Should we judge a Pokémon by its appearance?

[lightspeed]

Should we judge a Pokémon by its appearance?

Should we judge a pokemon by its appearance?

For myself, I judge pokemon mainly by their stats and their movepool but sometimes I do judge them by their appearance, I just couldn't help it.
What about you?

 

[Blizzard]

Appearance. I dont give a toss about stats etc, hence my love for Pokemon Contests.

 

[water types rule]

Oh Yeah. I do that all the time, that's part of the reason Kingdra is my favorite Pokemon.

 

[SHUCKLE MAN]

Judging Pokemon by appearance is very silly imo. I know that the game boy games are easy and there is no AI, but, this is why Meganium and such get downgraded so much. Stats, movepool, ability, etc. mean EVERYTHING about a Pokemon. Looks mean NOTHING about a Pokemon. You do not need to be that clever to know that.

 

[Blaze Dragon]

A Pokemon shall be judged by its stats and movepool, not by it´s appearance
(but if you like a Pokemon you can use it)

 

[Zero Nexus]

I dont give a toss about stats

me niether,i judge all pokemon by their appearance,thats why i love dusclops so much,because its cute!(well,sort of...)

 

[Metal Force]

Well most of the time NO cuz I judge'em by it's states & moves.

 

[Moonlight.]

Most Pokemon I liked tend to have DESCENT stats, look cool in my eyes and are usually ignored. So, yeah, appearance is a factor.

Of course, every Pokemon looks good to someone. Some people that I think look cool aren't exactly cute OR tough-looking.

 

[ShiningScizor]

Apperance eh...U should just judge Pokemon by the ones you like
*hint hint* Scizor and Umbreon my favs...
U should just build your team by your likes and dislikes...
Example....
I nvr liked Magmar...he looks odd or Claydol....

 

[AJ Flibble]

No, not always, but it can help. By looking at say, Rhydon or Machamp, it's perfectly obvious that they are going to be offensively strong, and by looking at Caterpie, you can tell it's weak. However, Charizard looks strong as an overrated dragon, but it's not as good as it looks (and it looks pretty bad IMO). But then, something like Clefable is actually quite a force to reckon with, despite me never using one before. Same with Raticate (Super Fang ftw!).

 

[Metal Force]

No, not always, but it can help. By looking at say, Rhydon or Machamp, it's perfectly obvious that they are going to be offensively strong, and by looking at Caterpie, you can tell it's weak. However, Charizard looks strong as an overrated dragon, but it's not as good as it looks (and it looks pretty bad IMO). But then, something like Clefable is actually quite a force to reckon with, despite me never using one before. Same with Raticate (Super Fang ftw!).

Yeh your right cuz some pokes look weak or small but actully they're strong.

 

[Gravy]

It depends I suppose. I mean, some of the pokémon that I think look like total crap (ie. Metagross, Salamence, Starmie) are pretty much considered to be be the cream of the crop in multiplayer battling. But unfortunatly, if you want to win you have to use things like that to do so. So in that scenario, no. Appearence really doesn't have any place when you're reading into competative battling.

But on the other hand, I usually just like a pokémon for what it looks like, or if the description of it's characteristics, behavior and lifestyle interests me. Battling is fun and all, but just liking something because it can do well against an opponent? How boring :/

 

[Shiney_Hunter_Tauros_Rule]

I pick between the two.
My best pokemon many consider awful but I have had the time and effort to raise a level 100 Tauros

 

[Evanji Axu]

Hell yes. Those who judge Pokemon only by stats and movepools sicken me. Among my favorites are the visually appealing but inferior in battle: the adorable Corsola, Skitty and Natu, elegant Mightyena, athletic Pidgeotto, and lovably goofy Swalot. I hate Metagross and Salamence (I trained one and wasted a perfectly good Earthquake TM on her) because they look like they fell outta someone's a*s. I don't give a damn how good they are in battle.

 

[Musical Mayhem]

I go on mostly appearence. I love those cute little baby Pokemon!

 

[intergalactic platypus]

I prefer to use pokemon that appeal to me; which is why I loathe Salamence, Slaking, Skarmory and others no matter how powerful they are

 

[Torchic23]

I don't think we should judge Pokemon like that. Sure, I love cute and cool Pokemon, but I still love all the others. An example, everyone hates poor Luvdisc because it's a heart and/or it's too simple looking. My friend has a level 100 Luvdisc that she kicks butt with. Luvdisc aren't that bad, I think they're cute ^^

 

[Volteon]

Neither, hummm, both...
We should look pokémon´s positive and negative side, some pokémon has good stats and look terrible (Quaza?) and some others has terrible stats and look awesome, (Corsola?). We mustn´t see just the negative side (most of the times are the stats), then the cute coral and the almighty lunatone would be nothing ;_;

Althougth there are great looking pokémon that are great battlers (Jolt [!])

 

[[Kingdra]]

I do stats movepools and battle value but i like good looking pokemon too

 

[Chibi Pika]

Generally, only non-competitive-battlers like Pokemon for their looks. Maybe that's just why I can't comprehend the concept of never liking a Pokemon based upon what it looks like. It seems impossible for anyone, even the most hardcore battler, to not have at least one Pokemon that just plain appeals to them, otherwise they obviously really don't like Pokemon much. =/

Then again, that just might be my excuse seeing as I'm horrible at battling. (my entire team is sweepers because I'm just an aggressive player by nature.) I get quite frustrated when I insult a Pokemon that looks ugly as hell, and then everyone comes to its rescue saying how it's soooooooo good.

One of the main reasons why I use Lugia so much. It's my favorite Pokemon, therefore I use it. Although I do like it when a Pokemon I like happens to be a good battler too.

~Chibi~;249;<?>;rukario;