The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Pokémon Gaming > Fifth Generation
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Fifth Generation Are Pokémon slaves to humans? Team Plasma thinks so. Travel the Unova region and prove them wrong in Black & White, and then return two years later in Black2 & White2.


Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #226    
Old October 6th, 2012, 10:53 PM
RenegadeShroom's Avatar
RenegadeShroom
Unhatched Egg
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingofCarnage18 View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #227    
Old October 21st, 2012, 10:51 AM
drpoplove's Avatar
drpoplove
Super Saiyan and Stuff
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
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.
__________________
Check out the ridiculously silly Pokemon Blaze Black Let's Play that I do with my friend.
Reply With Quote
  #228    
Old October 22nd, 2012, 09:31 AM
Batel's Avatar
Batel
A nothing.
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Gorm City
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Send a message via Skype™ to Batel
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.
__________________
"My life? That's only part of the plan. Only a little of the future.
I've got to plan for when after I'm not here too, you know.
I don't know if the City won't become overgrown without someone to whack the weeds."
-- Synth
Reply With Quote
  #229    
Old October 24th, 2012, 05:36 AM
Totodilesteel99's Avatar
Totodilesteel99
Lord of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: I live in the land of awesomeness
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batel
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.
^
__________________
Hey there! Your reading this!
If your still reading this now have a cookie.
If you are reading now still have another cookie.
If you are wondering why you are receiving cookies it's because i feel like it.
If you still reading now your just stupid. ;D

Join my Forum!
pokemasters.freeforums.org




Reply With Quote
  #230    
Old October 24th, 2012, 07:50 AM
adventure's Avatar
adventure
trust your doctor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 瑞典
Gender: Female
Nature: Naive
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.
__________________
moderator of : Pokémon General
and of the : Roleplay Corner
paired with : abnegation
Reply With Quote
  #231    
Old October 24th, 2012, 10:48 PM
Rivvon's Avatar
Rivvon
Unburden Belly Drum
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Jolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever View Post


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. ;(
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wobbachomp View Post
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingofCarnage18 View Post
You ever see and ice cream cone fight back when you try to eat it??
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #232    
Old October 25th, 2012, 12:02 PM
Ragonkai's Avatar
Ragonkai
Dragon Trainer
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: England, Isle of Wight
Age: 23
Gender: Male
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #233    
Old October 25th, 2012, 01:01 PM
Nintendork15
I'm gone. Bye.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Undertaker. Co.
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Naughty
Spoiler:


Always looked like something out of Disney.
__________________
gone.
Reply With Quote
  #234    
Old October 25th, 2012, 02:00 PM
MiTjA's Avatar
MiTjA
Poké-atheist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Slovenia
Age: 24
Nature: Serious
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to MiTjA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragonkai View Post
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.
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #235    
Old October 25th, 2012, 03:15 PM
Spinosaurus's Avatar
Spinosaurus
Your favorite Pokemon sucks.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red's Hawt Chibi Pelippers View Post
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.
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.)
Reply With Quote
  #236    
Old October 25th, 2012, 04:06 PM
DVK's Avatar
DVK
Hack based-God
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Hasty
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to DVK
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingofCarnage18 View Post
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??
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)
__________________
Completed Challenges!


Reply With Quote
  #237    
Old October 25th, 2012, 06:33 PM
Azureth's Avatar
Azureth
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokemon Trainer Kevin View Post
So, what exactly are Pokemon supposed to look like?
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.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8hS...eature=related
Reply With Quote
  #238    
Old October 25th, 2012, 07:29 PM
SamuJake's Avatar
SamuJake
I beat Red when I was 8' bro.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Modest
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.
Reply With Quote
  #239    
Old October 25th, 2012, 08:43 PM
Hikamaru's Avatar
Hikamaru
pseudologia fantastica
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Quirky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragonkai View Post
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.
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.
__________________


Paired with Kouzan, Isaac and Heartouch
Battle Server | Tumblr | Profile | Supporter

Reply With Quote
  #240    
Old October 26th, 2012, 01:17 AM
MiTjA's Avatar
MiTjA
Poké-atheist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Slovenia
Age: 24
Nature: Serious
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to MiTjA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hikari10 View Post
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 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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azureth View Post
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.
Just no, that is not remotely the case. Read some earlier posts or go away please.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinosaurus View Post
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.)
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.
__________________

Last edited by MiTjA; October 26th, 2012 at 01:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #241    
Old October 26th, 2012, 01:28 PM
Spinosaurus's Avatar
Spinosaurus
Your favorite Pokemon sucks.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiTjA View Post
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.
Right, regarding these statements....Read my post again, since you completely misinterpreted everything.

