Scraping The Bottom of the Barrel?

[Zeffy]

True about Karrablast etc, that's actually one of the things that I did like, but I also mean stuff like Magikarp/Gyarados, or Dragonair/Dragonite, being based on folklore and old myths and I just miss that so much in the new generations. I just personally prefer the folk-ish stuff more than the urban concept that Unova has. And I never bothered reading Vanillite's dex entry, if it's in there XD

Actually Vanillite isn't really ice cream, it's more of ice. I suppose the white thing covering Vanillite is actually snow, since it can make ice crystals and make it snow yada yada. If the covering is somehow melted, you'll notice how different from an ice cream Vanillite is.

And what about Volcarona it sort of represents a sun god. Isn't that a bit folk-ish? And the kami trio based from, uhh, Japanese (?) mythology? ):

 

[Simipour]

I respectively disagree. bobandbill and zeffy hit the nail on the head perfectly- it's a matter of opinion.
For example, a lot of people bash the 5th gen for its abundance of inanimate object Pokemon: Vanilluxe, Garbodor, Chandelure. I personally like some of these more than the Pokemon based on animals or plants. They're unique!

Every generation has had its great Pokemon, and every gen has had a few that were a little less inspired. But, each and every Pokemon has fans, and each one has a back-story to what inspired it.

 

[Alec Empire]

I can't say that new pokemon are bad. Actually, they're pretty great. I think it's cool to see that Gamefreak is actually pinpointing different species of specific animals, rather than just having one or two general commonplace pokemon that aren't very mind-blowing.

 

[User19sq]

It does somewhat feel like GF is running out of ideas, but I mostly blame James turner for that. To me, Reshiram and Zekrom aren't too far from Pokemon, when compared to other Pokemon from earlier generations (IE Magmar, Lugia, Rayqyaza). As for Black and White Kyurem, considering the legends of the once-living Legendary Dragon from Unova's history, and how Kyurem combines with one of the dragons, I'd say that the semi-mutated-looking dragon makes total sense, since it's obviously missing the other, final dragon that completes the puzzle.

In conclusion, some Pokemon are a bit off, but they're all either there for one reason or another that makes it all better.

 

[Keyaki]

Not this tired question again~

As already said, its just a matter of opinion, (though I think its kind-of ignorant to think they're running out of ideas, but that's just me)

As others have said, I love all the generations but I prefer the new ones over the old. Especially gen IV.

And with the Pokemon designs, I'll admit when I first saw Zekrom and Reshiram the first thing that came to mind was Digimon and the rest of Gen V looked weird, but I quickly got used to it.

And what about Volcarona it sort of represents a sun god. Isn't that a bit folk-ish? And the kami trio based from, uhh, Japanese (?) mythology? ):

Perhaps, but Volcarona could pass off as a legendary Bug-type Pokemon, it certainly has the appearance.

And yea, The Kami Trio is based off of Japanese myth, that's why they're called the Kami Trio after all~

 

[Kirbychu]

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're running out of ideas. They've just adopted a new style when it comes to designing monsters.

 

[Yoshikkko]

I respectively disagree. bobandbill and zeffy hit the nail on the head perfectly- it's a matter of opinion.
For example, a lot of people bash the 5th gen for its abundance of inanimate object Pokemon: Vanilluxe, Garbodor, Chandelure. I personally like some of these more than the Pokemon based on animals or plants. They're unique!

They are unique maybe, but they are definitely uninspired. I dont know if you're an artist but as one you should understand what people mean when they say that. Uninspired in the sense that they don't have inspiration obviously, and just take a ummm shampoo bottle and make a Pokémon out of it, for instance.

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're running out of ideas. They've just adopted a new style when it comes to designing monsters.

And they are haha, and that's not a surprise because there are already over 600, there's just a limit. There are not many options left really, that are original.

 

[Dawn]

Haters gonna hate. Haters /always/ hate.

The truth is that the games never changed, the players did. Pokemon will continue to be Pokemon and it will continue to be as great as it has ever been and more. It will continue to have a ridiculous amount of fans that enjoy it greatly and most of them won't even dignify hate with a response. For every person who could bicker for hours there are a hundred that don't care.

We /could/ try giving Game Freak some credit for how good at their jobs they are instead of pretending we even have a good idea of what exactly the process of making a Pokemon game is like.

