatural' or 'natural' too seriously.


Now the things I really dislike about the new Pokemon generation are the many unnecessary histories and abilities the Pokemon get through alot of unnecessary objects and sign that only make the pokemon more complex and more unnatural than what they originally were.

I don't think they are that unnecessary. It's meant to make newer pokemon stand out from the older ones, well in my opinion. Again w/ the unnatural? Please verfiy what you mean by this. Pokemon is becoming more complex, no doubt, but again like I mentioned I think it's to differentiate between older ones. One can't expect simply-designed ones once you've made 493+ can you?


Too much focus on the shield makes his evolution a Battle-Pokemon only meant for strength rather than the hardworking animals you catch because they're cool.
Not hardworking? No offense but that just seems to be a rather dumb comment. Pokemon aren't alive, they aren't hardworking, and if they were then I don't see how Bastiodon's shield-like head means it's not hardworking.


I thought the starters of generation 4 were cool.. But their evolutions destroyed them.
Hmm, I can respect your opinion but I don't think they were destroyed. Though I have to say Piplup has the best predicatable evolution path out of all of them. It goes form a baby penguin to an emperor penguin, can't get any more 'natural' than that.


Now look at Blastoise. The only unnatural thing is the guns he uses for water attacks. But it doesn't make us question the fact that he is a Turtle, because he doesn't change too much from the evolutions, and they don't throw too many objects that make us question the true nature of Blastoise.
If you are comparing Infernape to Blastoise..well, it's still pretty obvious that Infernape is an ape. It really didn't have that much differtiation between it's evos and it's true nature is still also obviously known disregarding the fact the only real difference is the plates on it.

GameFreak Executive
June 21st, 2010, 08:20 PM
Well said and I agree. Though there are some exceptions as you say. I quite like the Shinx family.

I like Luxray and all... but Shinx and Luxio look as if they were taken straight out of a Neopet game.

SargeantMajorKururu
June 21st, 2010, 08:53 PM
The name of this thread is wrong. I mean come on. 2 gears with faces isn't simple? Puh-leeze. And a zebra? How is that guy complex at all? The most complex Pokemon so far are the legendaries, and you have to admit there have been earlier Pokemon that are kind of harder to understand. I can see that Reshiram and Zekrom are dragons, but what the crap is Celebi? Some sort of magical, fairy potato? I can't even tell. And while I do agree that Gen 4 had some strange and kind of not-so-simple Pokemon, Gen 5 has several pretty simple Pokemon so far.
And I actually like a lot of the new Pokemon. Except for Munna. It's weird.

MistahDude
June 21st, 2010, 09:04 PM
The name of this thread is wrong. I mean come on. 2 gears with faces isn't simple? Puh-leeze. And a zebra? How is that guy complex at all? The most complex Pokemon so far are the legendaries, and you have to admit there have been earlier Pokemon that are kind of harder to understand. I can see that Reshiram and Zekrom are dragons, but what the crap is Celebi? Some sort of magical, fairy potato? I can't even tell. And while I do agree that Gen 4 had some strange and kind of not-so-simple Pokemon, Gen 5 has several pretty simple Pokemon so far.
And I actually like a lot of the new Pokemon. Except for Munna. It's weird.

Hihidaruma is sort of complex in terms of origin.

Sora's Nobody
June 21st, 2010, 09:14 PM
What the- They have taken them back to the basic, look at all the simple lines they have. if they where trying to to things complicated, FX: Munna, it could have been alot more complicated, they could have added all sorts of accesorys, some lines across its belly, a mohawk and some spikes. But no! They just made a blob with a nose, an eye and to flowers.

Captain Riolu
June 21st, 2010, 09:21 PM
If anything they went back to basics with this Gen (minus the Legendaries). Meguroko is incredibly simple. Tentacruel is more complex than the chinchilla.

This sounds like a whiny nostalgia geared thread to me.

Secretstunt24
June 21st, 2010, 09:51 PM
Well, no matter what there will always be a soft spot in my heart for the old gen pokemon. I mean, you can never forget where you come from, but I can't say the new gen pokemon are just ugly. I mean they are all monsters, so how can you even judge the way they look? I'll admit some of these styles are kinda weird, but if they were the same there would probably be a thread by someone else getting upset about how every pokemon looks the same... You just have to live with it sometimes... Not everyone is going to be happy.

southharmon
June 21st, 2010, 09:54 PM
whether you like the 2d simplicity with the original pokemon that started it all in red blue and yellow or you like the 3d/HD graphics, moving sprites, and new-looking pokemon of the later generations we don't need to persuade each other which side is better we need to just all play to have fun cause in the end that's what it's about. if you like the new games but not the new pokemon trade your old favorites over. or if you want to explore the new regions with the new pokemon go for it. because when it's all said and done we all live in a pokemon world.

Nikorasu
June 21st, 2010, 10:56 PM
Like Dialga and Palkia. Unnecessary if you ask me.

They look like plastic o.0

UGH I HATE THE NEW POKEMON >.<

CARNIVINE </3
LICKILICKY </3
im not going to even go into Bidoof

Im already worried about gen V :(

whether you like the 2d simplicity with the original pokemon that started it all in red blue and yellow or you like the 3d/HD graphics, moving sprites, and new-looking pokemon of the later generations we don't need to persuade each other which side is better we need to just all play to have fun cause in the end that's what it's about. if you like the new games but not the new pokemon trade your old favorites over. or if you want to explore the new regions with the new pokemon go for it. because when it's all said and done we all live in a pokemon world.

Sure, you can walk around with old pokemon. But then you batle someone and then they have an ugly pokemon. No thanks.

jasonresno
June 22nd, 2010, 06:28 AM
You'll be called a nostalgia-freak but I completely agree with you.

Lorrainkaa
June 22nd, 2010, 06:45 AM
Well...you're true. The 1st and 2nd generations were the best.
3rd generation is too decent, I think. But diamond and pearl are just other than the first 3 generations were. Some POKéMON of 4th gen are cool (Shinx,starly...) but another ones are just weird hybrid creatures :(.
I hope they will make better ones on 5th gen...

ltsang
June 22nd, 2010, 07:31 AM
I hate the new pokemon. I'm sticking with ss all the way. I never will get rid of it. I'll never buy black and white. Unless they come out with pokemon yellow, red, blue for ds. :D

Pyrax
June 22nd, 2010, 07:47 AM
Unless they come out with pokemon yellow, red, blue for ds. :D

We already have that.
It's called "playing FireRed & LeafGreen on the ds's GBA slot."
Unless you happen to only have a DSi of course.

Jerme
June 22nd, 2010, 12:14 PM
a lot of 4th gens werent so bad.

rampardos~rhydon
carnivine

MistahDude
June 22nd, 2010, 12:59 PM
Just get past your freaking nostalgia and enjoy the present.

dieter57
June 22nd, 2010, 01:08 PM
i never liked most of the first gen anyway. to many of them looked liked real animals.

GreenLanturn
June 22nd, 2010, 01:25 PM
Idk some of the fourth gen pokes acctually looked really good and didnt go to over the top, like Turtwig, Honchkrow and Buizel, But some like Infenape, Rypherior, Empoleon just seemed wayy to complicated and stupid. So far i dont have high hopes for the fifth gen, the legendaries just look plain dumb IMO. Although as some posters have said, they are trying to move foward in designs, which to a point they are doing, and everyu generation has had its good and its bad, it just seems like theyre pushing some designs a bit to far to me. I cant wait for more 3d and improved graphics though, they look great so far.

Reshiram Man
June 22nd, 2010, 05:41 PM
we should have some new simple looking pokemon

Zorua
June 22nd, 2010, 05:48 PM
Better get used to change, people.

I think this post pretty much explains how I feel about the topic.

I think that if anyone misses simple pokemon, they should go back to playing Gen I and Gen II. They haven't disappeared forever; you can always go back and play those games should you ever feel nostalgic. But change is definitely something we should get used to when concerning Pokemon.

If you don't like it, don't play it.

bustin
June 22nd, 2010, 05:52 PM
if rhyhorn came out this gen people would have said its too complicated/over designed get over nostalgia and just wait for more pokes to be released, the pika clone is as simple as you can get as is the new bird pokemon.

RYOUKI
June 22nd, 2010, 05:57 PM
Better get used to change, people.
Yeah, complaining wont help.

I like these new changes, I like the fact that they make every new generation different from the last one and that makes me look forward to playing it. For better or for worse.

Storm_has_formed
June 22nd, 2010, 06:40 PM
If anything they went back to basics with this Gen (minus the Legendaries). Meguroko is incredibly simple. Tentacruel is more complex than the chinchilla.

This sounds like a whiny nostalgia geared thread to me.
well call it a hunch, but i think it is :p

Yuoaman
June 22nd, 2010, 08:39 PM
I just wanted to say this: Gator with Shades > Everything else.

AceDragonite
June 22nd, 2010, 08:47 PM
I just wanted to say this: Gator with Shades > Everything else.


here's another chart for reference



Tippity Top-Munna http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/164/d/3/munnamunnamunnaaaa_by_skiesaregrey.gif (yaaay)
Tier 1-God (in heaven not Pokemon World)
Tier 2-All major legendaries
Tier 3- Pokabu's final evo, Minor Legendaries
Tier 4-Lucario, Snorlax, Charizard, Ampharos, Meguroko (the croc)
Tier 5-All other Pokemon

Also I noticed the Gen 1 Pokemon's names were very simple to understand.
Where the hell did names like Ralts and Bastiodon come from, I remember when you spelled a real animals name with one or two letters wrong: like seel and dewgong.

Jerme
June 22nd, 2010, 08:48 PM
I just wanted to say this: Gator with Shades > Everything else.

how about a turtle with guns?

