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

[ZebraikaKnight]

Well, I like to think that Pokémon are formed by a number of different things. Elements, Structures, Ideas, Concepts.. etc.

The fact that they're all "Pokémon" and can interact the way they do must be because there's a unifying element to them all which MAKES them Pokémon.

I propose the Pokérus theory. Pokérus is a microscopic life-form that helps Pokémon grow quicker, but could the Pokémon itself be an advanced form of Pokérus?

Perhaps through natural occurence, or more likely meteor bombardment, the Pokérus travelled to Earth from space, which then set about breeding and multiplying upon the Earth.

The microscopic life form then bound itself to various things, plants, people, animals, basically any living creature it could use as a host. This includes machines, too.

Given there's a psychic typing, then naturally some Pokérus sustained itself off psychic energy, which would naturally expose the Pokérus to human concepts and legends and ideas and whatever thought process that being may have had.

So these various influences, elemental, psychic and physical provided the "image" or basic template of Earth's Pokémon, forms best suited for the environment they were inhabiting.

The Pokérus then evolved either gradually or suddenly into these forms, and once given a name by a person, or group, the Unown (Who were created directly by Arceus to impart messages to humans) did their stuff and through a mass psychic field sort of hardcoded that name directly to the Pokémon. This process occured during the Arceus event in HG/SS. You see the Unown flying around during the birth of whichever Legend you pick, which incidentally is the only time we ever directly see a Pokémon egg being created, and certainly the Day Care people never see it despite the large amount of eggs being shuffled through every day.

Pokémon like the first Dialga, Palkia and Giratina, and Arceus were different, being formed from Pokérus in space.

Deoxys is a special case and I believe it to be evolved Pure Pokérus. It didn't take a form from anything and just kept evolving and evolving on it's own.

Ditto are "carrier" forms of loose unevolved Pokérus, combining together to survive instead of finding a physical/mental host. These Ditto are more than happy to adapt to the form of whatever Pokémon surrounds them, and use it as a survival technique for whatever environment they need to adapt to.

So really when I see Pokémon taking the form of Ice Cream, it's no different than it taking the form of anything else. How is Ice Cream more ridiculous than a Pokémon choosing Mr. Mime or Jynx as it's form?

Different influences create different creatures. Grimer was formed from toxic sludge for crying out loud. The first generation had a lot of weird stuff which people forget due to nostalgia goggles. Hitmonchan having fully formed gloves, clothes and belt with a "P" on it.

So nobody can say what a Pokémon SHOULD look like, and in universe I'd say the only criteria for a Pokémon even being a Pokémon is it's susceptibility to Pokéballs, ability to be converted into energy and stored in a PC, susceptibility to the microscopic form of Pokérus, and ability to control it's individual natural environment.

[Deliciousfruit233]

Ugh, I really hate it when people are like "The new pokemon don't look like Pokemon". Especially because there is no real criteria for what a pokemon should even look like. They don't have to look like animals or plants or anything like that.

[OrdealByFire]

I agree with the OP...

There are some seriously stupid looking Pokemon, and it just seems obvious that they're running out of ideas. I can't imagine what they'll look like if Pokemon is still around in another 10 years.

I know there's not general consensus as to what a Pokemon should look like, but come on... Vanillite and its evolved forms really come to mind as ones that just make me shake my head.

And it's like the Pokemon people were like, "Alright... this Pokemon looks goofy as hell, so we HAVE to make it pretty powerful to make up for it."

I'm not sure what I'm saying. It's late.

But I will say the first generation of Pokemon will always be my favorite ... most likely because of the nostalgia factor. Ah... bias.

[Raichupacabra]

Some Pokemon such as Vanilluxe look like they were made by the mastermind behind Pokemon Quartz, *coughBarocough*.

[Mr]

The older Pokemon were usually based off or real plants and animals. (or fusions of them ... Squirtle = Squirrel + Turtle)
They felt more natural this way.
The new Pokemon are more imaginative. It just takes some getting used to I guess. I prefer the older Pokemon though. I liked it when they looked more natural than imaginative.

[SooperTrooper]

I think the fifth generation Pokémon may not look like the previous generations, but they definitely look like Pokémon. I like when they're very different to previous generations, it makes owning them more of a unique experience.

