Is GameFreak... *sigh* running out of ideas?

[Eruption]

The only problem I ever see with some of the pokémon concepts created recently are their ideas are executed awfully. Honedge could've been a cool thing, a sword pokémon isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the design is pathetic especially when unsheathed.

But then in my opinion Gen II has the worst designs and there's a good section of the pokemon (around #180-220) were there are only two or three good designs.

Put simply no. When they keep repeating the same type of pokemon (e.g. we have ten types of dog, twenty lizards etc.) they will have ran out of ideas.

 

[FSNW5yiFrXVXqv]

Honedge could've been a cool thing, a sword pokémon isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the design is pathetic especially when unsheathed.

Hmm.. I thought the design was pretty neat. even though it looks like something you'd pull from Zelda. LOL.

But yeah, I know what you mean...

 

[Palkia]

It's not that pokémon is running out of ideas, It's just that for a period of time, a lot of great ideas were poorly executed, mainly in Gen 5 as well as a couple Gen 6 ones. (seriously, Mewtwo Awakened Forme? A complete version of Mewtwo is a sweet idea, but it looks sooo wimpy.)

The ideas were there: A dragon with a axe as a jaw? Great! A three headed flying hydra? Interesting! An alien zombie dragon that resembles nothingness, and can fuse with a pokemon that resembles modern technology and a pokemon that reminisces old technology? Amazing!

All the three pokémon above were, in my opinion, ruined during their execution due to horrible design choices. However, the ideas were there, and if the final pokémon designs weren't so... bad, they would be instant classics.

Now, there have always been stupid pokémon. Upside down pokéball, animate ice cream, purple splodges of sludge.

And, there are also lazily designed pokémon as well. Seel, Diglett, Kricketot, Half of Gen V's roster.

Bad pokémon designs have always been around, and while I feel most of them are from Gen V, that's not saying that they are exclusive to that generation.

One last thing, if they ever run out of ideas, they'll just hire more people to think of pokémon ideas.

Now why did I just spend 10 minutes typing this post where I could've just simply posted that? -.-

 

[tnfsf11]

THAT thread again? -_-
GF didn't run out of ideas, it's just taking Pokémon further by having a greater diversity in pokes & by using more & more exotic animals & objects...

You're just blinded by Nostalgia right now, but it's a passing phase, I was in it once (Lord knows it was awful!) but anyway try focusing on the good sides & be less pessimistic :)

 

[Spinosaurus]

It's not that pokémon is running out of ideas, It's just that for a period of time, a lot of great ideas were poorly executed, mainly in Gen 5 as well as a couple Gen 6 ones. (seriously, Mewtwo Awakened Forme? A complete version of Mewtwo is a sweet idea, but it looks sooo wimpy.)

The ideas were there: A dragon with a axe as a jaw? Great! A three headed flying hydra? Interesting! An alien zombie dragon that resembles nothingness, and can fuse with a pokemon that resembles modern technology and a pokemon that reminisces old technology? Amazing!

All the three pokémon above were, in my opinion, ruined during their execution due to horrible design choices. However, the ideas were there, and if the final pokémon designs weren't so... bad, they would be instant classics.

Now, there have always been stupid pokémon. Upside down pokéball, animate ice cream, purple splodges of sludge.

And, there are also lazily designed pokémon as well. Seel, Diglett, Kricketot, Half of Gen V's roster.

Bad pokémon designs have always been around, and while I feel most of them are from Gen V, that's not saying that they are exclusive to that generation.

One last thing, if they ever run out of ideas, they'll just hire more people to think of pokémon ideas.

Now why did I just spend 10 minutes typing this post where I could've just simply posted that? -.-

Good post. Sums up exactly how I feel about Gen 5's Pokemon (ALL OF THEM, pretty much). A samurai water starter sounds like a fantastic idea on paper and there is no way you could screw it up right? ...Yeah. You'd forget it was even a samurai. Didn't help the art style was really bland during that gen.

Luckily gen 6 Pokemon look much better but still not quite up to par in execution in terms of design like gen 1-3, and some of gen 4. There are some really really great designs (that water started for instance, probably the best designed water starter if you were to ask me), but you get some real stinkers like the fire starter.

 

[Brane]

Has it become a trend to start dismissing new generations in favour of the early generations? Five years ago people were still saying R/S/E Pokemon were horrible and now they're apart of the 'golden' generations. Hell I even see a bit of a creeping idea that people are going to include Generation 4 in that category. Thing is, people have always done this with EVERY continuing franchise, they ALWAYS say the first were the best and it becomes some obligation and social standard to agree with that.

