Gen V's legacy on the series

[Endolise]

My main argument was about the shape, not the material it was made from. My table is made from wood, a natural material, but can you go to the wild and find a nature grown or made table? If Vaniluxe was created by humans, I'd have no problems with it.

Now, hang on. Let me get this straight. You're judging the plausibility of the existence of a magical creature in a fictional world based on whether or not something that looks like it can be found naturally in the real world? You've already suspended your disbelief enough so that you can accept the existence of animals with superpowers that people seal into palm-sized balls for transport and proceed to pit against other magical animals for a competitive sport; how exactly is "one of those magical creatures is composed of ice and snow and happens to resemble the stuff that I call ice cream" too much for your suspension of disbelief to handle? I mean, you do realize that we're talking about a world in which the universe was said to have been shaped by a mystical llama, right?

 

[Hilda]

Now, hang on. Let me get this straight. You're judging the plausibility of the existence of a magical creature in a fictional world based on whether or not something that looks like it can be found naturally in the real world? I mean, you've already suspended your disbelief enough so that you can accept the existence of animals with superpowers that people seal into palm-sized balls for transport and proceed to pit against other magical animals for a competitive sport; how exactly does "one of those magical creatures is composed of ice and snow and happens to resemble the stuff that I call ice cream" manage to destabilize the rationality of said fictional world?

Which brings us back to one of the first things I said about connotation. Why not make a sock pokémon? or an under-wear pokémon? I noticed that ''they're fictional anyway'' is the serebii way to say ''I don't have a productive reply for that, so I am just going to give fiction as an excuse''. I said garbodor was ok, didn't I? It's just putting gogly eyes on an ice- cream..

 

[Endolise]

Which brings us back to one of the first things I said about connotation. Why not make a sock pokémon? or an under-wear pokémon? I noticed that ''they're fictional anyway'' is the serebii way to say ''I don't have a productive reply for that, so I am just going to give fiction as an excuse''.

No, my point is that by playing Pokemon and by enjoying a lot of other Pokemon designs, you're already establishing that you can accept a world in which fire-breathing dragons and electric mice are real and are used by humans to compete against other similar creatures. It just seems silly to me that just because you can't find a natural ice cream cone in our world (although I'd bet that you can damn sure find an icicle caked in snow in the real world, which would be more appropriate for a Vanillite comparison anyway since that's what it is, albeit with a slightly exaggerated design (but then, most Pokemon have those)), it suddenly becomes too much for you to consider Vanillite as an "appropriate" creature for the setting.

 

[Super-Staff]

The thing I'll remember this Gen most for is the storyline. Diamond/Pearl began the trend of having more in-depth stories in these games, but Black/White perfected it, in my opinion.

 

[dirkac]

Hum, the only reason I would remember this gen is because the music started to sound horrible in BW, and then godly in B2W2

Dream World did absolutely nothing other than expand on an already existing concept.

 

[Ausgirl]

Hum, the only reason I would remember this gen is because the music started to sound horrible in BW, and then godly in B2W2

Dream World did absolutely nothing other than expand on an already existing concept.

That's not true. It added new abilities which meant that previous crappy pokemon like Nintetales was actually usuable in the competitive gameplay.

It particularly made weather more popular.

Gone are the days of stall and trick teams and hello rain and sandstorm teams.

 

[dirkac]

That's not true. It added new abilities which meant that previous crappy pokemon like Nintetales was actually usuable in the competitive gameplay.

It particularly made weather more popular.

Gone are the days of stall and trick teams and hello rain and sandstorm teams.

You just prove my statement in that it expanded on an already existing co0ncept. Abilities.

And any Pokémon was already usable in competetive gameplay, and Ninetails or any other Pokémon for that fact are `crappy`.

 

[Locormus]

I think storyline will be the major thing Gen 5 leaves. It was an interesting story that really made sense, with great motive, and great reasoning, and really made people think about Pokemon.

