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

[voicerocker]

Originally Posted by Xeninacra

I have to say that there are lots of 5th Pokémon which don't seem "real" Pokémon to me. Look at Klink. Well, Klink is admissible, but look at Klang and Klinklang... Those are not Pokémon, in my opinion. The same happens with Cryogonal... what is that?
I've come to think that the way of drawing new Pokémon is changing and that's why they all look a bit different now. It has to be that.

What about Magnemite? It was a living magnet that evolved by fusing 3 of them together to form Magneton. The Klink line is an example of a machine upgrade, or more like building something. You start simple, and add extra parts to make it more efficient, or in this case, evolve it and make it stronger. Gears are common in most machines.

Originally Posted by pleb

Trubbish: It looks like a tiny trash bag.
Ducklett: It's a tiny duck
Marractus: How is that cactus moving?
Klink: They're gears with faces

Grimer: Looks like a pile of sludge.
Pidgey: a tiny bird
Geodude: it's a rock. Why is it moving?
Voltorb: a Pokeball with a face.

See? Even Gen 1 is guilty of the things people hate about Gen 5.

Originally Posted by Resolution

The only one I say doesn't look like a Pokémon is Trubbish. It just looks like a trash bag to me...a smelly one at that.

Grimer looks like living sludge because it's supposed to look like that, same as Trubbish. It looks like a trash bag because it's supposed to. They're both Pokemon born of pollution, only through different circumstances.

Originally Posted by SSJ4Ash

I dont think they dont look like pokemon, but they do look some-what like digimon. Zebstrika reminds me of Unimon, etc. etc. Too sick to give more examples. (i have a cold)

There's a big difference in the designs of Pokemon vs. Digimon. Digimon, even smaller ones sometimes, look like war machines ready to fight to the death. Compare Genesect to Kuwagamon:


I see a big difference in Genesect just having a cannon, while Kuwagamon looks lilke it would destroy anything without needing a reason.

Now, I see people complain about the "armor and spikes" which seems to point more to Haxorus. Compare it to WarGreymon:



I'd say Haxorus doesn't look like literal armor as opposed to WarGreymon who clearly is covered in it. (And Haxorus isn't a Steel type.)

So, no. These creatures are totally different, even if they are both dragons with claws, fangs and armor-like designs.

[MiTjA]

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Ahem, although these Pokemon are odd, they all have a nice air of simplicity to them. That simplicity is what used to define a Pokemon.

You pretend that all the new ones are baseless and drowned in colorful patterns, unlike the older ones.
I'm looking at them and I don't see it.
Things like Zebstrika are as fine as Arcanine....
Sure there is always something contrasting like Archeops, but what else are you refering too? Watchog and Heatmor?

And as pointed out, they couldn't add tons of details to them in GB era... but where they could they made exotic choices, ie Charizards and Dragonites wings being a weird greenish for the sake of it.

And why is "pointless" patterns a bad thing? Exotic creatures in the real world have pointless colorful patterns on them.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Either way, Vanillite is based off of ice cream. Stop trying to deny it.

I never denied it. Vanillite IS based off of ice cream. The designer took ice cream and turned it into a pokemon.
All I am saying is that Vanillite, the ice cream resembling pokemon, is not literally ice cream.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Old Pokemon were all about having an origin, whether it be an animal or an odd creative spark.

I don't see how that applies to old pokemon but not to new ones.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

And if you think that there is no difference between old and new Pokemon, then look at this:

Spoiler:

That picture is meant to be taken serious?

[TheLeetCasualGamer]

I think the question is, what defines what a Pokemon actually is? I mean, every generations had it's share of poorly designed Pokemon.

I mean, I don't get where people get at by comparing Pokemon of now to Pokemon back then, every generation really did have it's good qualities to them as well as the bad. I find that most people just start saying that 5th gen Pokemon are not "Pokemon" only because of nostalgia, I bet you anything if the Pokemon were switched where 1st gen Pokemon took the place of 5th gen where 5th gen Pokemon were the first Pokemon and 1st gen were the latest, those Pokemon would be criticized. Observe.


You know, BACK IN MY DAY! WE HAD AWESOME POKEMON BASED OF DINOSAURS, TURTLES, AND DRAGONS!


Now a days we have Pokemon based off of a ball, some vomit, and look at that, a magnet that goes into three in it's evolution, GAMEFREAK, YOU RUINED POKEMON D:<

And some other arguments I hate:

<---- OMG ITS LIEK SESEME STREET! THESE AREN'T POKEMON!

<---- Sooooooooooo....... What's this thing suppose to be again :/

Also hate the arguments like this



They're all cats! Persian is the only true cat!
Yeah, I know it's not really relevent to what a "Pokemon" is, but I feel to have to bring this up. People also seem to ditch a vast majority of newer Pokemon for being "rip-offs" of other Pokemon. Especially since that there are actually a lot of Pokemon in 5th gen that are based off of animals. But anyway my general response to this is that, "so I siamese cat is a rip of a tabby now" I mean, since when did a company ever thought of the idea of having more then one breed of an animal, ridicules and quite obviously "lazy thought" isn't it? (sarcasm)

The conclusion:
Pokemon actually stands "Pocket monsters" a word I've learned since third grade. Monsters are known for having unique characteristics and no actual definition of how it should look. A lot of Pokemon have different characteristics to them trying to make them unique and have different purposes in the Pokemon universe. Due to the vague term, you can't just simply say something doesn't "look like a Pokemon" since how they were meant to look was never defined.

