The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Pokémon Gaming Central (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Is GameFreak... *sigh* running out of ideas? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=304539)

Zylas July 10th, 2013 7:39 AM

Is GameFreak... *sigh* running out of ideas?
 
I think we all know it's come to this. Pokemon began as imitations of cute lil' animals and cool, ferocious monsters; we all loved it the first few generations. There was a water tortoise here, and a fire lizard there. It had been all relative to what we see in life today as animate creatures. But now what is Pokemon?

Yes, technically the description of Pokemon is "Pocket Monsters," and it will probably always meet those criteria. Its a creature jumping out of a ball. How hard could it get? But would some agree that it has strayed from what us, the fans, always had described as, a "Pokemon"? Now, sitting at the 5th generation of Pokemon, we're getting trash bags, candlewicks and ice cream cones. None can disagree, Pokemon has definitely warped from what it once was. Heck, I even just saw a Pokemon supposedly going to be released in X and Y that was a sword. A sword! And it unsheathes itself when it enters battle! But is it absurd? Maybe, just maybe, hanging on to this newfangled inanimate object Pokes thing might be the only way to keep the love for Pokemon alive. Some of you may just feel like this:



Due to this, people from across the planet (except for Japan of course. Japan will always play Pokemon) are dropping Pokemon for its new "customs." They think Pokemon has grown into a strange and terrible game. Is this true? Are these customs simply new and original ideas, or is it that... GameFreak is running out of them? I think its time we all faced this topic like Machomps. We tried to avoid the fact that our favorite game series might be coming to a dead end; I know I did.

So in the end, you must ponder on these questions: Would you prefer Pokemon as what it originally was? Will you ever become a person to abandon Pokemon for how "absurd" it became? And finally, is Pokemon actually coming to a hopeless conclusion?

alisaie July 10th, 2013 7:54 AM

It always bother me when people say this, because the first generation wasn't completely with animals either. A pile of sludge? Something that looks like a Pokeball? Magnets? Rocks? And that is the first generation: the generation so many people love and adore and look back on and say these are Pokemon. The second generation only has a tree, but at the same time it also has the alphabet as 26 variations of a Pokemon (later 28 with the ! and ?). The next two generations also have Pokemon that would be inanimate in our world.

I think the sword is creative. That is actually disposes a part of its both because it fights. I think the fifth generation, for the most part, was creative. I'd imagine that if the fifth generation and the first generation had swapped, people would complain that 'oh they're making magnets as Pokemon now' and so forth.

Remember that while us older audiences are fussing about Pokemon becoming old, stale, and introducing more absurd things, newer audiences for Pokemon are getting introduced to their first generation. As long as that keeps up, Pokemon won't be heading towards a dead end any time soon. I don't believe I will be abandoning Pokemon again anytime soon. Only time will tell. But unlike last time, I don't believe that it will be sure to the Pokemon themselves as I have learned my lesson that I just need to give them a chance and I'll like them more than my initial thoughts.

Zylas July 10th, 2013 7:59 AM

Well, I don't necessarily believe that Pokemon didn't always have inanimate objects sooner, it's just that it's been more common nowadays. I don't find myself as one to dislike Pokemon either; I simply incur what I have seen as the other side of people's opinions about Pokemon to create a greater discussion. Hey, my sister was one to ditch Pokemon because she thought it was stupid now. All it is is that you find yourself under the criteria that Pokemon is still a creative game. Nothing more. I just think that if someone were in GameFreaks position, designing the Pokemon their selves, I'd think they couldn't help but feel idea-mushed because of all the used up concepts.

Oshamaru July 10th, 2013 8:07 AM

First off, I want to say that I actually like the ice cream cone. It's actually snow on icicles, it didn't escape from a radioactive ice cream factory lol.

And I can't say much, because I wasn't born when Red and Blue came out. I started with Gen III.
Every generation has its batch of inanimate object Pokémon, some good, some bad. Like Peaches said, that includes the first generation. Inanimate object Pokémon have always existed, so people shouldn't treat them as a first. I didn't like the sword at first, but it grew on me. The unsheathing part is really cool, and that makes it unique.

I have to admit that when I saw some of the fifth generation while it was revealed every month, I was thinking "What's happening?", but then everything went okay, and the fifth generation turned out to be a lovable one (I do dislike some Pokémon though), and the sixth generation is going in the same direction.

Pokémon is still great, and by no means is getting stranger (because the concept IS a bit strange when you first hear about it) or terrible.

