the origin forms remove the key body part needed for dialga and palkia to uuse their signature move the are trying to look more like arceus i like them a lot
I think you hit the Nail on the head generally with the whole concept of the Pokémon distorting the Art, however I think you confused a few with being an issue. I personally don’t have an issue with Magnemite, Sandygast or Crabominable as their typing makes sense for their art. However I do agree with all of your other assertions, especially when it comes to swirlix, vanillish, most of Gen 5 & all of Gen 9 save Annihilape. They definitely need to bring in a new design director, & hopefully they will as it has been 5 generations of this style & I believe Pokémon does not want to be stale. Especially with this Generation’s terrible reception.
Here's the the thing. In the first couple of generations the starters were based on animals with a fantasy design twist, but were still members of a species. Their designs were simple enough for each individual within a species to have its own individual, unique personality. For example, each individual venasaur or charzard can have its own unique personality and persona separate from other venasour or charzard. Your venasour can be a fierce king of the jungle while my venasour is a gentle giant. However, with newer starter designs their designed with a very specific personality as the fundamental aspect of its design where there is no way for each individual to have its own unique personality. For example, Cinderace has the soccer theme taking ower its design way too much were there is no way to tell your cinderace apart from my cinderace (or anyone else's). Cinderace is not a species; cinderrace is one character.
@@thelostmessenger perhaps but you can still try & write different characteristics for them though, you can have a a smart & introverted rilaboom or a brash hotheaded [gen 8 water starter]
@@Puerco-Potter I can see them being timid & being mistaken for a more confident individual or even being seen for the overthinking timid rabbit that they are. But then again, perhaps it’s a case by case basis.
To me it feels like the old Gen Pokémons are inspired by nature and folklore, and they just looked like monsters you could find in a manga, with a easy to read coherent morphology, but today it feels like Pokémons are inspired by other Pokémons Again and again until they are abstract shapes with arms and heads and a vague animal shape for it to be able to walk There is a weird consaguinity thing happening, (on top of designer being less inspired)
Pokemon designs grounded in nature but use elements from foreign concepts that build on the overall design and purpose of the Pokemon will always be better than Pokemon with the design philosophy of "Looks like (insert inanimate object here)" which is so prevalent in these newer generations. Gens 1-4 clearly have the better designs. Especially considering the legendary Pokemon
As a causal pokemon gamer, gen 1-4 pokemon are a lot more enjoyable and better designed. Again they are not perfect but starting at gen 5 the amount of bad pokemon and humaniod pokemon just increased sooo much
I feel like a lot of the “rules” established here are kinda unnecessary and limiting. I don’t think a lot of people care about Pokémon like Dragonite, Goodra, and Aurorus having weird eyes. Like yea they’re not intimidating compared to others but there’s more to what makes them good than just being intimidating. The same can be said to when you said Serperior is a less natural snake than Arbok and Seviper because it has a snout. I get that people are drawn to familiarity it can be said that Arbok is boring because it’s too similar to a real snake.
I do get the complaint towards humanoid and inanimate mons but the other points just feels like they’re pidgeon-holing Pokémon design into very specific designs. Like saying “pseudo-legendaries can’t be cute cause they’re powerful” feels needlessly limiting when there’s a lot of personality a powerful Pokémon can have.
I guess I prefer pokemon feeling abit more grounded in nature and having less rounded and soft features when they are ment to feel otherwise. Which again is why I think pokemon like charizard and garchomp are much more liked on average than designs like dragonite and goodra. But to each is own. And for all the categories, I don't think their unnecessary as I do think they explain well the different design features and themes of pokemon. But at the end of the day, each pokemon should be examined on a case by case basis regardless of what category I or anyone else puts em it.
it's because you're listening to the opinion of someone stuck with the mentality of an edgy 12 year old, being stated as law This whole video is a waste of time
@@boar6615 Nailed it. All the author did was to establish some vague, arbitrary parameters of "good design" which aren't indicative in any way shape or form on the design philosophy behind the franchise. It's the good old script: make up some arbitrary standard about mon design that only exist in their head and then screech at the developers dare to cross it.
I agree so much with this like there is a pokemon for everyone and no pokemon design is bad because they can be uncreative but never ugly also I don’t know what I’m saying
8:40 I think it is a bit unfair to compare Naganadel, an interdimensional creature, to dragapult, as ultrabeasts are inherently alien and beyond understanding, I mean Stakataka is literally a hive mind of living bricks, and kartana is an alien samurai plant thing.
@@fideljr1763 I mean, they technically are Pokémon, the same way lifeforms on other planets are considered plants or animals, it’s just that Ultra Beasts live in completely different universes and planets, and to group them up with regular Pokémon seems to diminish their otherworldly nature in my opinion. I’d have done a separate tab for ultrabeasts to add to with each installment. With enough ultramon, there would be the standard Pokédex and an Ultradex for your otherworldly companions.
My only nitpick is, as a snake keeper and lover myself, I’m pretty sure Serperior has that pointed snout in reference to the Asian vine snake or rhino rat snake. These snakes are green, arboreal, and have pointed heads that resemble foliage. I don’t even particularly like the Snivy line, but I do think it’s good for pokemon to be inspired by unusual species of certain types of animals.
Also the way it's pointy snout points upwards compliments the main concept of it feeling superior, since I'm not sure if it's within the English language too, but in Portuguese there is this slang of a conceited person having an "upwards nose"
I feel like people don't bother understanding a design and just goes by what looks cool. New Pokémon designs aren't just things that look cool anymore. So designs like serperior doesn't get the respect it deserves with all the thoughts put into it imo.
@Cunha Yeah, Serperior is supposed to have that haughty, arrogant attitude. It's in the name, which mixes the words "serpent" and "superior". It's also in the patterns of the foliage it caries, which is the Fleur de Lys (a symbol of French royalty). The pokedex entries also mention it being a royal snake. So, an unusual design is pretty much needed here. I get the inkling that the guy who made the video didn't look beyond how a pokemon looks, he made a similar mistake with Dragonite
@@acapitala4936 well Gen 6-9 starters have crap designs. They’re trying way too hard to make them look like RPG characters and real life occupations. Gen 5 did the balance perfectly.
@@whiteysmit6653 Gen 8 is the only one with weak designs for the starters. Gen 7 has one of the top 3 BEST starter line out of the series (hell top 2 only behind gen 4). I might not think gen 6 has the greatest starters tho I think they're solid enough. But gen 6 is one of the strongest region when it comes to designs as a whole. Very few I found bad, while the best designs from gen 6, topples many other gens (I think the same for gen 8 as well). And gen 9 has skeledirge, nuff said. 10/10 lol.
The entire point of the origin forms of palkia and dialga was that they tried to imitate God (Arceus) in this case but because the perfection of the "true god" can't be imitated, the transformation ended up being incomplete/flawed.
As much as I love this description, and it makes sense in the way you described it. Their original designs and themes were not this at all and never implied or hinted this. Would prefer if they kept them as time space only.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh yes but that's against the point regardless. Legends arceus is a completely different game and whilst I do agree on your other comments in terms of pokemon design, this is objectively wrong based on story principles the game presents. The entire game focuses on the overarching theme of usurping a supernatural force (god) through volo and even palkia and dialga (implied heavily). It's why arceus sent you back in time to face volo and is also the reason why palkia and dialga look so different, as there are consequences leading to the inevitable hubris of a person/organism in challenging the unchallengable.
@@samarthdhatrak1306 I agree with this as well. It definitly makes sense in Legends Arceus's lore and game as a new addition. But some of Giratina's lore regarding its origins was implied as soon as it was introduced as its encounter in dp was over its portal to the distourtion world. And on platinum they expanded on it giving the form a reason to exist connecting it to the other world established from the start, as well as implying it was banished. So it just feels like Dia Pal origin forms were abit forced as well as their motives, while Giratina was already established as that antagonist challenging Gods Judgement. Hope I explained it well, and didn't veer off topic. (and I really enjoy this discussion).
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh I personally think that their designs could have still been better while also emulating Arceus's. I really don't like their current designs tbh
I think the best Pokemon designs come from multiple sources combined into one design. Garchomp looks cool because you can't tell what it's directly based on, it just looks like a cool monster. However, once you find out it's inspiration, you just love it more.
I can’t really say that all of the newer Pokémon are bad. Yeah there are some hiccups but there are also some gems from those Generations too. Like Decidueye is a great example since it’s a badass archer owl who’s a ghost type which became a huge fan favorite from that generation and also Toxtricity who despite it’s humanoid design, just screams cool because of its punk rock aesthetic with a Mohawk filled with electricity along with have a very unique typing. Besides no generation is perfect because every generation has both good and bad design Pokémon.
100% agree, I didn't say all the new pokemon are bad. I just think generally speaking overall the focus of the majority weren't good. Especially the ones I directly showed on screen.
back to my comment 😁these mons you mentioned are also some of my favorite designs but it is because they look more like natural animals or monsters that are based on some sort of animal even toxt with his humanoid form lol but lizard type head lol
The mons i am put off by are the ones wearing clothes. I especially have this issue with starters (While Infernape and Empoleon wear clothes, at least those 2 get a pass from me, since it isn't as glaringly obvious as with others). Like, for me, Cinderace is a man in a furry suit, same issue i have with with Incineroar (Man in a cat suit). Unlike them, while i have problems with Delphox, Delphox at least looks fox-like enough compared to the 2 i mentioned before). Blaziken falls in the same boat as Cinderace and Incineroar, but i feel like it stands out more wearing clothes due to Sceptile and Swampert lacking them, than it being blatantly obvious at first glance. While Inteleon is wearing clothes, its cape isn't as obvious when Inteleon is seen from the front, its only an issue when you actually use it, since then it stands out.
empoleon isnt wearing clothes... he's a penguin.. penguins look like that lolol. and infernapes is clearly just fur. For me , cinderace looks very clearly like a cartoon bunny. he even has short arms to keep from looking too human. delphoxes fur is ridiculous. just to get the mage look. lol
I kinda think the same way, the only pass they get is if its minimalist pieces of armor. Machamp is the one wearing a belt and/or bottom clothing akin to wrestlers or what superman and batman wore in their early ish designs.
I played omega Ruby and showed my mom my Torchic after it evolved and when she saw my Blaziken she was like "where's the little chicken? that's a grown man" 😭
Item-based Pokemon are probably based off of the Japanese legends about how items (such as instruments, paper umbrellas, paper lanterns, clothing, weapons, etc....) can, under certain circumstances, become youkai, some of which are extremely iconic.
Yup, which is why I've found many of them to be pretty cool but a little out of place. Games like the Nioh franchise made me very interested in japanese folklore.
Touhou has made me really interested in tsukomogami because of Kokoro, Kogasa, Yatsuhashi, Benben and Raiko. I think it's cool there's Pokemon based on tsukomogami too!
yet yokai embody concepts. pokemon are meant to be animals in a fantasy world. Digimon embodies concepts, those pokemon would fit better in Digimon, like, literally.
@@TheSilverwolf97 Pokémon are magical beings that embody whatever the hell the writers want them to, like, for example, Time, Space, and Anti-Matter. Similarly, Digimon tend to be just be fully sentient people who happen to be shaped like monsters and have powers target then being some sort of conceptual entity.
@@lnsflare1 Legendary pokemon are god-like creatures that represent the powers of nature, those are exceptions not the rule. And about the rest, you are just wrong.
I love the older designs or ones inspired by nature. The new designs looking too human make me feel like I'm playing a super hero game, not a pokemon adventure.
Never bought a pokemon game since sun and moon and so I had a jumpscare when origin dialga and palkia came up. I never knew they existed and now I'm horrified that those designs even made it to the final game 💀
for me I fell in love with pokemon because of the more animalistic designs. I was about 12 years old when gen 1 aired. and you are correct, for example although I am hype for scarlet and violet, I have not been to excited at the current designs well except for megaman and protoman lol back to gen 1 for a sec, yes we had mons that made no sense like hitmochan how do you have boxing gloves? but at least within the first 4 generations the weird mons that made no sense where minimal at least. I just want more animal forms they just make more sense. the grass types i wont judge lol because well mostly are flower looking mons but they look like they belong. so yes Mate I agree with this opinion. :)
Who cares if hitmonchan has boxing gloves? Its obviously the opposite of hitmonchan who focuses on kicks. Nobody cares about it making sense as long as it looks cool and badass.
