It was fun seeing everyone's different opinions on the last video, Let me know your thoughts on this topic as well! Do you want more content similar to these 2 videos? let me know in the comments! Also here's a link to first video if you haven't seen it yet - ruclips.net/video/gR6W0_K7SPc/видео.html
First off thank you for taking the time & effort to make a video like this. I think you generally hit the nail on the head here too. I’m not overly a fan of morgrim however I do really respect the philosophy that went behind it as many fairies are not good. Again I really do think Pokémon have become slaves to their concept rather than interesting variations of reality or even mythological animals, and this is really unfortunate because I believe there are many types of animals that have yet to be touched on. Hopefully gen 10 will get a new art direction and revert back to realism.
Completely agree with fairy types. It feels like GameFreak never really defined a basis for fairy types beyond 'cute and/or pink' and because of that fairy pokemon are all over the place. even the ones from older gens that they re-labeled fairy type have little to nothing in common with each other.
@@charnalk5572 That's a very valid point. I am not that knowledgeable on fairies irl and it's perfectly possible Gamefreak knows what they're doing when making them. I do still think that selection the pokemon from gen 1-5 that were made Fairy type seems kinda random, but there might be good reasons for them being that type that I'm not aware of.
Literally every Grass type has leaves or flowers on their bodies, every water type is blue or some kind of fish and almost every electric type is stripey yellow with pointy edges lol. We could add a bit of diversity to the design of the fairy types sure, But I don't it's necessarily bad purely bc it's "cute and/or pink".
I think people forget that fairy is actually a pretty varied thing, there are fey creatures like Jenny green teeth that looks horrifying and eats children that get too close to the water, even gnomes, dwarves, goblins are all types of fairies. Fairies aren’t just tiny butterfly winged people their mysterious magical creatures. In modern times it’s used to describe just tiny people with fairy wings but that’s not always how it’s been, I do not like fairy Pokémon just being pink Pokémon but like unicorns are fey folk , and trolls are a type of fey folk, it’s nice to see them in the game….faires are my favourite type because I love fey mythology.
In my opinion a Good Pokemon design is something that is a good base. The Pokemon community loves their pokemon because their pokemon feel like their friends. Magnemite seems more like a tiny little monster compared to Klink, one you might could give a character to. Compare Vanillish to Trubbish, which Trubbish wasn't liked at first, but it began to grow on people. I personally think Trubbish is animalistic enough to find, "cute" personally the little bag ties in the top remind me of bunny ears, and it gives it more personality. While Vanillish looks like something you'd eat at a kids birthday party. People like Piplup over Quaxly because Quaxly shows a personality and Piplup doesn't. This I think is why People prefer Meowscardsa over Incineroar too, Meowscardsa appears to be kind of a blank slate you can give a personality to perhaps you want a Meowscardsa that's soft spoken but speaks more in actions than words, or one that is definitely a cocky little bastard, while Incineroar you get, big loud buff cat who wrestles. There's no room for imagination. If anybody knows Vocaloid it's a Similar experience, people like the designs and assign personalities to these designs, when in reality the designs are just faces to put to a voice. Some people portray Hatsune Miku as a Loud, Dramatic Teenage Girl, while others may portray her as a more soft spoken character. Kagamine Rin can be perceived as shy and innocent or a loud mouth 14 year old girl who is going through a rebellious phase. None of it is "canon" it's literally what the buyer wants, and it works. That's what I think is missing in newer Generations of Pokemon, there's a lot of Pokemon that aren't necessarily being forced to be one thing. But it's difficult to see it be anything other than what Gamefreak is giving us. Rant over sorry if I got sidetracked lol
Kling is cute. Kling has a face, even if not obvious. The whole line has a face in it's pattern. Also, I know for sure that if more people realised that the "ice cream pokemon" are actually icicles putting snow on their heads to pretend they are ice cream, so people like them more (cuz everybody love sice cream)
I guess it all depends on your preference and point of view. I grew up with the original 151 and the more I get older the more I realize I like the newer designs more since they’re more colorful and complex unlike the simple generic designs Gen 1 had, I personally don’t know what to say overall.. like I get that some designs nowadays don’t use the environment simple structure you like but at the same time as long as you create something that looks overall great to look at, that should very well be enough even if they don’t follow the same structure.
I've started playing in 1999-2000 |I believe and while I don't like some new designs (tbh I hate some of og 151) some are really cool. Like Island Deities are great. And most of new ones are good.
Also, how is Quaxly type "not obvious" without the blue? It's a duck, you don't need to be very smart to assume that it may be a water type, especially if it's a starter
Pokemon fans: Gen 9's designs are so bad, they are too complex, too weird, they don't look like animals, they don't look like pokemon. Also Pokemon fans: They are too simple. SO WHAT THE FREAK IS A PARADOX MON THEN!?
How about Hitmontop it’s a pure fighting design I’ll argue is better than those examples of better design fighting type, like Infernape doesn’t scream it’s fighting type or lucario steel typing doesn’t add much to it’s design-wise as it’s aura based and is more favor text to make it more unique typing. I feel like if lucario didn’t have it’s signature steel typing it be more-less like Mienshao, a bipedal animal that throw punches (not literally).
I mean Lucario has a steel spike sticking out of its chest, I think out of the hitmons Lee is the best because it had the most unique concept behind it, they gave it curled phone cable like limbs. I think Hitmontop is cool because it represents a balance between lee and chan but the problem with it is that it looks more like in-between evo between tyrogue and the others
@@Revster Well sure the spike can count, and in general the hitmons line are cool concept. A Pokémon split evolution depending on how ya train it is alright. And it helps that the model and animations for them hold them even more.
Me when the game doesn't punch me in the face and screams at me the pokemon's typing for the 218401781th time even though I can just look at the pokemon's typing in my pokedex: My man, not every single pokemon has to have an obvious typing. Many pokemon have their "gimmick" being having their typing not being obvious. Also, tf you mean Infernape doesn't look like a fighthing type? It's literally Son Goku! Saying that "the type needs to be extremely obvious for the pokemon to be good" is dumb. Such arbitrary rules are so limitive.
I wouldn’t say all the new designs are trash. There are lots of new designs that fit this description like the Baxcalibur line, Kilowattrel line, Grafaiai line, etc.
I don’t think that’s really what makes a Pokémon though. I never saw them as animals being purely bound by nature. I don’t think they are supposed to just be animals. Some definitely, but I think over all they are monsters, some either mimicking man made objects to blend in with their desired settings (like the Klink line), or inspired man made objects (Like the Vanilite line.) at the end of the day you’ll like what you’ll like but I feel people go way to far and make assumptions about what a Pokémon can be or is supposed to be
Art is always subjective and personal preference. I personally like pokemon that are more grounded in nature. But again this is an over generalisations. Every pokemon is different and is judged literally on a case by case basis.
@@gsp6517 so.. if it's "pocket monster" why does newer pokemon keep getting more human? Some literally evolved to have a profession like human... nothing like monster.
Curious what makes gallade seem less anthropomorphic than machamp to you. To me, the macho line always looked like some particularly buff dinosaurs, gallade looks like just a green guy with swords.
