Anyone notice...

[xVaporeonx]

With pokemon... That the first gen was basically all modeled after animals... And the latest gens have some of the weirdest, object like creatures?

I am all for creative ideas but I liked when they were all based on animals... Not this weird crap! --->

 

[Caite-chan]

Probopass looks normal compared to....

What the hell....seriously....LOL!

 

[leorhn]

I think both of those two are quite creative in terms of design and origin. Although, I guess, whatever floats your boat.
I kinda understand where you're coming from though since we have all sorts of new ones such as an ice cream-resembling Pokemon. haha


I don't think they were all based on animals during Gen 1 since we did have Pokemon like Voltorb, Muk, and etc. I guess we do have a bit more non-animal-based Pokemon now, but I think that's fine. :^)

 

[Junier]

The Gen. 1 starters are all reptilian, but otherwise I don't really catch any design trends from the first generation. Though I find a lot of the earlier names had negative connotations. See Jynx (jinx), Exeggutor (executor), Raticate (eradicate)... These aren't especially nasty or threatening Pokemon either (Raticate, maybe?).

Animals are way to typical. Pokemon need to get weird and zany! Out of our comfort zone! Like Probopass! Love the moai influence there and that sexy-as-fuck mustache made of magnetic shavings is pretty cool too.

 

[xVaporeonx]

Probopass looks normal compared to....

What the hell....seriously....LOL!

WHAT!? hahahaha I never even saw that one. I don't know how many there are but I got some catching up to do.

 

[Spherical Ice]

*bulbagarden.net image removed*

 

[AdamN]

Probopass looks normal compared to....

What the hell....seriously....LOL!

Binacle looks like a barnacle, an animal, so I'd say it's a relatively normal looking "real world remake" pokemon.

And Probopass is meant to be like magnets stuck together (with the "moustache" being iron filings so again, a real-world remake type pokemon...

 

[Sylphiel]

There's certainly been more pokemon based off inanimate objects in the newer gens, but I don't see that as a bad thing at all. There's only so much you can do with animals without getting too odd (as in using odder animals like...well, barnacles, or getting too extravagant with a design just to make it "unique"), so I don't blame them for exploring options elsewhere.

And yeah, ones like Probopass can be odd, but then there are other ones like Sigilyph and Aegislash which are actually kind of neat.
Although I'm saying that mostly because I love their concepts, so there's some bias from me going on there.

 

[pkmin3033]

The wackier the designs, the better! I think a healthy mix of animals and inanimate objects is a good thing. There are a huge number of animals on the planet that Pokemon could draw inspiration from, but I can practically guarantee that if they were based solely off animals, people would complain to no end about having more of the same.

Sometimes the inanimate object Pokemon might be a bit TOO weird for some tastes, but they definitely shake things up a little and make the world of Pokemon far more diverse and interesting than real life...and isn't that what it's all about? Pokemon isn't intended to be a direct substitute for the natural world. It might have started out as being inspired by it, but seeing as how we've had these inanimate object Pokemon popping up every generation, it's clear it isn't supposed to be purely nature inspired. Pocket MONSTERS, not Pocket Animals. Monsters can be an amalgation of pretty much anything, and that's what makes them so unique and interesting!

You get bad Pokemon designs each gen - and yes, it usually is the inanimate object ones which attract the most criticism, although the animals have their fair share of criticism, like those damned Gen V monkeys - but seeing as how it's subjective and down to personal taste, I think it'd be unreasonable to expect to like every Pokemon in every generation, and one thing you've got to remember as well is that perspectives change when you get older, and stuff isn't as fresh or exciting as it used to be.

Try thinking about what you might think of, say, Voltorb and Electrode, if they were introduced in Gen V instead of Gen I. Then take a Pokemon from Gen V you don't like - we'll go with Foongus/Amoongus, for the Pokemon theme comparison - and imagine how you might have seen them if they had been introduced in Gen I.

I dunno, I don't think a bunch of floating keys is any weirder than a floating magnet, or a rock with a Mario face, or a...whatever the hell Jynx is supposed to be.

 

[AdamN]

or a...whatever the hell Jynx is supposed to be.

