I never mentioned Zebstrika. Fact is, it's a zebra. A zebra Pokemon has every right to be striped (for obvious reasons). But a sumo wrestler clown pig? Why would GF feel the need to slap yellow spirals on it?
Emboar is not a clown, it does not resemble a clown, it does not behave like a clown, so stop saying it is a clown. Nothing about it at all suggests it is based off of a clown. It is a warrior Pokemon (Fighting type). If you bothered to look into its background you might see why it looks the way it does, but you'd rather bash it without researching it considering you still claim it looks like a clown. Do you have any evidence to suggest anything supporting your clown theory?
I can also give some more examples of pointless patterns:
If 1 Pokemon is pointless, they all are. They're based on certain concepts. Druddigon is specifically a dragon covered in spikes, that's what it is supposed to be. It isn't pointless if that was the original intent.
Funny thing is, I'm actually fine with Archeops. The Archeopteryx that it is based off of was thought to be a vibrantly colored bird, so a colorful, bold design makes perfect sense.
So, Pokemon should just look like normal animals? That is boring and uncreative. You seem to suggest the Game Freak should put the least amount of effort into creating Pokemon, but then bash the new Pokemon for being TOO creative.
Yeah, but have you ever seen a pig with yellow swirls on it's abdomen?
No, because pigs are not Emboar and Emboar is not a pig or an animal, it is a Pokemon, a fictional creature that does not exist in real life.
How about a mole with red slash marks on it's stomach?
No, because moles are no Excadrill and Excadrill is not a mole or an animal, it is a Pokemon, a fictional creature that does not exist in real life.
Have you ever seen an orange lizard with green wings that walks on 2 legs and has fire coming out of the tip of its tail?
Markings are present on animals, usually for a reason. Many insects have markings for the sole purpose of camouflage. The poison-dart frog has markings to warn predators of it's toxicity. Many moths have wings that, when spread, appear intimidating to potential predators.
These are not animals, these are Pokemon.
It's still a stupid idea to make a Pokemon based off of ice cream.
Says who? Who are we to decide what is and is not a Pokemon? Did we come up with the concept of magical creatures that we can battle with? No.
I mean, we've got dragons, cats, lions, and ice cream?!?
And eggs, pineapples, living Pokeballs, living sludge, a fish that can only Splash, cacoons, caterpillers, mice, rats, living rocks, mimes, birds....
I mean sure, we've had odd and quirky novelty Pokemon before such as Jynx, but ice cream?!? I mean, what's next, hamburgers?!? And of course if in Gen VI they introduced a hamburger Pokemon, you'd just defend it by saying that it's a pig that covers itself in bread to mimic a burger?
You exaggerate too much. Ice cream is believeable as it is copying a non-living thing. Ice cream was never alive. Still, it isn't made of ice cream, it's made of snow and ice and just resembles ice cream, like Voltorb resembles Pokeballs. (Plus, kids love ice cream, so it will appeal to them.) We won't see a burger Pokemon.
Allow me to explain.
Charizard is a dragon.
Diglett is a mole.
Sandslash is a porcupine.
Cloyster is an oyster.
Magneton is a magnet.
Ampharos is a sheep.
Feraligatr is an alligator.
Murkrow is a crow.
Misdreavus is a ghost.
Ho-Oh is a phoenix.
Piloswine is a mammoth.
Tyranitar is a Godzilla-like dinosaur.
Sure, there are some weird ones like Jynx and Mr. Mime, but for the most part, the Pokemon had clear origins (Heck, even Mr. Mime is based off of a mime).
Haxorus is clearly a dinosaur, in appearance and name. I have a hard time believing someone can't figure out at least a general idea of what Gen 5's Pokemon are supposed to be. This isn't medical science, it's a video game.
Sure, it's not official, but it makes a good point. Pokemon have evolved into creatures covered in spikes and markings.
No they haven't. You're only pointing out the Pokemon that do have spikes and comparing them to Pokemon that didn't. Garchomp has spikes because it is supposed to look intimidating. Generally, spikes give that appearance.
So, if Garchomp had that Gen 1 design, you'd be Ok with it? But if Charizard had spikes, you'd hate it? That Gen 1 Garchomp looks like...a shark. That's it. Nothing further. Compared to:
I'd also assume the spikes are there to enforce the Dragon-typing of Garchomp, since it does resemble a shark and is not a Water type. They don't just add spikes to something just to do it. Though, with the technology today, they're able to add things like that that they couldn't before. Charizard may have had more spikes if Pokemon had only been started recently. The limitations of the technology of that time played a part in the designs of the earliest Pokemon, so remember that. (Funny thing is I found a forum where someone posted that picture and no one could figure out what the message behind was supposed to be. Some people liked Gen 1 Garchomp more, some liked Gen 4 Charizard more, and some liked both of them.)
With the many technological advancements that allow for games to include such creatures, creativity is now optional in designing a Pokemon.
So...don't be creative in designing Pokemon?
You can just take an animal, give it markings and spikes, and call it a Pokemon. (Kind of like what Digimon does).
That's pretty much what any franchise that designs fictional creatures does. They take real world creatures and change them and add things to them to make them more interesting than the creatures that actually exist. Though, Digimon are clearly war machines ready to fight to the death. Pokemon are not.
And honestly, you should just stop wasting your breath telling all us older fans that we're "wrong".
Have you considered the possibility that some of the people who disagree with you are older fans as well? (My first game was Yellow, back when Mew was still a secret)
You will never agree with us, and we will never agree with you. We're free to dislike the newest generation, and you're free to detest the older generations and blindly accept and defend any kind of change.
You can dislike a generation, but don't point things out like: "Food Pokemon are stupid! Gen 1 is the best!" when Gen 1 had Food Pokemon as well. Then you end up contradicting yourself.
"Blindly accept" what? A video game character? Is it that important? Bottom line: If Game Freak says it's a Pokemon, it's a Pokemon. You probably would have an easier time accepting new Pokemon if you didn't always compare every new generation to the first. I know it's been said plenty of times already, but if Gen 1 were Gen 5, people would hate it. People just seem to hate new Pokemon because they aren't the original 150/151.
EDIT: And compare what Charizard looks like now vs. what it looked like in the original Red and Green Japanese versions. They've added detail where they could:
