5th Gen What happened to the old simple Pokemon?

[tetrix1993]

I agree when I looked at the gear-like Pokémon. But still, I will support the game because of its realistic 3D effects.

 

[Aquila]

I don't think they're exaggerated... Munna is just a pink blob, nothing exaggerated there (even tho I hate Munna) Gear is just a gear, no exaggeration, the new bird looks as simple as pidgey did...
I don't really see what you mean to be honest.

I think people like to find things to pick on, I think Gen V is looking awesome, obviously not as good as Gen 1 and 2 did but they're up there. I see absolutely nothing wrong with them (besides Munna and gear)

This was a highly unintelligent post seeing these Pokemon weren't revealed until after I posted this.
Also, I can't really catch a Gear that is supposed to be my "friend" throughout the game. it's unnatural. The same goes for a pink blob.. The pigeon is good, I like it. Also I like the Zebra, except for the eyes.

Hmm, I can respect your opinion but I don't think they were destroyed. Though I have to say Piplup has the best predicatable evolution path out of all of them. It goes form a baby penguin to an emperor penguin, can't get any more 'natural' than that.

However, Empeleon dosn't look like a penguin at all IMO. Blastoise would be a much more natural sight out in the nature than Infernape because Infernape seems like a animal that has produced human-made shields in a world that has "not been affected by humans". It's not wild - it's made for serving trainers. No offense, but Bastadion looks like a Shield with a mouth. It doesn't have to train to become highly definsive, it is a shield not a hardworking animal.

and Btw. Mew and Celebi for example are mythical creatures. Newer Legendaries are supernatural Hyper-Pokemon..

It is possible to make new simple Pokemon. I've seen pretty good Fakemon to confirm that.

If anything they went back to basics with this Gen (minus the Legendaries). Meguroko is incredibly simple. Tentacruel is more complex than the chinchilla.

This sounds like a whiny nostalgia geared thread to me.

Hmm.. take ONE example that was revealed after I posted the thread and think you have a good argument. Good job! Tentacruel isn't the best Pokemon of the 1st generations, I'll admit that.

Again another complain on new generations.
I will probably repeat something still said, but complains like yours continuosly shows up so:
1: I have nothing against personal taste: if you like some pokemon and others don't is am matter of subjectivity; however, I can't accept statement like yours that marks blindly a generation just because it's not the original:
2: "random things on their back" I think you was talking abaut torterra but I suggest to look to venosaur:

LOL they are so similiar

However you could argue that bulbasaur has the flower from the beginning, so I present to you...blastoise: when my wartortle evolved, I was expecting a turtle with beautiful ...ehm...waves, instead I obtained...random cannons(on his back)! The same thing with dragonair.

Talking abaut complexity there are simple and complex pokemon in every gen: in the first I would point out nidoking, magmar, rhydhorn and clefable spikes, the stripes of electrabuzz, arcanine, ariados and the others such gyrados, kadabra, kangaskan, scizor, hundoom, tyranitar.
Also, too much simpliciy can be negative: diglet, magnemite, coffing evolve throught fusion, staryu and grimer becoming bigger.

So in conclusion in all the geneation there are simple and complex pokemon and all the players should look carefully at the new ones deciding what are his favourites and not marking all as uncreative from the beginning.

EDIT: on legendaries, I have too agree that there are too many of them and a lot of unnecessary... they could recycle some of them instead creating new ones: for example at the place of regigas they could have put kyogre, and to the place of heatran, groudon, and use the awesome fire/steel combo for the starters, at the place of blaziken typing.

Kanghaskan is not that bad. Look, the original concept was to catch Pokemon that lived in the nature. They are moving out of that concept and that is why we complain. There's no problem with doing the surroundings different, however Pokemon live in the nature or their adapted environment.

Just for the record: I don't like EVERY 1st gen Pokemon.

