![]() |
Is it me or New pokemons are getting less creative??
As you know, Gen 5 was already released at Japan. I was checking the new pokemons and I think that there are some pokemons that are really ugly and not creative.
List of new pokemons: http://www.serebii.net/blackwhite/pokemon.shtml Like the Ice-type pokemons (#582, #583, #584) that are based on Ice cream cones.... I mean.. an ice cream pokemon??? Also the #538 and #539 pokemons (Fighting type) look kinda stupid What do you think? |
Yes. YES
YESYESYESYESYESYESYEYSYESYES Generation 1 : WIN Generation 2 : SO MUCH WIN Generation 3 : ...wtf is this? some cool Pokemon, majority of em horrible Generation 4 : stop making games Generation 5 : kill yourself |
Ah. Every generation this thread appears. I myself have not seen a majority of the BW Pokemon (avoiding spoilers...that will end soon though...finally!) but what I have seen look really good. And if you wanna talk about "uncreative", look at generation I. I'm not knocking it and saying it's horrible, but...a snake named Ekans, which is snake backwards. Big purple blobs, Grimer and Muk. Koffing. Weezing. Coughing, and wheezing? Ratatta is a rat. Raticate is a bigger rat. Sans for Ratatta being purple, they could pass as real rats.
If you want to go off on that "these aren't creative!" route, then you should consider that generation I wasn't creative by hardly any means. We wanted more creativity, and what did we do when we got that? Whined and complained. That's all Pokemon fans will ever do no matter how many new Pokemon are released. We cry and moan over how ugly and horrible all the new stuff is. Well, you know what? It's here, and it's staying. kgobye Edit: If anyone is going to post a picture of generation V Pokemon, please be so kind as to either just post a link or put the image in a spoiler tag. Some of us are still avoiding spoilers, and I'm not just speaking for myself. |
They don't look like Pokemon, though. They look like some crap I should be chainsawing in Gears of War. Seriously, I went through that list and honestly there was ONE Pokemon that looked okay.
|
Quote:
Anyway, that's your opinion, and I can respect that, as even I still have a hard time thinking Ambipom, Carnivine, and Huntail are Pokemon, but unfortunately, they're labeled as Pokemon now. It might take time for some to grow on us (I did not like a majority of gen IV Pokemon at first), but eventually they won't look so awkward and new. |
Quote:
It all comes down to personal opinion. I definitely like about half of the GenV pokedex while I hated approximate 90% of the GenIV pokedex and 70% of the GenIII pokedex at the same point relative to their releases. They start growing on you once you look up what they're based on and see how much creativity went into them. It doesn't hurt Genv's case that most of the fully evolved ones have absolutely beastly stats. |
I think that Pokemon is becoming little by little into something similar to Digimon :P
|
I think this gen has some of the most creative Pokemon yet.
http://pokebeach.com/news/0910/black-white/new-pokemon/isshu-pokemon-85.jpghttp://pokebeach.com/news/0910/black-white/new-pokemon/isshu-pokemon-110.jpghttp://pokebeach.com/news/0910/black-white/new-pokemon/isshu-pokemon-115.jpghttp://pokebeach.com/news/0910/black-white/new-pokemon/isshu-pokemon-126.jpg Those are just a few of the Pokemon I consider exceptionally creative. This is the first time we're seeing something like this in the Pokemon world, I would say Game Freak broke new ground with this generation. To be honest, I feel people look at Gen 1 with rose colored glasses. While it did have some very creative designs and concepts (I'm a long time Lickitung and Tangela lover) I think people forget about all the mediocre ones. Voltorb is a Pokeball that evolves into an upside down Pokeball. Diglett is a little "stump" that evolves into 3 little stumps. Grimer is a blob that evolves into a bigger blob. Magnemite evolves into 3 Magnemite. Persian is a normal cat with a dot on its forehead. Ekans is a normal snake. Geodude is a rock with arms. None of these designs scream creativity. Even Gen 2 wasn't purely creative, there is virtually no difference between Ledyba and a normal ladybug. There's no way to please everybody. No one (that includes you, me and the rest of the world) is going to like every Pokemon Game Freak puts out. |
Quote:
|
Eh, there's always been those quirky Pokémon each generation. Voltorb, Unknown, Drifloon, Rotom, ect. some of them are just more "noticable" then others. I have to say though Gigigearu is perhaps the most uninspired evolution I've ever seen! Not that it has a bad design, but it's sprite literally looks like they just slapped a couple extra gears under Gearu's mid evolution! But then again, I suppose it was the same with Magneton...
|
Look at the monkey brothers (# 511-516) how original.
|
One belief common to many members of the Pokémon fandom is that new Pokémon simply aren't as creative as the older ones. This belief isn't usually forcefully imposed on others or even explained; rather, it is accepted as a truth to the series. Some people believe it without questioning, and others wonder why anyone can think that at all.
