• 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 is the most UN-creative Pokemon?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Theodamas

Collector
I notice a lot of people mentioning first gen pokemon. I think there is pretty obvious reason that anybody can come up with when they think with logic: In 1995 pokemon was a new thing nobody had heard of. Designing all the pokemon to look like something you cannot link into real world would have been a risk. About every first gen pokemon is an animal. That was safer. When pokemon turned out be a good seller, they could use more imagination therefore making the pokemon "more creative".

But to say my opinion for the uncreative pokemon:

Pidove. They could have done about anything in gen V and we would have bought it. But this is almost excact copy of pidgey.
 

yuoke

Treasure huntin'
If we're being technical, as someone said before, none of them are "un-creative". Like Muk, it makes sense if you actually use your brain. And Ditto? Isn't it a failed experiment that can mimic any Pokemon? I don't see how they're not creative.

But hey, if I'm picking one that is a little eh to me, it'd be the Kami Trio. But I love all Pokemon, and I don't dislike any, but I am of course more fond of certain Pokemon. I also love Muk.



What do you expect? For it to grow wings? Evolution does mean it gets bigger and more intimidating. I'm basically no different than what I was when I was a toddler. I got bigger and I'm more intimidating. Guess I'm not creative, then.

Well as long as you also then have no problem with trubbish an. garbador.
 

SlowPokeBroKing

Future Gym Leader
What do you expect? For it to grow wings? Evolution does mean it gets bigger and more intimidating. I'm basically no different than what I was when I was a toddler. I got bigger and I'm more intimidating. Guess I'm not creative, then.

That's not what evolution means at all. Growing up from your child years isn't evolving. Granted, evolution happens way faster in the Pokemon world than it does in our world.
 

Wishmaker Latias

All Bridges Burned, All Lessons Learned
I would go with diglett.
It is supposed to be a mole ,but it looks like one of those moles from the whack a mole game(It was even referenced in anime).
And its evolution as some already stated is just 3 diglett combined.
I could put magnemite here too but 3 magnemites gathering to evolve at least make sense as their steel bodies are drawn together by electromagnetism.(And how are diglett supposed to gather?)
Other than that I would go with most region bird pokemon(Pidgey ,taillow ,pidove etc). I think that fletchling is an exception as it is based of a not so common worldwide bird(The Japanese robin).
 

emawerna

Well-Known Member
I am having fun reading all the posts of the people who say "no pokemon is uncreative" and arguing with absolutely anyone who names a pokemon and calls it uncreative. They make all manner of arguments that are contradictory. You see my explanation was too lengthy and considered too many factors whereas the other ones were far too short and simple. Sometimes beauty is everything, other times a pokemon that isn't beautiful is redeemed because of some other factor. (Only name one or two factors because these people will mis-characterize anything you say.)

If you think I'm talking about you, copy and paste all of your responses to this thread into one document. Take it to someone in your life who will give you an honest answer. Ask them if you are being consistent (not "right" in their opinion, but consistent). I am sure you'll post all manner of abuse in connection with what I've said above. I'll take it seriously and to heart... BUT ONLY if you provide the name of the person you have presented your posts to and a detailed account of what they said.

My point is take a chill pill. You are not tasked with protecting pokemon against the invading, desecrating hordes of unbelievers. This is a Pokemon Forum. We are all fans here.

I am glad though that most of these arguers have conceded that pokemon aren't equally creative. This means that they conceded that there is such a thing as a "least creative pokemon." This is an absolutely huge concession. You've just conceded that creativity is relative. Here's the thing: Most people on these forums correctly interpret the question's term "most un-creative" to be "least creative." That's why new people keep posting in line with that here.

You make far too much of the supposed distinction between "least creative" and "uncreative." You act like creativity is an absolute measurement that never varies. It isn't. I firmly believe that my filing system at my old job was creative and a thing of beauty because it was very organized and made good use of the filing cabinets. Who's to say that isn't creative?
If the bar between the creative and the un-creative is absolute, then the bar is quite low and the designation "creative" is near meaningless. If everything's creative, then nothing is.

Maybe you're right and the bar is absolute and low. In the everyday world, "Well ... it's certainly creative" is a throwaway complement for a work that can't be described as beautiful or skillful.

"Creative" is a label. Labels work by exclusion. They work because some things are not labeled "creative." In other words, creativity (the amount and whether it exists at all) is relative and depends on the observer, and there must always be something that is un-creative. Only now is the word "creative" even meaningful. Since there is no absolute creativity in this model, the label "un-creative" collapses into the designation "least creative" because both are relative.


