Design or Power?

[Snowdrop]

Do you judge your Pokemon by design or power? Or some of both? Do explain!

Now I know a lot of 'trainers' would look down on my for saying this, but I judge Pokemon exclusively and solely by design. I couldn't care less about how powerful it is. As for design, I usually dislike Pokemon based off of inanimate objects, look too human-like, or have too many unneeded widgets on them (4th gen lmao). I prefer animal Pokemon or mythical, like a lot of other people do.

So what about you?

 

[oshawottlover13]

design. i never look at its stats. its only iif you know how to use it. but i always pick by design, even for starters.

 

[UberUmbreon1]

A combination of both, i had a pretty good sweep team for the elite four in gen 3, and they looked pretty awesome.

 

[F1refly]

I also look purely at design. I couldn't care less if the genie pokemon were the most powerful in the game, I don't like their design so I don't use them. I also generally don't like pokemon based off of Bats, Pigs, Cows and Deer or inanimate objects. So for me design overules all, as if you put enough hard work into a pokemon, you can turn a Ninjask into a Lvl 100 Reshiram beating pokemon.

 

[Clark]

The main appeal to me is design. I love all Pokemon designs, but the ones I particularly adore end up being my favorites. I don't really focus on "power" at all; if that were the case you'd just be using legendaries, since they have the highest base stat totals.

But I do focus on stat layouts. Oftentimes I'll find that a Pokemon has a surprising or unique set of stats for the sort of Pokemon it appears to be, and that'll get me interested enough to try using it. For instance, in a Platinum runthrough right now, I'm using a Pachirisu for the first time. I only recently noticed Pachirisu's best stats are its defenses. I'd assumed he was just your standard low-stat miserable Pikachu ripoff of the region, but as it turns out his ability to take a few hits makes him really fun to use. I don't tend to pick my teams based entirely on stats, but they definitely do make a Pokemon more fun for me.

 

[LightningAlex]

I judge Pokemon exclusively and solely by design. I couldn't care less about how powerful it is. As for design, I usually dislike Pokemon based off of inanimate objects, look too human-like, or have too many unneeded widgets on them. I prefer animal Pokemon or mythical, like a lot of other people do.

So what about you?

Wow, this is exactly how I feel - you couldn't have said it better. I really dislike Pokemon based on inanimate objects, like Kling, Klang & Klingklang... The only exceptions for this are Staryu & Starmie, because I love stars.
I couldn't care less about how powerful a Pokemon is. If it looks awesome, it is awesome!

 

[Snowdrop]

Actually, Starmie and Staryu are based off of starfish instead of just stars xD But thank you! Yeah, I'm definitely not a fan of the Klink things lmao.

 

[Pecilia]

Design, I honestly don't like having Pokemon based on power, normally because they don't have appealing looks. Looks are everything, why get Pokemon that reflect nothing on what you like to see on Pokemon (example: Cuteness) when you can have a Pokemon that shows you personality more. Don't get Pokemon based for power, get Pokemon that appeal to you, makes you look more better when you know how to use them. :P

 

[droomph]

design, then maybe power a couple levels in.

usually though I keep all of them in.

 

[XtinaIsMeLuvinWWE]

Design all the way - I find I can use any pokémon if I like it enough haha, I'm indifferent to stats :)

 

[coolcatkim22]

Design. Power can be easily programmed into each Pokemon. There are programs and devices created to do just that very thing. It's not difficult.

Design is something that needs talent. You need to have creativity which is something that most people struggle with.

 

[Sirfetch’d]

Design. Plain and simple, Any pokemon can be powerful. Castform is one of my favorite pokemon ever. No, i would never use it competively, but in game it is great and super unique.

 

[LightningAlex]

Karen of the Elite 4 agrees with most of us that design is more important than power: "Strong Pokémon. Weak Pokémon. That is only the selfish perception of people. Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favorites. I like your style. You understand what's important. Go on—the Champion is waiting."

 

[halcyonic]

The designs of Pokemon won't show if they are strong or weak IMO, except for Magikarp & friends. I agree with what LightningAlex's quote from Karen's saying. I train all sorts of Pokemon regardless design.

 

[Isasapiens]

Both. To me, if a Pokemon is only appealing, but not very powerful, I toss it aside.
Same way goes to powerful, but extremely unappealing (to me) Pokemon.

 

[Mithel_Celestia]

In competitive battles, Its both Design and Power, basically the same as Isasapiens above me.

For Plot teams, Its Design. If I like the pokemon's design, I use it. I defeat Gym Leaders with them, fight evil Teams and the Elite Four with them.

 

[PlatinumDude]

I pick Pokemon based on their looks and their competitive viability in-game. Competitively, I go for power and synergy.

 

[pokemaster0823]

I'm a design type of girl. I go with whatever Pokemon is the cutest or prettiest. I'm not the type of person who only cares about a Pokemon if I can turn it into a battle machine. In my opinion, being able to work with any Pokemon regardless of stats and still win is what makes someone a good trainer, not obsessing over stats and breeding for perfection.

 

[NintendoQueen]

I like Pokemon based on appearance too Gosh! I'm so shallow!!
No, but I like when a Pokemon looks cute, cool, or interesting. Each Pokemon has it's own strengths and weaknesses, so I go for the looks.

 

[Oryx]

When I'm in-game, I almost solely base it on appearance since you can win with any kind of Pokemon really. But competitively I don't care at all about appearances, only what the Pokemon can do power-wise.

But my favorite Pokemon is my favorite because it's powerful and has a great design, so there's that. C: