• We are currently experiencing a flood of requests from bots scraping the forums. Unfortunately it has gotten to the point where it is negatively impacting the site. As a result the forums may be slow and you may periodically experiance an error message. We are aware of the problem and apologize for the inconvenience.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

What design style do you prefer?

Frostcat

Icy Cool
I know there's a threat about "Why do people think pokemon is going downhill" but I thought this was different enough to warrant it's own thread.

Why do you like a particular design concept behind some pokemon (natural and simple, natural exotic, ornamental pokemon, etc)? Do you favor one style over another or do you just pick some of each?


I prefer pokemon who are of a more 'natural' design. So pokemon like Muk, Voltorb, Magnemite, Beldum, Nosepass, etc. I consider to be 'bad'. The designs are ok, I can see what they're trying to do, but I don't really like them. Mostly because I have a hard time 'getting into' a team that I can't see actually existing, or where the idea came from.

On the other hand, some 'natural' designs are 'just bad' to me as well. Pinsir, Walrein and Staraptor for example. I have reasons why I don't like them as well. I always felt like pinsir should have been less bland, colorwise, and the horns should have been more slicey-cutty instead of grabby-crushy. :p

I think each generation has a style. Gen 1 was more 'natural/simple'. Gen 2 was a bit more 'natural/exotic'. Gen 3 was definitely a bit 'foreign/exotic' with pokemon looking more 'exotic' and slightly ornamental.

Then we have Gen 4 which I think was 'foreign/ornamental' with a lot of pokemon having relatively useless appendages. Not to kick up the old debate, but I cite Electrivire as a good example. He suddenly gets shaggy and mean looking with all sorts of things sticking off him that aren't explained, or don't make a lot of sense. They just don't seem necessary I guess.

In nature, unnecessary things aren't usually that common or at least that noticeable. We have a pinky toe, which arguably isn't necessary, but it's really small. Not all things unnecessary are small though, we have a lot of hair that isn't strictly necessary.

I think for Gen 5 they're going more with concepts than with actual existing ideas. The ghost chandelier, the evil snowflake thing, the ice-cream cone looking thing, the return of a muk-a-like.

They're not BAD designs, in fact they're really good designs! I just don't like some of the more ornamental ones. Is it nostalgic of me, stupid even, to prefer the more simple designs? To be able to explain, in words, without saying 'because it sucks', why I like it?

Also: Please try not to fight about things in this thread. This is purely a discussion about what you like and why you like it, not who's preference is better! Please keep that in mind.

Note: Unless they're hating on my Glaceon, then tear them apart for me.
 

Panik

Member
I definitely prefer the natural look, hence gen 1 being my favorite look, with gen 2 very close behind.
 

Frostcat

Icy Cool
I think there's a lot to be said for the later generations looks, and there's definitely some golden nuggets of natural in them as well! I do appreciate the design styles behind the newer generations though, it must have taken some effort to design them!
 

Afr0 M0th

Coffee Guru
Ive always liked the designs, i wouldnt say a single one of them is bad. Take one look at some of the trashy 'game hack' editions and you will see that the true series oozes with quality design.
 

supernoob

Derpy and awesome!
actually,i dont think that any of the designs is trashy or bad.
i dig them all. some i dig less and some i dig more.
many peapole says that gen.1 is the best,and i respect that.
many peapole do also say that gen.2 is the crappiest.i do not respect that.
i guess that i can say that i like pokemons based on a good idea,like the muk lookalike for example.i mean,a toxic waste mutant pokemon?that is actually a good idea.
but i do also like those who are really,really awesome,like espeon,weavile and gible for example.
 

AKRy100

Shockingly electric!
I don't not like the 'natural' designs, e.g. pidgey, caterpie, it's just that I prefer the designs that are based on things that aren't real, natural or simply based on organisms.
My favorite generations of pokemon are definitely 3 and 5, and the platinum expansion of the sinnoh dex, like rotom and gallade. I also love that ghost chandelier and gigigear.
However, I don't like pokemon with obvious, unambiguous clothes, like this nageki and dageki duo. Gardevoir is fine, but not hariyama.
 

Kim62

Hello
I personally like Pokemon with a cartoony style, a cuddly style or a monster style.
I like designs that don't confuse me as to what is what and don't look like they tried to jam too many ideas into a single Pokemon.
 

Frostcat

Icy Cool
Quite a few replies while I wasn't looking!

It's so neat to listen to what other people like about the design styles (or don't like!) of various pokemon.

To the poster who said he does not like natural design styles, can I ask why? Do you find them uncreative or is it something else? I've always liked the natural design styles because it helps me to feel like the game is actually something with vague realism behind it. THe really crazy designs tend to bother me sometimes only because I feel like they didn't make any effort to imagine if such a creature could even exist (even in the world they created).

