The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Pokémon Gaming Central (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Is it me or New pokemons are getting less creative?? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=232457)

Kingdra Forevar October 5th, 2010 4:19 PM

I'm agreeing The 2nd generation would have to be the height of creativity for the series.

Isasapiens October 6th, 2010 5:36 AM

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.

murkage October 6th, 2010 4:32 PM

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.

Apostrophe October 7th, 2010 6:40 AM

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.

nakahubadme October 8th, 2010 12:42 AM

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.

JessiexJackknife October 8th, 2010 7:44 AM

I think there are some bad and some good, and it's always been like that for every generation of Pokemon.


Kirbychu October 8th, 2010 8:02 AM

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.




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.

WonderGirl October 8th, 2010 11:30 AM

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*

Akirα October 8th, 2010 11:46 AM

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.

Prometheus October 8th, 2010 11:51 AM

Well, Gen 5 are the worst, They look sad and cheap.

Pumpkin Fields October 8th, 2010 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirbychu (Post 6209506)
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.


http://static.marriland.com/images/bw/sprites/front/norm/631_kuitaran_front_norm.png
http://static.marriland.com/images/bw/sprites/front/norm/630_barujiina_front_norm.pnghttp://static.marriland.com/images/bw/sprites/front/norm/518_mushaana_front_norm.pnghttp://static.marriland.com/images/bw/sprites/front/norm/560_zuruzukin_front_norm.png

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.

I think it's good that they don't resemble animals anymore. I already know what a ladybug looks like, Ledyba doesn't impress me. That's the major problem I had with gen 1, it looked like there was no effort put into the designs. I remember being a little kid and thinking Persian was the coolest, most creative thing ever, but now all I can see is a cat with a dot on its forehead.
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.

Clark October 8th, 2010 5:05 PM

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.

Kirbychu October 8th, 2010 5:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iLike2EatPiez (Post 6210488)
... 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.

No one said that all Pokemon have to be based on animals. If you learned to read you'd realize that we were stating that we simply prefer more animal-like designs. We're entitled to our own opinion, just like you. Not everyone has to like what you like. Don't pull out that Voltorb and Magnemite garbage, I never really liked them either, to be honest. In fact, Generation 1 Pokemon are too simple for my taste. However, older Pokemon are more animal-like, this is a fact. A lot of us don't like the new Pokemon, there's nothing more to it. Arguing with us and trying to say that Pokemon has always been this way is idiotic and simply a waste of both our time.

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?

Wings Don't Cry October 8th, 2010 7:33 PM

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.

La Denryu October 8th, 2010 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirbychu (Post 6209506)
The last one looks like it was made in 3 minutes, they didn't even bother to detail the eyes.

This has been said before, but 1st generation didn't have a lot of thought put into them either.

O hai, ditto.

Pokemon aren't getting uglier/less original. You're just getting older.

Clark October 8th, 2010 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirbychu (Post 6210558)
No one said that all Pokemon have to be based on animals. If you learned to read you'd realize that we were stating that we simply prefer more animal-like designs. We're entitled to our own opinion, just like you. Not everyone has to like what you like. Don't pull out that Voltorb and Magnemite garbage, I never really liked them either, to be honest. In fact, Generation 1 Pokemon are too simple for my taste. However, older Pokemon are more animal-like, this is a fact. A lot of us don't like the new Pokemon, there's nothing more to it. Arguing with us and trying to say that Pokemon has always been this way is idiotic and simply a waste of both our time.

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?

Why so aggressive? .w.

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.

Timbjerr October 8th, 2010 8:13 PM

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.

Iceshadow3317 October 9th, 2010 4:07 AM

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.

PiPVoda October 9th, 2010 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iLike2EatPiez (Post 6210823)
Why so aggressive? .w.

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 stands for pocket monsters as we all may know. Now, if I'm right monsters don't have to resemble real life creatures at all. That is the beauty of this word. A monster can be anything, meaning so can a pokemon.

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

Maruno October 9th, 2010 3:51 PM

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).

Palkia October 10th, 2010 1:49 AM

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.

Gardenia101 October 10th, 2010 7:36 AM

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".

Bluerang1 October 10th, 2010 8:11 AM

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

Clark October 10th, 2010 9:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartianOddity (Post 6213476)
Look at your own post which drips of sarcasm. Sarcasm of that magnitude is what disrespectful people use generally. It doesn't give a tone of respect to the discussion being held but rather than an agressive statement without much tact behind it in your case.

I was using sarcasm in the first half of my post to make a point in a joking manner, not to aggressively attack anybody's opinion. Sarcasm isn't respectful, but that doesn't mean it's always aggressive. Y so srs?


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.

sabrina_diamond October 11th, 2010 8:52 PM

I like SOME of the new designs (Pokabu for the win), but Minezumi looks hyper enough and they resemble plushies


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 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.