![]() |
More simple Pokémon = better?
This is a question of whether or not simpler Pokémon were more popular than the more complex ones we have now.
Like in generation 1, many Pokémon closely resembled real life creatures (Rhyhorn, Tauros, Pikachu, Growlithe, Meowth, etc). These were really popular. They strayed away from this in newer generations and there aren't that many that -closely- resemble their real life counter parts (Poochyeena, Torchic, Sharpedo, Wailord. I can't really think of more than that). And Hoenn wasn't a very popular generation for Pokémon, and neither was Sinnoh. There are still endless amounts of animals Nintendo could use. Do you think they should keep making their monsters more bizarre? Or go back to the basics? Examples of some simplistic monsters. A dolphin. Could just be a dolphin with some kind of pattern on it's head with yellow eyes. Could be a water/psychic. A panda. Would make a great Pokémon for black and white. One of the more "cheery" ones, and oculd be a normal/dark. An elephant. Maybe a big elephant made of rock. Would make a nice new tank, and the closest thing to an elephant is that wooly mammoth Pokémon in gen 4. Rock/ground? An eagle. An eagle would make a great new flyer, and be focused on attack more than defence. Normal/flying. Wolf. We have several dogs, but we don't really have a full on wolf Pokémon. Pure white with like a black collar and black furr around the ankles. Dark/normal, similar to the panda in relation to it's colours and the new games. (The werewolf Pokémon is a step in the right direction.) Griffon. A great potential flying Pokémon, and a really popular mythical beast. Could be a flying/any elemental type. (I think flying/lightning would be good) There are endless suggestions. What do you guys think? |
I think they should make more curious birds, like turkeys,peacocks,big exotic pigeons,Toucans,Hummingbirds etc.
A dolphin pokemon is a good point, but we already have two elephants: Phanpy and Donphan, a panda Spinda and a generation V eagle (it was Woguuru or something like that). |
Quote:
A griffon would be good. We technically have a dolphin (Kyogre), but if you mean a bottle nosed dolphin, then that would be good too. We are getting an eagle and we already have the others: Spinda in a panda, Phanphy and donphan are elephants (not to mention the mammoths) and Suicune and Manectric are wolves. Although, the getting more complex thing isn't that severe and I don't mind it. They're more original. |
i likw where u are going with this thread and i agree it would be cool,
and i dont count spinda as a panda, its a fail pokemon, like dunsparse |
Ideas are all brilliant, but those ideas don't have to be simple I mean, look, they did a proper mole this time and it sure wasn't simple. It was WICKED COOL. :D
I love how they're going with this. although i still think they should make a Psychic Octopus Pokemon named Octopaul |
Rhyhorn, pikachu? closely resembled animals?
I for one, have never seen a rhino with rocky plates, or a yellow mouse, that is bipedal and has a zigzag tail and red spots on it's cheeks. Poochyena and sharpedo are much more realistic. I have seen canines and sharks that look kinda like them. |
Spinda is not a normal panda I believe it is a Red Panda.
|
Quote:
Spinda is based on a red panda. |
I'm pretty sure Spinda is based on a panda. It doesn't share any traits with, well this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/RedPandaDescent.JPG/220px-RedPandaDescent.JPG |
Hello Panda's are black and white spinda is like orangish red and yellowish brown. It is a red panda.
|
@ cest la vie
That's not what I meant by "closely resemble". I mean Rhyhorn looks very much like a rhino as in if you saw it's shadow, you would just see a rhino. And Pikachu clearly looks like a mouse. It's colour and traits are not what I mean. @ rocky505 "Hello" No patronising trollness in my threads. @ Myles Oooh we're getting an eagle? Awesome, you got a link? Also, I mean Hoenn and Sinnoh were less enjoyed. Pokémon atm will sell no matter what. I'm sure it would be a lot easier to find people who prefer the first two gens than the last two. (I mean the Pokémon, not the actual games and areas.) |
I would like to have a tapir pokémon, with just some simple flower patterns on its body, something simple.. oh wait!
Well.. an awesome eagle pokémon! Oh wait again.. this is becoming dificult.. A kiwi pokémon, even it's not a common animal! |
A lot of the old pokemon were extremely simple and I did not like them partly for that. Bulls with 2 extra tails, crabs with one bigger claw than the other, eggs with eyes...
|
Quote:
|
More story = better
That right there is pretty much the truth. |
"Spinda's body structure is based on the panda with elongated rabbit ears. The different spot patterns as well as well as its general color scheme may be a reference to red pandas, which also have their own unique markings." -bulbapedia
Plenty of non-animal designs are simple. Ditto is an incredibly simple design but it doesn't resemble any animals. Hoenn animal-like-pokémon: Slaking family, Surskit (pondskater), Wurmples lines, Nincada's line, Electrike's, Numel, Crawdaunt, Kecleon, Spheal's line, Clampearl, Relicanth. Salamence is also a fairly simple Pokémon. There's also the plant like Cacnea family, and probably a few that co-ordinate with foreign legends that I don't know of. So basically people see what they want :) There are plenty of 'simple' Pokémon in previous generations, there are bound to be some. Out of Gen 5 Pokémon Munna and Gear are quite simple, so I don't think people who prefer the simple look (or those that look like animals: Pokabu) will be disappointed. |
Quote:
Red pandas look like squirrels (just look at their tails). They aren't bears and are just as closely related to pandas as dogs are. |
I'm not sure "simple" is the best word to use here. The style of Pokemon art has changed over the years, and even though the newer designs may have more design elements to separate them from their inspirations, they are themselves drawn more simply than earlier Pokemon because of the more rounded and cartoonish style in recent games. I think the word you are looking for is not 'simple', per se, but realistic, not overly exaggerated. Your example of Tauros is a good illustration. It is very close to what a cross between a bull and a bison would look like in cartoon form; the idea itself isn't very far from the animal (just add some tails) and neither is the art style: Sugimori basically drew a bison body, with all the actual fur and musculature. Tauros has a lot of detail that newer Pokemon don't always have, but the design is very... minimal.
Personally, I prefer the art style from the older generations, but I like the creativity of the newer Pokemon concepts. |
Quote:
http://www.rivethead.net/pokemon/rhyhorn.gif http://www.aazoopark.gov.in/images%5Czoo%5Crhino.jpg |
The only thing in common among those, honestly, is the colour and horn.
And well, Dewgong has a horn. As does Goldeen. |
Simple Pokemon are popular since they bring nostalgia to the teenagers who played Red/Blue as a kid. Some of them appriciate the complex designs to the Pokemon, while some hate the complex Pokemon either for having too many details in the wrong places or it's basically ruining their childhood.
Although I'd like to see a dolphin Pokemon (not counting Kyogre, that was an orca!) sometime :D |
Quote:
|
Lol Gen 1 was a little too Horny.
|
I HATE it when people say RSE AND DPPt werent as liked. DIamond and Pearl were the second best selling pokemon games. Ever. Ruby and Sapphire were JUST under DP.
Anyways, yes, I do wish we had some more simple Pokemon. However, there are some pokemon that are too simple. Persian is simply a mountain lion with a gym on its head. Muk is literally a pile of muck with a face. And an arm. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:42 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.