I've always had a soft spot for object pokemon. But im ngl I feel like Gen 7 or 8 are the last pokemon gens who's pokemon feel like...pokemon. And this is coming from someone who thought gen 8 was mid (LOVE gen 7 tho) Gen 9 pokemon almost look like AI-generated pokemon, some of them intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I feel like part of this is evident based on how they're marketing the "cute" gen 9 pokemon too much over the "cool" ones. Also, Maushold line is cute but...its literally just a generic mouse mascot.
The designs are starting to feel overly complex. And while alot of people have complained about there being too many humanoid pokemon nowadays I think the real issue is that those humanoid pokemon are looking less like pokemon and more like Furry fursonas.
I didn’t really like Dragapult, and both Poipole and Naganadel are some of my all-time favorites (i spent forever shiny-hunting for a shiny poipole in USUM). I can agree that I don’t like the general design-philosophy of the newer games versus the older games (especially gen 8’s starters were dissapointing to me) but there have still been a handful of designs that I really really like from the newer games. Golisopod, Toxitricity and Hisuian Zoroark are some of examples.
I always get a bit annoyed when people complain about the UB designs. Them not looking like Pokemon was kind of the point and I figured people were over that by now.
To me it went already downhill in Diamond and Pearl with the new evolutions for old Pokémon. Magnezone and Rhyperior's design was all over the place, just to point out a few
Want to defend Gen 7 a little: Naganadel and other Ultra Beasts like it are effectively extradimensional aliens in the Pokémon setting, their entire purpose is be rather strange/foreign compared to usual Pokémon designs.
@@rayveck493 you completely dismiss the oint of what ultra beasts were supposed to be so its your fault that you don't understand the concept. Not saying you can dislike it, it's just that your mad about an concept that makes sense. They are subjective not objective you dumbass
Gen 8 roster was absolutely terrible. The game itself was good,graphics story etc. But the pokemon were ass,it was hard to find anyone outside the orginals I actually liked, so I imagine gen 7 isn't too far off I couldn't get into it.
I wish you had touched on more about how modern starters evolutions are losing their animal aesthetics in favor of man-made concepts. That’s what I really dislike about the past 3 Gen of Pokémon starters. They end up looking to much like humans with animal features instead of animals with man made features. One the best examples I can think of is Incineroar and Thievul. Incineroar is very clearly based on a wrestler but it’s only animal features are it’s head, hands/feat and tail. It lacks a lot of creativity. Thievul on the other hand is based on a Thief (obviously by the name) but at the core of its design it remains a Fox. It conveys the thief concept in inventive and less overt ways like the mask around its eyes it’s whiskers forming an old times villain mustache shape and how it uses its tail as a broom to wipe away its tracks.
They really don't lose their animal aestheitcs though. Gen 3? The gen with Blaziken? Nah they look more like animals with man made features. Not really...how vicious it acts is animal like too. It doesn't lack creativity.
I never realised sharpedo had no lower body, I always just figured it was bent and that the other fin was actually it's tail. And it felt so much better.
It's actually super easy, the Pokemon game with the best designs is whichever one you played as a kid and the Pokemon game with the worst designs is the most recent one to come out. Hope that helps!
Not at all, in fact I think that argument exists to dismiss the critisim of older fans rather than consider the technicals of modern design. While art is subjective, it's not as subjective as most people seem to think it is, there are a lot of design rules and theory that can explain why some designs are 'good' on a technical level and why others are bad. I started with gen 1/gen 2 of Pokemon. Gen 1 and 2 are great but if I had to choose a generation for my favourite designs it would be gen 3. Gen 4 onwards I think things have steadily gone downhill. There have been stand outs in every generation nonetheless. I really liked some new pokemon from gen 6 for example and there are plenty of Pokemon from early gens that wern't good. However the general design has got substationally worse and seems to get worse with every generation especially with the starter final evolutions and the legendaries.
@@FullMetalFeline i think you just personally prefer pokemon from gen 1 to 4 because these are the ones you are more familiar with while you don't like most of the new ones because they don't look like the type of pokemon you are familiar with Furthermore saying pokemon designs have factually gone down hill is just stupidly close minded considering the many pokemon from each new gen that are beloved by many (Like Lycanrok Mimikyu Alot of regional variations centiscorch Hatareen Appletun and Obstagoon) It purely depends on personal taste You can't say pokemon designs have gone down hill just because you and some other people don't like em
Generally, I think up to X and Y were pretty good. There's a few I don't like here and there (increasing in number as the gens go by) but that's normal. Further in it just felt less and less like they had genuine inspiration and more like they did animal + object = pun name and the only features that matter on it. Some of the ones you mentioned I dont mind, like Copperajah, I never understood why people didn't like it. Being an Asian elephant associated with irl India (bc of that once dex entry which mentions an indian elephant for some reason), the colors make sense and the color scheme in general never really bothered me? The undertones all match, allowing for a more cohesive design. The ones that I find most egregious in color scheme simply just don't match, like that one fish pokemon you showed whose name I don't remember. It has too many colors that don't quite go together.
Thanks for sharing your opinion! I guess copperajah is just preference. One of those ones I just never liked the flat look of and i just find it's colours abit ugly. We can both agree the pink fish thing is by far the worst offender though.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh I think it might be more so the shape of its anatomy. Compare it to something like Donphan, another elephant pokemon and it's clear that Copperajah just doesn't look quite as natural looking as it should. But that's just me.
The colour is not a real proble. (If the design would be good) the reason its design sucks is its body. The body and tusks are unconfedbly squerish, its legs cartoonly short and the trunk cartoonly large, and weirdly shaped. And the weird rocks on the head make no sense. It overall looks more like a weird plastic toy, than some kind of bizzare monster.
Honestly, I don’t think the designs are getting worse, just different. They’re trying to branch out and always try new things, and some older gen ppl might not like that. Also, I understand some of the humanoid Pokémon are kinda ugly, but it’s always funny hearing about the argument against them. I get that there’s a lot of nostalgia for gens 1-3, but all of their designs are really boring and basic. It’s weird to say that new Pokémon designs are boring when older ones are even more uninspired. Not that these are exactly your opinions, it’s just what I usually hear.
Blaming nostalgia alone is not an argument it is a deflection, especially when you consider many of these Pokemon are still love to this day even by more recent fans like Charizard or newer designs that are loved by the majority of fans like Corviknight,Golisopod,ect. Basic does not mean boring or uninspired,Lycanroc(sun) and Glimmora for example are very simple and basic newer designs but they are still love. I would not call all Pokemon from gen 1-3 basic either.Nidoking,Scizor or Blaziken are all far from basic and still love.
I am too. Disappointed in Dialga & Palkia’s Origin formes.. They somehow feel forced. Like they wanna get Sinnoh done and over with so they just threw random designs for both of them. Till now I still can’t get over it. Dialga is absolutely one of my favourite Pokemon designs and seeing it reduced to its new origin forme just makes me sad. I honestly have been dreaming of a Mega Dialga or any alternate form with a better design that builds on its original one and I imagined it to be similar to Zygarde 100% but now….
I wish they would have kept the same different types of eyes used in the 1st gen like Haunter, Charizard, Geodude, Electabuzz, Blastoise, Magikarp, Jynx, and Snorlax
You would get bored of so many pokemon having the same kind of eyes. That workednfor one or two generations, but habin 10 generations with the same kind of creatures would be boring.
I personally think Torracat is the peak of starter line design. It beautifully achieves every function a middle stage starter must. It smoothly fills the gap between Litten and Incineroar, and finds a perfect balance between cute and cool, which is shown through it’s animations as well. People were surprised that Incineroar was bipedal, but Torracat gave many hints to this. First off, the contrast of normal cat hind legs and beefy muscular forelimbs foreshadowed Incineroar being a top-heavy beefcake. Even the shape of Torracat’s torso was more chest heavy. Also, the fire bell was a nice touch, later becoming Incineroar’s belt. Giving Torracat a collar was cute, and making it fire was cool. Lastly, the orange colour was a nice touch giving the whole line more colour variety and differentiating Litten and Torracat.
I'm glad someone could put the problem in words, I dropped off after playing Y and have trouble even looking at Pokémon now. I feel like I grew out of Pokémon, but at the same time, it's downgrading to appeal to a younger audience. (When are the iPhone 14 and Twitch girl Pokémon being added?) They probably already do.
What i ended up doing, is to play fan made pokemon games or rom hacks. More often than not, at least those do feel like you're still playing pokemon, given, i also thought i grew out of them, but no. That wasnt the case at all. All i had to do, is look elsewhere.
I think the same, most friends who still buy the new games agree aswell and drop them after the story. I hear always "yeah we maybe outgrown" (with 25-32) but even the kids of some or cousins who are in the age around 10 drop the games quickly (yet really love pokemon and older games somehow). Same friends where stunned when I talked them into gen.5 because they skipped that gen due to different reasons. But I still have the same joy with Smaragd, Leafgreen, (Bloody)Platinum, HG/SS, S/W and S/W 2, Gen 3 remakes too. Maybe I tend to like more the sprite games of Pokémon and a HG/SS mixed with Gen 5 textures and Animations would be my perfect game. I found the 3D models lifeless , not as colourful or even taking away character(Typholyson or whatever its english name is), I wouldn't mind them, if they are more in the art style of these Lets Go game enviroments tho. I even loved Battle Revolution so somehow only the new main games are turning me off. Sounds odd but I'd rather have these talking screens of games like Re:Zero than silent mouth and arm moving characters with the animation on repeat. I roll sometimes the eyes with newer designs but accepted them like in S/M/US/UM, overly girly designs like the new Rapidash or Humanoid Furries is what I cant stand only. In general I find the games lost it's depth or character, the lore behind something or mystery of some Pokemon, starting with the bad guys. Sure it's weird to fight as 10y a Mafia or galactic thread but what we had the last games? Wannabe punks with plot twist, crazy fans and now school bullies/dropouts..a National Pokedex to collect aswell instead of one in the bank service and a bit of seriousness like the GBA DS games. I really forced myself through gen 7 because everyone took everything with a smile like "we are all winners" motto, Events get handed out just to get instant transported in the box with no triggering something in the game (Gen 6 upwards), now all the pay services added since the switch. It feels like they take your hand to go through the latest games the whole time, constant explaining or annoying rotom tipps, or even show what is effective..It's just like its now for even younger made than before and fear if something is slightly harder or challenging, kids will drop it right away (like their battle frontier statement in gen 6) but in my experience they do exactly because of no challenge.
@g.koch. Bro! Pokémon marriage lore... is it a kids' game or not?! Like wtf. Hit it on the nose, lifeless Pokémon snap did it better! The nintendo 64 games had so much love. Imagine if Pokémon stadium converted B/R/Y to a 3rd person setting with larger routes and towns from the anime. Gosh the possibilities they have. What are they thinking. So sad 😔 😟
Basically the main reason I haven't bought any game past gen 4. I do like the megas tho. But honestly, even without all the bugs, performance issues and so on I was really struggling with the new games. There are so few designs that look like something that could actually exist in a fantasy setting. Like you said, far too much emphasis on concepts.
Gen 5 is my favourite gen, but that’s probably mostly because it was the first gen I had a game from. I don’t mind some inanimate object pokemon, it adds some interesting variety, but I totally understand why it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. I adore Chandelure. :3
I like the newer Designs better which I know will get me roasted over a fire. But the few first gen starters were just "It's a animal but has magic powers" and honestly feels not creative I think we need to come to the realization that nostalgia ≠ Good
Blaming nostalgia is not an argument it's a deflection, especially when you considered Pokemon like Charizard are liked by more recent fans. Or that Greninja and decidueye are liked by the majority of fans yet that is not the same for other starters. The arguments that the first few generation starters were just animals with powers. Doesn't hold up when you have the Venusaur line, basically all three gen 3 starters, typhlosion line, feraligatr line, all the Gen 4 starters,ect. A case could be made for starters focusing too much on a specific role or theme, such as incineroar or gen 8 starters. A simple concept also does not mean uncreative or bad design and more direct inspiration doesn't mean more creative or good design.
