Are new Pokémon overstylized?

[Kirbychu]

Magnemite
Porygon
Voltorb
Grimmer
Ditto
Geodude
Onix
...

You remember wrong lol

Hey , I was right!

They're still look more organic in general. I don't even need to post any examples, you can just go look in the Pokedex yourself.

Every generation has it's share of Pokemon based off inanimate objects. Personally, I think those particular designs are irrelevant to this argument. I think we should really be taking a look at the animal-like Pokemon and how those designs have changed. Again, I'd say the newer Pokemon generally look less organic.

 

[.Fenris]

Yeah, they've gone overboard with the styling. Take a look at a Trubbish, then look at any other generation.

 

[Lee Know]

Yeah, they've gone overboard with the styling. Take a look at a Trubbish, then look at any other generation.

Mind you, Gen I brought us Grimer and Muk, then Koffing and Weezing. I don't see how Trubbish and Garbodor are an example.

 

[Miss Doronjo]

I'm going to say yes, but not in any bad way.

Honestly; I think as the game franchise grows, so are the game developers art development. I think they are trying to have more wacky designs so that it'll give us a more interesting, newer feel to battling; like when I'm using a Volcanora; it feels waaaaay different than any butterfly - like pokemon I've used before. @.@

 

[.Fenris]

Mind you, Gen I brought us Grimer and Muk, then Koffing and Weezing. I don't see how Trubbish and Garbodor are an example.

Statement withdrawn, you have a point...

But it's a traaaashbaggg... >:<

 

[Oryx]

Hey , I was right!

They're still look more organic in general. I don't even need to post any examples, you can just go look in the Pokedex yourself.

Could you post examples anyway, even if you don't need to? I tend to disagree with this point and often people just say that without citing any examples, or citing examples that are easily refuted such as Garbodor. Can you show how Pidgey is more organic than Pidove, or Rattata vs. Patrat? Or are there entirely other Pokemon that you're referring to, and which ones?

 

[Careful With That Axe Pichu!]

Magnemite
Porygon
Voltorb
Grimmer
Ditto
Geodude
Onix
...

You remember wrong lol

Yes, there were exceptions. But now Pokémon like those are the norm.

I guess my point is, take Emboar, for instance. An in-organic Pokémon was inorganic by nature before. A magnet, a rock, a strange bomb. But now a boar has strange and artistic designed plastered onto it. I don't want them to look exactly like their animal counterparts, but too much stylizing has come to bother me. It seems to be a rule that most Pokémon now have very vivid, conspicuous surface colors and designs.

Again, it's an opinion. I urge everyone to treat is as such. :D

how Pidgey is more organic than Pidove, or Rattata vs. Patrat?

I guess using the word "organic" was wrong. You're right on that one. Yet now even simple Pokémon like those seem to NEED to have stripes and spikes and such. That's what throws me off sometimes.

And to make another point, I don't believe in the "evolution" of the series. I believe in the marketing of the series. I think Pokémon have changed to adapt to their target market which has come to like sylized and "cool-looking" creatures more and more over the years. Take Ben 10 as an example. :P

Spoiler:

 

[Lee Know]

LMAO DEAR GOD. I'm surprised the creators of Ben 10 haven't sued.

But organic seems like a loose term here. You're can't compare starters with starters since they're all based on different animals. Emboar is more comparable to Grumpig, who doesn't seem organic as well. And Serperior isn't any different from Arbok or Seviper. And Samurott takes a lot of similarity from Feraligatr and Swampert, who weren't organic themselves.

Pokemon such as Sawk and Throh, and the Roggenrola family are no exception. The older games brought us the Hitmon line, and the Roggenrola family are based on crystal formations (some of which actually do take on odd and bright colorations due to mineral contamination). This explains why Roggenrola and its evolutions can only be found inside caves, rather than its counterparts Geodude, who can be discovered on the field by use of Rock Smash, since they are crystals.

 

[Punches]

Emboar, like Infernape, is based on a character from Journey to the West, a Chinese novel. Those patterns on his body are specifically there to distinguish it's origins.

Also, the whole "too many objects/not enough animals" argument to so bull. There are so many pokemon that they naturally need to find new inspiration. Just look at how many monkey/ape pokemon we have! Lots of cats too. If they stuck to almost entirely animals then we are gonna have like, 17 dogs or something. Get reals, guys. Variety is a GOOD thing.

