New pokemon are different

[Luca72]

It's going to be hard to separate myself from nostalgia, since I've become less and less interested in Pokemon with every release (even though I feel like each release has been in some ways better than the last). When I was a kid, what I loved about Gen 1 and 2 Pokemon were that they were generally ridiculous versions of real animals. It was about finding animals that you thought were cool, and then seeing them evolve into something awesome (a lizard with a flaming tail eventually becomes a dragon, a fossilized trilobite becomes a knife-handed monster, a useless fish becomes a sea dragon).

A lot of new Pokemon are just impossible to relate to. Everyone constantly brings up chandeliers and candles, but I think they actually have a good point. They don't feel like an exaggerated version of a living thing, they feel like something you'd see in the background of a Mario game. And the "cool" designs are just as bad, because again I don't see a living thing, I see an over-stylized anime character.

On the other hand, I think the mechanics are getting way better. I like Pokemon that inhabit some kind of niche. In Black I loved using Throh, who is really slow but sturdy, and alot of his attacks benefit from him attacking second.

 

[The White Hunter]

I'm more inclined to prefer the newer designs, I mean a lot of the old ones kind of suck.

A seal? Woah interesting.. a crab? Jeez, it blew me away.

I know it's not Gen V, but come on Gen III had an armored Tyrannousaurs.

Gen 3 had great designs imo, not that I can be bothered to find them.

I loved the legendaries.

Also armoured Tyrannosaurs kick ass. In obscene quantities!

 

[The White Hunter]

On the other hand, I think the mechanics are getting way better. I like Pokemon that inhabit some kind of niche. In Black I loved using Throh, who is really slow but sturdy, and alot of his attacks benefit from him attacking second.

I think the mechanics are definately getting better, in Black I loved using Scrafty for similar reasons, massive defenses and great attack in return for getting beat up on when it has... massive defenses? hell yeah.

 

[Navvan]

Why can't people just say "I think Pokemon A,B,C... are the best/coolest/most aesthetically pleasing Pokemon" rather than trying to shoehorn entire generations with statements like "Generation Y is better generation Z". Each generation has its hits and misses and they always will.

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

Honestly, I think that the "Gen 4 Charizard" shown in the opening post looks better than the original design. As much as I loved Pokemon back in Gen 1, as a kid I would have found the Gen 4 Charizard even more awesome than the original (and that's saying something, trust me.) The older designs were simpler to fit the limitations of the Game Boy, and from Gen 3 onward, those limitations were largely removed.

The Pokemon devs have readily admitted that they deliberately try to push the envelope for waht pokemon can look like with each new generation, and honestly, I'm all for it. The only reason I consider the older Pokemon designs to be more iconic is because they're the ones I grew up with. Ignoring that, the newer designs are much more impressive.

This "it's different now, therefore it sucks" attitude is what poisons the fandom of any long-running media franchise. While I do like it when a series attempts to go back to its roots (Mega Man 9 and New Super Mario Bros. Wii, for example) people shouldn't be so quick to decry any decision to do things differently as long as it doesn't betray the established general concepts. Mario 64, despite being radically different from previous titles, still felt like a Mario game.

Despite all the numerous changes, Pokemon, at its core, the same game it's always been. It maintains the same general aesthetic across all generations, and as long as that doesn't change, I see no reason to start a revolt.

 

[Rickolas Walrus]

I was always a Gabumon fan myself

The way I figure it, the different design styles are meant to show a different region more than just new towns: In the real world, in America there are deer, cows, bears and certain types of birds etc, while in say Africa there are similar animals that are obviously a little more "decorated" like antelopes, wildebeests, different types of eagles and stuff, but then vastly different animals like lions, elephants, rhinos, etc. And most of the time, people tend to prefer animals from a certain area of the earth than others

That's the way I interpret it anyway, the designs aren't meant to be "better" each time, and surely nobody means to purposely make something "worse" that what they've made before, it's just a different style to go with a different area of the world

 

[him over there]

I was always a Gabumon fan myself

The way I figure it, the different design styles are meant to show a different region more than just new towns: In the real world, in America there are deer, cows, bears and certain types of birds etc, while in say Africa there are similar animals that are obviously a little more "decorated" like antelopes, wildebeests, different types of eagles and stuff, but then vastly different animals like lions, elephants, rhinos, etc. And most of the time, people tend to prefer animals from a certain area of the earth than others

That's the way I interpret it anyway, the designs aren't meant to be "better" each time, and surely nobody means to purposely make something "worse" that what they've made before, it's just a different style to go with a different area of the world

I think this makes the most sense, if you showed people who knew nothing about pokemon a bunch of pokemon from different generations they would probably be able to separate them all correctly. First gen had very pastel colours and large shapes, second was lots of similar, third was very "round" and the colours were very bold, fourth had plenty of darker colours and they often contrasted and fifth had lots of 'thinner" designs. They're all immediately separable.