I think one thing to always consider when looking at Pokémon designs is that different cultures have their own mythology surrounding certain creatures and that animals within our own world are also very odd looking ( things like the Tusk deer or the poorly named penis snake for example). The origin forms of Dialga and Palkia for example, are actually based off of the Japanese beast Kirin which is more or less a chimera-like creature which combines elements of a giraffe, horse, and dragon. Arceus itself is based off of this creature and with its creation trying to emulate its power they too take inspiration and combine it with their already out there designs
I disagree on Yveltal and Xerneas. Yes they were based on shapes but Xerneas in particular is still very clearly a deer and Yveltal still has enough bird features. I think it's also fitting that Yveltal looks a bit off considering it's the embodiment of destruction.
I guess I'm not a "real fan" of pokemon since personally I think I'm the only one who doesn't see anything wrong with the design choices! mainly because I prefer to follow the reasons why pokemon are the way they are! seriously, the designs alone are decent! neither one of them are bad in my opinion!
I don't think they're worse, just different, every generation will have some hits and misses for everyone. I'm pretty sure, that a huge part of those who complain would do so no matter what, now they complain the designs are too diffetent, but if they weren't, they'd complain the designs got stale and samey.
The way I had it described to me is that voltorb and vanillish were always like that and then people in that universe based pokeballs and ice cream on them.
Still like voltorb,an electrode. Call it nostalgia or whatever,but a vanilla ice-cream look that doesn't even look cool is dumb an not even in the same league as voltorb.
@@FknClownShoes is it the angry eyes and smirk that makes them cool to you. If we edited them onto vanillishs line in place of their current face would you like them more
@@music79075 The vanilla ice cream cone design itself is stupid,at least voltorb relates to pokemon being a pokeball. Vanillish looks like it belongs on a kids show on Netflix.
@@music79075 No the orginal pokemon had more mature theme's versus now even the adults have child like features an the pokemon are now objects with eye's.
I don’t know if “worse” is the correct term - but absolutely Uninspired. Christ, there’s a straight up Mastiff dog, a flamingo, and a cat… so I guess the whole “are animals in the Pokémon world!?” Question has been definitively answered: yes.
I don’t think uninspired is correct either tbh. Just different. The examples you give are in every generation and not any more prevalent in this one. And even with these examples: Mabosstiff is also based on gang leaders/crime bosses with its color scheme, silver hair and personality. It’s not just a mastiff. This is also completely ignoring fidough (bread dog) and hound stone (spooky skeleton dog). Those are definitely inspired in some way. As for cat I’m assuming sprigatito? But is it fundamentally different from torchic which is a cartoon chick? And it becomes a magician upon evolution which isn’t uninspired. Not to defend the basic designs (in which I agree with flamigo--why is it even fighting type?) but this gen isn’t particularly guilty of these designs. In gen one, we have raticate, pidgeot, kinglet, dewgong, seaking and Tauros. Even the nidos, rhydon and kangaskhan all look like reiterations of the same design concept. This is not just gen 1 too. Ursaring, noctowl, furfrou, swalot, beautifly, luvdisc, sunflora, mothim, Beartic, herdier are all extremely simple animals/concepts
I don't think so. Gen 7 had some fantastic designs, and even 8 did as well. I enjoy a bunch of gen 9 as well, but less than the last 2 generations, which could be because of how new they are
The limits most fans put on the Pokémon company on how they should make their designs is completely unnecessary.they’re is no limit on what a monster should or shouldn’t be they are monsters not animals.also some humanoid Pokémon like cinderace or incineroar make up for they’re humanoid aspects with they’re animalistic aspects and they’re outstanding charm and personality
SV's designs don't just look bad (Meowscarada), boring (Gholdengo), or uninspired as hell (Flamigo), but they all feel rushed and unfinished as well. The fact that the Pokedex is mainly just an awkward mish-mash of Convergent forms, Regional variants, Cross-Gen evolutions, Legendary Pokemon, and Paradox Pokemon tells me that they clearly didn't have enough time to think through all of the new Pokemon designs. Even Gen 7 and Gen 8, which I also wasn't a huge fan of most of the designs, didn't have a problem this bad. Gen 9 manages to be unfinished not just in the games themselves, but also the new Pokemon too, which feels like a new low for the franchise.
Nah both totodile and fuecoco are awesome. Also centiskorch, grapploct, dragapult and toxtricity are living proof they're staying Atleast at a consistently good level with dessigns
I used Dragapult as a good design example, I didn't mention the other Pokémon you listed as I also like their designs. Though I cant say the same for the majority of the others especially the ones shown in the video.
Origin Dialgia is not the best, but it is still descent (my opinion) but I totally agree that Origen Palkia looks weird. It is just a horse with shoulder pads and a ring around its waist. They toke a more bold approach (compared to Palika) with Origen dialga. Giritina’s Origen form is still the best though. Sorry for bad spelling.
This video rly seems more biased towards the first few gens. It calls out the different design philosophies of different gens and instantly say "this is why early gens are better than newer" Old Pokémon were based mainly on monsters, while new Pokémon games are based mainly on culture. They want all Pokémon to be based on the country they are based on now. Thus why the designs have much more depth. Fuecoco's line for example is based on crocs, ghost peppers, day of the dead, gauchos, mariachis, and Antonio Gaudí all at the same time. Compare this to the other croc starter Totodile, who's line is just based on crocodiles and arguably cavemen without much outside inspiration or research put into it. Older gens wanted their Pokémon to feel like monsters, while new gens of Pokémon try to build more upon the worldbuilding and have all Pokémon feel less like a "monster hunter world" and more like a "fantasy creatures world" Other changes like the change on color schemes, and how different the Pokémon seem from their Inspirations, are extremely subjective and saying that some of them are objectively better than others is not something anyone can agree on, because it's all about personal preference. Honestly I love vibrant and interesting color palettes and I much prefer the newer gens, but I won't judge anyone who prefers the design philosophies of older eras. So no I don't think that any gen is better than others. Every Pokémon is someone's favourite and everyone has different criteria's to liking different Pokémon. No gen is better than others
3 main points, TLDR: pokemon community complains about things that are completely irrational. Not everything has to be perfect, generally speaking new mon designs are good and serve a purpose outside of being cool or having some whacky meaning. Many examples given are good designs when you look at them from a lense that isn’t “everything is supposed to be a monster” because pokemon are more than monsters they are world building tools and that means some gotta look human, some gotta be trash, and some (our favorites) gotta look badass. If everything looked them same then we would get bored really fast Some designs are bad but that’s not a bad thing, not everyone likes the same thing, generally people like certain kinds of mobs more than others, lucario garchomp galade why? They look human and cool, they are sleak and look powerful. That’s why we got ceruledge and armoruge, the epitome of this, and some of my two fav pokemon. Trubish and Garbodore are trash literally and design wise but I love them for that. If they looked just as cool as galade then what’s the point, if they are some extreme complex thing then what’s the point. Some Pokémon exist imo to be in a group or apart of an asthetic of an area or the world. Trubish grimmer etc all exist to be trash and live in the icky parts of a region. Second you guys bitch about everything. When Pokémon went to 3D a lot of moms went from saturated 2D to pastel 3D so saturated moms are an attempt to make the previous Pokémon look better while still fitting in the worlds color palet. Gen 8 imo at least mon wise and town wise looks gorgeous. The wolf area is a different story but that’s like 20% of the region and a gimmick not the entire region. Lastly inanament objects are a good thing. If gf saw that certain kinds of mons sold well and only made them then we wouldn’t have a diverse cast. Sharpedo is close if not perfect for the role it serves. If it had he same level of involvement in its design as garchomp then it would be redundant, dragonite even though it’s not as popular as charizard needs those cute anime girl eyes to round out its design. Do we just want a bunch of beasts and a bunch of small plushies or do we want some on the extreme end and some on the simpler side. I think we want the simple. We can hate on designs like concelder gurdurr gothetell for being humanoid but we want those humanoid Pokémon, they play a role in the games and in the lore etc. concelder gurdurr and others are supposed to be human, that’s their role in the games. They work on a consturction site. Gothetell gothita, they are supposed to be after a fashion trend… for humans. If you don’t like these concepts then what more do u want. There are only so many dragons, dogs, cats, mice, hybrids they can make, and at a set pace. Bruxish isn’t the best designed mon no doubt but it’s a psychic fish, and in my opinion it stands out for having that extremely diverse color pallet and standout lips. And it’s reminds me of well… you know… but that’s what it’s there for. I think there are concerns to be had, but pokemon don’t serve one dimensional purposes. They are balancing many aspects, world, competitive purpose, coolness, cuteness, shock, lore, counter parts (hatrem line and grimsnarl line) these aspects all have to mesh to make a non, and that can result in some wanky creations. Gengar by these definitions is a bad mon design, yet so many love him, he’s just an evil face on a purple blob shadow thing. His mega is cool and so is the g max but compare him to charizard there’s like nothing compared to that. People don’t want only super cool designs, people don’t only want super cute designs, they want diversity, if half the moms are cool to you then isn’t that enough. The other half could be cute, the other half could be bad in your eyes and you despise them. It’s like food, it all tastes good has purpose but you can not like spaghetti and love pizza, you can hate mozzarella sticks but love cheese burgers, even though they have the same ingredient. Not every mins made for everyone. People say icecue is lazy but I love him. If he was any different it would take away from what I like about him. Just two simple things meshed together. The lore behind the helmet makes me like him and his ability signature to him and some what of an evolution of mimikyu makes him stand out to me. Now how is this a bad thing. He looks basic but he finctions very uniquely and stands out and fits within the lore of the game. Not every mon can be perfection, that’s what your asking for. There are aspects we like and dislike about many Pokémon we gotta learn to like them for what they are. All this to say there can be moms that are just bad. There are things that are just bad. Big example LITERALLY MAJPRITY OF GEN 9 SHONYS. WHY WHY WHY DID THEY RUIN CERULEDGE AND ARMORUGE SHINYS they are like the mos Thad ass Pokémon and the shiny is just the eyes changing. Someone like tinka ton makes sense and still looks nice, but those two look ass. The Pokémon from violet in area zero, why do they all turn silver. Why can’t their panels change color to. Why does it have to be this way. They make sense lore wise but look awful, that’s something that certainly can be balanced. I’m the future we can all agree this has to go. If shinys weren’t as common as wacky shaped clouds in the sky then I would have never hunted them.
Thanks for your detailed response, but I do think you assumed some things about my opinion. Firstly art is subjective so there isn't any wrong and right answer Second, every pokemon design is a case by case but for a video I have to make more general groupings. There are acceptions that I do like that go against the points I stated and also there are more things to me that generally make a good pokemon design. I go into more detail in my "what makes a good pokemon design" video here - ruclips.net/video/RivPGWI16ZY/видео.html And to prove I don't only like monster like pokemon or older gen pokemon. Here is my design analysis of gen 1 and gen 2 Gen 1- ruclips.net/video/Hb6LVoKAU_Y/видео.html Gen 2 - ruclips.net/video/utpPcceXMks/видео.html
You put my thoughts I to words perfectly. I haven’t enjoyed Pokémon since gen 4 and I stopped playing after gen 6 mostly because of the Pokémon designs.
Forgot where I heard this but gen 1 is based on rural Japan being turned more into cities and destroying forests and stuff like that, so you see really animal like pokemon in the beginning and later on you see stuff like Magnemite and Voltorb later on.
One of the main problems with the newer generations is simply the leeway they have when making them, as even if the design is lazy or bland people will still go out of their way and comment things like "Oh but it's such a cute design" or "It's such a meme though". The worse way of defense is the whole "Yeah, like Voltorb was a good design", which no one ever claims..
I actually love many designs in Gens 5-9, but one of my biggest problems with the starters in newer gens is they’re starting to base them too much on man-made concepts and I’m not a big fan of them all having a theme together (like elements of British culture in Galar), like you brought up. It makes them a lot harder to believe they’re real creatures living in packs or families in the wild. I sometimes only like one or two starter designs in the newer gens, whereas I like all twelve starter evolutions from Gens 1-4
For me, I simply just don't care about these rules unless the pokemon is outright boring or ugly. Stuff like Scream Tail, Alohan Raticate, Licilicky, Chewtle, and Jinx are so ugly and stupid looking that I hate them, while stuff like Dewgong, Eiscue, Muk, Raticate, Seaking, Sunflora, Stantler, Poochyena, Slakoth, Pidove, Tirtouga, Furfrou, and Komala are just plain boring and uninteresting. You wouldn't hear people say "Slakoth is my favorite pokemon!" or "Chewtle is my favorite pokemon!". Overall I rate pokemon on many factors but your rules are just kinda dumb in my opinion.