Pinkie-Dawn July 10th, 2013 8:18 AM

Not this type of thread again. -_-

Inanimate objects have been part of Pokemon's history since the first generation. Rock types, Steel types, and Ghost types heavily rely on inanimate objects for their designs, which is why there's very few of them compared to the rest of the types, who are based off of plants and animals, which are uncommon for the three types' design origin. I blame Gen 2's lack of Pokemon based on inanimated objects for creating such a mentality for these type of players, because it was considered to be the best in the series, and the fad soon faded in the U.S. once that gen ended.

Kyrul July 10th, 2013 8:51 AM

Uh..... I can defiantly tell you that the series is not dying in the US anytime soon. If anything it's getting more popular. All my old friends are starting to get into it again too. And objects have been in Pokemon forever. Does voltorb. magnemite and porygon ring a bell? The new guys probably just don't 'feel' like pokemon because they aren't the ones you grew up to know.

Snowdrop July 10th, 2013 10:04 AM

They will never run out of ideas to base Pokemon off of. There are countless myths, animals and objects associated with myths, animals extinct and alive, all kinds of inanimate objects that a creative mind can turn into a Pokemon. Shoot, they could even create a Pokemon based on sayings, philosophies, or abstract concepts. No limit to creativity. Any given thing can have many, many ways to design it into a Pokemon. A good example could be the general turtle, there being Squirtle's line, Torkoal, Turtwig's line, and I think there's another I'm forgetting. Any one thing can be assigned an element to design it around.

As for the whole "designs are getting worse" debate... it's all based on opinion. Someone out there will LOVE any given Pokemon, while someone else will LOATHE the same one. It's a matter of taste. And not all people judge by design. Delcatty and Skitty are two of my three favorites because I beat Pokemon Mystery Dungeon with them, so I feel a closeness with them. I personally agree with a lot of people: I don't like the ice cream cone and I really hate the trash bags. The sword is, like, half awesome but half ugly at the same time... I kinda like it. But you CAN base a Pokemon off of either of those things and pull it off; it's just whoever designed these particular Pokemon didn't make the designs appealing (to me!). But I'm a person that doesn't like inanimate objects as Pokemon pretty much anytime. But some people really dig that. Ah, I probably sound like I'm babbling about now...

But I seriously don't think Pokemon is dying in the US... didn't BW hit, like, record sales when it was released? I remember hearing a twenty-year-old guy on the bus getting all excited because they "finally made a Fire/Dragon Pokemon!" The gameplay is addicting and it seems places all across the globe aren't tiring of it. If anything is going to be Pokemon's downfall, I think it will be the repetitive gameplay and I still don't think that's happening anytime soon. As for myself, I'll probably be a Pokemon fan until Pokemon ceases to exist. :P

ナギ July 10th, 2013 11:40 AM

i have to agree with what those above posted; i don't think Pokémon's popularity will drop at ALL. my own first Pokémon generation was RSE as well; and to this day, that region and its Pokémon remain my favourites. you may say they have 'run out of ideas', and that the old gens were so much better, but i wonder if that indeed doesn't just have to do with simple nostalgia.

simply put, i think it's just opinion based. i personally liked all of the Pokémon people label as 'uncreative', or at least didn't dislike them. especially the sword i thought was inventive, and i know for a fact most of my friends absolutely loved gen V's Candle/Chandelier Pokémon.
on the other hand, there's plenty of gen II Pokémon i find incredibly unimaginative, so it balances out perfectly.

Arlo July 10th, 2013 12:15 PM

No - GF isn't running out of ideas - you're running out of child-like wonder.

The games haven't changed that much. YOU'VE changed.

And a note:

Quote:

I think we all know it's come to this

we
all loved it the first few generations

But would some agree that it has strayed from what us, the fans, always had described as, a "Pokemon"?

None can disagree

people from across the planet

We tried to avoid the fact that our favorite game series might be coming to a dead end
You're a single individual. Your opinions are YOURS. Stop trying to push them onto everyone else.

YOU'VE changed and now YOU can't appreciate pokemon the way that YOU used to when YOU were a wide-eyed child.

That's YOUR problem.

lmcde22 July 10th, 2013 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlo (Post 7731897)
No - GF isn't running out of ideas - you're running out of child-like wonder.

The games haven't changed that much. YOU'VE changed.

THANKYOU! Finally someone with a bit of common sense. THe games are still just as great as they were. I still got excited when i first turned on Pokemon Black for the first time. And i am still anticipating Pokemon X and Y. I feel sorry for the people who are starting to lose that sense of wonder because it is one of the greatest feelings ever. You might be getting depressed about the future of Pokemon but i believe that no matter what happens, i will enjoy it.

Quick note: Honedge is cool as. Definately gonna spam that thing. I mean if a Steel-Ghost combo doesnt excite you, nothing will.