Honestly, it might've just been me, but I thought it dwindled too much.. The gymquest was hurt by the storyline.. No gap between Nimbasa and Driftveil or whatever really annoyed me.. I had two badges in two hours of playing the game. I liked the Dragonspiral Tower bit of the game, I had flashbacks to days of old..

What bizarre definition of "retro" do you have, man? It won't even be five years old. It will barely even be a generation of consoles old.

I liked them, but I like most Pokemon games. Even DP aren't without their merits, even if I wasn't hugely enthused. I'm not really gonna miss most of the characters, though.

This... People talk about the great storyline, but honestly.. I've already forgotten about N, I've thought of Ghetsis a hurdle I just had to beat in order to get the story over with in White2.. Colress was just another mèh, troubled scientist, and I honestly thought that Cheren had the best go in that game.. Alder seemed stripped, everybody just seemed less then they were. And hence I couldn't care less about leaving these games empty when I transfer all my pokemon over to Gen6 when possible.

And lol.. Retro.. Had the same thoughts about that.. xD When a game becomes available to play on a smartphone, then it's retro..

 

[Spin Attaxx]

Now, hang on. Let me get this straight. You're judging the plausibility of the existence of a magical creature in a fictional world based on whether or not something that looks like it can be found naturally in the real world? You've already suspended your disbelief enough so that you can accept the existence of animals with superpowers that people seal into palm-sized balls for transport and proceed to pit against other magical animals for a competitive sport; how exactly is "one of those magical creatures is composed of ice and snow and happens to resemble the stuff that I call ice cream" too much for your suspension of disbelief to handle? I mean, you do realize that we're talking about a world in which the universe was said to have been shaped by a mystical llama, right?

This is coming from the same guy with an "all ghost dex entries are silly legends" policy?

 

[randomspot555]

Our topic is the 5th gen. Why do people feel the need to attack the first gen after something has been said about vanniluxe?

I wasn't "attack[ing]' anything to the first gen. But the person I quoted had the specific criticism of Vanillite because it is "ice cream". But we've had food-based Pokemon before, so why is "ice cream" an unacceptable concept for a Pokemon but "eggs" aren't.

To be fair, eggs are natural occurences, ice-cream is purposely shaped and made by humans to be a food.

As has been said, snow and ice are naturally occurring.

My main argument was about the shape, not the material it was made from. My table is made from wood, a natural material, but can you go to the wild and find a nature grown or made table? If Vaniluxe was created by humans, I'd have no problems with it.

At no point in time has Pokemon solely been based on "real world". If you want to see "real world", put down the video game system and go outside. Otherwise, please tell me what "real world" equivalents are of Mewtwo, Porygon, and Muk are.

We've also had at least two tree-based Pokemon, Exeggcutor (Palm tree) and Sudowoodo (a branch).

Which brings us back to one of the first things I said about connotation. Why not make a sock pokémon? or an under-wear pokémon?

Please tell us what can and can't be a concept for a Pokemon, and why. Also, who gets to make these decisions?

It's just putting gogly eyes on an ice- cream..

Besides that it isn't ice cream, what is wrong with putting "gogly eyes" on it? Lots of Pokemon have those types of eyes. Exeggutor being one.

Again ,I just ask that people have the same standards instead of going "OH WELL IN GEN I OR WHATEVER ITS OKAY it just sux cuz Gen 5!!!"

 

[Flame Mistress]

This is coming from the same guy with an "all ghost dex entries are silly legends" policy?

Well, you can't call all Pokédex entries stupid, but can't dismiss all Pokédex entries as "silly legends", either. Some things are just more possible and probable than others.

 

[Hidden Power]

I wasn't "attack[ing]' anything to the first gen. But the person I quoted had the specific criticism of Vanillite because it is "ice cream". But we've had food-based Pokemon before, so why is "ice cream" an unacceptable concept for a Pokemon but "eggs" aren't.

