• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Dawn, Gloria, Juliana, or Summer - which Pokémon protagonist is your favorite? Let us know by voting in our poll!
  • 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.
    Register

Better if only based off animals?

moon

  • Togepi Egg
    • 37,429
    Posts
    17
    Years
    • they/them
    • Seen Oct 15, 2024
    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.
     
    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.
     
    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'.
     
    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.
     
    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!
     
    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.
     
    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 :)
     
    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.
     
    Last edited:
    Chandelure, rotom, klinklang, and magnezone are all fantastic pokemon without even a hint of animal inspiration.

    Pokemon can be based off of anything, and as long as GF does it creatively, they'll be cool.

    Spoiler:
     
    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.
     
    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.
     
    Shiny_Unown said:
    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.
    Click to expand...
    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?
     
    Zekrom said:
    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?
    Click to expand...

    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.
     
    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.
     
    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.
     
    They just don't appear like Pokémon anymore.....inanimate objects or just anything non living seems too much at this point. Chandelier, and sword pokemon really makes me doubt gen 6 because they just appear to be inanimate objects themselves.
     
    Brendino said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    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).
     
    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.
     
    that would be boring, I feel that pokemon should be based on more fantasy and imaginary creatures..more cool.
    It would be boring if all the pkm were based on animals..
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top