And I can't afford buying a NDS-emulator or the games( I played Diamond with a emulator). However, because I think the new games are evolving in a wrong direction, I don't feel that I need to either. Electabuzzes stripes don't look unnatural. And comparing Venausaur to Torterra saying they are the same is just stupid. Venausaurs has not a random flower on it's back. Bulbasaur had a seed, ivysaur had a bigger flower which turned in to Venausaurs Flower. Turtwig has a spire on his head, Grotle has two bushes on his back and the shell seems somewhat gone, and then Torterra comes with a giant Tree on one side and som highly "expectable" spikes on the other.
You have your own view, I have mine. The Gen V looks a bit promising now (apart from the water-starter, the Blob, The gear, the Firetypethingy, and to some extent the colours used on the fire starters which look a bit weird to me(I think it's a ok Pokemon))

Now complaining about me complaining won't really help much too. In my eyes, if there are enough people agreing with me, I hope this can reach through to the producers, if not, I'll leave it with this thread. So in theory, if they would have done the new generation more like the 1st one, I'd believe that more people would play it. However everyone has their own opinion. many agree with me(which means i don't have a stupid point of view and I have some good arguments) some don't, which indicates that many likes the new concept.
And to some of you: Think before you write..

 

[Ravecat]

I like them all, and based on sound logic and unbiased reasoning feel they would all fit nicely into Generation 1 as well as any of the Pokémon from that era would have.

Because ITT: delusions.

 

[Bloothump]

Something I find really weird is that before I ever came on a pokemon forum, I never thought in the process that most seem to while posting on PC. See, I would go through a game and see a pokemon and say, "That's ugly, I just won't catch it." Now I come on here and see everyone say "What a hideous design, what are those people up at gamefreak THINKING?" Honestly, I think that Pokemon always had and always will make better creature designs than the games like digimon or any other monster-based game out there. I don't see it as, "Oh these suck and 1st gen is so much better", It's more like, "Well, I love Staryu and I also love Drapion. I dislike Tentacruel and I also dislike Gastradon." I'm not going to say that these previous generations haven't made more mistakes than the last, but that's only because they're taking more chances to change the game in order to improve it. Which I'm fine with, I still play every pokemon game I own because they're all of finer quality than other monster games.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is all generations have their fair-share of complex and simple pokes, albeit the first two have more simple, and in stead of comparing the quality of the designs of 4th to 1st gen, we should compare the design quality to other games out there. Because you really can't expect a games designs to stay similar over a 15 year span.

 

[Diablo361]

This was a highly unintelligent post seeing these Pokemon weren't revealed until after I posted this.
Also, I can't really catch a Gear that is supposed to be my "friend" throughout the game. it's unnatural. The same goes for a pink blob.. The pigeon is good, I like it. Also I like the Zebra, except for the eyes.

How is Gear and Munna anymore unnatural than Magnemite or Voltorb or Muk?

However, Empeleon dosn't look like a penguin at all IMO. Blastoise would be a much more natural sight out in the nature than Infernape because Infernape seems like a animal that has produced human-made shields in a world that has "not been affected by humans". It's not wild - it's made for serving trainers. No offense, but Bastadion looks like a Shield with a mouth. It doesn't have to train to become highly definsive, it is a shield not a hardworking animal.

Empoleon doesn't look like an emperor penguin? How?

Blastoise having MAN-MADE CANNONS is more natural and hardworking than Infernape's shields or Bastiodon's shield?

Triceratops had pointy noses that they were born with. No training involved for them. Some animals are simply born with stuff. Same as Pokemon. Hardworking animal nonsense is bullcrap.

and Btw. Mew and Celebi for example are mythical creatures. Newer Legendaries are supernatural Hyper-Pokemon..

Celebi controls time with Dialga. Doesn't that destroy your thesis? All Legendary's are mythical Pokemon based off of REAL WORLD MYTHS. And with myths, come supernatural abilities.

All legendaries are mythical. Using Celebi and Mew to prove against this is silly.

It is possible to make new simple Pokemon. I've seen pretty good Fakemon to confirm that.

Fakemon are ****, and simple=/=good.
And there are simple and complex pokemon in every generation. Ralts, Slakoth, Shroomish, Plusle, Minun, Gulpin, Duskull, Tailow, Swellow etc. are very simple, as well as Starly, Bronzor, Chingling, Gible, Budew, Glameow, Stunky, Piplup, etc.

Saying one generation has so many complex and ugly Pokemon while ignoring everything else shows a person has tunnel vision.

Hmm.. take ONE example that was revealed after I posted the thread and think you have a good argument. Good job! Tentacruel isn't the best Pokemon of the 1st generations, I'll admit that.

Tentacruel, Tentacool, Grimer, Muk, Magneton (3 Magnemites -_-)Eggecute, Voltorb, Electrode (There goes your wild thesis), Dugtrio (Same as Magneton, 3 Digletts), Rattata (OOHH Purple rat), Butterfree line (Let's take the growth path of an butterfly, ANIME it, and make it into a Pokemon. SO ORIGINAL.)