Sorry for all the text, something that everyone can read, lol. xP

[MiTjA]

Originally Posted by TheLeetCasualGamer

You know, BACK IN MY DAY! WE HAD AWESOME POKEMON BASED OF DINOSAURS, TURTLES, AND DRAGONS!

Yeah and now they have cannons sticking out of the shell.

[TheLeetCasualGamer]

Originally Posted by MiTjA

Yeah and now they have cannons sticking out of the shell.

UGH, I KNOW RIGHT!? They're so unoriginal and look like Digimon now! 1st gen was SOOOOOOOOO much better!

lol

[Elgyem]

Originally Posted by MiTjA

You pretend that all the new ones are baseless and drowned in colorful patterns, unlike the older ones.
I'm looking at them and I don't see it.
Things like Zebstrika are as fine as Arcanine....
Sure there is always something contrasting like Archeops, but what else are you refering too? Watchog and Heatmor?

I never mentioned Zebstrika. Fact is, it's a zebra. A zebra Pokemon has every right to be striped (for obvious reasons). But a sumo wrestler clown pig? Why would GF feel the need to slap yellow spirals on it? I can also give some more examples of pointless patterns:

Funny thing is, I'm actually fine with Archeops. The Archeopteryx that it is based off of was thought to be a vibrantly colored bird, so a colorful, bold design makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by MiTjA

And as pointed out, they couldn't add tons of details to them in GB era... but where they could they made exotic choices, ie Charizards and Dragonites wings being a weird greenish for the sake of it.

The darker coloration of the wing membranes is common in paintings of mythical dragons.

Originally Posted by MiTjA

And why is "pointless" patterns a bad thing? Exotic creatures in the real world have pointless colorful patterns on them.

Yeah, but have you ever seen a pig with yellow swirls on it's abdomen? How about a mole with red slash marks on it's stomach? Markings are present on animals, usually for a reason. Many insects have markings for the sole purpose of camouflage. The poison-dart frog has markings to warn predators of it's toxicity. Many moths have wings that, when spread, appear intimidating to potential predators.

Originally Posted by MiTjA

I never denied it. Vanillite IS based off of ice cream. The designer took ice cream and turned it into a pokemon.
All I am saying is that Vanillite, the ice cream resembling pokemon, is not literally ice cream.

It's still a stupid idea to make a Pokemon based off of ice cream. I mean, we've got dragons, cats, lions, and ice cream?!? I mean sure, we've had odd and quirky novelty Pokemon before such as Jynx, but ice cream?!? I mean, what's next, hamburgers?!? And of course if in Gen VI they introduced a hamburger Pokemon, you'd just defend it by saying that it's a pig that covers itself in bread to mimic a burger?

Originally Posted by MiTjA

I don't see how that applies to old pokemon but not to new ones.

Allow me to explain.
Charizard is a dragon.
Diglett is a mole.
Sandslash is a porcupine.
Cloyster is an oyster.
Magneton is a magnet.
Ampharos is a sheep.
Feraligatr is an alligator.
Murkrow is a crow.
Misdreavus is a ghost.
Ho-Oh is a phoenix.
Piloswine is a mammoth.
Tyranitar is a Godzilla-like dinosaur.

Now, we have Gen V:
Simisear is an...umm... a gay fire monkey?
Musharna is...errmm... I suppose another dream-eating tapir
Haxorus is......uhh......it is......well...... I guess it's an armored dinosaur, with a huge neck, red claws, and mastodon-like tusks? Wait, what?

I mean, not all of Gen V is this bad, but a lot of it is. The only really good ones are a few of the later-game ones, Elgyem line and Solosis line in particular. The Elgyem line I liked simply because they gave us the badass aliens that I always wanted, and Solosis had a nice simplicity to it, and it actually kept that simplicity through evolution.

Sure, in Gen I, there are some weird ones like Jynx and Mr. Mime, but for the most part, the Pokemon had clear origins (Heck, even Mr. Mime is based off of a mime).

Originally Posted by MiTjA

That picture is meant to be taken serious?

Sure, it's not official, but it makes a good point. Pokemon have evolved into creatures covered in spikes and markings. With the many technological advancements that allow for games to include such creatures, creativity is now optional in designing a Pokemon. You can just take an animal, give it markings and spikes, and call it a Pokemon. (Kind of like what Digimon does). And honestly, you should just stop wasting your breath telling all us older fans that we're "wrong". You will never agree with us, and we will never agree with you. We're free to dislike the newest generation, and you're free to detest the older generations and blindly accept and defend any kind of change.

[Snowdrop]

So much arguing about opinions, yeesh xD Well, I may not be the biggest fan of 5th Gen's designs, but there are a lot of designs I really dig, too. And yeah, I think they look like Pokemon. If I had no knowledge of 5th Gen and I randomly saw them, I would immediately recognize them as Pokemon. There are lot of Pokemon designs I'm not big on from EVERY generation, and every generation has some I absolutely adore, too. Things change, including their designs and I'm perfectly fine with it XD

[voicerocker]

Originally Posted by Elgyem

I never mentioned Zebstrika. Fact is, it's a zebra. A zebra Pokemon has every right to be striped (for obvious reasons). But a sumo wrestler clown pig? Why would GF feel the need to slap yellow spirals on it?