What I loved about pokemon during the start of the franchise was that pokemon looked like wild animals. And I do find it weird more modern starters end up looking more humanoid. I wouldn't mind it, but it just seems to common now.
@@gsp6517 the fighting type based on a boxing human somehow manges to look less human than the animal based starter pokemon. And yokai/ghost based pokemon like magnamite allways existed besies the animal ones. But they looked more like weird anorganic monsters, instead of "just a living object" like since gen 5
@@hailgiratinathetruegod7564 You're reaching. Magnemite is literally a magnet with an eyeball and that's it. Mons like Vaniluxe and Aegislash are way more stylized and monster-like than Magnemite ever was. Also, Hitmonchan literally wears human clothing, which is also the case with Jynx and Mr. Mime.
@@hailgiratinathetruegod7564 u based that on what reason? comment talked about wild animals and now u are saying something else, pick one thing and then talk about it
@@gsp6517 while Hitmonchan and Magnemite don't look like typical animals, what I was referring to was how they were drawn back then. Gen1 would have two types of sprites in the early games. One which was tamed pokemon and one that was wild pokemon. Best example I can remember is Scyther. Look at scythers' early game art, it looks like it's lashing out, baring it's fangs, with a stare that would terrify anyone. Where as the modern design is alot more softer. The pupils in the eyes are larger, and the sharp edges have gotten more rounded.
Thank you, I agree with everything in this video! I especially hate the pokemon with human-like bodies, which gen 9 has a lot of... (or the weird square bodies). I really tried liking some pokemon in this new gen but ended up having none in my team, because they're too ugly. For the legendaries, I don't even remember them since like Gen 5 or 6. The designs are just way too busy yet similar to each other, I can't tell the pokemon apart.
For myself, yes. I feel pokemon designs are getting really simplified, yet over-designed. They focus too much on geometrical shapes and everything is really rounded and bubbly. I like all the starters before Alola( Oshawott line excluded), and had zero interest in any since. The last good looking pseudos (imo) were haxorus and Garchomp (edit: forgot Hydreigon).. Pokemon aren't designed with anyone's specific tastes in mind, but the last few regions have had very little to offer me.
Hard disagree. Pokemon designs have always been a mixed bag and a good portion of gen 1 is exceedingly boring designs. Speaking as somebody who has completely stopped playing pokemon since gen 7, I think gen 8 and 9 are actually pretty on par, which is kind of what annoys me about them. That said... I do feel that when a design misses in later gens, it misses harder. There are few designs I hate in older gens while in newer gens there are more that make me go "what were they thinking." Flipside a lot of the wins are better than older gens ever managed. The biggest key element though that influenced pokemon design is the advance of tech to work with. Gens 1 and 2 were designed to be conveyed as simple sprites so are on average more simple in both good and bad ways. Gens 3 to 5 got more complex sprites and some more animation but overall tried to keep the designs sprite-friendly. The next big jump in design philosophy change was moving into 3d with gen 6, something that completely changed the design discipline. Another factor to consider is nostalgia. It very strongly informs everybody's biases towards older gens. I myself am guilty of this too and need to force myself to try and analyze designs between gens and try to divorce myself from happy old grey-brick gameboy memories.
Dialga and palkia: we're excited to see our origin forms. Arceus: hens fort your origin forms Palkia: do you like your origin form. Dialga: (choking noises) Palkia: talk to me😭.
Thank a lot, this video is exactly what I am thinking. the old generation is putting two concept / iconic element together to "design" a pokemon. The new one is putting two concept to "draw" a pokemon
I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree: I think pokémon designs get better with every gen, as they pull from many different sources rather than being just a single concept. There's a Reddit post that explains the *artstyle* shift between pre-gen 6 and post-gen 6, which might be your problem, and that is just a matter of personal taste: the old one was sharper and more "natural", while the new one is rounder and more cartoonish, which I prefer. I also do have a soft spot for artificial-looking pokémon: they prove that designs ideas aren't necessarily limited by just animals and the ocasional mythological creature. One thing, however, that I will give you is my distaste of the newer trends for starter design, particularly how they all end up looking like fursonas instead of creatures that could realistically live in the wild: Incineroar, Cinderace, Inteleon, Quaquaval and Meowscarada are the worst offenders in my opinion.
I would agree with you to an extent, if the "comedy" didn't feel forced. Otherwise, they should probably ditch the whole 3-4 year release schedule and just release games when they're good and ready. But what do I know, I mostly play the spinoffs since they're more interesting.
Gen 5 had enough grounded and interesting designs, but was just overly hated because of almost to non old Pokemon catchable, people feared a reset and that some really then resembled Gen 1 esque Pokemon made it just worse for these. Now these games are highly desireable (probably exactly by these people who blindly followed the bashing trend and cant stamd new games even more). What we have now? Everywhere Pikachu and Charizard and the complainers are happy again..
I personally quite disagree. The new designs in my opinion are just as inspired if not more so. I like how the design style varies between pokemon, and how gamefreak keeps redefining what a pokemon could be. It makes it so anyone could easily find their own personal favorite style of pokemon to raise. One can like more grounded, monstrous, sharp, intimidating mons like Nidoking or Garchomp, while another might like using a bunch of cartoonier looking mons like Sharpedo, Dragonite, and Bewear. And some... Some might just wanna raise a washing machine, a sand castle, a bunch of magnets and an ice cream cone. There is no definitive criteria to designing a pokemon because everyone likes different things, and that what makes the variety so fun. My little brother loves the new gens and so do many other children and adults and that makes every design a winner. Perhaps you should just try to freshen your perspective? There are many designs I'm not very into but I can still appreciate them because I know there was probably a lot of thought and effort put into them and that other people could (and do) like them.
I agree with you in the sense that its actually super impressive that there is a wide range of pokemon that literally anyone can like at least one, which is the beauty of this topic and why I love talking about it so much. There is no right answer and up to preference since art is subjective. Even if I say they are getting worse, doesn't definitively mean they are. I also made a design analysis of gen 1 and 2 but in more detail providing criticism and praises to them if your interested to see a less general analysis of those gens. Here is gen 1s ruclips.net/video/Hb6LVoKAU_Y/видео.html&feature=shares
I wasn't even born yet when the first pokemon series came out. I was born few yrs later but I'm still a baby so I watched Pokemon sooooo late in the mid to late 2005 to 2010. After 2010, that's when I understand Pokemon more since I'm a little grown up and around 2014 - 2015. I got in love with Pokemon so yea I'm late to Pokemon.
Overcomplicated designs is the problem. Simplistic animal designs made me yearn for owning my own Pokemon when I was a kid, simply because it was an animal-like companion. Now they look like weird machines with unrelatable designs that stray from reality.
i couldn't agree more with this. honestly, i had a bad time accepting mega evos years ago and some pokes past gen 4 as well. it always occured to me up to gen 4 was the best, i just didn't know why. when u were explaining, a lightbulb just popped and i was like "hey, that's what i was feeling". and yea. i started to like past gen 4 now and megas, but i can't stand gen 7+ and gigantamax. just no, no thanks. and have u seen the scarlet/violet legendaries? holy shit, they're the worst designs ever. one has kunais as his teeth, not icicles, not fangs, kunais. the other i was just sweeping leaves on the sidewalk and made a pile of them, turns out that pile started to jiggle and move around. and the last is very useful for cooking, he's got a bowl already. i love pokemon, been part of my childhood and i play at least one game a year but the last gens do sucks. that's why they're making remakes. because the other gens SUCKS and they KNOW it.
Glad you enjoyed the video, that's exactly what this video was trying to explain because for the longest time I had the same feeling about pokemon designs past gen 4 but didn't know why until I looked into it for the video.
I agree with 90 percent of this. All except the concept of jynx and Voltorb, etc. They're no where near as tacky as the newer gens and if you ask me they're interesting designs. All in all the newer design are most definitely lacking and are akward
Not even being biased because of nostalgia but, gen 1-4 had superior designs gen 5-6 were pretty decent not really that bad, gen 7-8 was alright coulda been better, but gen 9 honestly dropped the ball big time
I'm honestly not bothered by the design of the new Pokémon, heck, knowing myself, I'd end up getting too attached to the new mons the second I use them on my team, happened with Incineroar, Kommo-o, Chesnaught, Rillaboom and more recently Drampa.
Gen 1: Perfect, they combined real animalas and myth with cool consepts and they could be abit edgy. Gen 2: more of the same but looket a litmore tame Gen 3: Here they began to overdesigne and exagurated Gen 4: On the line with gen 3 but they looked "cooler". Gen 5: More back to the roots, in more simper desinges, bur started to be too consepualised. Its kind of a mirror of gen 1 or a parody if you will. And the coulor scem more grey or broun. Gen 6,7,8,9: I havent played thouse games but my feeling is that they are have a lighter coulor scem they gen 5 but countinued on that conceptiual trend from gen 5 and stated too bee more funny.
Are pokemon designs getting worse? Yes People used to pretend that pokemon designs were always like this, and as an argument they'd compare Garbodor with Weezing or Muk, arguing that they're all pollution pokemon. I responded by saying that if weezing had been made with current gen design ideas they'd have probably made it a literal f-ing chimney, then they literally made a new version of Weezing that is a literal anthropomorphised chimney. Forever cementing me as correct, and the greatest prophet since Nostradamus.
There is a right way to use humanoid shaped figures for the basis/inspiration of character models like Lucario, Gardevoir, etc. And then there's the wrong way like Probopass... The devs keep thinking kids want more Pokemon designs like Probopass....
Made a follow up video to this titled "What makes a GOOD Pokémon Design?"
Link - ruclips.net/video/RivPGWI16ZY/видео.html
the origin forms remove the key body part needed for dialga and palkia to uuse their signature move the are trying to look more like arceus i like them a lot
my thoughts on modern pokemon ruclips.net/video/B9iNx5D1cag/видео.html
Fuecoco good boi
Joseju?
I think you hit the Nail on the head generally with the whole concept of the Pokémon distorting the Art, however I think you confused a few with being an issue. I personally don’t have an issue with Magnemite, Sandygast or Crabominable as their typing makes sense for their art. However I do agree with all of your other assertions, especially when it comes to swirlix, vanillish, most of Gen 5 & all of Gen 9 save Annihilape.
They definitely need to bring in a new design director, & hopefully they will as it has been 5 generations of this style & I believe Pokémon does not want to be stale. Especially with this Generation’s terrible reception.
Here's the the thing. In the first couple of generations the starters were based on animals with a fantasy design twist, but were still members of a species. Their designs were simple enough for each individual within a species to have its own individual, unique personality. For example, each individual venasaur or charzard can have its own unique personality and persona separate from other venasour or charzard. Your venasour can be a fierce king of the jungle while my venasour is a gentle giant. However, with newer starter designs their designed with a very specific personality as the fundamental aspect of its design where there is no way for each individual to have its own unique personality. For example, Cinderace has the soccer theme taking ower its design way too much were there is no way to tell your cinderace apart from my cinderace (or anyone else's). Cinderace is not a species; cinderrace is one character.
This is so true, instead of creating a species, they started creating characters
@@thelostmessenger perhaps but you can still try & write different characteristics for them though, you can have a a smart & introverted rilaboom or a brash hotheaded [gen 8 water starter]
Agreed
@@Barakon the thing is: I can imagine a fearful Charizard. But a timid Cinderace? The pokemon just don't work if they are not confident.
@@Puerco-Potter I can see them being timid & being mistaken for a more confident individual or even being seen for the overthinking timid rabbit that they are.
But then again, perhaps it’s a case by case basis.
To me it feels like the old Gen Pokémons are inspired by nature and folklore, and they just looked like monsters you could find in a manga, with a easy to read coherent morphology,
but today it feels like Pokémons are inspired by other Pokémons
Again and again until they are abstract shapes with arms and heads and a vague animal shape for it to be able to walk
There is a weird consaguinity thing happening, (on top of designer being less inspired)
Agreed!
True
Not gonna lie gen 1 pokemon look a little bit generic. krabby is probably the worst pokemon design ever period. its just a damn crab.
Pokemon has been trying to expand into other cultures thats why you get mr rime for England and slurpuff for France
@@xtrwombat4876 imo gen 1/2 look the best and most “realistic”. You’ll talk about crabby but not klawf? It’s literally a worse design than crabby
I think the main problem is the lack of simple pokemon, every pokémon now looks like a legendary.