None of these are really great Pokemon, and if I had time, I could list more. But that doesn't mean all 1st Gen Pokemon are bad, just like none of all 4th Gen are bad.

Kanghaskan is not that bad. Look, the original concept was to catch Pokemon that lived in the nature. They are moving out of that concept and that is why we complain. There's no problem with doing the surroundings different, however Pokemon live in the nature or their adapted environment.

I don't see your point. Croagunk is a frog living in a swamp. Frogs live in swamps. You are going out and catching Pokemon in their respective habitats. It's still the same way as in Gen 1

Just for the record: I don't like EVERY 1st gen Pokemon.

Alright

And I can't afford buying a NDS-emulator or the games( I played Diamond with a emulator). However, because I think the new games are evolving in a wrong direction, I don't feel that I need to either. Electabuzzes stripes don't look unnatural. And comparing Venausaur to Torterra saying they are the same is just stupid. Venausaurs has not a random flower on it's back. Bulbasaur had a seed, ivysaur had a bigger flower which turned in to Venausaurs Flower. Turtwig has a spire on his head, Grotle has two bushes on his back and the shell seems somewhat gone, and then Torterra comes with a giant Tree on one side and som highly "expectable" spikes on the other.
You have your own view, I have mine. The Gen V looks a bit promising now (apart from the water-starter, the Blob, The gear, the Firetypethingy, and to some extent the colours used on the fire starters which look a bit weird to me(I think it's a ok Pokemon))

Umm... Turtwig's twig grows into a tree. Bulbasaur's seed grows into a flower.

And Turtwig is based off the the Native American story of the Land Turtle. And to further show your ignorance, Torterra is an armored dinosaur, therefore the spikes.

Now complaining about me complaining won't really help much too. In my eyes, if there are enough people agreing with me, I hope this can reach through to the producers, if not, I'll leave it with this thread. So in theory, if they would have done the new generation more like the 1st one, I'd believe that more people would play it. However everyone has their own opinion. many agree with me(which means i don't have a stupid point of view and good arguments) some don't, which indicates that many likes the new concept.
And to some of you: Think before you write..

We complain about you complaining because it happens every Gen and people get annoyed of it. If you don't like it, stop playing.

And your thesis is incorrect. More people are playing Pokemon than ever before. Therefore, you, and other people who still insist on bashing new Gens for "overdesigned Pokemon" are in the vocal minority. Game Freak has obviously done the right thing.

And FYI Gen 2 Pokemon were almost as simple as Gen 1. A lot of people still left. It's not simplicity. It's nostalgia blinding people to change.

 

[Sage Harpuia]

@Aquila
I'm not trying to say that newer pokemon are better than older, but like Ravecat said, all the pokemon fit in the first gen: if instead of squirtle you had piplup, today we would have people saying that blastoise's cannon are hideouse.
As Bloothump said, every gen as its bad and its own good pokemon, and even you stated this: so even yourself proved this point: is just the common belief "first are better" that makes you not connect the statements "I like those pokemon" and "They are from all the Gen". So in the newer Gen people look only at the pokemon that they don't like strenghten the belief itself that old pokemon are better.
So try to look more at the pokemon you like, I'm sure there are in every Gen.


(wow, playing Miles Edgeworth investigation give is fruits...)

 

[blazing1ashes]

I actually find the third and fourth generation satisfying. Though it is true that the come pokemon are complex, you still have your basic creatures, such as the shinx family and the torchic family who are no more complex than most pokemon in the second generation. I personally just think that the more pokemon, the better! It's not like the first and second generation pokemon are going away, so you can pick and choose which games and what pokemon you play with.

 

[PiPVoda]

Blastoise would be a much more natural sight out in the nature than Infernape because Infernape seems like a animal that has produced human-made shields in a world that has "not been affected by humans". It's not wild - it's made for serving trainers.[/B]No offense, but Bastadion looks like a Shield with a mouth. It doesn't have to train to become highly definsive, it is a shield not a hardworking animal.

