What is the most UN-creative Pokemon?

[Mew The Gato]

First of all, what difference does that make? The concept and the Pokémon have no real design gap, they look almost the same. If you base a Pokémon off of, say, a turtle, it shoot look like Blastoise, with turtle qualities but distinctions that differentiate it from its natural counterpart. In the case of Vanillite and Vanillish, they look just like their real life counterparts with very few, minor differences.

For example: View attachment 10325 is more or less the same thing as the Pokémon it's based on. Simplicity doesn't mean it's not creative, a lack of deviation from it's basis (an ice cream cone) does. That's what makes Voltorb unoriginal, it's what makes Trubbish lack any form of creativity, and it's what makes me feel for Muk and Grimer. They could have based the Muk family on what they are, which is more or less sewage, and made them brown and lumpy, but they didn't, because that would be uncreative. So instead of being lazy, they made them purple and amorphic to represent their toxicity.

Difference between basis of a concept and the concept itself is what determines creativity, not how it makes you feel personally.

Good, we have established that creativity depends on fact.

And good luck finding an ice cream cone with a face which can fly and use Ice Type Moves, along with a sentient Pokeball which can zap you into oblivion, along with sentient garbage that can walk and shoot sludge at you.

 

[The Federation]

Good, we have established that creativity depends on fact.

And good luck finding an ice cream cone with a face which can fly and use Ice Type Moves, along with a sentient Pokeball which can zap you into oblivion, along with sentient garbage that can walk and shoot sludge at you.

It wouldn't be a Pokémon if it couldn't do at least that much. Sad to see you missed the entire point of my post, which was that creativity depends on one factor: difference between concept and concept in action. Taking a Pokeball, adding eyes, and saying it can zap you is about as creative as taking an ice cream cone, adding eyes and saying it can freeze you. Neither have a drop of creativity about them, because they are just like what they are designed after, having only the smallest differences between the concept and the Pokémon. I mean, what good would Voltorb be if it didn't have eyes and couldn't shock/explode? These Pokémon are the design class dropouts attempt at creativity, having only minimal effort put into making them what they are.

By the way, I never once said that a Pokémon is uncreative just because it looks terrible, though that's true most of the time. Boring Pokémon tend to be badly designed and uncreative, so there's a correlation for me.

 

[Mew The Gato]

It wouldn't be a Pokémon if it couldn't do at least that much. Sad to see you missed the entire point of my post, which was that creativity depends on one factor: difference between concept and concept in action. Taking a Pokeball, adding eyes, and saying it can zap you is about as creative as taking an ice cream cone, adding eyes and saying it can freeze you. Neither have a drop of creativity about them, because they are just like what they are designed after, having only the smallest differences between the concept and the Pokémon. I mean, what good would Voltorb be if it didn't have eyes and couldn't shock/explode? These Pokémon are the design class dropouts attempt at creativity, having only minimal effort put into making them what they are.

By the way, I never once said that a Pokémon is uncreative just because it looks terrible, though that's true most of the time. Boring Pokémon tend to be badly designed and uncreative, so there's a correlation for me.

Those are not small differences, but big ones. I challenge you to take some ice cream and make it freeze you. There is a huge amount of difference between a non-living and living thing, especially if sentience is involved.

That is not true. Creativity depends on fact, whether something looks good or not depends on opinion.

 

[The Federation]

Those are not small differences, but big ones. I challenge you to take some ice cream and make it freeze you. There is a huge amount of difference between a non-living and living thing, especially if sentience is involved.

That is not true. Creativity depends on fact, whether something looks good or not depends on opinion.

You don't even read what I write, do you? Please don't misinterpret what I say so it suits you. I never said, nor will I ever say, looking good is the standard for creativity. I specifically said that there seems to be a correlation between the two, for me.

You didn't respond to what I said in the end, though. By your standards, a sentient glass of water that can spout large amounts of the stuff somehow qualifies as a "creative" Pokémon. Just because it is capable of something supernatural and has sentience, which is the standard for every single Pokémon ever created, by the way, doesn't mean it is creative. Saying everything is creative just because it's a Pokémon is, like I said to someone else, a bias and an unwillingness to examine the objective evidence that you're fond of but never put into action.

 

[Mew The Gato]

You don't even read what I write, do you? Please don't misinterpret what I say so it suits you. I never said, nor will I ever say, looking good is the standard for creativity. I specifically said that there seems to be a correlation between the two, for me.

You didn't respond to what I said in the end, though. By your standards, a sentient glass of water that can spout large amounts of the stuff somehow qualifies as a "creative" Pokémon. Just because it is capable of something supernatural and has sentience, which is the standard for every single Pokémon ever created, by the way, doesn't mean it is creative. Saying everything is creative just because it's a Pokémon is, like I said to someone else, a bias and an unwillingness to examine the objective evidence that you're fond of but never put into action.