Now, the concept of creativity is relative so it can't so easily be suggested that one concept is more creative than another. The direction of design for Pokémon has simply evolved over the years in a way that can be seen through the common themes present in each new generation. The only way to give a serious answer to whether or not Pokémon now lack creativity is to look at these design themes and see how they changed over time and whether those changes can be seen as negative or positive. Red and Blue Red and Blue versions introduced the first 151 Pokémon that have since come to define a generation and become the standard to which all new Pokémon are held against. Many classics found in this generation can still be seen in teams to this day. The popularity of the originals cannot be denied. But what defines a First Generation Pokémon? As the first generation, the designs should be relatively simple to explain. After all, Red and Blue were the pet project of Game Freak so they didn't have the time or backing to do much experimenting. They had to design some monsters and get the game out. That was all they could do, and hope it worked. Because of that limitation, many of the First Generation Pokémon are simply real-world animals: Seel is a seal, Krabby is a crab, Ekans is a snake, and so on.. When a Pokémon isn't so obviously based on a real-world animal, the origin can still be pretty accurately assumed. Many are just anthropomorphized basic elements (Geodude is rock and Bellsprout is plant) or based on simple concepts (Slowpoke is sloth and Machoke is a strength). Cultural and mythological origins are present, but generally were vague enough that the player wouldn't even realize that Arcanine or Magikarp have some significance to the Japanese audience. Gold and Silver The second generation had a lot riding on it. Red and Green were a huge success in Japan, as were their counterparts of Red and Blue in the West. Many people were eagerly awaiting Gold and Silver and the promise of new Pokémon to add to their collection. This generation was Game Freak's test. They needed to create Pokémon that were just as memorable as those in the previous generation, and to an extent they did. It's surprising to see exactly how much the themes in design changed in three short years, but there clearly are vast differences, as well as similarities, between the Pokémon of the First Generation and the Second. As before, many of the new Pokémon were simply based on real-world animals (Stantler is a deer and Miltank is a cow), but now they began to represent distinct personalities that played off their origin to a greater degree. While Murkrow is based off of a crow, it is also based off the common belief that crows forebode darkness and are crafty. And while Teddiursa and Ursaring are simply bears, they also represent the constellations of Ursa Minor and Major--which are bears. The real-world animals also began to become more exotic (Girafirig is a giraffe) and specific (Heracross is a rhinoceros beetle). So while previous Pokémon were simple in design and origin, these new ones began to embody much more than just being animals. They were beginning to have cultural significance to a developing fictional world. This developing mythology becomes apparent when you consider Ho-Oh, the three Legendary Beasts, and even Houndour/Houndoom. While previously Pokémon with some mythological background were vague and you could easily overlook that origin, these new Pokémon were less conspicuous. It's hard to look at Ho-Oh without thinking "phoenix", a creature of many cultures, and realizing that the Beasts represent the winds and elements (another common theme of mythology trying to describe the physical world). Houndour and Houndoom are possibly based off Cerberus of Greek mythology, or more generally on various "hounds of death" that frequent many superstitions. Either way the relevance is obvious: Pokémon were no longer simple animals that represented nothing. Even Pokémon that were not based off real-world animals, rather concepts, had begun to show developing relevance. While Machoke represented strength and Snorlax gluttony, Unown represents the concept of language and Smeargle self-expression. Concepts themselves and their Pokémon-embodiments were now more abstract and complex than before. This may come as no surprise, however, since most people consider Gold and Silver to be the height of the Pokémon series. Opinions run deep, and only do the later generations seem to come under fire in terms of creativity. So do the Pokémon of Ruby and Sapphire, and then Diamond and Pearl really lack the previous creativity and imagination of the first two generations? Let's find out. Ruby and Sapphire The Third Generation is an interesting case.Themes, if any at all, are difficult to describe. This is probably the reason why many accuse the Pokémon of this generation of being the least creative of the 493-total. But this reason could also be argued as the designers returning to "the basics". Just look at Slakoth: it's a sloth. No unusual design, no significant metaphor... Nothing out of the ordinary about this Pokémon. It's simply a real-world animal plopped into a fictional setting. The same can be said for Wailmer just being a whale, Corphish a crawfish, and so on. All are nothing more than counterparts to real-world animals. Exactly the same as the Red and Blue Pokémon. But... there is a notable difference. While First Generation Pokémon were based on real-world animals as well, their evolutions were usually simply larger versions of themselves or made little sense. Ruby and Sapphire returned to the real-world and did it justice. This is plainly seen if you consider how Wurmple evolves into a butterfly-counterpart and a moth-counterpart due to split evolution. This is a reference to the common ancestry of moths and butterflies that developed from literal evolution. Trapinch is another Pokémon that follows this mentality, yet also receives a lot of confusion for its strange evolutionary changes. It is based off the real-world ant lion, which does in fact pupate into a flying insect. But perhaps the most brilliant Pokémon of the Third Generation is Nincada. It evolves into Ninjask, and under the right conditions its former shell may form a Shedinja. Nincada is based off of the cicada, an insect that leaves its skin behind after pupating within. The skin resembles in every way the animal it once was, and in the case of Shedinja it even has life. Ruby and Sapphire took real-life and turned it on its head, imagining a Pokémon so strange, yet in every way a real-life actuality. So yes, the Third Generation returned to the simplicity of design seen in the days of Red and Blue... But did it in a much more creative and intelligent way. It can hardly be said that that was a step backwards. Diamond and Pearl Being the latest generation to enter the Pokémon series, it should come as no doubt that Diamond and Pearl receive some of the most vocal criticism for the new Pokémon they introduced. After all, time has changed both the players and the designers. The themes in Pokémon-design surely are much different now than they were for the original 151. Because of all these factors the Fourth Generation Pokémon must be held up to the standards set by the previous generation, as well as on a level all their own. With a careful eye all aspects in direction of design must be accounted for. Here we go... The first thing that becomes apparent are the new evolutions... There's a lot of them. Compared to the 19 evolutions and pre-evolutions introduced in Gold and Silver and two in Ruby and Sapphire, Diamond and Pearl introduced a total of 29 new evolutions and pre-evolutions. 12 of those were for First Generation Pokémon, which in combination with the Gold and Silver additions, means that there have been 31 Pokémon added to the original 151. Is this a bad thing? Is coming up with new evolutions to give attention to the classics wrong? Most importantly, is it creative? I would have to say that it's not. Many of these evolutions and pre-evolutions appear cartoonish and exaggerated and definitely are not in the style of the Pokémon they're supposedly related to. While it is difficult to "improve" or expand upon a Pokémon once designed specifically not to have evolutions, the fact that Game Freak opted to do it anyways over creating original Pokémon does suggest a lack of creativity. But whether or not the new evolutions were good additions is for another article. Instead, we should take a look at the Pokémon that were totally new. Though few, their origins actually say a lot. While it may not be immediately apparent, several of the Pokémon are in some ways counterparts to the First Generation Pokémon. Combee and its evolution Vespiquen are another take on wasps, like Beedrill, Pachirisu is an electric rodent like Pikachu, Glameow and Purrugly are cats like Meowth and Persian, Carnivine is a carnivorous plant like Victreebel, and finally Finneon and its evolution Lumineon are graceful fish like Goldeen and Seaking. Now what