6th Gen Pokemon, slowly losing creativity?

tente2 said:

But, SERIOUSLY:

Click to expand...

I'm laughing a lot harder than I should be xD

Just looking at the reactions to Gen V starters to these, they definitely haven't lost creativity at all. It seems that people like these better, by now before I'd have seen so much hate, but I have barely seen any. I think they really learned from the designs of Gen V and are really using what worked before.

I don't think they're losing their creativity at all. It's just a matter of interpretation, something you feel more comfortable with as opposed to... different designs. If anything they're getting more creative tbh.

Hmm...based on what people are saying. They just cant stand simple pokemon designs that could just be a direct incarnation of some animal brought to life as a pokemon or maybe look somewhat similar to an existing pokemon. Nope, they want some kinda lavish/spectacular design for each pokemon. Like, someone said something about Bidoof. Just what is wrong with Bidoof?? It's a little beaver, its simple, it's cute, its own creator; the artist behind all pokemon deemed it worthy to be introduced to the franchise, what more do you want? Just cause you dont agree with the designs dont make them any less creative. As some have said before; GameFreak hasnt lost any creativity or inspiration until the final gen is made.

No, don't worry, they're not losing creativity. It's really hard to lose creativity, 'cause we still have millions of different animals that Game Freak hasn't used yet. As for the titles is the same thing, they haven't used minerals like Garnet or metals like Titanium or Iron.

So I wouldn't worry about it, Pokémon would probably last for thousands and thousands of years, while we no longer exist. But their tradition of creating Pokémon will never change, unless Nintendo is taken over by some other company (which I highly doubt it ever would, 'cause it's privately owned).

as most people have posted, the pokemon have definitelly become more creative over the years, whether you like the pokemon or not is purely just an opinion. one example I always like to use is this guy



soo many people hate on trubbish and have even mentioned it as the decline of pokemon. but in all reality, it is one of the most creative pokemon out there. using the concept of a full garbage bag, they use the knots to resemble ears, make the bin juice coming out of the ripped bottom arms, and actually making the whole body look alive while still keeping it looking like its concept.
you can complain about not liking the designs of new pokemon, but you can't claim that they're less creative especially with what 1st gen had to offer.

Rivvon said:

Before, Pokemon were all based on rather physical things: a turtle, a lizard, a pile of sludge, a number of polygons, a Poke Ball, a rodent...yes, creative, right?

Now Game Freak has been moving into more complex origins for their Pokemon such as abstract concepts and the merging of multiple animals and ideas: a Chinese statue-based deity drawing inspiration from creationist theories and science, a dragon representing yang and the fire power source of the past, a representation of love in the form of an ocean sunfish...nope, not creative, right?

Creativity is a process, originality is a quality. To me, even after seeing only the gen 6 starters and mascots, I still don't think Game Freak is lacking in either. It takes a lot more creativity to make physical out of the abstract, and significantly less to just make a duck blue and have it shoot water.

Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between a creative concept and that concept translating well into a Pokemon. I could have a concept of a food based on cyanide, but that doesn't mean the concept translates well into a delicious treat. (A bit extreme, but it's late, my metaphor organ is tired.)

Gen 5 was full of great concepts that either couldn't be translated well into a Pokemon or simply weren't. The Klink line, you cannot say that Klink and friends are more creative or original looking than the original Magnemite line, their Gen I cousins.

Yes, every generation has had its "bad" Pokemon, but Gen 5 was full of them because of the conflict between concept and translation. Let's just hope that this Game Freak learned its lesson and thinks a little harder this time around.

I'm kinda looking forward to this, but I think this may be the point where Game Freak gets knocked off the market. It looks like they're doing a pretty poor job on this one so far. (The starters were Froakie (excuse bad pun).) One thing's for sure: after this one, the genwars are gonna BURN.

Here's my thoughts on this.
Every generation has "bad" Pokemon, at least in my opinion.
Which is what this whole thing is about: Personal Opinion.
Anyways, here's some examples. Jynx. Where do I start? Probably one of my least favorite Pokemon of all time. Lickitung? I mean... People complain about inanimate object Pokemon but... a tongue? Really?
I'm not hating on any Pokemon, I really do love them all in their own weird little ways, but I think everything has it's own downfall, including every generation. But it all comes down to personal opinion again.
I personally like the starters and the legendaries, the Y one almost resembles the 5th colossus in the game Shadow of the Colossus. I love that! And the stag thing looks pretty neat too. I am glad they are finally breaking out of that "big bad dragon" thing they had going. I think that's what this generation is, change. A big stepping stone, hopefully. I see no loss in creativity in the least. If anything, the fact that they can still come up with anything beats me.