As said in the last video Great Video! Loved how you actually went into detail unlike how others just say short non descriptive sentences like " its just so cool" . Coherency in stats is really funny as so many Pokémon have designs that would make them look strong but just be weak overall. Also Rip Dialga and Palkia, Palkia could of been better if it just had arms but even with arms it would look awkward as hell.
Thanks again glad you enjoyed these 2 vids. I thought people would get bored of me going into detail but its necessary for a topic like this, especially since the first video couldn't cover everything I wanted to say on the topic. Coherency in stats are honestly so hilarious, its like pokedex entries at this point. And yea I agree RIP Dia Pa origin forms, they took one for the team in design to get a sick ass theme
I personally don't like the early mons very much and especially dislike a few of the earliest ones (jynx, hitmonchan and lickitung in particular) but I will say that gen 3 and 4 was the best generations of pokemon designs. To be fair gen 9 also had some really good additions such as annihilape, darxbun and the four treasures of ruin, but compared to gen 4 it's lacking quite a bit.
I always preferred the origin forms of dialga and palkia, it makes them feel more alien and godlier since they control literal concepts of reality so why would they care about taking a form we can comprehend better
This video makes way better points than the last one. I agree that the designs are definitely getting less subtle, but more round and vibrant, I think that’s more because of marketability. I disagree that humanoid/object Pokémon are automatically bad though. There’s plenty of mythical creatures that are very humanoid or just straight up objects. As for the realistic wild aspect One thing the newer generations actually did nail design wise is the regional variants and how they adapt. Especially in Scarlet and Violet with the wild vs civil designs depending on the version. They should definitely lean into that aspect more going forwards.
Great video and very detailed. But I guess I'm in the minority, because although I grew up with the originals, I tend to prefer the newer designs to the older. I get where everyone is coming from, but I also don't really see an issue with every Pokémon not being directly based on a wild animal or being less organic. I think it adds variety to the series instead of it just being Zoo Tycoon with extra steps. Also, on Dialga and Palkia, I believe they're meant to represent what more accurate depictions of eldrich deities are fabled to look like. They're supposed to look that way. In reality, as cool as it is, Giratina is the outlier of the bunch
I feel there's enough new good stuff that comes with the bad. Yeah gothetelle sucked but we got volcarona, aromatisse sucked but we got tyrantrum. There's still hope. I just need a quadruped starter to stay on all 4s for once. We've had bulbasaur, chikorita, mudkip, turtwig, popplio(?) resist standing up. 5/24 starters. c'mon nintendo
@@Petaurista13 I didn't say new>old. I just meant that every gen has good and bad. And I don't think it's as out of proportion as it might feel to a lot of people. From gen 1-present, Pokemon has consistently made shitty designs and awesome ones. They haven't really overall gotten worse or better. Just a different art style. Gotta have highlights and lowlights.
2:25 why? Why a pokemon cant be humanoid? Who created this rule that pokemon has to be pure boring animals that have only one elemental attribute and nothing else?
Honestly I just like new Pokémon. If it looks good, I’ll take it. My first game was kanto so every game after that just blew me away with all the new choices. Maybe I just have low expectations but idk
I 100% agree with this, I think since gen 5 they've gone too simple, anthropomorphic garbage bags and floating gears are bad as pokemon viaually because those objects themselves are usually very simple. Thats not to say all the new designs are bad, The final evos of the starters since gen 4 have been pretty good (except serperior) and for the most part the pseudo-legendaries have been so awesome but I think Kleavor, Basculegion etc should be the path they take with newer designs, where they're unqiue but also could conceivably fit into any game from gen 1 to 8. I'm not a fan of the gen 9 starters because I think they've over done the reptilians legendaries and now these one's turn into bikes and fly around. I think Koraidon's design is great but I think they went too overboard with Miraidon so it now looks like a fanart depiction of Aurelion Sol
@@Revster Charizard is just a dragon. Blastoise is just a tortoise. Rattata is just a rat, as well as Pikachu. Pidgey is just a pigeon. Staryu is just a starfish. Magikarp is just a fish. And you know what? I love every single one of them. They are extremely simple,(Most only having 2 colors) but I'm completely fine with it and even love them. There are a bunch of new Pokemon that are extremely different and extremely similar to them in simplicity, but I still like them(except flamigo). All in all, sure the designs have gotten considerably different throughout the years, but they haven't gotten worse
@@dFuZeJoker did you just give one unrelated example and then say the designs haven't gotten worse? Did you even read what I said? The point is the og 3 are fine being simple because they each have a unique gimmick, blastoise is a turtle with guns, venasaur is a frog with the worlds largest flower on its back, charizard is a dragon crossed with a lizard. Koraidon and Miraidon are trash because they are based on reptiles but instead of being based in mythology or an interesting subject like trevenant and phantump, they're gimmicky trash, which is cool for digimon but terrible for pokemon
@@Revster So Charizard is cool because he's a cross between a lizard, yet Miraidon isn't because he's a dragon that's also a robot? Not only is Miraidon a dragon but he also has lore of being a normal pokemon but from the future essentially being a regional form. That's cool lore and he even has a pretty good theme and design. There is absolutely nothing wrong with him. If Charizard has a gimmick for "being a lizard" then how does Miraidon not have one with all the lore and design about him. Also I wasn't saying simplicity is bad, I'm saying you can't say simplicity is good for one gen but not good for the other. And did you read what I said, I said flamigo was bad, not good. Let's take Pawmi for example, it's design is pretty simple, like Pikachu. It's not that great of a design,(although personally I love it) but neither is Pikachu yet it's the mascot of the entire franchise. When looking at any one pokemon I have never thought "that isn't a pokemon," even for ones like Incineroar. Pokemon don't have any one or more rules to define them. They aren't all just animals and they aren't all just inanimate objects. Some look humanoid and some are just globs like Grimer. You can personally dislike any Pokemon you like, that's your opinion. But to say such a stupid blanket statement like "the designs are getting worse" is ridiculous. You're not the judge of pokemon and whatever made up rules you have of defining good and bad pokemon designs do not apply to anyone else
100% agree, sad to see how most people cant see the difference between a well thought out design concept and a lazy/bad design. What they did with Dialga and Pulkia was so tragic
I think what they did with both sinnoh games was tragic compared to what they did for the other remakes, atleast PLA setup the mechanics we'll see in Scarlet n Violet
Actually most of og 151 are basically slightly fantastic depiction of casual animals so I fail to see laziness appearing later. If anything after x generations it's hard for some new stuff to not be based on same as old. It's like with writing. Most of books are variations of few stories.
@@Petaurista13 I don't think thats what they meant, more thought is put into the older pokemon where as now the bar is a lower for what makes it into the games
@@Petaurista13 gen 1 definitely has a few weak design but its not about just being based on animal design its about all the other points made in this video. Older gens had bad designs but these new gens are responsible for far more bad design practices than the older generations
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it lazy, even if you don’t like the new dialgia and palkia it’s not like they just scribbled something on paper and called it a day
The point you made about Quaxly a "new pokemon" can easily be made on most pokemons out of the first 3 generation "the original pokemons" and as such the pokemons who should reflect what a pokemon should be Quaxly (your point): a duck with blue feet and a water hat Charmander: a red salamander with fire at the end of it's tail squirtle: a blue turtle Bulbasaur: a green frog dinosaur thing with a bulb Totodile: a blue crocodile Chikorita: a green dinosaur with buds around his neck and a leaf on it's head Cyndaquil: a blue/green hedgehog with fire on it's back Torchic: an orange chicken with a feather slightly ressembling fire on it's head Treecko: a green gecko with a plant tail Mudkip: a blue axolotl with fins You make some interesting points but at the end of the day it's up to the makers of the game to decide what a pokemon design should be. You can't just say a pokemons design isn't a pokemon design just because you think it's ugly. If it's a pokemon then it's a pokemon design. If it's a good one is subjective, you can't just say "that's a bad one" or "that's a good one" depending on the person the opinion may change so a clear answer doesn't exist.