does this say? Most would suggest that Game Freak are ripping themselves off and have truly lost all creativity. If they hadn't, then they would be designing completely original Pokémon based on things never used before. Right? While this may have been the case for the Second and even Third Generation, when previous Pokémon were still so few that Game Freak had a much larger pool of real-world animals to draw inspiration from, Fourth Generation has in fact run out of real-world animals to use. This is not to say that animals can't be used as the basis for new Pokémon; of course not. But animals common to many cultures and places, such as dogs and cats and rats, have already been used. Game Freak can't exactly make a mouse Pokémon again without it being called nothing but a Rattata rip-off. One thing that should be considered is that while there are billions of different species of animal in the real-world, many of them are simply varieties, breeds, and sub-species. For example, there are as many as 12,000 - 14,000 different species of ant. The differences between them range from as small as a speck of dust to as large as your thumb; with colors as varied as white and green, and even some with radically different societies when compared to each other. Because of this it would be rather unfair to think Game Freak must choose an entirely different animal each time. The very diversity of life just proves that one thing can be imagined in infinite ways. Pokémon are no exception to this. Going back to whether or not Game Freak are ripping themselves off... I should say that they're not. It may not have occurred to many people that the above listed Pokémon were somehow counterparts to earlier-used ones. The reason is because Game Freak were utterly creative in how they designed these new Pokémon. They took something used before and imagined it in a totally new way. Combee and Vespiquen represent a much more realistic portrayal of a bee's life-cycle, while the earlier Beedrill is more suggestive of a hornet's. Pachiriru is an electric squirrel because in the real-world, squirrels and mice are both distantly related, so in the Pokémon world it could be inferred that Pachirisu and Pikachu are the product of shared ancestry. Glameow and Purrugly are both house-cats while Meowth and Persian are street-cats: two sides to the same animal. Carnivine is a carnivorous plant like Victreebel, yes, but Carnivine is a venus-fly trap rather than a pitcher plant. Finneon and Lumineon are graceful, majestic fish like Goldeen and Seaking, but are dark and mysterious while Goldeen and Seaking are bright and colorful. (Interestingly enough, Finneon and Lumineon, while dark, seem cheerful and happy, while the bright Goldeen and Seaking seem annoyed and malevolent) The theme of diversity among similar animals can even be found in Diamond and Pearl itself: Shellos and Gastrodon of the East Sea and West Sea are essentially the same Pokémon, but distinct depending on what area they're found in. These Pokémon are representative of exactly what the designers hoped to express in the Fourth Generation. So while all of these examples are based on similar things, they were also imagined in entirely different ways that made them unique from their earlier counterparts. This reflects real-life in all its diversity, which could hardly be called "uncreative" The Verdict In the end every generation has had a design-direction unlike those that came before, but nonetheless still creative. Every generation has offered Pokémon that still feel like "Pokémon", but always in some way entirely new. There will always be certain Pokémon that people won't like. Every generation will have a Probopass that is universally reviled, but that does not excuse the fact that so many other Pokémon easily became sought after and admired. Creativity is alive and well in the design teams for Pokémon. But if this is true, why do people still generally hate the new Pokémon and consider them "uncreative"? After all, they clearly aren't. Maybe the reason is that people simply prefer the simplistic designs from before. The more a Pokémon may resemble their real-world counterpart, the more the player may relate to it. It's possible that players viewed Pokémon as monsters, but still animals that could be pets. Now most are just monsters without an obvious link to the real-world. This makes them harder to relate to and in turn makes them lose that subtle charm found in their predecessors. While that is certainly possible, asking Game Freak to be "less creative" to return to the old design-themes is not. They are at a point where they can only move forward in their designs and will most likely create more and more strange creatures. The days of Rattata and Meowth are over, but they will certainly be honoured with future counterparts imagined in countless new ways. |
Quote:
http://pokebeach.com/news/0910/black-white/new-pokemon/isshu-pokemon-85.jpg ??? Flying mouse-plankton? Wtf? http://pokebeach.com/news/0910/black-white/new-pokemon/isshu-pokemon-110.jpg Eel-bird snail? http://pokebeach.com/news/0910/black-white/new-pokemon/isshu-pokemon-115.jpg Drifbloom + chandelier? Nice. Definitely a real "pocket monster". This one made me lol. http://pokebeach.com/news/0910/black-white/new-pokemon/isshu-pokemon-126.jpg ??? Cat rooster-sloth? What? Look, just because they have no resemblance to a creature and more details and random spikes coming out of them doesn't mean they're creative. |
The Yabakuron line is rather ugly, IMO (they're my least favorite Gen V Pokemon at the moment). They make the Grimer and Koffing lines look handsome in comparison.
|
Oh, boy. This mantra again. I'm actually surprised, though, that this kind of complaint could crop up when, looking at all these new Pokemon, it's clear that Game Freak went out of their way to draw ideas from completely new things and try and get out of the box. Yeah, some animals are being reused again, but they're distinctly different in both design and character, and at least recycled species isn't the focus. No, far from it. I like that they're taking less-populated types and diversifying them, too, as well as getting down with all kinds of new type combinations.
I also think the designs themselves look very befitting of the new region, and not out of place or 'un-Pokemon'. It's just as with any region. The species are like the culture, in a sense. Gen 3's Pokemon are distinctly Hoenn, Gen 4's look very Sinnoh, and Gen 1 and 2's feel Kanto and Johto, respectively. They aren't making the Pokemon look less like Pokemon, they're making them suited to the place in which they live. |
Quote:
"The homunculus is commonly used today in scientific disciplines, such as psychology, to describe the distorted scale model of a human drawn or sculpted to reflect the relative space human body parts occupy on the somatosensory cortex (sensory homunculus) and the motor cortex (motor homunculus). The lips, hands, feet and sex organs have more sensory neurons than other parts of the body, so the homunculus has correspondingly large lips, hands, feet, and genitals. Well known in the field of neurology, this is also commonly called "the little man inside the brain." This scientific model is known as the cortical homunculus. In medical science, the term homunculus is sometimes applied to certain fetus-like ovarian cystic teratomae. These will sometimes contain hair, sebaceous material and in some cases cartilagous or bony structures." ^ From Wikipedia. Shibirudon (the one you think is an eel-bird snail) is based on a lamprey. http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=17259,17315,18168,23628,23670,23756,23945,24692,24878,24879,24999,25260,25646,25834,25907,26328,26515,26569&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=lamprey&cp=6&rlz=1G1TSNA_ENUS389&wrapid=tljp128477669707116&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1419&bih=561 There are some pictures if you're curious to see what they look like. Shanderaa is based on a Chandelier. I don't think his origin is complicated by any stretch of the imagination. Here's a picture, in case you're still confused. Spoiler:
Kojondo (the one that bears no resembelence to a cat rooster sloth) is based on a combination of a beech marten and the Kokondo Karate fighting technique. Kokondo translates to "the way of the past and present." This also explains why Kojondo is a fighting type. Spoiler:
Many Pokemon from this generation have more obscure origins than previous generations. You need to remember that just because you aren't educated about something doesn't mean it isn't real and Pokemon you don't understand aren't baseless monstrosities. Adding random bits to a Pokemon's design doesn't equel creativity, but neither does taking a real animal or object and making no changes whatsoever. |
Hi guys. Thank you so much for putting pictures in spoiler tags. Moving on, going to have to agree with Pumpkin Fields valid points against all the "lol uncreative!!1" posts. If you can't say anything to back up your reasons, then just...don't say anything.
