5th Gen Do you think that some of the Unova Pokemon don't even look like Pokemon?

The whole Vanillite evo-chain are ridiculous. And in my party.

Charizard. Typhlosion. Blaziken. Infernape. Emboar.
The quality of pokemon has increased...then decreased through generations. While infernape was still decent... once I saw Emboar. Then I saw Garbadour. Trubbish. Gothita. Vanillish. All these pokemon lack the "creativity" others are saying they embody. Emboar looks like a baby of magmortar and snubull. Trubbish? A Garbage bag with arms and legs? Gothita? A person... seriously its basically a person they decided to make a pokemon. Gale the office goth is angry in the gamefreak building is my guess. Vanillish? Seriously? Its an icecream cone. Beartic is cool but unfortunately I get the vibe hes just and ice version of ursaring. You may defend it all you like but what will next gen be? Winedamill? The windmill pokemon? Cellulord? Cell phone pokemon? Its plain to see whats happening. The hardcore fans, refuse to see the issues. GF is running out of ideas. Out of Imagination. Each generation the amount of worthy pokemon become fewer and fewer. I saw it last gen when rotom turned into a friggin lawn mower.

By purchasing these games you send the message that these flawed designs are ok to create. That wild animals could SOMEHOW be shaped like an inanimate object. You ever see and ice cream cone fight back when you try to eat it?? So facing the flaming and anger Im surely going to recieve. I post this message only saying. Ask more of the products, as the consumer that must pay to recieve them.

Though I admit they weren't as good as I'd have wished, it's not like most (I SAID MOST) of us can think of ones that are a terrible lot better. Some (I SAID SOME) of us can't name every single Pokemon yet! They're probably running low on ideas.

KingofCarnage18 said:

Charizard. Typhlosion. Blaziken. Infernape. Emboar.
The quality of pokemon has increased...then decreased through generations. While infernape was still decent... once I saw Emboar. Then I saw Garbadour. Trubbish. Gothita. Vanillish. All these pokemon lack the "creativity" others are saying they embody. Emboar looks like a baby of magmortar and snubull. Trubbish? A Garbage bag with arms and legs? Gothita? A person... seriously its basically a person they decided to make a pokemon. Gale the office goth is angry in the gamefreak building is my guess. Vanillish? Seriously? Its an icecream cone. Beartic is cool but unfortunately I get the vibe hes just and ice version of ursaring. You may defend it all you like but what will next gen be? Winedamill? The windmill pokemon? Cellulord? Cell phone pokemon? Its plain to see whats happening. The hardcore fans, refuse to see the issues. GF is running out of ideas. Out of Imagination. Each generation the amount of worthy pokemon become fewer and fewer. I saw it last gen when rotom turned into a friggin lawn mower.

By purchasing these games you send the message that these flawed designs are ok to create. That wild animals could SOMEHOW be shaped like an inanimate object. You ever see and ice cream cone fight back when you try to eat it?? So facing the flaming and anger Im surely going to recieve. I post this message only saying. Ask more of the products, as the consumer that must pay to recieve them.

Click to expand...

Not just is your argument flawed from there being the same kind of weird pokemon since gen 1,

but you also have no idea what creativity even means. Look it up.

KingofCarnage18 said:

Charizard. Typhlosion. Blaziken. Infernape. Emboar.
The quality of pokemon has increased...then decreased through generations. While infernape was still decent... once I saw Emboar. Then I saw Garbadour. Trubbish. Gothita. Vanillish. All these pokemon lack the "creativity" others are saying they embody. Emboar looks like a baby of magmortar and snubull. Trubbish? A Garbage bag with arms and legs? Gothita? A person... seriously its basically a person they decided to make a pokemon. Gale the office goth is angry in the gamefreak building is my guess. Vanillish? Seriously? Its an icecream cone. Beartic is cool but unfortunately I get the vibe hes just and ice version of ursaring. You may defend it all you like but what will next gen be? Winedamill? The windmill pokemon? Cellulord? Cell phone pokemon? Its plain to see whats happening. The hardcore fans, refuse to see the issues. GF is running out of ideas. Out of Imagination. Each generation the amount of worthy pokemon become fewer and fewer. I saw it last gen when rotom turned into a friggin lawn mower.