I don't think they've lost creativity. As others have said they've moved on to more complex things from the simple days of Gen 1.
Also another fox doesn't hurt, we've had 12 so far (the eevee lines, Zorua, Zoroark, Vulpix, Ninetails) so lucky number...13 isn't going to hurt. Each of the 3 fox lines have been based on different kinds of foxes, and the eeveelutions themselves differ as well.

Also I love the new style.

We've only seen art for the 3 starters, and a glimpse of 2 legendaries. I think it's a bit early for these threads, but whatever.

Froakie may be "just another frog", but we've yet to see its secondary typing, ability, stats and movepool which are all part of the creative process. Otherwise, you could say Politoad is just like Toxicroak, even though they are completely different.

For what it's worth, I think every generation has been more creative than the last. But just because I love the Bulbasaur family dearly, doesn't mean I can't love Chespin's as well.

I think their pokemon ideas have gotten even better, yes, some are weird but even gen 1/2 have the weirdies.

I think the creativity in gen V was astounding.

Muk vs Garbodor (Purple Slime that a 3 yr old can make with crayola crayons vs s pile of trash with a clever name [muk backwards is WHAT?!])

I usually base the rest of the gen's pokemon solely on the main flying bird.

Pidgey = Ok, pretty standard bird
Tailow = Well, it's evolution is badass
Hoothoot/Noctowl = :O <3
Starly = Turns into staraptor which is ARGUABLY the best looking pokemon they have ever created.
Pidove = Creative names and evolution lines (3rd evo male looks really nice)

The dragon pokemon have gotten better, as well as the steel pokemon.

To
To
To finally


Look at the differences between the 5 gens (gen 2 is pretty much dragonite anyway) and tell me the most creative one. For me, it's either Garchomp or Haxorus.

Relith said:

Look at the differences between the 5 gens (gen 2 is pretty much dragonite anyway) and tell me the most creative one. For me, it's either Garchomp or Haxorus.

Click to expand...

:L By pick the most "creative", what you actually mean is pick which apeals to you most right?

Relith said:

I think their pokemon ideas have gotten even better, yes, some are weird but even gen 1/2 have the weirdies.

I think the creativity in gen V was astounding.

Muk vs Garbodor (Purple Slime that a 3 yr old can make with crayola crayons vs s pile of trash with a clever name [muk backwards is WHAT?!])

I usually base the rest of the gen's pokemon solely on the main flying bird.

Pidgey = Ok, pretty standard bird
Tailow = Well, it's evolution is badass
Hoothoot/Noctowl = :O <3
Starly = Turns into staraptor which is ARGUABLY the best looking pokemon they have ever created.
Pidove = Creative names and evolution lines (3rd evo male looks really nice)

The dragon pokemon have gotten better, as well as the steel pokemon.

To

To

To finally

Look at the differences between the 5 gens (gen 2 is pretty much dragonite anyway) and tell me the most creative one. For me, it's either Garchomp or Haxorus.

Click to expand...

This is my point. Badassery doesn't make a Pokemon good. Complex does not equal good. Tell me the last time anyone walked outside and saw anything as complex looking as Haxorus there? Nature generally doesn't make things for curb appeal, and I believe the trend from simple/natural to badass/complex is what makes the newer Pokemon so hollow and foreign looking. You may catch the kiddies with it, but you alienate many of your older fans.

Triple R said:

Dude, what the heck are you talking about? I said titles, not names. The starter names are fine (although I noticed the fire- and grass-type starters' names end similarly). It's the X and Y stuff I don't understand.

Click to expand...

You do realize that I wrote two paragraphs, right? And that the first paragraph (the longer one) didn't even mention the starters and instead discussed the logic and creativity behind "x" and "y"? And that you said you didn't know the design basis for the fire and grass starters? And that I explained the design basis for each in my second paragraph?

Though, if you don't get what I'm saying, you won't get what I'm saying, and I guess that's alright. There isn't too much I can say to you if you don't understand what I'm saying. You know what I'm saying?

