5th Gen Do you think that some of the Unova Pokemon don't even look like Pokemon?

MiTjA said:

I agree that "Pokemon could be anything" is a poor argument. But that's about it.
The artstyle changes. If you really mean the art style, note that the previous generatons have all been redone into the newer art style by now. So unless you are also saying that the current official art of gen I&II pokemon don't look like pokemon compared to their old art...

But since I doubt that, you probably mean the creature designs themselves throughout. Which is a very fishy thing to argue about.
Because Pokemon is diverse. It has variety. There is hundreds of unique designs each time. Meaning you cannot possibly draw a distnction.

The charm part, is nothing more than nostalgia.
Simplicity? Sure, there are plenty of very simple designs. Which also has a reason: technical. Sprites on a gameboy could not show much detail.
But then again, the argument is rendered moot from the fact that there are simplistic designs in newer generations too.

I have no idea where you are going with the ketchup part.

Pokemon were more realistic? Give me a break. There have always been floating random things with faces on them.
Most of the new "unrealistic" designs actually happen to be homage to gen I designs..

As for inspirations..gah random example time:
Charizard compared to Emboar.
Fort he first the concept was probably along the lines of "a dragon with tail on fire!"
Whereas Emboar is inspired by a character from a chinese tale etc.

Click to expand...

Right, regarding these statements....Read my post again, since you completely misinterpreted everything.

I won't bother explaining everything again, especially since you're throwing out baseless accusations. Where have I said the newer designs weren't simple? What does diversity have anything to do with my argument? Haven't I said that what the Pokemon are inspired on has nothing to do with their qualities? Where have I said that Gen 5 was unrealistic?

Honestly the moment you said "nostalgia" is the moment I knew you're not thinking clearly on this. Has it ever occurred to that Gen 3 or 4 might be my favorite generations? Because they are. Don't accuse anyone who is against your point of view with nostalgia, since it's just insulting.

Also, just to clarify on something. Yes, I do hate how older Pokemon look with the current artstyle, and design aside they're on par with the new ones.

Spinosaurus said:

Right, regarding these statements....Read my post again, since you completely misinterpreted everything.

I won't bother explaining everything again, especially since you're throwing out baseless accusations. Where have I said the newer designs weren't simple? What does diversity have anything to do with my argument? Haven't I said that what the Pokemon are inspired on has nothing to do with their qualities? Where have I said that Gen 5 was unrealistic?

Honestly the moment you said "nostalgia" is the moment I knew you're not thinking clearly on this. Has it ever occurred to that Gen 3 or 4 might be my favorite generations? Because they are. Don't accuse anyone who is against your point of view with nostalgia, since it's just insulting.

Also, just to clarify on something. Yes, I do hate how older Pokemon look with the current artstyle, and design aside they're on par with the new ones.

Click to expand...

You said gen 1 had a charm that gen 5 does not.
With the diversity argument Im pointing out that this cant be, since there is no distinction when you have hundreds of completely varying creature designs compared to another hundred ones...

"but the first generation had quite the charm with the simplicity it had in it's design without being too plain or generic. 5th gen's designs and artstyle, while also simple, does suffer from being overly generic and doesn't quite pack the charm 1st gen has."

"5th gen's Pokemon design decisions felt more inspired from other monster-based stuff that are popular with the kids these days rather than being more realistic looking that Pokemon had going on."

I really don't see how I could have misinterpreted that much.

MiTjA said:

You said gen 1 had a charm that gen 5 does not.
With the diversity argument Im pointing out that this cant be, since there is no distinction when you have hundreds of completely varying creature designs compared to another hundred ones...

"but the first generation had quite the charm with the simplicity it had in it's design without being too plain or generic. 5th gen's designs and artstyle, while also simple, does suffer from being overly generic and doesn't quite pack the charm 1st gen has."

"5th gen's Pokemon design decisions felt more inspired from other monster-based stuff that are popular with the kids these days rather than being more realistic looking that Pokemon had going on."

I really don't see how I could have misinterpreted that much.

Click to expand...

A charm in its artstyle and not the designs, which is lost now. My biggest with gen 5 Pokemon is how they look with the current artsyle which is awfully bland and generic, and while it's also true with their designs, it's really ultimately the artstyle.

And come on, what do you take me for? Just quoting what I said? What good will that do as an argument to my points? Fine, I'll play along. In the first quote I have clearly admitted that 5th gen Pokemon were also simple, however they felt generic. The second quote; I haven't said 5th gen Pokemon DON'T look realistic, just 1st gen Pokemon do moreso due to the design decisions. And by design decision inspirations, I don't mean what the Pokemon is inspired on. Using your examples: Charizard looks much more realistic and believable than Emboar. (And for the sake of avoiding another misunderstanding, no I don't think Charizard is realistic.)


Also just to point out thing, I think Pokemon, no matter the gen, has awful designs, just that earlier Pokemon were better designed. It might because I don't find them quite appealing, but they just seem "immature" to me. I liked them for the artstyle, but without the old one I loathe them. It's not a matter of which looks like a Pokemon or not, although the newer ones do feel distinct from the older ones.

