• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Do you think pokemon are looking less and less like pokemon?

Giratina ally

2013 SF #401
I don't have much of a problem with a lot of Pokemon out there. For instance, Klink. Yes, it is not natural, which I'm fine with. Its sheer presence alone within the Pokemon world hints at the rapid modernization of our world. The existence of Garbodor and Muk show us the downsides to modernization, without rubbing it in our faces like so many franchises and television programs before it.

With all that aside, yes, I do believe Pokemon are becoming weirder in design, but so are the regions! Kanto and Johto were not geographically apart, so of course the Pokemon between them are meant to look similar. However, Hoenn's Pokemon were often hated on for being so different. Geographically speaking, Hoenn is far south of Kanto and Johto, meaning it's a warm, exotic location with lots of water and lush forestry, so of course the Pokemon there are going to reflect this! Tropius, Slakoth, Treecko, Breloom, and so many more have very peculiar designs, because they're meant to look different from what we're used to seeing. Personally, I loved Hoenn. It's big, had some fantastic Pokemon like Flygon and Absol, and brought so many great mechanics into the game that still serve a great purpose.

Sinnoh - I'm not sure where it stands on the map, but it's a world just a bit different from our own, that focuses a lot on the origins of itself, and thus has a more aged heir to it. Pokemon like Torterra, and myths surrounding many Pokemon like Lucario speak to the reservoir of mythology of Sinnoh and how as a nation, they hold on to it dearly.

Unova was a very modern world, so of course its Pokemon reflect this. Being based off America, (or at least, portions of it, I believe) it has a lot of what the U.S. of A has to offer; cutting-edge technology, twisted ideals and hidden truths in leaders, but also the good. (Being too cynical to speak, I sat here for three minutes thinking of what good there is in Unova that reflects the USA and could come up with nothing, but I digress.) I suppose the main character and N's innocent love of Pokemon reflects the innocence of childhood that the USA seems to be losing.

To me, it's no surprise that the Pokemon in an entirely new region are going to look a bit odd - they're exotic! In fact, I hope they change designs drastically, because I love seeing what Nintendo and Game Freak come up with, how they apply it, and what roles these creatures will take on. However, it's when we start getting flying buttock Pokemon that soar through the air at high speeds, snatching small birds in its anus that I draw the line. Not sure where that came from, but I think my point is relatively clear; things change, and as long as some actual thought is put in to it, I'm all for it.
 

Enjolras

Master of the House
No, Pokemon always look like Pokemon. That's why they are called Pokemon.
 

Rayze Darr

Snubbull Supporter
Unova was a very modern world, so of course its Pokemon reflect this. Being based off America, (or at least, portions of it, I believe) it has a lot of what the U.S. of A has to offer; cutting-edge technology, twisted ideals and hidden truths in leaders, but also the good. (Being too cynical to speak, I sat here for three minutes thinking of what good there is in Unova that reflects the USA and could come up with nothing, but I digress.) I suppose the main character and N's innocent love of Pokemon reflects the innocence of childhood that the USA seems to be losing.

I think you've basically got it. The part about the "hidden truths in leaders" concerns me, that you think only America has corrupt politicians, but I'm not going to make this a regional/political debate. Unova is based off of the United States, which is a major world power that rose VERY recently in history, and as such was developed quickly and with improving technology as a major factor to its growth. An entire nation born and raised in modernization, big cities, and technology.

Giratina ally has some good points overall. Different areas of the world yield different plants and animals in real life as well, so it makes sense that they'd yield different looking Pokemon. Saying things like "Thundurus doesn't look like a Pokemon!" is like saying "The blobfish doesn't look like an animal!" The word "Pokemon" is formed by its members, its members are not formed by its name. If it's decreed a Pokemon, then it, by definition, looks like a Pokemon - itself.

There's always the whole "New Pokemon look like Neopets/Digimon" debate, but to be fair, all three franchises are virtually identical in premise: a world where fantastical creatures, imbued with elemental or magical powers, rule in place of or alongside real-world animals. With such similar premises, it makes sense that similar designs will appear. Heck, I went back to Neopets for the first time in years last October, and my first thought on some of the new ones was "wow, these new Neopets look like Pokemon!"
 

☭Azimuth_055☣

Thou enraged?
I wouldn't think so. Ever since, Pokémon are Pokémon and are still Pokémon, regardless of how good or bad they look like.
 

nathandg0924

Back in the meantime
To be honest here, yes and no. I'm surprised when I saw some of the newer Pokes from each generation and some of them (especially from gen 5) don't look Pokemon-ish and admittedly look like they're from another game or anime series, though there are a good number of them that look like they are. I really should not judge some of them for their appearance really because they will be Pokes and always will be.
- Nate the;448;
 

lovepika

Pika The Espeon
In my opinion some Pokémon indeed don't really look like Pokémon anymore. My first major disappointment were gen 4 evolutions of previous gen pokemon, namely Togekiss, Electivire and Magmortar, which kinda look like a big fat version of their pre-evolution. And then some newer ones (and by that I don't just mean gen 6) that look more 'babylike' - you know, lack of epicness.

If it's true what i've heard that Satoshi was only there with the first two generations, that would explain everything I guess, from different styled pokemon to anime not being as good as it used to be...
 
