The Pokemon design Guide, Nintendo you're doing it wrong.

[LavaLampBamboo]

MAWILLE. ARGRAWBLAW. With it's forehead mouth and everything!

 

[Uber Waddles]

You need to actually READ the OP, he isn't talking about the games not being good, just about the physical appearance and design of the pokemon.

You need to put your critical thinking cap on.

I did read. What he says almost directly correlates into GamePlay. Specifically, hows looks correlate to abilities.

Right, he is talking about physical appearance and moveset tweaks on a pokemon by pokemon basis.

That is hardly calling the game HORRIBLE or the core gameplay bad, he simply thinks abilities should be more closely tied to looks.

I am a Pokemon fanatic, but criticism is a core part of the evolution of any game series, and I think he makes great points.

Critisism is something that needs to be taken lightly.

Game developers listening to Forum users critisim, and thinking it appeals to the mass of the community, is the reasons certain games suffer. Look at Halo 2; relatively fun game. They listened to their forum users critisism, and we got Halo 3, which most of the community thinks sucks.

BUT, this isn't about Halo. The new Pokemon arent that bad looking. They are original in design, look nice and polished, and look like a Pokemon. The way I saw this rant, it was ranting on the "newer" feel of Pokemon, as compared to the Near-Christ like Red/Blue Versions.

Most of the time, when I see "New Pokemon Suck!" arguements, it goes hand-in-hand with the person saying "The new Pokemon GAMES Suck!" too. So I took it that way.

 

[Danpascooch]

You need to actually READ the OP, he isn't talking about the games not being good, just about the physical appearance and design of the pokemon.

You need to put your critical thinking cap on.

I did read. What he says almost directly correlates into GamePlay. Specifically, hows looks correlate to abilities.

Right, he is talking about physical appearance and moveset tweaks on a pokemon by pokemon basis.

That is hardly calling the game HORRIBLE or the core gameplay bad, he simply thinks abilities should be more closely tied to looks.

I am a Pokemon fanatic, but criticism is a core part of the evolution of any game series, and I think he makes great points.

Critisism is something that needs to be taken lightly.

Game developers listening to Forum users critisim, and thinking it appeals to the mass of the community, is the reasons certain games suffer. Look at Halo 2; relatively fun game. They listened to their forum users critisism, and we got Halo 3, which most of the community thinks sucks.

BUT, this isn't about Halo. The new Pokemon arent that bad looking. They are original in design, look nice and polished, and look like a Pokemon. The way I saw this rant, it was ranting on the "newer" feel of Pokemon, as compared to the Near-Christ like Red/Blue Versions.

Most of the time, when I see "New Pokemon Suck!" arguements, it goes hand-in-hand with the person saying "The new Pokemon GAMES Suck!" too. So I took it that way.

Original doesn't mean good, and new doesn't mean good either, there is a reason people say new pokemon suck, and he lists those reasons in an organized and coherent manner. Just because he doesn't like something you like, and voices that opinion, does not make this a rant.

Don't take something one way because you've seen something similar that WAS that way, look at each new thing free of bias, because he has a good argument here.

 

[Les Awesome]

Dragonite-because he looks legendary like a myth and hes just so awesome
Gyrados- Cos He bares no resemblence to magicarp and thats awesome

 

[soren7550]

You've stated some good points. The newer ones to me just don't bear the same memorability that the original 251 or so had.

 

[Abedeus]

yeah the originals weren't perfect.

Thank you. I think we're done here. Old designs had their suckage. New designs have their suckage. Charmander had a stupid face, Squirtle was uninspired, Bulbasaur is...are you sure it's a toad? Doesn't look like any toad I ever saw.

Also, Diglett does not look like a mole. It looks like a long, thin, brown balloon with a face drawn on it.

Seriously? You meet Digletts in caves, which are an allusion to mole holes, and they live underground (like moles) and they have earth-based attacks and things like Scratch, suggesting they have mole claws.

Nit-Picking again. Noespass doesnt have a Snort attack? If you read the data about Nosepass; his Nose is a Magnet. Thus equiping him with Magnet based attacks, and Electric attacks. In his attacks; he has attacks such as Lock On, Zap Cannon, Discharge, Magnet Rise, and Thunder Wave. Lets not also forget hes a rock, and has Rock based attacks (Earth Power, Earthquake, Rock Throw, Rock Polish).

Wait, it's a magnet? The only possible clue is the blue/red theme... Again, why does he have a big nose? It's pretty ineffective to have 1 piece of a magnet small as a nose, and the other as big as the rest of the body.

 

[Sikachu]

Please explain to me how whatever Bulbasaur is (a...thing?) with a plant bulb on its back is "grounded in reality".

I think its actually a small Dinosaur, Hense the "Saur" part, Bulba is in relation to Bulb, where a plant starts.

Bulbasaur is where this evolution starts, It grows into Ivy and then into a Venus Fly trap, keeping the "Saur" thoughout to indiciate its a Dinosaur.

Hope that helped.