The same thing can be said about blastoise. It's cannons are human like, you can't tell me that a turtle (and if you want to get all 'much more natural sight' turtles can't stand up & walk freely like blastoise/pre-evos do) w/ a twirly tail would evolve into something w/ cannons. That isn't natural. I give it to you that yeah Infernape's shields aren't natural either, but both Infernape and Blastoise look as if they were made for battle. Though the diff. between them though is that apes are naturally strong, unlike turtles. They don't shoot water out, they can drown if undewater for too long, etc.

and the thing about empoleon not resembling a penguin, true it's your opinion but I don't see how you don't see the obvious resemblance in it. And apparantly bulbapedia even gives how it resembles a penguin:

Spoiler:

Empoleon is a large penguin-like Pokémon. In terms of color, it has a closer resemblance to a "real-world" penguin than its pre-evolved forms have because it is mostly navy blue as opposed to being a lighter blue. Its feet actually appear to have webbing on them. Its wings are tipped with blue metal and have three golden claws sticking out at the bottom. It has a short, blue, metal "fin" sticking out of its back and another "fin" that's on the front of its body that extends to where its chin would be then splits to form some sort of collar. This "collar" is probably because real penguins are said to be wearing "tuxedos," due to their black and white appearance. If one looks at Empoleon, it has a tie like fin in the middle of its belly, and the collar comming off it, this relates to the "tuxedo" of a penquin. There is a lace-like pattern of white coloration on its front, and it has two gold-colored spots on its upper-back. Its most prominent feature is the three-horned trident-like crest that extends from its beak. This crest represents an Empoleon's power and the leader of a colony of Empoleon, Prinplup, and Piplup will have the largest horns.

It doesn't have to train to become highly definsive, it is a shield not a hardworking animal.

Did you explain what the def. of hardworking pokemon is in another post bfore this one that I missed? B/c I clearly remember asking you what one was. Yes Bastiodon has a shield, but does that mean it can't be a hard working pokemon just b/c of its high defense? No it doesn't, and like I said before pokemon aren't real. There is no such thing as a hardworking one. Trainers raise their pokemon to be stronger. A bastiodon could easily take down a 'hardworking' pokemon if it were properly trained.

 

[Bloothump]

Also, Bastiodon looks like a shield because that is the "theme" of it's evolutionary line. I mean, it's pre-evolution's name is Shieldon.

 

[ubernuke]

I think a little change is always necessary, you definitely don't want things to get repetitive. There have been so many Pokemon that they're just plain running out of animals anyways, haha.

 

[Aquila]

How is Gear and Munna anymore unnatural than Magnemite or Voltorb or Muk?


Empoleon doesn't look like an emperor penguin? How?

Blastoise having MAN-MADE CANNONS is more natural and hardworking than Infernape's shields or Bastiodon's shield?

Triceratops had pointy noses that they were born with. No training involved for them. Some animals are simply born with stuff. Same as Pokemon. Hardworking animal nonsense is bullcrap.



Celebi controls time with Dialga. Doesn't that destroy your thesis? All Legendary's are mythical Pokemon based off of REAL WORLD MYTHS. And with myths, come supernatural abilities.

All legendaries are mythical. Using Celebi and Mew to prove against this is silly.



Fakemon are ****, and simple=/=good.
And there are simple and complex pokemon in every generation. Ralts, Slakoth, Shroomish, Plusle, Minun, Gulpin, Duskull, Tailow, Swellow etc. are very simple, as well as Starly, Bronzor, Chingling, Gible, Budew, Glameow, Stunky, Piplup, etc.

Saying one generation has so many complex and ugly Pokemon while ignoring everything else shows a person has tunnel vision.




Tentacruel, Tentacool, Grimer, Muk, Magneton (3 Magnemites -_-)Eggecute, Voltorb, Electrode (There goes your wild thesis), Dugtrio (Same as Magneton, 3 Digletts), Rattata (OOHH Purple rat), Butterfree line (Let's take the growth path of an butterfly, ANIME it, and make it into a Pokemon. SO ORIGINAL.)

None of these are really great Pokemon, and if I had time, I could list more. But that doesn't mean all 1st Gen Pokemon are bad, just like none of all 4th Gen are bad.



I don't see your point. Croagunk is a frog living in a swamp. Frogs live in swamps. You are going out and catching Pokemon in their respective habitats. It's still the same way as in Gen 1


Alright



Umm... Turtwig's twig grows into a tree. Bulbasaur's seed grows into a flower.

And Turtwig is based off the the Native American story of the Land Turtle. And to further show your ignorance, Torterra is an armored dinosaur, therefore the spikes.



We complain about you complaining because it happens every Gen and people get annoyed of it. If you don't like it, stop playing.

