5th Gen Do you think that some of the Unova Pokemon don't even look like Pokemon?

[danaxe]

this is why i'm dreading the 6th generation pokemon

 

[Ho-Oh]

this is why i'm dreading the 6th generation pokemon

Well nobody says that they'll be similar in generation six. For me at least, I thought gen 5 Pokemon looked a lot different to gen 4 Pokemon at least, with gen 5 looking more on the "normal" Pokemon side with things like Minccino, Blitzle etc. While there were some that didn't look overly what we were used to, for the most part the patterns tend to change generation to generation.

 

[Golurks Were Meant to Fly]

Okay, some Pokemon I don't get: Klingklang. Like, I know it's a huge gear in appearance. I guess it's Unova's version of Magneton or something. When I first saw it, I'm like "what is GameFreak doing...?". Stunfisk is another. It has a derpy face, and I probably would have called it the Unown ! to be something else. Dunno what Scraggy's supposed to be, other than a chameleon or something along those lines. XD I find it cool, but yeah.

Keldeo looks like a My Little Pony thing instead of a Musketdeer. Even it's new form suggests this. XD

And man, Tynamo. It appears...ugh. D: It has such a cute cry, but ugh. Lol.

I liked klink's line, I thought it was a cool evolution. Stunfisk is based on a flounder, so it's kinda gonna have a derpy face. If it didn't, it wouldn't represent the animal as well. Scraggy's concept is really cool. It's based on a punk youth combined with a lizard. (I love how scrafty has the molted hood) If it wasn't combined with a lizard, people would definitely accuse it of not being a pokemon. Keldeo is supposed to be based on a kelpie/chinese unicorn. (it's tail is reminiscent of d'Artagnan's hat)

As for tynamo, it's based off leeches and eels and other similar creatures. I'm guessing the mouth is the problem here, but what do you expect?


As for the OP's question, I'd say they all look like pokemon. The style is evolving and I'm of the mindset that if it's created by the creators and is said to be a pokemon than what else could it be but a pokemon? Why do WE decide what pokemon look like? Sure it doesn't look exactly like a gen 1 pokemon, but I wouldn't say the wingull line or whismur line or absol would fit in with chansey and nidoqueen. I wouldn't say ariados fits in there either! (if I was going by the mindset that pokemon all had to look like they were from gen 1) But they ARE pokemon, and just because nostalgia causes us to believe otherwise, it's true. The kids playing pokemon today only know Unova pokemon! Ask them and you'd probably get opposite answers than what all the haters would say.

And danaxe, why would you dread gen VI? Couldn't the pokemon only get better? At the very least there would be SOME pokemon you'd like...

 

[Altairis]

I agree, I think that the difference between the Gen 4 & 5 designs were HUGE. Especially if you think of the reception each gen got, not counting the "These Pokemon suck" that each generation gets. I mean, even now, BW is still getting hate for its designs, and I don't really feel that the Gen 4 Pokemon were hated on for that long by the general community, I guess.

Gen 6 will definitely be different!

 

[Atomic Pirate]

Okay, I have a good allusion to compare the changes in Pokemon style to: Star Wars Original Trilogy vs Prequels. With the original trilogy, technology was limited, so more feeling and emotion were necessary to make an impression. This is similar to the limited technology of the original Game Boy.

However, the developers were able to work around the technological limits and still create fascinating, wonderful, and memorable creatures by adding feeling and emotion, just like the directors of the Original Trilogy were able to work around technological limits to create great characters and story with emotion. In essence, both the older generations of Pokemon and the Star Wars Trilogy had more feeling and emotion to them, because limits and technology forced the creators to focus more on emotion and feeling.

With the new Star Wars movies and new Pokemon generations, though, great strides in technology allow for more detailed graphics. However, these new Pokemon, with their endless markings, armor, contrasting colors, and spikes lack the emotion and overall creativity of the older ones. The same can be said for the Prequels, which lack the feeling and emotion of the older movies, instead relying on complicated CGI, just the same way the new Pokemon rely on complicated armor and spikes.

