• 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.

IAintObeezy

Ban this Trainer
Less creative. = / = Not creative.

Anyway, no. Whether something is creative or not depends on fact, but the scales on creativity depend on opinion.

Ugh, alright for one sec get rid of the obvious fact that I could just add a zero to my scale and place pokemon in that category and call them voided of creativity because I'm pretty sure your gonna come up with such a ******** logic that makes everything you say a fact.

Lets for one instance say your right and this statement is what you meant from the beginning (because this sure as hell wasnt what you were leading up to it). Then you would be taking this thread too literally in its definition. When someone feelings for anything gets to a point where it is too negative they stop using positive words to describe it. This thread says to list what you think is the most uncreative pokemon. To be the most uncreative pokemon you must already be at the point where they use negative words like "uncreative" instead of using things like "of little creativity". Because thats how the mind works. If you see a persons report card and saw they had all F's (maybe a D and a C) your not going to say "this person is just a miniscule genius" (because according to your insane logic they technically are) you're going to call them dumb or retarded. Blunt and gets your point across that you think they dont have that much brains in them. You're not getting anywhere trying to beat your method of describing pokemon into everyones head because no ones going to sugar coat their views to make you feel better. Now if YOU want to do that because thats how YOU want to describe creativity then be my guest.


And that currently includes you.
Hehe, yeah saying the equivalence of "NO U" doesn't phase me. Try again.
 
Last edited:

Naito

Well-Known Member
KANTO

-Diglett + Dugtrio (what?)
-Seel + Dewgong (it's a seal)
-Voltorb + Electrode (it's a ball with a face on it)
-Goldeen + Seeking (it's a fish

HOENN

-Beatifly (Butterfree rip-off)
-Gulpin + Swalot (Grimer and Muk rip-offs, but looking 10x worse)
-Wailord (it's a whale)
-Numel (what?)
-Luvdisc (it's a heart-shaped... thingy...)

SINNOH

-Finneon + Lumineon (it's a fish)
-Rotom forms (...)

UNOVA

-Pidove (it's a dove)
-Ducklett + Swanna (it's a duck and swan)
-Vannilish + Vanilluxe (what?)
-Alomomola (it's a Luvdic with fins. Congrats?)
-Tynamo (it's a fish... thing)
-Beartic (it's a bear)
-Stunfisk (WTF is this?)

To clarify a little on my list: bad or ugly Pokémon design do not necessarily mean uninspired, else there would have been a Johto section and plenty more on the other region sections as well (with Bidoof and Patrat as the main entries on that list). Uninspired to me were mostly Pokémon designed too closely to real life animals and without enough cartoon to them to make them a little more unique, or Pokémon whose designs are too close to designs from previous generations.

Sorry, but your point: it's a <insert animal or anything else here> just doesn't make sense.
We can go like this:
Squirtle (it's a turtle)
Turtwig/Torkoal/Carracosta (Squirtle ripoff)
Oddish (it's a plant)
Piplup (it's a penguin)
Swellow (it's a swallow)

Y'know, everything is based on something, so it has to resemble it
 

yuoke

Treasure huntin'
Really? Vanilla family Pokes are literally ice cream. That's it. The third evo is the only one with any thought whatsoever out into it, and it's a sundae. Garbage family Pokémon are trash, pun intended. The design is unappealing and the concept is stupid. The design could have been at least a little creative, like Grimer/Muk with their entirely purple bodies, but they made them look like actual garbage. 5th gen as a whole failed completely on the Pokémon design spectrum. I absolutely love some 5th gen Pokes, but for the most part they are terrible.

Except they literally aren't ice cream. They are icicles shaped creatively like ice cream cones with frost/snow on top creatively looking like ice cream. And what about muk and grimer being purplish makes then creative? That is roughly the exact color o. What sludge looks like. Most of the designs of gen 5 were fine.
 

Milennin

*hugs Absol*
Sorry, but your point: it's a <insert animal or anything else here> just doesn't make sense.
We can go like this:
Squirtle (it's a turtle)
Turtwig/Torkoal/Carracosta (Squirtle ripoff)
Oddish (it's a plant)
Piplup (it's a penguin)
Swellow (it's a swallow)

Y'know, everything is based on something, so it has to resemble it

All those you listed I feel have more personality beyond "it's a [insert animal]"
Although I'm sure I missed a bunch of them in my list. And thinking of it I should take off Vanillish (however much I hate it, its design is not truly that uninspired).

