5th Gen What happened to the old simple Pokemon?

[MistahDude]

See the similarity? Torterra looks like an Ankylosaurus.

 

[Bloothump]

Also, Torterra's origins have already been explained in this topic.

 

[MistahDude]

Again, 4th generation has a tendence to ruin evolutions. Many of the Pokemon were ok, but almost every evolution destroy the first Pokemon.

Rhydon evolved to Rhyperior to be better at battling. He gained massive amounts of armor, which made him a HUGE and destructive battling machine/rock monster thing! In a world where pokemon are used mainly for battle, it makes sense that Rhydon would need more body armor to compete in more battles.

If you think it "destroyed" pokemon you aren't open to change and/or you aren't aware that pokemon is a battling game.

 

[Trap-Eds]

They combined a turtle myth and an ancient dinosaur thing for Torterra, how is that not any more orginal than a dino...thing with a flower on it's back? If anything they took the same idea and made it more interesting, like with Magnemite/Beldum/Bronzor. Pokemon nowadays are still based off real animals or objects. They just look more like they were meant to fight because, they're kinda supposed to. *rolls eyes* This is kinda getting repetitive... *wonders if any Japanese fans complain about this*

 

[o0PinkSquid0o]

I am actually really astonished at how dense the OP of this thread is... it almost seems like they are arguing for the sake of arguing... Aquila, are you a troll by any chance?
Your arguments make absolutely no sense... if you want to play a game where the characters look just like real animals, go play 'Simplz Zoo' on Steam.. omg.. its a game.. where you're a zoo keeper and you look after real animals! Or go get Nintendogs :D you play with dogs... yeah dogs that look like real life dogs! zomg amazing.

Pokemon don't need to look like real animals :| they're not real. Also pokemon stands for pocket MONSTERS....MON-STERS monsters can be anything.

Gen V is the best Gen to come out in a very long time. The Pokemon look amazing so far, no, they are not too complex if you compare them to other Gens and yeah, some do represent real animals so what on earth is your problem with it?

Can you actually provide us with a real reason to hate them besides the whole "durrrrr hurrr they be no hard workin enuff" whatever that means :S

BTW I don't care if this sounds 'mean' you started a thread to discuss this, then tell me my last post was unintelligent? Well I feel your entire argument is unintelligent.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I already know I'm pretty apprehensive about change... that's not to say that IV didn't bring in some decent Pokémon, Luxrays are sweet! But I'm just a stubborn teen who remembers one Christmas waking up to his first Game Boy and Pokémon Red... I really can't help but compare every Generation against R/B/G.

 

[Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty]

However, Empeleon dosn't look like a penguin at all IMO. Blastoise would be a much more natural sight out in the nature than Infernape because Infernape seems like a animal that has produced human-made shields in a world that has "not been affected by humans". It's not wild - it's made for serving trainers. No offense, but Bastadion looks like a Shield with a mouth. It doesn't have to train to become highly definsive, it is a shield not a hardworking animal.

BLASTOISE HAS BAMFING CANNONS ERUPTING FROM HIS SHELL. CANNONS. ARE NOT. NATURAL. Can you please tell us how these are natural or not 'human-made shields' as Blastoise seems to be your only defence when talking about natural or unnatural evolutions? Right now you're just repeating "BLASTOISE IS NATURAL INFERNAPE IS UNNATURAL" ad nauseum without actually explaining your reasoning.

 

[Sage Harpuia]

Because honestly the only poison types in the first generation were a venus flytrap, a piece of sludge, and a poisonous plant. Not to mention poisonous snakes with their names spelled backwards(how witty).

BLASTOISE HAS BAMFING CANNONS ERUPTING FROM HIS SHELL. CANNONS. ARE NOT. NATURAL. Can you please tell us how these are natural or not 'human-made shields' as Blastoise seems to be your only defence when talking about natural or unnatural evolutions? Right now you're just repeating "BLASTOISE IS NATURAL INFERNAPE IS UNNATURAL" ad nauseum without actually explaining your reasoning.

