![]() |
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. |
| 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.