[dannyboy601]

Of course here are some that don't look a thing like animals or plants (which is what most people think Pokémon should look like), but let us not forget how much the old gens have introduced as well. For example, Jynx, Grimer, the Regis, Porygon etc (Note how most of these are from gen I). I'm just saying that gen V has introduced Pokémon that are just as bad as the other gens (except for gen II, that was actually alright), the only difference is it introduced more because they're running out of organic things to base them on. That plus the fact that none of them are related to old Pokémon must make it very difficult. I'm actually surprised they did as well as they did.

[Patchisou Yutohru]

I think this sometimes, but then I ask myself:

Originally Posted by Pokemon Trainer Kevin

So, what exactly are Pokemon supposed to look like?

I don't really like how an overwhelmingly majority of them are humanoids / mechanical inspired.

[Halcyon]

I feel that when creating Pokémon, there shouldn't be any boundaries on what Pokémon should look like. Even if they still look like "Pokémon", people might start on complaining how they all lack originality and creativity, blablabla. I know people are entitled to their opinions, but it's like a never-ending cycle to me - not everyone would be happy and satisfied with their designs. After all, they are Pokémon at the end of the day.

[Zupplu]

I think the difference between gen I and gen 5 is what they are based on. If i remember correctly, almost all the gen I pokemon were based on animals. Gen five seem to be based on animals and objects. Personally i like gen I the best, and gen 4 the least.

[Darthrai]

Originally Posted by Cassino

I call Druddigon the Lego Dragon because of how it looks. I like it anyway but it wouldn't immediately strike me as a Pokemon.

You've all seen this image, right? That is the difference between older and newer generations. Newer monsters have more 'pointless' features; spikes, stripes, fluffy bits, etc. What's good or bad is a matter of opinion, but there is generally a clear distinction between early and recent generations.

I think I'm gonna have trouble sleeping tonight... >.> That Garchomp and Charizard look pretty scary.

Anyone look at Gyarados and Arcanine though? Or Klink and Vanilluxe? There are exceptions to the rule.

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

Gen V pokemon have more features than those of Gen I, because as time goes, developers have more room for improving and adding more features, because of better technology available. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand.

[scprepschool]

Im happy with unovas cast of pokemon. At first I found it strange that there are floating snowcones riddled about driftveil. Small trashbags around nimbasa walking around. I still am bitter with sawk andthroh. Yet now that I have played it abutt load of times I came up with a theory.

Gf looked ay gen 4 and noticed that they had created a fiasco with spending over 15 pokedex entries on evolved forms of previous pokes ( fail )

So they reduced it to its most simple form amd decided to reconstruct.
Imo I think gen 6 will be the best yet if we get to see it

[pryce10]

rule of thumb in Pokemon... WHAT EVER ARCEUS ( GAMEFREAK) SAYS ITS A POKEMON IT IS A POKEMON!. there end of disscussion.

[WhiteExterior]

This is coming from an artist personally, but I love the designs of most the Pokemon, even in the new generation. I think a lot of people are focused on the Pokemon just looking pleasing as far as the design is concerned, I.E. being "cute" or "cool", but that there are some that aren't makes it that much more awesome to me, and more "realistic". Not all real animals are good looking, after all.

And yeah, I'm not too fond of some of the ones you mentioned above either (well, most that you mentioned) but every generation has those sort of characters and that doesn't mean that they're any less of Pokemon.

:3 Point is that I love the diversity, and no, I do think that the Pokemon in the new generation look like Pokemon. I love the designs of all of them...except Cryogonal, his design is really retarded to me. XD

[Cid]

What do I think? Honestly, I thought the Generation V Pokémon looked odd when they first saw the light of day, especially if I delve into comparing their designs to the previous generations. I'm guessing that those sentiments sum up the feelings of the original poster, that some of the new Pokémon don't look like Pokémon from the first four generations.

Fans originally had a specific number of Pokémon among the myriad creatures that are surely present in the in-game universe. That's the problem: our opinion of how Pokémon should look like is shaped by the first [relatively] few Pokémon that we encountered for the past four generations. I can't deny how some of the new Pokémon look different design-wise. Yet I agree with most of the people who responded to this thread; Pokémon don't have to look a certain way, they just have to be identified as Pokémon by the creators.

"So what are Pokémon supposed to look like?"
To take the thread's question as it is, I'll respond with that generic rhetorical question. But if I were asked by what I assume (but I don't really know) the original poster's intentions were, then I'd say that some of the new Pokémon don't look like they came from the first four generations.

[bobandbill]

There are some seriously stupid looking Pokemon, and it just seems obvious that they're running out of ideas.

So Magnemite's evoltuon being...three Magnemite, and this concept repeated with Diglett wasn't 'running out of ideas' too?

