6th Gen Pokemon, slowly losing creativity?

[Eucliffe]

Technically speaking, they've been uncreative since Gen. I (see: Voltorb line, Diglett/Magnemite/Doduo line, etc.). And while it does look like they're getting repetitive with some of the Pokemon, I've noticed that even if such and such Pokemon can be classified being in the same family as another, they still likely have different origins. For example, Zubat is a bat as is Woobat, so someone could say Woobat's uncreative; however, Zubat is more loosely based on typical bats while Woobat is specifically based on a type of fruit bat and Heart-nosed bat. That said, there are many mythical/extinct/currently existing species and many natural and man-made things that could be turned into Pokemon, and just because they resemble another existing Pokemon doesn't mean they're uncreative. In fact, I think Nintendo's getting even more creative than before with their designs and origins and the like.

tl;dr Pokemon's been "uncreative" from the beginning and Nintendo's getting more creative with Pokemon by basing them off specific species and stuff rather than placing them in a general category, as well as giving them better designs than just drawing a circle, coloring the top half red and the bottom half white, and adding eyes to it to make it a Pokemon.

 

[tente2]

You all do know that simplicity can be great in many cases, right? And that there's a difference between "creativity" and "shoving as much crap into one creature as possible", right? And judging by what has been revealed, these games certainly seem to lean to the latter.

You can think whatever you like, but we just disagree. And it's fine! It's a matter of opinion, really! So there is no need for the word "certainly", considering it's a subjective matter.

(Unless I've used the word certainly somewhere else on this thread too, that would be very embarassing...)

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

Rah. I hardly think Pokemon is losing creativity, it's just getting started! There is so much they haven't made yet, so many more Pokemon to discover! No matter what, it's quite difficult to state that Pokemon is decreasing in creativity.

 

[Taeshan]

Slightly they have run out of ideas, a lot of the ones until generation three i really new and liked, and four i kinda new a bit and they seemed ok, what i encountered in five i was overall not impressed by, though ill give six a chance if i have time to play when it comes out and money to get it and a 3ds.

 

[Zeniico]

For a long time I have been a fan of pokemon and I love all of the recent generations. But pokemon x and y, im not feeling it. The starters seem kind of like recycled ideas. A frog, fox, and beaver? Pokemon! Snap out of it! We as pokefans want creativity of the free mind. Pokemon is losing their touch. They have too many animal based pokemon. I mean sure, it is fine to use it as inspiration but not as a motive. Hitmonlee was like a weird karate monster looking thing. And Ditto? The heck was that thing? Make more things that questions us as a community. If I can see a pokemon and say "Oh look it's a monkey thing" i'll be discouraged to own it. If i said " wtf is this thing?" I want to know about it. I will catch the hell out of it. I want more out of the creators. If it takes them less than a few months to just announce a new pokemon game. It goes to show that they just make **** up as they go and milk the money from their fans. Sorry but it's true.

hey Roswell. I feel what you're saying and it's ok but, generation 1 had some of the most creative pokemon of all time. But yeah in all honesty, being specific with their species of pokemon doesn't improve creativity. Yes, generation 5 is quite original in many ways. But what about the ice cream cone? Just because it's based on vanilla ice cream means it's specifically unique? Gigalith is unique. Sawk and throh are unique. Scrafty is as well and so is Bisharp. All (except bisharp) are based on specific things. They make you think "what exactly does this thing mean?"

 

[voicerocker]

You all do know that simplicity can be great in many cases, right? And that there's a difference between "creativity" and "shoving as much crap into one creature as possible", right? And judging by what has been revealed, these games certainly seem to lean to the latter.

Based on what? What exactly about any of the 5 revealed says they're "shoving as much crap into one creature as possible"? The Water starter is a blue frog....that in itself is pretty simple, is it not?

Simplicity is also a great way to bore your customers away. The same thing over and over again would cause GameFreak to go out of business, which is why they always try to come up with better stories and more interesting Pokemon. If any of the first 151 Pokemon were introduced today, people would laugh at them for being so simple, especially after Gen 5's great lesson on Yin and Yang with the Unova dragons.

For a long time I have been a fan of pokemon and I love all of the recent generations. But pokemon x and y, im not feeling it. The starters seem kind of like recycled ideas. A frog, fox, and beaver?

How many dogs, cats, spiders, birds, fish or bugs are there in the world? Why can't we have 2 fox Pokemon, especially when they're completely different and probably based on different concepts?

Pokemon! Snap out of it! We as pokefans want creativity of the free mind.

Did you not play Gen 5? The whole Taoism thing wasn't creative?

Pokemon is losing their touch.

We don't even know what this generation's true theme is yet. How can we already say they failed when they haven't started?

They have too many animal based pokemon. I mean sure, it is fine to use it as inspiration but not as a motive.

What? Pokemon are literally "Pocket Monsters", meaning they are creatures, and fictional creatures tend to be based on real ones. Just look at all the other monster series out there like Digimon, Yu-gi-oh and so on. Same thing, most of them are based on animals. Though honestly, I've never seen someone complain about Pokemon being animals before. Usually, they complain about the non-animal Pokemon.

Hitmonlee was like a weird karate monster looking thing. And Ditto? The heck was that thing? Make more things that questions us as a community. If I can see a pokemon and say "Oh look it's a monkey thing" i'll be discouraged to own it. If i said " wtf is this thing?" I want to know about it. I will catch the hell out of it. I want more out of the creators.

Isn't 100+ new Pokemon, a new region, new characters, and new storylines enough? And again, the Taoism gimmick with Reshiram, Zekrom and Kyurem (and its formes) was just crap?

If it takes them less than a few months to just announce a new pokemon game. It goes to show that they just make **** up as they go and milk the money from their fans. Sorry but it's true.

No it's not, and there's no evidence to support it.

hey Roswell. I feel what you're saying and it's ok but, generation 1 had some of the most creative pokemon of all time.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Gen 1 is also the only gen where the Pokemon were simply replacement animals that just existed to exist. There was very little story.

But yeah in all honesty, being specific with their species of pokemon doesn't improve creativity.

But being less specific IS more creative?

Yes, generation 5 is quite original in many ways. But what about the ice cream cone? Just because it's based on vanilla ice cream means it's specifically unique?Gigalith is unique. Sawk and throh are unique. Scrafty is as well and so is Bisharp. All (except bisharp) are based on specific things. They make you think "what exactly does this thing mean?"

ALL Pokemon are based on specific things and/or combinations of specific things, themes, ideas or concepts. And yes, even Bisharp is based on a specific thing:

"It looks similar to a knight and may be based on Arthurian legends of black knights. It bears a strong resemblance to Pulseman from Game Freak's earlier game of the same name. It may also have gained origin from the Kaijin style of Japanese monster movies, involving a humanoid creature that acts as a villain. There is also a resemblance to the Super Sentai and Kamen Rider Series' suited heroes.

Bisharp is a combination of bishop (a piece in chess) and sharp (describing its metal blades); akin to Pawniard evolving into Bisharp, a pawn in chess can be promoted into a bishop piece (among other chess pieces classes) if it reaches the opponent's side of the board. It may also involve to bisect (to cut or split into two), referring to the lethality of Bisharp's cutting abilities."