If you are not willing to take a chill pill, then consider this: the original question "most uncreative" presumes that there is such a thing as an uncreative pokemon. Therefore, posters are forced to take the relativistic approach to defining creativity or risk not answering the question as it is asked. No posters should be penalized, except for the original poster. You should direct all outrage and diatribes to his/her PM box.
 

IAintObeezy

Ban this Trainer
Voltorb. Its a pokeball with eyes.
Vanilluxe. Its just an icecream cone.
Seel. Its just a seal.
Spheal. Its just a seal.
Emawerna. All my reps.
 

SlowPokeBroKing

Future Gym Leader
I am having fun reading all the posts of the people who say "no pokemon is uncreative" and arguing with absolutely anyone who names a pokemon and calls it uncreative. They make all manner of arguments that are contradictory. You see my explanation was too lengthy and considered too many factors whereas the other ones were far too short and simple. Sometimes beauty is everything, other times a pokemon that isn't beautiful is redeemed because of some other factor. (Only name one or two factors because these people will mis-characterize anything you say.)

If you think I'm talking about you, copy and paste all of your responses to this thread into one document. Take it to someone in your life who will give you an honest answer. Ask them if you are being consistent (not "right" in their opinion, but consistent). I am sure you'll post all manner of abuse in connection with what I've said above. I'll take it seriously and to heart... BUT ONLY if you provide the name of the person you have presented your posts to and a detailed account of what they said.

My point is take a chill pill. You are not tasked with protecting pokemon against the invading, desecrating hordes of unbelievers. This is a Pokemon Forum. We are all fans here.

I am glad though that most of these arguers have conceded that pokemon aren't equally creative. This means that they conceded that there is such a thing as a "least creative pokemon." This is an absolutely huge concession. You've just conceded that creativity is relative. Here's the thing: Most people on these forums correctly interpret the question's term "most un-creative" to be "least creative." That's why new people keep posting in line with that here.

You make far too much of the supposed distinction between "least creative" and "uncreative." You act like creativity is an absolute measurement that never varies. It isn't. I firmly believe that my filing system at my old job was creative and a thing of beauty because it was very organized and made good use of the filing cabinets. Who's to say that isn't creative?
If the bar between the creative and the un-creative is absolute, then the bar is quite low and the designation "creative" is near meaningless. If everything's creative, then nothing is.

Maybe you're right and the bar is absolute and low. In the everyday world, "Well ... it's certainly creative" is a throwaway complement for a work that can't be described as beautiful or skillful.

"Creative" is a label. Labels work by exclusion. They work because some things are not labeled "creative." In other words, creativity (the amount and whether it exists at all) is relative and depends on the observer, and there must always be something that is un-creative. Only now is the word "creative" even meaningful. Since there is no absolute creativity in this model, the label "un-creative" collapses into the designation "least creative" because both are relative.


If you are not willing to take a chill pill, then consider this: the original question "most uncreative" presumes that there is such a thing as an uncreative pokemon. Therefore, posters are forced to take the relativistic approach to defining creativity or risk not answering the question as it is asked. No posters should be penalized, except for the original poster. You should direct all outrage and diatribes to his/her PM box.

Internet high five.
 
If you are not willing to take a chill pill, then consider this: the original question "most uncreative" presumes that there is such a thing as an uncreative pokemon. Therefore, posters are forced to take the relativistic approach to defining creativity or risk not answering the question as it is asked. No posters should be penalized, except for the original poster. You should direct all outrage and diatribes to his/her PM box.
THIS.

Sometimes you just have to take a step back and, rather than point out flaws in other's presentations, just explain the situation as it is. Good on you for doing so.

IAintObeezy said:
Voltorb. Its a pokeball with eyes.
Waiting for Mega-Electrode. It'll probably just flip over onto its side and turn purple.
 
Last edited:

Mew The Gato

___________
I am having fun reading all the posts of the people who say "no pokemon is uncreative" and arguing with absolutely anyone who names a pokemon and calls it uncreative. They make all manner of arguments that are contradictory. You see my explanation was too lengthy and considered too many factors whereas the other ones were far too short and simple. Sometimes beauty is everything, other times a pokemon that isn't beautiful is redeemed because of some other factor. (Only name one or two factors because these people will mis-characterize anything you say.)