Haha...this two post made me laugh a lot...and the fun fact is that I was using a notebook in a middle of a cafe XD

Anyway @ Twilight Sky you forgot...a poisonius levitating ball :P
@ Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty I think that he is so much sure that pokemon are changing to the worst, that he focuses only in the simple pokemon part in gen I, and he overlook the point that they share with the new generation... if you look carefully you can notice that all the pokemon share this duble nature of beig based on animal and have, at the same time, unnatural feature: this is what makes pokemon unique avoiding being boring and resemble digimon.

 

[Diablo361]

Ok.. I got to admit, I got a bit carried a way during my last post. About Blastoise. It has the ability to hide the cannons and I remember some episodes seeing wild Blastoises out on the beach. It looked like it belonged there.
When I think apes, they are angry creatures with personality that live in trees. I can't really see Infernape doing anything other than loyal and bahaved serving of a trainer.

OK, your opinion.

Saying Muk is a ugly pekoemn is up to every person, but to me it's the perfect sewage-monster.
Now about the getting out of concept argument. I meant the Anime. The game concept is still good, and that's why I enjoy playing it (mostly old gens).
You think rattata is ugly. I don't. You think Butterflies evolutions are too simple and realistic - I like it just for that reason.

They are not ugly. They are uncreative - BIG DIFFERENCE. It takes no skills to come up with something like Butterfree or Rattata. It's just Animeing an animal HURR DURR AWESOME POGEYMANS, or to draw a big pile of slime (Grimer) and make it bigger to look like something has been done (Muk).

The worst argument you came with here was the Mew, Celebi-argument. Mew and Celebi are creatures. They have overdone the new legendaries too much. Now I'm first of all thinking about Dialgia and Palkia from the 4th generation. I don't dislike the 3rd generation. If you can't see what i mean by comparing the looks of Mew and Celebi to Palkia and Dialga and say that Palkia and Dalgia are exaggerated, you're a not as smart as you'd like to appear.

Yeah, Mew and Celebi are not as simple as Dialga or Palkia. However, for Gen 1 and Gen 2 standards, they are still some of the most complex from those Gens. They aren't complex now, but they were some of the most complex for thier respective Gens.

Plus, they are smaller. A complex design wouldn't work well.

Empeleon = Emperor penguin?

Umm... yeah. That's why Empoleon has the tuxedo. Add a bit of design and you're done. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER POKEMON.

Now onto Torterra. Triceratops doesn't look like Torterra at all.

Never said it did. Using Triceratops as an example of your NATRUAL POGEYMANS theory.

And I especially disliked Gamefreaks attempt of combining types. Torterra is a Dinosaur and turtle appearantly and to me it doesn't look like any of those. The tree won't LOOK natural no matter how much you say it is natural. Bulbasaur(w/ evolutions) are monsters adapted to the nature/forest - simple.

Torterra is an Anklosaur (Didn't someone mention this already?) based off the World Turtle mythology of the American Indian tribes. It's MEANT to have some sort of plant. And like I said, twigs=trees as bulbs=flowers.

Torterra=Venusaur. Arguing differently makes you sound moronic.

Croagunk is living in the swamp, and it's a frog. fine Pokemon, but then comes Toxicroak who looks like a Frogfish which naturally has fightingskills. Again, 4th generation has a tendence to ruin evolutions. Many of the Pokemon were ok, but almost every evolution destroy the first Pokemon.

Magikarp is a fish that flops around. At Lv. 20, it evolves into Gyrados, a serpentine creature. Which has more correlation, Croagunk to Toxicroak or Magikarp to Gyarados?

And hating Toxicroak is your opinion :/

Half of the "simple" Pokemon you mentioned, I can't really compare with something I've seen. Gulpin is a eating blob. Glameow has a simple tail and a naturally formed head. Bronzor is.. - a metal-thingy with a metal-thingier evolution?
Magnemite has a natural flow with magnetism, Gear has.. a natural roll?
Shroomish is.. hmm..

It makes them ORIGINAL. It means A GOOD IDEA. Bronzor is based off a myth.

And here you are again with this natural ********. It floats in the air. It's still no different than Gear.

My thesis isn't necessarily wrong. Pokemon was popular almost momentarily and the first Pokemon gens could be the main reason why fans have risen in numbers.
My thesis was: if they'd make simple and more realistic pokemon I think they would sell more.
conclusion is: We'll never know.
I don't have time to answer any other answers for probably a long time because of work and social events. So do yourself a favour and save us both some time by answering short or not at all..

