what IS a "Pokemon?"

colours

    • 8,973
    Posts
    20
    Years
    so, whenever a new generation gets announced, one of the most common criticisms i hear is "wow the pokemon don't even look like pokemon, they look like (insert other, interesting comparison here, usually digimon)!" it really got me thinking as to what a pokemon is or really, more accurately, should look like. o:

    so in this thread we will talk about that.

    for those of you who have had these complaints in the past, what should a pokemon look like to you/how should it be designed? for those who are fine with pokemon designs as they are currently, what in particular makes you fond of them? treat this thread as kind of picking at people's minds at bit as far as their preferences in pokemon designs go, so feel free to be as broad as you like, here!
     
    This topic reminds me of a video that Jim Sterling made waaaaay back in 2014 about Square Enix, in which - amongst other things - he goes off on one about character design, and about how the most iconic video game characters in the industry are ones with simple designs that don't assault your eyes with details. Video is here if anyone is interested. That's always stuck with me when I think about why the design of something does or does not appeal to me, and I think it applies here when thinking about what people's preconceptions of what a Pokemon should or should not look like.

    A lot (but admittedly not all) of the more popular Pokemon, and pretty much all of the first and second generation, have very simple designs that are easy on the eyes and are easy to remember. When you get to things like the Ultra Beasts especially...well. There is a lot of detail in those designs, and they stand out because of it. Whether that's good or bad depends on your perspective, but there is no getting around that they're definitely different in the way they're drawn. Personally I give them a pass because I think that's the whole point - they're from another dimension, so of course there won't be too many similarities between the way they look and the way Pokemon in the main dimension look - but I can understand why people don't like them, looking at it this way. It is harder to like a design when there is no clear focal point for that design. It's the thought "Wait, what am I looking at?" that will make people pause and feel less affection for something, I think. We all like things that are familiar to us, and something like Guzzlord or Xurkitree...well. Yeah.

    There also seems to be the notion in some corners that Pokemon are basically fictional versions of real world creatures, making inanimate Pokemon some of the most reviled...but those are actually some of my favourites! Anyone can design something based off a real life creature, as most of the work is already done. But it takes someone with real talent and imagination to breathe life into an inanimate object. Maybe they're not always successful with this - I honestly do not like the Vanillish line - but personally I think they are a lot of the time. You can say "it's just a sparrow" about Pidgey just as easily as you can say "it's just a teacup" about Sinistea, but because you see sparrows every day and your teacup doesn't try to lick your face when you take a sip from it, it's more difficult to relate to the latter design.

    Those are my thoughts on the matter, anyway. I have a lot of Pokemon I dislike aesthetically - like every fighting-type Pokemon ever made - but I've never really thought "that's not a Pokemon" about them.
     
    you know, whenever i've heard these criticisms, i've never really paid much mind to them because i felt like this was another roundabout way of saying "i just don't like this pokemon" and not anything to do with the actual design concepts of recent generation pokemon, but the more i've thought about it and the more i hear it, the more interesting it is to me. even leaving the ultra beasts aside for a moment, is there anything about gen 7 and gen 8 pokemon that's significantly different than say, gen 5 or gen 6, design-wise?
     
    There are plenty of lifeforms here on Earth that don't look like they belong, so almost anything can be a Pokémon as long as it isn't overly detailed. Pokémon designs tend to be fairly simple so that they're easier to adapt into anime (without the need of CG), plushes, etc.

    That said, I've definitely been guilty of saying that certain species don't look like Pokémon. I tend to get used to them, though.
     
    Last edited:
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top