You've all seen this image, right? That is the difference between older and newer generations. Newer monsters have more 'pointless' features; spikes, stripes, fluffy bits, etc. What's good or bad is a matter of opinion, but there is generally a clear distinction between early and recent generations.

Part of that may have been due also to the improved capabilities of the systems; the first few games were limited even in the number of colours Pokemon had in their sprites. As that evolved no wonder things got more fancy, and I'd assume that art styles of Sugimori and co changed as well over the about decade-and-half Pokemon has been around for.

[s2daam]

There is no way a Pokémon should look.. we all know that. So all Pokémon look like Pokémon because they are Pokémon.

Simple as that.

[WishCookie]

Well, I dont like that some legendaries doesnt even look like pokemon creatures. I mean take a look at Meloetta for example.

[Beee]

I suppose with first gen, they could create anything. When creating the new gen pokemon, they had to try and not make them too similar to the old ones. That's why they seem so different and strange. That's what makes it so interesting.

[Jellicent♀]

I agree with Beee. I mean, why do people say they don't look original? Does Voltorb or Electrode look original? What about Diglet? THAT seriously looks like a 3 year old drew it more than Druddigon.
Each generation has it's failures and successes, but all I can see is a success, in my opinion. Finally they strayed away from making new evolutions for old Pokemon, Baby Pokemon for ones that shouldn't even have one, and finally no more weak Caterpie/Weedle idea (yes, there is Venipede and Sewaddle, but at least their evolutions are somewhat useful).
I like this generation, a lot. And if people are saying that the new ones look more like Digimon, and that they should just buy a Digimon game, why haven't they? Why are they still playing Pokemon Black/White?

[GreenBeece]

All Unova Pokemon look like Pokemon and I love most of them. To me, Hoenn Pokemon look less like Pokemon: Many of them are ugly, weird or just sickening. But there are some good species: Wingull, Spheal, Lotad, Seedot, Ralts, Swablu, Numel and Aron families are all lovely.

[arbok]

I'm not a big fan of Black and White pokemon. I've gotten used to it but I think my main problem was how most of them were just replacements woobat? Why not zubat? Roggenrola? Why not Geodude? and so on. I missed how it completly departed from the older pokemon. yeah I thought Icecream and rubbish bags were odd at first but I've began to accept them (I never had an issue with the gears though). There are 'freak' pokemon in every gen really not just B+W, in fact, I prefer the trubbish to Mr. Mime right now.
To me pokemon resemble animals in my eyes rather then people or objects but really there's no law about it, it's rather what we're used to.

[HyperXhydra]

Originally Posted by OrdealByFire

I agree with the OP...

There are some seriously stupid looking Pokemon, and it just seems obvious that they're running out of ideas. I can't imagine what they'll look like if Pokemon is still around in another 10 years.

I know there's not general consensus as to what a Pokemon should look like, but come on... Vanillite and its evolved forms really come to mind as ones that just make me shake my head.

And it's like the Pokemon people were like, "Alright... this Pokemon looks goofy as hell, so we HAVE to make it pretty powerful to make up for it."

I'm not sure what I'm saying. It's late.

But I will say the first generation of Pokemon will always be my favorite ... most likely because of the nostalgia factor. Ah... bias.

There's stupid looking Pokemon in Gen 1 like Exeegcute the egg Pokemon that evolves into a Coconut, how does make that sense?, at least vanilite still evolves into an ice cream cone.
This is what happen if the generations were reversed (language warning):

Spoiler:

IMO I like all the generations and my favorites are gen3 and 5.

[XanderO]

A Pokemon looks like anything that Gamefreak put its credit on.

Anything other than that is possibly a Digimon. Or Hello Kitty.


As an Admin of a Pokemon RP that supports Fakemon, this question sends me into the deepest of primal rages. As its been stated there IS NO set design on what a Pokemon is or isn't. If its from Gamefreak, its a Pokemon no matter WHAT any fan says. So roughly, everything you think that DOESN'T look like a Pokemon....Looks like a Pokemon.

As for a few complaints:

Trubbish: Grimer is living sludge and Koffing is a floating ball of explosive gas. Both are basically designed on Pollution. Trubbish adds to this.

Klink: Magnemite, Porygon, Bronzor, all artificial life forms made form objects or even from nothing.

Vanilite: Cherubi is a Cherry. There was living food before Gen 5 XD


The games themselves are maturing, its normal for the creatures to reflect this in design. They aren't all going to be the pudgy, doe eye'd fluffballs we know and love.