I won't bother explaining everything again, especially since you're throwing out baseless accusations. Where have I said the newer designs weren't simple? What does diversity have anything to do with my argument? Haven't I said that what the Pokemon are inspired on has nothing to do with their qualities? Where have I said that Gen 5 was unrealistic?

Honestly the moment you said "nostalgia" is the moment I knew you're not thinking clearly on this. Has it ever occurred to that Gen 3 or 4 might be my favorite generations? Because they are. Don't accuse anyone who is against your point of view with nostalgia, since it's just insulting.

Also, just to clarify on something. Yes, I do hate how older Pokemon look with the current artstyle, and design aside they're on par with the new ones.

Last edited by Spinosaurus; October 26th, 2012 at 01:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #242    
Old October 26th, 2012, 02:52 PM
MiTjA's Avatar
MiTjA
Poké-atheist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Slovenia
Age: 24
Nature: Serious
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to MiTjA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinosaurus View Post
Right, regarding these statements....Read my post again, since you completely misinterpreted everything.

I won't bother explaining everything again, especially since you're throwing out baseless accusations. Where have I said the newer designs weren't simple? What does diversity have anything to do with my argument? Haven't I said that what the Pokemon are inspired on has nothing to do with their qualities? Where have I said that Gen 5 was unrealistic?

Honestly the moment you said "nostalgia" is the moment I knew you're not thinking clearly on this. Has it ever occurred to that Gen 3 or 4 might be my favorite generations? Because they are. Don't accuse anyone who is against your point of view with nostalgia, since it's just insulting.

Also, just to clarify on something. Yes, I do hate how older Pokemon look with the current artstyle, and design aside they're on par with the new ones.
You said gen 1 had a charm that gen 5 does not.
With the diversity argument Im pointing out that this cant be, since there is no distinction when you have hundreds of completely varying creature designs compared to another hundred ones...

"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."

"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."

I really don't see how I could have misinterpreted that much.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #243    
Old October 27th, 2012, 03:41 PM
Spinosaurus's Avatar
Spinosaurus
Your favorite Pokemon sucks.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiTjA View Post
You said gen 1 had a charm that gen 5 does not.
With the diversity argument Im pointing out that this cant be, since there is no distinction when you have hundreds of completely varying creature designs compared to another hundred ones...

"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."

"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."

I really don't see how I could have misinterpreted that much.
A charm in its artstyle and not the designs, which is lost now. My biggest with gen 5 Pokemon is how they look with the current artsyle which is awfully bland and generic, and while it's also true with their designs, it's really ultimately the artstyle.

And come on, what do you take me for? Just quoting what I said? What good will that do as an argument to my points? Fine, I'll play along. In the first quote I have clearly admitted that 5th gen Pokemon were also simple, however they felt generic. The second quote; I haven't said 5th gen Pokemon DON'T look realistic, just 1st gen Pokemon do moreso due to the design decisions. And by design decision inspirations, I don't mean what the Pokemon is inspired on. Using your examples: Charizard looks much more realistic and believable than Emboar. (And for the sake of avoiding another misunderstanding, no I don't think Charizard is realistic.)