Quote:
|
Y'know, when I first saw these new Pokemon, I was pretty confused by their appearances. But now, I'm used to them. Some of you guys are a little TOO deep into your nostalgia, and only accept what's old and "classic". This is Generation 5 now. You can't expect the Pokemon to keep the same appearances over and over. Game Freak is doing something new.
And if you've noticed, they've also been taking a few steps back with some of these Pokemon. Ones like the trash bag and the Pokeball mushroom are similar to the types of Pokemon that we've seen in the 1st Generation. They're trying to appeal to everyone's tastes, but if it bothers you that much, then why bother playing Pokemon? =/ |
*Sigh*
My "favourite" complain thread again. I've grew a liking to most of the Pokemon, yes it looks weird, at least for now but I'm sure anyone'll get used to them by and by. |
there's this book called "Blink" where it talks about this chair design that everyone hated when it first came out (this is unrelated to pkmn). It eventually became a bestselling chair, and apprently the reason why people initially hated it was that it didn't look anything like a "normal" chair.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that some of us just need to get used to the new designs. Obviously there will be ones that we hate and ones that we love, but that's expected in all things, not just pkmn, since designers can't possibly please everyone. I'd have to disagree that the designs got worse through the generations though, because there were things I liked and hated in each generation, it really depends on personal taste. Even if some of the pkmn look weird in gen V, I'm just glad that they're trying new things and breaking out of the "pokemon routine" |
Quote:
|
The Gen 5 Pokémon are certainly creative. The problem I have with most of them are that they're too complicated: too many frills and patches of colour and all that. I believe appearance is the most important part of a Pokémon (with origin/inspiration at a middling second, and typing way down in third), and don't care at all for stats/battling potential.
To me (someone who began at Gen 1), Pokémon should be kept relatively simple. Plenty of the new Pokémon have so much detail it's hard to know where to look. I won't list any specific examples, but you know what I mean. I do have some exceptions to this (the Water/Rock turtle, Gigiasu (although that's not really complicated anyway), Kyuremu), but those are very few. They should also look like they could be proper creatures. For one, that's why I take a dislike to Drifloon and Nosepass and other ones that are very much based on human features/inventions (I do like the Magnemite line, however, but I don't think nostalgia is the reason why). That's why I dislike the bin bag, the Poké Ball mushroom, the girder-wielding generic humanoid, the sarcophagus (its prevo could have been good, though), the ice-cream (mostly - it could still be feasibly natural, but I still dislike it for other reasons), the gladiator bug, the gears, and the candle/lamp (I kinda like the chandelier, though, because it's not overly obvious it's just a living object). And frankly, that's a lot of Pokémon for one Gen. Most of the many humanoid Pokémon in this latest generation don't sit well with me either. I know we've had plenty of humanoids before (Alakazam, Gardevoir, Machamp, etc.), but they mostly still look like creatures rather than being some red guy with a large forehead in a karate outfit. I'll accept Gochurizeru as a gimmick (goth-loli, of course), but Meloia is just wrong. Finally, the final evolutions of a couple of the Pokémon are just too different to be acceptable. A perfect example is Mijumaru turning into something almost completely different. Now, I do like the design of its final evo, but I don't think it should be related to Mijumaru. Desukan (the sarcophagus) is pretty much another example, as could be Ononokusu (the tusk dragon), but both of those have a few similarities to their prevos. Most of the bugs also qualify, but Bug Pokémon do tend to change a whole lot anyway. Overall, there are only a few examples of this, but it still contributes. Liking or disliking Pokémon is, of course, an entirely personal thing. For instance, I like the legendary fighting trio (although perhaps not their types), the spiky Grass/Steel flailey thing, Burunkeru, Abagoora), and I dislike most of the bugs (for being too weird) and Koromori (a big NO! to the heart). That's just my opinion, though, and everyone will be different for their own reasons. On the other hand, there are Pokémon pretty much everyone will dislike (the Gears, that Electric/Ground flat fish thing, the karate oni, the ice-cream, and whatever Furiijio is (seriously, what is it?). But that's just how it is. The point is that there's plenty of creativity still floating around. The problem is with how it is used (too much detail, un"realistic" designs, etc.). |
The monkey brothers are just pretty much the same... nothing new there :/
|
Quote:
Also, Pumpkin Fields, I love your tag line thing :) |
Honestly, I think that they're getting more creative by the generation. Gen I only looks good because we were all much younger when it came out, so it seems more magical.
My proof is in my signature; they made the golem for me. Not "a" golem; THE golem. That came so far out of left field, I'm still not quite sure what to do with myself. |
I'm agreeing The 2nd generation would have to be the height of creativity for the series.
|
Every generation had weird, or out of ideas, or less creative pokemon:
Gen I: Rattata and raticate, Pidgey and its family, Zubat, Geodude, Voltorb, Ditto, and Various others (Including Mew and Mewtwo). Gen II: Corsola, Furret, Togepi and family, Wobuffet, Unown, Quagsire, Pineco and Forretress, Dunsparce. Gen III: Nosepass, Torchic, Zigzagoon, Seedot, Taillow, Shroomish, Slakoth, Whismur family, Gulpin family, Lunatone and Solrock, Wynaut, Shelgon. Gen IV: Bidoof, Probopass, Pachirisu, Cherubi, Bronzor family, Lickilicky, Tangrowth, Togekiss, the Lake Trio. Gen V: #511 to #516, Mamepato, Kokoromori, Tabunne, Dokkora family, Hoyga, Yabukron family, Baniputchi family, Tesheed Family, Bururil family, Sazandra. My review. Gen I: They were way too rushed on ideas. (Seriously, Copycatting a bird and putting it onto a game?) Gen II: Well, started to get better. Gen III: Ok, some weird pokemon. (Aka Whismur) Gen IV: Fewer weird pokemon. (Most commonly referred as to some evolutions of old, almost forgotten pokemon, or Bidoof) Gen V: Well, returning to the basics, that is. (Means, some weird and object-based pokemon). And I liked about 80% of this gen. |
ya they are looking less like pokemon and more like yugioh or a whole new franchise. i think they should of stopped after 4th gen and made a whole new game with those Pokemon and mixed the generations together. maybe some new starters because the starters look decent but even the cover pokemon are whack.
|
They're not getting any more or less creative. They're just getting more drug-induced. Every Pokemon generation has had cool and ugly Pokemon.