And your thesis is incorrect. More people are playing Pokemon than ever before. Therefore, you, and other people who still insist on bashing new Gens for "overdesigned Pokemon" are in the vocal minority. Game Freak has obviously done the right thing.

And FYI Gen 2 Pokemon were almost as simple as Gen 1. A lot of people still left. It's not simplicity. It's nostalgia blinding people to change.

Ok.. I got to admit, I got a bit carried a way during my last post. About Blastoise. It has the ability to hide the cannons and I remember some episodes seeing wild Blastoises out on the beach. It looked like it belonged there.
When I think apes, they are angry creatures with personality that live in trees. I can't really see Infernape doing anything other than loyal and bahaved serving of a trainer.
Saying Muk is a ugly pekoemn is up to every person, but to me it's the perfect sewage-monster.
Now about the getting out of concept argument. I meant the Anime. The game concept is still good, and that's why I enjoy playing it (mostly old gens).
You think rattata is ugly. I don't. You think Butterflies evolutions are too simple and realistic - I like it just for that reason.

The worst argument you came with here was the Mew, Celebi-argument. Mew and Celebi are creatures. They have overdone the new legendaries too much. Now I'm first of all thinking about Dialgia and Palkia from the 4th generation. I don't dislike the 3rd generation. If you can't see what i mean by comparing the looks of Mew and Celebi to Palkia and Dialga and say that Palkia and Dalgia are exaggerated, you're a not as smart as you'd like to appear.

Empeleon = Emperor penguin?

Now onto Torterra. Triceratops doesn't look like Torterra at all. And I especially disliked Gamefreaks attempt of combining types. Torterra is a Dinosaur and turtle appearantly and to me it doesn't look like any of those. The tree won't LOOK natural no matter how much you say it is natural. Bulbasaur(w/ evolutions) are monsters adapted to the nature/forest - simple.
Croagunk is living in the swamp, and it's a frog. fine Pokemon, but then comes Toxicroak who looks like a Frogfish which naturally has fightingskills. Again, 4th generation has a tendence to ruin evolutions. Many of the Pokemon were ok, but almost every evolution destroy the first Pokemon.
Half of the "simple" Pokemon you mentioned, I can't really compare with something I've seen. Gulpin is a eating blob. Glameow has a simple tail and a naturally formed head. Bronzor is.. - a metal-thingy with a metal-thingier evolution?
Magnemite has a natural flow with magnetism, Gear has.. a natural roll?
Shroomish is.. hmm..
My thesis isn't necessarily wrong. Pokemon was popular almost momentarily and the first Pokemon gens could be the main reason why fans have risen in numbers.
My thesis was: if they'd make simple and more realistic pokemon I think they would sell more.
conclusion is: We'll never know.
I don't have time to answer any other answers for probably a long time because of work and social events. So do yourself a favour and save us both some time by answering short or not at all..

 

[Jerme]

Ok.. I got to admit, I got a bit carried a way during my last post. About Blastoise. It has the ability to hide the cannons and I remember some episodes seeing wild Blastoises out on the beach. It looked like it belonged there.
When I think apes, they are angry creatures with personality that live in trees. I can't really see Infernape doing anything other than loyal and bahaved serving of a trainer.
Saying Muk is a ugly pekoemn is up to every person, but to me it's the perfect sewage-monster.
Now about the getting out of concept argument. I meant the Anime. The game concept is still good, and that's why I enjoy playing it (mostly old gens).
You think rattata is ugly. I don't. You think Butterflies evolutions are too simple and realistic - I like it just for that reason.

The worst argument you came with here was the Mew, Celebi-argument. Mew and Celebi are creatures. They have overdone the new legendaries too much. Now I'm first of all thinking about Dialgia and Palkia from the 4th generation. I don't dislike the 3rd generation. If you can't see what i mean by comparing the looks of Mew and Celebi to Palkia and Dialga and say that Palkia and Dalgia are exaggerated, you're a not as smart as you'd like to appear.

Empeleon = Emperor penguin?