Smoliv
Maushold
Pokemon designs grounded in nature but use elements from foreign concepts that build on the overall design and purpose of the Pokemon will always be better than Pokemon with the design philosophy of "Looks like (insert inanimate object here)" which is so prevalent in these newer generations. Gens 1-4 clearly have the better designs. Especially considering the legendary Pokemon
Na, older fans like gen 1-4 more mostly because of nostalgia.
But older gens have this issue a ton too
As a causal pokemon gamer, gen 1-4 pokemon are a lot more enjoyable and better designed. Again they are not perfect but starting at gen 5 the amount of bad pokemon and humaniod pokemon just increased sooo much
@@thereverseeffect7269 sure but creature design ain't one gen 5 and some of six was ok
Jynx came from the 1st gen.
I feel like a lot of the “rules” established here are kinda unnecessary and limiting. I don’t think a lot of people care about Pokémon like Dragonite, Goodra, and Aurorus having weird eyes. Like yea they’re not intimidating compared to others but there’s more to what makes them good than just being intimidating.
The same can be said to when you said Serperior is a less natural snake than Arbok and Seviper because it has a snout. I get that people are drawn to familiarity it can be said that Arbok is boring because it’s too similar to a real snake.
I do get the complaint towards humanoid and inanimate mons but the other points just feels like they’re pidgeon-holing Pokémon design into very specific designs. Like saying “pseudo-legendaries can’t be cute cause they’re powerful” feels needlessly limiting when there’s a lot of personality a powerful Pokémon can have.
I guess I prefer pokemon feeling abit more grounded in nature and having less rounded and soft features when they are ment to feel otherwise. Which again is why I think pokemon like charizard and garchomp are much more liked on average than designs like dragonite and goodra. But to each is own. And for all the categories, I don't think their unnecessary as I do think they explain well the different design features and themes of pokemon. But at the end of the day, each pokemon should be examined on a case by case basis regardless of what category I or anyone else puts em it.
it's because you're listening to the opinion of someone stuck with the mentality of an edgy 12 year old, being stated as law
This whole video is a waste of time
@@boar6615 Nailed it.
All the author did was to establish some vague, arbitrary parameters of "good design" which aren't indicative in any way shape or form on the design philosophy behind the franchise.
It's the good old script: make up some arbitrary standard about mon design that only exist in their head and then screech at the developers dare to cross it.
I agree so much with this like there is a pokemon for everyone and no pokemon design is bad because they can be uncreative but never ugly also I don’t know what I’m saying
8:40
I think it is a bit unfair to compare Naganadel, an interdimensional creature, to dragapult, as ultrabeasts are inherently alien and beyond understanding, I mean Stakataka is literally a hive mind of living bricks, and kartana is an alien samurai plant thing.
to me ultra beasts are not supposed to be pokemon but aliens. I don’t know who thought putting aliens 👽 in a pokemon game was a good idea.
@@fideljr1763 Deoxys?
@@lucianojunior4014deoxys is based…
@@fideljr1763 episode 6 of the anime implied that pokemon were aliens all the way back in the 90s.
@@fideljr1763 I mean, they technically are Pokémon, the same way lifeforms on other planets are considered plants or animals, it’s just that Ultra Beasts live in completely different universes and planets, and to group them up with regular Pokémon seems to diminish their otherworldly nature in my opinion. I’d have done a separate tab for ultrabeasts to add to with each installment. With enough ultramon, there would be the standard Pokédex and an Ultradex for your otherworldly companions.
My only nitpick is, as a snake keeper and lover myself, I’m pretty sure Serperior has that pointed snout in reference to the Asian vine snake or rhino rat snake. These snakes are green, arboreal, and have pointed heads that resemble foliage. I don’t even particularly like the Snivy line, but I do think it’s good for pokemon to be inspired by unusual species of certain types of animals.
Also the way it's pointy snout points upwards compliments the main concept of it feeling superior, since I'm not sure if it's within the English language too, but in Portuguese there is this slang of a conceited person having an "upwards nose"
I feel like people don't bother understanding a design and just goes by what looks cool. New Pokémon designs aren't just things that look cool anymore. So designs like serperior doesn't get the respect it deserves with all the thoughts put into it imo.
@Cunha Yeah, Serperior is supposed to have that haughty, arrogant attitude. It's in the name, which mixes the words "serpent" and "superior". It's also in the patterns of the foliage it caries, which is the Fleur de Lys (a symbol of French royalty). The pokedex entries also mention it being a royal snake. So, an unusual design is pretty much needed here.
I get the inkling that the guy who made the video didn't look beyond how a pokemon looks, he made a similar mistake with Dragonite
@@acapitala4936 well Gen 6-9 starters have crap designs. They’re trying way too hard to make them look like RPG characters and real life occupations. Gen 5 did the balance perfectly.
@@whiteysmit6653 Gen 8 is the only one with weak designs for the starters. Gen 7 has one of the top 3 BEST starter line out of the series (hell top 2 only behind gen 4). I might not think gen 6 has the greatest starters tho I think they're solid enough. But gen 6 is one of the strongest region when it comes to designs as a whole. Very few I found bad, while the best designs from gen 6, topples many other gens (I think the same for gen 8 as well). And gen 9 has skeledirge, nuff said. 10/10 lol.
The entire point of the origin forms of palkia and dialga was that they tried to imitate God (Arceus) in this case but because the perfection of the "true god" can't be imitated, the transformation ended up being incomplete/flawed.
As much as I love this description, and it makes sense in the way you described it. Their original designs and themes were not this at all and never implied or hinted this. Would prefer if they kept them as time space only.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh yes but that's against the point regardless. Legends arceus is a completely different game and whilst I do agree on your other comments in terms of pokemon design, this is objectively wrong based on story principles the game presents. The entire game focuses on the overarching theme of usurping a supernatural force (god) through volo and even palkia and dialga (implied heavily). It's why arceus sent you back in time to face volo and is also the reason why palkia and dialga look so different, as there are consequences leading to the inevitable hubris of a person/organism in challenging the unchallengable.
@@samarthdhatrak1306 I agree with this as well. It definitly makes sense in Legends Arceus's lore and game as a new addition. But some of Giratina's lore regarding its origins was implied as soon as it was introduced as its encounter in dp was over its portal to the distourtion world. And on platinum they expanded on it giving the form a reason to exist connecting it to the other world established from the start, as well as implying it was banished. So it just feels like Dia Pal origin forms were abit forced as well as their motives, while Giratina was already established as that antagonist challenging Gods Judgement. Hope I explained it well, and didn't veer off topic. (and I really enjoy this discussion).
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh I personally think that their designs could have still been better while also emulating Arceus's. I really don't like their current designs tbh
Thats just an excuse, theyre ugly AF lmao
I think the best Pokemon designs come from multiple sources combined into one design. Garchomp looks cool because you can't tell what it's directly based on, it just looks like a cool monster. However, once you find out it's inspiration, you just love it more.
Abso-fucking-lutely!!!
I love it when Pokémon reflect the culture they are based on and therefore represent multiple aspects of it
I can’t really say that all of the newer Pokémon are bad. Yeah there are some hiccups but there are also some gems from those Generations too. Like Decidueye is a great example since it’s a badass archer owl who’s a ghost type which became a huge fan favorite from that generation and also Toxtricity who despite it’s humanoid design, just screams cool because of its punk rock aesthetic with a Mohawk filled with electricity along with have a very unique typing. Besides no generation is perfect because every generation has both good and bad design Pokémon.
100% agree, I didn't say all the new pokemon are bad. I just think generally speaking overall the focus of the majority weren't good. Especially the ones I directly showed on screen.
back to my comment 😁these mons you mentioned are also some of my favorite designs but it is because they look more like natural animals or monsters that are based on some sort of animal even toxt with his humanoid form lol but lizard type head lol
True
Also don’t forget Skeledirge
Noone said that all of the new ones are bad. The video didn't say that.
The mons i am put off by are the ones wearing clothes. I especially have this issue with starters (While Infernape and Empoleon wear clothes, at least those 2 get a pass from me, since it isn't as glaringly obvious as with others). Like, for me, Cinderace is a man in a furry suit, same issue i have with with Incineroar (Man in a cat suit). Unlike them, while i have problems with Delphox, Delphox at least looks fox-like enough compared to the 2 i mentioned before).
Blaziken falls in the same boat as Cinderace and Incineroar, but i feel like it stands out more wearing clothes due to Sceptile and Swampert lacking them, than it being blatantly obvious at first glance.
While Inteleon is wearing clothes, its cape isn't as obvious when Inteleon is seen from the front, its only an issue when you actually use it, since then it stands out.
empoleon isnt wearing clothes... he's a penguin.. penguins look like that lolol. and infernapes is clearly just fur. For me , cinderace looks very clearly like a cartoon bunny. he even has short arms to keep from looking too human. delphoxes fur is ridiculous. just to get the mage look. lol
I kinda think the same way, the only pass they get is if its minimalist pieces of armor. Machamp is the one wearing a belt and/or bottom clothing akin to wrestlers or what superman and batman wore in their early ish designs.
@@sonic-bb Cinderace and Incineroar are fur too tho
Just like drednaw is Santa in doggy style in a turtle suit right
I played omega Ruby and showed my mom my Torchic after it evolved and when she saw my Blaziken she was like "where's the little chicken? that's a grown man" 😭
This was probably said before but I think the main problem isn’t the designs themselves but that there’s to many of a certain kind of design
The origin forms for Dialga and Palkia are so awful I legitimately thought they were designed by Tetsuya Nomura.
Item-based Pokemon are probably based off of the Japanese legends about how items (such as instruments, paper umbrellas, paper lanterns, clothing, weapons, etc....) can, under certain circumstances, become youkai, some of which are extremely iconic.
Yup, which is why I've found many of them to be pretty cool but a little out of place. Games like the Nioh franchise made me very interested in japanese folklore.
Touhou has made me really interested in tsukomogami because of Kokoro, Kogasa, Yatsuhashi, Benben and Raiko. I think it's cool there's Pokemon based on tsukomogami too!
yet yokai embody concepts. pokemon are meant to be animals in a fantasy world. Digimon embodies concepts, those pokemon would fit better in Digimon, like, literally.
@@TheSilverwolf97 Pokémon are magical beings that embody whatever the hell the writers want them to, like, for example, Time, Space, and Anti-Matter.
Similarly, Digimon tend to be just be fully sentient people who happen to be shaped like monsters and have powers target then being some sort of conceptual entity.
@@lnsflare1 Legendary pokemon are god-like creatures that represent the powers of nature, those are exceptions not the rule. And about the rest, you are just wrong.
I love the older designs or ones inspired by nature. The new designs looking too human make me feel like I'm playing a super hero game, not a pokemon adventure.
Skeledirge looks too human like, what am I gonna do now?
Nostalgia is a wild drug
@@mandom5714 Nostalgia always keeping them from moving on to something new I think.
@santizd2309 I came to know blaziken gardevior gallade are from gen 1
@tylerbenjamin328 exactly
Never bought a pokemon game since sun and moon and so I had a jumpscare when origin dialga and palkia came up. I never knew they existed and now I'm horrified that those designs even made it to the final game 💀
🤣 they are very "powerful" designs I give em that.
for me I fell in love with pokemon because of the more animalistic designs. I was about 12 years old when gen 1 aired. and you are correct, for example although I am hype for scarlet and violet, I have not been to excited at the current designs well except for megaman and protoman lol back to gen 1 for a sec, yes we had mons that made no sense like hitmochan how do you have boxing gloves? but at least within the first 4 generations the weird mons that made no sense where minimal at least. I just want more animal forms they just make more sense. the grass types i wont judge lol because well mostly are flower looking mons but they look like they belong. so yes Mate I agree with this opinion. :)
Thanks for sharing! Glad you enjoyed the vid.
I don't care if the pokemon is animalistic or humanoid! For me they can be whatever they want! if you want real monsters play monster hunter!
There's cat, duck, monkey, dolphin, dogs, birds, squid or octopus idk, lizards, mouses, and most likely more but I haven't seen all the new Pokemon
@@laraprisma6381goofy ahh response
Who cares if hitmonchan has boxing gloves? Its obviously the opposite of hitmonchan who focuses on kicks. Nobody cares about it making sense as long as it looks cool and badass.
