Better if only based off animals?

Started by moon November 20th, 2014 9:33 AM
  • 2131 views
  • 36 replies

moon

they/them
Seen 10 Hours Ago
Posted 22 Hours Ago
37,443 posts
15.5 Years
I hear people say that designs of pokémon are getting ridiculous these days. Truly, they always were. I mean, Muk in Gen 1 is a splendid example of a very strange design. In my opinion ;) Thing is, pokémon are often likened to the animals of the pokémon world. But so many pokémon are not based on animals, or are even remotely reminiscent of animals.

Do you think pokémon would have been better, in any way, if they from the start had only focused on being based on animals? Or at least with a creature-like design rather than item-like one. Pokémon like Voltorb or Magnemite or Vanilluxe would never have existed, and instead we might have even more variations of bears and pigs and apes.
paired with Ivysaur

Nah

Age 30
she/her, they/them
Seen 6 Hours Ago
Posted 14 Hours Ago
15,640 posts
9.5 Years
Eh, I'd rather that Pokemon not be based solely off of animals/creatures. It limits the number of ideas/Pokemon you can make. We'd get too many Pokemon based off of the same thing. I never understood the hate for non-animal/inanimate object Pokemon. And it's not like you have to like every single Pokemon, people.
Nah ンン
“No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."
Female
Seen February 19th, 2015
Posted February 13th, 2015
257 posts
8.6 Years
No way! That would very much ruin Game Freak. Even if the majority of Pokémon are based on animals, it's much more creative if we had different kinds of Pokémon, namely yōkai and inanimate object Pokémon.

You should read this rant I've written about Pokémon designs. I go in further detail on what's good and what's not, but in a nutshell, if Game Freak were to stick with animals and animals only, that's when they're 'running out of ideas'.

Pendraflare

Age 32
Male
Pennsylvania
Seen July 30th, 2021
Posted March 29th, 2021
6,263 posts
9.8 Years
Yeah, I don't think this would be very productive. There are so many other things that Game Freak could base new Pokémon off of. Zekrom basically said what I feel is necessary already.
Azurilland | Twitter | Nuzlocke Forums
May someday resurface in full. We'll see what happens down the road!
No, some of my least favourite Pokemon (those accursed elemental Gen V monkeys) are based off animals, and they're no better than some of those that aren't. Variety is, as they say, the spice of life, and why limit creativity? The animal kingdom is hugely varied, but I can guarantee that if they HAD taken this approach, or started to now, people would immediately start questioning why they didn't think outside the box. Pokemon is its own thing, not a substitute for nature, so I'd prefer it if they kept coming up with wacky original designs not based off real-life animals every gen. It's fun to speculate what they'll do next!

moon

they/them
Seen 10 Hours Ago
Posted 22 Hours Ago
37,443 posts
15.5 Years
I seem to be the only one who thinks differently, haha. I would have liked a pokémon world where pokémon replaces animals completely, because I think it's so difficult to explain pokémon like Voltorb, Magnemite, Klink etc. Their designs don't look "alive". And I don't think it's too bad with variations on the same basic animal. The pigs and monkey pokémon are pretty solid so far, I'd say. Only grime in that area that I have is the electric rodents. They could have made several mouse pokémon, but they really didn't have to make them all Pikachu clones.

There would still be the age-old question about what kind of meat humans there eat, buut. That's a topic for another thread methinks.
paired with Ivysaur
Age 30
Female
Northern Ireland
Seen September 4th, 2015
Posted September 4th, 2015
1,544 posts
13.9 Years
Honestly I prefer things the way they are - if it were only animals a lot of my favourites would never have been created, for example the more humanoid Pokémon like Hitmonlee and that would never do haha :)


I think the diversity at the moment is good - there's enough animal ones to please fans whilst the more obscure ones like Muk and even Garbodor have their own followings as well so it keeps everyone happy :)
http://www.pokecommunity.com/signaturepics/sigpic155452_1.gif

alisaie

they/them
Seen March 14th, 2023
Posted February 3rd, 2022
13,598 posts
14.8 Years
Pokemon pretty much do replace animals, but that doesn't mean that there can't be Pokemon that aren't. If they were solely based on animals what about the ghost type? Many Pokemon in the rock type? There are so many things the Pokemon would have less of or even be without. Having inanimate objects just bring in a whole realm of options that Pokemon has and I certainly wouldn't like that to change.

That and I would haaate to see a world without Litwick, Rotom and several of the other non-animal Pokemon out there.

Hiatus

Seen 1 Day Ago
Posted July 24th, 2021
12,283 posts
10.8 Years
I don't believe having Pokémon based solely on animals would do much good, sadly.

First and foremost is, Pokémon, the term, is short for Pocket Monsters, I believe. When we hear "monsters," majority of us would immediately start to imagine big, scary creatures, and while it wouldn't do much harm if they aren't able to precisely live up to that, it would still sort of cancel out their name, so to speak. I wish I were able to explain better and whatnot, but this kind of how I see it.

Right now, their current way to go about things is looking pretty good, I believe; some Pokémon resemble actual animals, while others seem sort of monstrous (Golurk and Jellicent, for example). I understand that some fans tend to like their animal style a little more, but if we think about it, this method isn't so bad, either.