 

[Katja]

i think they are okay. i don't like a lot of the designs though.

 

[Careful With That Axe Pichu!]

Emboar, like Infernape, is based on a character from Journey to the West, a Chinese novel. Those patterns on his body are specifically there to distinguish it's origins.

Also, the whole "too many objects/not enough animals" argument to so bull.

Um, when was that the argument? The argument is whether Pokémon based on animals are getting too stylized.

There are so many pokemon that they naturally need to find new inspiration. Just look at how many monkey/ape pokemon we have! Lots of cats too. If they stuck to almost entirely animals then we are gonna have like, 17 dogs or something. Get reals, guys. Variety is a GOOD thing.

I know, I personally like variations of the same creature, like Rattata and Pikachu, Herdier and Growlithe over drastic stuff like Primeape and Infernape. I mean, I think a flame monkey can just be designed as a flame monkey, not as a flame monkey with a circus attire. XD

Yes, Pokémon are more varied now, but I personally don't like most of the variations! :P

 

[Punches]

Somebody mentions Emboar's body patterns and now you are talking about Infernape. Those two pokemon are NOT based on animals. They are based on specific characters in real-life literature that are in-turn based on animals. They are designed to reflect their origins. Sun Wukong and Pigsy (Journey to the West) are more then just a monkey and a pig. If they just made a normal monkey and pig pokemon, then they wouldn't reflect their character origins at all! Thus, the swirls on their body link them to the fictitious characters.

 

[Kirbychu]

Mind you, Gen I brought us Grimer and Muk, then Koffing and Weezing. I don't see how Trubbish and Garbodor are an example.

It's an excellent example.

Now tell me which set is the most detailed.

Emboar, like Infernape, is based on a character from Journey to the West, a Chinese novel. Those patterns on his body are specifically there to distinguish it's origins.

Also, the whole "too many objects/not enough animals" argument to so bull. There are so many pokemon that they naturally need to find new inspiration. Just look at how many monkey/ape pokemon we have! Lots of cats too. If they stuck to almost entirely animals then we are gonna have like, 17 dogs or something. Get reals, guys. Variety is a GOOD thing.

Um... Who was arguing that?

Could you post examples anyway, even if you don't need to? I tend to disagree with this point and often people just say that without citing any examples, or citing examples that are easily refuted such as Garbodor. Can you show how Pidgey is more organic than Pidove, or Rattata vs. Patrat? Or are there entirely other Pokemon that you're referring to, and which ones?

This is a good example of how round features are more prevalent in newer generations (Another thing I'm not a fan of). The round features makes Pidove look a bit less organic. Pidgey resembles a real bird more. Pay close attention to the wings, beaks, eyes, markings, chests, and feet. Pidove is a lot more stylized.

Rattata vs. Patrat is a good example of more features being thrown onto Pokemon. Rattata is just a purple rat with a curly tail. Patrat is a... Meerkat? Regardless, its eyes are certainly more creative. They resemble some sort eye-wear and it's tail is spiky at the end. The more features you throw on a Pokemon the less organic it looks.

The list goes on and on. Of course there are exceptions. There are realistic, heavily stylized, and downright weird creatures in every generation.

 

[Careful With That Axe Pichu!]

Somebody mentions Emboar's body patterns and now you are talking about Infernape. Those two pokemon are NOT based on animals. They are based on specific characters in real-life literature that are in-turn based on animals. They are designed to reflect their origins. Sun Wukong and Pigsy (Journey to the West) are more then just a monkey and a pig. If they just made a normal monkey and pig pokemon, then they wouldn't reflect their character origins at all! Thus, the swirls on their body link them to the fictitious characters.

I see, that does make sense. Yet I can't help but think Pokémon like Monferno and Samurott still look like 2nd Gen legendaries. Based on whatever they're based, they're still too stylized for me. :s

 

[Oryx]

This is a good example of how round features are more prevalent in newer generations (Another thing I'm not a fan of). The round features makes Pidove look a bit less organic. Pidgey resembles a real bird more. Pay close attention to the wings, beaks, eyes, markings, chests, and feet. Pidove is a lot more stylized.