Allow me to explain. People sometimes grow out of things. Haters grew out of pokemon, and have not moved on. This is the result.

 

[Simipour]

They are unique maybe, but they are definitely uninspired. I dont know if you're an artist but as one you should understand what people mean when they say that. Uninspired in the sense that they don't have inspiration obviously, and just take a ummm shampoo bottle and make a Pokémon out of it, for instance.


And they are haha, and that's not a surprise because there are already over 600, there's just a limit. There are not many options left really, that are original.

I am an artist to some extent. And in being one, that's being able to see the ideas behind things. Again, it's opinions, and for example: with the generation of Unova having a strong emphasis on technology vs. nature, a gear Pokemon would make sense, because gears are one of the foundations in creating machines.

Castelia City is the largest city, so a giant garbage bag that came to life (from radiation? who knows?) is possible.
Muk is pretty much the same principle.

True, they could have been designed better (Klink evolving into a clock or something) but that's not the point of the thread.

If I may, I'd like to share this picture.

 

[Kirbychu]

If I may, I'd like to share this picture.

...Feraligatr and Nidoking are considered "complicated"?

 

[Zeffy]

I suppose, yes. How many "complicated" Pokemon can you identify in the first two generations?

 

[Yoshikkko]

I am an artist to some extent. And in being one, that's being able to see the ideas behind things. Again, it's opinions, and for example: with the generation of Unova having a strong emphasis on technology vs. nature, a gear Pokemon would make sense, because gears are one of the foundations in creating machines.

Castelia City is the largest city, so a giant garbage bag that came to life (from radiation? who knows?) is possible.
Muk is pretty much the same principle.

True, they could have been designed better (Klink evolving into a clock or something) but that's not the point of the thread.

If I may, I'd like to share this picture.
picture here

And yes, I am one too. The thing is though that there is already a pollution/sewer/goo/whatever Pokémon which are Muk and Weezing, that concept was used already. I'm not saying the concept is a bad one (however they took 'trash' way too literally for my taste with Garbodor), I actually like it a lot, but since it's very specific, it shouldn't be used more than twice, or thrice at most, but they are just recycling old ideas now (for the worse) because they are uninspired.

The same goes for the gears or whatever, there already are device/tech Pokémon like Electrode and Magneton, that was their concept and it was original. And that picture does not really make sense to me either. It's not about what they are based on or what category they belong to but the /way/ they were designed. Ice cream actually has a lot of potential (even though it's a lame concept because it's FOOD, am I gonna have to expect a hot-dog Pokémon in the future?), but they just went with an unoriginal/uninspired design. Before you go saying that there are tons of plant Pokémon too; plants and animals are a category, tech and polution etc is just too specific, that's a specific concept.

...Feraligatr and Nidoking are considered "complicated"?

Yes those are very complicated Pokémon, design wise. Try to draw one from the top of your head and you'll probably not even really know how to start, and if you do you'll get stuck in no-time because you don't know how to draw it exactly, without a reference. Gyarados is a complicated Pokémon too, namely his head, Alakazam is too, there's lots.

 

[bobandbill]

Thus they have run out of ideas, only it happened about 10 years ago and not recently.

I suppose that's a fair point, but if you view 'they' as 'everyone Game Freak has employed/is employing' then you can argue from that that they aren't running out of ideas. Not too surprising a few people might be low but well, that's what the money they get is for in part - getting other people to do more thinking. (And one often wonders about the claim that there have been 1000 Pokemon designed ages ago and some of those still being released every new gen).

The same goes for the gears or whatever, there already are device/tech Pokémon like Electrode and Magneton, that was their concept and it was original. And that picture does not really make sense to me either. It's not about what they are based on or what category they belong to but the /way/ they were designed. Ice cream actually has a lot of potential (even though it's a lame concept because it's FOOD, am I gonna have to expect a hot-dog Pokémon in the future?), but they just went with an unoriginal/uninspired design. Before you go saying that there are tons of plant Pokémon too; plants and animals are a category, tech and polution etc is just too specific, that's a specific concept.

Each to their own, but I didn't feel that technology is too specific a theme so Gear did not bother me or come off as a already-done concept. There are a heck of a lot of devices that could imo offer something different to those already established, and design wise I have to say Gear looks quite different to Electrode (a Pokeball) and Magneton (magnets, not gears). I would go as far as to say that it could be argued as a category rather than just a concept; although certainly not quite as broad as plants/animals currently offer, broad enough in my books.