If you think I'm talking about you, copy and paste all of your responses to this thread into one document. Take it to someone in your life who will give you an honest answer. Ask them if you are being consistent (not "right" in their opinion, but consistent). I am sure you'll post all manner of abuse in connection with what I've said above. I'll take it seriously and to heart... BUT ONLY if you provide the name of the person you have presented your posts to and a detailed account of what they said.

My point is take a chill pill. You are not tasked with protecting pokemon against the invading, desecrating hordes of unbelievers. This is a Pokemon Forum. We are all fans here.

I am glad though that most of these arguers have conceded that pokemon aren't equally creative. This means that they conceded that there is such a thing as a "least creative pokemon." This is an absolutely huge concession. You've just conceded that creativity is relative. Here's the thing: Most people on these forums correctly interpret the question's term "most un-creative" to be "least creative." That's why new people keep posting in line with that here.

You make far too much of the supposed distinction between "least creative" and "uncreative." You act like creativity is an absolute measurement that never varies. It isn't. I firmly believe that my filing system at my old job was creative and a thing of beauty because it was very organized and made good use of the filing cabinets. Who's to say that isn't creative?
If the bar between the creative and the un-creative is absolute, then the bar is quite low and the designation "creative" is near meaningless. If everything's creative, then nothing is.

Maybe you're right and the bar is absolute and low. In the everyday world, "Well ... it's certainly creative" is a throwaway complement for a work that can't be described as beautiful or skillful.

"Creative" is a label. Labels work by exclusion. They work because some things are not labeled "creative." In other words, creativity (the amount and whether it exists at all) is relative and depends on the observer, and there must always be something that is un-creative. Only now is the word "creative" even meaningful. Since there is no absolute creativity in this model, the label "un-creative" collapses into the designation "least creative" because both are relative.


If you are not willing to take a chill pill, then consider this: the original question "most uncreative" presumes that there is such a thing as an uncreative pokemon. Therefore, posters are forced to take the relativistic approach to defining creativity or risk not answering the question as it is asked. No posters should be penalized, except for the original poster. You should direct all outrage and diatribes to his/her PM box.

You see, your explanation did not measure how creative a Pokemon is, but how powerful it is. Powerful and creative are not related in any way.

Kindly do not tell us do things outside the internet when it is related to this thread. Anyone can lie about someone saying these things and you have no way to know.

We are perfectly calm. Please understand this. Our arguments were not contradictory at all. If you think they were, please make an effort to point the inconsistency out.

I said this numerous times: the existence of creativity, not the amount, depends on fact. The amount is up to opinion, but technically, all Pokemon are creative. If it is not their fault, they do check their wording, because the wording changes the whole meaning.

We never act like that. Take a step back and point it out. Do not just say these things. The post length does not matter if you keep spinning around a single point without justifying it. Point out the inconsistency.

As I said, if the posters do not check their wording, then they are as much as at fault as the original poster. We are not directing outrage, as we are perfectly calm. Why do you assume we are angry...?

Furthermore, no, we shall not cluster up his PM Box. That is just flaming. You want us to do that...?

As you said yourself, creativity does not overlap with beautiful, powerful or anything like that.

Voltorb. Its a pokeball with eyes.
Vanilluxe. Its just an icecream cone.
Seel. Its just a seal.
Spheal. Its just a seal.
Emawerna. All my reps.

A Pokeball cannot zap you at will and is not sentient.
It is a flying, sentient creature looking like an icecream cone.
It is a magical creature with a horn, unfathomable cuteness and ability to shoot water from its mouth, etc. It just looks like a seal.
Same case as Seel, except the horn and with blue colours. It does not even look like a seal. Does that not make it very creative?
I did not even understand this. He is not a Pokemon.

That's not what evolution means at all. Growing up from your child years isn't evolving. Granted, evolution happens way faster in the Pokemon world than it does in our world.

Because it is not evolution at all, but more akin to metamorphosis.
 
Last edited:
A Pokeball cannot zap you at will and is not sentient.
It is a flying, sentient creature looking like an icecream cone.
It is a magical creature with a horn, unfathomable cuteness and ability to shoot water from its mouth, etc. It just looks like a seal.
Same case as Seel, except the horn and with blue colours. It does not even look like a seal. Does that not make it very creative?
The fact that you have to reference sentience as a standard fro what's "creative" is sad, because all Pokémon are sentient. The concept isn't new if every Pokémon before it had it too.
Seel is literally a seal without the a. What it amounts to in life is a seal with a birth defect that was named by a mentally challenged developer. There is no excuse. The fact is, these are the least imaginative Pokémon that have ever been created. They aren't creative at all.

