Were Pokemon designs really better back during Gen 1-3?

[ShiningKnightXY]

I think this is a terrible argument because there are such things a technical limitations. If they had made Gen I Pokemon designs too complex, they wouldn't have carried over to Gameboy sprites that well since the sprites were smaller and couldn't handle as many colours. Just look at Molres' RGBY sprites to see what I mean. Moltres isn't what I'd call a "complex" Pokemon, but the sprites still are a horrid representation of it. Just... look at this.

I think Game Freak understood how some of the sprites ended up too, some sprites were completely altered as generations passed. So the Gen I argument on simplicity is invalid because the Pokemon from Gen I have constantly been changing graphical quality. Yes I will admit that if you compare legendaries such as Giratina to earlier Pokemon it will appear that Giratina is "superior" in design, but one has to understand that all Pokemon are all still mostly developed by Game Freak alone each generation. With the increase in Game Freak's graphical designs from Gen to Gen, they were able to make more "advanced" new Pokemon sprites with more increased details than their predecessors.

 

[Orithan]

My answer is a straight out "no". I was raised on pokemon since Gen I and I can say the designs have not changed for the worse after Gen III, they only changed. I actually prefer the later gens over the earlier gens in terms of pokemon design. Each generation, except maybe Gens II and VI, had their fair share of bad designs. Gen VI had excellent pokemon design all round and is the strongest in terms of design, with only Aromatisse having a bad design, whereas Gen II had the weakest lineup of pokemon design IMO.

 

[PokemonNation2000]

I agree that Pokemon designs were better back then (2>1>3>5>4=6), because the limitations allowed them to work with simple concepts, so there was little room for designs that were either too complex or had unnecessary markings, spots, etc. (see: Excadrill. It's a cool Pokemon, but I think it would look better without the red markings). There are some exceptions, but for the most part, older Pokemon were better designed. Without the limits of the older games, the designers have been allowed to draw whatever they want, which is good, but it means certain designs lose simplicity.

After checking out some RB-style sprites for newer Pokemon, however, I do think some older Pokemon benefited from the old sprite style.

Yeah, I couldn't have said it any better myself, and that's exactly how I rank the designs.

While I definitely prefer the newer games when it comes to Pokemon by far, I do think the older designs for Pokemon were much simpler and it's something I do miss sometimes. I mean, sure some older designs were bad (e.g. Grimer, Voltorb, Magnemite, Jynx), but overall most of them had this really unique, almost very distinct feeling to them I loved. I liked most of Gen V's designs for Pokemon, but I hated most of Gen IV's (except for ones like Buizel, for instance), and I'm not too thrilled about Gen VI's (I do LOVE some like Goodra, for example, though). I preferred the more simplistic take on them over the more complex ones we have now, more or less, for the most part.

 

[octoboy]

I honestly think that the pokémon designers are getting more creative, not less with their designs. Now, some people might make the argument that in later generations, the designs became increasingly more "reaching", which in a way could be true. The earlier generations used a lot of the most obvious animals as inspiration and left the later designs to need to be inspired by more obscure things. In my mind though, that caused the designers to think outside the box, which led to an increase of creativity and novelty in the later designs.

The earlier gen designs tended to be a lot more simple and casual in terms of their designs, which from what I can see a lot of people really liked about it. In a way this simplicity did have an elegance to it, but I'm honestly not against the increase in complex designs with multiple-faceted references to them. For example, comparing the first fairy pokémon to one of the later ones, clefairy doesn't seem to be based on anything. Neither does jigglypuff, really. Pretty much there's no story behind them; pretty much what you see is what you get. Compare that to a later one like spritzee. A seamless blend of masquerade ball dancer, plague doctor all hinging on their association with aromas and perfume. It seems likely a whole lot more thought went into designing this pokémon than the aforementioned two. And in my mind, both kinds of designs have positive aspects. One has a design which draws rich inspiration from quite a few things which makes it really cool to realize all the thought which went into it. The other seemed to be designed with little thought at all resulting in an unmistakable look which makes for a very original, iconic character design.