 

[Zeffy]

I base this on an overall difficulty to draw them (such as a "realistic" form, many different kinds of shapes, details, markings etc.).

Gen 1: 22

Gen 2: 19

Gen 3: 52

Gen 4: 55

Gen 5: 90

In my opinion Gen 5 seems to in many ways comprise of monsters that derive from Super Metroid. :-P

What I'm saying is there isn't really much complicated (design-wise, that is) Pokemon in the first two generations. Reason being, there are still a lot of stuff--mostly living beings--to base Pokemon from. I suppose 649 isn't still enough to cover every animal on earth, but I believe it is enough to cover most of the common ones.

I suppose we're getting a tad off-topic, but I'm just trying to explain stuff.

(Also, as someone who hasn't played Super Metroid, I've heard positive comments about it; and isn't that a good thing?)

 

[Yoshikkko]

What I'm saying is there isn't really much complicated (design-wise, that is) Pokemon in the first two generations. Reason being, there are still a lot of stuff--mostly living beings--to base Pokemon from. I suppose 649 isn't still enough to cover every animal on earth, but I believe it is enough to cover most of the common ones.

I suppose we're getting a tad off-topic, but I'm just trying to explain stuff.

(Also, as someone who hasn't played Super Metroid, I've heard positive comments about it; and isn't that a good thing?)

It's not exactly a good thing if Pokémon start to look like something else, no lol. However good that thing may be in itself.

And yes there is definitely more simplicity in the designs of gen 1 and 2, and they are still smashing, that's the whole point, that's what shows they are inspired. You shouldn't need 50 details to make a Pokémon look "good", simplicity is key with Pokémon designs, and that goes for many other things too btw. Gen 5 Pokémon are overdesigned, most of them at least.

 

[Dawn]

@MartianOddity: I'm sorry. You seem to be attempting to spite me personally. I don't even know where to go or what to say about that. Perhaps it will come to me as I keep reading. The relevance of what I said is extremely simple. If your answer to "Why don't you like newer pokemon designs" is "Ew... Why does /anyone/?" Or any conceivable variation you are not only not actually responding to the question but your opinion is in fact being
forced on others.

Your logic seems to rely on the notion that if a player changes they must change completely which simply isn't true. Some people "grow out" of some aspects of the games. It's that simple. An objective comparison of pokemon, including their designs, would reveal that through Gen 1 to 5 they have remained extremely similar. This is also more than just about graphics. Pokemon designs are not just how they look. They are also a meta-physical concept hence people getting frustrated with repeated fire/fighting starters and stuff like that.

Once again, having an opinion is one thing. Trying to justify your opinion or convince others to like it is entirely different. You don't have any "right" to not be shot down for those last two. Also, as a matter of fact I did not even have your post in mind while writing my response. I gave my thoughts on an entire mindset without targeting /anyone/ specific, and if you are not the type to presume your opinions are based in fact rather than taste than I honestly don't understand why you would feel the shoe fit in the first place. Not that I have any place handing you advise in this thread, but acting on paranoia yields very low success rates. That is to say paranoia has a tendency to be wrong.

Now I never said anything about negative opinions being dumb. I said something about people not being able to determine what the real reason they don't like the newer games as much are and how it's irritating that they constantly assume it couldn't be them that changed. Actually, it's very sad and I have nothing but pity at the end of the day because these people can't 'ungrow out' of something gemerally.

I mean let's talk about art style for a moment. Game Freak has had a pretty specific art style that has not changed much over the years. The biggest changes have been rather subtle, shading and less subtly anatomy. Put Gen 1 and 5 pokemon next to eachother and then compare them both to some other art designer and the style will be clear as day. The concepts pokemon are based on have changed much more than the actual art style. Gen 5 used significantly more inanimate objects than previous gens for instance.

Lastly, I don't need justification to like something. Nobody needs justification to like. If I may though. You /do/ need justification to hate. If you want to not like something that's fine, but there's a clear distinction between something not being your thing anymore and /actively claiming they got worse/. Only one of those things is hate. If you want to argue things objectively got worse in some way you the /do/ need justification. This also applies to the not so common fan who tries to push his /positive/ opinions on someone.

I for one have no intention of trying to change one's opinion on the game. /My/ only intention is to bring awareness to an issue in an attempt to get people to consider something many neglect.