So far these new Pokemon are great, I'm loving the concepts (par for maybe the sword, but I'd say that's also heavily influenced by culture). It's not all that easy to shoot out 150 new Pokemon each few years that are all amazingly well drawn and created, because you have to remember that they have certain things they want to adhere to, maybe the gen beforehand they didn't have enough flying Pokemon, or maybe there are certain Pokemon out there that are being overused in WiFi etc. Not too mention this generation they have included a great new type, and you shouldn't expect anything other then cute from a Fairy type in Pokemon.

People are starting to get a nitpicky for no real reason, I don't understand what's is so horrible about having inanimate objects for Pokemon, like we're defying some secret rules of the universe.

Not to mention the Pokemon this generation are damn well drawn. I'm loving all of them so far, and I reckon that sword Pokemon will grow on me. But hey, people are entitled to their own opinions.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Oh my god I'm so sick and tired of when people say this crap. I find the new style in X and Y really interesting, and some of the ideas such as Noivern, Skrelp and Honedge are pretty cool to me (Come on... a cursed sword? That's wicked awesome!). Sure, Paruppafu looks... eh and so does Flabebe but... every generation has its duds. Look at Diglett, or Dunceparce. But there's people who like those as well. And I'm sure there are people who like those two things too (personally I find Shushup adorable!)

Personally I really like how Gen VI is shaping up, much more than my opinion of Gen IV. Woo!

 

[Treecko]

s.
Put simply no. When they keep repeating the same type of pokemon (e.g. we have ten types of dog, twenty lizards etc.) they will have ran out of ideas.

Yeah but the thing is there's hundred of different types of species of animals; dogs, cats, fish ,lizards. So I wouldn't say that having multiple kinds of Pokemon based of the same species isn't running out of ideas.

It's not that pokémon is running out of ideas, It's just that for a period of time, a lot of great ideas were poorly executed, mainly in Gen 5 as well as a couple Gen 6 ones. (seriously, Mewtwo Awakened Forme? A complete version of Mewtwo is a sweet idea, but it looks sooo wimpy.)

The ideas were there: A dragon with a axe as a jaw? Great! A three headed flying hydra? Interesting! An alien zombie dragon that resembles nothingness, and can fuse with a pokemon that resembles modern technology and a pokemon that reminisces old technology? Amazing!

All the three pokémon above were, in my opinion, ruined during their execution due to horrible design choices. However, the ideas were there, and if the final pokémon designs weren't so... bad, they would be instant classics.

[/size]

Personally I think the examples you used weren't good , actually really like the designs of all the ones you mentioned. Though I agree with you some Pokemon are great concepts, though their designs were poorly done.


Gamefreak are far from out of ideas. There's still many animals and objects and among that can be out of Pokemon. And some animals like dogs and fish have many different kinds of the same species so why can't Pokemon do the same?

Personally I love alot of the Gen VI Pokemon shown so far and think many are really creative and they're even better than Gen V ones. A goat Pokemon you can ride? Neat! A possessed sword? Cool! Sure there's some like Paruppafu and Shushup are odd (I have no idea what kind of bird Shushup is supposed to be.) But every generation has odd and awfully designed Pokemon. Magnets, a Pokemon that's supposed to be a Pokeball, ice cream, weird opera singer thing, a bunch of letter, floating leaves, etc. I mean sure you can have an opinion, and you don't have to like them all, but I just wish some people were more open-minded about the newer Pokemon, because not all of them are THAT bad.

 

[Whitney's Shaymin]

Whoever thinks this crap is dead wrong but that could just be my opinion. I think the new Pokemon are cool. Even the cheesy/crappy ones like vannilite and amoonguss i still thought were bad-ass. Even generation there's cools and craps but if your a true pokemon fan you should like all of them (like me).

 

[bobandbill]

Due to this, people from across the planet (except for Japan of course. Japan will always play Pokemon) are dropping Pokemon for its new "customs." They think Pokemon has grown into a strange and terrible game. Is this true?

Let's look at sales, given that's a fairly decent standard to see how gen 5 has faired, the currently newest currently-out games.

As of March 2013, the games' combined sales have reached 15.42 million, putting the titles amongst the best selling games for the Nintendo DS.[7]

As of January 2013, Pokémon Black 2 and White 2 have combined sales of 7.63 million copies worldwide.[124]

Not bad, especially when DP had 17 million+, platinum with 7 and HGSS with 12+. Also the same sort of range that RSE had (RS had 13 million)...

So I don't think that people around the world are dropping Pokemon going by that standard. There are people complaining about it (both with no sense behind their statements, and with constructive criticism), but this has happened before too, and there's no indication that sales have changed dramatically gen to gen.

As for the whole "designs are getting worse" debate... it's all based on opinion.

A good statement, here.

The game design is admittedly copy-paste in parts (with Game Freak we're still getting a starter from a professor, beating 8 gyms, beating a team along the way, becoming the champion, etc), but this I don't think is running out of ideas as much as a purposeful choice of Game Freak, because that same base formula has worked over and over. Sometimes sticking to the same thing is just what people want, and what gets sales.