Spoiler: Venus flytraps

Veno-saur is a portmanteau of 'venom' and 'saur'.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I agree with you, the Pokemon company needs to rethink its artistic direction. The original starters deserve the high grade you gave them. Also I lol'd at the Mudkip pic.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Kyman102]

I'm sorry. I'm just hearing "BAWW! PLZ DON'T RAPE MY MEMORIES!"

I love pokemon, but it is just a simple game where humans force creature to fight, and when we lose sight of that pretentious stuff like this happens.

THANK YOU for summing up my opinion perfectly. Good god, is it just me or is the amount of whining stemming from new Pokemon designs reaching the level of Final Fantasy fans?

You know what? I LIKE the new starters. >> Most of them, the jury's still out on the Water starter. But I'll tell all you whiners something. I AM going to buy the next generation. I'll probably start with the Grass Type, and I'll probably have lots of fun.

 

[Internet Kraken]

After the #250 or w/e the pokemon were just batshit crazy impractical sins against nature.
Hell some of the ones after 151 were pushing it already.

Right, because the original 151 all looked completley logical and practical.

Spoiler: Tangela

Spoiler: Dodrio

Spoiler: Dugtrio

Spoiler: Mr.Mime

Spoiler: Jynx

Spoiler: Parasect

Oh wait, no they didn't.

Here's the thing; Pokemon has always had poorly designed Pokemon. There have always been ones that clearly had little thought put into them. There were always ones that looked pretty weird. There were always ones that were not practical. There were always ones that did not look realistic in any way. The idea that all of the new Pokemon designs suck is absurd, since most of the prbolems with them have always been present throughout the series.

Personally, I only think the Pokemon design had degraded for the starters, legendaries, and new evolutions. This is because I feel like to much detail is put into these Pokemon in an attempt to make them look good, but it just ends up making them to complex. Starts are always popular, so they focus a lot of attention onto them. The legendaries are supposed to be impressive, so they al2ways glue on extra bits thinking that works. The new evolutions to old Pokemon can;t really go anywhere aside from adding extra bits to them. However the other Pokemon, the ones that don't receive as much attention, look fine to me. If someone really thinks that Bidoof is worse than Ratatata, they need to rethink what they are saying.

 

[Brotherofwill]

You need to actually READ the OP, he isn't talking about the games not being good, just about the physical appearance and design of the pokemon.

You need to put your critical thinking cap on.

I did read. What he says almost directly correlates into GamePlay. Specifically, hows looks correlate to abilities.

Right, he is talking about physical appearance and moveset tweaks on a pokemon by pokemon basis.

That is hardly calling the game HORRIBLE or the core gameplay bad, he simply thinks abilities should be more closely tied to looks.

I am a Pokemon fanatic, but criticism is a core part of the evolution of any game series, and I think he makes great points.

He does not say that core gameplay or concept is a problem, simply that looks need to correlate more to movesets on a pokemon to pokemon basis.

Thanks for sticking up for me. Exactly, I was only talking about design and my personal preference, but Pokemon is always a touchy subject, some people get very defensive. This was a purely design related discussion, not gameplay.

About the new fire starter though, the pig/boar. I think it's very well designed, there's a pretty clear connection between pigs, or boars rather, and fire in that they live in dry areas.
I've seen a lot of games tag onto that connection, i thought firey boars were quite a common enemy in rpgs. It's also simple and cute, much like pikachu ;D

Oh, hey hadn't thought about that. Yeah, I remember facing fire boars in some games, thanks for the heads up.

The connection between fire and pig are virtually non-existent.
there is a very obvious connection between them, Fire + pig = bacon, thus the second evolution should be some sort of bacon monster.

Hahaha. That's an even better connection.

yeah the originals weren't perfect.

Thank you. I think we're done here. Old designs had their suckage. New designs have their suckage. Charmander had a stupid face, Squirtle was uninspired, Bulbasaur is...are you sure it's a toad? Doesn't look like any toad I ever saw.

Also, Diglett does not look like a mole. It looks like a long, thin, brown balloon with a face drawn on it.

Seriously? You meet Digletts in caves, which are an allusion to mole holes, and they live underground (like moles) and they have earth-based attacks and things like Scratch, suggesting they have mole claws.

Yeah, right how can you not see the way they are alike? Look:

 

[ljd184]

pleas may you review the 3 gen starters

 

[TheGameXXVII]

the only pokemon i dislike the look of from the original game is Dragonite, since it looks like Dragonair's retarded cousin.

other than that, none of the original pokemon are bad in my eyes.

 

[zHellas]

I'm sorry. I'm just hearing "BAWW! PLZ DON'T RAPE MY MEMORIES!"

I love pokemon, but it is just a simple game where humans force creature to fight, and when we lose sight of that pretentious stuff like this happens.

I have to agree.

I also agree the Pokemon ARE starting to look a bit stupid, but if they are, let's have fun with it!

 

[Counter_Southpaw]

Now, looking at Mijumaru, you can see its white and light blue color scheme reflective of an arctic theme. Now what other animal is mammalian and arctic themed? No, not walruses. We already have Walrein.

Fucking Polar Bears.