Also just to point out thing, I think Pokemon, no matter the gen, has awful designs, just that earlier Pokemon were better designed. It might because I don't find them quite appealing, but they just seem "immature" to me. I liked them for the artstyle, but without the old one I loathe them. It's not a matter of which looks like a Pokemon or not, although the newer ones do feel distinct from the older ones.
Reply With Quote
  #244    
Old October 27th, 2012, 06:08 PM
Pingouin7's Avatar
Pingouin7
¬‿¬
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Hardy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azureth View Post
I've always hated this excuse. Makes it way to easy to be lazy.
It's not an excuse, it's a question.
And you ignore the question because you don't want to answer it. Or maybe because you can't.
Reply With Quote
  #245    
Old October 27th, 2012, 07:33 PM
Forever's Avatar
Forever
let it go
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: http://goo.my/server
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Reminder not to be hostile, kay guys? :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azureth View Post
I've always hated this excuse. Makes it way to easy to be lazy.
It's not really an excuse, it's more rather... another way to think about it. I mean it'd be more an excuse if you disliked them but a majority like them even though they seem like they don't look like Pokemon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuJake View Post
I think this discussion is kind of stupid.
Nah it has some worth since it gets people thinking and fired up! Something this section can use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiTjA View Post
Just no, that is not remotely the case. Read some earlier posts or go away please.
Please don't tell people to go away, not everyone necessarily has the time to read back on earlier posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingouin7 View Post
It's not an excuse, it's a question.
And you ignore the question because you don't want to answer it. Or maybe because you can't.
Oh so you think nostalgia is preventing said user from answering or (the because you can't part)?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #246    
Old October 28th, 2012, 08:09 PM
GolurkIsDaBomb's Avatar
GolurkIsDaBomb
Strawberry Sunrise, no ice.
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Somewhere In America
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Nature: Lonely
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azureth View Post

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'd be okay with a toilet-based pokemon. Could be an interesting water type.

The problem with, "A pokemon is supposed to be more based off animals like they were in gen I and II." is that this is just not true. There are many an example of a pokemon not being based on an animal, for example, most steel, rock, ghost, GRASS, and fighting type. For each of these types, most pokemon of the group aren't particularly animal based. Like what animals are magnemite, geodude, ghastly, oddish, and machop based off of? :/

As for time going into their design, let's compare! :D

Venusaur
Spoiler:



Origin

Venusaur appears to be based primarily on some form of reptile, specifically the tuatara or any of the mammal-like reptiles known as Dicynodonts from the Permian period or the Kannemeyeria from the Triassic period.
Other than a lack of a tail, and with visible ears and no genuine metamorphosis stage (evolution aside), Venusaur does not have much in common with amphibians like frogs and toads (which metamorphose from one definite creature into another as they mature as opposed to just growing into a larger adult version of itself the way that Venusaur does); instead, it more closely resembles reptiles like lizards and tuataras.
The flower on its back resembles the rafflesia arnoldii.


Serperior
Spoiler:



Origin

Serperior is based on multiple species of non-venomous snakes and limbless lizards, such as the Green Vine Snake, the Emerald Tree Boa, the Royal Python or the snake-like Lialis burtonis. Its design was based on Strelitzias, most likely either the strelitzia juncea and/or the strelitzia reginae. Its appearance may have also been inspired by the Quetzalcoatl; a green, feathered serpent deity. Serperior's appearance may have been based on the acanthus leaf motifs used specially during the 18th century. It and its pre-evolutions were confirmed to have been inspired from European, specifically French, royalty. The fact that Serperior amplifies sunlight in its body, as stated in its Pokédex entry, may be an allusion to King Louis XIV, a famous French king who referred to himself as the "Sun King". Serperior's white face also alludes to the skin whitening fashion, mostly used by the European aristocracy in the 17th century. Serperior's dark green design on its chest seems to form a Fleur-de-lis a french insignia that is used on many European noble families' and nations' coat of arms. The fact that Serperior can seize opponents with its piercing stare makes a reference to the Basilisk, king of serpents in European legends. The plant-like appendages may bear a small resemblance to the cobra.


Just from reading their origins, it's somewhat more obvious which one took more time. Venusaur is based on a prehistoric reptile an rafflesia. Serperior is based on many snakes with numerous allusions to French royalty/history, even down to the color and its pokedex entries. Just some food for thought.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #247    
Old October 29th, 2012, 08:55 PM
DVK's Avatar
DVK
Hack based-God
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Hasty
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to DVK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azureth View Post
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.
Gen I: Geodude/Graveller/Golem= A rock with arms(and legs) and a face.
Grimer/Muk=Industrial waste with a face.
Voltorb/Electrode=Pokeball with a face.
Magneton/magnemite=Magnets with an eye.
Onyx=A bunch of rocks super glued together with a face.
Koffing/Weezing=purple gas things with a face.
Ditto=Pink goo
Porygon= a bunch of crystal looking things with a face.

Gen IIudowoodo=A tree shaped rock with a face.
Pineco/Fortress=Pinecones with a face.
Steelix=steel covered rocks super glued together with a face on it.
Corsola=Coral shaped rock with a face.
Porygon2=same as porygon except crystals are rounded.