 

[Sweets Witch]

I groaned at this thread so loudly that my neighbor came over and asked if I was okay. She brought me a box of popsicles so thank you for disgusting me with this weak-ass argument, OP. I got some popsicles out of it.

But yeah. Weak-ass argument. Somehow I manage to roll my eyes a little harder every time someone says something like this. You bet your ass that I disagree with Pokemon "warping" from what it once was. As stated before, Pokemon hasn't deviated from its basic formula since the beginning and that's why it continues to sell so well despite all of these "warped" changes like trash bags and candlewicks. Because those things are so much worse than sentient rocks and magnets. Stop letting nostalgia fog up your vision and look at how the basis of the series hasn't changed a bit over the years.

 

[Keiran]

I see the same argument all the time, and it's always the same few Pokemon that people list to bash an entire generation- and I think that's very insulting to the designers, and their fans, and it's also very ignorant to say something like "lol ice cream pokemon" because it's not literally ice cream.

If you don't like a Pokemons design, that is your problem and not Gamefreaks. Personally I have played Pokemon since R&B and the Pokemon have only gotten better. I have so many favorites from Gen 5, and I hate seeing the same ignorant argument try to bash a hard working company 'cause they don't like 1 or 2 designs out of groups of 100-150 Pokemon.

Idk I just think its dumb to assume artists are failing at their job cause you aren't entirely pleased.

Edit:
And did someone say Haxorus had a poor design? Lord have mercy on your forsaken soul.

 

[Atomic Pirate]

In a word, yes. I mean, every generation has had bad ideas, though I personally don't think that generation 2 had any (I personally like Shuckle and Dunsparce), but Generation 5 was easily the worst generation with the most forgettable and otherwise awful designs, and Generation 6 only looks slightly better.

At least it did before this announcement. When you see cotton candy and perfume being made into Pokemon, you should know that something is wrong.

 

[Sweets Witch]

When you see cotton candy and perfume being made into Pokemon, you should know that something is wrong.

And what exactly would be wrong? In the past there have been rocks with arms, piles of lava, acorns, bells, and gears. Every generation has a few silly designs. That isn't a bad thing.

 

[Spinosaurus]

Jesus christ people comparing turd with other turds doesn't make it any less of a turd.

It doesn't help that Vanillite is literally an Ice Cream with eyes and a mouth slapped on. At least Magnemite has a design.

At least it did before this announcement. When you see cotton candy and perfume being made into Pokemon, you should know that something is wrong.

I thought you were joking (been avoiding spoilers) so I went to take a check...and it ain't so bad at all. Not a fan of the design, but it's not bluntly a perfume. Hell took me a while to know which Pokemon you were referring to. It's as much of a perfume as Jigglypuff is a balloon.

The candy Pokemon is awful though.

 

[Keiran]

Vanillite and its family are not literally ice cream. They are creatures made entirely of ice, that choose to cover themselves in snow. It's more like a scary icicle that wants to be cute so it makes itself look like something people love. Honestly its a really adorable Pokemon, but it gets a lot of hate from people who don't understand its design.

Also, the guy who designed the Vanillite family designed 3 families total, so it's not like the same guy has been designing Pokemon for 20 years and doesn't know what else to do. I mean he also created Golurk and no ones ever complained about its design.

When people point out less-than-spectacular Pokemon from Gen 1 they aren't trying to justify your opinion on Gen 5, by the way. They're saying not every Pokemon from each generation is going to have a design you approve of, and that the definition of opinion really defeats this topic.

 

[FSNW5yiFrXVXqv]

and it's also very ignorant to say something like "lol ice cream pokemon" because it's not literally ice cream.

Maybe so, maybe not. It may go either way. (wall of text coming)

Spoiler:

If the statement was meant to be sarcastic (hard to tell in the internet), then perhaps it would be an ignorant assumption. But the odds are that they're not even trying to be sarcastic -- they're generally just "lol'ing" at the design.

* Note that I said "perhaps" because even sarcasm comes in many ways.

Generally, you can't really blame anybody for giving such statement. I mean, seriously, first impressions last. Even if you got a Pokedex or a bunch of nerds to explain everything by paper, you can't deny that it does look that way. When it was announced, like the new cotton-candy pup we have now, there were no dex entries so there's really no way to describe such pokemon nor it's origins other than through it's appearance.

It leads to ignorant assumptions, yes, but the statement alone is not ignoring anything...yet.

tl;dr can't really judge based on one line/sentence >_<

Anyway, back to topic...

Banette to Trainer:
"Are you saying I'm stupid?"

