Why are Pokemon based on inanimate objects (or look human-like) the least liked?

[MechanisticMoth]

If you loved The Little Toaster, you should love all of the inanimate versions of Rotom. Most people like Rotom even though it's whole purpose is to possess household objects.
I think all of the inanimate object Pokemon are fun because it's that trick of "oh I really feel like eating that sno-cooooo... OH MY GOD IT'S ALIVE." Mirroring the real world in a way.

 

[Nygma]

I don't mind humanoids, I love a few of them; Machamp, Alakazam and Mr Mime!

 

[Pokegirl Fan~]

I guess it could be design preferences, and possibly stats as well. I actually like their designs though.

 

[Echo Nacyl]

I know I read it somewhere in the forums; but I'm fond of the idea that, in the Pokemon world, the "object" Pokemon are what the objects themselves are based on, rather than the reverse as we perceive it from an outside existence. It's perfectly common to see objects that resemble living things. Vases that resemble sea life, pillows shaped like fluffy mammals, statues and figurines of many kinds, a wide variety of toys...If it happens in our real world, who's to say that it's not the case in the world of Pokemon?

Human-shape Pokemon don't bother me, as life comes in a great deal of forms that people will still group by similarities. I admit I'm less a fan of them, though. This is not because I think they're bad, but because they often don't catch my interest or are of types that I don't usually use (I'm looking at you, Psychic).

 

[Brian the Pine Tree]

I don't really get the "less creative" argument for Pokemon based on objects. To me, a keyring with fairy powers that breaks into people's houses to steal their keys sounds more creative than a dog or a rabbit.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

Because new and different things are scary.

 

[Ditto B1tch]

Problem is that some object Pokemon aren't creative, not because they're based on an object, but because they lack creativity in their design (too simple or doesnt look like a Pokemon)

 

[satopi]

Some of the designs like Magnemite, Klingklang, or Vanilluxe are terrible and they're not really showcased well. Pokemon that sort of look like inanimate objections like Comfey, Litwit, or Rotom are exceptions because their designs are well done, their descriptions are pretty useful and interesting, and its showcases its power by other means outside of battling.

 

[queenalexis]

some are bad some are good

 

[Mrs. Oreo]

People like to be a mob. Its comforting. So because it has become "safe" to hate the inanimate objects, now everyone does. Misery loves company, etc. Its often easier to make friends over a mutal dislike than a shared interest.

I don't think fans have a mob mentality when it comes to Pokemon that resemble inanimate objects. In my case at least, I just prefer animalistic-looking kinds of Pokemon and my opinion isn't reinforced by what other fans think. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong about having a preference regarding liking animal-like Pokemon more than non-animal-like ones.

 

[LadyTriox]

People in general like plants and animals, i guess? They're peaceful and close to nature. They won't give you a hard time about things. Stuff like that...

 

[RedJirachi]

Usually they're the easier target for arguments of unoriginality. And a number of them don't help it-Voltorb is just a Pokeball, for example

 

[Alloutℯ]

And a number of them don't help it-Voltorb is just a Pokeball, for example

It resembles a Poke Ball sure, though it's much bigger. Also, it's meant to be more like a landmine iirc.

 

[Bananarama]

Usually they're the easier target for arguments of unoriginality. And a number of them don't help it-Voltorb is just a Pokeball, for example

I actually think that a lot of the Pokemon that are based on inanimate objects are more creative than some of the ones based on animals. I'm not sure I would ever have come up with a Pokemon based on gears like Klink or thought of the weather form-changing mechanics of, say, Castform.

 

[RedJirachi]

I actually think that a lot of the Pokemon that are based on inanimate objects are more creative than some of the ones based on animals. I'm not sure I would ever have come up with a Pokemon based on gears like Klink or thought of the weather form-changing mechanics of, say, Castform.

I guess it depends on how they stylize the item. Klink honestly isn't that creative, since it's gears and its evolutions will add more gears. But things like Dhelmise(the ghost of seaweed possessing an old anchor and being the closest thing to three typed) are creative. Eyes of the beholder I guess.

 

[Mrs. Oreo]

It resembles a Poke Ball sure, though it's much bigger. Also, it's meant to be more like a landmine iirc.

I like Voltorb the most out of the Gen 1 inanimate object Pokemon, as odd as it may sound. I think that its resemblance to a Pokeball is its most interesting trait, although it was kind of annoying in the games when I'd mistake it for an item ball. ^^;

 

[starme987]

I've always loved the inanimate ones, or at least not hated them. The idea that they're less creative is amusing to me;

Gen I: See this things that is literally a pigeon that gets bigger - no change in colour scheme or creative fantastical elements? That's a fan favourite!

Gen V: This haunted candle that becomes a haunted light that becomes a haunted chandelier, that has really cool design and cool moves and good stats? SO uncreative.

Even more uncreative ones like the key thing and the gears I thought were pretty cool, at least a welcome addition. I'm glad Dhelmise got a good reception.

 

[Cyclone]

It's not that inanimate object Pokemon are less "creative" they're just less "Pokemon-like". Pokemon are supposed to be living breathing creatures, not objects. When I see Pokemon like Klefki or even Palossand I feel like it's "cheating." Man made objects are not creatures, and to me they just don't live up to the original concept of Pokemon. Even originals like Magnemite/Magneton stand out from the others to me for this reason.

Of course NATURAL objects like rocks (Geodude) are not the same as man-made objects like ice cream cones, keychains, and swords.

But that doesn't stop me from loving these Pokemon. Pokemon like Chandelure & Xurkitree are some of my favorite designs despite the fact that they still feel like a bit of a cheat.

 

[Shayuin]

Animal-like species of Pokemon are just more relatable than ones based on minerals and random stuff like sludge and candles.

 

[Bingoned]

I think it's just a matter of people preferring the animal designs, based off of mythical creatures, rather than the ones based on objects. Maybe it has something to do with the uncanny valley and personifying random things.