Azureth said:

I've always hated this excuse. Makes it way to easy to be lazy.

Click to expand...

It's not an excuse, it's a question.
And you ignore the question because you don't want to answer it. Or maybe because you can't.

Azureth said:

Lots of new pokes are simply inanimate objects with eyes and a mouth. Next thing you know they'll just use a toilet or bidet and put eyes and a mouth and call it a pokemon, and if anyone complains they can say "Well, what is a pokemon supposed to look like?" Ummm...A pokemon is supposed to be more based off animals like they were in gen I and II. They are supposed to look like they bothered to give some time into thinking of their design.

Click to expand...

I'd be okay with a toilet-based pokemon. Could be an interesting water type.

The problem with, "A pokemon is supposed to be more based off animals like they were in gen I and II." is that this is just not true. There are many an example of a pokemon not being based on an animal, for example, most steel, rock, ghost, GRASS, and fighting type. For each of these types, most pokemon of the group aren't particularly animal based. Like what animals are magnemite, geodude, ghastly, oddish, and machop based off of? :/

As for time going into their design, let's compare! :D

Venusaur

Serperior

Just from reading their origins, it's somewhat more obvious which one took more time. Venusaur is based on a prehistoric reptile an rafflesia. Serperior is based on many snakes with numerous allusions to French royalty/history, even down to the color and its pokedex entries. Just some food for thought.

Azureth said:

I've always hated this excuse. Makes it way to easy to be lazy.

Lots of new pokes are simply inanimate objects with eyes and a mouth. Next thing you know they'll just use a toilet or bidet and put eyes and a mouth and call it a pokemon, and if anyone complains they can say "Well, what is a pokemon supposed to look like?" Ummm...A pokemon is supposed to be more based off animals like they were in gen I and II. They are supposed to look like they bothered to give some time into thinking of their design.

Click to expand...

Gen I: Geodude/Graveller/Golem= A rock with arms(and legs) and a face.
Grimer/Muk=Industrial waste with a face.
Voltorb/Electrode=Pokeball with a face.
Magneton/magnemite=Magnets with an eye.
Onyx=A bunch of rocks super glued together with a face.
Koffing/Weezing=purple gas things with a face.
Ditto=Pink goo
Porygon= a bunch of crystal looking things with a face.

Gen II:Sudowoodo=A tree shaped rock with a face.
Pineco/Fortress=Pinecones with a face.
Steelix=steel covered rocks super glued together with a face on it.
Corsola=Coral shaped rock with a face.
Porygon2=same as porygon except crystals are rounded.


If you actually read how they came up with the designs for each of the Gen V pokemon you will literally have a braingasm, they used creatures from myths and legends in different cultures to come up with the designs for the Gen V pokemon. To be honest I think they probably gave more time and drew on more things when designing the newer pokemon. Gen I and 2 pokemon are just animals or insects who have things added to make them look like the type they are. For example, Charmander is a red lizard with a flame on it's tale, Squirtle is a blue turtle.
Charizard is simply a red dragon with a flame on it's tale, and Blastoise is just a turtle with canons coming out of it's shell.

Gen 5 we have Emboar


and Samurott


So your whole argument is invalid.

EDIT: In my opinion Gen I pokes were made for children under 10, Simple and "cute" designs.
Gen V's designs got a lot more complex(with the origins of the design) and are aimed at the teenage player. Just my opinion on the designs etc.

Spinosaurus said:

This is one of the reasons why the "they don't like Pokemon!" complaint is a legitimate reason, and the opposing statement about "Pokemon could be anything" is a very very poor argument. Most might not notice it, but with each gen designs and artstyle change.

Click to expand...

As an art student I might be a bit biased in this response, but realize that Ken Sugimori (the artist in charge of illustrating all species of Pokemon from its inception until now) is, deep down, just a human being. He was always very skilled, but as time passes and one gains more practice their technical skills improve. With this also tends to come a change in style. It's only natural. I've had friends who have seen drastic style changes in under a year because of great practice and skill improvement. Sugimori has been in the industry for over 15 years. His style has to change. If it didn't, he would actually be sacrificing technical skill; while it might not be very noticeable in the Pokemon, his gen 1 humans were incredibly stylized and very stiff. Now you can tell his grasp of more subtle muscle anatomy has improved, and the characters are more stylized while still maintaining a decent level of realism. Naturally, this would translate over to the Pokemon he draws as well. To think the art style would never change is wishful in almost all the wrong ways.

Charizard always looks really simple because after a while you can't just throw in an extremely simple dragon looking Pokemon and call it something new without cries of outrage "That looks just like Charizard!!!" Gen 1 Pokemon were VERY very simple. After 15 years, 4 more generations, Pokemon just can't really be THAT simple anymore. And, when you look at it, Serperior is pretty simple, it's literally just a snake with a banana head or something. A lot of these Pokemon do look dumb, but so do half the other Pokemon, I like to try and look at Pokemon individually instead of taking Gothitelle, Swoobat, Audino, Sawk, Garbodor, Vullaby, Throh, the elemental monkeys and saying "This gen sucks"

Why is there an "unrealistic" issue? Isn't this a fantasy world?

