The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Previous Generations (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=200)
-   -   5th Gen Why do you think Black and White has recieved so many bad remarks? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=284536)

Kanto_Johto July 18th, 2012 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7259480)
And Roggenrola was a better name? It's an even worse pun.

Opinions differ, my friend. Personally I would agree that Seel is less creative than Roggenrola, so I prefer Roggenrola over it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7259480)
The few Pokemon that were man made are a good example of the human presence in the Pokemon World. However, they shouldn't all look robotic, it's Pokemon, not Robomon.

1. Again, that's your opinion, it's not a fact.
2. Not all of them look robotic anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7259480)
Yet I don't see you complaining about Amoongus, which is just a mushroom with a Pokeball-like cap. This just proves you hate the old and only like the new.

I somewhat agree with you on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7259480)
Yet again, I don't see you whining about the many bad B/W Pokemon. There are bad ones in every generation. If you're going to complain about Jynx, you can at least acknowledge that there were bad ones in Unova as well (Audino, Gothitelle, Swoobat)

Pokemon that are "good" or "bad" in terms of design is a subjective matter. It's all about opinion. A lot of people would list Pokemon like Audino, Gothitelle, Swoobat, Jynx, Garbodor or whoever else in a list of their favourite Pokemon. All a matter of opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7259480)
Is Lugia cool? Judging by it's popularity, then yes, it is very cool. Does it have spikes? No. Spikes and armor don't make a Pokemon cool.

Again, some people may be of the opinion that spikes and armour do make a Pokemon cool, so the matter of what makes a Pokemon cool is also subjective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7259480)
No, Kanto had only 1 starter with only 1 type, that one being Blastoise. Venusaur is Grass/Poison and Charizard is Fire/Flying. And with Johto, the three starters all only had one type, which was consistent within the trio. With B/W, you had a pure Grass and a pure Water, but Game Freak decided they like the Fire/Fighting tradition too much, so they just had to make Emboar a Fire/Fighting.

I don't see why this is a problem and I never have been able to. Emboar's Fighting type is just an added bonus to create a more diverse moveset for a Pokemon that actually does suit the Fighting type. I can't understand why it annoys people as much as it does. It really doesn't matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7259480)
It has to do with the fact that you're simply bashing me and my preferences without providing any real substantial points.

Many of your replies to him are also based on your personal opinions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7259480)
I believe that you're forgetting the fact that the Johto games also featured Kanto.

They're still separate regions though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7259480)
I know how much you hate conveniences, but when a Pokemon game has these conveniences, it's easy to get used to them. And I, personally, prefer conveniences over no conveniences.

Small inconveniences like not having a permanent run button shouldn't be reasons for someone to dislike a game when it really doesn't matter all that much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7259480)
Yes, I know how awful it is that I prefer the older games. I'm so sorry that I have the opinion that the older games are better. It certainly is horrifying.

I know you think anyone who dares like the older generations better is simply "stuck in the past", but I must ask you: Have you heard of opinions before?

I agree with the opinion that the older games are better, but I'm sure crystalzapdos respects an opinion as much as anyone else on this board does and is simply arguing his point in the same way you are. Also, you accused him of being aggressive (which is somewhat true), but now you're being at least as aggressive, if not more so in your replies addressed to him.

At the end of the day, half of the posts on this forum include forms of opinions, which you may or may not agree with. There's no need for an unfriendly environment during these kinds of debate.

Dantethesaint7 July 18th, 2012 4:22 PM

1. Some people don't like any Nintendo DS pokemon games (or even any games outside of the 2nd generation)
2. The pokemon are ugly and unoriginal. (Trubish ugly) (Vanillish unoriginal)
I don't mind ugly pokemon but the unoriginal names are killing me
I love pokemon white and black i think it is one of the best duos and i think this game changed pokemon games forever.

xelarator July 18th, 2012 4:53 PM

To ^ Get ready to have a stern talking to by one of these debaters.

NOW, I think Pokemon B&W has received bad remarks because of opinions on the character design. Other than that, I think B&W was a good game to add to the Pokemon series.

Deokishisu July 18th, 2012 5:02 PM

Back from the grave to chime in on this topic.

To start off, I'm firmly in the "Gen 5 Haters" camp of Pokemon fans. I played through Black multiple times, trying harder each playthrough to like it and accept it as a legitimate continuation of the franchise, but I just couldn't.

Much of it is because of the Pokemon's designs, and how utterly cut-off from the older, more familiar Pokemon you are. It's a matter of how the Pokemon just don't LOOK like anything we've come to expect, which is a huge disconnect. It's as if Game Freak just decided to go a completely different style with this one, in regards to the Pokemon's designs, and it shows as it alienates many of the players that stuck with them all these years.

Part of me thinks it's to cater to the younger crowd. The spikes and the overly complicated "unPokemon-like" designs must make the kids squeal with how awesome and bada** they look. All in all, it makes the Pokemon this time around come off as hollow, wooden, and flat.

That's not to say we didn't get good ones this time! But normally, the good ones make up a majority of the new additions. This time, it seems they are in the minority. Pokemon like Joltik and Galvantula were welcome additions. Larvesta and Meloetta were wonderful designs as well. Many of the others were not. It didn't help that many of them used the same poses and graphics as their counterparts/evolutions. It's obvious that the Kling line was built on one sprite, in one uninteresting pose. The Thundurus trio is the same Pokemon with different tails. I could go on and on.

Gen 5 didn't really bring any new mechanics this time around either. Triple Battles and Rotation Battles got lukewarm reception, because they just weren't interesting. Double battles have been around since the second episode of the anime. They just fit when they were introduced in the Third Generation, and the new abilities played off them to make them feel incredibly natural and connected. In contrast, Triple Battles and Rotation Battles feel nothing like that. The system itself feels isolated and tacked onto the game as an afterthought. Another grab at "how awesome would this be?" without thinking it all the way through.

Reducing the pinnacle of Pokemon Contests as it was when it was introduced in Gen 3, to the sad but playable state in Gen 4, to dress up in Gen 5 was terrible. Taking away features, especially when there is no endgame and how linear and restrictive the region and story felt was a regrettable decision. The removal of the Safari Zone was also a strike against this generation. The difference between Black and say... Ruby in keeping the player engaged, during and after the story, is huge.