ClumzyTrainR13 July 10th, 2013 4:45 PM

Hey man, I'm sorry if there was a misconception, but I'm just as much a pokemon fan as they next guy. I'm simply trying to spark conversation, because I had thought it was a legitimate topic. I'm simply on this site to talk pokemon. I'd hate to start an argument, but I'd rather discuss any topic with an open mind no matter how much I disagreed, rather than attack the person posing the notion. Once again, I anticipate Pokemon just like everyone else. There are still those Pokes I love. Getting in a good conversation about this topic was my only goal, not to hate on Pokemon. And for you to attack what I'm trying to say simply isn't what a forum is about. So in the end, please lighty disagree with me instead of hate upon my own concepts and viewpoints.

EDIT: Sorry this is Zylas, I accidentally logged into my old prof.

Spinosaurus July 10th, 2013 4:57 PM

See if you said they've been running out of ideas in terms of game design (since gen 3, after all) I'd have agreed with you.

But not only is saying they're running out of ideas subjective...no, it's wrong actually. It's also been beaten to the ground many times.

Then again what was I expecting. It's always about the Pokemon, not the game design.

ClumzyTrainR13 July 10th, 2013 5:51 PM

Thank you, Spinosaurus. This is what I'm trying to say. You simply gave your opinion on the matter, rather than getting angry at a topic. Personally, I love the way pokemon is now; I even consider myself as that new gen, and plan on playing Pokemon continuously in the future. I didn't mean to incur that I didn't agree with the path Pokemon was going, and I apologize if that's what it sounded like I meant.

Captain Gizmo July 10th, 2013 6:12 PM

I don't think Game Freak is running out of ideas. We also gotta add to the fact where the Pokemon are related. Like Hoenn had a lot of tropical Pokemon since Hoenn is a tropical place. Unova had a lot of city-wise Pokemon since it's based off New York. Of Course not every single Pokemon will be welcomed to the eyes of everyone, it's just a matter of opinion. Like people complaining they are making Pokemon out of objects, but they also had that in Gen I. I think it's more for nostalgia that people are bashing the newer Pokemon just because it's not Gen I.

tl;dr
They're not running out of ideas, different Pokemon pleases different persons.

Arlo July 10th, 2013 6:22 PM

Sorry - you seem to have misinterpreted me. I wasn't nor am I angry. I was simply trying to drive my point home - to phrase it in such a way that it would be something of a verbal two-by-four across the forehead.

This is an old, OLD, tired, worn out topic. There's no conversation to be had here. You can go on /vp/ pretty much any time and find yet another poster moaning on about how GF's out of ideas and Unova pokemon suck and trash bag this and ice cream cone that, and it's just tedious and dull and pointless.

And actually, I probably would've let that go, since it is such an old and tired topic, but then there was all that "we" and "us" business.

Here's a tip - if you want to post your opinion, stick with the first person. Say "I believe...." rather than "we believe...." Why? Because when you say "we," you're including the reader, and if the reader doesn't hold that opinion, then you're instantly wrong. If it's your own opinion and only your own opinion and you never make believe that it's anything but your own opinion, then other people might disagree, but you can never actually be wrong.

Sorry if you took that as "hate" - that wasn't my intent.

As a more positive, though trite, suggestion - instead of looking at the games and focusing on the things you don't like, try looking at them and focusing on the things you do like. It'll make your life much more enjoyable.

ClumzyTrainR13 July 10th, 2013 6:31 PM

I apologize. The references to “we” were simply used for emphasis. I didn't mean to imply that at all. In fact, I'm a fan of ice cream cone pokemon. I was just trying to be open-minded to what I know some people think.

PlatinumDude July 10th, 2013 6:35 PM

Like most people here said, GameFreak isn't running out of ideas. There are many animals, myths and concepts that have yet to be made into Pokémon. A sword Pokémon wasn't heard of, until Honedge was introduced, for instance.

T!M July 10th, 2013 6:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlo
You're a single individual. Your opinions are YOURS. Stop trying to push them onto everyone else.

YOU'VE changed and now YOU can't appreciate pokemon the way that YOU used to when YOU were a wide-eyed child.

That's YOUR problem.

Sorry - you seem to have misinterpreted me. I wasn't nor am I angry. I was simply trying to drive my point home - to phrase it in such a way that it would be something of a verbal two-by-four across the forehead.

This is an old, OLD, tired, worn out topic. There's no conversation to be had here. You can go on /vp/ pretty much any time and find yet another poster moaning on about how GF's out of ideas and Unova pokemon suck and trash bag this and ice cream cone that, and it's just tedious and dull and pointless.

And actually, I probably would've let that go, since it is such an old and tired topic, but then there was all that "we" and "us" business.