 

[KeyMaster45]

I love Gen 5's roster of monsters, if anything it feels more like a welcome return to Gen 1's style. You know what else, I fucking love Chandelure why the hell does it matter if it's based on a living creature? Also think about this, the Gen 5 roster for Unova is the first roster since I think generation 2 where it was made entirely of new pokemon, not new ones with additional evolutions to older species tacked on, brand new species and evolution lines.

You know witch generation I hate the most? Gen 4. I've been a casual observer of the franchise since I grew out of it around the release of Yellow version and I saw with each generation that they were getting more and more complex, flashy, and down right ugly. Gen 5 got me to pick the series up again, I've even gone and bought the gold and silver remakes.

I think it's good that they went and hit the rest button on species complexity, it was getting out of hand. I also think it's very fitting that many of the pokemon in Gen 5 are inanimate objects personified since the setting has a much more urban feel than previously.

By the way this:

Is my current winner for cutest Pokemon evar.

 

[Dryk]

I love Gen 5's roster of monsters, if anything it feels more like a welcome return to Gen 1's style. You know what else, I fucking love Chandelure why the hell does it matter if it's based on a living creature? Also think about this, the Gen 5 roster for Unova is the first roster since I think generation 2 where it was made entirely of new pokemon, not new ones with additional evolutions to older species tacked on, brand new species and evolution lines.

Actually it hadn't been done since Gen 1.

Gen 2 had some useless babies and new Eeveelutions
Gen 3 had more useless babies, except Wynaut
Gen 4 saw a bunch of older Pokemon get old and fat

 

[Nazulu]

Good for you. That's not criticising but what ever.

 

[kortin]

My main problem with Gen5 is the fucking inanimate objects suddenly becoming pokemon. Like candles.

There are several (fun) theories as to why it could occur.

I just spent about 20 minutes searching for the main one, but was unable to find it. I'll do my best to summarize it:

Basically, it says that the Pokerus virus appeared when the meteorite, you know, the one that the scientist in that one episode of Pokemon was talking about. He was convinced that it was a spaceship, and it could have been, but not the kind he seems to be talking about. Any meteorite that lands on the planet could easily be a "spaceship" for micro-organisms.

I introduce you to the Pokerus Virus. This virus increases the speed of Pokemon growth, it's only natural that a normal animal infected by it would increase in its evolutionary speed substantially, no? So, the meteorite landed on the planet, OUR planet, and infected our animals, turning them into the Pokemon we know today. There were only 150 known pokemon in existence in Pokemon Red/Blue (although, Pokemon Fire Red/Leaf Green could retcon that to 386~) and slowly more and more Pokemon have been found. This could easily be explained to the Pokerus virus getting stronger. Instead of just infecting animals, it could infect inanimate objects.

The infection on our planet of Pokerus could have serious repercussions to human society. Many cities are relatively small, why? An explanation for this is that Pokemon aren't any different emotionally. They can get sad, they could be happy. They could also go on rampages. With the power behind most Pokemon, our structures could easily be destroyed. Keeping human cities as small as possible allows for easy defense for the cities and also keeps from encroaching on the, now dangerous, territories of the Pokemon.

The Routes also deserve an explanation. Why are they littered with people? Why aren't more powerful Pokemon found on them? They were designed that way. They go through the less aggressive and dangerous Pokemon territories and allow trainers (who are fairly young) safe access from city to city.

There's also a part about how humans are affected by them to, and why maturity is at 10 years old, instead of older. However, I don't see this as a valid theory, simply because different societies gauge maturity differently.

Remember, this is just a fun theory that was devised from information found throughout the games. This is in no way factual or anything like that (also, it's FUN to think about)

 

[ResonanceSD]

My main problem with Gen5 is the fucking inanimate objects suddenly becoming pokemon. Like candles.

There are several (fun) theories as to why it could occur.

I caught Pokerus and distributed it to my entire silver version party, with several copies of it stored in boxes. You know what it did? BUFFED STATS WITH A FUCKING STEROID POWERED LASER CANNON.


It did not, however, make anything mutate.

 

[kortin]

I caught Pokerus and distributed it to my entire silver version party, with several copies of it stored in boxes. You know what it did? BUFFED STATS WITH A FUCKING STEROID POWERED LASER CANNON.


It did not, however, make anything mutate.