 

[Brendino]

I'm one of those people that realizes that as the times and technology change, so will the style of new Pokemon. I don't even have a problem with things like the Vanillite and Trubbish lines, because they went for something different than what we've seen before, even if they aren't universally loved.

The only Gen V Pokemon that I can think of that I don't believe looks much like a Pokemon is Roggenrola. To me it just looks like an octagon with a hexagon on it's body (which is actually supposed to be an ear, not an eye), and then feet and a horn(?) that looked like they were tacked on as an afterthought. But, I didn't see anyone else mention in in this thread, so it might just be me that feels this way.

 

[atmmachine11]

I think my opinions are a lot different than everyone else. I have never met someone with the same thoughts honestly. I love generation one and two, three is alright and four was a total let down. I hate most of the pokemon from the sinnoh region, but when unova came out, I actually love a whole lot of them. I thought it was a big step up from sinnoh. Now on the appearances? Every pokemon that comes out is new and unique, aside from a couple. Pokemon could look like anything, but some of these did remind me of digimon .

 

[Perico]

I have to say that there are lots of 5th Pokémon which don't seem "real" Pokémon to me. Look at Klink. Well, Klink is admissible, but look at Klang and Klinklang... Those are not Pokémon, in my opinion. The same happens with Cryogonal... what is that?
I've come to think that the way of drawing new Pokémon is changing and that's why they all look a bit different now. It has to be that.

 

[pleb]

Trubbish: It looks like a tiny trash bag.
Ducklett: It's a tiny duck
Marractus: How is that cactus moving?
Klink: They're gears with faces

 

[Resolution]

The only one I say doesn't look like a Pokémon is Trubbish. It just looks like a trash bag to me...a smelly one at that.

 

[MiTjA]

Just imagine the amounts of hate gen V would have gotten if it introduced these:

When you compare pokemon to previous pokemon "by generation", your comparison is not justified if you pick Vanillite and Klink and compare them to Eevee, Gyarados and Arcanine... yeah no.

You have to compare the weird ones to the weird ones and the animal-like to the animal-like if you want to be honest.
And fortunately, with gen V that is extremely easy to do! Why?
Because they intentionally reused the same basic stuff from gen I (including weird ones) and came up with unique different pokemon for gen V anyway.

But i do see where your coming from. Most pokemon are more like animals and creatures. Not foods or electrical appliances.

Because Magnemite and Voltorb totally didn't introduce those possibilities. Not to mention Porygon who is a virtual pokemon.

And, there is no pokemon that is made out of food. Vanillite is a crystal based creature that likes being covered in snow that it creates, which then makes it resemble ice cream. I call this reverse mimicry and consider Vanillite to be the most creative case yet.
Perhaps trainers did not start using it until they came across some that covered themselves in snow, because they thought it was retardedly cute and made a dex entry about it xDD

...Newer monsters have more 'pointless' features; spikes, stripes, fluffy bits, etc.

Sounds like Tyranitar




Besides, I remember reading in some interview that they had more than thousand finished creature designs by gen III, so there is even the possibility that some pokemon have been used in later generations than they were initially created for.
The only known case so far is Gastrodon though, which was made for RS but scrapped and introduced in DP instead.
For gen V I doubt it however as they had several new artists come in and how gamefreak themselves stated that they rather make new ones everytime even though they have many scrapped ones.

Anyways, there is always animal-like pokemon, there is always weird pokemon.

 

[Cosmotone8]

The couple Pokemon that really stick out in my mind for me were Accelgor, Karrablast and Shelmet. They were so... weird and didn't make much sense. Couldn't even tell what they were.

 

[SSJ4Ash]

I dont think they dont look like pokemon, but they do look some-what like digimon. Zebstrika reminds me of Unimon, etc. etc. Too sick to give more examples. (i have a cold)

 

[Ho-Oh]

Trubbish: It looks like a tiny trash bag.
Ducklett: It's a tiny duck
Marractus: How is that cactus moving?
Klink: They're gears with faces

Well, duck-wise... I don't think that means it doesn't look like a Pokemon, because we've had other ducks in the past and they've looked like Pokemon. n_n idk if that makes sense I'm tired.