I'm going to be completely honest here, I can't really take any "Gen 5 is all inanimate objects" argument seriously because I've yet to see someone with this view address the fact that all generations have Pokemon just like this. Prove me wrong.

The Gen V Pokemon are weird no doubt, but there are other weird pokemon in the previous Gens too.

There are some awesome Pokemon in each Generation, I'm not gonna say that Gen V is weird because there are a few weird ones.

Rivvon said:

As an art student I might be a bit biased in this response, but realize that Ken Sugimori (the artist in charge of illustrating all species of Pokemon from its inception until now) is, deep down, just a human being. He was always very skilled, but as time passes and one gains more practice their technical skills improve. With this also tends to come a change in style. It's only natural. I've had friends who have seen drastic style changes in under a year because of great practice and skill improvement. Sugimori has been in the industry for over 15 years. His style has to change. If it didn't, he would actually be sacrificing technical skill; while it might not be very noticeable in the Pokemon, his gen 1 humans were incredibly stylized and very stiff. Now you can tell his grasp of more subtle muscle anatomy has improved, and the characters are more stylized while still maintaining a decent level of realism. Naturally, this would translate over to the Pokemon he draws as well. To think the art style would never change is wishful in almost all the wrong ways.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your respond, but do note that I have never implied that I expected the art style to not change. I just dislike and disagree with his current style, is all.

DVK said:

EDIT: In my opinion Gen I pokes were made for children under 10, Simple and "cute" designs.
Gen V's designs got a lot more complex(with the origins of the design) and are aimed at the teenage player. Just my opinion on the designs etc.

Click to expand...

Let me be the first to say kids in this current generation generally prefer overcomplicated designs, not simple "boring" ones. Why do you think stuff like Bakugan, Skylanders and the like are popular amongst kids?

I see it as the opposite personally, as stuff like the MegaTen series that are geared towards more mature audience got more simplistic designs. Examples from said series: [1][2][3][4]
The simple yet inspired and imaginative designs full of personality are what I appreciate when it comes to series that involves "monsters".

Spinosaurus said:

Let me be the first to say kids in this current generation generally prefer overcomplicated designs, not simple "boring" ones. Why do you think stuff like Bakugan, Skylanders and the like are popular amongst kids?

Click to expand...

Good point. I never understood those bakugans.

I think they look different from the other Gen pokemon is because Unova is in the other side of the world compared to the other regions.And the different habitats make them look different.

On a side note:My 100th official post!

glitchguy said:

...they look different from the other Gen pokemon is because...

Click to expand...

But how can you tell they look different?

I mean, more different or different in different ways than any 2 from the same generation are different etc.

MiTjA said:

But how can you tell they look different?

I mean, more different or different in different ways than any 2 from the same generation are different etc.

Click to expand...

I mean that few pokemon from the first 4 Gens look similar to each other but From Unova i didn't see any similarities.But as AzaleaLightning said they gave more thought to this Gen's design so they look a bit "non-pokemonish" because the previous Gen pokemon didn't have so many details as this Gen's pokemon.idk :\

To be blunt? Yes.

However, they're not the first. Like Nosepass, for example. I never thought that one looked like a Pokemon. Likewise for Budew. I'll probably think of some others for which I thought "That's a Pokemon?" So... it really isn't exclusive to Gen V, although Gen V just had the most instances of it.

So, to be specific: Only a few, like happens every gen. I get used to them. I still don't like Klinkang, Cofagrigus, or Vanilluxe, though, and probably never will. But I'm used to them, and have accepted them as Pokemon... even though I don't want to.

Spinosaurus said:

Let me be the first to say kids in this current generation generally prefer overcomplicated designs, not simple "boring" ones. Why do you think stuff like Bakugan, Skylanders and the like are popular amongst kids?

I see it as the opposite personally, as stuff like the MegaTen series that are geared towards more mature audience got more simplistic designs. Examples from said series: [1][2][3][4]
The simple yet inspired and imaginative designs full of personality are what I appreciate when it comes to series that involves "monsters".

Click to expand...

I don't know where you live, but Bakugan has never been popular over here in New Zealand. Skylanders is pretty popular here, but I wouldn't say anything to do with it is "Over-Complicated" Heck, I don't even think the new Pokemon are complicated in their design(they are more complex. For example, if you look at Pawniard and Bisharp, what would you think their design was based on, 99% of people wouldn't know) I just think the Pokemon are inspired by more
than just Animals.

most of these pokemon are pretty poor looking and i think they are running out of ideas come on who wants to use an ice cream cone or bag of rubbish a lot of them think they should. the designs of most are pretty poor there are only a few that i like which makes it difficult to make a team when playing through these games think they should bring back the originals.