Hm, round features? I haven't heard that argument before but I can definitely see where you're coming from with that. But if we're going by the definition of stylized meaning unrealistic or unnatural, look at what Pidove is based on:

Spoiler:

The markings above the nose are the same, they also have stripes on the wings and yellow eyes with a dark tail. Pidove is round because Pigeons/gray doves are round, and I feel like Pidgey resembles its origin less (sparrow?) than Pidove does. In fact, sparrows are round as well, and Pidgey is a lot spikier than it should be if it was imitating a natural sparrow.

Rattata vs. Patrat is a good example of more features being thrown onto Pokemon. Rattata is just a purple rat with a curly tail. Patrat is a... Meerkat? Regardless, its eyes are certainly more creative. They resemble some sort eye-wear and it's tail is spiky at the end. The more features you throw on a Pokemon the less organic it looks.

The list goes on and on. Of course there are exceptions. There are realistic, heavily stylized, and downright weird creatures in every generation.

Okay, you can't complain about Pokemon having round features and then imply that a curly tail is better than a spiky tail, lol. While Patrat is an amalgamation of multiple rodents (Meerkat base with chipmunk cheeks and groundhog body structure), that's not uncommon in any generation. Weedle shouldn't have a spike on its head, bee larva don't have that, or legs. Spearow is some kind of bird that Bulbapedia can't even agree on - apparently it's supposed to look like a falcon/sparrow hybrid, which I honestly can't see myself. Nidoqueen/King are amalgamations as well. I'm not going to go through every pokemon that is a mix of animals honestly because that's boring, lol.

His eyes are like that because his specialty is sight, like Meerkats. This is in the same way that Lickitung has a special tongue compared to other Pokemon, because that's what it's known for, and Pinsir having humongous horns, much larger than what it's based on for the same reason.

 

[Kirbychu]

Hm, round features? I haven't heard that argument before but I can definitely see where you're coming from with that. But if we're going by the definition of stylized meaning unrealistic or unnatural, look at what Pidove is based on:

Spoiler:

The markings above the nose are the same, they also have stripes on the wings and yellow eyes with a dark tail. Pidove is round because Pigeons/gray doves are round, and I feel like Pidgey resembles its origin less (sparrow?) than Pidove does. In fact, sparrows are round as well, and Pidgey is a lot spikier than it should be if it was imitating a natural sparrow.

But Pidgey's concept comes from multiple different birds. :|

Another thing to look at is the amount of detail put into the feathers. Pidove looks a lot more stylized in that department as well. It's not just Pidove who's round. Roundish features are a norm for new Pokemon. The older ones generally are a bit spikier.

I have to admit, Pidove isn't as stylized as most of the other new Pokemon, but I'd still say Pidgey does a better job of portraying a real bird. It really looks like they're two totally different art styles.

Okay, you can't complain about Pokemon having round features and then imply that a curly tail is better than a spiky tail, lol. While Patrat is an amalgamation of multiple rodents (Meerkat base with chipmunk cheeks and groundhog body structure), that's not uncommon in any generation. Weedle shouldn't have a spike on its head, bee larva don't have that, or legs. Spearow is some kind of bird that Bulbapedia can't even agree on - apparently it's supposed to look like a falcon/sparrow hybrid, which I honestly can't see myself. Nidoqueen/King are amalgamations as well. I'm not going to go through every pokemon that is a mix of animals honestly because that's boring, lol.

His eyes are like that because his specialty is sight, like Meerkats. This is in the same way that Lickitung has a special tongue compared to other Pokemon, because that's what it's known for, and Pinsir having humongous horns, much larger than what it's based on for the same reason.

Why do you assume I'm complaining? I never implied that a curly tail was better. I actually like Patrat's tail more.

Of course unnatural features are on all Pokemon, but the point is that the newer Pokemon have more of these. I don't recall saying that the older Pokemon were simple as can be. As a matter of fact, that's why I pointed out Rattata's purple fur and curly tail. Still, Weedle only has a horn on it. Rattata only has a curly tail. The thing is, the older Pokemon are just simpler. Look at all the features on the newer Pokemon. Comparing 1st stage Pokemon really doesn't get my point across, because Pokemon gain most of their interesting features once they evolve. It has always been that way. Comparing Charizard to Infernape and Emboar is a lot better than Charmander to Chimchar and Tepig.

Again, all Pokemon have unnatural features, but new Pokemon just have more. What does Blastoise have? His blue skin and cannons? Look at all the stuff on Empoleon and Samurott!