Sharkpedo isn’t even a bad design
I've always had a soft spot for object pokemon. But im ngl I feel like Gen 7 or 8 are the last pokemon gens who's pokemon feel like...pokemon. And this is coming from someone who thought gen 8 was mid (LOVE gen 7 tho)
Gen 9 pokemon almost look like AI-generated pokemon, some of them intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I feel like part of this is evident based on how they're marketing the "cute" gen 9 pokemon too much over the "cool" ones. Also, Maushold line is cute but...its literally just a generic mouse mascot.
The designs are starting to feel overly complex. And while alot of people have complained about there being too many humanoid pokemon nowadays I think the real issue is that those humanoid pokemon are looking less like pokemon and more like Furry fursonas.
I didn’t really like Dragapult, and both Poipole and Naganadel are some of my all-time favorites (i spent forever shiny-hunting for a shiny poipole in USUM). I can agree that I don’t like the general design-philosophy of the newer games versus the older games (especially gen 8’s starters were dissapointing to me) but there have still been a handful of designs that I really really like from the newer games. Golisopod, Toxitricity and Hisuian Zoroark are some of examples.
Thanks for sharing! Art is subjective so this is just my opinion, your not wrong for thinking otherwise.
Hi fellow poipole enjoyer!!
I always get a bit annoyed when people complain about the UB designs. Them not looking like Pokemon was kind of the point and I figured people were over that by now.
To me it went already downhill in Diamond and Pearl with the new evolutions for old Pokémon. Magnezone and Rhyperior's design was all over the place, just to point out a few
The declining quality of pokemon design was mostly tolerable until gen 7 when they introduced the ultra beasts
IMO the galar fossils are worse than the ultra beasts, at least there’s poipole and its evolution
Want to defend Gen 7 a little:
Naganadel and other Ultra Beasts like it are effectively extradimensional aliens in the Pokémon setting, their entire purpose is be rather strange/foreign compared to usual Pokémon designs.
There is no defense for the ultra beast designs. They are absolutely horrible
@@rayveck493 you completely dismiss the oint of what ultra beasts were supposed to be so its your fault that you don't understand the concept. Not saying you can dislike it, it's just that your mad about an concept that makes sense. They are subjective not objective you dumbass
Gen 8 roster was absolutely terrible.
The game itself was good,graphics story etc.
But the pokemon were ass,it was hard to find anyone outside the orginals I actually liked, so I imagine gen 7 isn't too far off I couldn't get into it.
@@FknClownShoes gen 8 and 7 had amazing mond, it's just subjective man
I wish you had touched on more about how modern starters evolutions are losing their animal aesthetics in favor of man-made concepts. That’s what I really dislike about the past 3 Gen of Pokémon starters. They end up looking to much like humans with animal features instead of animals with man made features.
One the best examples I can think of is Incineroar and Thievul. Incineroar is very clearly based on a wrestler but it’s only animal features are it’s head, hands/feat and tail. It lacks a lot of creativity. Thievul on the other hand is based on a Thief (obviously by the name) but at the core of its design it remains a Fox. It conveys the thief concept in inventive and less overt ways like the mask around its eyes it’s whiskers forming an old times villain mustache shape and how it uses its tail as a broom to wipe away its tracks.
They really don't lose their animal aestheitcs though. Gen 3? The gen with Blaziken? Nah they look more like animals with man made features.
Not really...how vicious it acts is animal like too. It doesn't lack creativity.
@@Jdudec367I think they were taking about the LAST 3 gens, paldea, galar, and aloah
@@Rayman-kddz2 I know, my point is earlier gens had Pokemon that were like the later gens too.
I never realised sharpedo had no lower body, I always just figured it was bent and that the other fin was actually it's tail. And it felt so much better.
I really don't understand the hate for more humanoid pokemon! personally they are the ones I like the most!
It's weird because everyone hates humanoids but most of the popular mons that aren't Pikachu, eevee, and Charizard are humanoid 👀
@@CloutmasterPhluphyy Loud minority
@@chomp_gd yeah ig
@@CloutmasterPhluphyy It's almost like random people on the internet aren't representative of anything.
It's actually super easy, the Pokemon game with the best designs is whichever one you played as a kid and the Pokemon game with the worst designs is the most recent one to come out. Hope that helps!
Nah
My first was black and white and i have alot pokemon that I like from almost every gen
Not at all, in fact I think that argument exists to dismiss the critisim of older fans rather than consider the technicals of modern design. While art is subjective, it's not as subjective as most people seem to think it is, there are a lot of design rules and theory that can explain why some designs are 'good' on a technical level and why others are bad. I started with gen 1/gen 2 of Pokemon. Gen 1 and 2 are great but if I had to choose a generation for my favourite designs it would be gen 3. Gen 4 onwards I think things have steadily gone downhill. There have been stand outs in every generation nonetheless. I really liked some new pokemon from gen 6 for example and there are plenty of Pokemon from early gens that wern't good. However the general design has got substationally worse and seems to get worse with every generation especially with the starter final evolutions and the legendaries.
@@FullMetalFeline i think most of the gen 1 and 2 and even 3 pokemon look Boring:0
@@FullMetalFeline i think you just personally prefer pokemon from gen 1 to 4 because these are the ones you are more familiar with while you don't like most of the new ones because they don't look like the type of pokemon you are familiar with
Furthermore saying pokemon designs have factually gone down hill is just stupidly close minded considering the many pokemon from each new gen that are beloved by many
(Like Lycanrok Mimikyu Alot of regional variations centiscorch
Hatareen Appletun and Obstagoon)
It purely depends on personal taste
You can't say pokemon designs have gone down hill just because you and some other people don't like em
Generally, I think up to X and Y were pretty good. There's a few I don't like here and there (increasing in number as the gens go by) but that's normal. Further in it just felt less and less like they had genuine inspiration and more like they did animal + object = pun name and the only features that matter on it.
Some of the ones you mentioned I dont mind, like Copperajah, I never understood why people didn't like it. Being an Asian elephant associated with irl India (bc of that once dex entry which mentions an indian elephant for some reason), the colors make sense and the color scheme in general never really bothered me? The undertones all match, allowing for a more cohesive design. The ones that I find most egregious in color scheme simply just don't match, like that one fish pokemon you showed whose name I don't remember. It has too many colors that don't quite go together.
Thanks for sharing your opinion! I guess copperajah is just preference. One of those ones I just never liked the flat look of and i just find it's colours abit ugly. We can both agree the pink fish thing is by far the worst offender though.
@@Hero_of_Sinnoh I think it might be more so the shape of its anatomy. Compare it to something like Donphan, another elephant pokemon and it's clear that Copperajah just doesn't look quite as natural looking as it should. But that's just me.
I agree that XY had some amazing pokemon and some misses but it comes with every gen
@@thelostmessenger Facts that's true
The colour is not a real proble. (If the design would be good) the reason its design sucks is its body. The body and tusks are unconfedbly squerish, its legs cartoonly short and the trunk cartoonly large, and weirdly shaped. And the weird rocks on the head make no sense. It overall looks more like a weird plastic toy, than some kind of bizzare monster.
Honestly, I don’t think the designs are getting worse, just different. They’re trying to branch out and always try new things, and some older gen ppl might not like that. Also, I understand some of the humanoid Pokémon are kinda ugly, but it’s always funny hearing about the argument against them. I get that there’s a lot of nostalgia for gens 1-3, but all of their designs are really boring and basic. It’s weird to say that new Pokémon designs are boring when older ones are even more uninspired. Not that these are exactly your opinions, it’s just what I usually hear.
Blaming nostalgia alone is not an argument it is a deflection, especially when you consider many of these Pokemon are still love to this day even by more recent fans like Charizard or newer designs that are loved by the majority of fans like Corviknight,Golisopod,ect.
Basic does not mean boring or uninspired,Lycanroc(sun) and Glimmora for example are very simple and basic newer designs but they are still love.
I would not call all Pokemon from gen 1-3 basic either.Nidoking,Scizor or Blaziken are all far from basic and still love.
GameFreak, 1998: Let's make this Pokémon look like a real monster.
GameFreak, 2022: Let's make this Pokémon look like a real plastic toy.
Let’s reference the culture of the region we are making*
Gen 1 had a rock with a face and arms. If people complain about pokemon looking like objects then they better include gen 1 as well
@@Whyousougly9042*in the most lazy and stupid way possible, so that basically look like an animal/thing with a vague yet explicit theme glued on it*
I am too. Disappointed in Dialga & Palkia’s Origin formes.. They somehow feel forced. Like they wanna get Sinnoh done and over with so they just threw random designs for both of them. Till now I still can’t get over it. Dialga is absolutely one of my favourite Pokemon designs and seeing it reduced to its new origin forme just makes me sad. I honestly have been dreaming of a Mega Dialga or any alternate form with a better design that builds on its original one and I imagined it to be similar to Zygarde 100% but now….
Lets not forget that mystery dungeon had an acceptable mega-dialga.
I wish they would have kept the same different types of eyes used in the 1st gen like Haunter, Charizard, Geodude, Electabuzz, Blastoise, Magikarp, Jynx, and Snorlax
You would get bored of so many pokemon having the same kind of eyes. That workednfor one or two generations, but habin 10 generations with the same kind of creatures would be boring.
Its also very situational, some on the inanimate designs actually can look good, just some of them miss the mark.
YES THEY ARE lmao because wtf was Fuecoco's final evolution?!?!
I personally think Torracat is the peak of starter line design. It beautifully achieves every function a middle stage starter must. It smoothly fills the gap between Litten and Incineroar, and finds a perfect balance between cute and cool, which is shown through it’s animations as well. People were surprised that Incineroar was bipedal, but Torracat gave many hints to this. First off, the contrast of normal cat hind legs and beefy muscular forelimbs foreshadowed Incineroar being a top-heavy beefcake. Even the shape of Torracat’s torso was more chest heavy. Also, the fire bell was a nice touch, later becoming Incineroar’s belt. Giving Torracat a collar was cute, and making it fire was cool. Lastly, the orange colour was a nice touch giving the whole line more colour variety and differentiating Litten and Torracat.
Yes, a lot of middle stages are eh, but torracat is really good
Biped I hate it
@@Jessicafaye_xo but they are talking about torracat
I think Dewott is the perfect starter middle evolution, what ruins it is Samurott
@@TheManManoel oh yeah dewott is really cool too
I'm glad someone could put the problem in words, I dropped off after playing Y and have trouble even looking at Pokémon now.
I feel like I grew out of Pokémon, but at the same time, it's downgrading to appeal to a younger audience. (When are the iPhone 14 and Twitch girl Pokémon being added?) They probably already do.
What i ended up doing, is to play fan made pokemon games or rom hacks.
More often than not, at least those do feel like you're still playing pokemon, given, i also thought i grew out of them, but no. That wasnt the case at all. All i had to do, is look elsewhere.
I think the same, most friends who still buy the new games agree aswell and drop them after the story. I hear always "yeah we maybe outgrown" (with 25-32) but even the kids of some or cousins who are in the age around 10 drop the games quickly (yet really love pokemon and older games somehow). Same friends where stunned when I talked them into gen.5 because they skipped that gen due to different reasons.
But I still have the same joy with Smaragd, Leafgreen, (Bloody)Platinum, HG/SS, S/W and S/W 2, Gen 3 remakes too.
Maybe I tend to like more the sprite games of Pokémon and a HG/SS mixed with Gen 5 textures and Animations would be my perfect game. I found the 3D models lifeless , not as colourful or even taking away character(Typholyson or whatever its english name is), I wouldn't mind them, if they are more in the art style of these Lets Go game enviroments tho. I even loved Battle Revolution so somehow only the new main games are turning me off. Sounds odd but I'd rather have these talking screens of games like Re:Zero than silent mouth and arm moving characters with the animation on repeat.
I roll sometimes the eyes with newer designs but accepted them like in S/M/US/UM, overly girly designs like the new Rapidash or Humanoid Furries is what I cant stand only. In general I find the games lost it's depth or character, the lore behind something or mystery of some Pokemon, starting with the bad guys. Sure it's weird to fight as 10y a Mafia or galactic thread but what we had the last games? Wannabe punks with plot twist, crazy fans and now school bullies/dropouts..a National Pokedex to collect aswell instead of one in the bank service and a bit of seriousness like the GBA DS games. I really forced myself through gen 7 because everyone took everything with a smile like "we are all winners" motto, Events get handed out just to get instant transported in the box with no triggering something in the game (Gen 6 upwards), now all the pay services added since the switch. It feels like they take your hand to go through the latest games the whole time, constant explaining or annoying rotom tipps, or even show what is effective..It's just like its now for even younger made than before and fear if something is slightly harder or challenging, kids will drop it right away (like their battle frontier statement in gen 6) but in my experience they do exactly because of no challenge.
