[B/W] Do you think that some of the Unova Pokemon don't even look like Pokemon?

[Dratinichick]

I have to admit, as I was playing through, I couldn't help but notice how much like real animals/objects Pokemon are starting to look like. However, I have no real negavtive comments on this. Even though I did love the purely creative Pokemon in past generations, I have to admit, the only two pokemon I found annoying in Black/White were Trubbish, and Ducklett. And even then, that was just because they're so.... obvious. In past years, they at least kind of veiled WHAT exactly inspired the Pokemon. But then again, I suppose after a while you run out of things to make into Pokemon. =/ *CoughCough* And FWI Ducklett, we already have Psyduck =P *CoughCough*

[The Nightmare]

Same, pokemon can look like anything but some unova pokemon do not really look like pokemon (for example heatmor).

[IAshKetchum]

b&w pokemon suck, they look like cheap rip off's of digimon..

[GokuRikaku]

Originally Posted by IAshKetchum

b&w pokemon suck, they look like cheap rip off's of digimon..

I would like to disagree and ask what makes you think they are a rip off of Digimon?

[adulti]

While I personally prefer Gen I and think some of the some new Pokémon look retarded,I pretty much agree with the whole "Pokemon can look like whatever the hell they want and still be Pokemon" argument.

[greenmoon1996]

Being rude and right is good... of course, Pokes like Pawniard/Bisharp and Durant look like Yu-Gi-Oh. However they did make the legends better then D/P/Pt, they looked scary comparing it to a Pikachu. I'm sure they'll use the anime to show off it's cute side. I don't about Durant though, nothing comes to mind when getting him cute. FOREVER UGLY!

[Kyrk]

While I do agree that there's no criteria for what's a pokemon or not, I think what he's trying to say is that some of the newer pokemon look like a copy-and-paste of older pokemon or from other cartoon shows, or are abnormally simplistic. While there were indeed pokemon in the older generations considered "bland" or "unoriginal" (Geodude is just a rock with arms and a face) it seems to be more noticeable this generation.

Lilipip/Herdier/Stoutland just look like ordinary dogs. I know they're normal types, and I like them, but still...
While Sawk and Throh are really cool with a really cool concept, I personally find it rather strange that they're naturally wearing full articles of clothing like gis. However, I would also find them strange without their gis...
Ducklett, again, is just a duck, only blue with cartoony eyes.
The Vanillite family, while cute and all, seems like it would be more comfortable in Fighting Foodons...

As I said before, there's no criteria for what's a pokemon is supposed to be, and there are bland or lame-looking pokemon in every generation, but the Unova pokemon, despite having many amazing-looking pokemon I love, also has those pokemon that stick out like a sore thumb.

[vizarod]

TRUBBISH IS NOT A POKEMON!!!! It's a friggin garbage bag. WTF? Did someone take out the trash and turn around to see it randomly come to life? I think Trubbish is the weirdest one ever.

And then Yamask is super weird. Its pokedex entry:
Each of them carries a mask that used to be its face when it was human. Sometimes they look at it and cry.
These Pokémon arose from the spirits of people interred in graves in past ages. Each retains memories of its former life.

So, this pokemon used to be a person? HUH? since when are people reincarnated as pokemon? I suppose it would make sense, as Pokemon seem to be the equivalent of animals. But still. That's weird.

[The Author]

It's kind of hard to explain, but they didn't seem like Pokémon anymore. I mean, some of them did, like the starters or the legendaries and some other ones, but other than that they seemed like they were going off into some other thing that isn't Pokémon, if you know what I mean.

[SnowpointQuincy]

In 1996 Pokemon Red was released and the franchise was RUINED FOREVER! The idea of Pokemon was so much better before it was published. Really, it was more fun to think about poket monsters than to play a GameBoy. (FYI Sarcasm)

Just Like Other 20 year old game franchises, each game IS better than the one before. Wheather you like it or not.

Consider the Following: The target audience of Pokemon is 10 years old. And you favorite generation of pokemon was from when you were 10. See any correlation?

Pokemon is still awesome! You just arn't young enough to get it!

[DARKSHADE]

Originally Posted by The Nightmare

Same, pokemon can look like anything but some unova pokemon do not really look like pokemon (for example heatmor).

Uh, Heatmor is an anteater...

And as somebody said above, we already have a duck; psyduck.

You know what else we already have? A mole. (Diglett) I'm looking at you Drilbur.