Your thesis is wrong because it lacks substantive evidence to it, therefore nullifying it. According to sales, DPPt> RSE> GSC> RBY. Therefore, Pokemon has gotten more popular. Therefore Game Freak has been doing something right.

 

[Tanaki]

Times change. People's styles change. It's how things work, evolve and reach the final point of being good or bad in the eyes of the consumer. I agree that a lot of the designs are bad, but there are an exceptional few pokemon that tend to look good in each generation. If it stays too close to the original formula it isn't being creative enough. If it strays too much then it's awful. The fact is that Nintendo/Gamefreak can't please everyone. All they can do is give it their best and hope that people like what they've done.

I don't like every pokemon and I have my own nit-picks about a lot of them, but I challenge any of you to conceptualize, design and show off over 500 of your own original characters and find that no one has a single bad thing to say about any of them.

 

[Nikorasu]

idk if this ever goes through your mind but:

voltorb
electrode
eggxecute
eggecutor
magnemite
magneton
koffing
weezing
and rhydon, cant think of a real animal that resembles it. (not that i hate it)

but at the same time, many real ones like tauros and seaking. get over it. its been in all generations. and dont tell me finneon/lumineon looks like a 100% stitched together mutant thingy.

You managed to pick a few, but there are so many i can mention witht he new gens.

Bronzer
Bronzong
Bastiodon
Burmy
Wormadam
Cherrum
Dialga
Palikia - Those 2 are just plastic.

Those are just a few of the many i really hate >.<

Not only that but some of the pokemon just look plain ugly,

I mean carnivine for one thing is just suicidal...

But! you cant complain about everything with the new gens.

Alot of people commonly quote things like "Now pokemon are ending up with trees on their backs" To be fair, look at venusaur... ok, so its like some flower branch, can almost relate to a tree D:

 

[Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty]

You managed to pick a few, but there are so many i can mention witht he new gens.

Bronzer
Bronzong
Bastiodon
Burmy
Wormadam
Cherrum
Dialga
Palikia - Those 2 are just plastic.

Those are just a few of the many i really hate >.<

Not only that but some of the pokemon just look plain ugly,

I mean carnivine for one thing is just suicidal...

But! you cant complain about everything with the new gens.

Alot of people commonly quote things like "Now pokemon are ending up with trees on their backs" To be fair, look at venusaur... ok, so its like some flower branch, can almost relate to a tree D:

Yeeeah, but you kinda missed the point of Jerme's post. (S)He was saying how it's A-OK to accuse the new Pokémon games of having bizarre Pokémon, but a lot of people are forgetting that the old ones did as well. This is why (s)he made a list of Voltorb and the likes. You can't make the sort of "bah the new Pokémon are liek soooo unrealistic!" claim when Pokémon has a history of unrealistic creatures.

 

[Gary Oak FTW]

I am getting so tired of nostalgia freaks ):

 

[Jerme]

Rhydon evolved to Rhyperior to be better at battling. He gained massive amounts of armor, which made him a HUGE and destructive battling machine/rock monster thing! In a world where pokemon are used mainly for battle, it makes sense that Rhydon would need more body armor to compete in more battles.

If you think it "destroyed" pokemon you aren't open to change and/or you aren't aware that pokemon is a battling game.

i actually agree on the destroying evos part, ONLY for the 1st gens. i liked the looks of rhydon (dont think rhyperior is that bad), electabuzz (my all time fave RUINED), magmar, tangela (also liked this one), lickitung (again i liked this one).

however yanmega and gliscor were actually good looking evos while making them better for battle

 

[iPowers]

Ok guys just shut up. No offense to anyone but i'm tired of hearing that. Yes there are some new pokemon that suck but there are such amazing pokemon out there in generation 3 and generation 4.

Blaziken and Lucario are a good couple examples. they are really badass. I also like hariyama and rhypherior along with empoleon and Deoxys. Mightyena, Groudon, Kyogre, Rayquaza. I could name a ton. Generation 3 to be honest has my favorites alongwith generation 1. Generation 2 and 4 were kinda crappy.