I felt like I was trapped on train tracks going through Unova. It was a frustratingly linear experience compared to where we were just a generation ago. I understand that roadblocks HAVE to be there occasionally. Snorlax kept you from being slaughtered in Gen 1 early on. Sudowoodo made sure that you couldn't head all the way to the Lake of Rage, catch powerful Pokemon, and come back to get your 3rd badge. Those Psyducks you need to pick up a SecretPotion to move were necessary as well. Unova, by comparison, felt like a game of "When will I be stopped next?". The answer to that question came up often. There are plenty of ways the story could've been written to allow for more player freedom, but they chose to constrict the player instead. Again, I believe that this may be another catering to the younger folks who may not get the story if it wasn't presented to them in pre-chewed little chunks at every stop.

I felt that the evil team this time around had a really, really good motive. How it was handled, however, right up to when Ghetsis turned into a stereotypical mustache-twirling villain, contradicted what they were founded on. You're working to free Pokemon from oppression... by oppressing your own by battling those who disagree with you. My house is on fire, I think if I chuck more fireballs at it, it'll go out. Team Plasma would've made a fine team, probably the best in the series, if they could really, REALLY make people think about what you were doing to your Pokemon. What the world was doing to Pokemon. With the exception of N, the grunts were stereotypical, power hungry, Pokemon abusing, thugs. The exact thing they were fighting against. Team Plasma should've been filled to the brim with incredibly caring, well intentioned people. People who cared about Pokemon enough to fight for their rights. I suppose it was the attitude of basically every member of the team that caused that disconnect. And Ghetsis turning into the flat take-over-the-world thing at the end was just terrible. Also, Plasma? That's what they named their organization? Reallllllly?

There was no endgame. You beat the evil team, and suddenly you find yourself 20 levels behind the wild Pokemon in the next area, with nothing to do. The online was full of hacks, hacks that Game Freak has already shown it has the technology to detect and weed out but didn't. Also, after the blissful convenience that was the HG/SS interface, it was jarring to be stuck with the mostly useless C-Gear.

All-in-all, Gen 5 turned out to be an incredibly disappointing and hollow experience.

Edited a bit for clarity and a few added points.

Nolafus July 18th, 2012 8:03 PM

My first game was Pokemon Black, but I did go back and play the older generation games and it made me realise something. A lot of people just look at the new pokemon seeing ones like vanilluxe and chandelure and say that they are stupid while remembering the good ones from earlier generations such as Charizard and Lapras, but in fact every generation has pokemon that are kind of lame with the design and naming (I never liked Farfetch'd because it's a duck holding a stick and what's with the name?). People say that every gen 5 pokemon is terrible, but I never got what was wrong with Zebstrika, Gigalith, Excadrill, Liepard, and Eelektross. My point is that every generation has it's up and downs and that a few bad designs that are put out there shouldn't mean that a generation is ruined.

Cyclone July 18th, 2012 9:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slayr231 (Post 7260161)
My first game was Pokemon Black, but I did go back and play the older generation games and it made me realise something. A lot of people just look at the new pokemon seeing ones like vanilluxe and chandelure and say that they are stupid while remembering the good ones from earlier generations such as Charizard and Lapras, but in fact every generation has pokemon that are kind of lame with the design and naming (I never liked Farfetch'd because it's a duck holding a stick and what's with the name?). People say that every gen 5 pokemon is terrible, but I never got what was wrong with Zebstrika, Gigalith, Excadrill, Liepard, and Eelektross. My point is that every generation has it's up and downs and that a few bad designs that are put out there shouldn't mean that a generation is ruined.

There is also the opinion factor. I for one can't wait to catch a Farfetch'd in the Route 1 swarms because I am curious what it can do,; even while playing older ROMs, I never caught one.

Cyclone

Hikamaru July 19th, 2012 8:08 AM

My thoughts on why Black and White got bad remarks:

Pokemon designs - This was one of the biggest backlashes relating to B/W, when people saw Pokemon like Klinklang, Vanilluxe, Garbodor and Chandelure they thought Nintendo were running out of ideas. However, I actually like the designs of most of the new Pokemon.

Postgame - Now, this one was well complained about, the Trainers, although having Pokemon 10 levels higher than when you beat Ghetsis were still a challenge. Then you had to find 6 of the Seven Sages, and also rematches against Cheren, Bianca and the trainers in the Nimbasa Stadiums were there for extra training. However, once you find all the Sages, people thought there was nothing to do after that.

Only Unova Pokemon in main story - The reason why only Unova Pokemon were seen before the National Pokedex was due to apparent fans of older games who relied on older gen Pokemon. This disappointed some players but not others, who knew it was the definition of a fresh start.

Battle Subway - There was basically NOTHING to do here, that was my big disappointment with the game. And most people also knew how disappointed they were, cos on the Normal lines all the Trainers use only Unova Pokemon which again made some fans not like the games. Also, Anville Town is totally optional so don't even bother.

Pokemon Musicals - Many people who loved the Contests in earlier games knew the Musical was an inferior Contest. It received a lot of distaste among players.

The Unova Starters - As I've seen, most people claim Unova has the worst starters of any region. I disagree with that cos their designs look cool. The main point on why the starters got so much hate was due to their types. First, we have Snivy, which stays pure Grass throughout its evolution. Second, Tepig which sadly became the most hated starter due to being the third starter to get a Fire/Fighting type when it evolves. People also hated Emboar's design. And finally, Oshawott which, just like Snivy, stays purely typed throughout evolution, in this case Water. On the subject of Emboar, while Fire/Fighting is an awesome type combo, many people think Game Freak are hiding a tradition.

Cyclone July 19th, 2012 8:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hikari10 (Post 7260962)
Also, Anville Town is totally optional so don't even bother.

Keep in mind an Ultra Ball and a Rare Candy are found there. Also, there are traders there on weekends, but you have to have stuff first (like two Escape Ropes for a Revive).

Cyclone

Atomic Pirate July 19th, 2012 9:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deokishisu (Post 7259982)
Back from the grave to chime in on this topic.