By purchasing these games you send the message that these flawed designs are ok to create. That wild animals could SOMEHOW be shaped like an inanimate object. You ever see and ice cream cone fight back when you try to eat it?? So facing the flaming and anger Im surely going to recieve. I post this message only saying. Ask more of the products, as the consumer that must pay to recieve them.

Click to expand...

So, you're just gonna ignore Muk, Weezing, Jynx, Mr. Mime, Exeggutor, Magneton, Electrode, Medicham, Gardevoir, Hariyama and so forth? Emboar has an awesome design, and if far more creative than Charizard, plus it's actually based off something -- I believe it's called Pengu, a Chinese deity or mythical figure of some sort -- Trubbish is freaking adorable, and Garbodor is awesome. Besides, Trubbish/Garbodor complete the trifecta of land-sea-air pollution Pokemon. Vannilluxe, I'm not personally fond of, but they had a Pokemon that was literally a bunch of eggs with faces and evolved into coconuts with faces in the first gen. And Vanilluxe is a hundred times more creative than Seel, Voltorb and Diglett.

I don't think you know what creativity means either, judging by your use of it. And you raise issues with only. . . five fifth gen Pokemon. Five. Out of one hundred and fifty. You're applying a huge double standard and being blinded by nostalgia. How you've completely managed to ignore Serperior, Samurott, Krookodile, Haxorus, Excadrill, Gigalith, Musharna, Genesect, Galvantula and so many others is beyond me. It makes me think that you haven't even played Black/White, and refuse to because you think that five Pokemon from fifth gen are uncreative and ugly.

At the end of the day I think Pokemon can look like anything I guess, but some of the designs in the current gen don't really mesh with the designs of the same gen. Almost as if there are multiple art styles. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Oh my. Absolutely not. I had a lot of gripes with Black and White, but this most certainly wasn't one of them. While Vanillish isn't the most awesome pokemon ever... I don't really mind it. He's adorable, really. THe whole Trubbish/Garbodor thing is kind of a lame excuse for an argument in this regard, considering Grimer and Muk. I'm sure this has been said before... But come on. We had animate Poke-Balls in the first Gen. Hardly the most genius design ever. And yet we still love the 1st Gen Pokemon regardless of that. ^^

They look like Pokémon too me.
I mean, Samurott is like Swampert in a way and no-one goes that Swampert doesn't look like a Pokémon

Batel said:

But come on. We had animate Poke-Balls in the first Gen. Hardly the most genius design ever. And yet we still love the 1st Gen Pokemon regardless of that. ^^

Click to expand...

^

There's no unifying look in pokémon. Put Charmander and Squirtle next to Pokabu and Oshawott and you could think they came from completely different franchises. The first ones look like reptile monsters and the latter ones like cartoon creatures. So I don't really think you can say that something looks or doesn't look like a pokémon since that definition isn't really, well, defined.

Forever said:

Well not only that but it looks kind of uncreative, too. It just seemed like they slapped two Pokemon together, but then again they did that with Magnemite. Actually, Klink could pass for a Pokemon but Klinklang is different from what we've known before, so yeah. ;(

Click to expand...

I actually think that Klink is a sort of homage to the Magnemite line--if you do a headcount (please forgive this pun) of all the Pokemon who only gain an extra head or two upon evolution, or simply grow in size, you'll find that gen 1 falls victim to this more than any other gen. And since gen 5 is supposed to be a sort of "throwback" to gen 1, it actually makes sense that Klink was designed the way it was c:

Wobbachomp said:

If it's a Pokemon, then of course it looks like a Pokemon!

Honestly, when 6th gen comes out there will be "Do you think that some of the 6th gen Pokemon don't look like Pokemon?" threads, and people will start thinking 5th gen Pokemon look like Pokemon.

Click to expand...

This.
The biggest proof we have of this is that now we can find "genthreers," or however you would call them. People who are nostalgia-blinded over gen 3. They're not as bad as genwunners but they're off on that side of the spectrum. As time passes we will see people act this way about all gens, because for them it all comes down to nostalgia. Nostalgia, and insulting the newest gen simply because it is new.