Now onto Torterra. Triceratops doesn't look like Torterra at all. And I especially disliked Gamefreaks attempt of combining types. Torterra is a Dinosaur and turtle appearantly and to me it doesn't look like any of those. The tree won't LOOK natural no matter how much you say it is natural. Bulbasaur(w/ evolutions) are monsters adapted to the nature/forest - simple.
Croagunk is living in the swamp, and it's a frog. fine Pokemon, but then comes Toxicroak who looks like a Frogfish which naturally has fightingskills. Again, 4th generation has a tendence to ruin evolutions. Many of the Pokemon were ok, but almost every evolution destroy the first Pokemon.
Half of the "simple" Pokemon you mentioned, I can't really compare with something I've seen. Gulpin is a eating blob. Glameow has a simple tail and a naturally formed head. Bronzor is.. - a metal-thingy with a metal-thingier evolution?
Magnemite has a natural flow with magnetism, Gear has.. a natural roll?
Shroomish is.. hmm..
My thesis isn't necessarily wrong. Pokemon was popular almost momentarily and the first Pokemon gens could be the main reason why fans have risen in numbers.
My thesis was: if they'd make simple and more realistic pokemon I think they would sell more.
conclusion is: We'll never know.
I don't have time to answer any other answers for probably a long time because of work and social events. So do yourself a favour and save us both some time by answering short or not at all..

so you would want an emperor penguin to look exactly like that? well the its called empoleon because it's supposed to be an emperor penguin, while ironically having *emperor* features (crown, cape wings, jewels). get what i mean? you might as well say "how the hell is a real emperor penguin supposed to be emperor penguin? IT HAS NO CROWN WTF!!!"

second bolded part: that makes ZERO sense at at all. serious just how the hell is that supposed to work?

"i'm not buying gen 5 unless pokemon look realistic and simple." *checks online for list of gen 5 pokemon* "OMG POKEMON SUX NOW GEN 5 LOOK HORRIBLES!"

 

[MistahDude]

Simple pokemon arent interesting. I rather not have a pokemon with the same exact characteristics as a real world animal. Empoleon is BASED off an Emperor Penguin. Torterra is BASED off an Ankylosaurus. The old simple pokemon like Tauros and Kingler weren't too interesting, but their usefulness in battle made them fun to catch.

The pokemon that are being created now are BASED on animals in the real world and fused with concepts of battle and survival. Which explains why Infernape has some armor on him.

I really don't care how a pokemon looks, as long as I can use it in battle effectively. A lot of people are attached to much with the 1rst and 2nd generations due to nostalgia. They think that those pokemon were the best looking because that is what they started with. Even though I started with the 1rst generation I noticed that those pokemon were really simple and not very effective in terms of battling. It also didn't make sense for a lot them to be able to battle.

The newer pokemon look like they can battle fairly easily. Sure some of them are pudgy and cute, but they will end up being battle-like.


So do you want simple and bland looking pokemon that don't look like battlers? Or do you want pokemon that look like they could rip your head off?

 

[Jerme]

Simple pokemon arent interesting. I rather not have a pokemon with the same exact characteristics as a real world animal. Empoleon is BASED off an Emperor Penguin. Torterra is BASED off an Ankylosaurus. The old simple pokemon like Tauros and Kingler weren't too interesting, but their usefulness in battle made them fun to catch.

The pokemon that are being created now are BASED on animals in the real world and fused with concepts of battle and survival. Which explains why Infernape has some armor on him.

yea. i think most newer people would rather have wild creative-looking pokemon. old fans with nostalgia goggles are complaining about "too complex".

i'm not hating on anything, just sayin

 

[Bloothump]

My thesis was: if they'd make simple and more realistic pokemon I think they would sell more.

Uh, I don't think so. by "selling more", it means pokemon is picking up new fans who have never played the pokemon before. I doubt it would make a difference to you if they were simpler or not, considering these people never played gen one. By making simpler pokes, that would mean pleasing the minority of people who already play the game, so I don't see why that's at all plausible.

 

[Weavile05]

If the pokemon stayed simple, game freak would run out of ideas really quickly. And there are somesimple ones in black and white. just look at gear, the name says it all. and then there's that crocodile one, it's not too complicatedd if you ask me.

 

[MistahDude]

The people that complain too much about the new pokemon being "too complex" are probably not open to change. The new players would probably look down on the original pokemon for being too bland.

 

[Jerme]

wait is that gear thing named "gear"? english name?

and the chinchilla is as simple as simple gets

 

[wolf]

wait is that gear thing named "gear"? english name?

It's Giaru, English name is not comfirmed from what I know atm.

And I don't see how the newer Pokemon aren't simple. Just a note, Torterra is based on the myth about a "world" on a turtle's back, a lot of older Pokemon are based on myths as well. I don't feel like arguing about it currently though.

 

[Ravecat]

extensive post of told-ery

I like this. Nicely done, Hi-5!