To start off, I'm firmly in the "Gen 5 Haters" camp of Pokemon fans. I played through Black multiple times, trying harder each playthrough to like it and accept it as a legitimate continuation of the franchise, but I just couldn't.

Much of it is because of the Pokemon's designs, and how utterly cut-off from the older, more familiar Pokemon you are. It's a matter of how the Pokemon just don't LOOK like anything we've come to expect, which is a huge disconnect. It's as if Game Freak just decided to go a completely different style with this one, in regards to the Pokemon's designs, and it shows as it alienates many of the players that stuck with them all these years.

Part of me thinks it's to cater to the younger crowd. The spikes and the overly complicated "unPokemon-like" designs must make the kids squeal with how awesome and bada** they look. All in all, it makes the Pokemon this time around come off as hollow, wooden, and flat.

That's not to say we didn't get good ones this time! But normally, the good ones make up a majority of the new additions. This time, it seems they are in the minority. Pokemon like Joltik and Galvantula were welcome additions. Larvesta and Meloetta were wonderful designs as well. Many of the others were not. It didn't help that many of them used the same poses and graphics as their counterparts/evolutions. It's obvious that the Kling line was built on one sprite, in one uninteresting pose. The Thundurus trio is the same Pokemon with different tails. I could go on and on.

Gen 5 didn't really bring any new mechanics this time around either. Triple Battles and Rotation Battles got lukewarm reception, because they just weren't interesting. Double battles have been around since the second episode of the anime. They just fit when they were introduced in the Third Generation, and the new abilities played off them to make them feel incredibly natural and connected. In contrast, Triple Battles and Rotation Battles feel nothing like that. The system itself feels isolated and tacked onto the game as an afterthought. Another grab at "how awesome would this be?" without thinking it all the way through.

Reducing the pinnacle of Pokemon Contests as it was when it was introduced in Gen 3, to the sad but playable state in Gen 4, to dress up in Gen 5 was terrible. Taking away features, especially when there is no endgame and how linear and restrictive the region and story felt was a regrettable decision. The removal of the Safari Zone was also a strike against this generation. The difference between Black and say... Ruby in keeping the player engaged, during and after the story, is huge.

I felt like I was trapped on train tracks going through Unova. It was a frustratingly linear experience compared to where we were just a generation ago. I understand that roadblocks HAVE to be there occasionally. Snorlax kept you from being slaughtered in Gen 1 early on. Sudowoodo made sure that you couldn't head all the way to the Lake of Rage, catch powerful Pokemon, and come back to get your 3rd badge. Those Psyducks you need to pick up a SecretPotion to move were necessary as well. Unova, by comparison, felt like a game of "When will I be stopped next?". The answer to that question came up often. There are plenty of ways the story could've been written to allow for more player freedom, but they chose to constrict the player instead. Again, I believe that this may be another catering to the younger folks who may not get the story if it wasn't presented to them in pre-chewed little chunks at every stop.

I felt that the evil team this time around had a really, really good motive. How it was handled, however, right up to when Ghetsis turned into a stereotypical mustache-twirling villain, contradicted what they were founded on. You're working to free Pokemon from oppression... by oppressing your own by battling those who disagree with you. My house is on fire, I think if I chuck more fireballs at it, it'll go out. Team Plasma would've made a fine team, probably the best in the series, if they could really, REALLY make people think about what you were doing to your Pokemon. What the world was doing to Pokemon. With the exception of N, the grunts were stereotypical, power hungry, Pokemon abusing, thugs. The exact thing they were fighting against. Team Plasma should've been filled to the brim with incredibly caring, well intentioned people. People who cared about Pokemon enough to fight for their rights. I suppose it was the attitude of basically every member of the team that caused that disconnect. And Ghetsis turning into the flat take-over-the-world thing at the end was just terrible. Also, Plasma? That's what they named their organization? Reallllllly?

There was no endgame. You beat the evil team, and suddenly you find yourself 20 levels behind the wild Pokemon in the next area, with nothing to do. The online was full of hacks, hacks that Game Freak has already shown it has the technology to detect and weed out but didn't. Also, after the blissful convenience that was the HG/SS interface, it was jarring to be stuck with the mostly useless C-Gear.

All-in-all, Gen 5 turned out to be an incredibly disappointing and hollow experience.

Edited a bit for clarity and a few added points.

Wow. Just wow. What you said here is pretty much everything I was trying to say.

pokemontrainer_samuel July 20th, 2012 11:21 PM

For someone who has been playing Pokemon since 1999 as an 8 year old, I still find myself quite excited about new pokemon games. Well sure, initially the pokemon would look really ugly (starting from div IV, I found that I disliked new pokemon designs until I start playing the games). Basically, after seeing the pokemon from BW for the first time, I kinda felt that they were quite messed up, like one of those fanboy creations of new pokemon. I mean, a starting pokemon that looks like a clown (Oshawott) and a Racoon that's infected by red eye and his evolution that looks like a ripoff from Lion King? Now, after playing for some time, I've sorta gotten used to the pokemon designs, and even love some of them.

Actually I don't see why so many people hate the game. I'm the only person with a DS in my class, and everyone would crowd around me watching me play the game and everyone was marveled by it (if you were wondering, all of us are aged 20 and above and have played every single game of the main series). Many of my friend loved the designs of the pokemon, especially Emboar. Emboar quickly became a favourite among them even though they were all Muslims (FYI due to religious reasons, pigs are quite a touchy issue for them to the extend that Tepig was the only starter excluded from McDonald's Happy Meal in Malaysia, but let's not discuss this please). So far the only pokemon which they found weird and funny was Patrat. So I kinda doubt that the design of Gen V pokemon are that bad since all the pokefans in my place love their designs (Well they didn't see all Gen V pokemon, but I have, and I don't think that they're exceptionally ugly or terribly designed).