AceDragonite
June 22nd, 2010, 08:52 PM
Well...you're true. The 1st and 2nd generations were the best.
3rd generation is too decent, I think. But diamond and pearl are just other than the first 3 generations were. Some POKéMON of 4th gen are cool (Shinx,starly...) but another ones are just weird hybrid creatures :(.
I hope they will make better ones on 5th gen...


half the 3rd generation are eccentric tropical monsters.
4th gen sucked, but they tried thinking out the box
5th gen will have a newer art style mixed with that of old (munna was referenced in gen I)
At least we won't have any more Venus Fly Traps, Volcano Camels, or Pachycephalasauruses

Arolu
June 23rd, 2010, 03:14 AM
I think this new Generation will be like the old ones.
The Legendary's and Pokemon that we have seen aren't over complicated just slightly tweaked to give them a better appearance. If you think about it, some of the Pokemon that are slightly 'overdressed' would look terrible if they were simple.

o0PinkSquid0o
June 23rd, 2010, 03:46 AM
Well, basicly this thread is just a cry of irritation as once again it seems that the new Pokemon will be exaggerated with random objects and signs infiltrated in their being/body(whatever you call it). I have seen the new pokemon starters and legendarys and find them together with the 4th generation massivly exaggerated and too "fancy". The reason I like Pokemon, is mainly because of the 1st and 2nd generation who had simple pokemon with no "ultra"-shields and random trees on their back. There are of course some exceptions in the 4th generation, but they are rare. Pokemon is getting uglier every generation.

I don't think they're exaggerated... Munna is just a pink blob, nothing exaggerated there (even tho I hate Munna) Gear is just a gear, no exaggeration, the new bird looks as simple as pidgey did...
I don't really see what you mean to be honest.

I think people like to find things to pick on, I think Gen V is looking awesome, obviously not as good as Gen 1 and 2 did but they're up there. I see absolutely nothing wrong with them (besides Munna and gear)

tomotaku
June 23rd, 2010, 04:27 AM
i like the screenshots from black/white
h t t p : / / w w w . p o k e m o n e x p e r t e . d e / a r t i k e l / i m a g e s / b w _ s c r e e n s h o t _ 2 2 . p n g
its not that kitchy at all..
probalby ill like it
but yea..the good old times)
edit: OMFG, no url?
lame

GreenLanturn
June 23rd, 2010, 06:12 AM
After looking at some more i do have to say no matter how stupid the version mascots, that dumb otter thing, and that weird little munna thing look. Some of them look quite cool.

Zeph.
June 23rd, 2010, 08:30 AM
half the 3rd generation are eccentric tropical monsters.
4th gen sucked, but they tried thinking out the box
5th gen will have a newer art style mixed with that of old (munna was referenced in gen I)
At least we won't have any more Venus Fly Traps, Volcano Camels, or Pachycephalasauruses

:O ! But Camerupt and Crani/Rampardos are beastly! Carnivine is so-so, but at least it helped make grass types seem more nasty...

Nikorasu
June 23rd, 2010, 08:41 AM
The stupid is strong in this thread.
would see that instead of mindlessly jumping on the hate bandwagon.

I'm just wondering how the last part was ever a valid argument. Can anyone please explain?

Generation 1 There is a total of 5 Legengdarys, including Mew.
Generation 2 There are 6 New legendarys, Including Celebi
Generation 3 (emerald): You can catch 10 pokemon all together (I think) But these include older gens.
Generation 4: You can catch 18 POKEMON D: That is a joke, and only 6 of them are from other gens

12 new legenarys... WE DONT NEED THAT MANY you just get bored of collecting them O_O

Sage Harpuia
June 23rd, 2010, 08:58 AM
Well, basicly this thread is just a cry of irritation as once again it seems that the new Pokemon will be exaggerated with random objects and signs infiltrated in their being/body(whatever you call it). I have seen the new pokemon starters and legendarys and find them together with the 4th generation massivly exaggerated and too "fancy". The reason I like Pokemon, is mainly because of the 1st and 2nd generation who had simple pokemon with no "ultra"-shields and random trees on their back. There are of course some exceptions in the 4th generation, but they are rare. Pokemon is getting uglier every generation.

Again another complain on new generations.
I will probably repeat something still said, but complains like yours continuosly shows up so:
1: I have nothing against personal taste: if you like some pokemon and others don't is am matter of subjectivity; however, I can't accept statement like yours that marks blindly a generation just because it's not the original:
2: "random things on their back" I think you was talking abaut torterra but I suggest to look to venosaur:
http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/9/97/Spr_4d_003_m.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/b/b9/Spr_4h_389.pngLOL they are so similiar

However you could argue that bulbasaur has the flower from the beginning, so I present to you...blastoise: when my wartortle evolved, I was expecting a turtle with beautiful ...ehm...waves, instead I obtained...random cannons(on his back)! The same thing with dragonair.

Talking abaut complexity there are simple and complex pokemon in every gen: in the first I would point out nidoking, magmar, rhydhorn and clefable spikes, the stripes of electrabuzz, arcanine, ariados and the others such gyrados, kadabra, kangaskan, scizor, hundoom, tyranitar.
Also, too much simpliciy can be negative: diglet, magnemite, coffing evolve throught fusion, staryu and grimer becoming bigger.

So in conclusion in all the geneation there are simple and complex pokemon and all the players should look carefully at the new ones deciding what are his favourites and not marking all as uncreative from the beginning.

EDIT: on legendaries, I have too agree that there are too many of them and a lot of unnecessary... they could recycle some of them instead creating new ones: for example at the place of regigas they could have put kyogre, and to the place of heatran, groudon, and use the awesome fire/steel combo for the starters, at the place of blaziken typing.

AceDragonite
June 23rd, 2010, 09:41 AM
I really would not care if Reshiram and Zekrom are the only legends. I know that they're extreeemely helpful to win the league with, but I don't think legendaries are that necessary.
Nowadays, everyone is all "I pwned some n008 with my regigigas and arceus". As far as I'm concerned, you don't get the full experience of the game beasting through it with a legend. Sure, I'll catch Zekrom, but I may not use it.

ShinyZoruaGirl
June 23rd, 2010, 10:09 AM
The originals were the best designs, I miss them. Clefairy, Jigglypuff, Mew, Eevee, ect., I loved ALL the originals..that is...except for Tangela aand Jynx!

Storm_has_formed
June 23rd, 2010, 10:12 AM
i like the screenshots from black/white
h t t p : / / w w w . p o k e m o n e x p e r t e . d e / a r t i k e l / i m a g e s / b w _ s c r e e n s h o t _ 2 2 . p n g
its not that kitchy at all..
probalby ill like it
but yea..the good old times)
edit: OMFG, no url?
lame
take out the spaces to get the link...

Blueknight
June 23rd, 2010, 10:15 AM
Well, coming from someone who started in generation 4, I honestly don't mind the differences. I'll agree that the older generations were simpler, but there's nothing wrong with complicated designs either. I mean this is pokemon for crying out loud, there's going to be some weird pokemon, and there's going to be cool pokemon.

I think that about half of generation 4's legendaries are just very rare pokemon. They aren't really a 'god' of anything. (Heatran, regigigas, manaphy, phione, shaymin)

Storm_has_formed
June 23rd, 2010, 10:19 AM
I really would not care if Reshiram and Zekrom are the only legends. I know that they're extreeemely helpful to win the league with, but I don't think legendaries are that necessary.
Nowadays, everyone is all "I pwned some n008 with my regigigas and arceus". As far as I'm concerned, you don't get the full experience of the game beasting through it with a legend. Sure, I'll catch Zekrom, but I may not use it.
i would say that they are more like trophies, since i hardly ever use them

Rucario
June 23rd, 2010, 10:24 AM
I liked the low quality kind of pictures of the Kanto Pokemon from the RBG days. Elise's avatar is good too. But yeah, the older pokemon were always better.

Quintin
June 23rd, 2010, 10:33 AM
although I'm hyped about the new generation, I know what you mean. Mew, and squirtle were the innocent, simple things, but now we have pokemon who have giant geneators, or torches for tails (which still look really cool). I would love simpler, but it will still be pokemon, whatever happens.

PiPVoda
June 23rd, 2010, 10:33 AM
I liked the low quality kind of pictures of the Kanto Pokemon from the RBG days. Elise's avatar is good too. But yeah, the older pokemon were always better.

Loved Blastoise and Pikachu's design back then. They were soo fat, but that just made them look even better :D.

Astinus
June 23rd, 2010, 11:31 AM
take out the spaces to get the link...
He can't. He has less than fifteen counted posts, and no matter how he posts the url as an actual url, it won't show up until he gets fifteen counted posts.

Talking abaut complexity there are simple and complex pokemon in every gen
Seriously. Some Pokemon are designed to be complex. That's just how it is, because if they weren't they wouldn't look as good. Just like some Pokemon are simple, because that's all that they need to be. Like Ditto. It couldn't be anything else than a blob.

Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty
June 23rd, 2010, 11:56 AM
Hmm, I can respect your opinion but I don't think they were destroyed. Though I have to say Piplup has the best predicatable evolution path out of all of them. It goes form a baby penguin to an emperor penguin, can't get any more 'natural' than that.

BUT THERE IS LIKE A TOTAL DIFFERENCE BECAUSE BLASTOISE SUDDENLY EVOLVING CANONS IS LIKE WAAAAY MORE NATURAL THAN EMPOLEON EVOLVING BLADES ON ITS FINS!

/headdesk

I suppose there is a very simple fix to this problem. GameFreak can set the next two Pokémon titles in the real universe, and have everybody battle with sparrows and ants and moose. But only after children have finished full-time education, and Pokéballs have been invented, and the world has produced at least two super-villains. Oh, and the army has legally sanctioned that such powerful creatures are safe in the hands of ordinary citizens, and God or whoever has grown strategic grass patches and power plants all over the planet for people to find Pokémon in in the first place.

Honestly. The games are meant to be fictional. The Pokémon are meant to be outlandish. Where is the fun in being able to battle with an ~exotic creature~ I could easily find in my back garden? Absolutely nowhere. If you hate the new Pokémon designs that much, go catch some butterflies and put them together in a jar and see which one knocks out the other first. At least it'll look realistic.

Lunyka
June 23rd, 2010, 11:59 AM
Basically Pokemon has just become more creative. If anything Ditto, Voltorb, and other pokemon of the like are too simple.