If you actually read how they came up with the designs for each of the Gen V pokemon you will literally have a braingasm, they used creatures from myths and legends in different cultures to come up with the designs for the Gen V pokemon. To be honest I think they probably gave more time and drew on more things when designing the newer pokemon. Gen I and 2 pokemon are just animals or insects who have things added to make them look like the type they are. For example, Charmander is a red lizard with a flame on it's tale, Squirtle is a blue turtle.
Charizard is simply a red dragon with a flame on it's tale, and Blastoise is just a turtle with canons coming out of it's shell.

Gen 5 we have Emboar
Spoiler:
Emboar is based on the soldier of Romance of the Three Kingdoms.[1] It and its pre-evolutions, as stated by Ken Sugimori, were designed in a Chinese style. Because of its Chinese style, it may be based on Zhu Bajie, a pig demon from the Chinese tale Journey to the West. Infernape is also based on another character from the novel, Sun Wukong, and has a similar design as well as the same typing. It seems to also take inspirations of a pig or boar in a professional wrestler's or possibly a lucha libre's attire. The swirled pattern that surrounds its abdomen is visually similar to the patterns on ding or ancient Greek pottery.
From Bulbapedia.


and Samurott
Spoiler:
Samurott is based on a sea lion with characteristics of a samurai or shogun.[1] Samurott's tail may be based on a Japanese war fan. The "helmet" over its head is based on the Murex altispira shell.


So your whole argument is invalid.

EDIT: In my opinion Gen I pokes were made for children under 10, Simple and "cute" designs.
Gen V's designs got a lot more complex(with the origins of the design) and are aimed at the teenage player. Just my opinion on the designs etc.
__________________
Completed Challenges!


Reply With Quote
  #248    
Old October 29th, 2012, 11:14 PM
Rivvon's Avatar
Rivvon
Unburden Belly Drum
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Jolly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinosaurus View Post
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.
As an art student I might be a bit biased in this response, but realize that Ken Sugimori (the artist in charge of illustrating all species of Pokemon from its inception until now) is, deep down, just a human being. He was always very skilled, but as time passes and one gains more practice their technical skills improve. With this also tends to come a change in style. It's only natural. I've had friends who have seen drastic style changes in under a year because of great practice and skill improvement. Sugimori has been in the industry for over 15 years. His style has to change. If it didn't, he would actually be sacrificing technical skill; while it might not be very noticeable in the Pokemon, his gen 1 humans were incredibly stylized and very stiff. Now you can tell his grasp of more subtle muscle anatomy has improved, and the characters are more stylized while still maintaining a decent level of realism. Naturally, this would translate over to the Pokemon he draws as well. To think the art style would never change is wishful in almost all the wrong ways.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #249    
Old October 30th, 2012, 08:17 AM
Altairis's Avatar
Altairis
I'M ALL FIRED UP
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Gender: Female
Nature: Modest
Send a message via Skype™ to Altairis
Charizard always looks really simple because after a while you can't just throw in an extremely simple dragon looking Pokemon and call it something new without cries of outrage "That looks just like Charizard!!!" Gen 1 Pokemon were VERY very simple. After 15 years, 4 more generations, Pokemon just can't really be THAT simple anymore. And, when you look at it, Serperior is pretty simple, it's literally just a snake with a banana head or something. A lot of these Pokemon do look dumb, but so do half the other Pokemon, I like to try and look at Pokemon individually instead of taking Gothitelle, Swoobat, Audino, Sawk, Garbodor, Vullaby, Throh, the elemental monkeys and saying "This gen sucks"

Why is there an "unrealistic" issue? Isn't this a fantasy world?

I'm going to be completely honest here, I can't really take any "Gen 5 is all inanimate objects" argument seriously because I've yet to see someone with this view address the fact that all generations have Pokemon just like this. Prove me wrong.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #250    
Old October 30th, 2012, 10:07 AM
x Necromorph x's Avatar
x Necromorph x
Super Saiyan 4
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kanto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Naughty
The Gen V Pokemon are weird no doubt, but there are other weird pokemon in the previous Gens too.

There are some awesome Pokemon in each Generation, I'm not gonna say that Gen V is weird because there are a few weird ones.
__________________


My Favorite Legendaries
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 01:58 AM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.