I think BW received so many bad remarks because of it succeeding HGSS. But hey, BW and HGSS are two totally different types of games. I believed that Game Freak were trying to explore new concepts in BW. HGSS on the other hand, is basically GSC with better graphics and extra features. Although we cannot deny they added in some new features, but other than the pokewalker and the auto run button (which I found meaningless, since years of RSE and FRLG gaming has developed me a habit of holding down the B button when walking, no matter which RPG game I play, so it wouldn't matter at all since I'll be pressing B anyway), there isn't much originality to it. BW on the other hand, tried to introduce some new untested features (triple battle, rotation battle, random matchup, DW, camera angles, musicals, gym and E4 animations etc). Well we cannot deny that some of them were lousy (I've never touched the musicals after trying for the first time because I don't really understand it), but it was something which could potentially set a new hallmark for pokemon games and breathe new life into them, instead of producing 1001 remakes of previous versions.

ZetaZaku July 21st, 2012 1:53 AM

The only things I disliked about Gen V are the Dream World and Entralink. It's nice being able to get a Pokemon that can't be found before E4, but the mini games are really boring. I know that it's made for kids, but it doesn't even look like it's made for the same age as the main games. It looks like it's made for 3 year olds. I don't really have a problem with Entralink, but I wish it was Wi-Fi based and not Wireless.

I had no other problems with the game. Only Unova Pokemon until Post Game was okay to me. It was kinda refreshing just being able to play with the new Pokemon. If I want to play with older Pokemon, I'll play an older game. It would be bad of course if they excluded them from the whole game. Being able to catch older Pokemon after E4 and via Dream World is fine with me.

I can't see why people are complaining about the post game. There are new Routes to explore, new (old) Pokemon to see and catch, have rematches with Cheren and Bell, fight Cynthia and the sages etc. Gen III only had the Battle Frontier and Gen I didn't have anything at all. Just the Mewtwo challenge.

Loonie July 21st, 2012 1:58 AM

My Reasons hmm.. the pokemon from the original pokemon are much more cooler then black and white and those that are in the game are more like fakemons.... and also Soulsilver and Heartgold are two great games . but i was disappointed when black and white was released i prefer heartgold or soulsilver then pokemon black or white

pokemontrainer_samuel July 21st, 2012 5:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZetaZaku (Post 7263431)
The only things I disliked about Gen V are the Dream World and Entralink. It's nice being able to get a Pokemon that can't be found before E4, but the mini games are really boring. I know that it's made for kids, but it doesn't even look like it's made for the same age as the main games. It looks like it's made for 3 year olds. I don't really have a problem with Entralink, but I wish it was Wi-Fi based and not Wireless.

If I'm not wrong, you can access Entralink without WiFi connection, because when you wake up your pokemon, the data is already downloaded into your game pak. Plus, you don't have to connect to Nintendo WiFi server to get to entralink, so WiFi is not needed.

Edited In:
By the way, the mini games are definitely not made for 3 year olds. Sky race involves well developed hand eye coordination, try to get every single one (bet you've never achieved it. Neither have I though). Wailmer game also involves a lot of hand eye coordination, try getting a 30 ball streak. The Sableye gem game does not only require good reaction, but also precision. Blow out the candles game requires some decent analytic skills, try going on a long winning streak instead of spending a lot of time thinking. Scoop the ice cream game also requires analytic skills in planning which berry you should use, which ice cream you should put and where should you put them. The frozen treat sweep also involves a lot of analytic skills and hand eye coordination. I agree that the mini games may seem simple, but if you keep trying to beat your score, you'll find it quite challenging. But they're mini games after all. What kind of mini games do you expect TPC to give you? The only problem about DW is that they keep sending you to the same old stupid place again and again for several times in a row. I've finished catching all the pokemon I can get with less than 7000 dream points in the spooky manor, and some how TPC keeps trolling me by sending me there several times in a row until the 5 visit quota is up and then send me to somewhere like windswept sky and I don't get to meet any pokemon or get any items there.

Mentalii July 23rd, 2012 5:26 AM

All this hartred against BW is obviously due to the new Pokémon. To my mind, they look pretty bad, and I know that a lot of people that like or not Pokémon think the same. Some 5G lovers will say that the problem come from the players' difficulty to appropriate new Pokémons, but the 4G Pokémon receive a way better welcome, so, the problem come from the 5G Pokémon themselves.
Except this point, these games are really good. Maybe some feature are useless (Dream World...), but that's not enough not to like these games I guess. The Pokémon's design is a reason though. But anyway, we have to face up to the facts that we won't have good Pokémon anymore, the new ones will never be able to be up to the former ones.

pokemontrainer_samuel July 24th, 2012 5:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mentalii (Post 7266885)
Some 5G lovers will say that the problem come from the players' difficulty to appropriate new Pokémons, but the 4G Pokémon receive a way better welcome, so, the problem come from the 5G Pokémon themselves.

I think the pokefans were just excited about the DS, not the Gen 4 pokemon designs.

Ho-Oh July 24th, 2012 9:04 AM

Yeah I kinda agree with the above. I don't hear anyone really screaming praises of joy towards gen 4 Pokemon, and they say "they don't look like Pokemon" according to the thread dedicated to that. So yeah, I don't think it's specifically gen 5 and rather people don't like the change in the designs compared to the originals, so it's all kinda nostalgia based rather than a complete dislike.

ReshZek200 July 24th, 2012 12:08 PM

@Spinosaurus, i LIKE B/W kyruem because they are creative, I brought B/W 2 for 60$ and only because of the FUN. it`s about the strategies, the new characters and anime.... it`s about the new movies!! Think about it.... Why fight when we can play so much more PKMN?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loonie (Post 7263435)
My Reasons hmm.. the pokemon from the original pokemon are much more cooler then black and white and those that are in the game are more like fakemons.... and also Soulsilver and Heartgold are two great games . but i was disappointed when black and white was released i prefer heartgold or soulsilver then pokemon black or white

disagree... :/
B/W is okay, and so is Ss/Hg.... but ALL the gens are right for me..

HenkieDePost July 25th, 2012 3:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voicerocker (Post 7256764)
What is a "real Pokemon"? All 649 Pokemon are REAL Pokemon.

Would you like to compare? I can find you several Pokemon that look odd in every generation.

So, how are these any better than the ones in Gen 5? They aren't. They're all Pokemon. Just because they look different doesn't mean they don't look like a Pokemon.

And "didn't even try"? How about these?


These Pokemon were very simple, but the only reason people don't complain about them is because they came first.