Emboar is not a clown, it does not resemble a clown, it does not behave like a clown, so stop saying it is a clown. Nothing about it at all suggests it is based off of a clown. It is a warrior Pokemon (Fighting type). If you bothered to look into its background you might see why it looks the way it does, but you'd rather bash it without researching it considering you still claim it looks like a clown. Do you have any evidence to suggest anything supporting your clown theory?

Originally Posted by Elgyem

I can also give some more examples of pointless patterns:

If 1 Pokemon is pointless, they all are. They're based on certain concepts. Druddigon is specifically a dragon covered in spikes, that's what it is supposed to be. It isn't pointless if that was the original intent.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Funny thing is, I'm actually fine with Archeops. The Archeopteryx that it is based off of was thought to be a vibrantly colored bird, so a colorful, bold design makes perfect sense.

So, Pokemon should just look like normal animals? That is boring and uncreative. You seem to suggest the Game Freak should put the least amount of effort into creating Pokemon, but then bash the new Pokemon for being TOO creative.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Yeah, but have you ever seen a pig with yellow swirls on it's abdomen?

No, because pigs are not Emboar and Emboar is not a pig or an animal, it is a Pokemon, a fictional creature that does not exist in real life.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

How about a mole with red slash marks on it's stomach?

No, because moles are no Excadrill and Excadrill is not a mole or an animal, it is a Pokemon, a fictional creature that does not exist in real life.

Have you ever seen an orange lizard with green wings that walks on 2 legs and has fire coming out of the tip of its tail?

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Markings are present on animals, usually for a reason. Many insects have markings for the sole purpose of camouflage. The poison-dart frog has markings to warn predators of it's toxicity. Many moths have wings that, when spread, appear intimidating to potential predators.

These are not animals, these are Pokemon.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

It's still a stupid idea to make a Pokemon based off of ice cream.

Says who? Who are we to decide what is and is not a Pokemon? Did we come up with the concept of magical creatures that we can battle with? No.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

I mean, we've got dragons, cats, lions, and ice cream?!?

And eggs, pineapples, living Pokeballs, living sludge, a fish that can only Splash, cacoons, caterpillers, mice, rats, living rocks, mimes, birds....

Originally Posted by Elgyem

I mean sure, we've had odd and quirky novelty Pokemon before such as Jynx, but ice cream?!? I mean, what's next, hamburgers?!? And of course if in Gen VI they introduced a hamburger Pokemon, you'd just defend it by saying that it's a pig that covers itself in bread to mimic a burger?

You exaggerate too much. Ice cream is believeable as it is copying a non-living thing. Ice cream was never alive. Still, it isn't made of ice cream, it's made of snow and ice and just resembles ice cream, like Voltorb resembles Pokeballs. (Plus, kids love ice cream, so it will appeal to them.) We won't see a burger Pokemon.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Allow me to explain.
Charizard is a dragon.
Diglett is a mole.
Sandslash is a porcupine.
Cloyster is an oyster.
Magneton is a magnet.
Ampharos is a sheep.
Feraligatr is an alligator.
Murkrow is a crow.
Misdreavus is a ghost.
Ho-Oh is a phoenix.
Piloswine is a mammoth.
Tyranitar is a Godzilla-like dinosaur.

Sure, there are some weird ones like Jynx and Mr. Mime, but for the most part, the Pokemon had clear origins (Heck, even Mr. Mime is based off of a mime).

Haxorus is clearly a dinosaur, in appearance and name. I have a hard time believing someone can't figure out at least a general idea of what Gen 5's Pokemon are supposed to be. This isn't medical science, it's a video game.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Sure, it's not official, but it makes a good point. Pokemon have evolved into creatures covered in spikes and markings.

No they haven't. You're only pointing out the Pokemon that do have spikes and comparing them to Pokemon that didn't. Garchomp has spikes because it is supposed to look intimidating. Generally, spikes give that appearance.

So, if Garchomp had that Gen 1 design, you'd be Ok with it? But if Charizard had spikes, you'd hate it? That Gen 1 Garchomp looks like...a shark. That's it. Nothing further. Compared to:


I'd also assume the spikes are there to enforce the Dragon-typing of Garchomp, since it does resemble a shark and is not a Water type. They don't just add spikes to something just to do it. Though, with the technology today, they're able to add things like that that they couldn't before. Charizard may have had more spikes if Pokemon had only been started recently. The limitations of the technology of that time played a part in the designs of the earliest Pokemon, so remember that. (Funny thing is I found a forum where someone posted that picture and no one could figure out what the message behind was supposed to be. Some people liked Gen 1 Garchomp more, some liked Gen 4 Charizard more, and some liked both of them.)

Originally Posted by Elgyem

With the many technological advancements that allow for games to include such creatures, creativity is now optional in designing a Pokemon.

So...don't be creative in designing Pokemon?

Originally Posted by Elgyem

You can just take an animal, give it markings and spikes, and call it a Pokemon. (Kind of like what Digimon does).

