• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

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

138
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 24, 2012
Maybe all pokemon overall are evolving into more humanoid forms. I seemed to notice that there were many more humanoid pokemon.
 

shinyabsol1

Pokemon DarkJasper!?
333
Posts
13
Years
  • Seen Nov 23, 2022
PlatinumDude said:
It doesn't matter what a Pokemon looks like as long as it's part of the franchise.

This sums up my opinion........................
 

Balalaika

Subverting all the clichés!  
28
Posts
13
Years
Cofagrigus always did remind me of something that belongs in Ben 10. I'm going to have to agree with OP in that no, they don't look like regular pokemon.
 
799
Posts
12
Years
  • Age 28
  • Seen Feb 1, 2016
I agree with the most of the comments - How can you define a Pokémon? I understand what you mean. I think you're saying Pokémon should be 'animalish'. If that so, then I have few Pokémon:

Kling's evolutionary line - They all are gears.

Vanillite's evolutionary line - They all are ice creams.

Trubbish's evolutionary line - They all are pile of trash.

Personally I like all of the Pokémon and I don't like to judge them. Pokémon is meant to be Pokémon, Trubbish may be trash but it's Pokémon.
 
3,655
Posts
16
Years
I pretty much agree with the whole "Pokemon can look like whatever the hell they want and still be Pokemon" argument.
 
Last edited:
46
Posts
13
Years
Well, I like to think that Pokémon are formed by a number of different things. Elements, Structures, Ideas, Concepts.. etc.

The fact that they're all "Pokémon" and can interact the way they do must be because there's a unifying element to them all which MAKES them Pokémon.

I propose the Pokérus theory. Pokérus is a microscopic life-form that helps Pokémon grow quicker, but could the Pokémon itself be an advanced form of Pokérus?

Perhaps through natural occurence, or more likely meteor bombardment, the Pokérus travelled to Earth from space, which then set about breeding and multiplying upon the Earth.

The microscopic life form then bound itself to various things, plants, people, animals, basically any living creature it could use as a host. This includes machines, too.

Given there's a psychic typing, then naturally some Pokérus sustained itself off psychic energy, which would naturally expose the Pokérus to human concepts and legends and ideas and whatever thought process that being may have had.

So these various influences, elemental, psychic and physical provided the "image" or basic template of Earth's Pokémon, forms best suited for the environment they were inhabiting.

The Pokérus then evolved either gradually or suddenly into these forms, and once given a name by a person, or group, the Unown (Who were created directly by Arceus to impart messages to humans) did their stuff and through a mass psychic field sort of hardcoded that name directly to the Pokémon. This process occured during the Arceus event in HG/SS. You see the Unown flying around during the birth of whichever Legend you pick, which incidentally is the only time we ever directly see a Pokémon egg being created, and certainly the Day Care people never see it despite the large amount of eggs being shuffled through every day.

Pokémon like the first Dialga, Palkia and Giratina, and Arceus were different, being formed from Pokérus in space.

Deoxys is a special case and I believe it to be evolved Pure Pokérus. It didn't take a form from anything and just kept evolving and evolving on it's own.

Ditto are "carrier" forms of loose unevolved Pokérus, combining together to survive instead of finding a physical/mental host. These Ditto are more than happy to adapt to the form of whatever Pokémon surrounds them, and use it as a survival technique for whatever environment they need to adapt to.

So really when I see Pokémon taking the form of Ice Cream, it's no different than it taking the form of anything else. How is Ice Cream more ridiculous than a Pokémon choosing Mr. Mime or Jynx as it's form?

Different influences create different creatures. Grimer was formed from toxic sludge for crying out loud. The first generation had a lot of weird stuff which people forget due to nostalgia goggles. Hitmonchan having fully formed gloves, clothes and belt with a "P" on it.

So nobody can say what a Pokémon SHOULD look like, and in universe I'd say the only criteria for a Pokémon even being a Pokémon is it's susceptibility to Pokéballs, ability to be converted into energy and stored in a PC, susceptibility to the microscopic form of Pokérus, and ability to control it's individual natural environment.
 
188
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 29
  • Seen Mar 18, 2017
Ugh, I really hate it when people are like "The new pokemon don't look like Pokemon". Especially because there is no real criteria for what a pokemon should even look like. They don't have to look like animals or plants or anything like that.
 
23
Posts
12
Years
I agree with the OP...

There are some seriously stupid looking Pokemon, and it just seems obvious that they're running out of ideas. I can't imagine what they'll look like if Pokemon is still around in another 10 years.

I know there's not general consensus as to what a Pokemon should look like, but come on... Vanillite and its evolved forms really come to mind as ones that just make me shake my head.

