6th Gen Pokemon, slowly losing creativity?

[Lugia16]

I think they look cute as always.

 

[Elite Four Lucian]

I agree with Satoshi. There are many different kinds of animals in the world, I will be a bit worried though to see a bigfoot type pokemon lol, although it would make a good legendary pokemon.

 

[voicerocker]

The gameplay could be better, more balance, and can tinkered to even more diverse playstyle. Fixing somethin that isn't broke is called tinkering and it ain't no wrong at all. Although in this some part of the gameplay are broken, and need to be fixed.
well you can said that but the existence of Smogon university and other battle junkies out there says otherwise. It wouldn't hurt anyone if they redone an old formula to better one right? That revamps they did in Generation III was good. Their change with experience formula in Generation V was good. I want more other old and untouched formula being change into a new one. They can't use the same old formula forever.

Well, we did get 3 vs. 3 battles in Gen 5. We get new moves and new type combos, which gives us more strategy. The basic formula has remained the same since the 90s. After 5 generations, it seems to be working quite well for them.

 

[Echidna]

To be totally honest, I absolutely love the three starters and the legendary vulture thing <3

The other one is, well, kinda cliche. Deer and all that. But no, I don't think they've lost creativity, it's just that at almost 800 Pokemon now, who can blame them for not being able to come up with anything original. Regardless, every Pokemon I've seen up to date is creative in its own way (Save for Vanillite and it's evolutionary line, imo those were a stupid unnecessary edition that kinda ruined everything for me).

To be quite honest, these starters are the best I've seen in a while.

 

[latioslegends]

To say whether we like the designs or not doesn't solely justify if it's creative. As Sabrewulf mentions, while all of first gen was incredible not every design was really creative.

Fifth gen had a lot of creative concepts; some good, like Mienshao and Samurott; and some bad, like Stunfisk (why?). Sixth gen now is definitely looking to be greatly creative right off the back. The legends are more appealing and vivid than the fifth, while the starters look awesome in design. (heck they already have a fan base in only the first day).

The amount of Pokemon might be overwhelming but, for the most part, hardly any lack some sort creativity.

 

[Star-Lord]

I really don't think it's fair to bash on pokemon for being uncreative in the future generations.

I mean we used eggs as a pokemon in gen 1 and I feel like that's all that really needs to be said. Eggs, of all things.

 

[SolarAbusoru]

I really dislike when people make these claims, if anything, Pokemon is getting even More creative, it's why they've managed to make it far, with creativity and ingenuity.

 

[Iceshadow3317]

Nope there is always crappy pokemon in every generation includeing 1st gen. I was actually hoping for another frog pokemon this generation. You got to think this is for little kids who don't care, not us older people who have played for ages.

 

[shengar]

Generation I design was creative, at that TIME.
That's why I'm rarely complaining today when it comes about Pokemon design, because it tends up bashing Generation I Pokemon altogether. The measure of creativity is always changing.

 

[vaporeon7]

I think that the Pokémon are plenty creative. Just look at the X legendary, it's super creative. You can't judge this generations Pokémon on 5 out of a possible 150+ Pokémon. That's like saying Gen V is uncreative after seeing Tepig, when you haven't even seen the wonders of Petilil or Lilligant yet.

 

[Syncai]

I don't think they are...well, some designs from gen v were a bit eghh, they are all creative in their own way, apart from jynx, it's just plain creepy, i also dislike simisage, eagh that thing scares me.

But anyway, they are still doing something right, because they're still going incredibly strong. I like the look on gen vi so far.
I mean,imo the X legend, granted they did the deer/horse this with the muskateers, actually LOOKS like a god of sorts, (the Y legend looks more of a demon/devil (and don't get me wrong, gen ivs legends were incredible)), I just think certain pokemon are starting to look more vivid and 'realistic', but on the other hand, i guess it could be because their art has improve drastically.

I would love to see a crocodilian/spinsosaur looking pokemon eue

 

[Pinta77]

In ways yes, and in ways no. I think in Gen V, the developers pushed their creativity even further than past generations, which proved to produce mixed results.

I agree^

I think that the games started to get dangerously similar after gen 3, but gen 5 was significantly different. However Gen 6 looks amazing! Honestly, I can't wait, and I have high hopes for this game.

 

[Mista T]

I'm not sure what the grass and fire starters are supposed to be, and I can't see myself as a big fan of the water starter. I think they ran out of ideas...even the titles don't sound very convincing.

Even though I would be quick to buy most Pokemon games, I'll have to say I'll give these a miss come October. (Besides...I don't have a 3DS, nor do I intend to get one.)

The argument that they ran out of ideas for titles because the names are so different from past ones makes negative amounts of sense, yet it's everywhere. Riddle me this, batty: How is it that reusing past animals for Pokemon is uncreative, but breaking away from the persistent naming trend is also deemed uninspired? This is clearly a creative move. They are doing something completely new, and I love it. Here's an idea: I've heard people expressing the idea of X being the horizontal axis and Y being the vertical axis, but I haven't seen people make the connection to the legendaries. Deer that don't go by the name of Dancer, Prancer, Cancer, etc. typically stay out of the skies. However, the bird/dragon legendary definitely can fly. The stag is proficient at horizontal movement, while the bird is adept at vertical translation. Bada-bing, bada-boom: Science.