I dont think they dont look like pokemon, but they do look some-what like digimon. Zebstrika reminds me of Unimon, etc. etc. Too sick to give more examples. (i have a cold)

Yeah agreed on the Digimon line, like, Minccino and stuff remind me of Digimon but that's what I think makes B/W Pokemon better than other generations. I liked Digimon. :x

 

[Atomic Pirate]

Just imagine the amounts of hate gen V would have gotten if it introduced these:

When you compare pokemon to previous pokemon "by generation", your comparison is not justified if you pick Vanillite and Klink and compare them to Eevee, Gyarados and Arcanine... yeah no.

Yeah, yeah, HURR DURR GEN 1 IS JUZT AS WERD LUK AT TANGLA AND PORGON AND HITCHAN AND COUGHING AND YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHH!!!!11111


Ahem, although these Pokemon are odd, they all have a nice air of simplicity to them. That simplicity is what used to define a Pokemon. And before you whine about Koffing and Weezing's skull-and-crossbones symbols, they are there for a good reason: to indicate toxicity.

And, there is no pokemon that is made out of food. Vanillite is a crystal based creature that likes being covered in snow that it creates, which then makes it resemble ice cream. I call this reverse mimicry and consider Vanillite to be the most creative case yet.
Perhaps trainers did not start using it until they came across some that covered themselves in snow, because they thought it was retardedly cute and made a dex entry about it xDD

Either way, Vanillite is based off of ice cream. Stop trying to deny it.

Sounds like Tyranitar

Tyranitar has spikes because it's based off of this:

Old Pokemon were all about having an origin, whether it be an animal or an odd creative spark. New Pokemon are all about shoving as much crap on the screen as possible. You got multicolored spikes, bright patterns, and pointless armor.

And if you think that there is no difference between old and new Pokemon, then look at this:

Spoiler:

 

[voicerocker]

I have to say that there are lots of 5th Pokémon which don't seem "real" Pokémon to me. Look at Klink. Well, Klink is admissible, but look at Klang and Klinklang... Those are not Pokémon, in my opinion. The same happens with Cryogonal... what is that?
I've come to think that the way of drawing new Pokémon is changing and that's why they all look a bit different now. It has to be that.

What about Magnemite? It was a living magnet that evolved by fusing 3 of them together to form Magneton. The Klink line is an example of a machine upgrade, or more like building something. You start simple, and add extra parts to make it more efficient, or in this case, evolve it and make it stronger. Gears are common in most machines.

Trubbish: It looks like a tiny trash bag.
Ducklett: It's a tiny duck
Marractus: How is that cactus moving?
Klink: They're gears with faces

Grimer: Looks like a pile of sludge.
Pidgey: a tiny bird
Geodude: it's a rock. Why is it moving?
Voltorb: a Pokeball with a face.

See? Even Gen 1 is guilty of the things people hate about Gen 5.

The only one I say doesn't look like a Pokémon is Trubbish. It just looks like a trash bag to me...a smelly one at that.

Grimer looks like living sludge because it's supposed to look like that, same as Trubbish. It looks like a trash bag because it's supposed to. They're both Pokemon born of pollution, only through different circumstances.

I dont think they dont look like pokemon, but they do look some-what like digimon. Zebstrika reminds me of Unimon, etc. etc. Too sick to give more examples. (i have a cold)

There's a big difference in the designs of Pokemon vs. Digimon. Digimon, even smaller ones sometimes, look like war machines ready to fight to the death. Compare Genesect to Kuwagamon:
*image removed*

I see a big difference in Genesect just having a cannon, while Kuwagamon looks lilke it would destroy anything without needing a reason.

Now, I see people complain about the "armor and spikes" which seems to point more to Haxorus. Compare it to WarGreymon:

*bulbagarden.net image removed*

I'd say Haxorus doesn't look like literal armor as opposed to WarGreymon who clearly is covered in it. (And Haxorus isn't a Steel type.)

So, no. These creatures are totally different, even if they are both dragons with claws, fangs and armor-like designs.