KingofCarnage18 said:

You ever see and ice cream cone fight back when you try to eat it??

Click to expand...

No, but now that you mention it, we had some crazy magnets in physics class that used to go berserk whenever we tried to use them to demonstrate the effects of electromagnetic fields. They're really dangerous, those living magnets.

I have found when playing Pokemon you can normally look at a Pokemon and go yes that's fire type or yes that's water, when playing Pokemon Black 2, I've had to go online to find out what the hell the thing I'm looking at is.

Always looked like something out of Disney.

Ragonkai said:

I have found when playing Pokemon you can normally look at a Pokemon and go yes that's fire type or yes that's water, when playing Pokemon Black 2, I've had to go online to find out what the hell the thing I'm looking at is.

Click to expand...

Exeggcute is obviously Grass/Psychic, right?

Care to present any examples? Im trying to think of some, but Blitzle, Darmanitan...Grabodor, Klink...Litwick, Axew...all seem quite easy to figure out o.O

Red's Hawt Chibi Pelippers said:

There's no unifying look in pokémon. Put Charmander and Squirtle next to Pokabu and Oshawott and you could think they came from completely different franchises. The first ones look like reptile monsters and the latter ones like cartoon creatures. So I don't really think you can say that something looks or doesn't look like a pokémon since that definition isn't really, well, defined.

Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons why the "they don't like Pokemon!" complaint is a legitimate reason, and the opposing statement about "Pokemon could be anything" is a very very poor argument. Most might not notice it, but with each gen designs and artstyle change.

What the Pokemon is based and what it's inspired about has nothing to do with what a Pokemon should look like or not. Designs comes first, and Pokemon underwent a design and artsrtyle change that isn't quite effective as it used to be. I don't think the artstyle was ever special or the designs were good - but the first generation had quite the charm with the simplicity it had in it's design without being too plain or generic. 5th gen's designs and artstyle, while also simple, does suffer from being overly generic and doesn't quite pack the charm 1st gen has. Hell I might as well say it here, but the later design inspirations do remind me of Digimon, but not quite as professionally executed and as well not fitting to the theme that Pokemon generally takes.

It's like mixing ice cream with ketchup - they're both great individually, but when you mix them together you won't get the results you're hoping for. 5th gen's Pokemon design decisions felt more inspired from other monster-based stuff that are popular with the kids these days rather than being more realistic looking that Pokemon had going on. (Part of the reason why I think the ice cream Pokemon are actually some of the best designs.)

KingofCarnage18 said:

That wild animals could SOMEHOW be shaped like an inanimate object. You ever see and ice cream cone fight back when you try to eat it??

Click to expand...

A rock with arms, a pokeball with eyes , industrial waste with eyes and a mouth, a spinning top with eyes, a bunch of eggs, magnets with an eye, a purple rock thing with poison gasses in it, a purple blob with a mustache, Nicki Minaj, a sun and moon shaped rock, a rock that looks like a tree a rock thing with a huge nose.

These are all inanimate objects(except Nicki Minaj), but they are also Pokemon from Generation I-III. So what they tried something New. As a 20 year old who has played pokemon all his life, GenV>every generation.

Gen V pokemon do look like pokemon, I happen to like all pokemon designs other than rotom and Nicki Minaj(Jynx)

Pokemon Trainer Kevin said:

So, what exactly are Pokemon supposed to look like?

Click to expand...

I've always hated this excuse. Makes it way to easy to be lazy.

Lots of new pokes are simply inanimate objects with eyes and a mouth. Next thing you know they'll just use a toilet or bidet and put eyes and a mouth and call it a pokemon, and if anyone complains they can say "Well, what is a pokemon supposed to look like?" Ummm...A pokemon is supposed to be more based off animals like they were in gen I and II. They are supposed to look like they bothered to give some time into thinking of their design.

I think this discussion is kind of stupid. But whatever. Honestly, there is nothing really saying what a Pokemon has to look like. It could literally be anything, there's going to be some things they create that some people wont like and will say "That's a Pokemon?" and others will be think that Pokemon looks pretty cool. In my personal opinion, I liked some of the Pokemon from Unova, I really despised the Pokemon that had similar features to humans, though. It's kind of weird, though. When it comes to a Pokemon like Hitmonchan, I really like it. I think it's because that is what I first grew up with, and a lot of people don't like change.