Nah

Age 30
she/her, they/them
Seen 6 Hours Ago
Posted 14 Hours Ago
15,640 posts
9.5 Years
Pokemon.being inspired by creatures isn't really a bad thing....but today's Pokémon have been based.of inanimate objects. We are seeing Pokemon based on house keys, Pokémon based on garbage. Theres just not much inspiration to them.
This is one of those things that I don't get. What is so less "inspired" about a key ring Pokemon or an ice cream cone Pokemon as compared to a monkey Pokemon or a fish Pokemon?
Nah ンン
“No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."
Seen January 2nd, 2016
Posted January 1st, 2016
253 posts
8.5 Years
This is one of those things that I don't get. What is so less "inspired" about a key ring Pokemon or an ice cream cone Pokemon as compared to a monkey Pokemon or a fish Pokemon?
The Icecream pokemon doesn't really bother me as it doesn't appear too much like an ice-cream, but the thing is that Gen I normally introduced Pokemon as man-made or genetically altered. Pokemon such as Porygon, Voltorb, Magnemite, and Mewtwo were genetically modified pokemon or completely artificial pokemon

Then in Gen II they moved it more as living creatures that existed alongside humans.

But the beauty of the others is that they actually look like they are their own species....like they belonged. Magikarp although clearly a fish, isn't like any fish we've seen. Even though Mankey is a monkey and Aipom is a monkey also, its not exactly the same as the real world counterparts. Pokemon origin and design have evolved throughout generations. Generation I isn't perfect, but since Generation II, Pokemon has become something far more defined.

I admit its not as bad as they make it out, but i think the problem is that there's no longer quality Pokemon designs that stand out. sure some are good and some are unique but the bad ones are stacking up.
Male
Obscure cities, that are dark.
Seen July 4th, 2016
Posted July 4th, 2016
611 posts
8.5 Years
Generally, it might be more appropriate for Pokémon to be formed based on the game or other context, in terms of what it might need or its aesthetic, rather than laying down rules which don't relate to the wider context of the Pokémon game in which they appear. Pokémon based on inanimate things such as Grimer, etc., or Voltorb did to some extent complement the overall aesthetic of the first gen, which had a slightly sparse or 'dead' atmosphere which worked quite well as well, while keeping things focused on the game itself. Evidently Pokémon based on household items can destabilize the intact Nature of the Pokémon universe, and in that sense seem less like a part of the game and more a gimmick or something on the side which appeals to people without inviting any deeper relations, while because of this they also seem less likely to make sense as creatures in their own right or can seem not to have much of an idea animating them so much as just sort of standing there and recurring over the length of the game because at a certain point they act more like data with a sprite attachment than a Pokémon. Likewise, there has to be an attempt to keep the single- and multi-player game in appropriate ratios for the series, any diversion from which turns things into more of an FPS or something of the sort.
When it dawns that Keats' idea of 'negative capability' is basically reducible to the public perception of Lucario.


Brendino

The Ruins of Alph
Seen 3 Days Ago
Posted April 6th, 2023
8,567 posts
13.4 Years
While I prefer Pokemon that are based off of real-life creatures, as long as they aren't just doing something like drawing a face on a trashbag, I'm okay with Pokemon that are based on inanimate objects, too. Chandelure, Aegislash and Drifblim are all pretty good examples of this, as you could make much worse Pokemon out of a chandeleir, sword and balloon respectively.

Wicked3DS

Until the very end.

Age 31
Male
New Jersey
Seen February 24th, 2022
Posted October 5th, 2021
4,592 posts
9.7 Years
While I prefer Pokemon that are based off of real-life creatures, as long as they aren't just doing something like drawing a face on a trashbag, I'm okay with Pokemon that are based on inanimate objects, too. Chandelure, Aegislash and Drifblim are all pretty good examples of this, as you could make much worse Pokemon out of a chandeleir, sword and balloon respectively.
This. Basically, the Pokémon being made out of an inanimate object has to make sense and be well designed. Voltorb/Electrode clearly represent bombs based on their constant explosions, while Grimer/Muk are based on toxic sludge. Both of these make sense for a Pokémon game. However, an ice cream cone and a trash bag don't really stand out as things that would be used in battle, and the designs are pretty poor to make them look like it (though they got it right with Garbodor since it's now a trash monster, which makes a bit more sense).

Hiatus

Seen 1 Day Ago
Posted July 24th, 2021
12,283 posts
10.8 Years
I'm not sure about others, but when Pokémon are based off inanimate objects, I prefer them to be ghosts, as it helps explain things without much trouble at all; in real life, we associate things such as dolls, old action figures, and so forth being possessed by spirits and whatnot when unnatural events occur regarding them, and same could be applied in Pokémon world, I believe.

However, if they are not ghost-types, it likely wouldn't make much sense. Vanilluxe is a good example of this.
Male
Sinnoh Region
Seen December 13th, 2022
Posted July 10th, 2018
1,084 posts
15.4 Years
Pokemon shouldn't be strictly limited to animals alone, after all, the charm in the Pokemon franchise comes from the large variety of creatures it has, and limiting it to just animals and animal-like creatures would make the franchise more like another generic monster-collecting franchise like any other.
Non-binary
Seen November 20th, 2015
Posted November 20th, 2015
12 posts
8.6 Years
Yeah, I don't know why some people dislike the non-animal designs so much. Yes, some of the object-based are pretty odd (Klefki always comes to mind), but the fact that they're not just animals adds to the wonderment of it all. Pokemon are Pokemon, not otherworldly animals.
More fun than a bag of Kupo Nuts! New gaming and challenge videos every week.http://youtube.com/2mooglesgaming

Harmonious Fusion

over the rainbow, there's a glorious sight

Age 28
Female
Washington
Seen January 22nd, 2023
Posted January 31st, 2017
360 posts
10.8 Years
Honestly, Klefki is the only inanimate object Pokemon whose design doesn't make sense to me from an in-universe standpoint. Even in a fantasy world like Pokemon's, a species whose appearance and behavior is so heavily influenced by manmade objects is a little hard to believe. How and why did it come to be? Why is it so compelled to steal keys? And why keys, specifically? Maybe if the answers to these questions were given satisfactory answers, I'd be alright with Klefki.