Inanimate Pokemon

[Tonguetyd]

Well since apparently nobody likes pokemon based on inanimate objects, so me, being the great mastermind I am, decided to make a list of them for all types.
NOTE: Organic "objects" like plants or barnacles will not be considered "inanimate".

Normal: 6 (Porygon, Porygon2, Porygon-Z, Castform, Regigigas, Ditto)

Fire: 6 (Rotom, Litwick, Lampent, Chandelure, Heatran, Castform)

Fighting: 0

Water: 2 (Castform, Rotom)

Flying: 4 (Drifloon, Drifblim, Rotom, Sigilyph)

Grass: 1 (Rotom)

Poison: 8 (Grimer, Muk, Koffing, Weezing, Gulpin, Swalot, Trubbish, Garbodor)

Electric: 6 (Voltorb, Electrode, Magnemite, Magneton, Magnezone, Rotom)

Ground: 6 (Baltoy, Claydol, Golett, Golurk, Geodude, Graveler)

Psychic: 18 (Baltoy, Claydol, Unown, Wobbuffet, Chimecho, Chingling, Sigilyph, Lunatone, Solrock, Beldum, Metang, Metagross, Bronzor, Bronzong, Solosis, Duosion, Reuniclus, Wynaut)

Rock: 10 (Nosepass, Regirock, Roggenrola, Boldore, Gigalith, Geodude, Graveler, Lunatone, Solrock, Probopass)

Ice: 9 (Castform, Vanillite, Vanillish, Vanilluxe, Cryogonal, Bergmite, Regice, Glalie)

Bug: 1 (Shedinja)

Dragon: 0

Ghost: 15 (Shuppet, Cofagrigus, Drifloon, Drifblim, Litwick, Lampent, Chandelure, Shedinja, Rotom, Golett, Golurk, Honedge, Doublade, Aegislash, Banette)

Dark: 0

Steel: 18 (Registeel, Klink, Klang, Klinklang, Beldum, Metang, Metagross, Bronzor, Bronzong, Honedge, Doublade, Aegislash, Klefki, Magnemite, Magneton, Magnezone, Probopass, Heatran)

Fairy: 1 (Klefki)

So that's the list.
If someone disagrees, please inform me.

 

[dirkac]

Freaking yes I love these they're my favourite sub-classification of Pokémon.

Although, should Diglett, Dugtrio (being based upon the Whack-A-Mole, not the actual Moles, although I guess it could be interpreted in either way), Snorunt (hat/igloo), and Glalie (giant hailstone/igloo/mask) be included in this?



And I guess if you really want to stretch the Igglybuff line as well because balloons but eh, not very much there.




Regardless, I quite like them, they tend to be rather innovative, and I quite like their designs and inspiration concepts, especially Klefki's.

 

[Ditto B1tch]

Pokemon are monsters. no need to be totally based on animals, otherwise we could name then Pokeanimals.

 

[SerenaForTheWin]

can we add swirlix for fairy ( cotton candy is not considered a living thing imho)

and ghost type are all inanimated since they are not living things to be exact.

 

[Blaze The Movie Fan]

I think Pokémon based on inanimate objects look cool.

I mean who doesn't like a huge sword you don't wanna mess with? (Aegislash)

I also like a dangerous ice cream that's not a good idea to eat. (Vanilluxe)

People who dislike these kinds of Pokémon dislike them because they look silly. I disagree with that, to me they are inanimate objects that are alive which you don't wanna mess with at all, and that makes them scary which is cool.

 

[Tonguetyd]

can we add swirlix for fairy ( cotton candy is not considered a living thing imho)

and ghost type are all inanimated since they are not living things to be exact.

Well Swirlix has several dog-like features and Ghosts are dead living things.

Although, should Diglett, Dugtrio (being based upon the Whack-A-Mole, not the actual Moles, although I guess it could be interpreted in either way), Snorunt (hat/igloo), and Glalie (giant hailstone/igloo/mask) be included in this?

I considered those, but I decided against it as Diglett and Dugtrio still have some mole-like features, such as their claws.
Snorunt apparently is a japanese ice spirit, but Glalie's going on the list.

Pokemon are monsters. no need to be totally based on animals, otherwise we could name then Pokeanimals.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I have nothing against pokemon designed after objects.

 

[Hexin' Wishes]

I'd disagree about the Chansey line. I've always felt they looked reptilian or like strange rotund naked mole rats but aside from that, they're not just based on "egg". They're more so based on a concept. Which is "inanimate" but not an "inanimate object".

And while Hitmontop has the head of a top, it's not like humans can't spin on their head. Breakdancers do it all the time.

Grass: 0

Rotom

 

[Blaze The Movie Fan]

I also would like to know how exactly the Blissey evolutionary line are inanimate objects. They don't look like ones to me.

 

[Dragonair7]

You forgot about Banette, which is based on a doll that came to life...