As has been said, snow and ice are naturally occurring.

At no point in time has Pokemon solely been based on "real world". If you want to see "real world", put down the video game system and go outside. Otherwise, please tell me what "real world" equivalents are of Mewtwo, Porygon, and Muk are.

We've also had at least two tree-based Pokemon, Exeggcutor (Palm tree) and Sudowoodo (a branch).

Please tell us what can and can't be a concept for a Pokemon, and why. Also, who gets to make these decisions?

Besides that it isn't ice cream, what is wrong with putting "gogly eyes" on it? Lots of Pokemon have those types of eyes. Exeggutor being one.

Again ,I just ask that people have the same standards instead of going "OH WELL IN GEN I OR WHATEVER ITS OKAY it just sux cuz Gen 5!!!"

You're not going to win the war of "I dislike *insert common unpopular Pokemon name here*". If a said Pokemon is just not appealing to that many people, they won't just gain more appeal points because someone makes a direct feature-by-feature comparison with another supposedly similar Pokemon, or highlights how creative and never-seen-before these designs are (in the other thread).

It's artwork and design that we're talking about here; there will always be generally favorable or unfavorable designs.

And uh, as for what Gen V did well, for me it's the improved storyline and dialogue, and basically little tweaks here and there that improved the game experience without compromising on gameplay. Reusable TMs is one of the most helpful feature so far, since the TM inventory now acts as an armory to customize my Pokemon.

 

[Endolise]

This is coming from the same guy with an "all ghost dex entries are silly legends" policy?

Just because I don't believe everything the Pokedex says doesn't mean that it wasn't information that Game Freak thought about and put in. Someone still had to sit and think "well, it's made of ice and snow and that's why it looks like ice cream,"and then put that in the Pokedex. Call it a biological description, a myth, a conjecture; whatever. Whether or not I believe what the Pokedex says is irrelevant to the fact that the information was put in. Get it now?

 

[randomspot555]

You're not going to win the war of "I dislike *insert common unpopular Pokemon name here*". If a said Pokemon is just not appealing to that many people, they won't just gain more appeal points because someone makes a direct feature-by-feature comparison with another supposedly similar Pokemon, or highlights how creative and never-seen-before these designs are (in the other thread).

It's artwork and design that we're talking about here; there will always be generally favorable or unfavorable designs.

You might be talking "artwork and design", but the person I've been having this discussion with isn't. They've specifically cited it being "ice cream" and it not being "real world" based. These criticisms hold no true logic because that dismisses a wide variety of Pokemon that don't get nearly the whining and gnashing of teeth that Garbador and Vanillite get.

 

[MewForever]

I will remember it as a catastrophe and a near disaster, a continuation of Gen 4's stumble, and the Gen that kept me away from Pokemon for awhile. Hopefully I'll remember Gen 6 in a fonder light.

 

[Spin Attaxx]

Just because I don't believe everything the Pokedex says doesn't mean that it wasn't information that Game Freak thought about and put in. Someone still had to sit and think "well, it's made of ice and snow and that's why it looks like ice cream,"and then put that in the Pokedex. Call it a biological description, a myth, a conjecture; whatever. Whether or not I believe what the Pokedex says is irrelevant to the fact that the information was put in. Get it now?

Right. Gotcha.

 

[Hidden Power]

You might be talking "artwork and design", but the person I've been having this discussion with isn't. They've specifically cited it being "ice cream" and it not being "real world" based. These criticisms hold no true logic because that dismisses a wide variety of Pokemon that don't get nearly the whining and gnashing of teeth that Garbador and Vanillite get.

