![]() |
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. |
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! |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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).
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
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:
The candy Pokemon is awful though. |
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. |
Quote:
Spoiler:
Anyway, back to topic... Quote:
(also, guess where those quotes came from ;)) |
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:
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
Inspiration and imagination are infinite. So no. They're not running out of ideas.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
![]()
© 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.