Quote:
Originally Posted by Hikari10
If you take a look at the Scraggy line, you wouldn't know they were Dark/Fighting until you looked at the Pokedex or on something like Bulbapedia.
|
When I first saw it I immediately guessed Dark. Which is its primary type too so spot on.
Maybe you don't understand the concept of the Dark type. Its about mean moves, sneaky attacks, cheap tricks, dishonesty.
Now look at Scrafty. 100% Dark.
Besides this is not a legit argument, as every generation has easy to guess and tough ones...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azureth
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.
|
Just no, that is not remotely the case. Read some earlier posts or go away please.








Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinosaurus
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.
What the Pokemon is based and what it's inspired about has nothing to do with what a Pokemon should look like or not. Designs comes first, and Pokemon underwent a design and artsrtyle change that isn't quite effective as it used to be. I don't think the artstyle was ever special or the designs were good - 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. Hell I might as well say it here, but the later design inspirations do remind me of Digimon, but not quite as professionally executed and as well not fitting to the theme that Pokemon generally takes.
It's like mixing ice cream with ketchup - they're both great individually, but when you mix them together you won't get the results you're hoping for. 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. (Part of the reason why I think the ice cream Pokemon are actually some of the best designs.)
|
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.