 

[Kung-Fu Weasel]

Bonsly and Sudowoodo, living stones just like Geodude & co

 

[Endolise]

can we add swirlix for fairy ( cotton candy is not considered a living thing imho)

True, although like the Vanillite line, Swirlix is not literally the food that it resembles. Vanillite is an icicle cloaked in snow, and Swirlix is a dog with sticky fur.

 

[Hidden Power]

NOTE: Organic "objects" like plants or barnacles will not be considered "inanimate".

Pokemon are monsters. no need to be totally based on animals, otherwise we could name then Pokeanimals.

People who dislike these kinds of Pokémon dislike them because they look silly. I disagree with that, to me they are inanimate objects that are alive which you don't wanna mess with at all, and that makes them scary which is cool.

I think there's some sweeping statements being made here.

1. I don't agree that every Pokemon based off inanimate objects are inherently bad designs. However, I don't agree that every Pokemon based off inanimate objects are the greatest things that ever happened to the franchise. If you're on either side of the above I would think that your opinion is as biased as anyone's.
   
3. Just because a Pokemon is based off inanimate objects doesn't mean it's 'inorganic'. What I look for is how Game Freak can turn something seemingly inorganic into the reverse, as well as patterns within the evolutionary concept. Take metagross for example. It's inorganic, inanimate, but the fusion of sentient little droids to form larger forms that retains aspects of its subunit feels organic, and you can see a well-defined pattern across the evolutionary line.
   
5. Much of how desirable a Pokemon is depends on how 'cool' it looks, which is rather subjective. But personally I can appreciate a Pokemon that is meant to look like what they're meant to look like, whether it's cute, intimidating, graceful, or mysterious, rather than something that I don't/can't feel strongly about.
   
7. Additive aspect is found in practically every design. Bigger, taller, extra head/tail/limbs, multiple main body. I don't think it's fair to use this to criticize certain Pokemon.

With these points in mind, I personally think that:

• Metagross line (fusion design) > Klinklang line (additive design slightly lacking distinction between stages) > Magnezone line (lost in translation)
• Muk line (embodiment of liquid state poison) = Wheezing line (embodiment of gaseous state poison > Garbodor line (trash golem/monster without the bag would be a better embodiment of solid state poison) > Swalot line (random)
• Slurpuff line (food item in question is more subtle) > Vanilluxe line (food item in question is in your face)
• Golurk line = Cofagrigus line (cool-looking version of ancient relic-based idea) > Claydol line (not-so-cool looking version of ancient relic-based idea)
• Avalugg line (ice shaped to look like a beast) > Glalie line (inconsistent design) = Cryogonal (single stage, no observable pattern)
• Gigalith line (better consistency) > Golem line (random)
• Chandelure line = Drifblim line = Rotom forme (closely related class of different items) > Aegislash line by a little (no idea why a sword and shield beats two swords)

The rest are either neutral and/or forgettable to me.

 

[Tonguetyd]

Bonsly and Sudowoodo, living stones just like Geodude & co

Fossilized trees.

On the other hand, Banette and Rotom were added and Happiny, Chansey, Blissey and Hitmontop were removed.

Just because a Pokemon is based off inanimate objects doesn't mean it's 'inorganic'. What I look for is how Game Freak can turn something seemingly inorganic into the reverse, as well as patterns within the evolutionary concept. Take metagross for example. It's inorganic, inanimate, but the fusion of sentient little droids to form larger forms that retains aspects of its subunit feels organic, and you can see a well-defined pattern across the evolutionary line.

Indeed, but the "organic" aspect I was referring to was about what the Pokemon in question were based on.

Swalot line (random).

Stomaches. Yup.

Aegislash line by a little (no idea why a sword and shield beats two swords)

Should you carry two swords, blocking an incoming blow will be difficult.
With a shield, not so much.

 

[Kung-Fu Weasel]

Fossilized trees.

On the other hand, Banette and Rotom were added and Happiny, Chansey, Blissey and Hitmontop were removed.

The Sudowoodo line is based on mimics though , not fossilized trees.

 

[Tonguetyd]

The Sudowoodo line is based on mimics though , not fossilized trees.

Could you elaborate on "Mimic"?

 

[Kung-Fu Weasel]

Could you elaborate on "Mimic"?

It's a stone trying to imitate a tree, just like monsters in many RPGs that is mimicking chests.

 

[Tonguetyd]

It's a stone trying to imitate a tree, just like monsters in many RPGs that is mimicking chests.]

Said monsters imitate chests succesfully because they look like chests.
They look like chests because they're based on chests.
The same can be said about Sudowoodo.

 

[Kung-Fu Weasel]

Said monsters imitate chests succesfully because they look like chests.
They look like chests because they're based on chests.
The same can be said about Sudowoodo.

I didn't think about it in that way, so I guess you're right.

 

[irv]

I don't understand what this thread is about LOL can someone explain?

 

[Ionasal.kkll.Preciel]

I don't understand what this thread is about LOL can someone explain?

We're making a list of pokemon based on objects rather than animals or plants.

Would the Gastly line count?