Generation 1 had Tangela (lol) and Cubone (awesome) Generation 2 had Corsola (kinda bad) and Gligar (a little awesome) Generation 3 had Skitty (oh god) and Glalie (niiiiiice) Generation 4 had Bibarel (lol Disney character) and Gliscor (awesome) Generation 5 has monkeys with broccoli growing out of their heads, but also that awesome mole thing. |
I loooove the original 151 monsters!! Honestly, I am starting to think that the more they add pokemon into the roster, the less creative they become. Some of them are actually starting to look like ripoffs of the older ones.
|
I think there are some bad and some good, and it's always been like that for every generation of Pokemon. |
Less Creative? No. Less Realistic? Yes.
Pokemon hardly even resemble animals anymore. There are still a few awesome Pokemon, but it feels like Game Freak was lazy when it was creating the Pokedex. For you weirdos who think seeing a couple of new Pokemon will harm you. Spoiler:
Come on, it's like they're not even trying anymore. The last one looks like it was made in 3 minutes, they didn't even bother to detail the eyes. However, I appreciate that they don't have as many round features as Generation 4. It's just an art style preference. I like the more animal-like designs in Generations 1-3. You know, the ones where the designers actually payed attention to anatomy. |
They're mutants. Aliens. And they scare me D: Mammy! iCry ;__;
No seriously, it's so un-Pokémonish that I don't know what to say. I am speechless. Maybe they didn't want them to look like other Pokémon and make them look different *shrugs* |
I am probably weird here, but I find that this generation's Pokémon has one of the better concepts and designs than the previous ones. Every generation has its 'Rattata', and this generation is not an exception. However, the ideas, mostly, the art, the concepts of most of the current Pokémon are exceptional. I like almost 3/4 of the new Pokémon, and the rest are all terrible.
|
Well, Gen 5 are the worst, They look sad and cheap.
|
Quote:
I think it's good that GF is moving out of its comfort zone. Ghost/Fire Chandeliers? Awesome. Psychic Pokemon based off of the mysterious Nazca lines? Incredible. Grass/sheep Pokemon based off of a legend of a plant that grew sheep as fruit? Holy crap! I think Game Freak really outdid itself this generation. |
The new Pokemon really are less creative! I mean... Bulbasaur! Wow. A dinosaur with a plant on its back. Wonder how long that took. Voltorb is a Pokeball. Pidgey looks more like a real bird than a Pokemon. Exeggutor just looks retarded. And these new Legendaries are simply boring! Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres? Seriously? The names aren't even unique! I swear if Gen 6 is this bad I'm leaving the fandom. :[
... On a less sarcastic note, where did this assumption that all Pokemon have to be based on animals come from? Wouldn't it be more "creative" if it's based on something non-living? Not to mention there have been several "non-animal" Pokemon in every Gen since Kanto. |
Quote:
Eh, what's the point? It's inevitable that I'm going to get that idiotic reply about Mr. Mime or Voltorb, isn't it? |
I think there are plenty of Pokemon in Isshu that are based off animals, you have a snake, a boar, an otter, a squirrel, some breed of canine, more cats, monkeys and much more. I'm simply loving how this generation turned out with the exception of the legendaries since they kinda look like Spiritomb but reshaped and I never liked it to begin with. I don't see why people don't like the ice cream Pokemon, I find it simply fabulous, sure in terms of moves and stats it's mediocre at best but I know I'm gonna catch me on of those.
|
Quote:
O hai, ditto. Pokemon aren't getting uglier/less original. You're just getting older. |
Quote:
I'm not pulling that "Voltorb and Magnemite garbage" or trying to force my opinion on anybody. It just strikes me as odd that so many people lately seem to be saying things along the lines of, "aren't Pokemon supposed to resemble animals?" Especially considering we've had plenty of non-animal Pokemon since the beginning. The designs are becoming less organic, yes. My point is that doesn't necessarily mean the new designs are any more or less "creative"; it merely means they're different. |
Pokemon won't run out of ideas until they make a pokemon that shares the same typing, base stats, movepool and draws inspiration from the same popcultural/mythological reference.
So far, this hasn't occurred. |
All I got to say is if you do not like them. Don't get BW. Honestly Gen 5 have some of the better pokemon in it. And I have seen that theres a lot of girls that like the pokemon like the Ice Cream. I have also noticed that the cuter pokemon get more attention. I don't see how most look like digimon(some do) and NONE look like yugioh. But pokemon is pokemon.
|
Quote:
I fully agree with you btw. And I think designs are less 'organic' today considering the first designs, in my opinion, were based off of most animals we knew to attract gamers (especially the young ones). I mean, pokemon probably wouldn't have had as many followers back when it came out if the designs of today were used then. Some people could have thought it was for freaks, or dangerous for kids to play due to two monsters having airplane jets attached to them, resembling a drill, or some dangerous fire boar that looks like the devils' pet. xD |
My stance on the "animal vs thing" issue is that Pokémon should look reasonable, as if they really could exist and have developed to be like that. All the obvious real animal-based ones fit this description immediately, as real animals already exist, so we have no trouble assuming they could have developed in the Pokéworld too.