That's pretty much what any franchise that designs fictional creatures does. They take real world creatures and change them and add things to them to make them more interesting than the creatures that actually exist. Though, Digimon are clearly war machines ready to fight to the death. Pokemon are not.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

And honestly, you should just stop wasting your breath telling all us older fans that we're "wrong".

Have you considered the possibility that some of the people who disagree with you are older fans as well? (My first game was Yellow, back when Mew was still a secret)

Originally Posted by Elgyem

You will never agree with us, and we will never agree with you. We're free to dislike the newest generation, and you're free to detest the older generations and blindly accept and defend any kind of change.

You can dislike a generation, but don't point things out like: "Food Pokemon are stupid! Gen 1 is the best!" when Gen 1 had Food Pokemon as well. Then you end up contradicting yourself.

"Blindly accept" what? A video game character? Is it that important? Bottom line: If Game Freak says it's a Pokemon, it's a Pokemon. You probably would have an easier time accepting new Pokemon if you didn't always compare every new generation to the first. I know it's been said plenty of times already, but if Gen 1 were Gen 5, people would hate it. People just seem to hate new Pokemon because they aren't the original 150/151.

EDIT: And compare what Charizard looks like now vs. what it looked like in the original Red and Green Japanese versions. They've added detail where they could:

[Elgyem]

Originally Posted by voicerocker

E
You can dislike a generation, but don't point things out like: "Food Pokemon are stupid! Gen 1 is the best!" when Gen 1 had Food Pokemon as well. Then you end up contradicting yourself.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Aaah, that was funny. But anyway, no. Just no. Unless I'm missing a 151.5th Pokemon, there is most definitely not a food Pokemon in Gen. I. And I never said Gen I was the best. Personally, I think Gen II is the best. And that didn't have a food Pokemon either.

I'd like a specific example of what you consider a "food Pokemon".

[MiTjA]

Originally Posted by Elgyem

a sumo wrestler clown pig? Why would GF feel the need to slap yellow spirals on it?

The yellow symbols are reminiscent of chinese decorative patterns, as found on pottery or similar, but also looks suspiciously like the YinYang.
Emboar is based on a character from a chinese tale.
The same is true for Infernape (the character it is based on is the same that Goku from Dragonball is based off), who has similar style yellow markings.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

I can also give some more examples of pointless patterns:

At least Scolipede, Eelektross, Galvantula and Unfezant are as justified as Zebstrika and Arcanine. And Druddigon, which is simply a mean scaly dragon..it wouldn't work without the red bits.

Especially Unfezant because after all those birds, it finally added one that really felt completely wild. I had a big grin on my face the moment I saw it in a corocoro scan.

I see how Heatmor and Excadrill just have patterns on them for the sake of it (Watchog isn't just random on the other hand)... as for the armor and stripes like on Bisharp, well so have Mr.Mime and Electabuzz along with other humanoid ones.
Hitmonchans shirt, belt and boxing gloves feel much more inappropriate, than colorful body armor and sharp blades then, don't they?

Originally Posted by Elgyem

It's still a stupid idea to make a Pokemon based off of ice cream. I mean, we've got dragons, cats, lions, and ice cream?!? I mean sure, we've had odd and quirky novelty Pokemon before such as Jynx, but ice cream?!? I mean, what's next, hamburgers?!? And of course if in Gen VI they introduced a hamburger Pokemon, you'd just defend it by saying that it's a pig that covers itself in bread to mimic a burger?

It doesn't sounds nearly as genuine.
For it to be the same kind of thing, it wouldn't be an actual pig, and wouldn't cover itself in actual bread. It would resemble a hamburger, although I don't see how that would work... which is why they will make something else instead. Like say a floating dream-catcher, something aquatic that has the vague form of a ship, or something barrel shaped that holds Water etc...
Those would be some random ideas that sound like pokemon of this kind.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Allow me to explain.
Charizard is a dragon.
Diglett is a mole.
Sandslash is a porcupine.
Cloyster is an oyster.
Magneton is a magnet.
Ampharos is a sheep.
Feraligatr is an alligator.
Murkrow is a crow.
Misdreavus is a ghost.
Ho-Oh is a phoenix.
Piloswine is a mammoth.
Tyranitar is a Godzilla-like dinosaur.

Sure, there are some weird ones like Jynx and Mr. Mime, but for the most part, the Pokemon had clear origins (Heck, even Mr. Mime is based off of a mime).

most of the new ones have pretty obvious origins still... none of them look like "aw lets make some random monster for the sake of it with no inspiration whatsoever"

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Sure, it's not official, but it makes a good point. Pokemon have evolved into creatures covered in spikes and markings. With the many technological advancements that allow for games to include such creatures, creativity is now optional in designing a Pokemon. You can just take an animal, give it markings and spikes, and call it a Pokemon. (Kind of like what Digimon does). And honestly, you should just stop wasting your breath telling all us older fans that we're "wrong". You will never agree with us, and we will never agree with you. We're free to dislike the newest generation, and you're free to detest the older generations and blindly accept and defend any kind of change.

Obviously I'm new to this franchise.

I don't detest the first generation, I loved every single generation from the moment it was revealed.