One thing that makes the later generations admirable that the earlier ones don't have is the themed feel the later ones had. The first four gens pretty much had were "anything goes" in terms of design and didn't have much of an obvious feel to them design wise. In the latter generations, the designers based the regions on foreign areas and it really shows with the pokémons' designs. So many of the 5th gen pokémon were obviously created with the urban feel of NY in mind, modelled after common sights in American cities right down to the super common pokémon (the common bird was a pigeon, a well-known city bird, and watchog had reflector stripes like a construction worker's safety vest). And Kalos had a pretty neat, distinctive French feel as well with pokémon like furfrou and again, spritzee. I know not everyone liked this about the later games, but to me it's interesting what ideas can come of templates like this to give a generation a certain feel to it.

Except that none of the three members of the torchic line have any consistent eye design, Blaziken ignored the 3-feather head crest and beak that was found on both of its pre-evolutions, and the color scheme is a train-wreck. The only feature left is the zig-zag pattern found on the torso region. They have their individual redeeming quality, and Blaziken has the coolest body structure and posture among the bipedal fighting type, but as a evolution line? Terrible transition.

I wouldn't say the earlier generation evolution lines always had seamless transition. Wartortle's prominent ears and long tails shrink down to stubs after it becomes blastoise while golem not only has a completely different face from graveler, but it's actually lost entire limbs upon evolving. Not to mention the veno line. The thing starts out as a butterfree lookalike and ends up with a face more like paras than anything else and no features from its previous stage at all.

I don't say that to cut the first gen down like a tall poppy, though some people might. I mainly mean to point out that many of the things people put down later generations for aren't so new. I guess a big issue is that when people first join a franchise they mainly just accept most things about it whereas new additions will be met with a critical eye and have the most easy targets claimed to be a sign of decay even if they aren't actually exclusive to the latest instalment.

 

[turtwigging_out]

Every Gen has had its' bad/unmemorable designs...

Gen 2) Sunflora
Gen 5) Most of them Vanillite line/Klink line

However there have been many great designs...

Sunflora!? Whut, I love that guy! And Gen V was the most imaginative line so far imo.

 

[turtwigging_out]

Now look at Gen III's Masquerain, Breloom, Hariyama, Medicham, Manetric, Sharpedo, Grumpig, Cacturne and Glalie's family. Despite the fact that most of these have related members in each evolutionary line, you practically can't see any concept of growth. Others like Blaziken and Walrein went for the '3rd stage gone nuts' theme, totally ignoring any form of transitional gradient that is established by their prior stages (which of course extends to the likes of Samurott and Chesnaught).[/URL]

I don't think these would be the best examples... I'll give you Breloom, Sharpedo, and Glalie (maybe Manectric to an extent), but most of the others have a pretty easy concept of related-growth to recognise. Masquerain goes from a larval bug to a Mayfly-esque creature, something that occurs regularly in nature; Hariyama goes from fat little boy to big sumo wrestler; Medicham just gets legs a professional squat-lifter would envy; Grumpig gets legs and a size boost, Cacturne just gets tall and lanky... as for Walrein, I think that line has one of the most gradual changes of the 3rd Gen... Samurott is a big leap visually (though I don't think thematically) - Chesnaught isn't too odd given the middle stage's bulky nature is a metamorphosis/cocoon of sorts...

 

[Retro-Chaos X]

The amount of quality designed Pokemon has not changed - always some good, and some bad. Also OP I don't have a clue why you say 1-3 - people say Gen II was last good designed mainly, hence not many people liked Gen III at the time.

 

[turtwigging_out]

The amount of quality designed Pokemon has not changed - always some good, and some bad. Also OP I don't have a clue why you say 1-3 - people say Gen II was last good designed mainly, hence not many people liked Gen III at the time.

I actually think Gen III is the worst - both for region layout and monster design: Swellow, Hariyama, Combusken, Swalot, Wingull, Kriketot, Lairon, the list goes on! If anything, this whole thread just proves that each Gen has those that praise them and those that decry them.