You said boring Pokemon tend to have bad designs and be unoriginal. Then you contradict yourself. Very good.

You always try to see the negative in things. Go and talk to the people and tell them that a red panda is not a panda?

Those are major factors. When they were released, people were so hyped about them. Now, people accuse them of being unoriginal. Clear pessimism.

 

[The Federation]

You said boring Pokemon tend to have bad designs and be unoriginal. Then you contradict yourself. Very good.

Ok, I'm going to quote myself now, but you have to read it this time, mmk?

Boring Pokémon tend to be badly designed and uncreative, so there's a correlation for me.

Never contradicted myself, I specified it was my own opinion. I was never claiming that correlation=causation.

You always try to see the negative in things. Go and talk to the people and tell them that a red panda is not a panda?

Are we talking about the same thing? When did I say that just because something has alterations it is no longer based on a concept? In fact, I advocate a larger design gap between basis and Pokémon, so I honestly don't see what you were trying to say here.

Those are major factors. When they were released, people were so hyped about them. Now, people accuse them of being unoriginal. Clear pessimism.

Yeah, other people, but not me, so don't generalize. Besides, didn't you say before that preference doesn't determine whether a Pokémon is creative or not? Since you said that, what does hype have to do with whether they were creative or not? The only one contradicting themselves here is you.

So, is hype what determines creativity or is it something concrete? You still haven't answered my main objection that creativity is judged by the gap in basis of design and final product, and you keep deflecting the issue.

 

[pupintheturd]

creative is a bad word that doesn't mean anything.

design is what you want to be discussing. both the design of the image of a pokemon (the image you see when you hear 'whismur' or 'caterpie') and the design of the pokemon itself (evolution, abillities, attacks, flavor text, etc.). not even neccessarily both in the same thread.

or you could continue being old angry men with barets that try to debate on which colour would fit the atmosphere of a tuesday the best. (orange, by the way)

my two cents.

 

[The Federation]

creative is a bad word that doesn't mean anything.

Maybe, but the thread is called "the most UN-creative Pokémon", so I'm just working with what I'm given, you know?

 

[Shymain]

The definition of creativity:

1.
the state or quality of being creative.

The definition of creative:

1. having the ability to create

Every. Single. Pokèmon. Is. Created. By. Nintendo.

That means, by definition, every single Pokèmon is creative, proving anyone who said otherwise wrong, period. If you want to argue, well, it's just being unreasonable, because those definitions are actually copied and pasted from Dictionary.com, which means that those are the official definitions that are correct worldwide. The end.

And before anyone claims that we aren't discussing that kind of creativity, that is creativity, period. That is the one kind of creativity.

 

[Mew The Gato]

The definition of creativity:



The definition of creative:




Every. Single. Pokèmon. Is. Created. By. Nintendo.

That means, by definition, every single Pokèmon is creative, proving anyone who said otherwise wrong, period. If you want to argue, well, it's just being unreasonable, because those definitions are actually copied and pasted from Dictionary.com, which means that those are the official definitions that are correct worldwide. The end.

And before anyone claims that we aren't discussing that kind of creativity, that is creativity, period. That is the one kind of creativity.

As I said, creativity depends on facts, not opinion. And I was also going with these definitions. Looks like we agree.

Although I am not sure people would buy it. Some people are horribly close minded.

 

[Dew Watatsumi]

As I said, creativity depends on facts, not opinion. And I was also going with these definitions. Looks like we agree.

Although I am not sure people would buy it. Some people are horribly close minded.

Tell me about it. People are still complaining about 5th gen as well. 5th gen is a reboot of 1st gen, if the two switched, the same thing would be said/argued (but with more jokes on Venusaur's name) If you are going to complain because your childhood is "ruined" why not sue Gamefreak. I'm sure that would go well

 

[Mew The Gato]

Tell me about it. People are still complaining about 5th gen as well. 5th gen is a reboot of 1st gen, if the two switched, the same thing would be said/argued (but with more jokes on Venusaur's name) If you are going to complain because your childhood is "ruined" why not sue Gamefreak. I'm sure that would go well

I never said that my childhood is ruined or anything. @_@

I am supporting the cause that all Pokemon are creative. You seem to be supporting the same cause I support, yet oppose me?

 

[Dew Watatsumi]

I never said that my childhood is ruined or anything. @_@

I am supporting the cause that all Pokemon are creative. You seem to be supporting the same cause I support, yet oppose me?

You got it wrong, I wasn't targeting you, I was agreeing with you. I was talking about the people who complain, sure there are pokémon that may be...questionable, but really cut Gamefreak a break, they should try designing 700+ pokémon in 20 years

 

[The Federation]

Every. Single. Pokèmon. Is. Created. By. Nintendo.