That's right, that cute little thing waddling around next to a smug leafy reptile and a pig wearing a bandana, eventually becoming the biggest land carnivore on the planet, capable of dragging out Beluga whales to feed.

(While I'm at it, Game Freak should make a Narwhal pokemon. Narwhals, Narwhals, swimming in the ocean...)

You, sir, are win. Had a good laugh while reading your post, and I'm hoping you're correct.

POLAR BEARS FTW. They may go extinct in real life, but they'll always be immortalized in Pokemon!

 

[AdamRBi]

You make a lot of great points. Alot of what you say can be equated to something I believe was the folly of many great games and that's a slow transition from fantastic to fantasy. A lot of games start off in a fantastic world, by which I mean there are still things about it that are a mystery but it's not without the majority of concepts being based on our world and our sciences. Remember when the most legendary of all Pokemon was a science experiment gone wrong? Remember when the crime syndicate was pursuing not the end of the world, but just using criminal tactics to shoehorn itself in to a position of power? Now we god gods of nature and evil cults summoning one of 22+ Legends of Time, Space, Elements and such to rebuild the world.

But this is a place of dicussion. And I do think some of your "rules" take a concept a bit too far... (Bold comments are mine)

In order for the beasts to be interesting and believable to kids, they should be grounded in reality.
I agree with this... to a degree. It's ok to stray a bit from convention, we have creatures of our own Earth we can hardly explain. But as you said, a nice connection to our world helps people make a faster connection with the creature. Be it fish, bird, squirrel, Dragon, or Easter Island Head (Or whatever the hell Bronzor is... a Manhole Cover?

Form after function
Again, good point. But even then while most moves should be an explainable part of the creatures anatomy, a little bit of suspended believe can work here. (I always picture my Blastoise shooting Ice Beam from it's mouth. It's got Wint-o-Fresh breath.

A simple 3 colour design scheme that relates to their element.
The comment you made on the New starters colors was off, Green and Yellow go great as a pair and the Fire starter's colors make sense. I agree, less color equals more memorable designs, but using different shades, complimentary, or analogous colors well does wonders for a design even if there's more colors in it then the rainbow.

Pokemon should share similar design themes throughout the generation
This is what I disagree with. Animals can very vastly between regions of Earth, so it's only natural that... oh no wait, sorry I read that wrong. Maybe you can word it differentially: "Pokemon from the same Region should share similar traits." In which case they kinda do, but you need to take climates in the regions in to account. Gen IV region had costal areas and Snowpoint City, obviously even normal type pokemon would vary between those. So year, there should be a bit of similarity, but nature is random so variations, even without the different climates, are to be expected.

The evolution of the pokemon should be within resonable measure and show natural, visual progression
Yes. Though sometimes a bit of a jump can be an unexpected, humorous, and awesome change. Magikarp to Gyarados! It screams awesome and funny all a once.

The simpler, the better.
It helps, but you also risk making them toyetic if you take it too far. Toyetic meaning they're designed in a way that they would make the perfect toy. Pikachu and the majority of starters are like this usually. Even before Pikachu became the adorable Pokemascot and was forced to lose weight because concerned mothers were worried a chubby little mouse would make their kids obese. But then again they have been becoming overly complex, I'll give two examples in my "pokeDesigns I dislike" list below. They need to have a balance between natural and designed for a purpose. We want to train visually appealing nature, not visually appealing logos/mascots/stuffed animals.

My apologies to Teddiursa fans, he is quite adorable.


What do you think? What makes a good pokemon design? Do you like the new starters? Any favorite/ hated designs?

To answer that I'll turn to my good friend logic to point out a few things that irked me even when suspending belief.

1) Chatot: It's a Bird, Check. Specifically, it's a Parrot. Ok, that explains a lot game, thank you. I understand why it can sing and has vocally and musically inclined moves, thank you. It also has a Music note for a head. ... wait, what? How does a man-made symbol like that get on the tail of a bird that probably doesn't even know what it means? We understood the connection to vocal attacks due to the fact it was a Parrot, we didn't really need that.

The metronome tail was a nice touch, but that heads just too much. Replace it with something more subtle and we'll be good.

2) Lucario: He's only popular because of the movie. But then again why does he need spikes? Why does he need spikes on his chest? Where the kids rubbing his belly too much? Does he ever accidentally puncture himself?

and finally...

3) The Newer Legendaries: Since Gen 3 they've looked like robots made from rock by ancient civilizations. Even one of the newer ones look like it. Though that's just the Mascot Legendaries. I can live with Giratina and Rayquaza, even though Ratquaza has that robot look as well. And the super secret ones just pass the boundaries of real. Ok, that's a bit harsh... Luna and Dream Pokemon are still cool, but then there's all the mew clones (no, not Mewtwo). They're ok, but as I said we're up to 22+ and half of them are never even mentioned in the games anymore. Maybe if we added backstories to these Legendaries instead of making new ones we'd have true Legends and not folklore.

 

[natster43]

I like all the new ones so far. They look different and interesting. Besides, there is always a couple Pokemon in each generation which look terrible. I can't wait to see what the rest look like.