Thanks for all the replies, again!
 

Skydra

Well-Known Member
I can't say I care that much as long as they look cool. Shanderra is just a chandelier, but its actually cool, even if its based off something that isn't alive. Same with Muk and the new trashbag. Trash and toxic waste isn't alive, but that doesn't mean it can't be a cool Pokemon. I don't necessarily need something to be possible in the real world to be possible in Pokemon.

Anything goes as long as its interesting and creative.
 

Dark Eevee

Well-Known Member
Quite a few replies while I wasn't looking!

It's so neat to listen to what other people like about the design styles (or don't like!) of various pokemon.

To the poster who said he does not like natural design styles, can I ask why? Do you find them uncreative or is it something else? I've always liked the natural design styles because it helps me to feel like the game is actually something with vague realism behind it. THe really crazy designs tend to bother me sometimes only because I feel like they didn't make any effort to imagine if such a creature could even exist (even in the world they created).

Thanks for all the replies, again!

So in a world where ten year olds control super powerful monster, travel alone all over the place, were said monsters don't destroy all the humans, where time travel is possible, bringing people back from the dead is possible and psychic powers exist; you don't think certain Pokemon could exist there?
 

Frostcat

Icy Cool
So in a world where ten year olds control super powerful monster, travel alone all over the place, were said monsters don't destroy all the humans, where time travel is possible, bringing people back from the dead is possible and psychic powers exist; you don't think certain Pokemon could exist there?

Here's my thing:

Some animals are intelligent, a lot of times we get along pretty well with these intelligent animals or at least they tend to ignore us. (Dolphins, monkeys, etc.) I could see pokemon as just being intelligent creatures that don't really bother with us unless we bother with them (in the games).

As for the ten year olds 'controlling' them, not all trainers in the game ARE ten, and most of the young ones do not control very powerful ones. In a world where that's the normal thing to do, though, it's not all THAT weird to go off on your own at a young age. Heck, it wasn't that weird for 12-14 year olds to get married and have their own families two hundred years ago.

I don't know when you bring someone back from the dead in the games, if it happens at all. I don't consider the anime to be 'cannon' in terms of the games (if we can rule out the anime on legendaries, we can basically rule it out entirely).

As for psychic powers and time travel, I'm willing to suspend disbelief as an ability of a fantastic creature.

Anyway:

It's not just 'weird' designs that bother me, creatures like corsola, shaymin or venasaur(sp?) aren't too out there for me.

It's the weird ones like electrivire, lopunny, metagross, camerupt, blastoise. I suppose in a sense, when you start tacking on things that are sort of 'man-made' or relatively hard to believe an animal would develop, is when I get iffy. Also, I'm generally opposed to non-man-made robotic pokemon like metagross because it just sits wrong with me.


With the reasoning you're using, they can create ANYTHING. At some point there's a design difference between pokemon and other monster games, I'm merely suggesting that pokemon that breach that design difference tend to irritate me.
 
Ho-Oh brought Suicune, Raikou and Entei back from the dead. That is indisputable game canon.
I too, prefer the natural looking ones, but not the ones which are basically carbon copies of real animals *cough, Wingull, cough*. They're too boring.
 

AKRy100

Shockingly electric!
Frostcat said:
To the poster who said he does not like natural design styles, can I ask why? Do you find them uncreative or is it something else? I've always liked the natural design styles because it helps me to feel like the game is actually something with vague realism behind it. THe really crazy designs tend to bother me sometimes only because I feel like they didn't make any effort to imagine if such a creature could even exist (even in the world they created).
Well I actually said that I don't not like them but anyways:
I find the unnatural pokemon more creative and imaginitive than the natural ones because they are impossible. Wondering if it would exist in the real world has nothing to do with it. Anything can exist in the world of pokemon. Imagine if all the pokemon were were just cat, dog, lizard, elephant etc. That would be boring - in my opinion it's the rune-inscribed psychic demons and the metal birds that make the game interesting.
Also the mere fact that they don't/can't exist in the real world means that the game creators have to be extra-creative to come up with them.
 
Last edited:

Frostcat

Icy Cool
I'd forgotten about Ho-oh. One could argue that the myth is wrong, though, and that they weren't actually dead so much as 'fainted'. Though obviously since I play pokemon, it's not the powers that bother me, it's the designs that just don't make sense I suppose.

To be fair, all of the designs that I just hate are both 'physically impossible' as well as not making any sense to me. Like I can't see where they were coming from or what the intent was.

So I guess you could say that while I don't like 'crazy' designs, I like them even less when there isn't a good reason.

