New pokemon are different

[CrystalShadow]

So it's not nostalgia, it was just better when the designs were simpler and lazier to fit with the crappy handheld graphics of the day. Gotcha.

Go suck a lemon.

Some of the really simple pokemon might of have been from laziness, I don't know. I wasn't speaking about them specifically though.

See, it's still the same guy doing the Pokemon Designs. It's not some new designer who's come in and messed up, it's the same designer, making designs that are more complicated and involved because now we have the graphics to handle them.

Take Mario. What's the meaning behind his classic look? It's all to compensate for the graphical limitations of the original arcade games. He's wearing a red shirt and blue overalls to make his clothes stand out against each other and the background. He's wearing a hat, so his hair doesn't have to be animated. He has white gloves to make his hands stand out more. He has a large nose and moustache to avoid having to draw any other facial features.

Older Pokemon designs were simplier because the Game Boy had crappy resolution, and if they were more detailed, you wouldn't be able to see anything other than a chaotic blob.

Same designer or not, it's irrelevant. Made simpler for Game Boy, irrelevant. Thanks for the info but it's not what I'm talking about.

I'll repeat, some of these simple design are just really really effective. My original post is to point out that if you can't see why they are iconic then it's useless. Both sides can't understand each other and the fighting should stop.

They're effective, because they had to be to not be blobs, and they're iconic, because they came first.

I'm guessing this discussion has been going on for a while now, but I would like to point out that there are far more iconic characters from times where graphics were primitive than from more recent periods.

And the reasons are well understood to most graphic designers. Severe hardware limitations naturally impose a design constraint that actually remains true no matter how good your graphics get.

The most memorable characters tend to be the ones with a very strong, unique, and easy to identify design.
And most of the time, this comes from simplicity, not complexity.

Character designers who concern themselves with creating 'memorable' or 'iconic' characters often point to the silhouette test.

Basically, if you reduce a character to just it's outline, without any other details, it should still quite obvious who it is.

(Try it with Mario and sonic for instance, for some of the best examples. But it works reasonably well for Samus, Link, Master Chief... Crash Bandicoot. Bart Simpson. Etc. - As a contrast, try a character from a typical shooter such as call of duty. Can you tell one soldier apart from any other just from their silhouette? I doubt it.)

Complex and detailed does not make things better when it comes to memorable design. In fact, given too much freedom, it is much easier to design something that simply won't be remembered at all.

Memorable designs work well no matter how complex or simple you make them.
Compare mario from the first Super Mario, to the 3d model used in Mario Galaxy.

Look carefully and you'll note that the 3d model includes such tiny details as the fabric pattern of his denim overalls, buttons, fabric seams and so on.

The 8 bit sprite has none of these details. Yet you'd recognise either quite easily as being mario, even just from their outline alone.

Just to be clear, while complexity and detail isn't a bad thing, a good, memorable character design is one which remains recognisably unique for as long as possible, no matter how much you simplify it.
Details are good, but the design shouldn't need them to be recognisable.
If your design is still easy to recognise with no detail to it whatsoever, then people will probably remember it.

If it looks just like 60,000 other things, unless you draw in all the tiny little details that set it apart from those other designs... People probably won't remember it for very long.

 

[NLS]

I'll just add that the Pokemon on the left looks like it should be named Sharkizard.

 

[JokerboyJordan]

Show me a Pokemon game with the same mechanics as a regular Pokemon game, with a plot that doesn't revolve around collecting gym badges to fight the champions all while stopping an evil organization and coming of age on your journey from your small town house around the continent, and I'll show you the game that will save this franchise.

Or at least just change one fucking element of what I just said... It's just getting old.

Bam. Same mechanics as the standard pokemon games, no gym badges, character is in his 20s so there's none of that coming-of-age stuff, you don't have a house in a small town (you tend to operate out of a gas-station, but only due to it selling the poke'balls you need). It did have the usual 'tear down an evil organization', but it played it differently with you being a former member of the organization rather than some random kid.

It also did incredibly well despite what everyone says about it (1.5 million units sold in America) and averaged 70% or higher in reviews... hell, if Game Freak and Nintendo bothered to make a game of the similar vein for the Wii U, I imagine it'll sell incredibly well.

This. It was such a great game, if Nintendo actually made a worthy successor to it I'd even consider buying a WiiU, and that's saying something.