 

[Kirbychu]

Yes those are very complicated Pokémon, design wise. Try to draw one from the top of your head and you'll probably not even really know how to start, and if you do you'll get stuck in no-time because you don't know how to draw it exactly, without a reference. Gyarados is a complicated Pokémon too, namely his head, Alakazam is too, there's lots.

I can scribble a bunch of lines on a sheet of paper and it will be difficult for somebody to emulate, but that doesn't make it complicated. I believe that complication comes from the amount of features on a Pokemon and even things such as their behavior and what they're derived from.

The majority of Generation 1 Pokemon were just simple animals and inanimate objects. The only thing "complicated" about them is probably the more anatomically correct approach. Terms like "simple" and "complicated" are so subjective anyways. I don't see what's complicated about Gyarados or Alakazam.

But I understand that the Japanese demographic, which the games are made for in the first place, may like the games' new directions as their culture and tastes are different and that that's why the designs have changed. That plus the fact that the games still are popular in the western hemisphere too.

Yeah, people don't seem to notice that Game Freak's just keeping up with the times. No kid wants simple krabs and fish anymore. They want cool monsters with lots of exotic features and colors and cute ones with large manga-esque eyes.

 

[xSkullKing16x]

No, no, no, and NO! How are Pokemon Yu-Gi-Oh? Ok, no resemblance, since, well, Dragons are mythology, and not Yu-Gi-Oh. And they have not run out of ideas, but made new ones! I mean, you can't really get mad if they make an evolution too similar to the pre-evolution, as it is supposed to be an upgrade, and be relatively similar. And making Pokemon out of non living things is sort of good. I mean, what if EVERY SINGLE Pokemon was made after the same things? We can't say that they run out of ideas if all you want is the same stuff. Making Gorbodor (Misspelling I think) was smart, because who knows, garbage could of been mutated? Like all of the HUGE cities in Black/White. Got to be at least some pollution, right? And at least they make sense, not just making a fire type computer, or something stupid like that. And all of the legendary Pokemon add to the story, which I think is pretty darn good. And the machines and stuff? Why not, have you noticed how much stuff is relying on technology? If they had no ideas left, why would all of us be on this forum, playing Pokemon games, and talking about Pokemon stuff? It's not like it left the face of the Earth or anything. They are still succeeding at making millions of dollars. I hope this isn't too much of a rant, and more of a logical post. But does anyone see where I'm going at?

 

[Elite Overlord LeSabre™]

Let me say this: My favorite and my least favorite Pokemon are both from Gen I. For me, at least, every generation has had its Pokemon designs that I've liked, and its Pokemon designs that I've disliked. They're trying new stuff every generation. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't. But there are still clearly many ideas that have yet to be adapted into Pokemon. And sometimes, it does take a new group of creative minds to come up with fresh ideas, but they're out there.

There are still plenty of ways to design great Pokemon still to be discovered, just as there are still plenty of ways to design horrendous Pokemon still to be stumbled upon.

 

[Yoshikkko]

I can scribble a bunch of lines on a sheet of paper and it will be difficult for somebody to emulate, but that doesn't make it complicated. I believe that complication comes from the amount of features on a Pokemon and even things such as their behavior and what they're derived from.

The majority of Generation 1 Pokemon were just simple animals and inanimate objects. The only thing "complicated" about them is probably the more anatomically correct approach. Terms like "simple" and "complicated" are so subjective anyways. I don't see what's complicated about Gyarados or Alakazam.

Yeah, people don't seem to notice that Game Freak's just keeping up with the times. No kid wants simple krabs and fish anymore. They want cool monsters with lots of exotic features and colors and cute ones with large manga-esque eyes.

You clearly don't really seem to get the artistic aspect of it. Like I said, try to draw one without a reference and you'll see what I mean when you notice you actually don't even know how to draw Gyarados' face or Nidoking's arms, without looking it up before. It doesn't matter if they are anatomically correct even, it's about getting all the lines and details right, there are many and that's what makes it complicated (that is not necessarily a bad or good thing btw). I don't see how a Pokémon's behaviour has anything to do with it's design, from an artistic standpoint??

And like others said, if people want cool mecha monsters with rainbow and weapons splashed on them and fusions and manga-esque eyes, there's Yu-Gi-Oh and Digimon for that. Pokémon should stick to their original concept imo because that's what drew most people to it in the first place.