Twilight Sky said:

Tell me the last time you went outside and saw a talking pile of goo, or flying sentient magnets? Or even a mail-carrying dragon at that? .-.;

I mean, you might be correct as far as badassery not being the only factor that makes a Pokemon good, but that's purely subjective. But I feel that the argument you're making here is a bit faulty by comparing something to reality here, as this is Pokemon, and is not meant to be compared to real life.

And I'm definitely one of the more avid, older fans of the genre, and I personally welcome the change with open arms! As long as the Pokemon designs aren't extremely disappointing(and it would be kind of obvious), then I don't really have a problem with them. It might be because I don't really have such strict standards on design, but I want to give a new region and it's Pokemon a chance before immediately bashing on something just because of how it looks.

Hope that all made sense~

Click to expand...

The difference is that a giant mail carrying dragon, living pollution, and Magnemite look like natural extensions of their concepts, and feel natural to the Pokemon world. Many Gen 5 Pokemon would fail that test. The Joltik line and perhaps Meloetta are examples of natural looking Pokemon from that generation just off the top of my head. I can even go as far as saying Garchomp and friends look like they belong, because they do. Haxorus does not. Many Gen 5 Pokemon do not. Hopefully Game Freak has learned how far they can push their concepts and will apply that lesson this time around.

Deokishisu said:

This is my point. Badassery doesn't make a Pokemon good. Complex does not equal good. Tell me the last time anyone walked outside and saw anything as complex looking as Haxorus there? Nature generally doesn't make things for curb appeal, and I believe the trend from simple/natural to badass/complex is what makes the newer Pokemon so hollow and foreign looking. You may catch the kiddies with it, but you alienate many of your older fans.

Click to expand...

Please tell me exactly what is so "complex" about Haxorus? It's just a reptile with axes on its jaws... I'd like to address that as an older fan, I do not find any of the new designs to be "complex". I find them to be simple and effective, minimalistic with their resources, yet also carefully used. And, I'd like to add that FAR funkier-looking real animals exist in real life. Take a look at the insects, for example. Some of them are truly bizarre.

We all have different opinions, okay? I already posted an image back demonstrating how I feel about many of the Generation I Pokemon, but in the end, I love all Pokemon. Some, I'm not quite attached to, such as Charizard and Palkia, but I don't really mind any of them in the end.

Like many people have said, EVERY generation has good Pokemon and bad Pokemon. And guess what—what is "good" and what is "bad" is purely subjective!

Deokishisu said:

The difference is that a giant mail carrying dragon, living pollution, and Magnemite look like natural extensions of their concepts, and feel natural to the Pokemon world. Many Gen 5 Pokemon would fail that test. The Joltik line and perhaps Meloetta are examples of natural looking Pokemon from that generation just off the top of my head. I can even go as far as saying Garchomp and friends look like they belong, because they do. Haxorus does not. Many Gen 5 Pokemon do not. Hopefully Game Freak has learned how far they can push their concepts and will apply that lesson this time around.

Click to expand...

"Hopefully Game Freak has learned how far they can push their concepts and will apply that lesson this time around"...?

You see, if Gamefreak limited themselves like that, then what would be the point of Pokemon in the first place? It would just be Pokemon: Real Animals instead. What would Haxorus be without its axes? A normal, non-interesting lizard? At that point, wouldn't Haxorus just be a stylized T-Rex or something? What would be so special about that?

...I hope I'm not coming off as abrasive? I know on the internet the words and sentences I'm using in this post might sound really aggressive and sort of like a flame war, but honestly, I'm not taking this very seriously! Likewise, I'm not "offended" by your opinions, or whatever. This is sort of like a friendly debate! In the end, I respect your opinion 100% and if you don't like the newer generations, that's perfectly fine! I just want to discuss Pokemon with somebody, that's all.

I'm just really worried that somebody is going to take this the wrong way or something.

Forgive me, I have no idea how multi-quoting works, so I'll just have to copy+paste and slap the forum tags around 'em

The difference between the Gen 5 Pokemon and many of the older Pokemon is two-fold: many of the concepts did not translate well into Pokemon and/or they went for badass instead of their tried and true formula.