 

[Hidden Power]

I wouldn't say the earlier generation evolution lines always had seamless transition. Wartortle's prominent ears and long tails shrink down to stubs after it becomes blastoise while golem not only has a completely different face from graveler, but it's actually lost entire limbs upon evolving. Not to mention the veno line. The thing starts out as a butterfree lookalike and ends up with a face more like paras than anything else and no features from its previous stage at all.

I agree, which is why I've stated in an earlier post on this thread that I only like roughly 60-70% of Gen I's Pokemon family; 60% if I take evolutionary design into account, 70% if I treat each Pokemon as an entity on its own. In terms of the mothball to moth concept, I consider Volcarona's line to be a better executed design than Venomoth's line. You can see the little design elements that is present in both stages: the light blue eyes, tiny black arms, white furry 'mothball' covering a black-colored head which eventually grows out of it. Same goes for Gigalith's line over Golem's, if one consider the former to be Gen V's counterpart to the latter in Gen I.

I don't think these would be the best examples... I'll give you Breloom, Sharpedo, and Glalie (maybe Manectric to an extent), but most of the others have a pretty easy concept of related-growth to recognise. Masquerain goes from a larval bug to a Mayfly-esque creature, something that occurs regularly in nature; Hariyama goes from fat little boy to big sumo wrestler; Medicham just gets legs a professional squat-lifter would envy; Grumpig gets legs and a size boost, Cacturne just gets tall and lanky... as for Walrein, I think that line has one of the most gradual changes of the 3rd Gen... Samurott is a big leap visually (though I don't think thematically) - Chesnaught isn't too odd given the middle stage's bulky nature is a metamorphosis/cocoon of sorts...

I don't think anyone ever sees Surskit to be the larval stage of Masquerain. Once you use the term 'larval', the next natural progression would be the pupal stage, but that was not present in the line, making it a stretch to call it an evolutionary line based on metamorphosis. And it's a shame really, considering that Bug type is actually pretty easy to design by virtue of the fact that their real life counterparts have clear-cut life stages to represent each evolution. 3-stage metamorphosis Bug line with (Leavanny, Whirlipede, Vivillion line) or without consistent color scheme (Butterfree, Beautifly, Beedrill line) are both easily acceptable. If not, the 2-stage, small-to-big family lines (Galvantula, Parasect, Crustle line) are pretty good too. In comparison, Game Freak's attempt at Masquerain's line to fuse two completely unrelated species into one Pokemon family was a poor attempt (not to mention the loss of a unique type combination).

As for the rest, I don't really have the time to point out the fine details of how inconsistent Hariyama, Medicham, Grumpig or Walrein's line are, but I'll instead point out examples of Gen III family lines which I think are both creative and consistent: Swampert, Sceptile, Swellow, Gardevoir, Aggron, Altaria, Metagross. My personal preference requires more than just loose links between members of a Pokemon family by their species or concept. A fat little boy to sumo wrestler? Fine. But where's the growth? Where did the Makuita's eyes and smile drawn with simple lines, or the knot on its head, or go to? Why the yellow color in the first place? Sealeo to Warlrein? Where's the beige underbelly? Why the pig snout? How did the beady eyes turn into normal eyes with yellow pupil? There is no 'growth'; it's just a random switch of the different anatomical parts to a different look.

 

[dirkac]

I actually think Gen III is the worst - both for region layout and monster design: Swellow, Hariyama, Combusken, Swalot, Wingull, Kriketot, Lairon, the list goes on! If anything, this whole thread just proves that each Gen has those that praise them and those that decry them.

Kricketot is from Gen IV.