Also, it's just my opinion. It's fine if you don't agree with it. I'm not really interested in arguing over my list.
 

Naito

Well-Known Member
All those you listed I feel have more personality beyond "it's a [insert animal]"
Although I'm sure I missed a bunch of them in my list. And thinking of it I should take off Vanillish (however much I hate it, its design is not truly that uninspired).

Also, it's just my opinion. It's fine if you don't agree with it. I'm not really interested in arguing over my list.

Ok, I am not taking your opinion, I just expressed mine.
 

Mew The Gato

___________
Just had someone tell me that they really would like the "glass of water" Pokémon. No wonder they didn't say so on the thread, then they might actually have to think and defend such a silly position.


I know you won't answer me, because you have been running from my points since I first responded to you, but...

What do you even mean when you say "scales of creativity"? I actually partially agree, just want to see you actually respond.


If you do not like something, it does not mean it is not creative.

I cannot check this thread whenever it gets a post. I end up missing some.

That refers to the "amount of creativity" in a certain Pokemon. It is strange that you agree with me for once in this thread. Although I do agree with you in several other topics.

Ugh, alright for one sec get rid of the obvious fact that I could just add a zero to my scale and place pokemon in that category and call them voided of creativity because I'm pretty sure your gonna come up with such a ******** logic that makes everything you say a fact.

Lets for one instance say your right and this statement is what you meant from the beginning (because this sure as hell wasnt what you were leading up to it). Then you would be taking this thread too literally in its definition. When someone feelings for anything gets to a point where it is too negative they stop using positive words to describe it. This thread says to list what you think is the most uncreative pokemon. To be the most uncreative pokemon you must already be at the point where they use negative words like "uncreative" instead of using things like "of little creativity". Because thats how the mind works. If you see a persons report card and saw they had all F's (maybe a D and a C) your not going to say "this person is just a miniscule genius" (because according to your insane logic they technically are) you're going to call them dumb or retarded. Blunt and gets your point across that you think they dont have that much brains in them. You're not getting anywhere trying to beat your method of describing pokemon into everyones head because no ones going to sugar coat their views to make you feel better. Now if YOU want to do that because thats how YOU want to describe creativity then be my guest.

That would still not make it unoriginal. The absolute ends are fact, obviously.

What implies I was leading up to something else? When did I contradict myself about this statement?

The thing is, it said "uncreative" instead of "least creative". The former depends on fact, the latter on opinion. Had it been least creative, the facts and opinions would not contradict each other. A little difference in wording can change the meaning.

Also, I would not call them dumb or a retard because I prefer not to be rude.
 
Last edited:

Shymain

Shaymin Lover
*Facepalm*
I love how people don't read the thread. Okay, it's a ball with eyes. What about this? Meowth is a cat. Deerling is a doe. Stantler is a stag. Pikachu is a mouse. Rotom is electricity. Geodude is a rock. Feebas is a fish. Noivern is a wyvern with a loudspeaker. Xerneas is a stag.

Wanna make stupid arguments? Well, guess what? Anyone can. You are not making a valid point by saying <Pokèmon> is a <Object/Animal/etc.>
 

Mew The Gato

___________
*Facepalm*
I love how people don't read the thread. Okay, it's a ball with eyes. What about this? Meowth is a cat. Deerling is a doe. Stantler is a stag. Pikachu is a mouse. Rotom is electricity. Geodude is a rock. Feebas is a fish. Noivern is a wyvern with a loudspeaker. Xerneas is a stag.

Wanna make stupid arguments? Well, guess what? Anyone can. You are not making a valid point by saying <Pokèmon> is a <Object/Animal/etc.>

Indeed, that is true.

Charizard is just an European Dragon, Rayquaza is just a Chinese Dragon, Ho-oh is just a Rainbow Phoenix copied from Fenghuang. Spiritomb is just a ghost with the 108 motif, as 108 is considered a "bad" number like 13 in Western countries.

^ Sarcasm Mode.

This is true, just saying that is not enough. You would not listen to us if we call your favourite Pokemon unoriginal. You would make arguments similar to the ones you do not accept when we make them. You contradict yourselves. This is bias.

Simplicity is not bad. You say things like "Apparently an x with a x is passable as a Pokemon." We do not even know what defines a Pokemon, as we have no official answer for that, so these arguments are invalid.
 

The Benmeister

Master of Magnet
Dugtrio.

Oddly, I'd say that Diglett is quite a creative Pokemon. The mystery of what lies beneath a Diglett has eluded mankind for over a decade.

But Dugtrio is just three Diglett. At least with Magneton, the reasoning is that Magnemite are, yaknow, magnets, so at least they have a reason for joining together (still not sure how three Magnemite can evolve from one, but whatever). But unless I'm missing something (and feel free to correct me if I am), there's no real reason as to why three Diglett choose to converge together to make Dugtrio. It just happens.

EDIT: I will state that being uncreative doesn't make something bad. Dugtrio was on my first EVER Pokemon team on my Blue version and it was freakin' awesome. Can't beat a bit of that first gen Earthquake animation.
 
Last edited:

Mew The Gato

___________
he/she isn't "wrong" it's just his/her opinion.

I think that electrode is by far the worst, turning something upside down is just way too lazy.

Opinions cannot change facts... but we actually do not know how Diglett evolves into Dugtrio.

It is a gimmick. The design is deliberate. I can say: "Sawsbuck is just a stylized buck with plants on its antlers. Not creative at all. They should give it wings and make fire come out of its hooves."
 
Last edited:

Minedreigon

A monument to all your sins
@Minedregion: No, no, no, no, no. They are wrong, as what I said is not my opinion, but it is clearly stated in a couple of Dugtrio's Pokedex entries that it is what I said it was, therefore proving them and you wrong.

Honestly, :mad:

And it's still lazy, they could have expanded on it, like giving it arms or legs. I like most other pokemon, since I'm fine with the design, except from klang, it just re-uses a part of klink and gets a big gear.
 

The Benmeister

Master of Magnet
Ah, the whole shared body thing is new to me. I was unaware of that.

I still find it uncreative though, and a quick glance through its Pokedex entries reveal that only in the RS Pokedex is the whole 'emerging from one body' thing even mentioned. At least they're trying to explain it now, but originally, all we had to go on was that three Diglett travelled together and voila, Dugtrio.
 

Qvalador

tainted holy water
I read the thread. I'm not trying to make an arguement. The title of the thread was, "What is the most UN-creative Pokémon," and I stated my answer. I could care less whether you agree or not; I posted in this thread for the reason it was created for, and whether you like my opinion or not, it is my opinion. I have the freedom to give it out.
 

Shymain

Shaymin Lover
@Benmeister: Lol, TBH, so was I. I just hate people calling Pokèmon uncreative, especially when using flawed logic, and I knew that I had heard an explanation in one of the Pokedex entries, so I checked Bulbapedia.

Really, I just want to say one more time that no Pokèmon is really uncreative, some are just more creative than others.

@Qvalador: Whether that's your opinion or not, it is using incredibly flawed logic, as your argument is simply that Voltorb is a ball with eyes, but you do not go on to explain how it is any less creative than every other Pokèmon, as many Pokèmon that are widely considered creative are simply <This> with <This> added onto them.
 
Last edited:

IAintObeezy

Ban this Trainer
1. That would still not make it unoriginal. The absolute ends are fact, obviously.

2. What implies I was leading up to something else? When did I contradict myself about this statement?

3. The thing is, it said "uncreative" instead of "least creative". The former depends on fact, the latter on opinion. Had it been least creative, the facts and opinions would not contradict each other. A little difference in wording can change the meaning.

4. Also, I would not call them dumb or a retard because I prefer not to be rude.

1. Welll wadda ya know. Proved me right.
2. Your all over the place and make up **** to counteract whatever argument is present.
3. The title says "most uncreative"(well wadda ya know, proving point two). Arguably he worded it wrong. But it still implies as much of a scaling of favorites as saying "least creative". And even if he meant to word it like that, as I said, he's not trying to please you. (Keep in mind this is still implying IF your logic is right. )
4. First, Good for you. YOU. Second, whether you outright say it or not wasn't the point I was making.

Considering, at this point your either nitpicking or replying to my points with as little support of "facts" as possible, your only doing this to get the feeling of being right.
 
Last edited:

Mew The Gato

___________
Honestly, :mad:

And it's still lazy, they could have expanded on it, like giving it arms or legs. I like most other pokemon, since I'm fine with the design, except from klang, it just re-uses a part of klink and gets a big gear.

Sawsbuck is lazy, then. They should have given it wings, fire blazing near its hooves and some golden armour. It is just a normal stag by YOUR logic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top