Here's a tip - if you want to post your opinion, stick with the first person. Say "I believe...." rather than "we believe...." Why? Because when you say "we," you're including the reader, and if the reader doesn't hold that opinion, then you're instantly wrong. If it's your own opinion and only your own opinion and you never make believe that it's anything but your own opinion, then other people might disagree, but you can never actually be wrong.

Sorry if you took that as "hate" - that wasn't my intent.

As a more positive, though trite, suggestion - instead of looking at the games and focusing on the things you don't like, try looking at them and focusing on the things you do like. It'll make your life much more enjoyable.

^This guy.

Has his stuff together.

_____

My personal opinion is that the sword, among other new Pokémon are very unique, and that's what I believe gamers should be looking for. Something new. Not the same thing over and over again.

So I welcome X and Y, with whatever you consider "absurd" Pokémon, with open arms.

ClumzyTrainR13 July 10th, 2013 6:48 PM

Take note, these are not my opinions, just what others believe. I love Pokemon today. "Absurd" isn't at all what I think. But whatever. I understand now that this subject is tiring, old, and useless. So let it die in the fiery flames of those who despise open-mindedness to new Pokemon, for their opinions do not deserve open-mindedness itself! Nuff' said. I guess this is what I meant in my own heart of hearts :)

FSNW5yiFrXVXqv July 10th, 2013 9:34 PM

While I do find it ridiculous at times (Lawnmowers and Washing Machines, lol, even though they've never shown those appliances anywhere prior), I do understand that every bit of it is original, especially after reading their pokedex entries. Not all of us could think of 100+ completely new and original species in less than a year. Heck, it'd be tougher if you even considered what to include and what not in the following generation... or even those from other games/series, such as Digimon, Monster Rancher, and Shin Megami Tensei.

The game, generally, is still like the old ones, if not much better. We still receive all that traditional Pokemon experience, and all that competitive battling -- that's all that matters. We're still playing pokemon. Odd monsters? I've seen worse. This isn't the first RPG i've played, after all.

If there're Pokemon we don't like, then that's only a minority out of 600+ others. You could always opt not to use this pokemon and that. No biggie.

At most, all I could say against new pokemon that I don't like is...
Spoiler:


"That Pokemon's really fugly, I would never use it!"

*shiny Garbodor appears*

"Well...OK, maybe once"

Besides, I'd think that a team of "ugly" pokemon would be hilarious to use. At least we could still play pokemon with spits and giggles.

Eruption July 11th, 2013 4:36 AM

The only problem I ever see with some of the pokémon concepts created recently are their ideas are executed awfully. Honedge could've been a cool thing, a sword pokémon isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the design is pathetic especially when unsheathed.

But then in my opinion Gen II has the worst designs and there's a good section of the pokemon (around #180-220) were there are only two or three good designs.

Put simply no. When they keep repeating the same type of pokemon (e.g. we have ten types of dog, twenty lizards etc.) they will have ran out of ideas.

FSNW5yiFrXVXqv July 11th, 2013 5:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuke (Post 7732655)
Honedge could've been a cool thing, a sword pokémon isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the design is pathetic especially when unsheathed.

Hmm.. I thought the design was pretty neat. even though it looks like something you'd pull from Zelda. LOL.

But yeah, I know what you mean...

Palkia July 11th, 2013 2:53 PM

It's not that pokémon is running out of ideas, It's just that for a period of time, a lot of great ideas were poorly executed, mainly in Gen 5 as well as a couple Gen 6 ones. (seriously, Mewtwo Awakened Forme? A complete version of Mewtwo is a sweet idea, but it looks sooo wimpy.)

The ideas were there: A dragon with a axe as a jaw? Great! A three headed flying hydra? Interesting! An alien zombie dragon that resembles nothingness, and can fuse with a pokemon that resembles modern technology and a pokemon that reminisces old technology? Amazing!

All the three pokémon above were, in my opinion, ruined during their execution due to horrible design choices. However, the ideas were there, and if the final pokémon designs weren't so... bad, they would be instant classics.

Now, there have always been stupid pokémon. Upside down pokéball, animate ice cream, purple splodges of sludge.

And, there are also lazily designed pokémon as well. Seel, Diglett, Kricketot, Half of Gen V's roster.

Bad pokémon designs have always been around, and while I feel most of them are from Gen V, that's not saying that they are exclusive to that generation.

One last thing, if they ever run out of ideas, they'll just hire more people to think of pokémon ideas.

Now why did I just spend 10 minutes typing this post where I could've just simply posted that? -.-

tnfsf11 July 11th, 2013 4:25 PM

THAT thread again? -_-
GF didn't run out of ideas, it's just taking Pokémon further by having a greater diversity in pokes & by using more & more exotic animals & objects...