How is this:

any more or less creative than this?:

Answer: they're not. Game Freak has to find ways to make new Pokemon stand out from older Pokemon, which is why the don't all look alike. Don't get me wrong, I grew up with the first Gen, but those are some of the most basic designs of them all. There is nothing wrong with any Gen 5 Pokemon. The Taoism theme with the Unova dragons was a great idea, so I don't know how anyone can say they "didn't try" with such a great concept.



And no, they didn't go overboard. They introduced 13 Legendary Pokemon with 143 regular Pokemon. In all, 47 Pokemon are Legendary while 602 are not. That is only 7.2% of all Pokemon.

Listen man, you probably wont agree with me anyway, but I will try to make my point clear anyway. You tell me the gen 1 pokemon you showed in your second row (muk, magneton ed) aren't creative at all. That may be true, but you miss the point.

It is not about creativity. I could also give a piece of bacon a laser and a ice cone on his head and call it creative. Would you like a bacon with a laser and an ice cone in pokemon? (I was hoping you will say no but I am actually starting to like the idea now. ;p)

Creativity is no issue at all. Something doesn't have to be creative to be a succes. Charizard is just a red dragon, not very creative or something. But if you take a look at the strange fire pokemon you posted (emboar) or something, the only thing I can think of it looks like is a sad clown. I think it's design is horrible. It is childish, doesn't look like anything and is just too strange, even for a pokemon. It just doesn't look right for me. (and I quote FOR ME) (that means it is an opinion ;p)

Those new pokemon may be so creative as hell, but they just don't look like anything at all. Compare the way pokemon developed with the anime. AT first, things looked normal (at least normal in the terms of pocket monsters which you could put in tiny little balls) . Charizard is not very creative, he's just a red dragon. Ash is not very creative, he's just a 10 year old boy. brock is not very creative, his outfit is fairly normal. misty is not very creative, pikachu is not very creative and so on and so on and so on. They were just normal people with normal pokemon which looked alot like their animal counterparts.

Did we have a problem with it back then? NO. And now all of the sudde, with the new generations, everything has to be creative, weird looking and strange? Why's that? Are the pokemon you all loved since you were a child suddenly not good enough anymore because they put a heart shaped nose on a gentically modified zubat? Is a magneton suddenly not good enough because they set a clown on fire and called it an Emboar? Creativity might be good, to an extent. But if you make things too creative, nobody will be able to fell connected to it anymore. It is just like abstract art. It might be supercreative, but I don't feel connected with it. It feels hollow. It is just like the pokemon. The new pokemon just feel too distant for me. They don't feel like real pokemon anymore.

Please don't get me wrong, but since this generation came out, you guys all start to talk about things which are wrong about the older generations while you guys all loved them in the past. Suddenly, if you still like the old generations, you are sad and way too nostalgic. That is utter nonsence. I liked the new things in B and W, but I just don't like the pokemon. That is my opinion. That doesn't mean I'm sad or nostalgic, that means I have my own preferences. The old pokemon are the 'real' pokemon for me. The new pokemon (with some exceptions) are just hollow shells in comparison to the older ones. Not every new pokemon, they still got it in them, (the legendaries as an example are very well made) but this generation just doesn't work for me. (maybe if B and W 2 come out, if I put more time in the game the acceptance might come.)

I hope you guys realize this is just an opinion of mine. You don't have to agree (what you guys probably don't do anyway) but keep in mind that this is the way I think about it and that it is not 'fact based'

pokemontrainer_samuel July 25th, 2012 5:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Listen man, you probably wont agree with me anyway, but I will try to make my point clear anyway. You tell me the gen 1 pokemon you showed in your second row (muk, magneton ed) aren't creative at all. That may be true, but you miss the point.

It is not about creativity. I could also give a piece of bacon a laser and a ice cone on his head and call it creative. Would you like a bacon with a laser and an ice cone in pokemon? (I was hoping you will say no but I am actually starting to like the idea now. ;p)

Creativity is no issue at all. Something doesn't have to be creative to be a succes. Charizard is just a red dragon, not very creative or something. But if you take a look at the strange fire pokemon you posted (emboar) or something, the only thing I can think of it looks like is a sad clown. I think it's design is horrible. It is childish, doesn't look like anything and is just too strange, even for a pokemon. It just doesn't look right for me. (and I quote FOR ME) (that means it is an opinion ;p)

Those new pokemon may be so creative as hell, but they just don't look like anything at all. Compare the way pokemon developed with the anime. AT first, things looked normal (at least normal in the terms of pocket monsters which you could put in tiny little balls) . Charizard is not very creative, he's just a red dragon. Ash is not very creative, he's just a 10 year old boy. brock is not very creative, his outfit is fairly normal. misty is not very creative, pikachu is not very creative and so on and so on and so on. They were just normal people with normal pokemon which looked alot like their animal counterparts.

Did we have a problem with it back then? NO. And now all of the sudde, with the new generations, everything has to be creative, weird looking and strange? Why's that? Are the pokemon you all loved since you were a child suddenly not good enough anymore because they put a heart shaped nose on a gentically modified zubat? Is a magneton suddenly not good enough because they set a clown on fire and called it an Emboar? Creativity might be good, to an extent. But if you make things too creative, nobody will be able to fell connected to it anymore. It is just like abstract art. It might be supercreative, but I don't feel connected with it. It feels hollow. It is just like the pokemon. The new pokemon just feel too distant for me. They don't feel like real pokemon anymore.

Please don't get me wrong, but since this generation came out, you guys all start to talk about things which are wrong about the older generations while you guys all loved them in the past. Suddenly, if you still like the old generations, you are sad and way too nostalgic. That is utter nonsence. I liked the new things in B and W, but I just don't like the pokemon. That is my opinion. That doesn't mean I'm sad or nostalgic, that means I have my own preferences. The old pokemon are the 'real' pokemon for me. The new pokemon (with some exceptions) are just hollow shells in comparison to the older ones. Not every new pokemon, they still got it in them, (the legendaries as an example are very well made) but this generation just doesn't work for me. (maybe if B and W 2 come out, if I put more time in the game the acceptance might come.)