The new pokemon look like pokemon. Thats all Im saying.

[TheLeetCasualGamer]

Originally Posted by Elgyem

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Aaah, that was funny. But anyway, no. Just no. Unless I'm missing a 151.5th Pokemon, there is most definitely not a food Pokemon in Gen. I. And I never said Gen I was the best. Personally, I think Gen II is the best. And that didn't have a food Pokemon either.

I'd like a specific example of what you consider a "food Pokemon".

<----- Eggs, I eat them for breakfast, literally. (even one of them has the yoke showing for crying out loud)

Also found it kind of funny how someone gave you a nice long list of reasonable arguments yet the only thing you responded to was something that kind of felt like a light hearted joke (at least the tone made it sound kind of like that)

Also just to add some salt to the wound here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgyem
Allow me to explain.
Charizard is a dragon.
Diglett is a mole.
Sandslash is a porcupine.
Cloyster is an oyster.
Magneton is a magnet.
Ampharos is a sheep.
Feraligatr is an alligator.
Murkrow is a crow.
Misdreavus is a ghost.
Ho-Oh is a phoenix.
Piloswine is a mammoth.
Tyranitar is a Godzilla-like dinosaur.

Sure, there are some weird ones like Jynx and Mr. Mime, but for the most part, the Pokemon had clear origins (Heck, even Mr. Mime is based off of a mime).


Charizard... is not even a dragon. It's actually just a lizard with wings and a fire on it's tail. It also kind of proves one of my points further that fantasy creatures are not clearly defined. You only said it was a dragon because of how it looked when it's written in stone that Charizard is just really an obscured fire breathing lizard with wings.
Diglett- If you say that thing is clearly defined as a mole, then an apple looks like a banana. The only way you could define it as a mole is because it was literally called "the mole Pokemon" Excadrill looks a lot closer to a mole and you know it.
Feraligatr- Doesn't really go with the current argument, but it really contradicts what you said here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgyem
I can also give some more examples of pointless patterns:



Feraligatr is pretty much the definition of putting as many unnecessary spikes and features to an animal yet you really don't complain about it.

Do I hate these Pokemon I listed as examples, of course not. Am I saying any generation is the best? No! Am I trying to force you into liking 5th gen Pokemon? Definitely not! However, I am saying that your logic of "what makes a Pokemon" is complete bull because Gamefreak never told us specifically what a Pokemon is other then it stands for "pocket monsters" Monsters are fictional, they do not have defining features, if Gamefreak says it's a Pokemon, then it's a Pokemon.

Also jumping into assumptions that everyone who is debating with you is a new fan is such an unbelievable assumption. Especially considering how you can get most our ages just by clicking our profile and how long we've been into the franchise. Also acting superior in the argument as well as thinking that we hate 1st gen Pokemon also gets kind of annoying when we're just simply pointing out that 1st gen did have it's flaws as well. I love all the gens, but some people like you need to learn how to calm down a little bit. I mean, there are some people who don't like 5th generation games, but don't even bother to criticize the Pokemon and instead just say other reasons of just simply preferring the older games that makes it a lot easier to understand the opinion

[Elgyem]

Originally Posted by TheLeetCasualGamer

<----- Eggs, I eat them for breakfast, literally. (even one of them has the yoke showing for crying out loud)

Eggs do not always equal food. It's not like it looks like an omelet or something, it's just a group of eggs (which are actually more closely related to seeds, if you read the Pokedex entries). To further prove that it's a plant, it evolves into a coconut tree.

Originally Posted by TheLeetCasualGamer

Charizard... is not even a dragon. It's actually just a lizard with wings and a fire on it's tail. It also kind of proves one of my points further that fantasy creatures are not clearly defined. You only said it was a dragon because of how it looked when it's written in stone that Charizard is just really an obscured fire breathing lizard with wings.

As stated by Bulbapedia:
Charizard resembles the European dragon, certainly one of many forms told and rendered in legends.
It's based off of a dragon. Game over.

Originally Posted by TheLeetCasualGamer

Diglett- If you say that thing is clearly defined as a mole, then an apple looks like a banana. The only way you could define it as a mole is because it was literally called "the mole Pokemon" Excadrill looks a lot closer to a mole and you know it.

It's a mole with it's body underground.

Originally Posted by TheLeetCasualGamer

Feraligatr- Doesn't really go with the current argument, but it really contradicts what you said here

It's an alligator (clear origin, anyone?). I'll get into the second part next.

Originally Posted by TheLeetCasualGamer

Feraligatr is pretty much the definition of putting as many unnecessary spikes and features to an animal yet you really don't complain about it.

First off, alligators and crocodiles have rather coarse skin and...guess what?... Spikes on their backs. Sure, they don't have huge, monstrous spikes like Feraligatr, but the spikes are at least derived from the actual animal. The armor-like plates on the arms and legs also help add to the reptilian feel to the Pokemon. In fact, the design of Feraligatr not only has a distinct crocodilian feel to it, but it also adds some of the defining features of a movie monster. The colors also blend rather nicely, as opposed to the clashing colors of, say, Watchog.