Jerme
June 23rd, 2010, 12:09 PM
Again another complain on new generations.
I will probably repeat something still said, but complains like yours continuosly shows up so:
1: I have nothing against personal taste: if you like some pokemon and others don't is am matter of subjectivity; however, I can't accept statement like yours that marks blindly a generation just because it's not the original:
2: "random things on their back" I think you was talking abaut torterra but I suggest to look to venosaur:
http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/9/97/Spr_4d_003_m.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/b/b9/Spr_4h_389.pngLOL they are so similiar

However you could argue that bulbasaur has the flower from the beginning, so I present to you...blastoise: when my wartortle evolved, I was expecting a turtle with beautiful ...ehm...waves, instead I obtained...random cannons(on his back)! The same thing with dragonair.

Talking abaut complexity there are simple and complex pokemon in every gen: in the first I would point out nidoking, magmar, rhydhorn and clefable spikes, the stripes of electrabuzz, arcanine, ariados and the others such gyrados, kadabra, kangaskan, scizor, hundoom, tyranitar.
Also, too much simpliciy can be negative: diglet, magnemite, coffing evolve throught fusion, staryu and grimer becoming bigger.

So in conclusion in all the geneation there are simple and complex pokemon and all the players should look carefully at the new ones deciding what are his favourites and not marking all as uncreative from the beginning.

EDIT: on legendaries, I have too agree that there are too many of them and a lot of unnecessary... they could recycle some of them instead creating new ones: for example at the place of regigas they could have put kyogre, and to the place of heatran, groudon, and use the awesome fire/steel combo for the starters, at the place of blaziken typing.

thank you this man is smart.

Dark Piplup
June 23rd, 2010, 12:54 PM
I kind of liked simple. I mean just look at reshiram and zekrom they look like high tech robots. And venusaur and torterra are NOT very similiar. Except that they both have something on threre back.but yea the new ones are more creative

Jerme
June 23rd, 2010, 01:08 PM
I kind of liked simple. I mean just look at reshiram and zekrom they look like high tech robots. And venusaur and torterra are NOT very similiar. Except that they both have something on threre back.but yea the new ones are more creative

he was talking about how people complain new pkmn are "creatures with random things thrown own their backs." so he compared them.

and yea i agree, it looks like those legends hav jumbo jet engines on their bodies..thats what i dont like about them

Diablo361
June 23rd, 2010, 01:53 PM
There's a balance. The new complex Pokemon seems to attract a few people and some seem to dislike the concept. They have renewed the 1st and 2nd gen-games once now, and I doubt they'll renew them again later on(there will always be 11 games out of 19->). That's why they at this rate will gain some fans, and lose some fans. I don't know if they will gain more fans than they'l lose. It seems like many of the original fans are already gone. I think Pokemon attract different people now, compared to before. It also seems like Pokemon is not as popular now as it was before.
NB! They don't HAVE to be more complex. They CHOOSE to be more complex. At the beginning Pokemon was a fairytale, now it's a computergame...

Each new Generation has outsold the one b4.

In terms of sales: D/P/Pt>R/S/E>G/S/C>R/B/Y

More popular, just not mainstream :)

And really, complaints are ridiculous. You'll like some and not others. Get over it.

Drew
June 23rd, 2010, 02:17 PM
I personally have always disliked the fact that with each generation Pokemon get farther and farther away from looking like the real animals they're based on. D: At the same time, they're Pokemon, they're not supposed to perfectly represent animals. If they were, they would be animals, and not Pokemon. :/ They're going to be weird, and out there, because that's how the creators want them to be.

So yeah, it might bug me a bit.. but that's just how it goes. I still look forward to seeing the new generations, and there will always be some that I like and dislike. I have to admit, even if I found all the new Pokemon to be stupid and weird, I would still get the games. Because Black and White, Pokemon creatures aside, look like pretty awesome games. The graphics, cities, region, movesets etc seem too interesting to pass up.

Jerme
June 23rd, 2010, 02:38 PM
I personally have always disliked the fact that with each generation Pokemon get farther and farther away from looking like the real animals they're based on. D: At the same time, they're Pokemon, they're not supposed to perfectly represent animals. If they were, they would be animals, and not Pokemon. :/ They're going to be weird, and out there, because that's how the creators want them to be.

So yeah, it might bug me a bit.. but that's just how it goes. I still look forward to seeing the new generations, and there will always be some that I like and dislike. I have to admit, even if I found all the new Pokemon to be stupid and weird, I would still get the games. Because Black and White, Pokemon creatures aside, look like pretty awesome games. The graphics, cities, region, movesets etc seem too interesting to pass up.

idk if this ever goes through your mind but:

voltorb
electrode
eggxecute
eggecutor
magnemite
magneton
koffing
weezing
and rhydon, cant think of a real animal that resembles it. (not that i hate it)

but at the same time, many real ones like tauros and seaking. get over it. its been in all generations. and dont tell me finneon/lumineon looks like a 100% stitched together mutant thingy.

AceDragonite
June 23rd, 2010, 03:16 PM
rhydon is a rhinocerous, its just standing up and has rock armor, lol

MissMurder
June 24th, 2010, 02:41 AM
The good thing about the new games is in fact that some of the old Pokemon are included. You don't have to use any of the new Pokemon. You could use Gyarados, Machamp, Golbat, Tentacruel, etc as your team. I personally love a lot of Pokemon ranging from 1st to 4th. Some I'd like to name are: Vulpix (SoulSilver made me fall in love with it) Solrock, Banette, Croagunk, Stunky, Dusknoir, Mightyena, Swampert, Grovyle, Beautifly, Skitty, Torchic, Sableye, Altaria, Loudred, Grumpig, Cacturne, Zangoose, Torkoal, Duskull, Walrein, Glalie, Clamperl, Luxray, Torterra, Driftblim, Honchrow, Togekiss, Porygon-Z, Roserade, Leafeon, Glaceon, Pachirisu, Buneary, Piplup, Monferno, Froslass, Scizor, Teddiursa, Phanpy, Bulbasaur, Seel, Squirtle, etc.

Basically, there are a lot of Pokemon I adore. If it wasn't for GF making new Pokemon, I would have stopped long ago. The main reason why I got back into it was because I saw my friends as well as my classmates getting addicted to Gold. I saw the new Pokemon, and I loved the gameplay of Gold version as well. Personally, I love the new designs they come up with moreso than the old ones. I appreciate the artwork. I love the new legendaries. The color scheme is simple, but the designs are lovely. I also love the new starters for fifth gen, and I'm undecided about which I should choose.

Maknae
June 24th, 2010, 03:01 AM
When they started the Legendaries being very "ancient" and "out-of-this-world" they did more line/scarps/whatsoevers on their bodies. D: I still like the lovable and cute pokemon's such as plusle and minun and the 1st and 2nd gens.

tetrix1993
June 24th, 2010, 04:23 AM
I agree when I looked at the gear-like Pokémon. But still, I will support the game because of its realistic 3D effects.

Aquila
June 24th, 2010, 07:56 AM
I don't think they're exaggerated... Munna is just a pink blob, nothing exaggerated there (even tho I hate Munna) Gear is just a gear, no exaggeration, the new bird looks as simple as pidgey did...
I don't really see what you mean to be honest.

I think people like to find things to pick on, I think Gen V is looking awesome, obviously not as good as Gen 1 and 2 did but they're up there. I see absolutely nothing wrong with them (besides Munna and gear)


This was a highly unintelligent post seeing these Pokemon weren't revealed until after I posted this.
Also, I can't really catch a Gear that is supposed to be my "friend" throughout the game. it's unnatural. The same goes for a pink blob.. The pigeon is good, I like it. Also I like the Zebra, except for the eyes.

Hmm, I can respect your opinion but I don't think they were destroyed. Though I have to say Piplup has the best predicatable evolution path out of all of them. It goes form a baby penguin to an emperor penguin, can't get any more 'natural' than that.

However, Empeleon dosn't look like a penguin at all IMO. Blastoise would be a much more natural sight out in the nature than Infernape because Infernape seems like a animal that has produced human-made shields in a world that has "not been affected by humans". It's not wild - it's made for serving trainers. No offense, but Bastadion looks like a Shield with a mouth. It doesn't have to train to become highly definsive, it is a shield not a hardworking animal.

and Btw. Mew and Celebi for example are mythical creatures. Newer Legendaries are supernatural Hyper-Pokemon..

It is possible to make new simple Pokemon. I've seen pretty good Fakemon to confirm that.

If anything they went back to basics with this Gen (minus the Legendaries). Meguroko is incredibly simple. Tentacruel is more complex than the chinchilla.

This sounds like a whiny nostalgia geared thread to me.

Hmm.. take ONE example that was revealed after I posted the thread and think you have a good argument. Good job! Tentacruel isn't the best Pokemon of the 1st generations, I'll admit that.

Again another complain on new generations.
I will probably repeat something still said, but complains like yours continuosly shows up so:
1: I have nothing against personal taste: if you like some pokemon and others don't is am matter of subjectivity; however, I can't accept statement like yours that marks blindly a generation just because it's not the original:
2: "random things on their back" I think you was talking abaut torterra but I suggest to look to venosaur:
http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/9/97/Spr_4d_003_m.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/b/b9/Spr_4h_389.pngLOL they are so similiar

However you could argue that bulbasaur has the flower from the beginning, so I present to you...blastoise: when my wartortle evolved, I was expecting a turtle with beautiful ...ehm...waves, instead I obtained...random cannons(on his back)! The same thing with dragonair.

Talking abaut complexity there are simple and complex pokemon in every gen: in the first I would point out nidoking, magmar, rhydhorn and clefable spikes, the stripes of electrabuzz, arcanine, ariados and the others such gyrados, kadabra, kangaskan, scizor, hundoom, tyranitar.
Also, too much simpliciy can be negative: diglet, magnemite, coffing evolve throught fusion, staryu and grimer becoming bigger.

So in conclusion in all the geneation there are simple and complex pokemon and all the players should look carefully at the new ones deciding what are his favourites and not marking all as uncreative from the beginning.

EDIT: on legendaries, I have too agree that there are too many of them and a lot of unnecessary... they could recycle some of them instead creating new ones: for example at the place of regigas they could have put kyogre, and to the place of heatran, groudon, and use the awesome fire/steel combo for the starters, at the place of blaziken typing.

Kanghaskan is not that bad. Look, the original concept was to catch Pokemon that lived in the nature. They are moving out of that concept and that is why we complain. There's no problem with doing the surroundings different, however Pokemon live in the nature or their adapted environment.