There isn't a true logic to begin with. If someone dislike Vanilluxe for being a man-made item you throw in the Magnemite counterargument. If someone dislikes Vanilluxe for being a food item you throw in the Exeggute counterargument. If someone dislike Vanilluxe for lacking creativity you throw in the Magneton/Dugtrio argument. If someone dislikes Vanilluxe without stating their reasoning you'll ask why, followed by the same routine as before. Your counterarguments aren't any more logical than theirs because you're trying to prove that there exist supposedly similar Pokemon that have been fairly popular and therefore that someone has no reason to dislike the Pokemon's design, when ultimately they are different in shapes, colors, themes resulting in varying degree of appeal. Eyes on eggs worked on more people than eyes on ice cream. Tough luck for Vanilluxe.

The "reasoning" people come up with to back up their personal opinion should just be taken with a pinch of salt.

EDIT: Made a bunch of grammatical mistakes.

 

[Arcamenel]

Reusable TMs. THANK YOU.

Also, sequels! Sure, they were stop-gappy, but sequels nonetheless!

Yes Reusable TMs. Nuff said.

 

[randomspot555]

There isn't a true logic to begin with. If someone dislike Vanilluxe for being a man-made item you throw in the Magnemite counterargument. If someone dislikes Vanilluxe for being a food item you throw in the Exeggute counterargument. If someone dislike Vanilluxe for lacking creativity you throw in the Magneton/Dugtrio argument. If someone dislikes Vanilluxe without stating their reasoning you'll ask why, followed by the same routine as before. Your counterarguments aren't any more logical than theirs because you're trying to prove that there exist supposedly similar Pokemon that have been fairly popular and therefore that someone has no reason to dislike the Pokemon's design, when ultimately they are different in shapes, colors, themes resulting in varying degree of appeal. Eyes on eggs worked on more people than eyes on ice cream. Tough luck for Vanilluxe.

The "reasoning" people come up with to back up their personal opinion should just be taken with a pinch of salt.

EDIT: Made a bunch of grammatical mistakes.

If you have problems with their reasoning, take it up with them. I too wish they'd just say they don't personally like it instead of trying to act like their opinion has some factual basis, but again, I'm not the one making these claims.

My arguments are logical on the basis of what these people I quoted claimed. I'm not saying anyone who hates Vanilluxe must hate any other Pokemon. But if [whatever] is disqualifying in someone's eyes, it only makes sense to apply it to everything. That is a very narrow argument and nothing more than that, and saying "well they're different shapes and stuff" is a rubbish statement to make because the person I quoted wasn't taking about Vanilluxe's shape.

As for "tough luck for Vanilluxe", I'd hardly consider a bunch of SPPF posters speaking for the entire fandom. Just because Vanilluxe and Garbador get irrational hate on the Internet doesn't mean the actual fandom has that as a common belief.

 

[jadebullet]

I think that this is relavent to the current discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYjji3H9TbM

On topic, I really enjoyed 5th gen. It had a very nice feel to it, and on first play through felt kind of like first gen, at least to me anyway. That being said, I hate Vanilluxe. It would have been fine if it was a single evolution, but 3 evolutions of it were a bit much. Hell, two evolutions would have been fine. I mean, Garbadore is fine to me, but if they would have added a third evolution, it probably would have been pretty bad. There wasn't really any need for the third evolution of the ice cream line. Also, I love how the first pokemon designed by an American is some crappy ice cream cone.

Also, I don't get the argument that is being made that it isn't ice cream. That's a pretty weak argument. Yes, it is made out of snow and ice, but it is in the shape of an ice cream cone, and its entire point is to be an ice cream cone. It is like saying a crayon drawing of an ice cream cone isn't an ice cream cone because it is made out of paper and colored wax. Or better yet, a snow sculpture of an ice cream cone isn't designed to be an ice cream cone because it is made out of snow.

In all seriousness though, pokemon based off of food products don't make much sense. (minus eggs because that actually has a point.) Not to overthink this too much, but evolutionarily(very very very loose use of the word, don't slam me for this.) it doesn't make much sense for an animal, shaped like a common food item, to survive. That being said, it it looked evil and vicious and its dex entry backed that up, it would make more sense due to it luring people in to eat them or something, but its not.