I also added in the vid about how its colouring plays effect, as well quax relying only on its water bubble hair to identify it as water type. Some of the other starters you mentioned are a mixture of 2 or so animals so it adds more uniqueness to their design. Bulbasaur also has frog like markings and skin to identify it as something that would benefit from getting water on it, and its bulb confirms its grass typing so it's a mixture of elements coming together. Doesn't always have to be that, simple designs are fine but has to he done less plainly. And since it's my vid it is implied that it's my subjective opinion as I agree art is subjective. Hope that cleared things up abit.
4:03 oh yeah. Duck never get associated with WATER. If charizard, infernape and typhlosion lost the flame they wouldnt seem fire type anymore. Thats the problem with the first design of pokemons
I agree fighting types are the exception to looking extremely humanoid. But only problem is when it's to obvious. For example, kangaroos aren't just a muscley and buff human bodies with a marsupial head, unlike machamp basically is that with a toad things head.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh my favorite designs are from gen 2...Hoot Hoot, Gligar, totodile, I love the animalistic nature of the designs and the Day and night cycle makes good use of real world Nocturnal animal habits, in my opinion pokemon should have just made Regional variants as main focus along with Finishing 2 evolution line pokemon
the older gen pokemon are like, actual animals that you could imagine being animals, I find the newer pokemon some of them are like if you made a human into an animal, some of the newer ones are just examples of zoomorphism like um inteleon is legit just a lizard man
So basically most of the designs from Scarlet, Violet, and recent Pokémon games are ass. Pokémon/ Gamefreak has gotten really lazy with it. Fanmade designs look way better then the game's recent ones...
2:13 I feel like that's a very subjective point. A few screws don't really make up for Magnemite's design. I completely understand if you don't like Klink's design, but Magnemite's is not that better when it comes to how they expressed the concept.
I prefer Quaxly to Piplup lol, though both their evos and final evos are terrible :^) Water Starters have consistently the most ugly final evolutions of starters beginning with Empoleon. Though I feel like all they have to do with Empoleon is erase the white clothing parts... his crown-beak is cool though, one of the very few "clothing" things I like in Pokemon, keratin in beaks can do all kinds of weird shit so why not. xD Also Blaziken is very ugly, and again... humanoid in clothes x( x( There's a weird line between "humanoid" and "bipedal" because I typically say I just hate humanoid designs in general but stuff like Electivire, Toxtricity, and Electabuzz are my favorite Electric Pokemon... Mewtwo feels quite alien but still decent. Were-as Pokemon like Greninja, Intelleon, and Incineroar are just gross... maybe it's the clothes and unbelievable anatomy... idk
Thanks for sharing! Yea the clothes do definitely ruin soo many pokemon, as well as the unnecessary humanoid aspects. Hopefully we get a cool new water type soon.
@@theamazingspooderman2697 Empoleon has ugly clothes... Cute-otter > cute-otter > turns into ugly sea lion that fights bipedal like a humanoid... Greninja is literally a human-frog with "clothes" that make a noose around his own neck, and has disgustingly paper-thin anatomy lmao
Rattata; a purple rat, Persian; a plain cat, and Trubbish; a trash bag, are among my favourite Pokemon of all time. Chikorita is my favourite starter and I'm choosing Quaxly. Although, Emolga is my favourite Pokemon mainly due to its beautiful design. The black and white is contrasting and the addition of yellow makes for a striking design although limited to 3 colours. It just works well and looks good
I like designs that look like they could actually occur in nature, if even only within the ruleset of some fantasy world like pokemon where a fire lizard maintains a flame on its tail. That is certainly better than a stupid keychain or ice-cream pokemon and I'm tired of pseudo-intellectuals telling me it's nothing but nostalgia causing people to hate the new designs.
Speed isn't how fast mon can its how fast mon can execute a move and purugly being has a high reaction time to execute move. Why people assume wrong meaning.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh It's honestly how you can justify 90% of these inconsistencies reasonably. Someone might run as fast as an Olympic sprinter, but that doesn't mean thet can box with the sharpness/reaction time of Mike Tyson in his prime. The same applies to pokemon. House cats have excellent reaction time, but are relatively slow to other world animals. Explains Purugly well. Also explain why the Eon Duo can fly extremely fast in lore but are still slower in battle.
Enjoyed the vid, couldn't be bothered by the scores of people who somehow like the newer pokemon better. I certainly don't. Gens 1-3 are best, and the latest entries from Pokemon: Scarlet and Violet are unquestionably the worst.
each Gen has a few bad designs, with the exception of Gen 1 and 2, which have a lot of bad and boring designs for the former and a lot of incomplete and lacklustre designs for the latter.
imo, what makes a good pokemon type completely depends on the person. its obvious that this is a subjective topic, and to be fair i feel that this video gives a really good answer to the question while being as objective as possible, but i honestly just feel like it depends on a couple factors (besides just "what you find cool"); when did u start really getting into pokemon, how much you care about pokemon in general, what pokemon are to u in general, how much you truly care about the "design philosiphy" in general, and how u view the idea of capturing and "forcing" animals to fight. some people like the older gen's more grounded approach, and others like the newer gens goofier side, not taking itself as seriously. a lot of people criticize pokemon of having an issue where its obvious what they are, or how they were simply made for one purpose, but then conviently forget we got stuff like beedrill and combee. some gens have their strengths over others, and thats just the way it is. i dont want to only talk in favor of newer gens, but some people really overhate these new designs, mainly because they just arent use to them, and overall i feel like they are still pretty decent additions, especially with the more unique typings, stats, moves, and abilities. overall, all humans are biased, gamefreak needs to give their devs more time to work on pokemon, and skeledirge might be my least favorite final evolution starter ever.
Interesting opinion, thanks for sharing in detail. It's true this is a subjective topic and I did try to justify my preferences as objectively as I could but at the end of the day, its as you said it depends on when you got into pokemon etc. I just felt like not many people gave enough of a reason on why they don't prefer the newer gens other than the line of "they're getting worse", and wanted people to express their thoughts more on the designs in the comments regardless which they prefer which I think it did very well. So hope you enjoyed the design series.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh I honestly did agree with a lot of your points. But, like I said, I don't care much about design philosophy and I started in gen 7 so I'm pretty biased myself and honestly like gen 8 designs the most since I played it the most (and really started to get interested into competitive during that time with cinderace).