Please tell me exactly what is so "complex" about Haxorus? It's just a reptile with axes on its jaws... I'd like to address that as an older fan, I do not find any of the new designs to be "complex". I find them to be simple and effective, minimalistic with their resources, yet also carefully used. And, I'd like to add that FAR funkier-looking real animals exist in real life. Take a look at the insects, for example. Some of them are truly bizarre.

Click to expand...

Take a look at the design elements that went into Haxorus, and compare them to Garchomp's. The difference is night and day. I can't see how Game Freak was minimalistic with its design at all. The thing has axes on its face. Those aren't teeth, so a sabertooth-esque excuse doesn't cut it, they're in a completely awkward position and would be incredibly difficult to even use as a weapon. The body appears to be heavily armored, with ridges, segments, and spikes everywhere. Compare that with the style of previous pseudo-legendary dragons. Again, it's night and day. The previous iterations went for form and function. This one went for just badassery.

You see, if Gamefreak limited themselves like that, then what would be the point of Pokemon in the first place? It would just be Pokemon: Real Animals instead. What would Haxorus be without its axes? A normal, non-interesting lizard? At that point, wouldn't Haxorus just be a stylized T-Rex or something? What would be so special about that?

Click to expand...

Game Freak largely "limited" (though I wouldn't call consistency limiting) themselves for the first four generations. Keeping your style consistent is important. If they suddenly decided to do all the artwork for new Pokemon in a cubist style, it wouldn't be a good thing when you stand the newbies next to even the Gen 5 ones. That may be a bit extreme, but I find it illustrates the stylistic point I am trying to make quite clearly. You can't switch up something as basic and inherent as an art style if you're keeping things from your "old days" around.

You might have a good point if you're arguing Pokemon like...Druddigon, or maybe Reuniclus to some sort of extent, but even then, I believe you're really overanalyzing these designs, and how maybe perhaps these "complexities" so to speak, can actually be a good thing, and be original. The aformentioned Reuniclus and Druddigon is an example of something one can argue is pretty original, as well as the Musketeer Trio.

Click to expand...

The fact that I am even ABLE to overanalyze the designs pretty much proves their complexity. It'd be difficult to sit down and think hard about Dragonite's design, or Ditto, or Magnemite. Their concepts translate well into Pokemon, and they didn't have to strap a laser cannon, several menacing spikes, and a totally strange color scheme on them for them to work.

I too have no intention of getting this to turn aggressive. I tend to sound adversarial on the internet...

Twilight Sky said:

I mean, you might be correct as far as badassery not being the only factor that makes a Pokemon good, but that's purely subjective. But I feel that the argument you're making here is a bit faulty by comparing something to reality here, as this is Pokemon, and is not meant to be compared to real life.

Click to expand...

I believe the entire concept of judging a pokemon if its "Good" or "Bad" being entirely subjective to the person who is viewing it. This is because it's not really our artwork or effort, and thus have no right to judge the validity and creativity of any pokemon. Everyone has their like, dislikes and their own opinion. Thats ok. But judging the work of someone based off of those opinions is wrong.

Deokishisu said:

The Joltik line and perhaps Meloetta are examples of natural looking Pokemon from that generation just off the top of my head. I can even go as far as saying Garchomp and friends look like they belong, because they do. Haxorus does not. Many Gen 5 Pokemon do not. Hopefully Game Freak has learned how far they can push their concepts and will apply that lesson this time around.

Click to expand...

I'm...gunna have to disagree with you on this. I'm not exactly sure what your standard for normal or natural is, but I doubt Pokemon, seing as far as it has come now has a "set" standard on design and concept. For example, I think we have two very different naturals if Meloetta is conceived to be natural. But again, this is pokemon. There is no set design and concepts as to which pokemon can be delegated to

tente2 said:

Please tell me exactly what is so "complex" about Haxorus? It's just a reptile with axes on its jaws... I'd like to address that as an older fan, I do not find any of the new designs to be "complex". I find them to be simple and effective, minimalistic with their resources, yet also carefully used. And, I'd like to add that FAR funkier-looking real animals exist in real life. Take a look at the insects, for example. Some of them are truly bizarre.

Like many people have said, EVERY generation has good Pokemon and bad Pokemon. And guess what—what is "good" and what is "bad" is purely subjective!

Click to expand...

This. I actually view the new gen 6 legendaries to be complex.