Bannette to crowd:
"Whose idea was this? huh?!"
"Was it yours, princess?" *looks at Ken Sugimori*
"Let's just think about the logic, shall we? Let's just think about it for a second" *yadda yadda*

Ken Sugimori's reply:
"WHAT?!! What are you talkin' about?!"
"YOU... ARE... A... TOY!!!"
"You're a-- Aw, you're an action figure! You are a child's plaything!"

If you think the same way, you might be too old to be playing Pokemon.
(also, guess where those quotes came from ;))

 

[Clark]

I've always seen this discussion popping back up, but I realized I've never seen much of a real analasys of how many "inanimate object Pokemon" are actually in each generation. So, I figured it'd be interesting to try organizing some numbers myself. It's probably a little biased in some way or another; some Pokemon are a little on the borderline between "inanimate" and "organic". But I tried to be as true to their origins and designs as I could.

Spoiler:

Gen 1: 13/151 = 9%
(Geodude, Graveler, Golem, Magnemite, Magneton, Voltorb, Electrode, Grimer, Muk, Exeggcute, Koffing, Weezing, Ditto. I'm tempted to include Jigglypuff because it's plainly stated to be based on a balloon, but I'll let it slide since it shares more traits with fairies and small cutesy animals. Gastly and Exeggutor are pretty debatable. Porygon's also kind of inanimate but I'm not gonna push it with him.)

Gen 2: 2/100 = 2%
(Unown, Wobuffet. Hitmontop's a little iffy so I'll leave him out, but bear in mind he is an anthropomorphic spinning top.)

Gen 3: 8/135 = 6%
(Nosepass, Solrock, Lunatone, Baltoy, Claydol, Shuppet, Banette, Chimecho. The Regis are kind of questionable I guess but given their origins are mythological golems I'd rather not count them. Latios and Latias are suspiciously similar to jet planes. Jirachi is sometimes considered to be an anthropomorphic star.)

Gen 4: 9/107 = 8%
(Drifloon, Drifblim, Chingling, Bronzor, Bronzong, Magnezone, Probopass, Rotom. Rotom's formes can be kinda questionable, though; they're literally household appliances, but Rotom itself is a poltergeist, meaning the actual Pokemon isn't an inanimate object.)

Gen 5: 17/156 = 11%
(Roggenrola, Boldore, Gigalith, Trubbish, Garbodor, Vanillite, Vanillish, Vanilluxe, Kling, Klang, Klinklang, Litwick, Lampent, Chandelure, Cryogonal, Golett, Golurk)

Two (or three, what with the "perfume" Pokemon that looks nothing like a bottle of perfume) out of the 25 Gen 6 Pokemon revealed so far appear to be based on inanimate objects.

It's worth taking into account that the regions themselves seem to have a pretty big influence on the kinds of Pokemon that inhabit them, especially looking at those percentages. Kanto is a fairly urbanized region with an emphasis on computer technology and several large cities, so there's a few Pokemon based on machines and pollution. Johto, on the other hand, has smaller towns and villages, agricultural influence, and a heavy influence on traditional values - Gen 2 thus has the smallest amount of inorganic Pokemon. Hoenn and Sinnoh have their fair share of inanimate object Pokemon, but they tend to be based on ancient artifacts rather than modern objects. And Unova, as the most heavily urban and industrialized region, has several object-based evolution lines.

I don't really understand how Pokemon based on inanimate objects are any less inventive or creative than Pokemon based on animals. If anything, they have to be designed much more creatively. The designer has to bring a nonliving object to life, turn a lump of material into a lively animated creature. Meanwhile several animal and plant based Pokemon are simply stylized versions of a common species (Gen 1 is especially guilty of this). I think you've gotta focus more on what goes into a design, not just what the design is based on. It takes a lot more "ideas" and "creativity" to make a creature out of an object than it does to make a creature out of a creature.

 

[FSNW5yiFrXVXqv]

You forgot Muk, Grimer, Pineco, Combee, Pawniard, Bisharp and basically Onix and Steelix (which are made by a bunch o magnetic rocks I guess).

Magmar's line also counts if not among the borderline "such creatures may actually exist". Elekid (lolplug) is the only one i'd count from Electabuzz's line.

These look cool, though, so no one hates them. Even for the plugheads and buttheads.

 

[Clark]

Oh yeah. I meant to include Grimer and Muk but must have missed them... somehow. Pineco is classified as a bagworm, and Combee as a bee, so I'd leave 'em. Parniard and Bisharp are kind of like Jigglypuff and Hitmontop I'd say - based obviously on objects but so anthropomorphic that you don't really think of them as being literal chess pieces (compared to Trubbish being a literal trash bag or Bronzong being a literal bell). Onix and Steelix have rocky bodies but their origins have more to do with earthworms and (probably) a particular mythological burrowing dragon. But yeah, those are all really relevant, too.

Magmar and Electabuzz are apparently based on Japanese mythological demons.