I hope you guys realize this is just an opinion of mine. You don't have to agree (what you guys probably don't do anyway) but keep in mind that this is the way I think about it and that it is not 'fact based'

Yea, I really enjoyed all the older pokemon generations and still love them, and I bet everyone here does. However, we don't (like you said) say bad things about the older generation. It's more of a "If you say this generation is bad, you are also condemning the previous generations because if you actually look at them closely they were also the same." We aren't condemning the older generations. New generation haters are the ones who are insulting their favourite gen 1, because the points they bring out can also be applied to the older generations.

I do agree that creativity is not the issue though. Pokemon is a very creative concept to start with, and you cannot doubt that there are very creative creatures created from back in gen 1. Who would have imagined a living creature with a plant on top of it? Or a simple fish that can evolve into giant blue worm that lives in a water and has fins with a giant mouth? Or a blue snake with wings at both sides of it's head? Or a black faced opera singer with thick lips? These creatures are definitely not natural like you imagine gen 1 to be, but they are certainly creative. It's not much different from the newer generation pokemons. As for the human characters, I'd say I would prefer the older generation people as they look more normal, although Ash's hair is still one of the world's biggest mysteries (how did he make them stick out like that?).

Liking the older generations do not make one nostalgic (I still worship Mew as the ultimate unchallenged best pokemon ever even though there are 649 pokemon now), but condemning the newer generations with points that can also be applied to older generations are what makes someone nostalgic.

I don't understand though: Why do people keep comparing Woobat with Zubat? Why not the bulbasaur line with the oddish line? Bulbasaur and oddish are both living creatures with grass on top of them, and their last evolution, Venusaur and Vileplume, are living creatures with a rafflesia on them. They have the same type as well, and both learn a lot of same moves. Woobat and Zubat however, are not even of the same type to start with. Why not compare the Mankey line to Woobat? The both of them are fluffy animals with a pig snout. And stop criticizing the heart shaped nose, because for your information, there is a species of bats in real life that have heart shaped noses. It's actually based on an animal that actually exists. How unnatural is that compared to a bat without eyes. Have you ever seen a bat without eyes in real life?

HenkieDePost July 25th, 2012 6:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pokemontrainer_samuel (Post 7269893)
Yea, I really enjoyed all the older pokemon generations and still love them, and I bet everyone here does. However, we don't (like you said) say bad things about the older generation. It's more of a "If you say this generation is bad, you are also condemning the previous generations because if you actually look at them closely they were also the same." We aren't condemning the older generations. New generation haters are the ones who are insulting their favourite gen 1, because the points they bring out can also be applied to the older generations.

I do agree that creativity is not the issue though. Pokemon is a very creative concept to start with, and you cannot doubt that there are very creative creatures created from back in gen 1. Who would have imagined a living creature with a plant on top of it? Or a simple fish that can evolve into giant blue worm that lives in a water and has fins with a giant mouth? Or a blue snake with wings at both sides of it's head? Or a black faced opera singer with thick lips? These creatures are definitely not natural like you imagine gen 1 to be, but they are certainly creative. It's not much different from the newer generation pokemons. As for the human characters, I'd say I would prefer the older generation people as they look more normal, although Ash's hair is still one of the world's biggest mysteries (how did he make them stick out like that?).

Liking the older generations do not make one nostalgic (I still worship Mew as the ultimate unchallenged best pokemon ever even though there are 649 pokemon now), but condemning the newer generations with points that can also be applied to older generations are what makes someone nostalgic.

I don't understand though: Why do people keep comparing Woobat with Zubat? Why not the bulbasaur line with the oddish line? Bulbasaur and oddish are both living creatures with grass on top of them, and their last evolution, Venusaur and Vileplume, are living creatures with a rafflesia on them. They have the same type as well, and both learn a lot of same moves. Woobat and Zubat however, are not even of the same type to start with. Why not compare the Mankey line to Woobat? The both of them are fluffy animals with a pig snout. And stop criticizing the heart shaped nose, because for your information, there is a species of bats in real life that have heart shaped noses. It's actually based on an animal that actually exists. How unnatural is that compared to a bat without eyes. Have you ever seen a bat without eyes in real life?

About the Woobat, the reason why I compere then to each other is first of all the name, and second, zubat has been the bat type pokemon in all pokemongames so far. Now suddenly, you have this woobat which has a lot of things in common, which takes over the role of a bat pokemon in the cave.

And about bulbasaur and oddish, bulbasaur never was the low level grass pokemon which you could find in the forests in the beginning. Bulbasaur and oddish always had another role in a game. Bulbasaur was a starter, while oddish was the low level grass pokemon. With zubat and woobat, zubat was always the bat pokemon untill woobat came along, now the woobat is the bat pokemon.

I know they are not the same type, and I also know there is a real bat with a heart shaped nose. (I might not be so stupid as you guys think I am ;p) but Woobat was the only pokemon I really knew the name and the appearance of, so that's the reason why I chose him for my posts. I will try to use other pokemons from now on if that makes you happier ^^

pokemontrainer_samuel July 25th, 2012 8:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269964)
About the Woobat, the reason why I compere then to each other is first of all the name, and second, zubat has been the bat type pokemon in all pokemongames so far. Now suddenly, you have this woobat which has a lot of things in common, which takes over the role of a bat pokemon in the cave.

And about bulbasaur and oddish, bulbasaur never was the low level grass pokemon which you could find in the forests in the beginning. Bulbasaur and oddish always had another role in a game. Bulbasaur was a starter, while oddish was the low level grass pokemon. With zubat and woobat, zubat was always the bat pokemon untill woobat came along, now the woobat is the bat pokemon.

I know they are not the same type, and I also know there is a real bat with a heart shaped nose. (I might not be so stupid as you guys think I am ;p) but Woobat was the only pokemon I really knew the name and the appearance of, so that's the reason why I chose him for my posts. I will try to use other pokemons from now on if that makes you happier ^^

Apart from having the same species, a secondary type and having a bat at the end of their names, there is nothing else in common between the two pokemon. Why does no one else compare Drilbur with Diglett? The only difference is that their second evolution's type. The rest are all very similar, if not the same. And Diglett was the only mole pokemon before the appearance of Drilbur.