Then there are the odder cases. Ditto has a wholly uninspiring design, but for what it does (transform into anything else) it's a perfectly reasonable one. Some of the humanoid Pokémon look like cheap knock-offs of actual humans, but some of them do look like they could have developed naturally. This is entirely subjective, of course. But then there are the gimmick Pokémon, and I don't mean it in the sense of "Farfetch'd is a gimmick" (Farfetch'd is a perfectly reasonable design that just so happens to carry around a leek, in the same way Kadabra carries around a spoon and Hypno a pendant, etc.). No, I'm talking about the Pokémon with frills and unnatural patterns and broccoli growing out of their heads and huge weird swirl things all over them (Infernape et al). Those frills look completely unnatural to me - how could they have come about? Groudon/Kyogre are covered in lines (Nazca or otherwise), which do nothing but shout that they're decoration and not natural. They'd be fine designs if it weren't for those lines, but because those lines are there it just makes it even more obvious that we're playing with creatures that were invented rather than ones that might actually have come about in nature. I'm not a creationist nut, so this puts me off. In the latest generation we have Pokémon wearing judo outfits and Roman helmets and broccoli and wielding steel girders and being very obviously a candle or a rubbish bag - how did that happen in the natural world? We have Pokémon with swirls and squares and triangles drawn on them for the sake of filling in the empty parts of the sprites, and they're just not natural. I know every generation has had some Pokémon that simply look like they should never have existed (Voltorb/Magnemite, Unown, Nosepass/Lunatone/Solrock, Chingling/Bronzong, etc.), but there are simply so many of them in Gen 5 that one cannot just overlook it. I don't care what type of bat you have, it's not going to have a huge heart on it! Poké Ball designs do not belong on mushrooms. Gear is just... no. Ghost-types get a bit of leniency, as some believe they are actually possessions of objects, but I'm not in that boat - that's why lanterns and sarcophagi simply shouldn't be Pokémon. Notice that I haven't really mentioned legendary Pokémon, which tend to be more frill-heavy than other Pokémon (particularly the mascot ones). |
This is just my opinion:
Gen I :Very basic, nothing really unique except for Mew and Mewtwo. Gen II:Game Freak decided to make some more unique pokemon. They were great! Gen III: Some weird pokemon that were pretty awesome. I don't dislike any pokemon form this generation. Gen IV: Designs stated to get robotic (especially the legendaries.) and there were a few annoying pokemon. Gen V: Despite intrducing my current least favorite pokemon, (even though it's typing is awesome.) it had some very creative pokemon. |
Oh, come on. This comes up EVERY generation- once you get used to them being Pokemon, they'll all seem normal. I mean, in the fourth generation people were complaining about an "Unoriginal Penguin, Turtle, and Monkey Digimon trio".
|
Object Pokemon annoy me! Like the ice-cream and candle etc. So basically, inventors got the ideas from the Pokemon? Or the Pokemon came out of the objects? o_O
|
Quote:
I don't believe any Gen is any better or worse than any other; they all have their pros and cons. Gen1 isn't more or less original than Gen5. These threads keep popping up and people keep insisting the earlier gens' Pokemon were better / the newer gens' Pokemon are better. It really doesn't matter, and at any rate there's no use bickering about it. Besides, what Pokemon people like is a matter of personal preference. I myself adore Gen2, and find a lot of Gen4/5 Pokemon to be downright depressing. It's not that the designs are getting worse or less creative. It's just that the style is changing to be more appealing to a different target audience. |
I like SOME of the new designs (Pokabu for the win), but Minezumi looks hyper enough and they resemble plushies
|
I still think that the Pokemon are creative, half of the 5th Gen Pokemon are pretty good, the other half is utter crap (the garbage bag being the most literal example of "utter crap"), and then there are the clones, oh god, Emonga has to be the most unoriginal Pokemon to date, it's just Pachirisu with wings, nothing else, and it's as unoriginal as unoriginal can be, they could have given it a pre-evolution and evolution, but NO, they had to make it standalone just like Pachirisu, making it a worthless "novelty" Pokemon that just simply was made to take up space in your PC and not for anything else, if I had to take away two utterly terrible Pokemon (in creativity) from 5th Gen and replace them with a pre-evolution and evolution for Emonga, those two Pokemon would be Yoteri (because it looks too much like Growlithe) and Gigigear (it's just Gear with more gears)
outside of Emonga, we have Gear, which is..... let's just say that it could have been done a lot better, and given a better name than just "Gear", because it's two gears, not one, then we have Baniricchi and Banibaila (did I spell that right?), which are uncreative as sin, seriously, how do those things even stand with that super small tip on the bottom, let alone even WALK!? Then there is Baoppu, or should I say..... CHIMCHAR!!!!!! Seriously Nintendo, you already did a Fire Monkey the previous generation..... Finally, we have the roaming trio, it's fairly obvious where THESE guys came from, especially with the previous games being remakes of the Johto games of all things, I will always prefer the Ecruteak beasts over these pathetic imatators..... |
http://static.marriland.com/images/bw/sprites/front/norm/645_randorosu_front_norm.pnghttp://static.marriland.com/images/bw/sprites/front/norm/641_torunerosu_front_norm.pnghttp://static.marriland.com/images/bw/sprites/front/norm/642_borutorosu_front_norm.png
These three seriously annoy me... It's just lazy... Not only are they awful designs, but they're literally the same sprite just recolored with a few minor details editted. This has been a problem since the fairy trio. GF Employee #1: Anyone have any good ideas for Pokemon? GF Employee #2: I know, let's make a genie Pokemon! GF Employee #3: We've said it a million times, that would just look ridiculous. GF Employee #2: It might fit in now, look at all the other Pokemon in this game! GF Employee #1: He's right.. Get on it! *Artwork is made, sprite is finished* GF Employee #1: Okay, next on the list is the second legendary trio... GF Employee #2: How about we make more genies!? GF Employee #3: Do I have to make separate sprites? GF Employee #1: Just go ahead and recolor the first one twice. |
many 5th gen pokemon are weird and ugly...
i think nintendo is out of ideas... for example, an ice cream pokemon?? nintendo is really out of ideas... |
Some of the Pokemon look alright to me but the others do look weird. Although Emonga is a clone of Pachirisu, it would have been great if they made it the second evolution form(Although I love Emonga) but some of them also look like Digimon as well.