I have a question, a very simple one...Why do you, a random person in the internet know what a good pokemon design is more than the people that create fakemons or the people that make the original pokemons? Why are you giving us the true answer of our question instead of a person that actually understands something about character designing and marketing? Sentences like "this doesn't look like a pokemon" don't make a lot sense since the creators of those creators call them pokemon and...No offense, but I think that the people that work there for decades know a little more about their creations than people like you
Sure thats defs true, but art is subjective, since this is my channel I'm gonna use it to voice my opinion. Just because someone doesn't make movies doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on what movies they think are good and bad.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh My man, at the start of the video you made fun of everyone that showed their opinion in the comment secton, representading it as a battlefield. Art is subjective but that also applies to you, this video is just a way to farm views over genwunners and you know that very well, if that wasn't the case the video would be much more focused on complementing the good designs instead of insulting the new ones. Also, you can't say that this is your opinion and that it's subjective when in the video you say everything as if it is objective! You almost never o straight up never mentioned your opinion and the title also implies that you are trying to go towards an objective route. If you want you to use your "it's my opinion" shield don't make an entire video explain why you prefer those designs with flawd arguments. One thing is saying that you prefer one designed over another just because, another thing is to say that piplup is better than Quaxly because if you remove every blue aspect of Quaxly it doesn't look like a water type, even though if you remove all of the boue from piplup you have the same effect. Saying that animalistic pokemon are better without giving any explanation why and trying to make a mix of professionalism and objectivy with subkectivness and opinion is just weird. Please explain to me, why are monster like pokemon better, I really want to know why! Like, that's the reason for me entering this video, understanding what makes a good design and why and not listening to some random guy's opinion thanks to a clickbait
@tpfoxcastro1 I'm not gonna repeat after every single sentence that it's my own opinion, but I did occasionally say it like right after pip n quax part at 4:06. And again I said that I prefer pokemon with more animalism designs. Ones that express more aggression and have a monster feel like the older designs tended to be because it's in the name, pocket monsters. Thats what pokemon are to me. The design for pokemon has gotten more cute and colourful over the years. And quaxlys design is just too simple in comparison to piplups theme, colours and overall design. I'm not gonna repeat very thing I said in the vid or expand on them since this is an old video and I do think I can make it better now. But just chill it's only my opinion. I can't make you agree that more animalistic designs are better if you don't like them.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh My problem isn't with your opinion, it's with your explanations and justifications! Colorful and cute pokemon always existed since the first generations, just think of every old pokemon that became fairy type or pokemon like bellosom, yeah that's very colorful. Arguments like "without blue Quaxly doesn't look a wster type" that don't make any sense since without blue piplup doesn't look like one too! It's fine if you simply say that you don't like fairy type but it's another thing to outrhight lie and ssy that there is no fairy pokemon. Fairies aren't just pixies, orcs, gremmilins, uniconr any other feu creatures are fairies! The problem isn't your opinion, the problem is that there is many things that you say that you put them like facts, with many of them being just incorrec, no subjectivity in it, just wrong! And then, you know what happens, right? Yeah, tons and tons of people believe in those false statements! One thing is to show your opinion another is to try to influenciate and change other's
Whenever you express opinion there's always a change it will influence others. That's not my problem. But yea I agree I could have used better examples. What I was trying to get at with quaxly is that remove the blue bubble and feet, nothing else really helps it express its typing. It could be flying like duklett (and even that's blue) piplup is a detailed design replicating a penguin plus alittle extra. It has the flaps on its back that cover its head + thick fur indicating a creature that needs insulation for cold water. It's a great mix of colour plus design features to express its type through visual language. And I understand that every gen has every type of pokemon like cute etc. Most of the time it's a case by case basis on what I like but this vid is a generalisation. I made videos on gen 1 & 2 designs. I broke them down and discussed which ones I like and don't. Check em out if your interested as I do go more in-depth there on individual designs.
It was fun seeing everyone's different opinions on the last video, Let me know your thoughts on this topic as well! Do you want more content similar to these 2 videos? let me know in the comments! Also here's a link to first video if you haven't seen it yet - ruclips.net/video/gR6W0_K7SPc/видео.html
Vanillite are icicles that have snow on top of them they are not litteral icecreams there are icecreams based on them not the other way around
The thing with the new desings is that theyre getting simple, dont get me wrong because some of them are cool
First off thank you for taking the time & effort to make a video like this. I think you generally hit the nail on the head here too. I’m not overly a fan of morgrim however I do really respect the philosophy that went behind it as many fairies are not good. Again I really do think Pokémon have become slaves to their concept rather than interesting variations of reality or even mythological animals, and this is really unfortunate because I believe there are many types of animals that have yet to be touched on. Hopefully gen 10 will get a new art direction and revert back to realism.
m.ruclips.net/video/USvlyUNsTog/видео.html&pp=ygUkcG9rZW1vbiBzY2FybGV0IGFuZCB2aW9sZXQgcXVhcXVhdmFs
Completely agree with fairy types. It feels like GameFreak never really defined a basis for fairy types beyond 'cute and/or pink' and because of that fairy pokemon are all over the place. even the ones from older gens that they re-labeled fairy type have little to nothing in common with each other.
Technically, beings of nature, they're all "fairies" by another name. Lol.
@@charnalk5572 That's a very valid point. I am not that knowledgeable on fairies irl and it's perfectly possible Gamefreak knows what they're doing when making them. I do still think that selection the pokemon from gen 1-5 that were made Fairy type seems kinda random, but there might be good reasons for them being that type that I'm not aware of.
Literally every Grass type has leaves or flowers on their bodies, every water type is blue or some kind of fish and almost every electric type is stripey yellow with pointy edges lol.
We could add a bit of diversity to the design of the fairy types sure, But I don't it's necessarily bad purely bc it's "cute and/or pink".
@@virginoysterThat's not what he's saying, he's saying the fairy type isn't well defined.
True.
I think people forget that fairy is actually a pretty varied thing, there are fey creatures like Jenny green teeth that looks horrifying and eats children that get too close to the water, even gnomes, dwarves, goblins are all types of fairies. Fairies aren’t just tiny butterfly winged people their mysterious magical creatures. In modern times it’s used to describe just tiny people with fairy wings but that’s not always how it’s been, I do not like fairy Pokémon just being pink Pokémon but like unicorns are fey folk , and trolls are a type of fey folk, it’s nice to see them in the game….faires are my favourite type because I love fey mythology.
No, not really. XD
@@IncognitoActivado Tf you mean "No, not really". Like , "Nuh uh", ok, convincing point IG
In my opinion a Good Pokemon design is something that is a good base. The Pokemon community loves their pokemon because their pokemon feel like their friends. Magnemite seems more like a tiny little monster compared to Klink, one you might could give a character to. Compare Vanillish to Trubbish, which Trubbish wasn't liked at first, but it began to grow on people. I personally think Trubbish is animalistic enough to find, "cute" personally the little bag ties in the top remind me of bunny ears, and it gives it more personality. While Vanillish looks like something you'd eat at a kids birthday party. People like Piplup over Quaxly because Quaxly shows a personality and Piplup doesn't. This I think is why People prefer Meowscardsa over Incineroar too, Meowscardsa appears to be kind of a blank slate you can give a personality to perhaps you want a Meowscardsa that's soft spoken but speaks more in actions than words, or one that is definitely a cocky little bastard, while Incineroar you get, big loud buff cat who wrestles. There's no room for imagination.