I don't think anyone ever sees Surskit to be the larval stage of Masquerain. Once you use the term 'larval', the next natural progression would be the pupal stage, but that was not present in the line, making it a stretch to call it an evolutionary line based on metamorphosis. And it's a shame really, considering that Bug type is actually pretty easy to design by virtue of the fact that their real life counterparts have clear-cut life stages to represent each evolution. 3-stage metamorphosis Bug line with (Leavanny, Whirlipede, Vivillion line) or without consistent color scheme (Butterfree, Beautifly, Beedrill line) are both easily acceptable. If not, the 2-stage, small-to-big family lines (Galvantula, Parasect, Crustle line) are pretty good too. In comparison, Game Freak's attempt at Masquerain's line to fuse two completely unrelated species into one Pokemon family was a poor attempt (not to mention the loss of a unique type combination).

As for the rest, I don't really have the time to point out the fine details of how inconsistent Hariyama, Medicham, Grumpig or Walrein's line are, but I'll instead point out examples of Gen III family lines which I think are both creative and consistent: Swampert, Sceptile, Swellow, Gardevoir, Aggron, Altaria, Metagross. My personal preference requires more than just loose links between members of a Pokemon family by their species or concept. A fat little boy to sumo wrestler? Fine. But where's the growth? Where did the Makuita's eyes and smile drawn with simple lines, or the knot on its head, or go to? Why the yellow color in the first place? Sealeo to Warlrein? Where's the beige underbelly? Why the pig snout? How did the beady eyes turn into normal eyes with yellow pupil? There is no 'growth'; it's just a random switch of the different anatomical parts to a different look.

Considering a few species of water striders/skitterbugs/pond skaters turn into mayfly-esque creatures when they mature the line isn't very farfetched, since in real life the transitionary stage between the two is underwhelmingly short, anyways.
So the two aren't unrelated as much as relatively unknown.

The problem is, though, that the growth, as you call it, in the Gen I lines are rather minimalistic, and would as such seem bland to some.
Also Medicham simply matured and recieved a colour change, it isn't drastically different a concept, the same thing with Hariyama and Walrein. Although Spoink's line does not have much recognizable growth, it is somewhat the reason I like the line, that it desn't slowly transition into similar concepts but instead adopts a different scheme while retaining a basis instantly, which would seem, I guess, more original than, say, the Seel line, who, once Evolved, gets its Ice Typing, a horn, and a happy face.

 

[MattySadler]

Personally, there isn't a single Pokemon I "dislike". Only things I don't like are the name Hoothoot, don't know why but its always annoyed me, and the fact I think since Gen II there have been far too many legendaries. Legendaries are completely ruined for me, I can't stand them and never, ever even consider using them in the games.

But I don't think Pokemon designs have got any worse, and in some places I actually think they have improved. They're all pretty good though. In Gen V people were complaining about the Vanilluxe, Garbodor and Klinklang evolution lines, but are they REALLY any worse than any other Pokemon? I don't think so. I mean, in Gen I we had the Magneton and Muk lines and they were fine. Hell, we even had Voltorb and Electrode!

I do thing the Excadrill line is a modern improvement on the Dugtrio line though.

 

[dirkac]

Personally, there isn't a single Pokemon I "dislike". Only things I don't like are the name Hoothoot, don't know why but its always annoyed me, and the fact I think since Gen II there have been far too many legendaries. Legendaries are completely ruined for me, I can't stand them and never, ever even consider using them in the games.

How so were they ruined by having a larger number, though?

 

[MattySadler]

How so were they ruined by having a larger number, though?

Well I've never had too much interest in legendary Pokemon anyway, but for me I just became sick of them. They were so overdone. A maximum of like, 5 per gen was ok, but then we got 10 in Gen III, 13 in Gen IV and 13 in Gen V. It was just too much. The whole point of legendaries should be how elusive they are.

I think the powers they've got have got a bit ridiculous as well, like we've essentially got a Pokemon god in Arceus and others similar.

 

[Hidden Power]

Considering a few species of water striders/skitterbugs/pond skaters turn into mayfly-esque creatures when they mature the line isn't very farfetched, since in real life the transitionary stage between the two is underwhelmingly short, anyways.
So the two aren't unrelated as much as relatively unknown.