 

[MiTjA]

Ahem, although these Pokemon are odd, they all have a nice air of simplicity to them. That simplicity is what used to define a Pokemon.

You pretend that all the new ones are baseless and drowned in colorful patterns, unlike the older ones.
I'm looking at them and I don't see it.
Things like Zebstrika are as fine as Arcanine....
Sure there is always something contrasting like Archeops, but what else are you refering too? Watchog and Heatmor?

And as pointed out, they couldn't add tons of details to them in GB era... but where they could they made exotic choices, ie Charizards and Dragonites wings being a weird greenish for the sake of it.

And why is "pointless" patterns a bad thing? Exotic creatures in the real world have pointless colorful patterns on them.

Either way, Vanillite is based off of ice cream. Stop trying to deny it.

I never denied it. Vanillite IS based off of ice cream. The designer took ice cream and turned it into a pokemon.
All I am saying is that Vanillite, the ice cream resembling pokemon, is not literally ice cream.

Old Pokemon were all about having an origin, whether it be an animal or an odd creative spark.

I don't see how that applies to old pokemon but not to new ones.

And if you think that there is no difference between old and new Pokemon, then look at this:

Spoiler:

That picture is meant to be taken serious?

 

[TheLeetCasualGamer]

I think the question is, what defines what a Pokemon actually is? I mean, every generations had it's share of poorly designed Pokemon.

I mean, I don't get where people get at by comparing Pokemon of now to Pokemon back then, every generation really did have it's good qualities to them as well as the bad. I find that most people just start saying that 5th gen Pokemon are not "Pokemon" only because of nostalgia, I bet you anything if the Pokemon were switched where 1st gen Pokemon took the place of 5th gen where 5th gen Pokemon were the first Pokemon and 1st gen were the latest, those Pokemon would be criticized. Observe.

*bulbagarden.net image removed**bulbagarden.net image removed**bulbagarden.net image removed*
You know, BACK IN MY DAY! WE HAD AWESOME POKEMON BASED OF DINOSAURS, TURTLES, AND DRAGONS!

*bulbagarden.net image removed**bulbagarden.net image removed**bulbagarden.net image removed*
Now a days we have Pokemon based off of a ball, some vomit, and look at that, a magnet that goes into three in it's evolution, GAMEFREAK, YOU RUINED POKEMON D:<

And some other arguments I hate:

<---- OMG ITS LIEK SESEME STREET! THESE AREN'T POKEMON!

<---- Sooooooooooo....... What's this thing suppose to be again :/

Also hate the arguments like this

They're all cats! Persian is the only true cat!
Yeah, I know it's not really relevent to what a "Pokemon" is, but I feel to have to bring this up. People also seem to ditch a vast majority of newer Pokemon for being "rip-offs" of other Pokemon. Especially since that there are actually a lot of Pokemon in 5th gen that are based off of animals. But anyway my general response to this is that, "so I siamese cat is a rip of a tabby now" I mean, since when did a company ever thought of the idea of having more then one breed of an animal, ridicules and quite obviously "lazy thought" isn't it? (sarcasm)

The conclusion:
Pokemon actually stands "Pocket monsters" a word I've learned since third grade. Monsters are known for having unique characteristics and no actual definition of how it should look. A lot of Pokemon have different characteristics to them trying to make them unique and have different purposes in the Pokemon universe. Due to the vague term, you can't just simply say something doesn't "look like a Pokemon" since how they were meant to look was never defined.

Sorry for all the text, something that everyone can read, lol. xP

 

[MiTjA]

*bulbagarden.net image removed*
You know, BACK IN MY DAY! WE HAD AWESOME POKEMON BASED OF DINOSAURS, TURTLES, AND DRAGONS!

Yeah and now they have cannons sticking out of the shell.
*bulbagarden.net image removed*

 

[TheLeetCasualGamer]

Yeah and now they have cannons sticking out of the shell.
*bulbagarden.net image removed*

UGH, I KNOW RIGHT!? They're so unoriginal and look like Digimon now! 1st gen was SOOOOOOOOO much better!

lol