And it's like the Pokemon people were like, "Alright... this Pokemon looks goofy as hell, so we HAVE to make it pretty powerful to make up for it."

I'm not sure what I'm saying. It's late.

But I will say the first generation of Pokemon will always be my favorite ... most likely because of the nostalgia factor. Ah... bias.
 

Mr

Just call me Mister
58
Posts
14
Years
The older Pokemon were usually based off or real plants and animals. (or fusions of them ... Squirtle = Squirrel + Turtle)
They felt more natural this way.
The new Pokemon are more imaginative. It just takes some getting used to I guess. I prefer the older Pokemon though. I liked it when they looked more natural than imaginative.
 

Mortalis

[css-div="background-color:#4e9dda;text-align:cent
345
Posts
13
Years
I think the fifth generation Pokémon may not look like the previous generations, but they definitely look like Pokémon. I like when they're very different to previous generations, it makes owning them more of a unique experience.
 
106
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Nov 3, 2016
Of course here are some that don't look a thing like animals or plants (which is what most people think Pokémon should look like), but let us not forget how much the old gens have introduced as well. For example, Jynx, Grimer, the Regis, Porygon etc (Note how most of these are from gen I). I'm just saying that gen V has introduced Pokémon that are just as bad as the other gens (except for gen II, that was actually alright), the only difference is it introduced more because they're running out of organic things to base them on. That plus the fact that none of them are related to old Pokémon must make it very difficult. I'm actually surprised they did as well as they did.
 

Halcyon

peace and serenity
1,208
Posts
16
Years
I feel that when creating Pokémon, there shouldn't be any boundaries on what Pokémon should look like. Even if they still look like "Pokémon", people might start on complaining how they all lack originality and creativity, blablabla. I know people are entitled to their opinions, but it's like a never-ending cycle to me - not everyone would be happy and satisfied with their designs. After all, they are Pokémon at the end of the day.
 

Ω Ruby and α Sapphire

Guest
0
Posts
I think the difference between gen I and gen 5 is what they are based on. If i remember correctly, almost all the gen I pokemon were based on animals. Gen five seem to be based on animals and objects. Personally i like gen I the best, and gen 4 the least.
 

Darthrai

Dragon Tamer
65
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen May 22, 2016
I call Druddigon the Lego Dragon because of how it looks. I like it anyway but it wouldn't immediately strike me as a Pokemon.

You've all seen this image, right? That is the difference between older and newer generations. Newer monsters have more 'pointless' features; spikes, stripes, fluffy bits, etc. What's good or bad is a matter of opinion, but there is generally a clear distinction between early and recent generations.

I think I'm gonna have trouble sleeping tonight... >.> That Garchomp and Charizard look pretty scary.

Anyone look at Gyarados and Arcanine though? Or Klink and Vanilluxe? There are exceptions to the rule.
 

2Cool4Mewtwo

Pwning in Ubers since 1996.
1,182
Posts
12
Years
Gen V pokemon have more features than those of Gen I, because as time goes, developers have more room for improving and adding more features, because of better technology available. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand.
 
412
Posts
15
Years
Im happy with unovas cast of pokemon. At first I found it strange that there are floating snowcones riddled about driftveil. Small trashbags around nimbasa walking around. I still am bitter with sawk andthroh. Yet now that I have played it abutt load of times I came up with a theory.

Gf looked ay gen 4 and noticed that they had created a fiasco with spending over 15 pokedex entries on evolved forms of previous pokes ( fail )

So they reduced it to its most simple form amd decided to reconstruct.
Imo I think gen 6 will be the best yet if we get to see it
 
294
Posts
14
Years
  • Seen May 6, 2023
rule of thumb in Pokemon... WHAT EVER ARCEUS ( GAMEFREAK) SAYS ITS A POKEMON IT IS A POKEMON!. there end of disscussion.
 

WhiteExterior

Back from Beyond
25
Posts
12
Years
This is coming from an artist personally, but I love the designs of most the Pokemon, even in the new generation. I think a lot of people are focused on the Pokemon just looking pleasing as far as the design is concerned, I.E. being "cute" or "cool", but that there are some that aren't makes it that much more awesome to me, and more "realistic". Not all real animals are good looking, after all.

And yeah, I'm not too fond of some of the ones you mentioned above either (well, most that you mentioned) but every generation has those sort of characters and that doesn't mean that they're any less of Pokemon.

:3 Point is that I love the diversity, and no, I do think that the Pokemon in the new generation look like Pokemon. I love the designs of all of them...except Cryogonal, his design is really retarded to me. XD
 
Back
Top