Ragonkai said:

I have found when playing Pokemon you can normally look at a Pokemon and go yes that's fire type or yes that's water, when playing Pokemon Black 2, I've had to go online to find out what the hell the thing I'm looking at is.

Click to expand...

I know how people felt when they saw the designs, some designs were a giveaway to what type the Pokemon was however some were really confusing at first, like the Scraggy and Karrablast lines.

If you take a look at the Scraggy line, you wouldn't know they were Dark/Fighting until you looked at the Pokedex or on something like Bulbapedia.

When I first saw Karrablast, Escavalier and Accelgor I thought they didn't even look like Bug-types despite clearly being Bug-type. Shelmet is based on a snail, which I know is a bug.

Hikari10 said:

If you take a look at the Scraggy line, you wouldn't know they were Dark/Fighting until you looked at the Pokedex or on something like Bulbapedia.

Click to expand...

When I first saw it I immediately guessed Dark. Which is its primary type too so spot on.

Maybe you don't understand the concept of the Dark type. Its about mean moves, sneaky attacks, cheap tricks, dishonesty.
Now look at Scrafty. 100% Dark.


Besides this is not a legit argument, as every generation has easy to guess and tough ones...

Azureth said:

Lots of new pokes are simply inanimate objects with eyes and a mouth. Next thing you know they'll just use a toilet or bidet and put eyes and a mouth and call it a pokemon, and if anyone complains they can say "Well, what is a pokemon supposed to look like?" Ummm...A pokemon is supposed to be more based off animals like they were in gen I and II. They are supposed to look like they bothered to give some time into thinking of their design.

Click to expand...

Just no, that is not remotely the case. Read some earlier posts or go away please.

Spinosaurus said:

This is one of the reasons why the "they don't like Pokemon!" complaint is a legitimate reason, and the opposing statement about "Pokemon could be anything" is a very very poor argument. Most might not notice it, but with each gen designs and artstyle change.

What the Pokemon is based and what it's inspired about has nothing to do with what a Pokemon should look like or not. Designs comes first, and Pokemon underwent a design and artsrtyle change that isn't quite effective as it used to be. I don't think the artstyle was ever special or the designs were good - but the first generation had quite the charm with the simplicity it had in it's design without being too plain or generic. 5th gen's designs and artstyle, while also simple, does suffer from being overly generic and doesn't quite pack the charm 1st gen has. Hell I might as well say it here, but the later design inspirations do remind me of Digimon, but not quite as professionally executed and as well not fitting to the theme that Pokemon generally takes.

It's like mixing ice cream with ketchup - they're both great individually, but when you mix them together you won't get the results you're hoping for. 5th gen's Pokemon design decisions felt more inspired from other monster-based stuff that are popular with the kids these days rather than being more realistic looking that Pokemon had going on. (Part of the reason why I think the ice cream Pokemon are actually some of the best designs.)

Click to expand...

I agree that "Pokemon could be anything" is a poor argument. But that's about it.
The artstyle changes. If you really mean the art style, note that the previous generatons have all been redone into the newer art style by now. So unless you are also saying that the current official art of gen I&II pokemon don't look like pokemon compared to their old art...

But since I doubt that, you probably mean the creature designs themselves throughout. Which is a very fishy thing to argue about.
Because Pokemon is diverse. It has variety. There is hundreds of unique designs each time. Meaning you cannot possibly draw a distnction.

The charm part, is nothing more than nostalgia.
Simplicity? Sure, there are plenty of very simple designs. Which also has a reason: technical. Sprites on a gameboy could not show much detail.
But then again, the argument is rendered moot from the fact that there are simplistic designs in newer generations too.

I have no idea where you are going with the ketchup part.

Pokemon were more realistic? Give me a break. There have always been floating random things with faces on them.
Most of the new "unrealistic" designs actually happen to be homage to gen I designs..

As for inspirations..gah random example time:
Charizard compared to Emboar.
Fort he first the concept was probably along the lines of "a dragon with tail on fire!"
Whereas Emboar is inspired by a character from a chinese tale etc.