 

[Atomic Pirate]

Some of the Generation 1 Pokes are just abysmal in design. Voltorb and Electrode have uncreative designs, Magmar is literally a butt-head (EXPLOSIVE DIARRHEA!!!), Mr. Mime looks stupid, and Tangela and Jynx are just...nasty. People need to remove their nostalgia goggles before analyzing a new generation. People should stop complaining about Generation V and look at some of the IV Pokes. While some of the new evolutions were great (Gliscor, Yanmega, Electivire), many other Generation IV Pokes were awful. Ambipom was horrendous, the starters were meh, and most others were forgettable. One of the few that I actually like, Chatot, belonged in the tropical and colorful Hoenn region instead of the cold, forbidding Sinnoh region. Although some Generation V Pokemon are awful, some are great! Scolipede, Excadrill, Elgyem, and Eelektross have become my new favorite Bug, Steel, Psychic, and Electric types, for instance. The Snivy line is phenominal, Emboar is great, and the first 2 pokes in the Oshawott line are great! Although the region isn't my favorite, many of the Unova Pokes were great and really showed the potential of GameFreak to create great Pokemon. Plus, this region featured numerous great Psychic types. Munna/Musharna are cute, Elgyem/Beheeyem are cool, and the Reuniclus line shows GameFreak's creativity. I'm not even going to mention Gothitelle and Swoobat, they are ugly. Not to mention weak as heck. I really don't understand why people want Pokemon to just be different-colered cuter variations of animals. Plus, the Gen. 5 animal Pokemon look a lot more organic than the Gen. 5 animals. Just compare Pidgey and Pidove and you will see. Pidove looks more like it's base animal, a pidgeon, while Pidgey doesn't really look like any specific bird, just a bizarre combination of a bunch of different birds. Plus, if you consider Generation 2, Sandile is definitely more of a crocodile than Totodile.

 

[Frisky Arcanine]

I agree with Kirbychu on this one. The whole thing isn't bad, I just find it more aesthetically pleasing - the design style has changed, like design styles always change within groups. 90s designs for products in general were different from those after 2000 and those from the 80s, and so forth for each decade.

Even the design for older pokemon - I've noticed pikachu's head is more like a round ball than a boxy shape. In general I feel like the new designs look like pool toys, while the older designs at least had a comic book feel to them. The Pidgey design vs. Starly is good.

I think the franchise had to start with familiar designs rather than not (and it was also the creator's desire; the games were made for kids that lived in the cities who didn't know what it was like to go out in nature and watch/collect little animals and bugs). They used a lot of common animals as bases, some household charms/objects, and a lot of mythology tossed in. They still do, but now they have more leeway with their designs.

With that said I like the 5th gen for the most part, but the 4th gen was just terrible to me for some reason :p

 

[Niprop]

As you say, Black and White is more of a set of half and half. In other words, there's lots of complex, flashy pokémon out there such as Haxorus and Emboar, but there's also more traditional, simpler designs such as Minccino and Solosis to balance those out.

 

[Guy]

Personally, I've always felt like the second generation and third generation of Pokémon introduced some of the best designs of the franchise in terms of creatures. Many of the Pokémon back then looked more natural in terms of simplicity and design. Although, there were others that became a bit more complex, but not so much to where it looked out of place, so to speak.

When it came the the later generations after Hoenn, a lot more variety of colors were taken into use as well as the complexity of a Pokémon's design. It's like Kirbychu mentioned though, we can probably thank the development of technology for why that occurred compared to the Pokémon since the 90's.

That being said, I never really got into detail when it came to a Pokémon's design. I never really looked at whether it looked more organic, if its body proportions were a little off, or if it might have resembled something from another franchise (which by the way, those Ben 10 comparisons really came as a surprise). I simply decided whether I liked the Pokémon's design or not. I didn't factor in any comparisons or anything like that. While I can say it did take me a bit longer to adjust to Gen V's set of Pokémon compared to the past Pokémon we've had introduced to us from Sinnoh and back, there were a few that I liked right off the back and then there were others that took some time to get used to before I grew to like them. However, there are still some that I see in the game and cringe.

My only complaint with the newer Pokémon are the amount of human-forms we're getting. I do prefer the Pokémon that look more like animals rather than those with human shapes. I also like my simplicity in Pokémon, but I can live with some of the newer styles we're seeing.