...I hope I'm not coming off as abrasive? I know on the internet the words and sentences I'm using in this post might sound really aggressive and sort of like a flame war, but honestly, I'm not taking this very seriously! Likewise, I'm not "offended" by your opinions, or whatever. This is sort of like a friendly debate! In the end, I respect your opinion 100% and if you don't like the newer generations, that's perfectly fine! I just want to discuss Pokemon with somebody, that's all.

I'm just really worried that somebody is going to take this the wrong way or something.

Click to expand...

Its all good brah ;)

Twilight Sky said:

Define "natural extensions" and maybe we can work something out from there. ouo; Maybe we just have different definitions of "complex" in relating to Pokemon, because I have no idea what makes most Gen 5 Pokemon "complex". You might have a good point if you're arguing Pokemon like...Druddigon, or maybe Reuniclus to some sort of extent, but even then, I believe you're really overanalyzing these designs, and how maybe perhaps these "complexities" so to speak, can actually be a good thing, and be original. The aformentioned Reuniclus and Druddigon is an example of something one can argue is pretty original, as well as the Musketeer Trio.

Just because it might seem "complex" doesn't mean it's bad.

Click to expand...

This. But like I hardly view druddigon as complex. More like one of those rugged looking animals in nature that arnt to popular or arn't eye candy, per say for the people that view them.

Deokishisu said:

Take a look at the design elements that went into Haxorus, and compare them to Garchomp's. The difference is night and day. I can't see how Game Freak was minimalistic with its design at all. The thing has axes on its face. Those aren't teeth, so a sabertooth-esque excuse doesn't cut it, they're in a completely awkward position and would be incredibly difficult to even use as a weapon. The body appears to be heavily armored, with ridges, segments, and spikes everywhere. Compare that with the style of previous pseudo-legendary dragons. Again, it's night and day. The previous iterations went for form and function. This one went for just badassery.

Click to expand...

Okay, so:



Obviously, it's not like it has spikes on its arms and legs or anything. (What are those for? Does Garchomp impale prey... with its elbows and knees?) Or two weird things protruding from the side of its head. (Can you please tell me what those are for?) Or that tail, with the giant ridge on it. Or the star on its head. Or the giant dorsal fin protruding from its back for no apparent reason.

Deokishisu said:

Game Freak largely "limited" (though I wouldn't call consistency limiting) themselves for the first four generations. Keeping your style consistent is important. If they suddenly decided to do all the artwork for new Pokemon in a cubist style, it wouldn't be a good thing when you stand the newbies next to even the Gen 5 ones. That may be a bit extreme, but I find it illustrates the stylistic point I am trying to make quite clearly. You can't switch up something as basic and inherent as an art style if you're keeping things from your "old days" around.

Click to expand...

You are completely right in this aspect! For example, part of the reason I have not come to terms with Generation VI's starters is that the new starters look like Digimon in comparison to Diglett and Miltank. And, Vanilluxe and Voltorb just don't like right together. However, I already feel it's too late to be worrying too much about that:

Garchomp versus:



I find more similarities between Trubbish and Jigglypuff, than Jigglypuff and Garchomp. And, I find more similarities between Jigglypuff and Trubbish, than similarities between Jigglypuff and Starmie.

Deokishisu said:

The fact that I am even ABLE to overanalyze the designs pretty much proves their complexity. It'd be difficult to sit down and think hard about Dragonite's design, or Ditto, or Magnemite. Their concepts translate well into Pokemon, and they didn't have to strap a laser cannon, several menacing spikes, and a totally strange color scheme on them for them to work.

Click to expand...

Umm, what's Ditto supposed to even be...? Let's bring up Haxorus again. It's pretty easy from the start to say: dinosaur with axe-jaws. Is Ditto supposed to be an amoeba or something? What are those antennas (?) on Dragonite's head, and what are they for? Detecting temperature? Are they supposed to be feelers like whiskers or something?

Why does Magnemite have screws drilled into itself... for no apparent reason? Since when do giant magnetic spheres... have eyes? Why does Magemite have eyes, anyway? Does that imply it has organic organs inside it, or what...? Or are the 'eyes' supposed to be mechanical?

Deokishisu said:

I too have no intention getting this to turn aggressive. I tend to sound adversarial on the internet...

Click to expand...

Oh, that's good! Don't worry, I new from the start you weren't being mean-spirited. This is actually a pretty fun discussion!