If anybody knows Vocaloid it's a Similar experience, people like the designs and assign personalities to these designs, when in reality the designs are just faces to put to a voice. Some people portray Hatsune Miku as a Loud, Dramatic Teenage Girl, while others may portray her as a more soft spoken character. Kagamine Rin can be perceived as shy and innocent or a loud mouth 14 year old girl who is going through a rebellious phase. None of it is "canon" it's literally what the buyer wants, and it works. That's what I think is missing in newer Generations of Pokemon, there's a lot of Pokemon that aren't necessarily being forced to be one thing. But it's difficult to see it be anything other than what Gamefreak is giving us.
Rant over sorry if I got sidetracked lol
Your thing about piplup made zero sense reread it and edit it accordingly
so starters that have no personality from their design like competitive or greedy are good?
Trubbish sucks, dude. WTF?! XD
Kling is cute. Kling has a face, even if not obvious. The whole line has a face in it's pattern. Also, I know for sure that if more people realised that the "ice cream pokemon" are actually icicles putting snow on their heads to pretend they are ice cream, so people like them more (cuz everybody love sice cream)
I guess it all depends on your preference and point of view. I grew up with the original 151 and the more I get older the more I realize I like the newer designs more since they’re more colorful and complex unlike the simple generic designs Gen 1 had, I personally don’t know what to say overall.. like I get that some designs nowadays don’t use the environment simple structure you like but at the same time as long as you create something that looks overall great to look at, that should very well be enough even if they don’t follow the same structure.
I've started playing in 1999-2000 |I believe and while I don't like some new designs (tbh I hate some of og 151) some are really cool. Like Island Deities are great. And most of new ones are good.
I agree. I dont think that "what if a (*insert manmade object*) was a animal/monster" was ever a bad idea.
I like some of the older designs because they stray away from animal and instead go for the monster feel.
Aren’t ducks supposed to be on 2 legs irl? I don’t get how It’s humanoid or a person in a costume?
Also, how is Quaxly type "not obvious" without the blue? It's a duck, you don't need to be very smart to assume that it may be a water type, especially if it's a starter
@@tpfoxCastroexactly. This guy has many bad takes.
I said it once, and ill say it again.... Diglett best pokemon design, prove me wrong
Still the undefeated champion
especially when he comes out of the ground and it turns out he's 6 foot tall and buff
@@TheLemonyOne 🤣100%
This ending here made my day 😂😂😂
@@TheLemonyOne dugtrio gonna come out of the ground like the pillar men
I hate how almost half the designs in scarlet/violet are just a simple shape with simple features. its so noticeable and ugly
I totally agree.
Pokemon fans: Gen 9's designs are so bad, they are too complex, too weird, they don't look like animals, they don't look like pokemon.
Also Pokemon fans: They are too simple.
SO WHAT THE FREAK IS A PARADOX MON THEN!?
How about Hitmontop it’s a pure fighting design I’ll argue is better than those examples of better design fighting type, like Infernape doesn’t scream it’s fighting type or lucario steel typing doesn’t add much to it’s design-wise as it’s aura based and is more favor text to make it more unique typing. I feel like if lucario didn’t have it’s signature steel typing it be more-less like Mienshao, a bipedal animal that throw punches (not literally).
I mean Lucario has a steel spike sticking out of its chest, I think out of the hitmons Lee is the best because it had the most unique concept behind it, they gave it curled phone cable like limbs. I think Hitmontop is cool because it represents a balance between lee and chan but the problem with it is that it looks more like in-between evo between tyrogue and the others
@@Revster Well sure the spike can count, and in general the hitmons line are cool concept. A Pokémon split evolution depending on how ya train it is alright. And it helps that the model and animations for them hold them even more.
@@Revster In Lucario's case, what you say doesn't count.
Me when the game doesn't punch me in the face and screams at me the pokemon's typing for the 218401781th time even though I can just look at the pokemon's typing in my pokedex:
My man, not every single pokemon has to have an obvious typing. Many pokemon have their "gimmick" being having their typing not being obvious. Also, tf you mean Infernape doesn't look like a fighthing type? It's literally Son Goku!
Saying that "the type needs to be extremely obvious for the pokemon to be good" is dumb. Such arbitrary rules are so limitive.
I've never seen someone explain why the newer designs aren't as good so well
Thanks! Appreciate it a lot. I was worried I might not have gotten the point across clearly. Hope you enjoyed these 2 vids!
I wouldn’t say all the new designs are trash. There are lots of new designs that fit this description like the Baxcalibur line, Kilowattrel line, Grafaiai line, etc.
@@no_george stop, no one believes you
eh they are as good, some things here just feel untrue
@@no_georgeHe didn't say they're trash. He said they're "not as good".
I don’t think that’s really what makes a Pokémon though. I never saw them as animals being purely bound by nature. I don’t think they are supposed to just be animals. Some definitely, but I think over all they are monsters, some either mimicking man made objects to blend in with their desired settings (like the Klink line), or inspired man made objects (Like the Vanilite line.) at the end of the day you’ll like what you’ll like but I feel people go way to far and make assumptions about what a Pokémon can be or is supposed to be
Art is always subjective and personal preference. I personally like pokemon that are more grounded in nature. But again this is an over generalisations. Every pokemon is different and is judged literally on a case by case basis.
That's why the original japanese name of this franchise is "pocket monster" and not "pocket animals".
Some people seem to forget that
Inanimate objects have been incorporated into pokemon designs since gen 1 so that has nothing to do with pokemon designs getting worse
I'm glad people having the same opinion as me exist
@@gsp6517 so.. if it's "pocket monster" why does newer pokemon keep getting more human? Some literally evolved to have a profession like human... nothing like monster.
Curious what makes gallade seem less anthropomorphic than machamp to you. To me, the macho line always looked like some particularly buff dinosaurs, gallade looks like just a green guy with swords.
As said in the last video Great Video! Loved how you actually went into detail unlike how others just say short non descriptive sentences like " its just so cool" . Coherency in stats is really funny as so many Pokémon have designs that would make them look strong but just be weak overall. Also Rip Dialga and Palkia, Palkia could of been better if it just had arms but even with arms it would look awkward as hell.
Also can forgive pallia and dials for one of the best Pokémon themes ever
Thanks again glad you enjoyed these 2 vids. I thought people would get bored of me going into detail but its necessary for a topic like this, especially since the first video couldn't cover everything I wanted to say on the topic. Coherency in stats are honestly so hilarious, its like pokedex entries at this point. And yea I agree RIP Dia Pa origin forms, they took one for the team in design to get a sick ass theme
I personally don't like the early mons very much and especially dislike a few of the earliest ones (jynx, hitmonchan and lickitung in particular) but I will say that gen 3 and 4 was the best generations of pokemon designs.
To be fair gen 9 also had some really good additions such as annihilape, darxbun and the four treasures of ruin, but compared to gen 4 it's lacking quite a bit.
I always preferred the origin forms of dialga and palkia, it makes them feel more alien and godlier since they control literal concepts of reality so why would they care about taking a form we can comprehend better
This video makes way better points than the last one. I agree that the designs are definitely getting less subtle, but more round and vibrant, I think that’s more because of marketability. I disagree that humanoid/object Pokémon are automatically bad though. There’s plenty of mythical creatures that are very humanoid or just straight up objects.
