Hoo boy...
Silverwing;249;: LOOK! It's teh Kanto defender! Let's all pelt her with tomatoes!!! 8D
Zion;157;: *Throws Silverwing into a tomato truck.*
*Ahem.* I find it difficult to voice my opinions in a logical manner because quite simply, likings and opinions are just plain illogical no matter which way you look at it.
Now obviously the game and regions have been getting more fancy with cooja-er add ons and options and graphics and various other whatnots. As far as plotline, I have yet to see any "version" game that doesn't just take the precedent set by Kanto *coughtheyshouldausedthemangaplotlineforFr/Lg* and rehash it with a masquerade of originality. (Although if you expand upon Crystal and Emerald, there's your potential.)
As for the creatures themselves, it all depends on what you see as the heart of the games. A silly concept perhaps, but lets look at it. Kanto's goal was to take the typical creatures we know and equip them with special abilities--the makings of a world with familiar animals suddenly turned extraordinary. Johto took the works and added an extra zing through which the elements were manifested in their appearance, but unfortunately often resorted to cartoon-esque creatures that pushed the limit in order to attain "originality." And Hoenn allowed the creatures to no longer be restrained by reality or even by the general definition of what appears to be "living" with inorganic and fantastically complex creatures mixed between a rehash of old creations with so much extra fluff and add-ons that some of them looked like Nintendo was trying to see how much paint they could throw around.
But when you look at it deeper, two words keep coming up: complexity and originality. Two absurdly overrated concepts.
There are Pokemon that aren't very complex but have an unusual and original aspect about them such as Dunsparce, Gligar, Lugia, Typhlosion, Mewtwo, Blastiose, Venusaur, Slowbro, Exeggutor, Nidoking/Nidoqueen, Hypno, Lickitung, Scyther, Kabutops, Girafarig, Delibird, Breloom, Nosepass, Absol, Tropius, Unown, ect...
Less in number are the Pokemon that aren't very original, but have complex designs such as Walrein, Kyogre, Ho-oh, Swalot, Xatu, Beautifly, Seviper, Gyarados, ect...
And then there are Pokemon that have that rare look--something fantastic and detailed, yet not overdone or obvious, such as Raikou, Entei, Suicune, Lugia, Blaziken, Sceptile, Swampert, Ampharos, Tyranitar, Metagross, the Latis, Flygon, Magmar, Jirachi, Ludicolo, Exploud, Mawile, Deoxys, ect...
I really don't like a lot of those Pokemon up there, but I'm willing to admit that some of them do succeed in certain areas. People have an annoying tendency to take Pokemon they don't like and label them as uncreative or boring. And yes, I do realize that quite a few in the final list are Hoenn. Hoenn perfected the balance between original and complex, but not without crossing the line or betraying the general look of the series in other Pokemon.
But then, what is originality? Or obviousness, for that matter? Charizard is unoriginal because a fire-breathing dragon is, well, obvious. But how about something thast strikes me as unoriginal, like Walrein (Dewgong shares the unoriginality, yes, but Walrein has complexity going for him). An icy walrus. More obvious than a fire dragon? You might think most certainly not, but is it just because dragons are popular? Is popularity all that really determines originality? Walruses aren't the most widely liked creatures around, so does that make them more original than dragons? Let's try Ho-oh. A fiery phoenix. Kinda obvious eh? But complexity always seems to overwhelm (and often get mistaken) for originality. Originality in my opinion, is just something that makes you think "where the hell did they come up with that idea?"
Okay, I'll cut the rhetorics and move on.
Digimon have a certain "look" as do monsters from Yu-Gi-Oh. Digimon tend to be mechanical/robotic, and Yu-Gi-Oh monsters tend to have a crapload of incessant armor and frizzles and detail and such. Pokemon, on the other hand, have freedom of variety and no set standards. But look at the list of Pokemon that are original but not all that complex. Random pointless frills and whatnots don't make Pokemon original--the idea does. It's like what they always tell you in art class: when you're done, you're done...don't add anything that doesn't need to be there.
But then what are the limits on the idea? Popularity? Conventionality? I may not like Pokemon like the Regis and Claydol and such, but they're still within the reaches of the concept of "Pokemon." I'm just afraid that that boundary will be pushed in the pursuit of originality. When you get right down to it, the majority of Pokemon are animalistic. Is that a bad thing?
Pidgeot and Fearow are the mascots of the unoriginality club, so I'll pay them a visit. And we'll bring their cousin Swellow, who is spared from that. But wait--isn't Swellow just an ordinary Normal/Flying bird like them? But wait--it's blue with a white underside and red feet/tail tips and a yellow beak. So now color determines originality? oO (BTW, I like Swellow's look, but I just needed an example.) Color often determines complexity, and in pursuing false complexity, Game Freak sometimes just throws the paint bucket around. Other times, color is mixed with add-ons, but within reason to create the members of our third list up there.
So what am I getting at? Actually, I have no idea. I just felt like ranting incoherently. And I think some of my paragraphs contradicted others. ><
I like Kanto. No, I don't want all Pokemon to be boring and with a complete lack of complexity. But I don't want a bird that is just a bird to be labeled as unoriginal. We're getting spoiled. Back then, Pokemon WERE animals. Energy-based, but still animals. Each generation expands the definition of Pokemon, but to what extent?
I'll say this, though--Pokemon are alive, and that is something that will never change. Well, that and that a human in a fancy costume doesn't count as a monster *coughunlikeDigimonandYuGiOh* The thing I am dreading most is a Pokemon that is indeed a robot. Not just robotic-looking, or a non-animalistic creature that could still be considered living, cause there you have Registeel. I even like to think of Porygon as not having been truly man-made, but rather more energy-unstable than other Pokemon, and therefore able to move through cyberspace. And how about Geodude? Rocks aren't alive, yet Geodude is. I don't mind Pokemon that resemble unliving things, because they themselves, are still living, no matter how you look at it.
Hoenn held up that standard. It may have challenged it aesthetically, but it narrowly avoided breaking it. So far, the Fourth generation has, as well.
Note the "so far".
~Chibi~;249;;rukario;