 

[TWEWYFan]

Yeah my experience pretty much mirrored yours, right down to that same image which clarified it. I'm not exactly sure what the cause is if it's just more artistic resources, need for new ideas, maybe just a shift in the design philosophy.
I tend to prefer the more elegant earlier but that could be nostalgia. I still enjoy every generation.

 

[Nazulu]

Yeah, I wasn't asuming, just hoping others would back off.

Also, to save you time, 70's was the best

Nuh uh, The 20's were the best. The 0020's. The toys were amazing. Fire was just invented and was setting the world ablaze(Fire safety was not invented yet).
And the music was much better then, too. Thog and the rock hitters were just coming to terms with their genre of "hitting rocks and screaming loudly" and were experimenting with "hitting each other with rocks", paving the way for rock music.
Dating was easier too. You meet a cute girl? Chat her up, hit her with a club and drag her back to your cave.

It was an amazing time with no downsides whatsoever and I am not being blinded by nostalgia

How dare you have a sense of humour, I was being serious.

Also, love your avatar. Been planning to watch through that again.

I'm guessing this discussion has been going on for a while now, but I would like to point out that there are far more iconic characters from times where graphics were primitive than from more recent periods.

And the reasons are well understood to most graphic designers. Severe hardware limitations naturally impose a design constraint that actually remains true no matter how good your graphics get.

The most memorable characters tend to be the ones with a very strong, unique, and easy to identify design.
And most of the time, this comes from simplicity, not complexity.

Character designers who concern themselves with creating 'memorable' or 'iconic' characters often point to the silhouette test.

Basically, if you reduce a character to just it's outline, without any other details, it should still quite obvious who it is.

(Try it with Mario and sonic for instance, for some of the best examples. But it works reasonably well for Samus, Link, Master Chief... Crash Bandicoot. Bart Simpson. Etc. - As a contrast, try a character from a typical shooter such as call of duty. Can you tell one soldier apart from any other just from their silhouette? I doubt it.)

Complex and detailed does not make things better when it comes to memorable design. In fact, given too much freedom, it is much easier to design something that simply won't be remembered at all.

Memorable designs work well no matter how complex or simple you make them.
Compare mario from the first Super Mario, to the 3d model used in Mario Galaxy.

Look carefully and you'll note that the 3d model includes such tiny details as the fabric pattern of his denim overalls, buttons, fabric seams and so on.

The 8 bit sprite has none of these details. Yet you'd recognise either quite easily as being mario, even just from their outline alone.

Just to be clear, while complexity and detail isn't a bad thing, a good, memorable character design is one which remains recognisably unique for as long as possible, no matter how much you simplify it.
Details are good, but the design shouldn't need them to be recognisable.
If your design is still easy to recognise with no detail to it whatsoever, then people will probably remember it.

If it looks just like 60,000 other things, unless you draw in all the tiny little details that set it apart from those other designs... People probably won't remember it for very long.

Dammit, I wish you were here earlier. Thanks for that though, it was a good read and I find these types of things very important.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

All the typical backlash to a new Pokemon generation got to me this time, so since everybody was complaining about how awful the new ones looked, when I got my White version I decided that I would make as many teams of six as I could until I ran out of ones I thought were awesome and looked good.

I just don't get all the hate. Gen 5 has a ton of awesome looking and very useful Pokemon.

I'm up to four teams now, working on the fourth. I stop at level 75 in training, because that was the level that a friend and I set as a easy enough level to get to, to train as many pokemon to mix and match when we battled each other.

I'll also add that I still have more I can use to make a fifth team, but I have finalize which ones will make the fifth team cut.

The four teams:

Spoiler: Story play through team:

Emboar, Fire/Fighting Lv.75

Brick Break, Flare Blitz, Head Smash, Blast Burn

Simisage, Grass Lv.75

Seed Bomb, Brick Break, Cut, Crunch

Zebstrika, Electric Lv.75

Flame Charge, Wild Charge, Flash, Thunderbolt

Seismitoad, Water/Ground Lv.75

Earthquake, Surf, Strength, Drain Punch

Krookodile, Ground/Dark Lv.75

Earthquake, Outrage, Foul Play, Crunch

Sigilyph, Psychic/Flying Lv.75

Sky Attack, Cosmic Power, Fly, Psychic

Spoiler: Second team, has two starters, because that is when my friend got Black, and I bred starters.

