5th Gen Charizard-like Pokémon in Gen V?

Krogre is an orca (killer whale). The others are all types of dragons. And Pokemon are only sometimes based off animals. If they choose to not do an animal-based one that isn't 'not caring', it's just how it's suppose to be. There are plenty of Gen I non-animal-based Pokemon.
 
Last edited:
Crobat said:
to me pokemon are supposed to look like animals.. and i feel like with the legendaries they tend to go over board. like when kyogre came out i was like ok pokemon is taking a wrong turn here cuz i dunno wtf this is supposed to be. then the next generation they just didnt give a f*** and both every single legendary till this day i have no idea wth they are.

pokemon is definitely becoming more digimon imo.. sad but true
Click to expand...

Not all Pokemon are based off animals, this has been stated a million times. Many of them are based off mythological creatures.
 
I think a lot of people complain about how pokemon is running out of ideas when seeing gen 5 pokemon. However, I feel that if anything pokemon is only getting more and more unique ideas. I mean, look at the gereation one pokes. In specific, I'm talking about Eggsecute, Eggsecutor, Doduo, Dodrio, and Dugtrio. All have multiple heads with similar faces. That's five pokemon that share the exact same characteristic, and in three different evolution lines.
 
digimon hell no...I don't care just enjoy the fact we're getting a new adventure and games to play geez people

>Feelings< said:
The fire and water starters are much more cartoonish looking to me than most other Pokemon in older generations, lol.

I like the new Legendary Pokemons in terms of looks.
They looked a lot like Digimon at first look, but it's not like Digimon is that bad or anything.
And no, it has nothing to do with senses of realism added to make them look like Digimon.

Reshiram is something I'm almost sure I'll love, and Zekrom is good too, though its similarity to Palkia makes it seem like originality in design, and good designs themselves will run out soon.
I personally just love the simplicity of Pokemon, and would hate to lose it. Details is good, but not the unnecessary ones. I wouldn't like a Lugia with five colours, horns, and lines on the body, though I'd like a more defined fur-like feel like that or Reshiram.
Click to expand...

dude i don't think they'll run out of ideas anytime soon that's like saying i can't do a thousand things in a month
 
Last edited:
Horizon said:
From reading this thread, it seems to me that people think having more detailed and life-like creatures is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

This is what I find completely baffling. What does every one have against detail? In my books the more detailed they are, the better. Sure some of the earlier designs were simple, but some of them were equally detailed, for example Nidoking.
Spoiler:
 
I think the legends dont look like didgemon butnot like pokemon either
 
I have to admit i was excited about the starter's designs they're pretty awesome but the legends look more like freaking machines which is NOT cool. It's kind of depressing thinking the way Pokemon used to look like then the Sinnoh region kinda changed it. I say they stick with the cartoony looking Pokemon. Not machines or anything realistic.....
 
I think some of you guys arent used to detail, since I think you grew up with the classics, which had simple designs.

I think they still look look pokemon. XD
 
there are a few ways that the pokemon can look like digimon...
-they are new. we're use to the 493 pokemon shown so its hard to adjust to differant ones. plus no one knows all the digimon so when we see something new, we associate with something that we havnt seen that much also. (if that makes sense)
-we usually see digimon as humanoids. zoroark, reshiram and zekrom have humanoid features, 2 arms, 2 legs and a head that sits on top. alot o the old digimon r similar to this.
 
Crobat said:
to me pokemon are supposed to look like animals.. and i feel like with the legendaries they tend to go over board. like when kyogre came out i was like ok pokemon is taking a wrong turn here cuz i dunno wtf this is supposed to be. then the next generation they just didnt give a f*** and both every single legendary till this day i have no idea wth they are.

pokemon is definitely becoming more digimon imo.. sad but true
Click to expand...
Completely agree, although some Pokemon is based on robot (beldum family) and inanimate object(Voltorb and Magnemite family). they can make Pokemon from inanimate object, but when they add inanimate to animal based Pokemon, then i call it Digimonish Pokemon(Rhyperior hands having hole to shootof rocks, Magmotar hands, Rayquaza body parts) for this legendary case, its the tail that make them look like Digimon

Rich Boy Rob said:
This is what I find completely baffling. What does every one have against detail? In my books the more detailed they are, the better. Sure some of the earlier designs were simple, but some of them were equally detailed, for example Nidoking.
Spoiler:
Click to expand...
Read my post earlier. that's the point i'm trying to make. if they do it right, a quite detailed Pokemon still have Pokemonish look.
If they make humanoid Pokemon too much, i won't be suprised if in later generation Pokemon hardly distinguishable from Digimon. Pokemon shouldn't be too humanoid in my opinion.
 
i like more detail. it gives a more realistic feel to the newer gens.
 
lx_theo said:
The more realistic looking detail you add to a Pokemon, the less it feels like a Pokemon.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. The more they add to the newer Pokemon the less they actually look like Pokemon. If you look at the first and second generation they were fairly simple looking. They almost resembled the plants and animals they were based off of entirely. Now Pokemon look more mechanical then anything. At least I see robots in some of them. :(
 
I don't at all see why this disscusion of them looking like digimon is still going on! POKAYMON, DIGIMON - TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!
Mew~ said:
I don't really know why you people are comparing Pokémon to Digimon... If they were both made by the same companys etc, then I would see some of your points but it's not like ken sugimori went and watched an episode of Digimon and somehow magically turned a drawing from GeoGreymon into Rekrom... THIS IS MADNESS :3 Plus, pokemon was created before Digimon right...? Well then instead of basically saying pokemon is a ripoff of Digimon... say Digimon is a ripoff of pokemon...
Oh and whats with the title? Charizard like pokemon in Gen V? Why would you want that? That would just be so unoriginal! Unless you ment the new pokes look like charizard...? Which quite frankly makes no sense looking a pokebu and charizard... xD
Oh p.s. I think Reshiram Looks great! How the hell does it look like a chicken..? I think its sort of a mix of Angle/Winged Beast
Click to expand...
 
digimon:
[PokeCommunity.com] Charizard-like Pokémon in Gen V?

[PokeCommunity.com] Charizard-like Pokémon in Gen V?

[PokeCommunity.com] Charizard-like Pokémon in Gen V?


compared to the 3nd picture, the legends look nothing like them. and pokemon in general will never look like em

matter fact most pokemon look nothing like the ones in the other pictures
 
The problem is that the pokemon dont match eachother. Compare the starters of Gen. 5 to the legendarys. The style isint the same. The starters look very cartoonish and the legendarys look realistic. its just not balanced. How could they even live in the same universe?
 
Magmarizer said:
The problem is that the pokemon dont match eachother. Compare the starters of Gen. 5 to the legendarys. The style isint the same. The starters look very cartoonish and the legendarys look realistic. its just not balanced. How could they even live in the same universe?
Click to expand...

BECAUSE THEY ARE POKEMON!

they don't need a purpose, they don't need to look the same, they can be what ever they want!

that's what pokemon really is.
 
Ayselipera said:
My thoughts exactly. The more they add to the newer Pokemon the less they actually look like Pokemon. If you look at the first and second generation they were fairly simple looking.
Click to expand...

Rich Boy Rob said:
This is what I find completely baffling. What does every one have against detail? In my books the more detailed they are, the better. Sure some of the earlier designs were simple, but some of them were equally detailed, for example Nidoking.
Spoiler:
Click to expand...


Ayselipera said:
Now Pokemon look more mechanical then anything. At least I see robots in some of them. :(
Click to expand...

*Cough* Magnemite *Cough*
 
Dubstep said:
They don't look very Digimon, but they don't look very Pokemon either. The new legendaries just remind me immensely of a lot of dragon drawings I see around the Internet... Might as well be ganked off DA or something.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I thought when I first saw them.

Anyway, they'll probably start to look more like Pokemon once you get used to them being in a Pokemon game and using them in battles and such. At least for me, they will.
 
For me, Pokemon will never resemble Digimon unless they suddenly start speaking. Oh wait...Yeah...

Seriously though Pokemon and Digimon are totally different. You guys are just tripping. I think the only passable "mons" that could cross over are Frigimon and Elecmon. Digimon into Pokemon. Yeah that's right. Digimon into Pokemon. They have different styles and aren't easily confused.


https://sm_angel.tripod.com/poster_digi.jpg
This here is a poster of some digimon. Look at Number 33 and 38. If Frigimon were shorter and couldn't talk human and just said frigi a lot he would look so much like a pokemon IMO. 38 could pass...probably...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top