Originally Posted by TheLeetCasualGamer

Do I hate these Pokemon I listed as examples, of course not. Am I saying any generation is the best? No! Am I trying to force you into liking 5th gen Pokemon? Definitely not! However, I am saying that your logic of "what makes a Pokemon" is complete bull because Gamefreak never told us specifically what a Pokemon is other then it stands for "pocket monsters" Monsters are fictional, they do not have defining features, if Gamefreak says it's a Pokemon, then it's a Pokemon.

I won't argue with you on the fact that even the worst Pokemon in Gen V are still Pokemon, but that doesn't mean that they look like Pokemon. Allow me to give an example: Vanilluxe. It lacks the distinct anime vibe that most other Pokemon have, and it honestly doesn't look like a Pokemon. However, it unfortunately is a Pokemon.

Bottom line: Just because it is technically a Pokemon, does not mean that it looks like a Pokemon.

[TheLeetCasualGamer]

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Eggs do not always equal food. It's not like it looks like an omelet or something, it's just a group of eggs (which are actually more closely related to seeds, if you read the Pokedex entries). To further prove that it's a plant, it evolves into a coconut tree.

And here you are contradicting yourself again, you're only saying that Vanniluxe was "ice cream" because of it's appearance. Though now you are bringing up a Pokedex entry to say that Exeggcute isn't in fact based off of eggs. But the appearence does actually suggest that Exeggcute was in fact, inspired by eggs just how Gamefreak just looked at Ice-cream, and made it a Pokemon.

"it evolves into a coconut tree" Doesn't hide the fact that it's still a Pokemon based off of a common "edible object" factor. Also doesn't hide that it's indeed coconuts with eyes based off it's design which is basically your argument about Vanniluxe

Originally Posted by Elgyem

As stated by Bulbapedia:
Charizard resembles the European dragon, certainly one of many forms told and rendered in legends.
It's based off of a dragon. Game over.

Once again, another contradiction here. When you rip off of Emboar based off of it's appearence saying it looks like a clown even though I can pull out the same exact argument saying strait from Bulbapedia Emboar is based on the soldier of Romance of the Three Kingdoms But yet when I make fun of Charizard's appearance saying it could easily be interpreted as a Lizard with wings on it's back since it's not even a dragon type, you bring up the generic "cuz bulbapedia said so" argument. Your arguing over the appearance and I'm saying that this is an unbelievable double standard here.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

It's a mole with it's body underground.

Last time I checked, this was what a mole looks like. I'm pretty sure that a brown, cylinder shape object with eyes would not easily be defined as a mole. That really could have been anything inside the ground, it just was labeled as "the mole Pokemon" that was the only way to define it. Moles tend to have a long skinny noes and some claws and aren't ALWAYS in the ground much like <gasp> Excadrill! =O

Originally Posted by Elgyem

First off, alligators and crocodiles have rather coarse skin and...guess what?... Spikes on their backs. Sure, they don't have huge, monstrous spikes like Feraligatr, but the spikes are at least derived from the actual animal. The armor-like plates on the arms and legs also help add to the reptilian feel to the Pokemon. In fact, the design of Feraligatr not only has a distinct crocodilian feel to it, but it also adds some of the defining features of a movie monster. The colors also blend rather nicely, as opposed to the clashing colors of, say, Watchog.

Once again, you're only cherry picking examples and it's the same exact thing. I point out that it does have exaggerated features of actual animals, but you are only saying it's fine because it's in the first few gens. But if I bring up something like Liepard for example and I point out how it's suppose to be a more like a leopard. It's a clear defining origin because of the name, the expression, and the spots on it's back. It all resembles a leopard but yet you still would criticize it for being "unnecessary elements" to the Pokemon when the first two are guilty of the same thing you're pointing out.

Though I don't care for watchdog, I will say that he is said to be based off a meerkat. Though meerkats don't have stripes I could also bring up the example of having Timon from Lion King be a meerkat with strips on his back. Placing patterns and features on animals is how a lot of character makers make fantasy like creatures and characters to make them more defined and recognizable as the original creator's work. I can just as easily criticize Pikachu at this point because mice don't have stripes on their back.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

I won't argue with you on the fact that even the worst Pokemon in Gen V are still Pokemon, but that doesn't mean that they look like Pokemon. Allow me to give an example: Vanilluxe. It lacks the distinct anime vibe that most other Pokemon have, and it honestly doesn't look like a Pokemon. However, it unfortunately is a Pokemon.

Bottom line: Just because it is technically a Pokemon, does not mean that it looks like a Pokemon.

Cherry pick, cherry pick, cherry pick, that's the best way to be as stubborn as a mule when it comes to this.
Even though I can point out how there are Pokemon based off of balls, eggs, pinnapples, pine-cones or even puke, you still will say that those do look like Pokemon because they were the first ones. I could list examples of Pokemon that list your standard to what "looks like a Pokemon" or might even look remotely similar to the older Pokemon yet you would still pull some bull and say something to hate on it for really poor reasons.
As I said, you don't have any right to say what a Pokemon is "suppose" to looks like. It's actually kind of like telling an artist who makes a very nice drawing of a centaur character they created, but it had features your not familiar with on a centaur (like horns or something) and saying it's a poor design because it's not the first image of a centaur isn't what you're currently viewing.
To conclude: Video games are an art form, just because of what you saw first doesn't mean that the new designs all of the sudden "don't look like Pokemon" If you don't like them, that's fine everyone has their own taste. But saying they "don't look like Pokemon" just because a few aren't based off of animals is like saying any sort of fantasy creature like a vampire or a dragons is not those said creatures just because they have features you are not familiar with. It's just quite simply rude, disrespectful, and childish to the creators of those characters.