It could very easily be a case where a pokemon, since it was already infected (a la Pokerus theory) , will not mutate anymore, but instead grow much quicker and (therefore) evolve quicker.

Basically, an animal infected by pokerus will mutate, a pokemon infected by pokerus will not.

Like I said, it's for entertainment only. You have to go into it with an open mind.

 

[Nazulu]

I wish people would drop the hipster attitude and throw away their rose goggles. I'm sick of this idiotic argument. Generation I was so painfully unoriginal, they named the majority of the Pokemon after the exact animal they are cloned from, often simply misspelling it -- Caterpie? Butterfree? Kakuna? Beedrill? Pidgey? Rattata? Ekans (snake backwards)? Arbok (Kobra)? Zubat? Golbat? Meowth? Persian? Psyduck? Golduck? Mankey? Arcanine? Tentacool? Ponyta? Magnemite? Seel? Shellder? Krabby? Rhyhorn? Horsea? Satryu? Mr. Fucking Mime? Etc., etc.

You're sick of the argument yet you want to join in? Also, you're missing the point, it's about the design not what animals and objects they changed to make into pokemon.

Plus, I wouldn't say any of the generations are unoriginal, they all had there simple and interesting.

 

[SD-Fiend]

That's also true, seems to be a few more inanimate-object pokemon.

Though i'd assume thats got to do with already having used so many real and mythological animals already, so they're trying to find other sources.


coincidently in the same place I saw the picture in the OP it also had this, which mentions pokemon by... 'source'? whatever you'd call it, by whether they're base don plants, animals, inanimate objects, etc.

Spoiler

(guize i bet you totally can't guess where i was wasting time on)

this thing is actually a bit off on it's descriptions so it's not all that accurate.

 

[Kahunaburger]

It's epic that this exists.

But yeah, clean design > visually busy design when it's pokemans.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

My main problem with Gen5 is the fucking inanimate objects suddenly becoming pokemon. Like candles.

There are several (fun) theories as to why it could occur.

I caught Pokerus and distributed it to my entire silver version party, with several copies of it stored in boxes. You know what it did? BUFFED STATS WITH A FUCKING STEROID POWERED LASER CANNON.


It did not, however, make anything mutate.

It could very easily be a case where a pokemon, since it was already infected (a la Pokerus theory) , will not mutate anymore, but instead grow much quicker and (therefore) evolve quicker.

Basically, an animal infected by pokerus will mutate, a pokemon infected by pokerus will not.

Like I said, it's for entertainment only. You have to go into it with an open mind.

and in-game mechnic has always = story-based description of said item, right?
XD

Not that I'm saying I agree with the theory, but stuff like that is definitely fun to think about, so no going all spoil sport on it just cause of in-game functionality

this thing is actually a bit off on it's descriptions so it's not all that accurate.

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'descriptions', since there are a lot of different things you could be referring to from that image there as 'descriptions' XD
care to clarify?

(only really posted up that image cause it was related to the topic people were discussing, i don't really know how accurate or otherwise it is.

and then there comes the argument of what if it's a plant-animal [or a plant-humanoid], does it fall under plants-based or animal-based?)

 

[SD-Fiend]

I love Gen 5's roster of monsters, if anything it feels more like a welcome return to Gen 1's style. You know what else, I fucking love Chandelure why the hell does it matter if it's based on a living creature? Also think about this, the Gen 5 roster for Unova is the first roster since I think generation 2 where it was made entirely of new pokemon, not new ones with additional evolutions to older species tacked on, brand new species and evolution lines.

Actually it hadn't been done since Gen 1.

Gen 2 had some useless babies and new Eeveelutions
Gen 3 had more useless babies, except Wynaut
Gen 4 saw a bunch of older Pokemon get old and fat

This is one of the best descriptions of the games I've ever heard.

 

[SD-Fiend]

this thing is actually a bit off on it's descriptions so it's not all that accurate.

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'descriptions', since there are a lot of different things you could be referring to from that image there as 'descriptions' XD
care to clarify?

(only really posted up that image cause it was related to the topic people were discussing, i don't really know how accurate or otherwise it is.

and then there comes the argument of what if it's a plant-animal [or a plant-humanoid], does it fall under plants-based or animal-based?)

I actually messed that part up. I meant it's off on what he clarifies as an inanimate pokemon or a humanoid pokemon

 

[Eri]

I saw an image today however that finally hit the nail on the head:

Older pokemon designs were generally less 'complex', as in their designs tended to look more 'smooth', with less extra colours and less 'bits and pieces' (little added elements to their designs) than seems to be the norm among the newer generations.


S

Uh dude, what are you talking about? Garchomp isn't from gen 1, Charizard is. That's also not what a Charizard looks like.