You're just blinded by Nostalgia right now, but it's a passing phase, I was in it once (Lord knows it was awful!) but anyway try focusing on the good sides & be less pessimistic :)

Spinosaurus July 11th, 2013 5:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Para-Dox (Post 7733337)
It's not that pokémon is running out of ideas, It's just that for a period of time, a lot of great ideas were poorly executed, mainly in Gen 5 as well as a couple Gen 6 ones. (seriously, Mewtwo Awakened Forme? A complete version of Mewtwo is a sweet idea, but it looks sooo wimpy.)

The ideas were there: A dragon with a axe as a jaw? Great! A three headed flying hydra? Interesting! An alien zombie dragon that resembles nothingness, and can fuse with a pokemon that resembles modern technology and a pokemon that reminisces old technology? Amazing!

All the three pokémon above were, in my opinion, ruined during their execution due to horrible design choices. However, the ideas were there, and if the final pokémon designs weren't so... bad, they would be instant classics.

Now, there have always been stupid pokémon. Upside down pokéball, animate ice cream, purple splodges of sludge.

And, there are also lazily designed pokémon as well. Seel, Diglett, Kricketot, Half of Gen V's roster.

Bad pokémon designs have always been around, and while I feel most of them are from Gen V, that's not saying that they are exclusive to that generation.

One last thing, if they ever run out of ideas, they'll just hire more people to think of pokémon ideas.

Now why did I just spend 10 minutes typing this post where I could've just simply posted that? -.-

Good post. Sums up exactly how I feel about Gen 5's Pokemon (ALL OF THEM, pretty much). A samurai water starter sounds like a fantastic idea on paper and there is no way you could screw it up right? ...Yeah. You'd forget it was even a samurai. Didn't help the art style was really bland during that gen.

Luckily gen 6 Pokemon look much better but still not quite up to par in execution in terms of design like gen 1-3, and some of gen 4. There are some really really great designs (that water started for instance, probably the best designed water starter if you were to ask me), but you get some real stinkers like the fire starter.

Brane July 11th, 2013 5:32 PM

Has it become a trend to start dismissing new generations in favour of the early generations? Five years ago people were still saying R/S/E Pokemon were horrible and now they're apart of the 'golden' generations. Hell I even see a bit of a creeping idea that people are going to include Generation 4 in that category. Thing is, people have always done this with EVERY continuing franchise, they ALWAYS say the first were the best and it becomes some obligation and social standard to agree with that.

So far these new Pokemon are great, I'm loving the concepts (par for maybe the sword, but I'd say that's also heavily influenced by culture). It's not all that easy to shoot out 150 new Pokemon each few years that are all amazingly well drawn and created, because you have to remember that they have certain things they want to adhere to, maybe the gen beforehand they didn't have enough flying Pokemon, or maybe there are certain Pokemon out there that are being overused in WiFi etc. Not too mention this generation they have included a great new type, and you shouldn't expect anything other then cute from a Fairy type in Pokemon.

People are starting to get a nitpicky for no real reason, I don't understand what's is so horrible about having inanimate objects for Pokemon, like we're defying some secret rules of the universe.

Not to mention the Pokemon this generation are damn well drawn. I'm loving all of them so far, and I reckon that sword Pokemon will grow on me. But hey, people are entitled to their own opinions.

Corvus of the Black Night July 11th, 2013 6:40 PM

Oh my god I'm so sick and tired of when people say this crap. I find the new style in X and Y really interesting, and some of the ideas such as Noivern, Skrelp and Honedge are pretty cool to me (Come on... a cursed sword? That's wicked awesome!). Sure, Paruppafu looks... eh and so does Flabebe but... every generation has its duds. Look at Diglett, or Dunceparce. But there's people who like those as well. And I'm sure there are people who like those two things too (personally I find Shushup adorable!)

Personally I really like how Gen VI is shaping up, much more than my opinion of Gen IV. Woo!

Treecko July 11th, 2013 7:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuke (Post 7732655)
s.
Put simply no. When they keep repeating the same type of pokemon (e.g. we have ten types of dog, twenty lizards etc.) they will have ran out of ideas.

Yeah but the thing is there's hundred of different types of species of animals; dogs, cats, fish ,lizards. So I wouldn't say that having multiple kinds of Pokemon based of the same species isn't running out of ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Para-Dox (Post 7733337)
It's not that pokémon is running out of ideas, It's just that for a period of time, a lot of great ideas were poorly executed, mainly in Gen 5 as well as a couple Gen 6 ones. (seriously, Mewtwo Awakened Forme? A complete version of Mewtwo is a sweet idea, but it looks sooo wimpy.)

The ideas were there: A dragon with a axe as a jaw? Great! A three headed flying hydra? Interesting! An alien zombie dragon that resembles nothingness, and can fuse with a pokemon that resembles modern technology and a pokemon that reminisces old technology? Amazing!