Just for the record: I don't like EVERY 1st gen Pokemon.

And I can't afford buying a NDS-emulator or the games( I played Diamond with a emulator). However, because I think the new games are evolving in a wrong direction, I don't feel that I need to either. Electabuzzes stripes don't look unnatural. And comparing Venausaur to Torterra saying they are the same is just stupid. Venausaurs has not a random flower on it's back. Bulbasaur had a seed, ivysaur had a bigger flower which turned in to Venausaurs Flower. Turtwig has a spire on his head, Grotle has two bushes on his back and the shell seems somewhat gone, and then Torterra comes with a giant Tree on one side and som highly "expectable" spikes on the other.
You have your own view, I have mine. The Gen V looks a bit promising now (apart from the water-starter, the Blob, The gear, the Firetypethingy, and to some extent the colours used on the fire starters which look a bit weird to me(I think it's a ok Pokemon))

Now complaining about me complaining won't really help much too. In my eyes, if there are enough people agreing with me, I hope this can reach through to the producers, if not, I'll leave it with this thread. So in theory, if they would have done the new generation more like the 1st one, I'd believe that more people would play it. However everyone has their own opinion. many agree with me(which means i don't have a stupid point of view and I have some good arguments) some don't, which indicates that many likes the new concept.
And to some of you: Think before you write..

Ravecat
June 24th, 2010, 08:01 AM
I like them all, and based on sound logic and unbiased reasoning feel they would all fit nicely into Generation 1 as well as any of the Pokémon from that era would have.

Because ITT: delusions.

Bloothump
June 24th, 2010, 09:12 AM
Something I find really weird is that before I ever came on a pokemon forum, I never thought in the process that most seem to while posting on PC. See, I would go through a game and see a pokemon and say, "That's ugly, I just won't catch it." Now I come on here and see everyone say "What a hideous design, what are those people up at gamefreak THINKING?" Honestly, I think that Pokemon always had and always will make better creature designs than the games like digimon or any other monster-based game out there. I don't see it as, "Oh these suck and 1st gen is so much better", It's more like, "Well, I love Staryu and I also love Drapion. I dislike Tentacruel and I also dislike Gastradon." I'm not going to say that these previous generations haven't made more mistakes than the last, but that's only because they're taking more chances to change the game in order to improve it. Which I'm fine with, I still play every pokemon game I own because they're all of finer quality than other monster games.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is all generations have their fair-share of complex and simple pokes, albeit the first two have more simple, and in stead of comparing the quality of the designs of 4th to 1st gen, we should compare the design quality to other games out there. Because you really can't expect a games designs to stay similar over a 15 year span.

Diablo361
June 24th, 2010, 09:32 AM
This was a highly unintelligent post seeing these Pokemon weren't revealed until after I posted this.
Also, I can't really catch a Gear that is supposed to be my "friend" throughout the game. it's unnatural. The same goes for a pink blob.. The pigeon is good, I like it. Also I like the Zebra, except for the eyes.

How is Gear and Munna anymore unnatural than Magnemite or Voltorb or Muk?

However, Empeleon dosn't look like a penguin at all IMO. Blastoise would be a much more natural sight out in the nature than Infernape because Infernape seems like a animal that has produced human-made shields in a world that has "not been affected by humans". It's not wild - it's made for serving trainers. No offense, but Bastadion looks like a Shield with a mouth. It doesn't have to train to become highly definsive, it is a shield not a hardworking animal.
Empoleon doesn't look like an emperor penguin? How?

Blastoise having MAN-MADE CANNONS is more natural and hardworking than Infernape's shields or Bastiodon's shield?

Triceratops had pointy noses that they were born with. No training involved for them. Some animals are simply born with stuff. Same as Pokemon. Hardworking animal nonsense is bullcrap.

and Btw. Mew and Celebi for example are mythical creatures. Newer Legendaries are supernatural Hyper-Pokemon..

Celebi controls time with Dialga. Doesn't that destroy your thesis? All Legendary's are mythical Pokemon based off of REAL WORLD MYTHS. And with myths, come supernatural abilities.

All legendaries are mythical. Using Celebi and Mew to prove against this is silly.

It is possible to make new simple Pokemon. I've seen pretty good Fakemon to confirm that.

Fakemon are ****, and simple=/=good.
And there are simple and complex pokemon in every generation. Ralts, Slakoth, Shroomish, Plusle, Minun, Gulpin, Duskull, Tailow, Swellow etc. are very simple, as well as Starly, Bronzor, Chingling, Gible, Budew, Glameow, Stunky, Piplup, etc.

Saying one generation has so many complex and ugly Pokemon while ignoring everything else shows a person has tunnel vision.



Hmm.. take ONE example that was revealed after I posted the thread and think you have a good argument. Good job! Tentacruel isn't the best Pokemon of the 1st generations, I'll admit that.
Tentacruel, Tentacool, Grimer, Muk, Magneton (3 Magnemites -_-)Eggecute, Voltorb, Electrode (There goes your wild thesis), Dugtrio (Same as Magneton, 3 Digletts), Rattata (OOHH Purple rat), Butterfree line (Let's take the growth path of an butterfly, ANIME it, and make it into a Pokemon. SO ORIGINAL.)

None of these are really great Pokemon, and if I had time, I could list more. But that doesn't mean all 1st Gen Pokemon are bad, just like none of all 4th Gen are bad.

Kanghaskan is not that bad. Look, the original concept was to catch Pokemon that lived in the nature. They are moving out of that concept and that is why we complain. There's no problem with doing the surroundings different, however Pokemon live in the nature or their adapted environment.

I don't see your point. Croagunk is a frog living in a swamp. Frogs live in swamps. You are going out and catching Pokemon in their respective habitats. It's still the same way as in Gen 1

Just for the record: I don't like EVERY 1st gen Pokemon.
Alright

And I can't afford buying a NDS-emulator or the games( I played Diamond with a emulator). However, because I think the new games are evolving in a wrong direction, I don't feel that I need to either. Electabuzzes stripes don't look unnatural. And comparing Venausaur to Torterra saying they are the same is just stupid. Venausaurs has not a random flower on it's back. Bulbasaur had a seed, ivysaur had a bigger flower which turned in to Venausaurs Flower. Turtwig has a spire on his head, Grotle has two bushes on his back and the shell seems somewhat gone, and then Torterra comes with a giant Tree on one side and som highly "expectable" spikes on the other.
You have your own view, I have mine. The Gen V looks a bit promising now (apart from the water-starter, the Blob, The gear, the Firetypethingy, and to some extent the colours used on the fire starters which look a bit weird to me(I think it's a ok Pokemon))

Umm... Turtwig's twig grows into a tree. Bulbasaur's seed grows into a flower.

And Turtwig is based off the the Native American story of the Land Turtle (http://bulbanews.bulbagarden.net/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species:_Turtwig,_Grotle_and_Torterra). And to further show your ignorance, Torterra is an armored dinosaur, therefore the spikes.

Now complaining about me complaining won't really help much too. In my eyes, if there are enough people agreing with me, I hope this can reach through to the producers, if not, I'll leave it with this thread. So in theory, if they would have done the new generation more like the 1st one, I'd believe that more people would play it. However everyone has their own opinion. many agree with me(which means i don't have a stupid point of view and good arguments) some don't, which indicates that many likes the new concept.
And to some of you: Think before you write..

We complain about you complaining because it happens every Gen and people get annoyed of it. If you don't like it, stop playing.

And your thesis is incorrect. More people are playing Pokemon than ever before. Therefore, you, and other people who still insist on bashing new Gens for "overdesigned Pokemon" are in the vocal minority. Game Freak has obviously done the right thing.

And FYI Gen 2 Pokemon were almost as simple as Gen 1. A lot of people still left. It's not simplicity. It's nostalgia blinding people to change.

Sage Harpuia
June 24th, 2010, 09:38 AM
@Aquila
I'm not trying to say that newer pokemon are better than older, but like Ravecat said, all the pokemon fit in the first gen: if instead of squirtle you had piplup, today we would have people saying that blastoise's cannon are hideouse.
As Bloothump said, every gen as its bad and its own good pokemon, and even you stated this: so even yourself proved this point: is just the common belief "first are better" that makes you not connect the statements "I like those pokemon" and "They are from all the Gen". So in the newer Gen people look only at the pokemon that they don't like strenghten the belief itself that old pokemon are better.
So try to look more at the pokemon you like, I'm sure there are in every Gen.


(wow, playing Miles Edgeworth investigation give is fruits...)

blazing1ashes
June 24th, 2010, 12:23 PM
I actually find the third and fourth generation satisfying. Though it is true that the come pokemon are complex, you still have your basic creatures, such as the shinx family and the torchic family who are no more complex than most pokemon in the second generation. I personally just think that the more pokemon, the better! It's not like the first and second generation pokemon are going away, so you can pick and choose which games and what pokemon you play with.

PiPVoda
June 24th, 2010, 02:19 PM
Blastoise would be a much more natural sight out in the nature than Infernape because Infernape seems like a animal that has produced human-made shields in a world that has "not been affected by humans". It's not wild - it's made for serving trainers.[/B]No offense, but Bastadion looks like a Shield with a mouth. It doesn't have to train to become highly definsive, it is a shield not a hardworking animal.

The same thing can be said about blastoise. It's cannons are human like, you can't tell me that a turtle (and if you want to get all 'much more natural sight' turtles can't stand up & walk freely like blastoise/pre-evos do) w/ a twirly tail would evolve into something w/ cannons. That isn't natural. I give it to you that yeah Infernape's shields aren't natural either, but both Infernape and Blastoise look as if they were made for battle. Though the diff. between them though is that apes are naturally strong, unlike turtles. They don't shoot water out, they can drown if undewater for too long, etc.

and the thing about empoleon not resembling a penguin, true it's your opinion but I don't see how you don't see the obvious resemblance in it. And apparantly bulbapedia even gives how it resembles a penguin:

Empoleon is a large penguin-like Pokémon. In terms of color, it has a closer resemblance to a "real-world" penguin than its pre-evolved forms have because it is mostly navy blue as opposed to being a lighter blue. Its feet actually appear to have webbing on them. Its wings are tipped with blue metal and have three golden claws sticking out at the bottom. It has a short, blue, metal "fin" sticking out of its back and another "fin" that's on the front of its body that extends to where its chin would be then splits to form some sort of collar. This "collar" is probably because real penguins are said to be wearing "tuxedos," due to their black and white appearance. If one looks at Empoleon, it has a tie like fin in the middle of its belly, and the collar comming off it, this relates to the "tuxedo" of a penquin. There is a lace-like pattern of white coloration on its front, and it has two gold-colored spots on its upper-back. Its most prominent feature is the three-horned trident-like crest that extends from its beak. This crest represents an Empoleon's power and the leader of a colony of Empoleon, Prinplup, and Piplup will have the largest horns.