As for the realistic wild aspect One thing the newer generations actually did nail design wise is the regional variants and how they adapt. Especially in Scarlet and Violet with the wild vs civil designs depending on the version. They should definitely lean into that aspect more going forwards.
Regional variations are absolutely ugly and abhorrent
@@HistoryandReviews Alola Ninetales is good
Great video and very detailed. But I guess I'm in the minority, because although I grew up with the originals, I tend to prefer the newer designs to the older. I get where everyone is coming from, but I also don't really see an issue with every Pokémon not being directly based on a wild animal or being less organic. I think it adds variety to the series instead of it just being Zoo Tycoon with extra steps.
Also, on Dialga and Palkia, I believe they're meant to represent what more accurate depictions of eldrich deities are fabled to look like. They're supposed to look that way. In reality, as cool as it is, Giratina is the outlier of the bunch
Yeah, no.
@@IncognitoActivado THE FUCK YOU MEAN "Yeah, no."
@@tpfoxCastro What I said.
@@IncognitoActivado Someone just said their opinion, saying they prefer the newer designs and you just say "nuh uh"?
Jesus, I didn’t need armless palkia in my life, they butchered the man
Literally 🤣
It's a god. It looks weird, because it's a god. It looks like a horse, cuz Arceus.
This wasn't convincing.
You didn't get into what is literally wrong with steel types being a living set of gears, but Magnimite gets a pass.
I feel there's enough new good stuff that comes with the bad. Yeah gothetelle sucked but we got volcarona, aromatisse sucked but we got tyrantrum. There's still hope. I just need a quadruped starter to stay on all 4s for once. We've had bulbasaur, chikorita, mudkip, turtwig, popplio(?) resist standing up. 5/24 starters. c'mon nintendo
Gothetelle sucked for exact same reason Mr Mime and Jinx did so it isn't even solid argument for new
@@Petaurista13 I didn't say new>old. I just meant that every gen has good and bad. And I don't think it's as out of proportion as it might feel to a lot of people. From gen 1-present, Pokemon has consistently made shitty designs and awesome ones. They haven't really overall gotten worse or better. Just a different art style. Gotta have highlights and lowlights.
I touched on that point on my first video of this!
SKELE-GODDAMM-DIRGE
2:25 why? Why a pokemon cant be humanoid? Who created this rule that pokemon has to be pure boring animals that have only one elemental attribute and nothing else?
Honestly I just like new Pokémon. If it looks good, I’ll take it. My first game was kanto so every game after that just blew me away with all the new choices. Maybe I just have low expectations but idk
Art is subjective so there isn't any real right or wrong answer. Usually just preference!
Nerd you are easy to please
I 100% agree with this, I think since gen 5 they've gone too simple, anthropomorphic garbage bags and floating gears are bad as pokemon viaually because those objects themselves are usually very simple.
Thats not to say all the new designs are bad, The final evos of the starters since gen 4 have been pretty good (except serperior) and for the most part the pseudo-legendaries have been so awesome but I think Kleavor, Basculegion etc should be the path they take with newer designs, where they're unqiue but also could conceivably fit into any game from gen 1 to 8.
I'm not a fan of the gen 9 starters because I think they've over done the reptilians legendaries and now these one's turn into bikes and fly around. I think Koraidon's design is great but I think they went too overboard with Miraidon so it now looks like a fanart depiction of Aurelion Sol
you should resee Kanto Pokedex.
@@Petaurista13 Don't need to because a lot of those pokemon are a lot more than just a parody of a real animal
@@Revster Charizard is just a dragon. Blastoise is just a tortoise. Rattata is just a rat, as well as Pikachu. Pidgey is just a pigeon. Staryu is just a starfish. Magikarp is just a fish. And you know what? I love every single one of them. They are extremely simple,(Most only having 2 colors) but I'm completely fine with it and even love them. There are a bunch of new Pokemon that are extremely different and extremely similar to them in simplicity, but I still like them(except flamigo). All in all, sure the designs have gotten considerably different throughout the years, but they haven't gotten worse
@@dFuZeJoker did you just give one unrelated example and then say the designs haven't gotten worse? Did you even read what I said? The point is the og 3 are fine being simple because they each have a unique gimmick, blastoise is a turtle with guns, venasaur is a frog with the worlds largest flower on its back, charizard is a dragon crossed with a lizard. Koraidon and Miraidon are trash because they are based on reptiles but instead of being based in mythology or an interesting subject like trevenant and phantump, they're gimmicky trash, which is cool for digimon but terrible for pokemon
@@Revster So Charizard is cool because he's a cross between a lizard, yet Miraidon isn't because he's a dragon that's also a robot? Not only is Miraidon a dragon but he also has lore of being a normal pokemon but from the future essentially being a regional form. That's cool lore and he even has a pretty good theme and design. There is absolutely nothing wrong with him. If Charizard has a gimmick for "being a lizard" then how does Miraidon not have one with all the lore and design about him. Also I wasn't saying simplicity is bad, I'm saying you can't say simplicity is good for one gen but not good for the other. And did you read what I said, I said flamigo was bad, not good. Let's take Pawmi for example, it's design is pretty simple, like Pikachu. It's not that great of a design,(although personally I love it) but neither is Pikachu yet it's the mascot of the entire franchise.
When looking at any one pokemon I have never thought "that isn't a pokemon," even for ones like Incineroar. Pokemon don't have any one or more rules to define them. They aren't all just animals and they aren't all just inanimate objects. Some look humanoid and some are just globs like Grimer. You can personally dislike any Pokemon you like, that's your opinion. But to say such a stupid blanket statement like "the designs are getting worse" is ridiculous. You're not the judge of pokemon and whatever made up rules you have of defining good and bad pokemon designs do not apply to anyone else
100% agree, sad to see how most people cant see the difference between a well thought out design concept and a lazy/bad design. What they did with Dialga and Pulkia was so tragic
I think what they did with both sinnoh games was tragic compared to what they did for the other remakes, atleast PLA setup the mechanics we'll see in Scarlet n Violet
Actually most of og 151 are basically slightly fantastic depiction of casual animals so I fail to see laziness appearing later. If anything after x generations it's hard for some new stuff to not be based on same as old. It's like with writing. Most of books are variations of few stories.
@@Petaurista13 I don't think thats what they meant, more thought is put into the older pokemon where as now the bar is a lower for what makes it into the games
@@Petaurista13 gen 1 definitely has a few weak design but its not about just being based on animal design its about all the other points made in this video. Older gens had bad designs but these new gens are responsible for far more bad design practices than the older generations
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it lazy, even if you don’t like the new dialgia and palkia it’s not like they just scribbled something on paper and called it a day
Call me traditional but I like simple and correlation to environment/species.
Same!
The point you made about Quaxly a "new pokemon" can easily be made on most pokemons out of the first 3 generation "the original pokemons" and as such the pokemons who should reflect what a pokemon should be
Quaxly (your point): a duck with blue feet and a water hat
Charmander: a red salamander with fire at the end of it's tail
squirtle: a blue turtle
Bulbasaur: a green frog dinosaur thing with a bulb
Totodile: a blue crocodile
Chikorita: a green dinosaur with buds around his neck and a leaf on it's head
Cyndaquil: a blue/green hedgehog with fire on it's back
Torchic: an orange chicken with a feather slightly ressembling fire on it's head
Treecko: a green gecko with a plant tail
Mudkip: a blue axolotl with fins
You make some interesting points but at the end of the day it's up to the makers of the game to decide what a pokemon design should be. You can't just say a pokemons design isn't a pokemon design just because you think it's ugly. If it's a pokemon then it's a pokemon design.