All the three pokémon above were, in my opinion, ruined during their execution due to horrible design choices. However, the ideas were there, and if the final pokémon designs weren't so... bad, they would be instant classics.

[/size]

Personally I think the examples you used weren't good , actually really like the designs of all the ones you mentioned. Though I agree with you some Pokemon are great concepts, though their designs were poorly done.


Gamefreak are far from out of ideas. There's still many animals and objects and among that can be out of Pokemon. And some animals like dogs and fish have many different kinds of the same species so why can't Pokemon do the same?

Personally I love alot of the Gen VI Pokemon shown so far and think many are really creative and they're even better than Gen V ones. A goat Pokemon you can ride? Neat! A possessed sword? Cool! Sure there's some like Paruppafu and Shushup are odd (I have no idea what kind of bird Shushup is supposed to be.) But every generation has odd and awfully designed Pokemon. Magnets, a Pokemon that's supposed to be a Pokeball, ice cream, weird opera singer thing, a bunch of letter, floating leaves, etc. I mean sure you can have an opinion, and you don't have to like them all, but I just wish some people were more open-minded about the newer Pokemon, because not all of them are THAT bad.

Whitney's Shaymin July 11th, 2013 10:05 PM

Whoever thinks this crap is dead wrong but that could just be my opinion. I think the new Pokemon are cool. Even the cheesy/crappy ones like vannilite and amoonguss i still thought were bad-ass. Even generation there's cools and craps but if your a true pokemon fan you should like all of them (like me).

bobandbill July 11th, 2013 11:11 PM

Quote:

Due to this, people from across the planet (except for Japan of course. Japan will always play Pokemon) are dropping Pokemon for its new "customs." They think Pokemon has grown into a strange and terrible game. Is this true?
Let's look at sales, given that's a fairly decent standard to see how gen 5 has faired, the currently newest currently-out games.
Quote:

As of March 2013, the games' combined sales have reached 15.42 million, putting the titles amongst the best selling games for the Nintendo DS.[7]
Quote:

As of January 2013, Pokémon Black 2 and White 2 have combined sales of 7.63 million copies worldwide.[124]
Not bad, especially when DP had 17 million+, platinum with 7 and HGSS with 12+. Also the same sort of range that RSE had (RS had 13 million)...

So I don't think that people around the world are dropping Pokemon going by that standard. There are people complaining about it (both with no sense behind their statements, and with constructive criticism), but this has happened before too, and there's no indication that sales have changed dramatically gen to gen.
Quote:

As for the whole "designs are getting worse" debate... it's all based on opinion.
A good statement, here.

The game design is admittedly copy-paste in parts (with Game Freak we're still getting a starter from a professor, beating 8 gyms, beating a team along the way, becoming the champion, etc), but this I don't think is running out of ideas as much as a purposeful choice of Game Freak, because that same base formula has worked over and over. Sometimes sticking to the same thing is just what people want, and what gets sales.

Sweets Witch July 12th, 2013 10:52 AM

I groaned at this thread so loudly that my neighbor came over and asked if I was okay. She brought me a box of popsicles so thank you for disgusting me with this weak-ass argument, OP. I got some popsicles out of it.

But yeah. Weak-ass argument. Somehow I manage to roll my eyes a little harder every time someone says something like this. You bet your ass that I disagree with Pokemon "warping" from what it once was. As stated before, Pokemon hasn't deviated from its basic formula since the beginning and that's why it continues to sell so well despite all of these "warped" changes like trash bags and candlewicks. Because those things are so much worse than sentient rocks and magnets. Stop letting nostalgia fog up your vision and look at how the basis of the series hasn't changed a bit over the years.

Keiran July 12th, 2013 12:43 PM

I see the same argument all the time, and it's always the same few Pokemon that people list to bash an entire generation- and I think that's very insulting to the designers, and their fans, and it's also very ignorant to say something like "lol ice cream pokemon" because it's not literally ice cream.

If you don't like a Pokemons design, that is your problem and not Gamefreaks. Personally I have played Pokemon since R&B and the Pokemon have only gotten better. I have so many favorites from Gen 5, and I hate seeing the same ignorant argument try to bash a hard working company 'cause they don't like 1 or 2 designs out of groups of 100-150 Pokemon.

Idk I just think its dumb to assume artists are failing at their job cause you aren't entirely pleased.

Edit:
And did someone say Haxorus had a poor design? Lord have mercy on your forsaken soul.

Atomic Pirate July 12th, 2013 1:04 PM

In a word, yes. I mean, every generation has had bad ideas, though I personally don't think that generation 2 had any (I personally like Shuckle and Dunsparce), but Generation 5 was easily the worst generation with the most forgettable and otherwise awful designs, and Generation 6 only looks slightly better.