@@deoxysandmew2162 Crystal Clear baby!!
@g.koch. Bro! Pokémon marriage lore... is it a kids' game or not?! Like wtf.
Hit it on the nose, lifeless Pokémon snap did it better! The nintendo 64 games had so much love. Imagine if Pokémon stadium converted B/R/Y to a 3rd person setting with larger routes and towns from the anime. Gosh the possibilities they have. What are they thinking. So sad 😔 😟
@@theOnlyrealPhoenixWatch hell, even pokemon spinoffs like colosseum or gale of darkness had more soul put into it.
how is that hawlucha count as bad design.. it is one of the most creative pokemon design for me.
Basically the main reason I haven't bought any game past gen 4. I do like the megas tho. But honestly, even without all the bugs, performance issues and so on I was really struggling with the new games. There are so few designs that look like something that could actually exist in a fantasy setting. Like you said, far too much emphasis on concepts.
Gen 5 is my favourite gen, but that’s probably mostly because it was the first gen I had a game from. I don’t mind some inanimate object pokemon, it adds some interesting variety, but I totally understand why it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. I adore Chandelure. :3
I like the newer Designs better which I know will get me roasted over a fire. But the few first gen starters were just "It's a animal but has magic powers" and honestly feels not creative I think we need to come to the realization that nostalgia ≠ Good
Blaming nostalgia is not an argument it's a deflection, especially when you considered Pokemon like Charizard are liked by more recent fans.
Or that Greninja and decidueye are liked by the majority of fans yet that is not the same for other starters.
The arguments that the first few generation starters were just animals with powers.
Doesn't hold up when you have the Venusaur line, basically all three gen 3 starters, typhlosion line, feraligatr line, all the Gen 4 starters,ect.
A case could be made for starters focusing too much on a specific role or theme, such as incineroar or gen 8 starters.
A simple concept also does not mean uncreative or bad design and more direct inspiration doesn't mean more creative or good design.
I think one thing to always consider when looking at Pokémon designs is that different cultures have their own mythology surrounding certain creatures and that animals within our own world are also very odd looking ( things like the Tusk deer or the poorly named penis snake for example).
The origin forms of Dialga and Palkia for example, are actually based off of the Japanese beast Kirin which is more or less a chimera-like creature which combines elements of a giraffe, horse, and dragon.
Arceus itself is based off of this creature and with its creation trying to emulate its power they too take inspiration and combine it with their already out there designs
I mean for example, there is Chinese mythology creatures running in Spain which I think it's interesting lol
and yet rapidahs beat them all
I disagree on Yveltal and Xerneas. Yes they were based on shapes but Xerneas in particular is still very clearly a deer and Yveltal still has enough bird features. I think it's also fitting that Yveltal looks a bit off considering it's the embodiment of destruction.
I guess I'm not a "real fan" of pokemon since personally I think I'm the only one who doesn't see anything wrong with the design choices! mainly because I prefer to follow the reasons why pokemon are the way they are! seriously, the designs alone are decent! neither one of them are bad in my opinion!
Even flamigo, whos just a literal flamingo?💀
@@dylanb659 glanmeow is literally a cat!
Dude, have you seen the galar fossils? Those designs are absolutely awful and an eyesore
I don't think they're worse, just different, every generation will have some hits and misses for everyone.
I'm pretty sure, that a huge part of those who complain would do so no matter what, now they complain the designs are too diffetent, but if they weren't, they'd complain the designs got stale and samey.
The way I had it described to me is that voltorb and vanillish were always like that and then people in that universe based pokeballs and ice cream on them.
Still like voltorb,an electrode.
Call it nostalgia or whatever,but a vanilla ice-cream look that doesn't even look cool is dumb an not even in the same league as voltorb.
@@FknClownShoes is it the angry eyes and smirk that makes them cool to you.
If we edited them onto vanillishs line in place of their current face would you like them more
@@music79075 The vanilla ice cream cone design itself is stupid,at least voltorb relates to pokemon being a pokeball.
Vanillish looks like it belongs on a kids show on Netflix.
@@FknClownShoes Pokemon is a kids show on Netflix.
@@music79075 No the orginal pokemon had more mature theme's versus now even the adults have child like features an the pokemon are now objects with eye's.
The origin forms have horse legs and look strange because they are basically imitations of arceus.
I don’t know if “worse” is the correct term - but absolutely Uninspired. Christ, there’s a straight up Mastiff dog, a flamingo, and a cat… so I guess the whole “are animals in the Pokémon world!?” Question has been definitively answered: yes.
I don’t think uninspired is correct either tbh. Just different. The examples you give are in every generation and not any more prevalent in this one. And even with these examples:
Mabosstiff is also based on gang leaders/crime bosses with its color scheme, silver hair and personality. It’s not just a mastiff. This is also completely ignoring fidough (bread dog) and hound stone (spooky skeleton dog). Those are definitely inspired in some way.
As for cat I’m assuming sprigatito? But is it fundamentally different from torchic which is a cartoon chick? And it becomes a magician upon evolution which isn’t uninspired.
Not to defend the basic designs (in which I agree with flamigo--why is it even fighting type?) but this gen isn’t particularly guilty of these designs. In gen one, we have raticate, pidgeot, kinglet, dewgong, seaking and Tauros.
Even the nidos, rhydon and kangaskhan all look like reiterations of the same design concept.
This is not just gen 1 too.
Ursaring, noctowl, furfrou, swalot, beautifly, luvdisc, sunflora, mothim, Beartic, herdier are all extremely simple animals/concepts
I don't think so. Gen 7 had some fantastic designs, and even 8 did as well. I enjoy a bunch of gen 9 as well, but less than the last 2 generations, which could be because of how new they are
In general I feel like gen 1-6 was amazing, but gen 7 and afterwords just aren't it
The limits most fans put on the Pokémon company on how they should make their designs is completely unnecessary.they’re is no limit on what a monster should or shouldn’t be they are monsters not animals.also some humanoid Pokémon like cinderace or incineroar make up for they’re humanoid aspects with they’re animalistic aspects and they’re outstanding charm and personality
SV's designs don't just look bad (Meowscarada), boring (Gholdengo), or uninspired as hell (Flamigo), but they all feel rushed and unfinished as well. The fact that the Pokedex is mainly just an awkward mish-mash of Convergent forms, Regional variants, Cross-Gen evolutions, Legendary Pokemon, and Paradox Pokemon tells me that they clearly didn't have enough time to think through all of the new Pokemon designs. Even Gen 7 and Gen 8, which I also wasn't a huge fan of most of the designs, didn't have a problem this bad. Gen 9 manages to be unfinished not just in the games themselves, but also the new Pokemon too, which feels like a new low for the franchise.
The galar fossils were also terrible and unfinished
Nah both totodile and fuecoco are awesome.
Also centiskorch, grapploct, dragapult and toxtricity are living proof they're staying Atleast at a consistently good level with dessigns
I used Dragapult as a good design example, I didn't mention the other Pokémon you listed as I also like their designs. Though I cant say the same for the majority of the others especially the ones shown in the video.
Origin Dialgia is not the best, but it is still descent (my opinion) but I totally agree that Origen Palkia looks weird. It is just a horse with shoulder pads and a ring around its waist. They toke a more bold approach (compared to Palika) with Origen dialga. Giritina’s Origen form is still the best though. Sorry for bad spelling.
Thank god that Origin Form Giratina was made in 2009 and not in modern day game frEAk
Gen 2, Gen 3 were both amazing
Gen 2 had so many bland boring design out of any gen in my opinion
I agree 2-3 we're amazing
4
5 wasn't that bad
This video rly seems more biased towards the first few gens. It calls out the different design philosophies of different gens and instantly say "this is why early gens are better than newer"
Old Pokémon were based mainly on monsters, while new Pokémon games are based mainly on culture.
They want all Pokémon to be based on the country they are based on now. Thus why the designs have much more depth.
Fuecoco's line for example is based on crocs, ghost peppers, day of the dead, gauchos, mariachis, and Antonio Gaudí all at the same time.
Compare this to the other croc starter Totodile, who's line is just based on crocodiles and arguably cavemen without much outside inspiration or research put into it.
Older gens wanted their Pokémon to feel like monsters, while new gens of Pokémon try to build more upon the worldbuilding and have all Pokémon feel less like a "monster hunter world" and more like a "fantasy creatures world"
Other changes like the change on color schemes, and how different the Pokémon seem from their Inspirations, are extremely subjective and saying that some of them are objectively better than others is not something anyone can agree on, because it's all about personal preference.
Honestly I love vibrant and interesting color palettes and I much prefer the newer gens, but I won't judge anyone who prefers the design philosophies of older eras.
So no I don't think that any gen is better than others. Every Pokémon is someone's favourite and everyone has different criteria's to liking different Pokémon. No gen is better than others
3 main points,
TLDR: pokemon community complains about things that are completely irrational. Not everything has to be perfect, generally speaking new mon designs are good and serve a purpose outside of being cool or having some whacky meaning. Many examples given are good designs when you look at them from a lense that isn’t “everything is supposed to be a monster” because pokemon are more than monsters they are world building tools and that means some gotta look human, some gotta be trash, and some (our favorites) gotta look badass. If everything looked them same then we would get bored really fast
Some designs are bad but that’s not a bad thing, not everyone likes the same thing, generally people like certain kinds of mobs more than others, lucario garchomp galade why? They look human and cool, they are sleak and look powerful. That’s why we got ceruledge and armoruge, the epitome of this, and some of my two fav pokemon. Trubish and Garbodore are trash literally and design wise but I love them for that. If they looked just as cool as galade then what’s the point, if they are some extreme complex thing then what’s the point. Some Pokémon exist imo to be in a group or apart of an asthetic of an area or the world. Trubish grimmer etc all exist to be trash and live in the icky parts of a region.
Second you guys bitch about everything. When Pokémon went to 3D a lot of moms went from saturated 2D to pastel 3D so saturated moms are an attempt to make the previous Pokémon look better while still fitting in the worlds color palet. Gen 8 imo at least mon wise and town wise looks gorgeous. The wolf area is a different story but that’s like 20% of the region and a gimmick not the entire region.
Lastly inanament objects are a good thing. If gf saw that certain kinds of mons sold well and only made them then we wouldn’t have a diverse cast. Sharpedo is close if not perfect for the role it serves. If it had he same level of involvement in its design as garchomp then it would be redundant, dragonite even though it’s not as popular as charizard needs those cute anime girl eyes to round out its design. Do we just want a bunch of beasts and a bunch of small plushies or do we want some on the extreme end and some on the simpler side. I think we want the simple. We can hate on designs like concelder gurdurr gothetell for being humanoid but we want those humanoid Pokémon, they play a role in the games and in the lore etc. concelder gurdurr and others are supposed to be human, that’s their role in the games. They work on a consturction site. Gothetell gothita, they are supposed to be after a fashion trend… for humans. If you don’t like these concepts then what more do u want. There are only so many dragons, dogs, cats, mice, hybrids they can make, and at a set pace. Bruxish isn’t the best designed mon no doubt but it’s a psychic fish, and in my opinion it stands out for having that extremely diverse color pallet and standout lips. And it’s reminds me of well… you know… but that’s what it’s there for.
I think there are concerns to be had, but pokemon don’t serve one dimensional purposes. They are balancing many aspects, world, competitive purpose, coolness, cuteness, shock, lore, counter parts (hatrem line and grimsnarl line) these aspects all have to mesh to make a non, and that can result in some wanky creations. Gengar by these definitions is a bad mon design, yet so many love him, he’s just an evil face on a purple blob shadow thing. His mega is cool and so is the g max but compare him to charizard there’s like nothing compared to that. People don’t want only super cool designs, people don’t only want super cute designs, they want diversity, if half the moms are cool to you then isn’t that enough. The other half could be cute, the other half could be bad in your eyes and you despise them. It’s like food, it all tastes good has purpose but you can not like spaghetti and love pizza, you can hate mozzarella sticks but love cheese burgers, even though they have the same ingredient. Not every mins made for everyone. People say icecue is lazy but I love him. If he was any different it would take away from what I like about him. Just two simple things meshed together. The lore behind the helmet makes me like him and his ability signature to him and some what of an evolution of mimikyu makes him stand out to me. Now how is this a bad thing. He looks basic but he finctions very uniquely and stands out and fits within the lore of the game. Not every mon can be perfection, that’s what your asking for. There are aspects we like and dislike about many Pokémon we gotta learn to like them for what they are.