I dont think that any of us can say what a pokemon is/looks like. If gamfreak or whatever individual designs a pokemon and we are able to legitimately use it in games, it is a pokemon. Of course new generation 5/6 pokemon wont look the same as the geberation 1 pokemon as they are new and they are different pokemon. Its just natural that people think that some new pokemon dont look like pokemon but then they get used to them.
 

Giratina ally

2013 SF #401
I think you've basically got it. The part about the "hidden truths in leaders" concerns me, that you think only America has corrupt politicians, but I'm not going to make this a regional/political debate. Unova is based off of the United States, which is a major world power that rose VERY recently in history, and as such was developed quickly and with improving technology as a major factor to its growth. An entire nation born and raised in modernization, big cities, and technology.

Giratina ally has some good points overall. Different areas of the world yield different plants and animals in real life as well, so it makes sense that they'd yield different looking Pokemon. Saying things like "Thundurus doesn't look like a Pokemon!" is like saying "The blobfish doesn't look like an animal!" The word "Pokemon" is formed by its members, its members are not formed by its name. If it's decreed a Pokemon, then it, by definition, looks like a Pokemon - itself.

There's always the whole "New Pokemon look like Neopets/Digimon" debate, but to be fair, all three franchises are virtually identical in premise: a world where fantastical creatures, imbued with elemental or magical powers, rule in place of or alongside real-world animals. With such similar premises, it makes sense that similar designs will appear. Heck, I went back to Neopets for the first time in years last October, and my first thought on some of the new ones was "wow, these new Neopets look like Pokemon!"

Thank you for your consideration. I hate to nitpick, but I worded some of my Unovian points very wrongly, and I apologize. What I meant was that in an ever chnaging world, childhood innocence is becoming quite the rarity, at least for me.
 
I wish pokemon looked more anatomically identical to their animal counterparts and not cartoonish

e.g Pachirisu is suppose to be a squirrel
Chillarmy is suppose to be a chinchilla
Dragonite looks like a retarded dinosaur not a dragon

There is no default pokemon look so they are fine
 

Giratina ally

2013 SF #401
I wish pokemon looked more anatomically identical to their animal counterparts and not cartoonish

e.g Pachirisu is suppose to be a squirrel
Chillarmy is suppose to be a chinchilla
Dragonite looks like a retarded dinosaur not a dragon

I don't see why Pokemon should be much different. A franchise directed towrds children is obviously not about to have a lifelike Frillish, or Dusknoir, or anything gruesome, because they need the E rating to sell these games and books to children. Pokemon is often seen as controversial enough as-is, why have a demonic life-sucking Litwick when we could have a cute one?

I understand that you wish to see Pokemon designs be as kickarse as they are in your mind, but that's just it - it's your mind. Why would a franchise as large as Pokemon tailor their designs to suit YOUR liking, when they could go on what they believe works?
 

sandy ketchum

Well-Known Member
There is a group of people that design a pokemon for each gen. The first gen consisted a group of 4 People which consisted of ken sugimori. ken would draw the design and they would then refine the art. Although tajiri didnt work in the design section the pokemons design was approved by him and he made some modifications if necessary based on the game design and other aspects. In the third gen Junichi masuda took over satoshis role and they hired a lot of people to design pokes so that is probably why the third gen pokes were different from the previous gen. The fourth gen was designed by a group of 13 people which consisted of only 3 people from the first gen and shigeki morimoto who included mew stopped working by then. So that could be the reason that the pokemon in the new gen are different. Satoshi hasnt worked in the games and new and lots of designers put different designs. So the new gen has lots of awkward designs. Every gen has its greatly designed pokemon and some poor design.
 

Ditto B1tch

Well-Known Member
I don't think that Pokemons are looking less than Pokemons, I think that they're looking more and more with animals. Pokemons have looking more with animals than monsters, so the designers are forced to decorate them with colorful spots and stripes. Sometimes I miss hard-to-identify-animal Pokemons like the family of Bulbasaur, Jigglypuff, Nidoran, Golem, Onix, Lickitung, Electabuzz, Magmar, Staryu, Tangela, Gligar, Clefairy, Chansey, Forretress, Shuckle, and a few others.
 

2rsa

Shiny Hunter
Gen 1 Pokemon were less creative, yet most people say the new generation is uncreative. I'm not saying they were bad. We all have good memories with gen 1 Pokemon and that won't change, But it's not right to judge the new Pokes based on the first gen ones.
 

RaZoR LeAf

Night Terror
I wish pokemon looked more anatomically identical to their animal counterparts and not cartoonish

e.g Pachirisu is suppose to be a squirrel
Chillarmy is suppose to be a chinchilla
Dragonite looks like a retarded dinosaur not a dragon

There is no default pokemon look so they are fine

What, pray tell, is considered anatomically correct for a dragon?
 

Giratina ally

2013 SF #401

Wouldn't it be boring if all dragons had the same basic structure? Rayquaza and Giratina for instance, are both VERY different Pokemon born of VERY different circumstances, but because they are dragons, they must have four legs, a tail, and wings? I'm sorry, but I'd become so bored of Dragons if they all looked so similar. Besides, Hydreigon, Haxorus, Dialga, and Garchomp all look like dragons, but don't follow your idea of a basic dragonal structure.

In other words, different dragons look different for different reasons, but it doesn't make them any more or less dragon.
 

blaze boy

Aka SamuraiDon

Wings check, Claw check, Horn check, Tail check, scales check, bonus point for green being shiny check.

It seems that Dragonite actually is "anatomically" correct for a dragon.
 
Last edited:
Top