[Forever]

Can I just say the reverse here and think of the other POV, Herdier, for example, looks more like a standard dog than Arcanine ever will. ;x PLUS Blitzle, Pidove, etc, anything animal-based from B/W seems on-spot with their real life counterparts, really, compared to previous generations.

I mean we have really simple things like, dogs, ants, zebra, doves, whatever minccino is, etc and people seem to pay attention to the few exceptions, when in context, they look like they're meant to. Pokemon can't keep creating Pokemon that look like the same animals over and over (and designs) so they have to try new stuff. B/W has more complicated designs but it also has more simplistic designs, so I dunno really, other than the ones that do look similar to Digimon they mostly look like Pokemon.

Also just a reminder that I'm watching all of you carefully and you should watch what you say to each other, that's all!

[MiTjA]

Food in gen I? That's FARFETCHD.PNG



Diglett is based on whac-a-mole not actual moles.

[Elgyem]

Originally Posted by TheLeetCasualGamer

And here you are contradicting yourself again, you're only saying that Vanniluxe was "ice cream" because of it's appearance. Though now you are bringing up a Pokedex entry to say that Exeggcute isn't in fact based off of eggs. But the appearence does actually suggest that Exeggcute was in fact, inspired by eggs just how Gamefreak just looked at Ice-cream, and made it a Pokemon.

I'm not saying that Exeggcute isn't based off of eggs. The problem with your argument is that you think that just because it's based off of eggs, then it's food. That's like saying that Oddish is food because it's leaves look like salad, or that Combusken is food because it is a chicken, and chickens are edible.

[CycloneGU]

Originally Posted by Elgyem

I'm not saying that Exeggcute isn't based off of eggs. The problem with your argument is that you think that just because it's based off of eggs, then it's food. That's like saying that Oddish is food because it's leaves look like salad, or that Combusken is food because it is a chicken, and chickens are edible.

So Vanilluxe is considered food now?

Cyclone

[voicerocker]

Originally Posted by Elgyem

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Aaah, that was funny. But anyway, no. Just no. Unless I'm missing a 151.5th Pokemon, there is most definitely not a food Pokemon in Gen. I. And I never said Gen I was the best. Personally, I think Gen II is the best. And that didn't have a food Pokemon either.

I'd like a specific example of what you consider a "food Pokemon".

Eggs and coconuts/pineapples.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Eggs do not always equal food. It's not like it looks like an omelet or something, it's just a group of eggs (which are actually more closely related to seeds, if you read the Pokedex entries). To further prove that it's a plant, it evolves into a coconut tree.

And Vanillite is not literally ice cream. Same thing.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

As stated by Bulbapedia:
Charizard resembles the European dragon, certainly one of many forms told and rendered in legends.
It's based off of a dragon. Game over.

Just because it's based off of something, doesn't mean that is what it is. The Charmander line are specifically called "lizards" not dragons. Ex: Char-IZARD. Char-MANDER. Char-meleon.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

It's a mole with it's body underground.

Which of these Pokemon looks more like that real mole? Answer: not Diglett. And since you like to reference Bulbapedia, under "origin" it says Diglett shares traits with worms as well.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

It's an alligator (clear origin, anyone?). I'll get into the second part next.

Again, most Pokemon in Gen 5 also have clear origins on the animals they are based on. It's the hidden things that make them more unique, as in Exeggutor being based off of a mythical tree monster that grew human heads, not just a coconut or pineapple tree.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

First off, alligators and crocodiles have rather coarse skin and...guess what?... Spikes on their backs.

Have you ever seen a blue alligator or crocodile with red scales standing on 2 legs?

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Sure, they don't have huge, monstrous spikes like Feraligatr, but the spikes are at least derived from the actual animal.

And dragons never had spikes? Particularly Garchomp, which is NOT a shark but a dragon, may have extra spikes just like how sharks have hundreds of teeth?

Originally Posted by Elgyem

The armor-like plates on the arms and legs also help add to the reptilian feel to the Pokemon. In fact, the design of Feraligatr not only has a distinct crocodilian feel to it, but it also adds some of the defining features of a movie monster.

But that armor-like appearance is also similar to Haxorus, which you described as "pointless armor and spikes".

Originally Posted by Elgyem

The colors also blend rather nicely, as opposed to the clashing colors of, say, Watchog.

When creating a fictional character based off of a real creature, you have to make them memorable. Any fictional meerkat that looks too similar to another fictional meerkat will be forgetable.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

I won't argue with you on the fact that even the worst Pokemon in Gen V are still Pokemon, but that doesn't mean that they look like Pokemon. Allow me to give an example: Vanilluxe. It lacks the distinct anime vibe that most other Pokemon have, and it honestly doesn't look like a Pokemon. However, it unfortunately is a Pokemon.