If it's a good one is subjective, you can't just say "that's a bad one" or "that's a good one" depending on the person the opinion may change so a clear answer doesn't exist.
Thanks for nothing that has not been stated before.
I also added in the vid about how its colouring plays effect, as well quax relying only on its water bubble hair to identify it as water type. Some of the other starters you mentioned are a mixture of 2 or so animals so it adds more uniqueness to their design. Bulbasaur also has frog like markings and skin to identify it as something that would benefit from getting water on it, and its bulb confirms its grass typing so it's a mixture of elements coming together. Doesn't always have to be that, simple designs are fine but has to he done less plainly. And since it's my vid it is implied that it's my subjective opinion as I agree art is subjective. Hope that cleared things up abit.
now we need your ranking of all 905 pokemon designs
Well now that you mention it ;D
plus a 107 more for scarlet and violet
If it’s not from their childhood gen the fanbase will shit on it relentlessly no matter what it is.
Bruxish is psyquic Not fairy type
Tbh since Gen 5 most design complaints end up being hypocritical and contrary.
4:03 oh yeah. Duck never get associated with WATER. If charizard, infernape and typhlosion lost the flame they wouldnt seem fire type anymore. Thats the problem with the first design of pokemons
accept that you dont like the origin forms and save for yourself the video tbh
There isnt a bad Pokémon. Its just down to preference.
Kangaroos are humanoid and like to fight so humanoid fighting types make sense to me
I agree fighting types are the exception to looking extremely humanoid. But only problem is when it's to obvious. For example, kangaroos aren't just a muscley and buff human bodies with a marsupial head, unlike machamp basically is that with a toad things head.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh yeah machop is like a lizard humanoid
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh my favorite designs are from gen 2...Hoot Hoot, Gligar, totodile, I love the animalistic nature of the designs and the Day and night cycle makes good use of real world Nocturnal animal habits, in my opinion pokemon should have just made Regional variants as main focus along with Finishing 2 evolution line pokemon
I like humanoid and objects pokémon because they don't look like anything that would exist in real life
the older gen pokemon are like, actual animals that you could imagine being animals, I find the newer pokemon some of them are like if you made a human into an animal, some of the newer ones are just examples of zoomorphism like um inteleon is legit just a lizard man
Yep, I could absolutely imagine Machamp, hitmonchan, voltorb, muk, weezing, magnemite, geodude, mr. mime, or jynx being animals.
Yeah! Mr.Mime eating on a dog bowl couldn't feel more natural.
@@JacobPDeIiNoNi voltorb and magnemite are inorganic Pokemon, so not really.
Ah yes, Magnemite, Voltorb, Muk, Koffing and a finger (digglet), my favorite animals
So basically most of the designs from Scarlet, Violet, and recent Pokémon games are ass. Pokémon/ Gamefreak has gotten really lazy with it. Fanmade designs look way better then the game's recent ones...
4:56 dialga choking on sometablet 😂 now i cant unsee this.
Wannabe Donald Duck starter🤷♂️
🤣
I don't get it,what did that duck do to you...?.People are strange
@@akanespeedpaints1614it’s gross
2:13 I feel like that's a very subjective point. A few screws don't really make up for Magnemite's design. I completely understand if you don't like Klink's design, but Magnemite's is not that better when it comes to how they expressed the concept.
After all, it depends on YOU, the viewers. "Art is always subjective and personal preference".
I prefer Quaxly to Piplup lol, though both their evos and final evos are terrible :^) Water Starters have consistently the most ugly final evolutions of starters beginning with Empoleon. Though I feel like all they have to do with Empoleon is erase the white clothing parts... his crown-beak is cool though, one of the very few "clothing" things I like in Pokemon, keratin in beaks can do all kinds of weird shit so why not. xD
Also Blaziken is very ugly, and again... humanoid in clothes x( x(
There's a weird line between "humanoid" and "bipedal" because I typically say I just hate humanoid designs in general but stuff like Electivire, Toxtricity, and Electabuzz are my favorite Electric Pokemon... Mewtwo feels quite alien but still decent. Were-as Pokemon like Greninja, Intelleon, and Incineroar are just gross... maybe it's the clothes and unbelievable anatomy... idk
Thanks for sharing! Yea the clothes do definitely ruin soo many pokemon, as well as the unnecessary humanoid aspects. Hopefully we get a cool new water type soon.
The only "ugly" ones are Quaquaval and Empoleon, Samurott and Greninja aren't ugly and Primarina is beautiful
@@theamazingspooderman2697 Empoleon has ugly clothes...
Cute-otter > cute-otter > turns into ugly sea lion that fights bipedal like a humanoid...
Greninja is literally a human-frog with "clothes" that make a noose around his own neck, and has disgustingly paper-thin anatomy lmao
Like video diglet is not best Pokémon design I disagree with that.
Rattata; a purple rat, Persian; a plain cat, and Trubbish; a trash bag, are among my favourite Pokemon of all time. Chikorita is my favourite starter and I'm choosing Quaxly.
Although, Emolga is my favourite Pokemon mainly due to its beautiful design. The black and white is contrasting and the addition of yellow makes for a striking design although limited to 3 colours. It just works well and looks good
Lechonk is OP of 9 gen ( Oinkolonge is cool too....but only in 3D and if no saw a characteristics ) . Try to convince me.
I like designs that look like they could actually occur in nature, if even only within the ruleset of some fantasy world like pokemon where a fire lizard maintains a flame on its tail. That is certainly better than a stupid keychain or ice-cream pokemon and I'm tired of pseudo-intellectuals telling me it's nothing but nostalgia causing people to hate the new designs.
Don't you diss my man quaxly
Speed isn't how fast mon can its how fast mon can execute a move and purugly being has a high reaction time to execute move. Why people assume wrong meaning.
I grew up with the o.g. 151! I love pokemon no matter what,but it has gotten older the design evolution (no pun intended) changed a lot.
So is Bunnary into loppuny a good desgin ?
I like Quackers
Fairy should get the same pass as ghost 🤷
Ghost Pokemon ARE Fairy, actually.
TBF, combat speed is different than running or flying speed.
Very true and interesting concept
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh It's honestly how you can justify 90% of these inconsistencies reasonably.
Someone might run as fast as an Olympic sprinter, but that doesn't mean thet can box with the sharpness/reaction time of Mike Tyson in his prime.
The same applies to pokemon. House cats have excellent reaction time, but are relatively slow to other world animals. Explains Purugly well. Also explain why the Eon Duo can fly extremely fast in lore but are still slower in battle.
completely agree yes i do completely agree that diglett is the best pokemon and design
They take the monster out of pocket monster with most of these newer designs…ew
Enjoyed the vid, couldn't be bothered by the scores of people who somehow like the newer pokemon better. I certainly don't. Gens 1-3 are best, and the latest entries from Pokemon: Scarlet and Violet are unquestionably the worst.
each Gen has a few bad designs, with the exception of Gen 1 and 2, which have a lot of bad and boring designs for the former and a lot of incomplete and lacklustre designs for the latter.