To clarify for myself and anyone else who'll ever say "Pokémon x isn't creative", they really mean "there was little to no thought put into the development of these little creatures at all."
 

Mew The Gato

___________
The fact that you have to reference sentience as a standard fro what's "creative" is sad, because all Pokémon are sentient. The concept isn't new if every Pokémon before it had it too.
Seel is literally a seal without the a. What it amounts to in life is a seal with a birth defect that was named by a mentally challenged developer. There is no excuse. The fact is, these are the least imaginative Pokémon that have ever been created. They aren't creative at all.

To clarify for myself and anyone else who'll ever say "Pokémon x isn't creative", they really mean "there was little to no thought put into the development of these little creatures at all."

Because all Pokemon are creative. As standalones, the mere fact that they made an inanimate object sentient makes it creative. And show me a seal that can shoot beams of ice from its mouth. Least creative does not mean unoriginal. Is that too hard to comprehend?

That does not make it unoriginal, by the way. You do not know how much thought was put into designing the Pokemon, anyway, unless you are Game Freak Staff.
 
Because all Pokemon are creative. As standalones, the mere fact that they made an inanimate object sentient makes it creative. And show me a seal that can shoot beams of ice from its mouth. Least creative does not mean unoriginal. Is that too hard to comprehend?
But originiality isn't the only standard. Imagination is equally as important, if not more so. It doesn't take someone with an enormous mass of grey matter to think of a Pokémon based off a seal that is literally a seal with a horn. Likewise, it isn't too hard to think of almost anything if the standard is "take item x, add 1 feature, done".

Originality also isn't just about a concept that has never been worked on before, it's also about deviation from known standards. Taking the "Dream" speech by MLK and presenting it with altered diction would get you and F in high school and kicked out in college. This is the concept that makes people think Dugtrio, Magneton, and other cumulative evolutions are lazily designed. That doesn't mean they think they're bad, just that they aren't creative.

That does not make it unoriginal, by the way. You do not know how much thought was put into designing the Pokemon, anyway, unless you are Game Freak Staff.
The amount of thought doesn't matter, the outcome does. And, in the cases of most Pokémon listed, the outcomes were unoriginal and unimaginative. All Pokémon have an ability, all Pokémon are sentient. If the Pokémon manages to only barely meet these standards, then the design isn't creative. Like I have said many times before, if you only manage to deviate a little bit from the source material, you have failed as a designer and most likely have an unoriginal Pokémon.
 

Ryukun

Tracey Sketchit fan
Klinks evolution line. Its not the fact that Klink is basically two gears, its the way it evolves. When it evolves into Klang, They just add an extra gear on the back. And Klinkklang, they just put a ring on it. There names as well. Klinkklang is just a combo of Klink and Klang, the names of its pre-evolution. Very creative. I like nearly all pokemon, but the Klink evolution line just bugs me...
 

dirkac

I smash your Boxes.
But originiality isn't the only standard. Imagination is equally as important, if not more so. It doesn't take someone with an enormous mass of grey matter to think of a Pokémon based off a seal that is literally a seal with a horn. Likewise, it isn't too hard to think of almost anything if the standard is "take item x, add 1 feature, done".

Originality also isn't just about a concept that has never been worked on before, it's also about deviation from known standards. Taking the "Dream" speech by MLK and presenting it with altered diction would get you and F in high school and kicked out in college. This is the concept that makes people think Dugtrio, Magneton, and other cumulative evolutions are lazily designed. That doesn't mean they think they're bad, just that they aren't creative.


The amount of thought doesn't matter, the outcome does. And, in the cases of most Pokémon listed, the outcomes were unoriginal and unimaginative. All Pokémon have an ability, all Pokémon are sentient. If the Pokémon manages to only barely meet these standards, then the design isn't creative. Like I have said many times before, if you only manage to deviate a little bit from the source material, you have failed as a designer and most likely have an unoriginal Pokémon.

And ecactly how do you know what every single living being thinks fails a designer and makes somethng unoriginal?
Remember that this is subject to opinion.

Stop saying that they aren't creative, as tey are, even if not much.

How much effort would it be to add the word "very" or such, turning your statements correct?
 

Kreis

Still Dirrty
Well, this thread turned out to be as bad as expected. Closing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top