Vanilluxe's face looks very similar to these characters:


It looks incredibly similar to the Slime from Dragon Quest, and Majin Buu's face is very much alike. Perhaps it may be worth noting that the man who created Vanilluxe was a British designer.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Bottom line: Just because it is technically a Pokemon, does not mean that it looks like a Pokemon.

Actually, yes it does. If Game Freak says it is a Pokemon, they must think it looks like one as well. It doesn't matter what we think.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

I'm not saying that Exeggcute isn't based off of eggs. The problem with your argument is that you think that just because it's based off of eggs, then it's food. That's like saying that Oddish is food because it's leaves look like salad, or that Combusken is food because it is a chicken, and chickens are edible.

Oddish does not look like a salad.
Combusken is based off a living animal, not FRIED or BAKED chicken. But considering you can eat eggs, coconuts and pineapples, (all of which aare a part of 1 Pokemon's evolutionary line) there is a difference.

Exeggcute are not literally eggs, and Vanillite is not literally ice cream. That's the main point, neither of them are literally what they resemble, so you shouldn't have a problem with either.

[Elgyem]

Alright, this is getting way off-track. My main point is this: Art through adversity. The first few Pokemon games (The first 2 generations in particular) were difficult to design Pokemon for. The producers were limited by the low-res screen of the Game Boy and Game Boy Color, so they couldn't make Pokemon that were all that complex. However, they still managed to create many great Pokemon that are still well-known to this day, by working long and hard to work around the obstacles in their way.

However, with the advent of modern technology, the producers can make ultra-detailed Pokemon extremely easily, without worrying about the sprite size and technical limitations. However, with the more mechanical-looking and complicated Pokemon, it just feels like some of the magic is lost.

That's my opinion. You're not going to change it. Stop trying to.

[voicerocker]

Originally Posted by Elgyem

Alright, this is getting way off-track. My main point is this: Art through adversity. The first few Pokemon games (The first 2 generations in particular) were difficult to design Pokemon for. The producers were limited by the low-res screen of the Game Boy and Game Boy Color, so they couldn't make Pokemon that were all that complex. However, they still managed to create many great Pokemon that are still well-known to this day, by working long and hard to work around the obstacles in their way.

The technology limited their creativity. That picture you posted of the Gen 4 Charizard may have actually looked like that or similar if it wasn't one of the first Pokemon. We have no idea what they wanted to do with these creatures back in 1990 that they were unable to do due to limitations.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

However, with the advent of modern technology, the producers can make ultra-detailed Pokemon extremely easily

So designing a fictional creature for a place of business to make money off of is an easy field of work?

All that means is that they don't have to limit themselves anymore.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

However, with the more mechanical-looking and complicated Pokemon, it just feels like some of the magic is lost.

They don't look mechanical, except the ones that were intended to like Golurk and the Steel type Pokemon.

Originally Posted by Elgyem

That's my opinion. You're not going to change it. Stop trying to.

Threads like this are for debating.

[Blues-Music]

Each pokemon is just based off something.Animal , or not pokemon do not have specific "Looks.".If gamefreak releases it in a pokemon game it looks like a pokemon.
Would anyone show me how a pokemon "Looks." Like?Because all of the pokemon are different.
Also since when did pokemon have to have an anime look?Pokemon used to be 8-bit , and black , and white.How do they make something "Look like a pokemon."?

[CycloneGU]

Originally Posted by voicerocker

Threads like this are for debating.

Debating, yes.

Purposefully tearing apart every piece of someone's opinion, no.

I don't have any major problems with the Pokémon in the game. In order to keep the peace, I'm not going to go further than that.

Cyclone

[Forever]

I left this overnight to hope you guys got back onto where you were meant to be and you somewhat did, so good. :)

Originally Posted by CycloneGU

Debating, yes.

Purposefully tearing apart every piece of someone's opinion, no.

I don't have any major problems with the Pokémon in the game. In order to keep the peace, I'm not going to go further than that.

Cyclone

Just going to add in that this post isn't really necessary - sometimes debating can involve going that deeply, and if Elgyem wishes to not have a debate, then it's best that he doesn't continue posting here, as this thread does generate much debate and people are willing to reply to anything in order to express their opinions.

So from this - carry on, whoever wishes to continue to debate this, but keep in mind to be respectful of others while doing so. :)

[Drgons90]

You guys should stop arguing. It's like this...

Babble about newest generation being "creative(am I right?)". So, next generation, GameFreak got "less creative". Start another criticism this time by pointing out that the newer pokemon are not special, look like crap any which way they look and start another argument?

Just stop. Every gen had their own flaws. Like I said in a video, "Who cares about an ice cream cone when it has extra scoops and can pwn ghetsis M-F-K-N-G hydreigon?" and magnet that can multiply and take down legendaries?

It's fine to share opinion, but don't go overboard.

[Pokemon Trainer UV]

I agree with what the people here are saying.
There is no set criteria of what Pokemon are supposed to look like. In fact, I think the Pokemon in this generation were more creative (As in, they were very different. It takes creativity to make something seem extremely different, doesn't it?). However, there is a difference in being creative and whether it looks "cool" or "ugly". A lot of the new Pokemon seemed to be quite ugly, and a bit overdecorated. Sure, the previous designs were far more simple, but they didn't look ugly, did they?
I don't absolutely hate Gen 5, but it isn't my favorite.