Pokemon like wingull have always been some of my favorite, because they take an already existing animal and imagine what it could do. It's part of what got me into pokemon in the first place, was that many of them were like reinventions of the real world, a sort of parallel.

I just like reinventions of existing animals because it helps relate it to myself better. I can't see myself living in a world that has no real natural or realistic animal *designs*.

It's like those sci-fi movies. Some people just can't get into them because it's too far removed from what they consider reality. Those same people can often get into some pretty weird movies though. It's all a matter of what we're willing to accept as believable.

Not to get off-topic of course. I respect that we have differing opinions!
 
Last edited:

Kim62

Hello
Personally, I don't want just anything creature to exist in the Pokemon world. If it was just anything creature then what would make Pokemon different from Digimon or some other battle monster series?
If there is no particular style for Pokemon then how can you call any Pokemon a Pokemon?
 

The_Boss_Giygas

I. F.E.E.L. G.O.O.D.
I like any design style, I can't just say natural overall cause some natural looking pokemon for me look pretty ugly, as well as exotic I like some exotic, but then again there's some I think they made a wrong turn in, but yeah I'm not too much into overly complicated designs, not in pokemon anyways.
 

Dark Eevee

Well-Known Member
Here's my thing:
Some animals are intelligent, a lot of times we get along pretty well with these intelligent animals or at least they tend to ignore us. (Dolphins, monkeys, etc.) I could see pokemon as just being intelligent creatures that don't really bother with us unless we bother with them (in the games). One of the professors was attacked by a pokemon for no reason. Animal will attack you if they feel threatened or if they're hungy enough.

As for the ten year olds 'controlling' them, not all trainers in the game ARE ten, and most of the young ones do not control very powerful ones. In a world where that's the normal thing to do, though, it's not all THAT weird to go off on your own at a young age. Heck, it wasn't that weird for 12-14 year olds to get married and have their own families two hundred years ago. Yes, but still a lot of trainers begin their journey at ten, in a land filled with super powerful monsters. Do you really think it's a good think to give a ten year old a monster as powerful as a tank, I don't think so.

I don't know when you bring someone back from the dead in the games, if it happens at all. I don't consider the anime to be 'cannon' in terms of the games (if we can rule out the anime on legendaries, we can basically rule it out entirely). Ho-oh and the legendary beasts.

As for psychic powers and time travel, I'm willing to suspend disbelief as an ability of a fantastic creature.

Anyway:

It's not just 'weird' designs that bother me, creatures like corsola, shaymin or venasaur(sp?) aren't too out there for me. Then it's just personal opinion.

It's the weird ones like electrivire, lopunny, metagross, camerupt, blastoise. I suppose in a sense, when you start tacking on things that are sort of 'man-made' or relatively hard to believe an animal would develop, is when I get iffy. Also, I'm generally opposed to non-man-made robotic pokemon like metagross because it just sits wrong with me. Though I can understand the "man-made" things, I see nothing wrong with Lopunny or Camerupt.


With the reasoning you're using, they can create ANYTHING. At some point there's a design difference between pokemon and other monster games, I'm merely suggesting that pokemon that breach that design difference tend to irritate me. What are you talking about? None of the pokemon breach this "design difference". All monsters in monster tamer games look similar, but they all have a certain look and feel about them that's different.


I'd forgotten about Ho-oh. One could argue that the myth is wrong, though, and that they weren't actually dead so much as 'fainted'. Though obviously since I play pokemon, it's not the powers that bother me, it's the designs that just don't make sense I suppose. So unbelievable powers don't bother you but unbelievable designs? -_-

To be fair, all of the designs that I just hate are both 'physically impossible' as well as not making any sense to me. Like I can't see where they were coming from or what the intent was. Which pokemon?

So I guess you could say that while I don't like 'crazy' designs, I like them even less when there isn't a good reason. Like when?

Pokemon like wingull have always been some of my favorite, because they take an already existing animal and imagine what it could do. It's part of what got me into pokemon in the first place, was that many of them were like reinventions of the real world, a sort of parallel. A cartoony seagull, hardly imaginative.

I just like reinventions of existing animals because it helps relate it to myself better. I can't see myself living in a world that has no real natural or realistic animal *designs*. Cartoony animals vs monsters. You have a problem with monsters in a game called Pocket Monsters/Pokemon. -_-

It's like those sci-fi movies. Some people just can't get into them because it's too far removed from what they consider reality. Those same people can often get into some pretty weird movies though. It's all a matter of what we're willing to accept as believable. Opinion and closed-minded-ness

Not to get off-topic of course. I respect that we have differing opinions!

Replies in bold.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why, but the new designs tend to bug me alittle. I mean, some of them just seam like new versions of older pokemon. I prefer the older ones. They didn't seem to be as "out there".
 
Top