|
Quote:
I personally like the Ice Cream Pokemon. It's cute. Maybe it's because I'm on the same level as the little six and seven year olds in which are just going to start their first Pokemon Journey, or would it be because I realize just that? I won't deny that I don't like some of the Pokemons' designs, such as the bag of trash, but I'm sure there will be some kids who like the design, because it is a bag of trash, just like with the Ice Cream. It's Ice Cream. They're six and seven year old. They're gonna like the idea of an Ice Cream Pokemon. Like several others have said 'it's because of the audience for today'. Pokemon isn't guided for us "nostalgia freaks" (and if it was, they would have quit, because we're just so damn picky, aren't we). It's the kids. I won't deny that I don't like some of the Pokemon myself, like the Genies, but let's look at it another way: a small little six year old may go 'OH HEY GENIES. :D' because have the other trios existed for him? Nope. The same goes for the Alien, the Megaman Looking one, the Robot, and so on. ( And just on a side note: Hitomoshi is my personal favorite. Yes, the one that was called 'the Candle'. ) |
Quote:
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5368/d2fc856da38cad26aab779bie6.gif |
Quote:
Hilarious. I totally laugh when I read this lol!!! Those are the worst legendary ever! |
ya, the ice cream ones, sarcophagus, chandelier and junk monster made me lol
|
Lulz, I know I already posted here, but I just have one last thing to say...x3
Y'know, in the beginning, Pokemon were extremely UNcreative. Look at some of these 1st generation Pokemon! http://floatzel.net/pokemon/black-white/sprites/images/89.pngLook at it! It's a pile of goo! And it's name is Muk. Just "muck" without the c. Yeah, that's really creative. http://floatzel.net/pokemon/black-white/sprites/images/122.pngNothing really uncreative about the design, but the name... Mr. Mime. All they did was add Mr. to mime! That's not so creative either. T_T http://floatzel.net/pokemon/black-white/sprites/images/100.pnghttp://floatzel.net/pokemon/black-white/sprites/images/101.pngOh, C'MON. It's just a Pokeball with eyes! Seeeee? Look at the old "original" Pokemon. They weren't creative at all! Geodude was just a rock with arms, and Squirtle looked like a regular turtle with a curly tail. xD Pokemon are becoming MORE creative now. They're almost always some type of reasoning for their design, and they're usually based off of Japanese folklores n' shizz. Of course, some 5th generation Pokemon are kinda uncreative. Like the trash bag...ice cream cones...the Pokeball mushroom... But most of the more uncreative Pokemon are just remakes of older ones. :3 |
Quote:
We can only hope that at least some of these will eventually be found to be related to the old versions (i.e. via evolution/breeding, not just because the Pokédex says so). Then they would be more acceptable. |
Quote:
As for what's been said about the genies, or diseased weathermen with tentacles coming out of their clouds, it's too true. This is my least favorite trio. Ever. I think that with the Lake Trio, the close similarities worked well with them. But with these guys, it's just too obvious that it was effortless. We could have had the electric one as the roamer and done away with the other two and just had the Musketeer trio remain. That would have been fine with me, and hell, maybe I would actually like it then. But no, there are three of them. |
I actually like the junk monster, the concept of it is kind of funny. I'm almost positive that Japan is making fun of how much garbage the US produces, with Isshu being based on New York and all.
|
I think this generation the pokemon are the most creative.
eh each gen is different. |
Quote:
Spoiler:
Let's see, the ears and tail are completely differently shaped, and the coloration is completely different. Even the hands and feet are noticeably different from eachother. Spoiler:
Only similarity I see is that they're both dogs and they have similar coloration. Growlithe is obviously bigger with more muscle to him. :/ Spoiler:
While these are the closest match of the pairs you mentioned, it's still easy to tell them apart because they have a completely different aesthetic to them. Baoppu is much more stylized and cartoonish than Chimchar and this is even reinforced further in their respective evolved forms. I'll concede to the Genie trio being conceptual ripoffs of the legendary beasts (Torneros = Suicune, Voltros = Raikou, and Landros = Entei), but at least you can tell them apart from eachother easy by their coloration and their respective typings, which is more than anyone can say about the Lake Trio. :/ |
The Ice Cream pokemon required some thinking to come up with and a bit of creativity so I do not think they are rtunning out of ideas. The Ice Cream pokemon was just a very odd choice to base a pokemon on.
|
I'll say this from the start, I like some designs from each generation and I dislike some from each generation. There are also designs that I think are absolutely awesome (Gen IV starters) that I've seen lots of people dislike. The opposite is also true, where some designs a lot of people think are awesome, but I don't like it. I won't hold it against those people, and I would hope they don't hold the pokemon I like against me.
I also don't see the new pokemon as uncreative, because clearly there is creativity in the artwork itself. But I think the thing that really gets me with the new pokemon is the feelings they evoke. I've noticed that people get certain feelings when they see pokemon, and these feelings typically are not brought forth in the new designs (some of them are though). It does seem like many of them are over-drawn though, where they become almost confusing. Whereas something that is ugly to me (Munna) at least evokes the feeling of "Yeah, that's a pokemon." I also don't enjoy seeing so many pokemon that aren't exactly organic. This is partly to due with finding pokemon in the wild, or pokemon wearing clothes. It just feels off. |
Non-organic I can deal with....I love Metagross, and Aggron (which sounds like a train), and Rotom.....but which pokemon wears clothes? show me the sprite.
I do like the idea that gamefreak are having a laugh at the western world with the rubbish and ice cream....shame they didn't make a pokemon called "Big Mac(weird little "r" sign)". The only argument I can't personally understand is the "uncreative" part. Look at what happens all the time: Ostrich/Emu --add head-- Doduo --add head-- Dodrio Magnemite --add heads-- Magneton --morph slightly-- Magnezone Diglett --add heads-- Dugtrio Exeggcute --add body-- Exeggutor Dratini --gets bigger-- Dragonair Charmander/Squirtle/Bulbasaur --gets bigger-- Charmeleon/Wartortle/Ivysaur --gets bigger-- Blastoise/Venusaur Horsea --gets aggressive-- Seadra --gets bigger-- Kingdra Omanyte --gets bigger-- Omastar Slowpoke --gets eaten-- Slowbro/king Paras --gets eaten-- Parasect Weedle/Caterpie/Wurmple --copies real creatures-- their respective evolutions. Buizel --gets bigger-- Floatzel Riolu --gets bigger-- Lucario Mudkip/Treecko --gets bigger-- Marshtomp/Grovlye --gets bigger-- Swampert/Sceptile Seel/Spheal --gets bigger-- Dewgong/Sealeo --gets bigger-- Walrein Electrike --gets bigger-- Manectric Luxio --gets bigger-- Luxray (Shinx excluded as it has more colour variation between it and Luxio than Luxio to Luxray) Kricketot --gets bigger (and awesomelly weird cry)-- Kricketune Lotad --gets bigger-- Lombre --gets bigger/mexican/pineappley-- Ludicolo Seedot --turns into a tree-- Shiftry (Even sounds like "tree") Grimer --apears bigger (has the same weight)-- Muk I know a lot of those are Gen I, but that's because my brain generally thinks about them more as I'm playing Hg/Ss. Also, most of the pokemon I listed, I personally like, so I'm not having a dig at those pokemon....but seriously, un-imaginativeness is actually incredibly imaginative by not making preposterous evolutions too common... And I could go on...just there's a huge list....for example, all baby pokemon! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I personally think Muk is badass, I mean just look at him. And they wanted a Pokemon to represent the main piece of technology in the Poke-world, aka Voltorb. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
SandslashFTW, you need to tone it down. The thread isn't for flaming other people's opinions, and if you continue on this way, you'll be infracted for such. And please edit your post. I should already go ahead and infract you for censor bypass, but I'm feeling generous tonight.
|
i guess 5th gen isn't that bad...
i'm starting to get used to seeing the pokemons... |
at first I thought Icecreamconemon was really lame, but you know I actually think he's pretty cute. also Plankmon, Girdermon, and Concreteblockmon I thought were weak sauce on Wednesday, but now I think they're pretty neat. Trashmon is my fav though. Sorry I totally don't keep track of the Japanese names.