At least it did before this announcement. When you see cotton candy and perfume being made into Pokemon, you should know that something is wrong.

Sweets Witch July 12th, 2013 2:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7734577)
When you see cotton candy and perfume being made into Pokemon, you should know that something is wrong.

And what exactly would be wrong? In the past there have been rocks with arms, piles of lava, acorns, bells, and gears. Every generation has a few silly designs. That isn't a bad thing.

Spinosaurus July 12th, 2013 4:21 PM

Jesus christ people comparing turd with other turds doesn't make it any less of a turd.

It doesn't help that Vanillite is literally an Ice Cream with eyes and a mouth slapped on. At least Magnemite has a design.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7734577)
At least it did before this announcement. When you see cotton candy and perfume being made into Pokemon, you should know that something is wrong.

I thought you were joking (been avoiding spoilers) so I went to take a check...and it ain't so bad at all. Not a fan of the design, but it's not bluntly a perfume. Hell took me a while to know which Pokemon you were referring to. It's as much of a perfume as Jigglypuff is a balloon.

The candy Pokemon is awful though.

Keiran July 12th, 2013 5:37 PM

Vanillite and its family are not literally ice cream. They are creatures made entirely of ice, that choose to cover themselves in snow. It's more like a scary icicle that wants to be cute so it makes itself look like something people love. Honestly its a really adorable Pokemon, but it gets a lot of hate from people who don't understand its design.

Also, the guy who designed the Vanillite family designed 3 families total, so it's not like the same guy has been designing Pokemon for 20 years and doesn't know what else to do. I mean he also created Golurk and no ones ever complained about its design.

When people point out less-than-spectacular Pokemon from Gen 1 they aren't trying to justify your opinion on Gen 5, by the way. They're saying not every Pokemon from each generation is going to have a design you approve of, and that the definition of opinion really defeats this topic.

FSNW5yiFrXVXqv July 12th, 2013 8:35 PM

Quote:

and it's also very ignorant to say something like "lol ice cream pokemon" because it's not literally ice cream.
Maybe so, maybe not. It may go either way. (wall of text coming)
Spoiler:

If the statement was meant to be sarcastic (hard to tell in the internet), then perhaps it would be an ignorant assumption. But the odds are that they're not even trying to be sarcastic -- they're generally just "lol'ing" at the design.

* Note that I said "perhaps" because even sarcasm comes in many ways.

Generally, you can't really blame anybody for giving such statement. I mean, seriously, first impressions last. Even if you got a Pokedex or a bunch of nerds to explain everything by paper, you can't deny that it does look that way. When it was announced, like the new cotton-candy pup we have now, there were no dex entries so there's really no way to describe such pokemon nor it's origins other than through it's appearance.

It leads to ignorant assumptions, yes, but the statement alone is not ignoring anything...yet.

tl;dr can't really judge based on one line/sentence >_<


Anyway, back to topic...
Quote:

Banette to Trainer:
"
Are you saying I'm stupid?"

Bannette to crowd:
"Whose idea was this? huh?!"

"Was it yours, princess?" *looks at Ken Sugimori*
"Let's just think about the logic, shall we? Let's just think about it for a second" *yadda yadda*

Ken Sugimori's reply:
"WHAT?!! What are you talkin' about?!"
"YOU... ARE... A... TOY!!!"
"
You're a-- Aw, you're an action figure! You are a child's plaything!"


If you think the same way, you might be too old to be playing Pokemon.
(also, guess where those quotes came from ;))

Clark July 12th, 2013 8:46 PM

I've always seen this discussion popping back up, but I realized I've never seen much of a real analasys of how many "inanimate object Pokemon" are actually in each generation. So, I figured it'd be interesting to try organizing some numbers myself. It's probably a little biased in some way or another; some Pokemon are a little on the borderline between "inanimate" and "organic". But I tried to be as true to their origins and designs as I could.

Spoiler:
Gen 1: 13/151 = 9%
(Geodude, Graveler, Golem, Magnemite, Magneton, Voltorb, Electrode, Grimer, Muk, Exeggcute, Koffing, Weezing, Ditto. I'm tempted to include Jigglypuff because it's plainly stated to be based on a balloon, but I'll let it slide since it shares more traits with fairies and small cutesy animals. Gastly and Exeggutor are pretty debatable. Porygon's also kind of inanimate but I'm not gonna push it with him.)

Gen 2: 2/100 = 2%
(Unown, Wobuffet. Hitmontop's a little iffy so I'll leave him out, but bear in mind he is an anthropomorphic spinning top.)