That means, by definition, every single Pokèmon is creative, proving anyone who said otherwise wrong, period. If you want to argue, well, it's just being unreasonable, because those definitions are actually copied and pasted from Dictionary.com, which means that those are the official definitions that are correct worldwide. The end.

And before anyone claims that we aren't discussing that kind of creativity, that is creativity, period. That is the one kind of creativity.

There's no way that's right, the definition of "creative" this thread is discussing is clearly

cre·a·tive
/krēˈātiv/
adjective

adjective: creative
1.
relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work.
"change unleashes people's creative energy"

We're talking about the descriptive version of creativity that talks about the object of creation rather than an individual's creative power. When I tell you my friends Mark is creative, am I saying he has the power to create or am I saying he is an original and imaginative guy when it comes to creating things? If you are steadfast in your belief that your definition is right and stick by your claim that anyone who thinks differently is unreasonable, you're being close-minded. I can pull Merriam Webster, top Google result like I just did, whatever, and apply them reasonably where you can't, because your definitions are either

1. Not descriptive: "the state of being creative" doesn't define creativity at all, or
2. Talking about the wrong object, "having the ability to create" is strictly used for the creator rather than the creation.

Now that I've laid it all out for you, "if you deny it you're being unreasonable and closed-minded".

Speaking of closed-minded,

Although I am not sure people would buy it. Some people are horribly close minded.

You continue to ignore my main point. If you can't answer it that's fine, but at least acknowledge your inability to do so rather than sidestep and avoid the question. Calling me closed-minded, though indirectly, and ignoring my posts is cowardly.

By your accepted definition, literally every single Pokémon or painting or drawing or sketch or mural or sculpture or building or model is creative, which defeats the purpose of having the word. We're talking about context, and contextually it is used to describe the originality and ingenuity put into the creation of a Pokémon. This definition is useless, and if it accepted, this thread is useless. Why discuss Uncreative Pokémon when they're all creative by definition? Clearly the OP didn't accept your definition, so why should anyone else if they put a second of thought into the matter?

 

[Shymain]

The problem is that the definition that you are using is incredibly vague, and is not actually one specific thing, but a very wide statement -- and, at times, a very narrow one.

Technically, you are right, but I am as well. The definition I used is just as valid as yours in the sense that you cannot say that one definition of creative is more correct than another.

 

[Naito]

Really? There are plenty that have little thought put into them and even more who have designs that should have been trashed before release. Saying that there aren't any at all shows you are a dedicated fan, but it also shows your bias and willingness to ignore terrible implementation of concepts. There are plenty that should have spent more time in the development stage.

Look, I am not blind towards the designs, I do not like every Pokemon equally. But if some Pokemon is meant to look like a simple rat, then it will look like a simple rat. Un-creative would be if they picked A4 piece of paper called Papermon with the move Cut, which evolves into A3 paper size, just so they could fill the space in the dex.
Let's say... I do not like Spiritomb, but in the same time I think it is very creative Pokemon. Tell me, which Pokemon do you consider un-creative?

 

[Sprinter1988]

Charmander. Why can't no one else see that it is just a little orange salamander with a flame on its tail? It infuriates me that it is a pokemon.

Squirtle's just a turtle that spits out bubbles. Spearow's just a bird that flaps its wings and pecks. Rattata's just a rat, scurrying about biting things. So what?

 

[jesusfreak94]

Difference between basis of a concept and the concept itself is what determines creativity, not how it makes you feel personally.

Actually no, creativity in the context of Pokemon designs is determined by the amount of imagination invested into a design, and imagination begins before the design itself is drawn. If it took a lot of imagination to come up with the idea for a Pokemon based on ice cream in the first place, then I'd argue that's pretty creative.

Really? There are plenty that have little thought put into them and even more who have designs that should have been trashed before release. Saying that there aren't any at all shows you are a dedicated fan, but it also shows your bias and willingness to ignore terrible implementation of concepts. There are plenty that should have spent more time in the development stage.

See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about in my last post. You try to complain about someone else's bias, but this entire comment is based solely upon your own opinions and bias. You have literally no idea how much actual thought and effort was put into those individual designs. You just assume as much because you think they look uncreative. I'd honestly like for you to objectively prove that these designs are "terrible implementations of concepts" that "should have spent more time in the development stage." Otherwise, I kindly ask you to stop presenting your own opinions as fact and stop trying to put down opposing opinions and push them off as "bias and willingness to ignore."

 

[RXL Hope]

I always found the early flying type pokemon in each region (Pidgey, Hoothoot, Tailow,) etc. ) and their evolutionary lines pretty boring.

 

[Enjolras]

Tell me about it. People are still complaining about 5th gen as well. 5th gen is a reboot of 1st gen, if the two switched, the same thing would be said/argued (but with more jokes on Venusaur's name) If you are going to complain because your childhood is "ruined" why not sue Gamefreak. I'm sure that would go well

Why does every argument you make turn into a Genwunner bash?