The legendary dog trio though I feel is not so hot. |
Oohh....so now weearing clothes is wrong, is it?
http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/5/5f/Spr_4h_107.png So obviously not wearing clothes.... http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/6/64/Spr_4d_297.png not wearing clothes, is it..... http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/0/02/Spr_4h_124.png That's not a dress... c'mon, there're always pokemon that appear to wear clothes.....those're just 3 I can think of off the top of my head.... http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/5/59/Spr_4h_018.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/2/2c/Spr_4d_277.png C'mon, in Hg/Ss they even have the same pose......Staraptor and Fearow are slightly more different, so they weren't posted here. I personally love both of them, they're never available in the same mainstream game, either......so it's fine. http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/a/a2/Spr_4h_016.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/6/6a/Spr_4h_021.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/1/14/Spr_4h_177.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/8/8e/Spr_4d_276.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/4/4a/Spr_4p_396_m.png The first three even have the same species name....the first two are both Gen I, yet still look astonishingly similar! http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/2/2f/Spr_4h_025_m.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/f/f6/Spr_4h_183.png Marill was called "Pikablu"...... http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/9/97/Spr_4h_112_m.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/5/5b/Spr_4h_034.png They're quite similar, aren't they? I know Nidoking/Queen are, but they're supposed to be related.... http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/8/8b/Spr_4h_111_m.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/5/56/Spr_4h_033.png Their pre-evos are still similar, aren't they? http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/7/7f/Spr_4h_014.pnghttp://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/4/48/Spr_4h_011.png So, in conclusion, even between Gen I/II, although less common than later generations, due to the way they were connected, there were pokemon that were startlingly similar/"remade". It even happened within Gen I...... And, aside from a few pokemon, Gen III/IV had a great pokemon diversity.....and once you got further along, Gen I/II did too! I'm not directly comparing Gen V pokemon, as I wish to remain spoiler-free.... |
Quote:
Tauros <-> Afrobull or Luvdisc <-> Heartfish aren't nearly as similar as Rhydon <-> Nidoking |
I agree this,i love the 1st generation ;D
|
Quote:
(Up until gen V) Quote:
Please take off your nostalgia goggles and not buy any new Pokémon games. |
Quote:
Nageki and Dageki seem to look out of place in their gi's while the three you've mentioned their clothing doesn't really detract from the overall feel. |
Well maybe you're getting the wrong vibes off them? :P
I'm sure the way gamefreak see them, the clothes suit perfectly. Still, I was just pointing out that there are many designs involving clothes, or that look incredibly similar (such as purple poison rhino/grey rock rhino) before Gen V. |
I think Gen 5 is overall really creative and I'm happy with almost all of the designs. They all seem like really fresh and new Pokemon. I do think some of the bird Pokemon could be made to look a little more...unique in some way but all of the new Pokemon look different from old ones quite a lot.
I feel like a lot of people focus on whether or not a Pokemon looks "Pokemon-like" instead of just seeing it as it's own unique Pokemon regardless of how outlandish it might look. |
Well, the Gen V were certainly creative in their own way, and have proved that Sugimori can survive developing five whole generations of Pokemon without running out of ideas. I do admit that the Pokemon are starting to lean more to the complex design of Digimons, rather than the original, simple designs.
|
But then again....Victini?
That pidgeon? (incidentally, way more pidgeon-like than Pidgey - an example of the improvements between GB and DSi/3DS) Some are still simple...such as the starters' original forms. Overall, yes, they're more complex. |
On the topic of Gen5 Pokemon being "remakes" of old ones, I didn't really think so when I saw them all. Ignoring the typical Pokemon that occur once every gen anyways (early-game birds, Pikachu-clones, etc), of course. The thing about Gen5 is that the designers intentionally decided to forget about the previously "used" designs. Isshu is far from the other regions, and has little relation to any of them. Thus some of the "already used" animals and ideas could be used again. The new mole Pokemon are not Diglett clones; they merely happen to also be based on moles. Firemonkey isn't a Chimchar clone; it merely happens to be a Fire-Type monkey. I honestly don't think the designers were sitting around going HEY LET'S MAKE ANOTHER TAUROS or anything.
|
Quote:
|
People forget that each generation of Pokemon is coming from a completely different region.
Of course they're going to be drastically similar or drastically different. Fact of the matter is. You can't say they're run out of ideas. Charmander is a lizard with fire. He's a salamander. His name consists of Char and mander, as in charcoal or to char something and mander from salamander. What the hell is bulbasaur? He sure ain't anything I've ever seen to be honest. And squirtle. He's a turtle. A turtle that swims on water and uses water. I've been with Pokemon since the beginning but every generation we get these threads saying that the new generation sucks, or that the developers are running out of ideas or that they won't buy the games because the Pokemon look stupid. Some people are just not willing to accept something new. I mean, have you SEEN Sonic's fanbase? Sega gave them a game they've asked for for years and now they've completely bashed it. It's a good game. Newer Generations of Pokemon aren't lacking in ideas or creativity, they're JUST DIFFERENT. Simple as. After all. One cat isn't the same as another cat. Each generation has a different type or style or a certain idea such as Bird, Dog, Cat Pokemon and the Starters. But it still follows logic, it's a different region so it's going to have different variations of animals and completely different myths than the next region. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Darkrai isn't any more or less creative than any other legendary. It's an adaptation of certain real-world myths...most likely the idea of a Bogeyman or its Japanese equivalent (whose name escapes me at the moment) with impressive stats and a nearly-broken signature attack. Yes, you're allowed to think that Mewtwo is and always will be the god of the Pokemon universe, but is it so hard to accept that people actually like pokemon from GenIII onward? At this rate, you're not really helping your side of the debate, just making GenI purists look like some kind of bigoted bully. XD |
The new Pokemon are just as creative, but I don't seem to like them much.
|
Well guys, since we can't keep a civil conversation going in this thread, you can all kiss it goodbye. Someone feel free to make a new one when we can be good boys and girls.
Locked. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:47 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.