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by Kyrk

While I do agree that there's no criteria for what's a pokemon or not, I think what he's trying to say is that some of the newer pokemon look like a copy-and-paste of older pokemon or from other cartoon shows, or are abnormally simplistic. While there were indeed pokemon in the older generations considered "bland" or "unoriginal" (Geodude is just a rock with arms and a face) it seems to be more noticeable this generation.

Lilipip/Herdier/Stoutland just look like ordinary dogs. I know they're normal types, and I like them, but still...
While Sawk and Throh are really cool with a really cool concept, I personally find it rather strange that they're naturally wearing full articles of clothing like gis. However, I would also find them strange without their gis...
Ducklett, again, is just a duck, only blue with cartoony eyes.
The Vanillite family, while cute and all, seems like it would be more comfortable in Fighting Foodons...

As I said before, there's no criteria for what's a pokemon is supposed to be, and there are bland or lame-looking pokemon in every generation, but the Unova pokemon, despite having many amazing-looking pokemon I love, also has those pokemon that stick out like a sore thumb.

Have they become more noticeable in general or have you grown up to become a more critical young adult instead of a less critical child? I think the latter is far more likely.

From the fighting belt on Machamp to the spoons every single Alakazam has to the commercial, obviously human-made magnets that Magnemite/ton are made out of to Hitmonchan's outfit and gloves to Jynx's dress, Pokemon has always had creatures with human items. Like I said before, you say they didn't 'stick out' to you, but that's not because it's less obvious. It's because you were younger when you were introduced to them, so you grew up not questioning their designs.

Here are some Gen I Pokemon that are merely an animal with 1-2 changed features, similar to Ducklett:

Spoiler:

[DARKSHADE]

Originally Posted by Toujours

Have they become more noticeable in general or have you grown up to become a more critical young adult instead of a less critical child? I think the latter is far more likely.

From the fighting belt on Machamp to the spoons every single Alakazam has to the commercial, obviously human-made magnets that Magnemite/ton are made out of to Hitmonchan's outfit and gloves to Jynx's dress, Pokemon has always had creatures with human items. Like I said before, you say they didn't 'stick out' to you, but that's not because it's less obvious. It's because you were younger when you were introduced to them, so you grew up not questioning their designs.

Here are some Gen I Pokemon that are merely an animal with 1-2 changed features, similar to Ducklett:

Spoiler:

Honestly I don't think it's just the 'Animal with a few changes' that makes this generation not as good as the others.. it's the new artwork style, it just isn't as good as the old one used to be.

[Suicune™]

Well I've acknowledged them as Pokémon now and to me, they're fine.. they can't make them all too similar I mean there is 649 so you are limited to creations, if anything I think they are doing a great job.

[-ty-]

Originally Posted by Toujours

You can't have it both ways though. You can have original ones that don't look like Pokemon, or ones that rip off other Pokemon but do look like Pokemon.

Agree with this 100 percent!

[SnowpointQuincy]

Also, i wanted to add this:

There are 649 pokemon - You are NOT going to like all of them. There are that many pokemon to make sure that you like SOME of them.

I'm not a fan of Gloom/Bellossom, but I'm not complaining about it. Why? Because I can name at least 100 new and old pokemon that I adore so, so, much!


I have a Ducklet holding an Everstone named Duck Rodgers. I don't know why, but I love him more than most people! (might be exaggerating a little bit.)

[hiff8]

The only ones that really stuck me like that ( at first) were Sawk and Throh, they looked like fan art to me more then pokemon

Originally Posted by vizarod

TRUBBISH IS NOT A POKEMON!!!! It's a friggin garbage bag. WTF? Did someone take out the trash and turn around to see it randomly come to life? I think Trubbish is the weirdest one ever.
.

And Grimer is a pile of Purple mud, i really never saw why people disliked trubbish so much, he was like the only pokemon i used up until the elite 4, he seemed just as legit an idea as any other pokemon

[Mr. Magius]

Well they're Pokémon. So they have to look like Pokémon.

[Victini]

Originally Posted by IAshKetchum

b&w pokemon suck, they look like cheap rip off's of digimon..

Spoiler:

I am inclined to disagree.

All Pokemon gens have strange Pokemon that may or may not look like they belong. I for one do not feel there should ever be a label placed on what a Pokemon can or cannot look like. A Pokemon is a Pokemon. It doesn't have a description to what it is supposed to look like... i-it is just that.