Generation 5 looks odd to me but I said that about generation 3 and I got used to it REALLY fast. I hate the starters but the generation 5 legendaries and the other pokemon look really cool along with the gameplay.

Plus generation 3 also made different dual types such as blaziken with fire and fighting and Ludicolo with water and grass. idk I really think it'll be good. Things change with everything and i really don't think it's a bad thing especially with this. Plus it isn't like they're deleting pokemon or anything. if they did that I could see a reason to get upset about it.

 

[The Jolly Roger]

I think Nintendo's running short on the creativity that made the original episodes/games so great.

 

[Dark Piplup]

I think nintendo is going to stop pokemon soon. The new legendaries are really complicated. But I'd like to see pokemon around for a few more generations.

 

[Jerme]

Ok guys just shut up. No offense to anyone but i'm tired of hearing that. Yes there are some new pokemon that suck but there are such amazing pokemon out there in generation 3 and generation 4.

Blaziken and Lucario are a good couple examples. they are really badass. I also like hariyama and rhypherior along with empoleon and Deoxys. Mightyena, Groudon, Kyogre, Rayquaza. I could name a ton. Generation 3 to be honest has my favorites alongwith generation 1. Generation 2 and 4 were kinda crappy.

no, blaziken is the worst pokemon ever imo. this thing looks like a mexican wrestler, something that should be in digimon.

I think Nintendo's running short on the creativity that made the original episodes/games so great.

ha, i never watch the cartoon. but i remember back in the day, seeing the 1st episodes of 1st season, those were the days

I think nintendo is going to stop pokemon soon. The new legendaries are really complicated. But I'd like to see pokemon around for a few more generations.

as long as they dont keep introducing 100+ new pokemon every generation. maybe new regions, but no new pokemon. with previous legends having connections with it.

 

[Aquila]

Ok.. last post from me.

It looks like a new generation of fans has also brought a new generations of Pokemon.
It's a change - I accept that.
Now for me, first generation brought me alot of pleasure and I was thrilled with the plot, the gameplay.. Everything turned Pokemon into what later becomes a massive commercial and thrilling hit to everyone who plays Pokemon. 2nd generation brought even more great pleasure. Same style, same style of play and styles/evolutions were in no means unnatural(except for Politoed).
The 3rd generation was new, but exciting. and I also thought the 3rd generation was brilliant.
It's the 4th generation that dissapointed me alot. Sneasel was my favourite Pokemon, but got somewhat ruined by Weavile(not a ugly Pokemon, but a dissapointment) now the headline is perhaps a bit misguided, but I'll come into that later.
the 4th generation ruined my picture of what evolutions of certain Pokemon would look like. Magmortar, Magnezone(Magneton had no need for an evolution IMO), Rhyperior(so unlike the first evolutions), Togekiss, Mamoswine, Pyrogon Z, Probopass, Froslass, Mismagius and to some extent Honchkrow.. I expected the Pokemon to have a similiar style to the 1st and follow the evolutionary road with most pokemon being similiar to their evolutions. The 1st generation set the basis. Magikarp into Gyarodos didn't seem weird as training a such weak Pokemon as Magikarp would eventually give us a mighty monster like Gyarados, it gave sence. Same was done with Feebas later, didn't dislike it at all.
The 4th generation meddled with the old Pokemon, the 1st, 2nd a little of the 3rd generation in a way that made me and many other people react negativly. Also, they chose to create new legendaries that seemed more fit to science fiction than old folklores and mythical monsters(at 1st impressionIMO).
Thirdly, there was only 1 evolutionary line from the starters that seemed playable. This was Turtwig to Torterra(kind of counterproductive that I mention Torterra). Compared to my 1st impression of the other two starters, their fully evolved form was dissapointing to me.