Magnezone? Man is defending a fucking UFO, LOL.
imo, what makes a good pokemon type completely depends on the person. its obvious that this is a subjective topic, and to be fair i feel that this video gives a really good answer to the question while being as objective as possible, but i honestly just feel like it depends on a couple factors (besides just "what you find cool"); when did u start really getting into pokemon, how much you care about pokemon in general, what pokemon are to u in general, how much you truly care about the "design philosiphy" in general, and how u view the idea of capturing and "forcing" animals to fight. some people like the older gen's more grounded approach, and others like the newer gens goofier side, not taking itself as seriously. a lot of people criticize pokemon of having an issue where its obvious what they are, or how they were simply made for one purpose, but then conviently forget we got stuff like beedrill and combee. some gens have their strengths over others, and thats just the way it is. i dont want to only talk in favor of newer gens, but some people really overhate these new designs, mainly because they just arent use to them, and overall i feel like they are still pretty decent additions, especially with the more unique typings, stats, moves, and abilities. overall, all humans are biased, gamefreak needs to give their devs more time to work on pokemon, and skeledirge might be my least favorite final evolution starter ever.
Interesting opinion, thanks for sharing in detail. It's true this is a subjective topic and I did try to justify my preferences as objectively as I could but at the end of the day, its as you said it depends on when you got into pokemon etc. I just felt like not many people gave enough of a reason on why they don't prefer the newer gens other than the line of "they're getting worse", and wanted people to express their thoughts more on the designs in the comments regardless which they prefer which I think it did very well. So hope you enjoyed the design series.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh I honestly did agree with a lot of your points. But, like I said, I don't care much about design philosophy and I started in gen 7 so I'm pretty biased myself and honestly like gen 8 designs the most since I played it the most (and really started to get interested into competitive during that time with cinderace).
@@personguy4864 Right fair enough, thanks and hope you enjoyed the vid!
Quick anwser any Pokémon based on a mole
Ouch I love both quaxly and piplup
I like Klink.
With each passing generation these designs, these abominations, come closer and closer to looking like my ex. Anything past Generation 3 is abhorrent
Are we just discovering this??
Fairy type should look cute rather than being random. That's how gen 1 fairies look like after all
I like sharpedo more than Garchomp...
Is quaxly a bad one because he’s ga-
Motadoo was cancelled on twitter
Completely disagree with you on the fighting type point but otherwise definitely agree
I have a question, a very simple one...Why do you, a random person in the internet know what a good pokemon design is more than the people that create fakemons or the people that make the original pokemons? Why are you giving us the true answer of our question instead of a person that actually understands something about character designing and marketing? Sentences like "this doesn't look like a pokemon" don't make a lot sense since the creators of those creators call them pokemon and...No offense, but I think that the people that work there for decades know a little more about their creations than people like you
Sure thats defs true, but art is subjective, since this is my channel I'm gonna use it to voice my opinion. Just because someone doesn't make movies doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on what movies they think are good and bad.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh My man, at the start of the video you made fun of everyone that showed their opinion in the comment secton, representading it as a battlefield. Art is subjective but that also applies to you, this video is just a way to farm views over genwunners and you know that very well, if that wasn't the case the video would be much more focused on complementing the good designs instead of insulting the new ones. Also, you can't say that this is your opinion and that it's subjective when in the video you say everything as if it is objective! You almost never o straight up never mentioned your opinion and the title also implies that you are trying to go towards an objective route. If you want you to use your "it's my opinion" shield don't make an entire video explain why you prefer those designs with flawd arguments. One thing is saying that you prefer one designed over another just because, another thing is to say that piplup is better than Quaxly because if you remove every blue aspect of Quaxly it doesn't look like a water type, even though if you remove all of the boue from piplup you have the same effect. Saying that animalistic pokemon are better without giving any explanation why and trying to make a mix of professionalism and objectivy with subkectivness and opinion is just weird. Please explain to me, why are monster like pokemon better, I really want to know why! Like, that's the reason for me entering this video, understanding what makes a good design and why and not listening to some random guy's opinion thanks to a clickbait
@tpfoxcastro1 I'm not gonna repeat after every single sentence that it's my own opinion, but I did occasionally say it like right after pip n quax part at 4:06. And again I said that I prefer pokemon with more animalism designs. Ones that express more aggression and have a monster feel like the older designs tended to be because it's in the name, pocket monsters. Thats what pokemon are to me. The design for pokemon has gotten more cute and colourful over the years. And quaxlys design is just too simple in comparison to piplups theme, colours and overall design. I'm not gonna repeat very thing I said in the vid or expand on them since this is an old video and I do think I can make it better now. But just chill it's only my opinion. I can't make you agree that more animalistic designs are better if you don't like them.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh My problem isn't with your opinion, it's with your explanations and justifications! Colorful and cute pokemon always existed since the first generations, just think of every old pokemon that became fairy type or pokemon like bellosom, yeah that's very colorful. Arguments like "without blue Quaxly doesn't look a wster type" that don't make any sense since without blue piplup doesn't look like one too! It's fine if you simply say that you don't like fairy type but it's another thing to outrhight lie and ssy that there is no fairy pokemon. Fairies aren't just pixies, orcs, gremmilins, uniconr any other feu creatures are fairies! The problem isn't your opinion, the problem is that there is many things that you say that you put them like facts, with many of them being just incorrec, no subjectivity in it, just wrong! And then, you know what happens, right? Yeah, tons and tons of people believe in those false statements! One thing is to show your opinion another is to try to influenciate and change other's
Whenever you express opinion there's always a change it will influence others. That's not my problem. But yea I agree I could have used better examples. What I was trying to get at with quaxly is that remove the blue bubble and feet, nothing else really helps it express its typing. It could be flying like duklett (and even that's blue) piplup is a detailed design replicating a penguin plus alittle extra. It has the flaps on its back that cover its head + thick fur indicating a creature that needs insulation for cold water. It's a great mix of colour plus design features to express its type through visual language. And I understand that every gen has every type of pokemon like cute etc. Most of the time it's a case by case basis on what I like but this vid is a generalisation. I made videos on gen 1 & 2 designs. I broke them down and discussed which ones I like and don't. Check em out if your interested as I do go more in-depth there on individual designs.
Nothing from gen 7 onward
Such a great video
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it
Violet and sacarlet desings are garbage
femail?
First few seconds and he's already dissing object pokemon, flop
Yep 😏
umm actually🤓. it's pronounce arceus not arceus
JAMES BOND LOL
I prefer the more rounded art-style of the newer games. It’s just more visually appealing.
no
It's incredible. I don't agree in anything
"femail" lol
🤣 whoops
"Desing"?
🤣 whoops
My OCD couldn't resist 🤣😄
@@liljosh224 😂I hate it when I don't see those, there's one in nearly every vid
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh that is what makes it a 99.9 perfect video
@@liljosh224 🤣
Femail.
Exepctions
I don’t agree with most of your points here, as I think the newer gens tend to have a lot better designs.
No one asked
😅