I find this opinion to be very strange. I personally think if our Gen 1 was filled with Gen 5 Pokemon we would love them as we do Gen 1 now, and cherish them no matter how they look... but if our Gen 5 had all Gen 1 Pokemon, "Oh this Pokemon looks like a Digimon", "This isn't a Pokemon, it's a red and white ball!", "How creative, a pink flying cat that can use all the Pokemon moves. PFF." etc etc...

T-that's just my two cents, anyways...

[Mr. Magius]

Originally Posted by Toujours

Have they become more noticeable in general or have you grown up to become a more critical young adult instead of a less critical child? I think the latter is far more likely.

...Amen. O.o

Originally Posted by Victini

Spoiler:

I am inclined to disagree.

All Pokemon gens have strange Pokemon that may or may not look like they belong. I for one do not feel there should ever be a label placed on what a Pokemon can or cannot look like. A Pokemon is a Pokemon. It doesn't have a description to what it is supposed to look like... i-it is just that.

I find this opinion to be very strange. I personally think if our Gen 1 was filled with Gen 5 Pokemon we would love them as we do Gen 1 now, and cherish them no matter how they look... but if our Gen 5 had all Gen 1 Pokemon, "Oh this Pokemon looks like a Digimon", "This isn't a Pokemon, it's a red and white ball!", "How creative, a pink flying cat that can use all the Pokemon moves. PFF." etc etc...

Very good point.

And Digimon are "digital monsters"... aren't Pokémon digital monsters as well? The only reason Digimon have their distinct style is because of the artist(s). If a Digimon was drawn by an artist of the Pokémon series, it would probably blend in perfectly.

No matter what, there will always be people who will complain. Game Freak went for a unique style, but in my opinion, stayed remarkably true to the classic 'Pokémon' flavour, probably closest to Generation II. If they chose to take inspiration from Generation I's extremely simple style, there would be more people complaining about how plain and bland the Pokémon are.

I especially liked how Game Freak chose to not give a hint if there was a shortage of concepts (although for some reason people tend to think that >_>). We were given another duck, another cat, another dog; but optimistically, there are tons of things you can do with just the concept of one animal... then there's even more creativity involved when it comes to evolution (especially branch evolution), like adding a new type, or regional mythology.

[Toujours]

I think a lot of the cries of lack of originality half stem from parallels to other generations, and half stem from the ones that don't parallel. There's a group of people that hate the unique ones (either they're not close enough to a specific animal or they don't look like creatures at all), and then there are people that hate the ones that parallel other generations (they couldn't think of a new idea, instead copied an old one). I'm sure in both cases they were very distinct decisions by Game Freak; since Unova is supposed to be a new start, they were already forcing you to use Pokemon you weren't comfortable with yet. It's comforting to see things that are familiar and similar to what you're used to in that situation.

[Forever]

I think the non-animals are more detailed than the past generations ones, or at least to us now. When we saw Nidoran growing up we didn't pay attention to the small details, but now we're older we tend to do that, which basically sums up what Toujours said. We're fine with animals like Minccino because they're what we accept. We're not fine with Trubbish because we'd rather have Mr. Mime. Clearly because you see mimes everywhere and not rubbish bags...

Unova reflects reality in their designs, past generations don't do that as much.

If it weren't for battling I'd consider Sinnoh least like Pokemon because I spent the least amount of time with them, btw, so it's just getting used to them, etc.

[hiff8]

I think the real main reason people don't like them is because they tried to go more retro and break the mold

[fatcatfuller]

I have the 2 games and the game has old pokemon after you finish the story. they still look like pokemon. Munna defenetly.

[Glow Worm's Not Glowing]

Well, I definitely see where the OP is coming from, in the sense that some of the Pokemon were a little ... different, but I think different is okay.

And to be honest, I always look at Pokemon as the "Pocket Monsters" they were always referred to as. If, in the Pokemon world, my t.v. jumped up, sprouted wings, had eyes, and shot fire from it's two slits that it calls nostrils, I'd still say "That's a Poke! Now I'mma catch it!" because it's a monster ... that I can fit in my pocket.

If it's a bunch of gears, a pile of garbage, or a flaming pile of poop, if it can be caught in a ball, it is a Pokemon, mainly because in ANY society, that is a "monster". Trainers just deal with their monsters in a slightly more peaceful fashion. (fainting and catching instead of hunting down and murdering all of its kind)

Just my opinion, though. c: