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.