Serperior, Grass Lv.75

Frenzy Plant, Leaf Storm, Leaf Blade, Giga Drain

Samurott, Water Lv.75

Revenge, Waterfall, Surf, Megahorn

Braviary, Normal/Flying Lv.75

Thrash, Sky Drop, Fly, Brave Bird

Hydreigon, Dark/Dragon Lv.75

Crunch, Dragon Rush, Dragon Pulse, Body Slam

Galvantula, Bug/Electric Lv.75

Sucker Punch, X-Scissor, Thunder Bolt, Bug Buzz

Volcarona, Bug/Fire Lv.75

Flamethrower, Flame Charge, Bug Buzz, Quiver Dance

Spoiler: My third team.

Haxorus, Dragon Lv.75

Giga Impact, Outrage, False Swipe, Dragon Claw

Beartic, Ice Lv.75

Thrash, Sheer Cold, Surf, Ice Beam

Carracosta, Water/Rock Lv.75

Rock Slide, Ancient Power, Crunch, Surf

Chandelure, Ghost/Fire Lv.75

Shadow Ball, Will-O-Wisp, Flamethrower, Psychic

Unfezant, Normal/Flying Lv.75

Sky Attack, Air Slash, Fly, Quick Attack

Ferrothorn, Grass/Steel Lv.75

Power Whip, Energy Ball, Iron Head, Gyro Ball

Spoiler: Now working on team four.

Victini, Psychic/Fire Lv.36

Shadow Ball, Psychic, Thunderbolt, Flamethrower

Sawsbuck, Normal/Grass Lv.37

Energy Ball, Jump Kick, Return, Horn Leech

Golett, Ground/Ghost Lv.37

Ice Beam, Shadow Ball, Earthquake, Dynamic Punch

Tynamo, Electric Lv.36

Tackle, Thunder Wave, Spark, Charge Beam

Swanna, Water/Flying Lv.37

Surf, Ice Beam, Scald, Fly

Scolipede, Bug/Poison Lv.40

Poison Jab, Sludge Bomb, Earthquake, Steamroller

Edit: And by the way, I'm not new to this whole thing, I've been around since the beginning.

I own: Red, Blue, Yellow, Gold, Silver, Emerald, Diamond, Pearl, Heart Gold, White

 

[Twilight.falls]

I skimmed through some of this thread, so I apologize if this was said already.

The people who say that there are too many inanimate object pokemon seem to be convieniently forgetting about Grimer/Muk, Voltorb/Electrode, and Magnemite/Magneton.

Plus, there's that chart that says that the distribution of pokemon designs is pretty even.

 

[Joshimodo]

Enough with your pathetic, condescending attitude. Face the fact that the art direction has taken a dive. Yes, there are some decent looking ones in recent gens, but they have practically all become an overdesigned ornamental mess.

Maybe you should face the fact that this is just your opinion.

No, it isn't. The art direction has faltered. The fact is that most of the new Pokemon are needlessly decorated and overdesigned. That is not opinion, that's visual observation.


Generally, each generation's first 30~ Pokemon stay relatively simple and aesthetically sensible, and after that they just lose all coherence. Gen 1 had that problem with about 20-ish 'Mons, though even then they were still clearly animals/creatures.

It's increased ever since. They should remain simplistic, not gaudy and messy. The rule of art direction is to keep things concise - Form follows function, not the other way around. "Ooh, let's add some spikes here, some stripes there, bit of pattern there, this bit should stick out and that bit should be made of metal!"


Compare:

or

 

[Innegativeion]

Oh come on now. Take a good long look at that charizard and tell me with a straight face it doesn't look absolutely bad ass,

and that it couldn't totally kick a normal charizard's ass.

I wish shiny pokemon all looked akin to that charizard photoshop.

 

[Nazulu]

Oh come on now. Take a good long look at that charizard and tell me with a straight face it doesn't look absolutely bad ass,

and that it couldn't totally kick a normal charizard's ass.

I wish shiny pokemon all looked akin to that charizard photoshop.

First thing I noticed about that Charizard is the white belly makes a strong focus point (and looks silly), that one day he will stab himself with his own knee's (try hard to be hardcore design), and the black, yellow and orange are not as visially appealing as the original.

I believe the genius of pokemon are many of the designs, I wish I could design something as cool. That's why MLP is popular as well, because of designs.

 

[CODE-D]

Gen 5 designs in general were bad.