No, I didn't think you were stupid, because if you didn't know that such bats existed and complained about his nose, it just means you were just not told of it's existence, therefore it's rational for you to think a heart shaped nose bat is stupid. But the fact that you knew that such bats exist and yet complain about the heart shaped nose, I really don't know what to say.

Bulbasaur and oddish have a lot in common too. Straight from the character design concept to the type, attacks and all. The only difference is the role in the game. And that is only 1 difference.

I'm not really that fond of the Woobat line actually. What irks me is not the Woobat line being criticized and compared to the Zubat line despite their differences. I'm more irked at the quality (or the lack of it) of negative views on the new generation. Most of them are baseless and lame excuses to why BW is terrible. So far, the only good one (and probably the best one ever) I've heard is about the character designs being more and more out of the norm.

Cyclone July 25th, 2012 9:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pokemontrainer_samuel (Post 7270104)
Apart from having the same species, a secondary type and having a bat at the end of their names, there is nothing else in common between the two pokemon. Why does no one else compare Drilbur with Diglett? The only difference is that their second evolution's type. The rest are all very similar, if not the same. And Diglett was the only mole pokemon before the appearance of Drilbur.

I stopped reading there to reply to that. Here are sprites of Drilbur and Diglett.

I'd say that's pretty self-explanatory, but here goes:

1. Drilbur walks. Diglett burrows in the ground.
2. Drilbur has metal claws. Diglett doesn't.
3. Drilbur evolves into a partial Steel type. Diglett stays only Ground type.
4. Drilbur evolves twice. Diglett evolves once.

In my eyes, Drilbur is the better Pokémon. Excadrill is badass.

Cyclone

Affliction July 25th, 2012 1:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninjagon (Post 7255993)
Why do you think Black and White has recieved so many bad remarks as oppose to the other main series games?

Is it because the pokemon seem much more fake than the others?
Is it because the of lack of post-game?

Personally, even though i stayed with Pokemon since the original 151, I think there is room for change, technology is changing drastically around us. Black and White in my mind are some the best pokemon games i've played.

Everyone and anyone, put your opinions here.

Sorry about the late reply.

I personally never played Pokemon Black or White, although I heard complaints from people in Youtube such as:

"I hate this."
"The new Pokemon look like Digimon."
"Who wants to play it?"
"The old games are so much better."

Of course, these aren't my views. The only people who seem to play it are (Very) young kids.

I also saw comments like this:

"Gameplay comes first, not graphics!"

Well, people say Pokemon had lost it's popularity after time, but at least kids still play it.

Hope this is helpful.

voicerocker July 25th, 2012 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Listen man, you probably wont agree with me anyway, but I will try to make my point clear anyway. You tell me the gen 1 pokemon you showed in your second row (muk, magneton ed) aren't creative at all. That may be true, but you miss the point.

No I didn't, and I didn't say Muk or Magneton were bad designs, I was comparing them to the Pokemon that the other person said were "lazy" and "lackluster".

People say "Living gears? That's stupid!" yet they forget Magnemite and Magenton from Gen 1 being living magnets.

Or "They didn't even try to be creative with Gen 5!" yet Gen 1 had the living Pokeball Voltorb. And as much as I like Charizard, it's just a fire breathing dragon at the end of the day. (Not saying it isn't creative, but compared to newer Pokemon like Haxorus, it just seems less creative. But Charizard is still one of my favorite Pokemon.)

It is not about creativity. I could also give a piece of bacon a laser and a ice cone on his head and call it creative. Would you like a bacon with a laser and an ice cone in pokemon? (I was hoping you will say no but I am actually starting to like the idea now. ;p)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Creativity is no issue at all. Something doesn't have to be creative to be a succes. Charizard is just a red dragon, not very creative or something. But if you take a look at the strange fire pokemon you posted (emboar) or something, the only thing I can think of it looks like is a sad clown.

A clown? Don't see it, especially when it's stomping around in its sprite animation. Nor do I see anything that says "sad". Perhaps looking up the inspiration for Emboar should come before criticizing it.

Bulbapedia:
"Emboar is based on the soldier of Romance of the Three Kingdoms.[1] It and its pre-evolutions, as stated by Ken Sugimori, were designed in a Chinese style. Because of its Chinese style, it may be based on Zhu Bajie, a pig demon from the Chinese tale Journey to the West. Infernape is also based on another character from the novel, Sun Wukong, and has a similar design as well as the same typing. It seems to also take inspirations of a pig or boar in a professional wrestler's or possibly a lucha libre's attire. The swirled pattern that surrounds its abdomen is visually similar to the patterns on ding or ancient Greek pottery."

So now you know a little of why it looks the way it does, besides just being a boar with flames.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
I think it's design is horrible. It is childish, doesn't look like anything and is just too strange, even for a pokemon. It just doesn't look right for me. (and I quote FOR ME) (that means it is an opinion ;p)

Again, you should research a Pokemon before you criticize it. And childish? What exactly about Emboar is childish? (I realize these are just your opinions, but if you dislike something and call it horrible, you should really explain why you believe that.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Those new pokemon may be so creative as hell, but they just don't look like anything at all.

How can they not look like "anything"? What does that mean? Are you saying there is a limit on what a Pokemon can look like?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Compare the way pokemon developed with the anime. AT first, things looked normal (at least normal in the terms of pocket monsters which you could put in tiny little balls) . Charizard is not very creative, he's just a red dragon. Ash is not very creative, he's just a 10 year old boy. brock is not very creative, his outfit is fairly normal. misty is not very creative, pikachu is not very creative and so on and so on and so on. They were just normal people with normal pokemon which looked alot like their animal counterparts.

Not really. It's anime. None of them look that "normal", nor do the Pokemon look more like animals than the new ones do. Serperior is just as much of a snake as Blastoise is of a turtle.

Besides, the anime is based on the games, not the other way around. Not really sure what point you are trying to make here. So Pokemon should just look basically like a real animal with "upgrades"? You can't just keep turning animals into Pokemon without adding something to make them different than previous Pokemon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Did we have a problem with it back then? NO.

Because we only had 1 Generation of Pokemon. Only 151, not 649. You had nothing previous to compare it too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
And now all of the sudde, with the new generations, everything has to be creative, weird looking and strange? Why's that?