Well you'll have to enlighten me on that then, because a quick search on the Gerridae family on Wikipedia has not given me any information on water skaters/striders maturing into mayflies, except the fact that all of them have wings of varying length by default, but still skates on water for the most part.

The problem is, though, that the growth, as you call it, in the Gen I lines are rather minimalistic, and would as such seem bland to some.

I agree. In fact, I think this situation applies to family lines like Poliwrath, where the changes are hard to detect if one is looking at their silhouettes. Gen I also has Pokemon family whose designs are simply based off related species with different appearance and letting one evolve into the other, such as Golden and Seaking.

However, I don't think having Pokemon evolutions that are drastically different is an appropriate reaction to this issue. It's the balance between change and consistency that creates the best design (in my opinion), of which I just happen to find Gen III lacking in that aspect. But good ones are definitely around, some of which I've listed for Gen III previously as well.

Also Medicham simply matured and recieved a colour change, it isn't drastically different a concept, the same thing with Hariyama and Walrein. Although Spoink's line does not have much recognizable growth, it is somewhat the reason I like the line, that it desn't slowly transition into similar concepts but instead adopts a different scheme while retaining a basis instantly, which would seem, I guess, more original than, say, the Seel line, who, once Evolved, gets its Ice Typing, a horn, and a happy face.

Uh, the phrase 'simply matured' is an over-generalization that has little discussion value in a thread talking about Pokemon design; every Pokemon 'matured' and turn into another Pokemon. I've mentioned in an earlier post the following when someone else talked about how these Pokemon are conceptually similar:

What you've pointed out is the idea behind these Pokemon family, which can be applied to any Pokemon family. Carvanha and Sharpedo are both shaped like ballistic projectiles, Remoraid and Octillery are based on weaponary (pistol and cannon). What I point out are the execution of the idea itself. i.e. color schemes, anatomical changes and observable patterns between each stage. My definition of a good Pokemon design is one that has an interesting idea/concept, but more importantly what the idea materializes into.

Medicham didn't 'simply matured and received a colour change'; anatomically there is a wide gap between Meditite and Medicham. Medicham has red sections that appear more like an attire (a hat and a baggy pants) on a grey main body, but for Meditite, both the blue and grey sections are part of its partitioned body.

 

[Nodame]

Umm.. not really. I have my favorites from each Generation, I have my least favorites too, so it doesn't really matter to me.

 

[Blaze The Movie Fan]

Alright, I have to reply to the first post as the OP edited it and added something.

Edit: Since some arguments have broken out on this thread, please refrain from from posting your opinions on Pokemon designs here and simply answer the topic.

How exactly are any of us going off topic? The question of the topic is "Were Pokémon designs really better back during Gen 1-3?", since designs is part of the question, you should expect people to give their thoughts on the designs.

 

[SKyLineR32]

Yeah, that makes no sense. Might as well close the thread in that case.

 

[Tonguetyd]

Well I've never had too much interest in legendary Pokemon anyway, but for me I just became sick of them. They were so overdone. A maximum of like, 5 per gen was ok, but then we got 10 in Gen III, 13 in Gen IV and 13 in Gen V. It was just too much. The whole point of legendaries should be how elusive they are.

Sorry, gotta disagree there. If there were 5 legendaries every gen, The Uber metagame would be extremely dull and unappealing.

 

[Retro-Chaos X]

I actually think Gen III is the worst - both for region layout and monster design: Swellow, Hariyama, Combusken, Swalot, Wingull, Kriketot, Lairon, the list goes on! If anything, this whole thread just proves that each Gen has those that praise them and those that decry them.

Gen III is one of my favourite for designs haha, but I can see why others dislike them. You're right, there isn't a set standard for the gens - there is always some people like and some people just don't.

 

[Bakphoon™]

Yes, I think the designs were pretty good. We got awesome Pokémon like Mewtwo, Gengar, Alakazam, etc. that are very good designwise. About Gen II and III, same.