 

[CODE-D]

I'm far from one who clings to the first 150 after all these years, but with the exception of Magnezone and Nosepass, I can't remember many pokemon straight up copying real world objects. Then we hit Gen 5 and suddenly "sentient ice cream cones!" Not that the designs aren't good (I love Trubbish) but I have an increasingly hard time picturing these things living in the wild.

Well, Gen 1 took all the easy Pokemon, i.e. take a normal thing, add a doodad, call it a Pokemon.

Take an Emu, add a head. Doduo.
Take a Seal, add a horn. Seel.
Take a horse, set it on fire. Ponyta.
Take a bird. Pidgey and Spearow.
Take a rat, add beaver teeth. Rattata.
Take a rock, give it arms. Geodude.
Take a mouse, plug it into an electrical socket. Pikachu.
Take a bug, make it big. Too many to list.
Take a duck, give it a leek to cook it with. Farfetch'd.
Rape your childhood, give it form. Jynx.

now see here everyone knows mr mime is the real rapist

 

[BernardoOne]

You all have to look to this uglysonofabitches that were in the original japanese game.

 

[Nazulu]

And, no, it's still just an opinion. There's no quantification for 'art design' so you can't really say that one is better or worse than the other. Form may follow function, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for style.

Yeah, you can say one is better or worse than the other, you've already done it you hypocrite.

Also, you can prove one is better as well, but of course if you just sit there with your thumb up your ass repeating "it's your opinion" all the time as your only argument, then you have no interest in actually learning anything.

 

[Thespian]

Let me first say that I've been a die-hard Pokemon fan from the beginning and I recently played black version, and loved it. I thought it was a great game and I really enjoyed not knowing what Pokemon would be around the next corner instead of just going through the motions.

That said, I 100% agree that designs have gotten ludicrous lately. In fact, old designs are objectively better. How?

Simple designs with recognisable silhouettes make for more memorable characters. Look at team fortress 2. Each of these characters were created with knowing that playes would need to be able to recognise the threat of an enemy class from afar. Base of this, scout, heavy, medic and the rest are all iconic mainstays of gaming.

Iconic is the operative word. People call the gen one designs boring and unoriginal, but I call them iconic. A simple idea is a good one, but gen one also had bizarre pokemn - lickitung, jinx, snorlax, ditto, polygon, drowzee... All of these Pokemon are original, unique designs that go along with the more simple, animal based designs to create a diverse plethora of mons.

I was just as big a fan of gen two. Gen two might actually be my favourite generation of any.

Gen three had some weird introductions. A lot of Pokemon became rounder and cuter or sharper and stranger. Basically, Pokemon looked more unnatural and synthetic in comparison to the very organic designs of gen one and two. Gen three still had some very solid and really cool designs however, but an abundance of odd patterns thrown on the new mons as well.

Gen four is where I think everything went to shit. Very few good designs here and an abundance of late evolutions tacked on to favourite designs from the past. This is where a variety of Pokemon began straying far off course. Take riolu. He is clearly based off a fox. Usually Pokemon are given a distinct feature and light recolouring to differentiate themselves from what inspired them. Riolu is turned cobalt blue, given a few stripes and odd patterns and colours, and stood up on his hind legs so that he no longer really resembles anything but looks like so bizarre robot from the future. He could just as easily be called a digimon, or mechs, and he'd fit in fine.

I think gen five has a tonne of good designs regardless, but gen four has almost none. Gen five is of course, ridden with bullshit like ice cream cones, gears, lamps, a sarcophagus, and fucking airbags bags, but it also has some solid designs. Look at sawsbuck, voltik, carracosta, braviary, liepard, excadrill and a bunch of others for examples of creative, original designs.

 

[Nazulu]

Let me first say that I've been a die-hard Pokemon fan from the beginning and I recently played black version, and loved it. I thought it was a great game and I really enjoyed not knowing what Pokemon would be around the next corner instead of just going through the motions.

That said, I 100% agree that designs have gotten ludicrous lately. In fact, old designs are objectively better. How?

Simple designs with recognisable silhouettes make for more memorable characters. Look at team fortress 2. Each of these characters were created with knowing that playes would need to be able to recognise the threat of an enemy class from afar. Base of this, scout, heavy, medic and the rest are all iconic mainstays of gaming.

Iconic is the operative word. People call the gen one designs boring and unoriginal, but I call them iconic. A simple idea is a good one, but gen one also had bizarre pokemn - lickitung, jinx, snorlax, ditto, polygon, drowzee... All of these Pokemon are original, unique designs that go along with the more simple, animal based designs to create a diverse plethora of mons.