Gen 3: 8/135 = 6%
(Nosepass, Solrock, Lunatone, Baltoy, Claydol, Shuppet, Banette, Chimecho. The Regis are kind of questionable I guess but given their origins are mythological golems I'd rather not count them. Latios and Latias are suspiciously similar to jet planes. Jirachi is sometimes considered to be an anthropomorphic star.)

Gen 4: 9/107 = 8%
(Drifloon, Drifblim, Chingling, Bronzor, Bronzong, Magnezone, Probopass, Rotom. Rotom's formes can be kinda questionable, though; they're literally household appliances, but Rotom itself is a poltergeist, meaning the actual Pokemon isn't an inanimate object.)

Gen 5: 17/156 = 11%
(Roggenrola, Boldore, Gigalith, Trubbish, Garbodor, Vanillite, Vanillish, Vanilluxe, Kling, Klang, Klinklang, Litwick, Lampent, Chandelure, Cryogonal, Golett, Golurk)

Two (or three, what with the "perfume" Pokemon that looks nothing like a bottle of perfume) out of the 25 Gen 6 Pokemon revealed so far appear to be based on inanimate objects.


It's worth taking into account that the regions themselves seem to have a pretty big influence on the kinds of Pokemon that inhabit them, especially looking at those percentages. Kanto is a fairly urbanized region with an emphasis on computer technology and several large cities, so there's a few Pokemon based on machines and pollution. Johto, on the other hand, has smaller towns and villages, agricultural influence, and a heavy influence on traditional values - Gen 2 thus has the smallest amount of inorganic Pokemon. Hoenn and Sinnoh have their fair share of inanimate object Pokemon, but they tend to be based on ancient artifacts rather than modern objects. And Unova, as the most heavily urban and industrialized region, has several object-based evolution lines.

I don't really understand how Pokemon based on inanimate objects are any less inventive or creative than Pokemon based on animals. If anything, they have to be designed much more creatively. The designer has to bring a nonliving object to life, turn a lump of material into a lively animated creature. Meanwhile several animal and plant based Pokemon are simply stylized versions of a common species (Gen 1 is especially guilty of this). I think you've gotta focus more on what goes into a design, not just what the design is based on. It takes a lot more "ideas" and "creativity" to make a creature out of an object than it does to make a creature out of a creature.

FSNW5yiFrXVXqv July 12th, 2013 9:07 PM

You forgot Muk, Grimer, Pineco, Combee, Pawniard, Bisharp and basically Onix and Steelix (which are made by a bunch o magnetic rocks I guess).

Magmar's line also counts if not among the borderline "such creatures may actually exist". Elekid (lolplug) is the only one i'd count from Electabuzz's line.

These look cool, though, so no one hates them. Even for the plugheads and buttheads.

Clark July 12th, 2013 9:36 PM

Oh yeah. I meant to include Grimer and Muk but must have missed them... somehow. Pineco is classified as a bagworm, and Combee as a bee, so I'd leave 'em. Parniard and Bisharp are kind of like Jigglypuff and Hitmontop I'd say - based obviously on objects but so anthropomorphic that you don't really think of them as being literal chess pieces (compared to Trubbish being a literal trash bag or Bronzong being a literal bell). Onix and Steelix have rocky bodies but their origins have more to do with earthworms and (probably) a particular mythological burrowing dragon. But yeah, those are all really relevant, too.

Magmar and Electabuzz are apparently based on Japanese mythological demons.

FSNW5yiFrXVXqv July 12th, 2013 9:46 PM

I thought Burmy was the first bagworm. Never paid attention to species, but more of the Pokemon's physical appearance and dex entries /surprised

Pineco, a bagworm XD could never have guessed.

Livewire July 12th, 2013 10:05 PM

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BLaM32iCQAA9-k0.jpg:large

I was wondering when one of these would show up. Every generation, this comes up. Be quiet and play the games if you want, christ.

and Litwick is freaking awesome how dare you

Sydian July 12th, 2013 10:08 PM

Inspiration and imagination are infinite. So no. They're not running out of ideas.

T!M July 12th, 2013 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydian (Post 7735112)
Inspiration and imagination are infinite. So no. They're not running out of ideas.

By that logic they never will. :)

Sweets Witch July 13th, 2013 5:56 AM

Something to keep in mind is that in some cases the Pokemon may appear to be very similar (like how every early-game bird is a...well, bird), but they're individually based on different species of animals (like pigeons, owls, swallows, etc.). It's like the difference between Stantler and Sawsbuck. So the argument that GF is recycling the same species of Pokemon to fill different roles like early-game bird or token Normal type is largely false. They're recycling the roles themselves. Very, very few bases for Pokemon overlap. Pineco and Burmy are in this category, but wouldn't be if Pineco's classification was something other than "the Bagworm Pokemon" since the bagworm part is hardly noteworthy.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:22 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.