It doesn't have to train to become highly definsive, it is a shield not a hardworking animal.
Did you explain what the def. of hardworking pokemon is in another post bfore this one that I missed? B/c I clearly remember asking you what one was. Yes Bastiodon has a shield, but does that mean it can't be a hard working pokemon just b/c of its high defense? No it doesn't, and like I said before pokemon aren't real. There is no such thing as a hardworking one. Trainers raise their pokemon to be stronger. A bastiodon could easily take down a 'hardworking' pokemon if it were properly trained.

Bloothump
June 24th, 2010, 02:25 PM
Also, Bastiodon looks like a shield because that is the "theme" of it's evolutionary line. I mean, it's pre-evolution's name is Shieldon.

ubernuke
June 24th, 2010, 02:40 PM
I think a little change is always necessary, you definitely don't want things to get repetitive. There have been so many Pokemon that they're just plain running out of animals anyways, haha.

Aquila
June 24th, 2010, 06:32 PM
How is Gear and Munna anymore unnatural than Magnemite or Voltorb or Muk?


Empoleon doesn't look like an emperor penguin? How?

Blastoise having MAN-MADE CANNONS is more natural and hardworking than Infernape's shields or Bastiodon's shield?

Triceratops had pointy noses that they were born with. No training involved for them. Some animals are simply born with stuff. Same as Pokemon. Hardworking animal nonsense is bullcrap.



Celebi controls time with Dialga. Doesn't that destroy your thesis? All Legendary's are mythical Pokemon based off of REAL WORLD MYTHS. And with myths, come supernatural abilities.

All legendaries are mythical. Using Celebi and Mew to prove against this is silly.



Fakemon are ****, and simple=/=good.
And there are simple and complex pokemon in every generation. Ralts, Slakoth, Shroomish, Plusle, Minun, Gulpin, Duskull, Tailow, Swellow etc. are very simple, as well as Starly, Bronzor, Chingling, Gible, Budew, Glameow, Stunky, Piplup, etc.

Saying one generation has so many complex and ugly Pokemon while ignoring everything else shows a person has tunnel vision.




Tentacruel, Tentacool, Grimer, Muk, Magneton (3 Magnemites -_-)Eggecute, Voltorb, Electrode (There goes your wild thesis), Dugtrio (Same as Magneton, 3 Digletts), Rattata (OOHH Purple rat), Butterfree line (Let's take the growth path of an butterfly, ANIME it, and make it into a Pokemon. SO ORIGINAL.)

None of these are really great Pokemon, and if I had time, I could list more. But that doesn't mean all 1st Gen Pokemon are bad, just like none of all 4th Gen are bad.



I don't see your point. Croagunk is a frog living in a swamp. Frogs live in swamps. You are going out and catching Pokemon in their respective habitats. It's still the same way as in Gen 1


Alright



Umm... Turtwig's twig grows into a tree. Bulbasaur's seed grows into a flower.

And Turtwig is based off the the Native American story of the Land Turtle (http://bulbanews.bulbagarden.net/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species:_Turtwig,_Grotle_and_Torterra). And to further show your ignorance, Torterra is an armored dinosaur, therefore the spikes.



We complain about you complaining because it happens every Gen and people get annoyed of it. If you don't like it, stop playing.

And your thesis is incorrect. More people are playing Pokemon than ever before. Therefore, you, and other people who still insist on bashing new Gens for "overdesigned Pokemon" are in the vocal minority. Game Freak has obviously done the right thing.

And FYI Gen 2 Pokemon were almost as simple as Gen 1. A lot of people still left. It's not simplicity. It's nostalgia blinding people to change.

Ok.. I got to admit, I got a bit carried a way during my last post. About Blastoise. It has the ability to hide the cannons and I remember some episodes seeing wild Blastoises out on the beach. It looked like it belonged there.
When I think apes, they are angry creatures with personality that live in trees. I can't really see Infernape doing anything other than loyal and bahaved serving of a trainer.
Saying Muk is a ugly pekoemn is up to every person, but to me it's the perfect sewage-monster.
Now about the getting out of concept argument. I meant the Anime. The game concept is still good, and that's why I enjoy playing it (mostly old gens).
You think rattata is ugly. I don't. You think Butterflies evolutions are too simple and realistic - I like it just for that reason.

The worst argument you came with here was the Mew, Celebi-argument. Mew and Celebi are creatures. They have overdone the new legendaries too much. Now I'm first of all thinking about Dialgia and Palkia from the 4th generation. I don't dislike the 3rd generation. If you can't see what i mean by comparing the looks of Mew and Celebi to Palkia and Dialga and say that Palkia and Dalgia are exaggerated, you're a not as smart as you'd like to appear.
http://shew-design.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Emperor_Penguin.jpg Empeleon = Emperor penguin?

Now onto Torterra. Triceratops doesn't look like Torterra at all. And I especially disliked Gamefreaks attempt of combining types. Torterra is a Dinosaur and turtle appearantly and to me it doesn't look like any of those. The tree won't LOOK natural no matter how much you say it is natural. Bulbasaur(w/ evolutions) are monsters adapted to the nature/forest - simple.
Croagunk is living in the swamp, and it's a frog. fine Pokemon, but then comes Toxicroak who looks like a Frogfish which naturally has fightingskills. Again, 4th generation has a tendence to ruin evolutions. Many of the Pokemon were ok, but almost every evolution destroy the first Pokemon.
Half of the "simple" Pokemon you mentioned, I can't really compare with something I've seen. Gulpin is a eating blob. Glameow has a simple tail and a naturally formed head. Bronzor is.. - a metal-thingy with a metal-thingier evolution?
Magnemite has a natural flow with magnetism, Gear has.. a natural roll?
Shroomish is.. hmm..
My thesis isn't necessarily wrong. Pokemon was popular almost momentarily and the first Pokemon gens could be the main reason why fans have risen in numbers.
My thesis was: if they'd make simple and more realistic pokemon I think they would sell more.
conclusion is: We'll never know.
I don't have time to answer any other answers for probably a long time because of work and social events. So do yourself a favour and save us both some time by answering short or not at all..

Jerme
June 24th, 2010, 06:40 PM
Ok.. I got to admit, I got a bit carried a way during my last post. About Blastoise. It has the ability to hide the cannons and I remember some episodes seeing wild Blastoises out on the beach. It looked like it belonged there.
When I think apes, they are angry creatures with personality that live in trees. I can't really see Infernape doing anything other than loyal and bahaved serving of a trainer.
Saying Muk is a ugly pekoemn is up to every person, but to me it's the perfect sewage-monster.
Now about the getting out of concept argument. I meant the Anime. The game concept is still good, and that's why I enjoy playing it (mostly old gens).
You think rattata is ugly. I don't. You think Butterflies evolutions are too simple and realistic - I like it just for that reason.

The worst argument you came with here was the Mew, Celebi-argument. Mew and Celebi are creatures. They have overdone the new legendaries too much. Now I'm first of all thinking about Dialgia and Palkia from the 4th generation. I don't dislike the 3rd generation. If you can't see what i mean by comparing the looks of Mew and Celebi to Palkia and Dialga and say that Palkia and Dalgia are exaggerated, you're a not as smart as you'd like to appear.
http://shew-design.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Emperor_Penguin.jpg Empeleon = Emperor penguin?

Now onto Torterra. Triceratops doesn't look like Torterra at all. And I especially disliked Gamefreaks attempt of combining types. Torterra is a Dinosaur and turtle appearantly and to me it doesn't look like any of those. The tree won't LOOK natural no matter how much you say it is natural. Bulbasaur(w/ evolutions) are monsters adapted to the nature/forest - simple.
Croagunk is living in the swamp, and it's a frog. fine Pokemon, but then comes Toxicroak who looks like a Frogfish which naturally has fightingskills. Again, 4th generation has a tendence to ruin evolutions. Many of the Pokemon were ok, but almost every evolution destroy the first Pokemon.
Half of the "simple" Pokemon you mentioned, I can't really compare with something I've seen. Gulpin is a eating blob. Glameow has a simple tail and a naturally formed head. Bronzor is.. - a metal-thingy with a metal-thingier evolution?
Magnemite has a natural flow with magnetism, Gear has.. a natural roll?
Shroomish is.. hmm..
My thesis isn't necessarily wrong. Pokemon was popular almost momentarily and the first Pokemon gens could be the main reason why fans have risen in numbers.
My thesis was: if they'd make simple and more realistic pokemon I think they would sell more.
conclusion is: We'll never know.
I don't have time to answer any other answers for probably a long time because of work and social events. So do yourself a favour and save us both some time by answering short or not at all..

so you would want an emperor penguin to look exactly like that? well the its called empoleon because it's supposed to be an emperor penguin, while ironically having *emperor* features (crown, cape wings, jewels). get what i mean? you might as well say "how the hell is a real emperor penguin supposed to be emperor penguin? IT HAS NO CROWN WTF!!!"

second bolded part: that makes ZERO sense at at all. serious just how the hell is that supposed to work?

"i'm not buying gen 5 unless pokemon look realistic and simple." *checks online for list of gen 5 pokemon* "OMG POKEMON SUX NOW GEN 5 LOOK HORRIBLES!"

MistahDude
June 24th, 2010, 06:51 PM
Simple pokemon arent interesting. I rather not have a pokemon with the same exact characteristics as a real world animal. Empoleon is BASED off an Emperor Penguin. Torterra is BASED off an Ankylosaurus. The old simple pokemon like Tauros and Kingler weren't too interesting, but their usefulness in battle made them fun to catch.