I was just as big a fan of gen two. Gen two might actually be my favourite generation of any.

Gen three had some weird introductions. A lot of Pokemon became rounder and cuter or sharper and stranger. Basically, Pokemon looked more unnatural and synthetic in comparison to the very organic designs of gen one and two. Gen three still had some very solid and really cool designs however, but an abundance of odd patterns thrown on the new mons as well.

Gen four is where I think everything went to shit. Very few good designs here and an abundance of late evolutions tacked on to favourite designs from the past. This is where a variety of Pokemon began straying far off course. Take riolu. He is clearly based off a fox. Usually Pokemon are given a distinct feature and light recolouring to differentiate themselves from what inspired them. Riolu is turned cobalt blue, given a few stripes and odd patterns and colours, and stood up on his hind legs so that he no longer really resembles anything but looks like so bizarre robot from the future. He could just as easily be called a digimon, or mechs, and he'd fit in fine.

I think gen five has a tonne of good designs regardless, but gen four has almost none. Gen five is of course, ridden with bullshit like ice cream cones, gears, lamps, a sarcophagus, and fucking airbags bags, but it also has some solid designs. Look at sawsbuck, voltik, carracosta, braviary, liepard, excadrill and a bunch of others for examples of creative, original designs.

Simple and iconic doesn't instantly equal better design, even though it does help.

Also, if you are going to use words like objective and fact, you might want to provide solid proof on that because it makes your post controversial to a lot of people here. Just a heads up.

I agree with everything else though.

 

[GangstaPony]

If you want to complain about designs, then wait for the sixth generation. The first 251 were fully designed by Ken Sugimori from the ground up and the rest get lots of input from him and only he has the final say to what goes in the game. Although I wish Game Freak would be more like Valve and CDProjekt where they have a healthy relationship with the fans but Nintendo doesn't like that. Nintendo is all about putting up facade's.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

If you want to complain about designs, then wait for the sixth generation. The first 251 were fully designed by Ken Sugimori from the ground up and the rest get lots of input from him and only he has the final say to what goes in the game. Although I wish Game Freak would be more like Valve and CDProjekt where they have a healthy relationship with the fans but Nintendo doesn't like that. Nintendo is all about putting up facade's.

i don't understand, are you saying mr Sugimori won't be working on gen 6 and so thats why we should wait for then to complain?

Or are you saying gen 6 is going to be 'even worse', and your comment about Ken was just a tangentially relevant note of discussion?


((solve media says Ken Sugimori is 'blinded by science'))

 

[galdon2004]

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.

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

How is 15-16% in the last two generations statistically similar to 8-9% in first and third gen? if you count 2 which has 2% the last two generations have statistically double the number of inanimate object designs than the first three.

 

[GangstaPony]

If you want to complain about designs, then wait for the sixth generation. The first 251 were fully designed by Ken Sugimori from the ground up and the rest get lots of input from him and only he has the final say to what goes in the game. Although I wish Game Freak would be more like Valve and CDProjekt where they have a healthy relationship with the fans but Nintendo doesn't like that. Nintendo is all about putting up facade's.

i don't understand, are you saying mr Sugimori won't be working on gen 6 and so thats why we should wait for then to complain?

Or are you saying gen 6 is going to be 'even worse', and your comment about Ken was just a tangentially relevant note of discussion?


((solve media says Ken Sugimori is 'blinded by science'))

What I am saying is that all these senior citizens claiming BACK IN MY DAY POKEMON LOOKED COOL AND WEREN'T BASED ON ICE CREAM OR GARBAGE! are simply blinded by nostalgia and forget that gen 1 had some pretty lame and uninspired designs as well. All 693 current mons have been essentially designed/approved by the same guy and you can see that many of the gen 5's are parallels of those in previous gens. There has always been a consistent style.

By Gen 6 I mean the future especially one where Sugimori decides to outsource his work more and let others take active role. If he leaves the company and there is a gen full of truly unusual designs that don't resemble anything before... then you can complain.

Oh sure, I may hate Trubbish but that's more of a personal distaste and won't color my opinion of all the new Pokemon. Hell this gen has many American style Pokemon with lots of sleek body types and blades/spikes all over the body. Ironically, Vannilite line & Golett like which were indeed designed by an American remind me more of Japanese quirkiness.