Spoiler:

 

[xVaporeonx]

Spoiler:

OMG! Everything in life makes sense!!!!

 

[Crystal Berry]

I enjoyed Gen 1 the most. The designs were so clever, and every Pokemon was so interesting, lovable and unique. Even the uglier Pokemon like Weezing, Muk and Exeggutor had redeeming qualities that made them hard for me not to love. I don't really understand your animal point because most Pokemon are based off animals regardless of generation. Even in Gen 6 there are only around 4 evolutionary lines based off fictitious creatures or inanimate things.

 

[ProfChaos]

i think they have done pretty well all things considering. We are pushing a 1000 so really tricky to not get lazy and uninspired.

Cus i know if i had to... after about 70 i'd be cracking under pressure and say F*** it...

that's a pokemon.

So... Kudos on them making it 6Gens before we were fighting each other with car keys. I know you would have had a lot of Mop and Shoe types by now if it were up to me lol. And waaaay more based on dogs.

 

[ProfChaos]

I enjoyed Gen 1 the most. The designs were so clever, and every Pokemon was so interesting, lovable and unique. Even the uglier Pokemon like Weezing, Muk and Exeggutor had redeeming qualities that made them hard for me not to love. I don't really understand your animal point because most Pokemon are based off animals regardless of generation. Even in Gen 6 there are only around 4 evolutionary lines based off fictitious creatures or inanimate things.

yeah! a lot of people knock Gen 1 (i blame Hipster cynicism syndrome) but it holds a lot of weight still even today. I still think they have the most solid, competent and all around likable pokemon.

 

[Nolafus]

Some of my least favorite pokemon come from gen one, haha.

As far as inanimate objects for pokemon go, it's very hit or miss. There are some like Garbodor and Klefki, which people keep pointing at to say Gamefreak is running out of ideas, but then there are others like Sigilyph and Chandelure that never get pointed out since their designs are actually pretty cool. It's the same with Magneton and Muk. Some people like them, some people don't. It's not that Gamefreak is running out of ideas, it's just hard to make that many different designs. Of course some aren't going to turn out great.

 

[ProfChaos]

i suppose it's subjective.

I strongly disagree that Muk is less creative than Klefki lol....

 

[ProfChaos]

Klefki is a set of keys...

and Muk is sewage. What's so creative about sewage? You're right about it being subjective.

Well most pokemon can seem underwhelming if you simplify it like that.

But muk is one of those things that nightmares are made of. I remember growing up i had a bit of a phobia of mold. anytime i saw some starting to grow on leftovers in the fridge, i'd either throw away the container or never eat from it again no matter how many times it was cleaned. micro-organic bacteria can accumulate and form mold and toxic mold. it is a mixture of living organisms that eat their host as it grows. Although "Muk" itself is an impossible creature, the basis for it is already very much existent not only in the real world but in various literature.

perhaps even inspired by the 1958 movie "the blob" (which inspired many other parodies, and plot devices such as the 97' book "the blob" from goosebumps.) The concept of a sludge-like creature that is nigh indestructible and consumes everything in its path, has been a persistent theme that's existed for decades. Many times we'll see in cartoons or in even commercials where the idea of someone's gym locker, or bedroom closet is so foul and neglected, the sources for the filt have manifested a taken on a life of its own. Becoming basically a very common hyperbole for how gross somthing is.

waste accumulation into a living toxic creature is an inspired theme, and a very old and entertaining concept. An obvious choice for influence when developing a multi-monster series. i suppose it's not very original or complex.. but it is rather creative and interesting.

 

[ProfChaos]

You make interesting points, but methinks nostalgia plays a big part of why you think Muk is original and why you think Klefki is not.

As well as you can make a Pokemon's origins as complicated or as simple as you want. To you, Klefki is just a set of keys, but Klefki may or may not also be based on the pagan myth that depicts key or other item-stealing fairies. As well as it could also be based on iron charms often carried to ward off fairies (source: Bulbapedia)

You can make the two designs have extremely complicated origins till the cows come home, but it all boils down to them being sewage and a set of keys. The only thing that makes one more creative than the other is a good dose of nostalgia. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems to be a pretty common theme.

nostalgia is typically associated with positive memories. The example i gave is a very good reason why i should hate muk lol. But yes, a good majority of pokemon are relatable to real life references. I have plenty of "key ring" related memories as well lol.