The pokemon that are being created now are BASED on animals in the real world and fused with concepts of battle and survival. Which explains why Infernape has some armor on him.

I really don't care how a pokemon looks, as long as I can use it in battle effectively. A lot of people are attached to much with the 1rst and 2nd generations due to nostalgia. They think that those pokemon were the best looking because that is what they started with. Even though I started with the 1rst generation I noticed that those pokemon were really simple and not very effective in terms of battling. It also didn't make sense for a lot them to be able to battle.

The newer pokemon look like they can battle fairly easily. Sure some of them are pudgy and cute, but they will end up being battle-like.


So do you want simple and bland looking pokemon that don't look like battlers? Or do you want pokemon that look like they could rip your head off?

Jerme
June 24th, 2010, 07:00 PM
Simple pokemon arent interesting. I rather not have a pokemon with the same exact characteristics as a real world animal. Empoleon is BASED off an Emperor Penguin. Torterra is BASED off an Ankylosaurus. The old simple pokemon like Tauros and Kingler weren't too interesting, but their usefulness in battle made them fun to catch.

The pokemon that are being created now are BASED on animals in the real world and fused with concepts of battle and survival. Which explains why Infernape has some armor on him.

yea. i think most newer people would rather have wild creative-looking pokemon. old fans with nostalgia goggles are complaining about "too complex".

i'm not hating on anything, just sayin

Bloothump
June 24th, 2010, 07:01 PM
My thesis was: if they'd make simple and more realistic pokemon I think they would sell more.


Uh, I don't think so. by "selling more", it means pokemon is picking up new fans who have never played the pokemon before. I doubt it would make a difference to you if they were simpler or not, considering these people never played gen one. By making simpler pokes, that would mean pleasing the minority of people who already play the game, so I don't see why that's at all plausible.

Weavile05
June 24th, 2010, 07:09 PM
If the pokemon stayed simple, game freak would run out of ideas really quickly. And there are somesimple ones in black and white. just look at gear, the name says it all. and then there's that crocodile one, it's not too complicatedd if you ask me.

MistahDude
June 24th, 2010, 07:15 PM
The people that complain too much about the new pokemon being "too complex" are probably not open to change. The new players would probably look down on the original pokemon for being too bland.

Jerme
June 24th, 2010, 07:15 PM
wait is that gear thing named "gear"? english name?

and the chinchilla is as simple as simple gets

wolf
June 24th, 2010, 07:24 PM
wait is that gear thing named "gear"? english name?
It's Giaru, English name is not comfirmed from what I know atm.

And I don't see how the newer Pokemon aren't simple. Just a note, Torterra is based on the myth about a "world" on a turtle's back, a lot of older Pokemon are based on myths as well. I don't feel like arguing about it currently though.

Zorua
June 24th, 2010, 07:36 PM
Anyone and everyone can have an opinion on whatever they want, and we should just leave them alone and let them hold to to that belief. I don't know about anyone, but that's just me. And one more thing:

http://shew-design.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Emperor_Penguin.jpg http://www.mysites.nl/upload2/pokemaster/364989.jpg

If that doesn't look like a penguin to you, I don't know what will.

Also:

Now onto Torterra. Triceratops doesn't look like Torterra at all. And I especially disliked Gamefreaks attempt of combining types. Torterra is a Dinosaur and turtle appearantly and to me it doesn't look like any of those.http://toyandgift.co.uk/acatalog/14601%20giant%20turtle.jpg http://pokemon1111.p.o.pic.centerblog.net/p3wzcqe8.png

Wow, so you slap on some armor on Torterra. That's something called improvisation, not ruining something.



The tree won't LOOK natural no matter how much you say it is natural. Bulbasaur(w/ evolutions) are monsters adapted to the nature/forest - simple.As much as I love bulbasaur and it's evolutionary line, if you're gonna deny something with a literal tree on it's back that Pokemon actual live in and say it's not adapted to the forest....

Hm..something's wrong there...



Croagunk is living in the swamp, and it's a frog. fine Pokemon, but then comes Toxicroak who looks like a Frogfish which naturally has fightingskills.Because honestly the only poison types in the first generation were a venus flytrap, a piece of sludge, and a poisonous plant. Not to mention poisonous snakes with their names spelled backwards(how witty).

If you're going to make a poison dart frog, of course you're gonna have it make it look cool and pretty original one way or another.


Again, 4th generation has a tendence to ruin evolutions. Many of the Pokemon were ok, but almost every evolution destroy the first Pokemon. I disagree, but your opinion anyway.


Half of the "simple" Pokemon you mentioned, I can't really compare with something I've seen. Gulpin is a eating blob. Glameow has a simple tail and a naturally formed head. Bronzor is.. - a metal-thingy with a metal-thingier evolution?It's so original that you can't even compare it to anything.


I guess that's that. I mean really, I'm not trying to be rude in any manner whatsoever, I'm just disagreeing with a few of your points that you've managed to point out so far.

Ravecat
June 24th, 2010, 07:40 PM
extensive post of told-ery
I like this. Nicely done, Hi-5!

MistahDude
June 24th, 2010, 07:53 PM
http://pokemon1111.p.o.pic.centerblog.net/p3wzcqe8.pnghttp://www.mqp.k12.nf.ca/former/jbutler/ankylosaurus.jpg

See the similarity? Torterra looks like an Ankylosaurus.

Zorua
June 24th, 2010, 07:56 PM
I like this. Nicely done, Hi-5!


Truth be told, I really wanted to avoid the whole discussion as a whole and not jump in, but when Torterra was mentioned, it sort of hit a soft spot. D:


http://pokemon1111.p.o.pic.centerblog.net/p3wzcqe8.pnghttp://www.mqp.k12.nf.ca/former/jbutler/ankylosaurus.jpg

See the similarity? Torterra looks like an Ankylosaurus.

Well, if you extend Torterra's body a bit then yes. It looks a bit incomparable primarily because Torterra's body isn't really that long. .-.

Bloothump
June 24th, 2010, 07:59 PM
Also, Torterra's origins have already been explained in this topic.

MistahDude
June 24th, 2010, 07:59 PM
Again, 4th generation has a tendence to ruin evolutions. Many of the Pokemon were ok, but almost every evolution destroy the first Pokemon.

http://pokemondb.net/images/artwork/rhyperior.pnghttp://pokemondb.net/images/artwork/rhydon.png

Rhydon evolved to Rhyperior to be better at battling. He gained massive amounts of armor, which made him a HUGE and destructive battling machine/rock monster thing! In a world where pokemon are used mainly for battle, it makes sense that Rhydon would need more body armor to compete in more battles.

If you think it "destroyed" pokemon you aren't open to change and/or you aren't aware that pokemon is a battling game.

Trap-Eds
June 24th, 2010, 08:07 PM
They combined a turtle myth and an ancient dinosaur thing for Torterra, how is that not any more orginal than a dino...thing with a flower on it's back? If anything they took the same idea and made it more interesting, like with Magnemite/Beldum/Bronzor. Pokemon nowadays are still based off real animals or objects. They just look more like they were meant to fight because, they're kinda supposed to. *rolls eyes* This is kinda getting repetitive... *wonders if any Japanese fans complain about this*

o0PinkSquid0o
June 24th, 2010, 08:57 PM
I am actually really astonished at how dense the OP of this thread is... it almost seems like they are arguing for the sake of arguing... Aquila, are you a troll by any chance?
Your arguments make absolutely no sense... if you want to play a game where the characters look just like real animals, go play 'Simplz Zoo' on Steam.. omg.. its a game.. where you're a zoo keeper and you look after real animals! Or go get Nintendogs :D you play with dogs... yeah dogs that look like real life dogs! zomg amazing.

Pokemon don't need to look like real animals :| they're not real. Also pokemon stands for pocket MONSTERS....MON-STERS monsters can be anything.

Gen V is the best Gen to come out in a very long time. The Pokemon look amazing so far, no, they are not too complex if you compare them to other Gens and yeah, some do represent real animals so what on earth is your problem with it?

Can you actually provide us with a real reason to hate them besides the whole "durrrrr hurrr they be no hard workin enuff" whatever that means :S

BTW I don't care if this sounds 'mean' you started a thread to discuss this, then tell me my last post was unintelligent? Well I feel your entire argument is unintelligent.

Azure-Supernova
June 25th, 2010, 02:01 AM
I already know I'm pretty apprehensive about change... that's not to say that IV didn't bring in some decent Pokémon, Luxrays are sweet! But I'm just a stubborn teen who remembers one Christmas waking up to his first Game Boy and Pokémon Red... I really can't help but compare every Generation against R/B/G.

Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty
June 25th, 2010, 02:36 AM
However, Empeleon dosn't look like a penguin at all IMO. Blastoise would be a much more natural sight out in the nature than Infernape because Infernape seems like a animal that has produced human-made shields in a world that has "not been affected by humans". It's not wild - it's made for serving trainers. No offense, but Bastadion looks like a Shield with a mouth. It doesn't have to train to become highly definsive, it is a shield not a hardworking animal.

BLASTOISE HAS BAMFING CANNONS ERUPTING FROM HIS SHELL. CANNONS. ARE NOT. NATURAL. Can you please tell us how these are natural or not 'human-made shields' as Blastoise seems to be your only defence when talking about natural or unnatural evolutions? Right now you're just repeating "BLASTOISE IS NATURAL INFERNAPE IS UNNATURAL" ad nauseum without actually explaining your reasoning.

Sage Harpuia
June 25th, 2010, 07:41 AM
Because honestly the only poison types in the first generation were a venus flytrap, a piece of sludge, and a poisonous plant. Not to mention poisonous snakes with their names spelled backwards(how witty).





BLASTOISE HAS BAMFING CANNONS ERUPTING FROM HIS SHELL. CANNONS. ARE NOT. NATURAL. Can you please tell us how these are natural or not 'human-made shields' as Blastoise seems to be your only defence when talking about natural or unnatural evolutions? Right now you're just repeating "BLASTOISE IS NATURAL INFERNAPE IS UNNATURAL" ad nauseum without actually explaining your reasoning.

