"This Pokémon is ugly... what's its name again?"

Which matters more: Design or name?

  • Total voters
    62

Ho-Oh

used Sacred Fire!
    • 35,992
    Posts
    19
    Years
    • Seen Jul 1, 2023
    The two major things that contribute towards liking a certain Pokemon is whether they look good, or have an "accceptable" name.

    When it comes to you, what factor is most important in your mind? Would you hate a Pokemon that is really ugly but has an awesome name, or hate a Pokemon that is really awesome looking but has a terrible name? Or maybe neither matter and another factor goes into whether you like or dislike a Pokemon. Also, do you think the fans are more likely to remember Pokemon names, or Pokemon designs? What are you more likely to remember? Share your thoughts.

    A few of us in a thread in B/W were saying we're more likely to dislike an unappealing Pokemon than dislike it due to its name. And, as a result, I was wondering what the rest of the community thought. For me, it's the design. If a Pokemon has a terrible design, I'm less likely to like it, whereas if it has a bad name, then I eventually get used to it. An example - Lickylicky, terrible design, while I can't think of any bad names off the top of my head that really concern me.

    Searched a few times, hopefully isn't already made.
     
    I wouldn't be terribly fond of a Pokemon if I felt its design didn't appeal to me. To save random mobs of people chasing me with pitchforks and torches, I won't name any examples! But it's because of those Pokemon that I am incredibly choosy with who gets to be on my team as I play a game. As for names, I don't really care about them.
     
    Names have never bothered me when it came to which pokés I liked or disliked. I think design is more of what appeals to me and names are just names. If I don't like a name I usually nickname that pokémon. I don't think I've done that before though because it just didn't ever dawn on me to dislike a pokemon just for it's given name. There are some strange names XD But that doesn't stop me from liking them!
     
    The design matters most to me. I don't really care about the name, seeing as I usually give my pokemon nicknames.
     
    If you want an example just whack 'Dunsparce' into google and you'll find both design and names matter..
     
    I'm not too happy with the names in BW but their designs make up for that for the most part. I'm usually one to give nicknames to my Pokemon if I don't like their original name so names don't play much of a factor for me anyway.
     
    I'd say design for me. For example, even if Ninetales were called... Rumple (dunno where that came from lol) then I'd still love it just the same :)
     
    Oh, I really like this question!

    For me it's all about design. While some of the names may come off as stupid it doesn't change my view of the Pokemon. My thinking is, if you hate the name then you can always nickname it something else. If you hate the design then there is literally nothing you can do, but pray for an evolution. I really can't think of one Pokemon whose name bothers me at the moment. I mean some are dumb sounding, but I don't have an issue with any of them. Even with the new Pokemon, I'm already getting used to their names and have practically forgotten their Japanese names.

    I tend to remember designs over names so I'm thinking other people might also. For example usually when I'm thinking of a Pokemon, but can't remember which one it is I won't remember the name, but I'll be able to see its design clearly.
     
    Design is the first thing that attracts you to a Pokemon.
    If it's got poor design, you won't like it.
    If it's got "meh" design, you won't even notice it.
    But name is important, in a way. Sure, some Pokemon have great names, but it doesn't really matter much to me.
     
    Design is much more important, but the names do matter somewhat to me. For example, I don't really like Leafeon. There's nothing really wrong with its design, but its name was exactly what I came up with when I was 7 years old for a Grass Eeveelution--I should think the grown designers of the game would be able to come up with something more creative, but whatever.

    Usually, however, I get used to the names. I'm not sure I'll ever get used to Lickilicky, though--design OR name.
     
    Design-wise, that Pokemon becomes my favorite. Name-wise, I wouldn't care, but I'd be disappointed if a favorite Pokemon had a terrible name.
     
    Hmm, well for me, some pokemon both and some neither. Magmortar for example, I dont like its name or its design, but it is such a beast in battle that I even use it at times. Delcatty, I love its design and name, (not very good in battle but I still use it). So it can go either way for me.
     
    The design is the most important aspect, to me. I like Pokémon that look like creatures, and dislike those that look like they were designed (including almost all the ones based on inanimate objects - a big dislike of mine). I like Pokémon that look like they could have come about naturally, and dislike "graffiti" (e.g. the Nasca lines on Groudon/Kyogre/Rayquaza, random swirls like those all over the Gen 4/5 Fire starters).

    Pokémon should also suit their evolutions/prevolutions. For instance, Snorunt and Froslass look (almost) nothing alike, Gloom's flower is too big to turn into Bellossom, Dragonite is an insult to a beautiful prevolution, Octillery is just no, Clamperl goes way off the rails, and Oshawott lets the rest of its family down. I'm more lenient towards Grass and Bug Pokémon, which are more likely to metamorph drastically (Metapod to Butterfree is just one example).

    Of course, this isn't an unshakable opinion. For instance, I quite like Shandella and Chimecho, although I would have preferred it if they look more animal-like and less "ornament-with-a-face". If they were animal-like, then it would make sense that humans created wind chimes to look like Chimecho, and so on.

    On a related note, I think all Eeveelutions after the original three just weren't as good. Eeveelutions should have ruffs. And Leafeon should have looked more... leafy than it does. The existence of Leafeon itself, though, is absolutely fine, although it not evolving with the Leaf Stone isn't (I don't care about continuity).

    Names have less importance, but they're still up there. I'm sad to see that most Gen 5 names are utter rubbish (Pansage, seriously? Florape is much better, and I just thought that up). Of particular note is Wargle, which was fine as it was, but "brave" was used instead just to make Americans look better. Yes, Braviary is a nice name in and of itself, but I just can't see past its purpose of saving face (propaganda, even?) to accept it.

    Something that hasn't been mentioned is types. Types can turn me off a Pokémon just as much as names. They should suit themselves (i.e. no stupid Fire/Water combos) and they should suit the Pokémon. Creatures that can't fly shouldn't be part Flying! How is Jirachi part Steel? It just feels like most of the new type combos in Gen 5 were just for the sake of having those combos. They were too conspicuous (although I will say that some combos are perfectly fine, like the Dragon/X ones, and that nearly every Pokémon seems to suit its type).
     
    I think they both matter, but design matters a little bit more.
     
    I used to base my choices purely on if i liked how the pokemon looked, didn't really look at stats or moves until gen 4 when i properly focuses in on it but i still go for looks
     
    I'd say it's a mix of both design and name, although that is merely opinion, like the fact that the OP stated that Lickilicky
    had a terrible design. Design is more important, in my eyes, however. If a favorite Pokemon of mine ends up with a name like "Conkeldurr", or
    another name that I'm not fond of, then I'll probably tend to like it less than I initially did.
     
    Yeah actually come to think of it names can make things worse, i flat out refuse to call Kibago his english name Axew, same for Shimama with Blitzle
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top