When I posted this thread, I recently got dissapointed by the looks of two starters and the legendaries that had been revealed. All in all, I wanted to hear if there were any other people feeling the same way. Well after I thought it true(partially drunk), I found out that all these tree factors of dissapointment towards the 4th generation, gave me an impression that every new pokemon from the 4th generation was bad. Now I accept that changes are being made. some are overdone(Dialga- and Palkia-spritestyles) and others are good(ingame graphics and a expanded amount of moves which gives us a more challenging approach to online and Local battling.) I didn't like Pearl and Diamond so when I saw the 1st set of Pokemon that were revealed, I got a bad gen.4 feeling, and it made me react. Despite of the gear, the legendaries and the starters I didn't like, I think gen. 5 seems a lot more promising now.
Pokemonfans are widely spread. Some became fans after the 1st generation some came later. It was the 1st generation designs that fascinated me, and some of you got an attraction to the newer styles. Nevertheless Pokemon is changing, and comparing Torterra to Venusaur is not possible seeing
Venusaur = before change while Torterra = after change. Saying it would be better with "real animal" was maybe a bad attempt of a desperate argument, as Venusaur for example has a monster head which also is typical for the 1st generation. In other words Torterra is more a real animal than Venusaur.
Before the release of Black and White, I'm good with playing Football Manager 2010/2011. After the release, I'm back to annoy the **** out of newer Pokemonfans. So long!

Aquila AKA Nostalgiafreak AKA Musician AKA Footballfreak AKA Gen.4-hater AKA ah.. call me whatever you want!

 

[Ninja Caterpie]

I want to point out that, in my opinion, the changes they're making to the legendaries (ie. Dialga/Palkia styled ones) are good.

Legendaries are meant to be legendary, they're meant to be special and all-powerful gods. They're not supposed to be simple or whatever, they're meant to be different. It's better if you can actually tell the difference between legendaries and normal Pokémon at a glance, and now you can.

Moltres, Zapdos and Articuno were just birds, each with ONE THING that made them even remotely look legendary. Zapdos had spiky wings, Moltres flaming ones, and Articuno the ridiculously long tail. But if you did a simple palette switch of Articuno into Pidgey's, it wouldn't look so legendary.

Entei, Raikou and Suicune were slightly, although not much, better. Raikou, with all the lightning-bolts along its body, Entei with its firey-ness and Suicune with its long hairs and stuff that made it look like water, were, I guess, quite legendary. Celebi and Jirachi were pretty brilliant though, as were Ho-oh and Lugia, because those were big and majestic; legendary.

In the third gen, they hit the ball out of the park. The normal Pokémon were simple like Lotad and Taillow, but then you had the actual legendaries like Groudon and Kyogre that, while they did look like normal animals to some extent, had noticeable legendary aspects to them. The Regis were likewise brilliant.

In the fourth gen, everything sort of took a step up the special-ness level, so it sort of defined everything as obviously Pokémon. Staraptor was a bird...but it had a hairstyle! The legendaries...they were just legendary. The trio was magical; little elven things that were really quite great and obviously different to normal Pokémon. Dialga and Palkia, as well as Arceus, as well as most of the other legendaries, just commanded attention and were obviously great, big, powerful monsters of Pokémon. They actually looked like they had created the world.

With the fifth gen Pokémon, I can see they've sort of taken a step back with the normal Pokémon - look at how simple Chiramii is. The legendaries still retain that awe-inspiring feeling that they should always have.

I do also want to point out, however, that the new legendaries have a reason for changing - the old ones were simple guardians. Purifier of Water, Guardian of the Volcanoes, Master of the Seafoam Islands, etc. The new ones are creators. Creators of Land and Sea, Creators and Space and Time, Creator of EVERYTHING. They're creators, they have to stand out. And if you think about it like this, there are now four levels of Pokemon that are easily distinguishable.

Legendary, creators - Legendary Pokemon, the top of the top. Arceus, Dialga, Groundon and Kyogre are examples.
Legendary, guardians - Legendary Pokemon, but not quite really strong. Things like Azelf, Zapdos, Heatran and Cresselia go here.
Powerful, pseudo-legendary - big and strong, but not classified as legendaries. This includes stuff like Metagross and Salamence.
Normal, simple - basic Pokemon, not special. Stuff like Bidoof, Rattata, Voltorb, Lotad and Pikachu go here.

I think Nintendo's running short on the creativity that made the original episodes/games so great.

If by "creativity", you mean "uncreativity limited to animals with horns and plants", then yes, they are running short.