Haha...this two post made me laugh a lot...and the fun fact is that I was using a notebook in a middle of a cafe XD

Anyway @ Twilight Sky you forgot...a poisonius levitating ball :P
@ Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty I think that he is so much sure that pokemon are changing to the worst, that he focuses only in the simple pokemon part in gen I, and he overlook the point that they share with the new generation... if you look carefully you can notice that all the pokemon share this duble nature of beig based on animal and have, at the same time, unnatural feature: this is what makes pokemon unique avoiding being boring and resemble digimon.

Diablo361
June 25th, 2010, 09:31 AM
Ok.. I got to admit, I got a bit carried a way during my last post. About Blastoise. It has the ability to hide the cannons and I remember some episodes seeing wild Blastoises out on the beach. It looked like it belonged there.
When I think apes, they are angry creatures with personality that live in trees. I can't really see Infernape doing anything other than loyal and bahaved serving of a trainer.

OK, your opinion.

Saying Muk is a ugly pekoemn is up to every person, but to me it's the perfect sewage-monster.
Now about the getting out of concept argument. I meant the Anime. The game concept is still good, and that's why I enjoy playing it (mostly old gens).
You think rattata is ugly. I don't. You think Butterflies evolutions are too simple and realistic - I like it just for that reason.

They are not ugly. They are uncreative - BIG DIFFERENCE. It takes no skills to come up with something like Butterfree or Rattata. It's just Animeing an animal HURR DURR AWESOME POGEYMANS, or to draw a big pile of slime (Grimer) and make it bigger to look like something has been done (Muk).

The worst argument you came with here was the Mew, Celebi-argument. Mew and Celebi are creatures. They have overdone the new legendaries too much. Now I'm first of all thinking about Dialgia and Palkia from the 4th generation. I don't dislike the 3rd generation. If you can't see what i mean by comparing the looks of Mew and Celebi to Palkia and Dialga and say that Palkia and Dalgia are exaggerated, you're a not as smart as you'd like to appear.

Yeah, Mew and Celebi are not as simple as Dialga or Palkia. However, for Gen 1 and Gen 2 standards, they are still some of the most complex from those Gens. They aren't complex now, but they were some of the most complex for thier respective Gens.

Plus, they are smaller. A complex design wouldn't work well.


http://shew-design.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Emperor_Penguin.jpg Empeleon = Emperor penguin?

Umm... yeah. That's why Empoleon has the tuxedo. Add a bit of design and you're done. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER POKEMON.

Now onto Torterra. Triceratops doesn't look like Torterra at all.
Never said it did. Using Triceratops as an example of your NATRUAL POGEYMANS theory.
And I especially disliked Gamefreaks attempt of combining types. Torterra is a Dinosaur and turtle appearantly and to me it doesn't look like any of those. The tree won't LOOK natural no matter how much you say it is natural. Bulbasaur(w/ evolutions) are monsters adapted to the nature/forest - simple.

Torterra is an Anklosaur (Didn't someone mention this already?) based off the World Turtle mythology of the American Indian tribes. It's MEANT to have some sort of plant. And like I said, twigs=trees as bulbs=flowers.

Torterra=Venusaur. Arguing differently makes you sound moronic.

Croagunk is living in the swamp, and it's a frog. fine Pokemon, but then comes Toxicroak who looks like a Frogfish which naturally has fightingskills. Again, 4th generation has a tendence to ruin evolutions. Many of the Pokemon were ok, but almost every evolution destroy the first Pokemon.
Magikarp is a fish that flops around. At Lv. 20, it evolves into Gyrados, a serpentine creature. Which has more correlation, Croagunk to Toxicroak or Magikarp to Gyarados?

And hating Toxicroak is your opinion :/

Half of the "simple" Pokemon you mentioned, I can't really compare with something I've seen. Gulpin is a eating blob. Glameow has a simple tail and a naturally formed head. Bronzor is.. - a metal-thingy with a metal-thingier evolution?
Magnemite has a natural flow with magnetism, Gear has.. a natural roll?
Shroomish is.. hmm..

It makes them ORIGINAL. It means A GOOD IDEA. Bronzor is based off a myth.

And here you are again with this natural ********. It floats in the air. It's still no different than Gear.
My thesis isn't necessarily wrong. Pokemon was popular almost momentarily and the first Pokemon gens could be the main reason why fans have risen in numbers.
My thesis was: if they'd make simple and more realistic pokemon I think they would sell more.
conclusion is: We'll never know.
I don't have time to answer any other answers for probably a long time because of work and social events. So do yourself a favour and save us both some time by answering short or not at all..

Your thesis is wrong because it lacks substantive evidence to it, therefore nullifying it. According to sales, DPPt> RSE> GSC> RBY. Therefore, Pokemon has gotten more popular. Therefore Game Freak has been doing something right.

Tanaki
June 25th, 2010, 11:47 AM
Times change. People's styles change. It's how things work, evolve and reach the final point of being good or bad in the eyes of the consumer. I agree that a lot of the designs are bad, but there are an exceptional few pokemon that tend to look good in each generation. If it stays too close to the original formula it isn't being creative enough. If it strays too much then it's awful. The fact is that Nintendo/Gamefreak can't please everyone. All they can do is give it their best and hope that people like what they've done.

I don't like every pokemon and I have my own nit-picks about a lot of them, but I challenge any of you to conceptualize, design and show off over 500 of your own original characters and find that no one has a single bad thing to say about any of them.

Nikorasu
June 25th, 2010, 12:13 PM
idk if this ever goes through your mind but:

voltorb
electrode
eggxecute
eggecutor
magnemite
magneton
koffing
weezing
and rhydon, cant think of a real animal that resembles it. (not that i hate it)

but at the same time, many real ones like tauros and seaking. get over it. its been in all generations. and dont tell me finneon/lumineon looks like a 100% stitched together mutant thingy.

You managed to pick a few, but there are so many i can mention witht he new gens.

Bronzer
Bronzong
Bastiodon
Burmy
Wormadam
Cherrum
Dialga
Palikia - Those 2 are just plastic.

Those are just a few of the many i really hate >.<

Not only that but some of the pokemon just look plain ugly,

I mean carnivine for one thing is just suicidal...

But! you cant complain about everything with the new gens.

Alot of people commonly quote things like "Now pokemon are ending up with trees on their backs" To be fair, look at venusaur... ok, so its like some flower branch, can almost relate to a tree D:

Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty
June 25th, 2010, 12:17 PM
You managed to pick a few, but there are so many i can mention witht he new gens.

Bronzer
Bronzong
Bastiodon
Burmy
Wormadam
Cherrum
Dialga
Palikia - Those 2 are just plastic.

Those are just a few of the many i really hate >.<

Not only that but some of the pokemon just look plain ugly,

I mean carnivine for one thing is just suicidal...

But! you cant complain about everything with the new gens.

Alot of people commonly quote things like "Now pokemon are ending up with trees on their backs" To be fair, look at venusaur... ok, so its like some flower branch, can almost relate to a tree D:

Yeeeah, but you kinda missed the point of Jerme's post. (S)He was saying how it's A-OK to accuse the new Pokémon games of having bizarre Pokémon, but a lot of people are forgetting that the old ones did as well. This is why (s)he made a list of Voltorb and the likes. You can't make the sort of "bah the new Pokémon are liek soooo unrealistic!" claim when Pokémon has a history of unrealistic creatures.

Gary Oak FTW
June 25th, 2010, 12:21 PM
I am getting so tired of nostalgia freaks ):

Jerme
June 25th, 2010, 12:22 PM
http://pokemondb.net/images/artwork/rhyperior.pnghttp://pokemondb.net/images/artwork/rhydon.png

Rhydon evolved to Rhyperior to be better at battling. He gained massive amounts of armor, which made him a HUGE and destructive battling machine/rock monster thing! In a world where pokemon are used mainly for battle, it makes sense that Rhydon would need more body armor to compete in more battles.

If you think it "destroyed" pokemon you aren't open to change and/or you aren't aware that pokemon is a battling game.

i actually agree on the destroying evos part, ONLY for the 1st gens. i liked the looks of rhydon (dont think rhyperior is that bad), electabuzz (my all time fave RUINED), magmar, tangela (also liked this one), lickitung (again i liked this one).

however yanmega and gliscor were actually good looking evos while making them better for battle

iPowers
June 25th, 2010, 12:36 PM
Ok guys just shut up. No offense to anyone but i'm tired of hearing that. Yes there are some new pokemon that suck but there are such amazing pokemon out there in generation 3 and generation 4.

Blaziken and Lucario are a good couple examples. they are really badass. I also like hariyama and rhypherior along with empoleon and Deoxys. Mightyena, Groudon, Kyogre, Rayquaza. I could name a ton. Generation 3 to be honest has my favorites alongwith generation 1. Generation 2 and 4 were kinda crappy.

Generation 5 looks odd to me but I said that about generation 3 and I got used to it REALLY fast. I hate the starters but the generation 5 legendaries and the other pokemon look really cool along with the gameplay.

Plus generation 3 also made different dual types such as blaziken with fire and fighting and Ludicolo with water and grass. idk I really think it'll be good. Things change with everything and i really don't think it's a bad thing especially with this. Plus it isn't like they're deleting pokemon or anything. if they did that I could see a reason to get upset about it.

The Jolly Roger
June 25th, 2010, 03:33 PM
I think Nintendo's running short on the creativity that made the original episodes/games so great.

Dark Piplup
June 25th, 2010, 03:38 PM
I think nintendo is going to stop pokemon soon. The new legendaries are really complicated. But I'd like to see pokemon around for a few more generations.

Jerme
June 25th, 2010, 06:52 PM
Ok guys just shut up. No offense to anyone but i'm tired of hearing that. Yes there are some new pokemon that suck but there are such amazing pokemon out there in generation 3 and generation 4.

Blaziken and Lucario are a good couple examples. they are really badass. I also like hariyama and rhypherior along with empoleon and Deoxys. Mightyena, Groudon, Kyogre, Rayquaza. I could name a ton. Generation 3 to be honest has my favorites alongwith generation 1. Generation 2 and 4 were kinda crappy.


no, blaziken is the worst pokemon ever imo. this thing looks like a mexican wrestler, something that should be in digimon.