The difference is, Muk can be associated with various cultural references an allude to reoccurring themes displayed regularly in multimedia. It's not about being complex or complicated. But, you could easily make a case for the creative process for it's development being quite inspired and clever as i just did.

Maybe the designers did just one day say "how bout some goopy trash be pokemon" and they whipped it out in a few seconds with no real creative inspiration or lengthy involved process.

or... Maybe they drew from the various sources i mentioned and alluded to a preconceived concept with somewhat of a brilliant subtle wink to those familiar to the reference. Maybe some reasearch was involved. There's no way to know for sure but i'd like to think it the latter.

In any case my point is the method behind Muk very well could have been an involved process and not a simple whim.

where as for Klefki... it just doesn't seem likely.

 

[mew_nani]

Klefki... is just weird. I know there's legends of inanimate objects becoming monsters once they reach a certain age but Klefki isn't designed around that concept. It's a key chain with a face. Literally, that's all it is. A perfectly modern, perfectly friendly floating keychain.

I understand sentinent Pokeballs. I understand toxic sludge monsters. I understand trash bags come to life. I even sorta, kinda get floating sentinent ice cream cones, and I certainly understand haunted dolls, swords, candles, gear formations, and even a sentinent computer program. I don't understand a modern keychain with a face on it. They might as well have made a cellphone Pokemon, or a plastic cup Pokemon. I would have understood that a lot better than a floating keychain with no clear justification or explanation for its existence or typing.

With that said, Pokemon based on inanimate objects have been a thing since Gen I, and as strange as some of them can be I don't mind them one bit. You'd figure we'd have more computer based Pokemon though, given the prevalence of PCs in the Pokemon world.

Come to think of it, it would be neat if we had more manmade Pokemon. We only have a few Pokemon out of over 700 that were made intentionally by humans.

 

[ProfChaos]

The general nostalgia that comes with gen 1 Pokemon involves experiences you had as a kid that makes the Pokemon seem more special, because childhood stuff like that can't be replaced.

I don't know why it's less likely. Muk is a simplistic, purple goop in design. Because of it's simple design, it can be linked to about anything you want. Link it to the grape smoothies the friendly man that owned Bob's Smoothie Shack down the street used to make. Those delicious grape smoothies you got as a child every day after school, even in the winter. It's still just a purple blob.

Klefki on the other hand is more difficult to link to. Why? Because it is more creative. Because it's appearance is more complex and original, it is harder to link it to nostalgic parts of your life, particularly your childhood. What are you going to associate Klefki with? The car keys your father lost every morning before he went to work? That doesn't have the same effect. Unintentionally, Gamefreak designed Muk so shapelessly that nowadays, it is worshipped as one of the most creative Pokemon of all time, simply because it reminds you of Bob's grape smoothies.

It's extremely unlikely Muk has any sort of strong influence. It is a living sack of sludge and nothing more. The only thing that separates it from Garbodor is that Garbodor actually has a creative design (yes I just said that). Muk has a mysterious nostalgic effect, but deep down it is just sludge.

lol i have no "nostalgia link" for Muk. In fact i didn't like it at all until i kept getting wrecked by Koga's in SoulSilver and realized it's a pretty good Troll pkm. Minimize + acid armor + toxic + leftovers = LOLgg

anyway, you made my point in stating that it could have been inspired but a multitude of sources. "Smoothies?" was the (awkward and highly improbable) example you gave. and i gave several others.. in fact if you somehow get toxic sludge monster from smoothie, than bravo... such a mind was made for creating pokemon lol. That's even more creative than what i said.

like i said, i'm not saying Klefki is a bad pokemon. or isn't unique. But there's lots of possible different scenarios and sources that could have drawn to inspiration for Muk. What you "link it to" is up to you.

for klefki, it just seems improbable that the development process was at all imaginative. It really does seem like something someone threw in last min lol. You're not gonna "link it to" anything but a random key ring. it's underwhelming no matter how you spin it.

and yea, garbador is quite creative too.