"Weird looking" and "strange" are strictly opinion, and easily apply to Gen 1 as well. Exeggcute and Exeggutor are certainly strange. "Weird looking" and "strange" is something every Pokemon is to an extent.

Plus, Game Freak can't just do the same thing time and time again. They have to try new ideas and come up with more Pokemon from more creative ideas. That's just business really. Without better ideas, Game Freak goes out of business and Pokemon ends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Are the pokemon you all loved since you were a child suddenly not good enough anymore because they put a heart shaped nose on a gentically modified zubat?

No. Woobat is not a Zubat. 2 different Pokemon with different movesets and evolution lines. Just because they are both bats doesn't mean anything. Charizard and Dragonite are both very similar dragons, but no one complains about them. (and they're both from Gen 1!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Is a magneton suddenly not good enough because they set a clown on fire and called it an Emboar?

Ok, this comparison is just wrong. Magneton and Emboar are NOTHING alike. And no, Klinklang doesn't make Magneton less important, nor does Emboar make Charizard less important. Why anyone would think that is beyond me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Creativity might be good, to an extent. But if you make things too creative, nobody will be able to fell connected to it anymore.

What? More creativity is bad? Makes no sense. I've played the games since the 90's and have never felt that way. Besides, Game Freak still designs their Pokemon to fit in with "the look" they've given all their Pokemon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
It is just like abstract art. It might be supercreative, but I don't feel connected with it. It feels hollow. It is just like the pokemon. The new pokemon just feel too distant for me. They don't feel like real pokemon anymore.

You appear to be putting a limit on what a Pokemon can be or look like. That's like saying "Game Freak should just make generic Pokemon like Gen 1 again". Creativity is not a bad thing, it keeps things from being boring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Please don't get me wrong, but since this generation came out, you guys all start to talk about things which are wrong about the older generations while you guys all loved them in the past. Suddenly, if you still like the old generations, you are sad and way too nostalgic. That is utter nonsence.

I love all 5 Generations. All I'm doing is showing people that the same things they say like "Ice cream Pokemon? That's stupid! That's food, not a Pokemon!" even though we had Exeggcute and Exeggutor (eggs and a pineapple) in Gen 1. See? People are unfairly accusing Gen 5 of having things that makes them suck or "not Pokemon" when Gen 1 had these things as well, but they refuse to acknowledge it and say "Nope, Vanillite sucks, Exeggcute is a REAL Pokemon!" yet they just said a food Pokemon is a dumb idea.

And no, I'm not overly nostalgic, in fact, that is what I'm trying to stop from happening. People just automatically say "Gen 1 is best! There are only 151 real Pokemon. The rest are crap!" THAT is nostalgia at its worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
I liked the new things in B and W, but I just don't like the pokemon. That is my opinion. That doesn't mean I'm sad or nostalgic, that means I have my own preferences. The old pokemon are the 'real' pokemon for me.

You don't have to like the Pokemon, but to say they suck or are "lackluster" as has been use, is just wrong and requires explaining. But yes, part of it is nostalgia, saying that the original Pokemon are the "real" ones is very much a nostalgic statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
The new pokemon (with some exceptions) are just hollow shells in comparison to the older ones.

Many of Gen 5's Pokemon were meant to be very similar to Gen 1's Pokemon. (Like Machop and Timburr, Magnemite and Klink, Sawk & Throh and Hitmonlee & Hitmonchan) It was part of the "reboot" that Black and White was supposed to be, which is why in the games, you only see new Pokemon, just like in Gen 1. But the new Pokemon are also still very different from the older ones, which still makes the old one relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
Not every new pokemon, they still got it in them, (the legendaries as an example are very well made) but this generation just doesn't work for me. (maybe if B and W 2 come out, if I put more time in the game the acceptance might come.)

Yes, usually, the more you see a Pokemon and understand it, you will grow to accept it. That's how Pokemon works. You generally have 3-4 years to get use to new Pokemon before a new Generation comes out and you have more new Pokemon to learn about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HenkieDePost (Post 7269806)
I hope you guys realize this is just an opinion of mine. You don't have to agree (what you guys probably don't do anyway) but keep in mind that this is the way I think about it and that it is not 'fact based'

Yes, you are totally free to have opinions. But like I said before, you should really look up the inspirations for these Pokemon before you decide they are uncreative. Reshiram and Zekrom aren't just 2 dragons, they are based on the whole Taoism relation, which introduced Kyurem, and introduced the first ever time 2 Pokemon merge bodies in-game. All we want people (not just you, but everyone) to do is give the new Pokemon a chance before just deciding they suck.

Deokishisu July 25th, 2012 9:04 PM

Just because the ideas behind the Pokemon were creative, doesn't mean that those ideas translated well into a good looking Pokemon.

For example, Magnemite is not just magnets put together. They took the idea of a Pokemon with magnets, gave it a body and other details and then put the magnets on it. Kling is quite literally a gear... with a face. Surely anyone can see that the Magnemite and Kling lines had a similar concept, but the Magnemite line was more creative. Are Magnemite and Magneton simple? Yes. But they work. Their concept was translated well. Kling, and many of the other Gen 5 Pokemon were not so lucky.

Pokemon like Ditto, Exeggcute, and Charizard LOOK right because their concepts translated well into Pokemon. Yes, voicerocker, many of the Gen 5 Pokemon were a product of copying the original 150 for the reboot. Were their concepts translated as well? Sawk and Throh are red and blue people with karate uniforms on. Could you say they are more creative or more original than Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan? Their concepts translated incredibly well. Sawk and Throh fell short (though, unlike most of their Gen 5 brethren, they have good names). Zubat and Golbat may be simple, but Woobat and Swoobat look much more like composites of wings, a puff ball, and a heart nose than anything you'd see flying around. Their Kanto cousins look much more natural. Again, another similar concept that fell short in Gen 5.

Emboar looks very, shall we say, awkward and goofy if compared to the earlier fire starters. The fact that it was based off of a Chinese legend doesn't mean that that translated well into a Pokemon either, obviously.

I'd say this generation was all about (mostly) okay concepts that fell flat. Nintendo thought that rebooting with new Pokemon with Kanto-ish concepts was a great idea, but they failed to take the care to translate those concepts into their Pokemon.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:50 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.