I think Nintendo's running short on the creativity that made the original episodes/games so great.

ha, i never watch the cartoon. but i remember back in the day, seeing the 1st episodes of 1st season, those were the days

I think nintendo is going to stop pokemon soon. The new legendaries are really complicated. But I'd like to see pokemon around for a few more generations.

as long as they dont keep introducing 100+ new pokemon every generation. maybe new regions, but no new pokemon. with previous legends having connections with it.

Aquila
June 25th, 2010, 07:24 PM
Ok.. last post from me.

It looks like a new generation of fans has also brought a new generations of Pokemon.
It's a change - I accept that.
Now for me, first generation brought me alot of pleasure and I was thrilled with the plot, the gameplay.. Everything turned Pokemon into what later becomes a massive commercial and thrilling hit to everyone who plays Pokemon. 2nd generation brought even more great pleasure. Same style, same style of play and styles/evolutions were in no means unnatural(except for Politoed).
The 3rd generation was new, but exciting. and I also thought the 3rd generation was brilliant.
It's the 4th generation that dissapointed me alot. Sneasel was my favourite Pokemon, but got somewhat ruined by Weavile(not a ugly Pokemon, but a dissapointment) now the headline is perhaps a bit misguided, but I'll come into that later.
the 4th generation ruined my picture of what evolutions of certain Pokemon would look like. Magmortar, Magnezone(Magneton had no need for an evolution IMO), Rhyperior(so unlike the first evolutions), Togekiss, Mamoswine, Pyrogon Z, Probopass, Froslass, Mismagius and to some extent Honchkrow.. I expected the Pokemon to have a similiar style to the 1st and follow the evolutionary road with most pokemon being similiar to their evolutions. The 1st generation set the basis. Magikarp into Gyarodos didn't seem weird as training a such weak Pokemon as Magikarp would eventually give us a mighty monster like Gyarados, it gave sence. Same was done with Feebas later, didn't dislike it at all.
The 4th generation meddled with the old Pokemon, the 1st, 2nd a little of the 3rd generation in a way that made me and many other people react negativly. Also, they chose to create new legendaries that seemed more fit to science fiction than old folklores and mythical monsters(at 1st impressionIMO).
Thirdly, there was only 1 evolutionary line from the starters that seemed playable. This was Turtwig to Torterra(kind of counterproductive that I mention Torterra). Compared to my 1st impression of the other two starters, their fully evolved form was dissapointing to me.

When I posted this thread, I recently got dissapointed by the looks of two starters and the legendaries that had been revealed. All in all, I wanted to hear if there were any other people feeling the same way. Well after I thought it true(partially drunk), I found out that all these tree factors of dissapointment towards the 4th generation, gave me an impression that every new pokemon from the 4th generation was bad. Now I accept that changes are being made. some are overdone(Dialga- and Palkia-spritestyles) and others are good(ingame graphics and a expanded amount of moves which gives us a more challenging approach to online and Local battling.) I didn't like Pearl and Diamond so when I saw the 1st set of Pokemon that were revealed, I got a bad gen.4 feeling, and it made me react. Despite of the gear, the legendaries and the starters I didn't like, I think gen. 5 seems a lot more promising now.
Pokemonfans are widely spread. Some became fans after the 1st generation some came later. It was the 1st generation designs that fascinated me, and some of you got an attraction to the newer styles. Nevertheless Pokemon is changing, and comparing Torterra to Venusaur is not possible seeing
Venusaur = before change while Torterra = after change. Saying it would be better with "real animal" was maybe a bad attempt of a desperate argument, as Venusaur for example has a monster head which also is typical for the 1st generation. In other words Torterra is more a real animal than Venusaur.
Before the release of Black and White, I'm good with playing Football Manager 2010/2011. After the release, I'm back to annoy the **** out of newer Pokemonfans. So long!

Aquila AKA Nostalgiafreak AKA Musician AKA Footballfreak AKA Gen.4-hater AKA ah.. call me whatever you want!

Ninja Caterpie
June 25th, 2010, 07:49 PM
I want to point out that, in my opinion, the changes they're making to the legendaries (ie. Dialga/Palkia styled ones) are good.

Legendaries are meant to be legendary, they're meant to be special and all-powerful gods. They're not supposed to be simple or whatever, they're meant to be different. It's better if you can actually tell the difference between legendaries and normal Pokémon at a glance, and now you can.

Moltres, Zapdos and Articuno were just birds, each with ONE THING that made them even remotely look legendary. Zapdos had spiky wings, Moltres flaming ones, and Articuno the ridiculously long tail. But if you did a simple palette switch of Articuno into Pidgey's, it wouldn't look so legendary.

Entei, Raikou and Suicune were slightly, although not much, better. Raikou, with all the lightning-bolts along its body, Entei with its firey-ness and Suicune with its long hairs and stuff that made it look like water, were, I guess, quite legendary. Celebi and Jirachi were pretty brilliant though, as were Ho-oh and Lugia, because those were big and majestic; legendary.

In the third gen, they hit the ball out of the park. The normal Pokémon were simple like Lotad and Taillow, but then you had the actual legendaries like Groudon and Kyogre that, while they did look like normal animals to some extent, had noticeable legendary aspects to them. The Regis were likewise brilliant.

In the fourth gen, everything sort of took a step up the special-ness level, so it sort of defined everything as obviously Pokémon. Staraptor was a bird...but it had a hairstyle! The legendaries...they were just legendary. The trio was magical; little elven things that were really quite great and obviously different to normal Pokémon. Dialga and Palkia, as well as Arceus, as well as most of the other legendaries, just commanded attention and were obviously great, big, powerful monsters of Pokémon. They actually looked like they had created the world.

With the fifth gen Pokémon, I can see they've sort of taken a step back with the normal Pokémon - look at how simple Chiramii is. The legendaries still retain that awe-inspiring feeling that they should always have.

I do also want to point out, however, that the new legendaries have a reason for changing - the old ones were simple guardians. Purifier of Water, Guardian of the Volcanoes, Master of the Seafoam Islands, etc. The new ones are creators. Creators of Land and Sea, Creators and Space and Time, Creator of EVERYTHING. They're creators, they have to stand out. And if you think about it like this, there are now four levels of Pokemon that are easily distinguishable.

Legendary, creators - Legendary Pokemon, the top of the top. Arceus, Dialga, Groundon and Kyogre are examples.
Legendary, guardians - Legendary Pokemon, but not quite really strong. Things like Azelf, Zapdos, Heatran and Cresselia go here.
Powerful, pseudo-legendary - big and strong, but not classified as legendaries. This includes stuff like Metagross and Salamence.
Normal, simple - basic Pokemon, not special. Stuff like Bidoof, Rattata, Voltorb, Lotad and Pikachu go here.

I think Nintendo's running short on the creativity that made the original episodes/games so great.
If by "creativity", you mean "uncreativity limited to animals with horns and plants", then yes, they are running short.

Jerme
June 25th, 2010, 07:49 PM
Ok.. last post from me.
It's the 4th generation that dissapointed me alot. Sneasel was my favourite Pokemon, but got somewhat ruined by Weavile(not a ugly Pokemon, but a dissapointment) now the headline is perhaps a bit misguided, but I'll come into that later.
the 4th generation ruined my picture of what evolutions of certain Pokemon would look like. Magmortar, Magnezone(Magneton had no need for an evolution IMO), Rhyperior(so unlike the first evolutions), Togekiss, Mamoswine, Pyrogon Z, Probopass, Froslass, Mismagius and to some extent Honchkrow.. I expected the Pokemon to have a similiar style to the 1st and follow the evolutionary road with most pokemon being similiar to their evolutions.

yea this is what i agree with right here. exactly. thats the only thing i hate about 4th gen...it makes me wanna slap the hell out the people who made them evolve.

both porygons were classic pokemon, but z came out i'm like wtf. same with togetic. i'm fine with mamoswine, i actually like this one. probopass, ugly as hell but i never cared about nosepass anyways. magmotar and electivire killed their preevo, i will not evolve them..well i will but i'll never use them. imo, these evos should not make them superior to their preevos, just change their stats like scizor did with the speed of scyther.

MistahDude
June 25th, 2010, 08:16 PM
I think Nintendo's running short on the creativity that made the original episodes/games so great.

No. You are just too nostalgia crazed.

Nikorasu
June 25th, 2010, 11:07 PM
I guess most of us who are banting about how sucky the new generations are is because we actually played these games when we were kids.

Kids that are the ages we were are probally thinking 'Wow these pokemon are so cool!' for the new gens.

I am defenately a nostalgia freak :)

Ravecat
June 25th, 2010, 11:12 PM
Speak for yourself.
I've played all of the games as they are released.
I'm also an extremely nostalgic person.
The later generations are just as good objectively, if not better.

Anyone who says otherwise is suffering from Nostalgia, which is okay; it's perfectly normal. But you need to understand that's all it is.

o0PinkSquid0o
June 26th, 2010, 12:46 AM
I guess most of us who are banting about how sucky the new generations are is because we actually played these games when we were kids.

Kids that are the ages we were are probally thinking 'Wow these pokemon are so cool!' for the new gens.

I am defenately a nostalgia freak :)


I've been playing pokemon since Pokemon Yellow first came out and I have bought every game since and some how I am still able to appreciate the new pokemon.. wow.. I must be pretty spesh.

I think people who started playing pokemon from the middle instead of the beginning have a better view on pokemon. At least they dont judge the new ones just coz they're not the old ones

Ninja Caterpie
June 26th, 2010, 12:57 AM
I think people who started playing pokemon from the middle instead of the beginning have a better view on pokemon. At least they dont judge the new ones just coz they're not the old ones

That's what you'd think. I started in the middle, and, well, I was quite biased against the fourth-generational Pokémon and the 2.5D graphics. As a result, I had far less fun than I should have playing Platinum, which puts me in the mindset to enjoy Black and White as much as I can.

Nikorasu
June 26th, 2010, 01:10 AM
That's what you'd think. I started in the middle, and, well, I was quite biased against the fourth-generational Pokémon and the 2.5D graphics. As a result, I had far less fun than I should have playing Platinum, which puts me in the mindset to enjoy Black and White as much as I can.

Same, i'm also goign to put alot of time intot his game.

The old games aren't comming back, maybe remakes but i need to accept that.

The old gens in my mind will always be the best, but i need to get over them and enjoy the new ones.

I guess thats that.