Also, Fennakin (Finnegan, as I like to call him) is a Fennac Fox (as if the name and design didn't make it obvious) and the little bundle of joy called Chespin is loosely based on a Hedgehog (hence the quills and adorableness). Okay, I think I've satisfied my parentheses quota.

 

[BanditThePikachu]

There are the un-creative ones, but there are also the cool and awesome ones. You can only create so many unique monsters before you run out of ideas. :P

 

[tente2]

If you look at the designs of pokemon from the first gen like Grimer/Muk, Magneton, Dugtrio, Dodrio, Ditto, Voltorb/Electrode I would say that Game Freak are actually more creative than ever. The first gens answer to evolution designs was to stick extra heads on things. (that's not entirely fair but it is definitely a noticeable trend in the first gen)

It baffles me when I see this argument it really does.

I totally agree; I get that some people won't like the new Pokemon—I don't either! I loved Generation 5, and the Generation 6 Deer and Bird Legendaries, but the starters were really upsetting to me. Fennekin was okay and Froaki was borderline acceptable (are those their names? I'm still not used to them!) but the chipmunk thing really... okay, I'm not going to say anything.

But, SERIOUSLY:

 

[Triple R]

The argument that they ran out of ideas for titles because the names are so different from past ones makes negative amounts of sense, yet it's everywhere. Riddle me this, batty: How is it that reusing past animals for Pokemon is uncreative, but breaking away from the persistent naming trend is also deemed uninspired? This is clearly a creative move. They are doing something completely new, and I love it. Here's an idea: I've heard people expressing the idea of X being the horizontal axis and Y being the vertical axis, but I haven't seen people make the connection to the legendaries. Deer that don't go by the name of Dancer, Prancer, Cancer, etc. typically stay out of the skies. However, the bird/dragon legendary definitely can fly. The stag is proficient at horizontal movement, while the bird is adept at vertical translation. Bada-bing, bada-boom: Science.

Also, Fennakin (Finnegan, as I like to call him) is a Fennac Fox (as if the name and design didn't make it obvious) and the little bundle of joy called Chespin is loosely based on a Hedgehog (hence the quills and adorableness). Okay, I think I've satisfied my parentheses quota.

Dude, what the heck are you talking about? I said titles, not names. The starter names are fine (although I noticed the fire- and grass-type starters' names end similarly). It's the X and Y stuff I don't understand.

 

[Deceit]

Let's see here... if I'm not wrong, pokemon came out 17 years ago. 17 years. A lot has changed since then. Remember Pokemon Red and Blue? Well, compare that to FireRed and LeafGreen. Many differences, right? There were many additions, like new pokemon, and the world actually being in color. Now, compare FR and LG to Black 2 and White 2. A LOT of differences. Well, you get my point. Things change over time, and Pokemon is no different.

If you looked at Gen V pokemon and compared them to the first generation, you can see that GF's style has changed a lot. However, even if some of their designs are bad, that doesn't necessarily mean that Pokemon is losing creativity. In fact, I think pokemon is gaining creativity, especially within Gen V, they added many new things, and also fixed some errors they had with a sequel, Black and White 2.

Now, for the starters, I actually kind of like them, though they do look like Fakemon, as Curious mentioned. The designs were a lot better than I had thought they would be. I admit, I didn't like Gen V pokemon much at first, but I usually take time to realize I like something. I expected it to be the same this generation, but I actually like 4/5 pokemon that were revealed, all except Chespin.

 

[tente2]

Dude, what the heck are you talking about? I said titles, not names. The starter names are fine (although I noticed the fire- and grass-type starters' names end similarly). It's the X and Y stuff I don't understand.

Well, I'd just like to add that Pokemon Red and Blue weren't the most creative things ever either; plus, there's a LOT of things X and Y could stand for, so there's a lot of potential! Other people have mentioned genetics (which was a big underlying factor in Generation 1 with several Pokemon, so it's not like you can claim this is a "new" thing), the x- and y-axis, and probably tons of other things I'm missing.

In any case, you're entitled to an opinion of your own, and that's fine! It's not like I blame you, or anything. I just wanted to point that stuff out because you said you didn't "understand" the names!

 

[droomph]

I always hate these type of people.

Creativity is not what you think it is - it is what they think it is.

If you try to embrace them, you'll finally get to love them.

For example, I thought "Oshawott" was a bit foreign-sounding; after a couple months years I got used to it. Same here - Froakie is such an ugly sounding name but I'll have to deal with it, and it'll sink in soon.

And for the designs, same thing. I thought they ran out of ideas too, but eventually I managed to tease out the details hidden inside of them.

This happened to me twice, first with Gen IV (Bidoof comes to mind), and then with Gen V, so I can't imagine the pattern won't repeat.

 

[Quasar Infinity]

Well, I'd just like to add that Pokemon Red and Blue weren't the most creative things ever either; plus, there's a LOT of things X and Y could stand for, so there's a lot of potential! Other people have mentioned genetics (which was a big underlying factor in Generation 1 with several Pokemon, so it's not like you can claim this is a "new" thing), the x- and y-axis, and probably tons of other things I'm missing.

In any case, you're entitled to an opinion of your own, and that's fine! It's not like I blame you, or anything. I just wanted to point that stuff out because you said you didn't "understand" the names!

I agree with the genetics part. The names could stand for the X and and Y chromosomes and the colors on the antlers of the stag correspond to the nitrogen bases in DNA.