1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'General Pokémon Discussion' started by SWMegaFan, Oct 7, 2016.

  1. MechanisticMoth

    MechanisticMoth Eloquent Speaker

    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.
     
  2. Nygma

    Nygma Member

    I don't mind humanoids, I love a few of them; Machamp, Alakazam and Mr Mime!
     
  3. Pokegirl Fan~

    Pokegirl Fan~ February 15, 2011-February 15, 2020

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

    Echo Nacyl Well-Known Member

    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).
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. Bolt the Cat

    Bolt the Cat Bringing the Thunder

    Because new and different things are scary.
     
  7. Ditto B1tch

    Ditto B1tch Well-Known Member

    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)
     
  8. satopi

    satopi Go’s Scyther is indestriketible! <3

    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.
     
  9. queenalexis

    queenalexis Member

    some are bad some are good
     
  10. Mrs. Oreo

    Mrs. Oreo Banned

    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.
     
  11. LadyTriox

    LadyTriox ~Cool like Korrina is~*snuggles her* <33

    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...
     
  12. RedJirachi

    RedJirachi Veteran member

    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
     
  13. Alloutℯ

    Alloutℯ Banned

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

    Bananarama The light is coming

    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.
     
  15. RedJirachi

    RedJirachi Veteran member

    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.
     
  16. Mrs. Oreo

    Mrs. Oreo Banned

    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. ^^;
     
  17. starme987

    starme987 New Member

    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.
     
  18. Cyclone

    Cyclone ^ where it all began

    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.
     
  19. Shayuin

    Shayuin Banned

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

    Bingoned New Member

    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.
     

Share This Page