All this to say there can be moms that are just bad. There are things that are just bad. Big example LITERALLY MAJPRITY OF GEN 9 SHONYS.
WHY WHY WHY DID THEY RUIN CERULEDGE AND ARMORUGE SHINYS they are like the mos Thad ass Pokémon and the shiny is just the eyes changing. Someone like tinka ton makes sense and still looks nice, but those two look ass. The Pokémon from violet in area zero, why do they all turn silver. Why can’t their panels change color to. Why does it have to be this way. They make sense lore wise but look awful, that’s something that certainly can be balanced. I’m the future we can all agree this has to go. If shinys weren’t as common as wacky shaped clouds in the sky then I would have never hunted them.
Thanks for your detailed response, but I do think you assumed some things about my opinion. Firstly art is subjective so there isn't any wrong and right answer
Second, every pokemon design is a case by case but for a video I have to make more general groupings. There are acceptions that I do like that go against the points I stated and also there are more things to me that generally make a good pokemon design.
I go into more detail in my "what makes a good pokemon design" video here - ruclips.net/video/RivPGWI16ZY/видео.html
And to prove I don't only like monster like pokemon or older gen pokemon. Here is my design analysis of gen 1 and gen 2
Gen 1- ruclips.net/video/Hb6LVoKAU_Y/видео.html
Gen 2 - ruclips.net/video/utpPcceXMks/видео.html
You put my thoughts I to words perfectly. I haven’t enjoyed Pokémon since gen 4 and I stopped playing after gen 6 mostly because of the Pokémon designs.
Same
Better designs genrally then in gen 1 or 2
Sharpedo is also based on a moon fish (not just a shark and a torpedo).
Forgot where I heard this but gen 1 is based on rural Japan being turned more into cities and destroying forests and stuff like that, so you see really animal like pokemon in the beginning and later on you see stuff like Magnemite and Voltorb later on.
One of the main problems with the newer generations is simply the leeway they have when making them, as even if the design is lazy or bland people will still go out of their way and comment things like "Oh but it's such a cute design" or "It's such a meme though". The worse way of defense is the whole "Yeah, like Voltorb was a good design", which no one ever claims..
I actually love many designs in Gens 5-9, but one of my biggest problems with the starters in newer gens is they’re starting to base them too much on man-made concepts and I’m not a big fan of them all having a theme together (like elements of British culture in Galar), like you brought up. It makes them a lot harder to believe they’re real creatures living in packs or families in the wild. I sometimes only like one or two starter designs in the newer gens, whereas I like all twelve starter evolutions from Gens 1-4
What Gen 5 starter is humaniod? Like stfu Emboar is basically Pig Blaziken if you wanna count him as a humaniod so it Blaziken 😂
For me, I simply just don't care about these rules unless the pokemon is outright boring or ugly. Stuff like Scream Tail, Alohan Raticate, Licilicky, Chewtle, and Jinx are so ugly and stupid looking that I hate them, while stuff like Dewgong, Eiscue, Muk, Raticate, Seaking, Sunflora, Stantler, Poochyena, Slakoth, Pidove, Tirtouga, Furfrou, and Komala are just plain boring and uninteresting. You wouldn't hear people say "Slakoth is my favorite pokemon!" or "Chewtle is my favorite pokemon!". Overall I rate pokemon on many factors but your rules are just kinda dumb in my opinion.
Dragapults head shape is actually designed off of an irl prehistoric amphibian with a boomerang shaped head which is cool
What I loved about pokemon during the start of the franchise was that pokemon looked like wild animals.
And I do find it weird more modern starters end up looking more humanoid. I wouldn't mind it, but it just seems to common now.
Because Hitmonchan and Magnemite look so much like wild animals... oh, right.
@@gsp6517 the fighting type based on a boxing human somehow manges to look less human than the animal based starter pokemon.
And yokai/ghost based pokemon like magnamite allways existed besies the animal ones. But they looked more like weird anorganic monsters, instead of "just a living object" like since gen 5
@@hailgiratinathetruegod7564 You're reaching.
Magnemite is literally a magnet with an eyeball and that's it. Mons like Vaniluxe and Aegislash are way more stylized and monster-like than Magnemite ever was.
Also, Hitmonchan literally wears human clothing, which is also the case with Jynx and Mr. Mime.
@@hailgiratinathetruegod7564 u based that on what reason?
comment talked about wild animals and now u are saying something else, pick one thing and then talk about it
@@gsp6517 while Hitmonchan and Magnemite don't look like typical animals, what I was referring to was how they were drawn back then.
Gen1 would have two types of sprites in the early games. One which was tamed pokemon and one that was wild pokemon.
Best example I can remember is Scyther. Look at scythers' early game art, it looks like it's lashing out, baring it's fangs, with a stare that would terrify anyone.
Where as the modern design is alot more softer. The pupils in the eyes are larger, and the sharp edges have gotten more rounded.
Thank you, I agree with everything in this video! I especially hate the pokemon with human-like bodies, which gen 9 has a lot of... (or the weird square bodies).
I really tried liking some pokemon in this new gen but ended up having none in my team, because they're too ugly.
For the legendaries, I don't even remember them since like Gen 5 or 6. The designs are just way too busy yet similar to each other, I can't tell the pokemon apart.
I would NOT be mad if they retconned some of these designs and pretended they never happened
They should fix the galar fossils and retcon those abominations
Tbh every generation of pokémon has pokémon I'm not a big fan of, but tbh I liked most of gen 5-8s designs
For myself, yes. I feel pokemon designs are getting really simplified, yet over-designed. They focus too much on geometrical shapes and everything is really rounded and bubbly.
I like all the starters before Alola( Oshawott line excluded), and had zero interest in any since.
The last good looking pseudos (imo) were haxorus and Garchomp (edit: forgot Hydreigon)..
Pokemon aren't designed with anyone's specific tastes in mind, but the last few regions have had very little to offer me.
Hard disagree. Pokemon designs have always been a mixed bag and a good portion of gen 1 is exceedingly boring designs.
Speaking as somebody who has completely stopped playing pokemon since gen 7, I think gen 8 and 9 are actually pretty on par, which is kind of what annoys me about them. That said... I do feel that when a design misses in later gens, it misses harder. There are few designs I hate in older gens while in newer gens there are more that make me go "what were they thinking." Flipside a lot of the wins are better than older gens ever managed.
The biggest key element though that influenced pokemon design is the advance of tech to work with. Gens 1 and 2 were designed to be conveyed as simple sprites so are on average more simple in both good and bad ways. Gens 3 to 5 got more complex sprites and some more animation but overall tried to keep the designs sprite-friendly. The next big jump in design philosophy change was moving into 3d with gen 6, something that completely changed the design discipline.
Another factor to consider is nostalgia. It very strongly informs everybody's biases towards older gens. I myself am guilty of this too and need to force myself to try and analyze designs between gens and try to divorce myself from happy old grey-brick gameboy memories.
Dialga and palkia: we're excited to see our origin forms.
Arceus: hens fort your origin forms
Palkia: do you like your origin form.
Dialga: (choking noises)
Palkia: talk to me😭.
This design is getting better bro don't hate what you love
The sad thing is i start to apreciate some of the Pokemon Designs from Gen 5 onwards, because each following Generation had even worse designs
@SantiZD don’t forget actual cool bug types too like Scollipede Galvantula and Volcarona
Thank a lot, this video is exactly what I am thinking.
the old generation is putting two concept / iconic element together to "design" a pokemon. The new one is putting two concept to "draw" a pokemon
Glad you enjoyed the vid!
I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree: I think pokémon designs get better with every gen, as they pull from many different sources rather than being just a single concept.
There's a Reddit post that explains the *artstyle* shift between pre-gen 6 and post-gen 6, which might be your problem, and that is just a matter of personal taste: the old one was sharper and more "natural", while the new one is rounder and more cartoonish, which I prefer. I also do have a soft spot for artificial-looking pokémon: they prove that designs ideas aren't necessarily limited by just animals and the ocasional mythological creature.
One thing, however, that I will give you is my distaste of the newer trends for starter design, particularly how they all end up looking like fursonas instead of creatures that could realistically live in the wild: Incineroar, Cinderace, Inteleon, Quaquaval and Meowscarada are the worst offenders in my opinion.
I would agree with you to an extent, if the "comedy" didn't feel forced. Otherwise, they should probably ditch the whole 3-4 year release schedule and just release games when they're good and ready. But what do I know, I mostly play the spinoffs since they're more interesting.
I think alot of more recent designs have been so simple looking that they become easily forgotten or could easily be thought of as a fake. 😂
For me it's the opposite. I feel like most designs have become so busy and abstract that my brain can't remember them properly
@@tommyp.8776 Yeah same here. The issue has been with their designs getting overly complex for the most part.
I agree 100% most designs after gen 4 were not grounded enough & goofy. Exactly why most older fans fell back off the series
Gen 5 had enough grounded and interesting designs, but was just overly hated because of almost to non old Pokemon catchable, people feared a reset and that some really then resembled Gen 1 esque Pokemon made it just worse for these. Now these games are highly desireable (probably exactly by these people who blindly followed the bashing trend and cant stamd new games even more). What we have now? Everywhere Pikachu and Charizard and the complainers are happy again..
I think mainly the last 2 gems where awful
As of the release of Scarlet is Violet yes, gen 9 is the worst designs. What with all the baby pokemons????
Gen 9 designs are wayyy better than gen 2, and some of the best recently.
I personally quite disagree.
The new designs in my opinion are just as inspired if not more so.
I like how the design style varies between pokemon, and how gamefreak keeps redefining what a pokemon could be.
It makes it so anyone could easily find their own personal favorite style of pokemon to raise.
One can like more grounded, monstrous, sharp, intimidating mons like Nidoking or Garchomp, while another might like using a bunch of cartoonier looking mons like Sharpedo, Dragonite, and Bewear. And some... Some might just wanna raise a washing machine, a sand castle, a bunch of magnets and an ice cream cone.
There is no definitive criteria to designing a pokemon because everyone likes different things, and that what makes the variety so fun.
My little brother loves the new gens and so do many other children and adults and that makes every design a winner. Perhaps you should just try to freshen your perspective?
There are many designs I'm not very into but I can still appreciate them because I know there was probably a lot of thought and effort put into them and that other people could (and do) like them.
I agree with you in the sense that its actually super impressive that there is a wide range of pokemon that literally anyone can like at least one, which is the beauty of this topic and why I love talking about it so much. There is no right answer and up to preference since art is subjective. Even if I say they are getting worse, doesn't definitively mean they are. I also made a design analysis of gen 1 and 2 but in more detail providing criticism and praises to them if your interested to see a less general analysis of those gens. Here is gen 1s ruclips.net/video/Hb6LVoKAU_Y/видео.html&feature=shares
Fuecoco could honestly pass as a gen 1 mon design wise imo
I wasn't even born yet when the first pokemon series came out. I was born few yrs later but I'm still a baby so I watched Pokemon sooooo late in the mid to late 2005 to 2010. After 2010, that's when I understand Pokemon more since I'm a little grown up and around 2014 - 2015. I got in love with Pokemon so yea I'm late to Pokemon.
Overcomplicated designs is the problem. Simplistic animal designs made me yearn for owning my own Pokemon when I was a kid, simply because it was an animal-like companion. Now they look like weird machines with unrelatable designs that stray from reality.
I also place gens 5 and 6 in the good design generations, since alola it has come downhill, and this recent one is such a disappointment...
i couldn't agree more with this. honestly, i had a bad time accepting mega evos years ago and some pokes past gen 4 as well. it always occured to me up to gen 4 was the best, i just didn't know why. when u were explaining, a lightbulb just popped and i was like "hey, that's what i was feeling". and yea. i started to like past gen 4 now and megas, but i can't stand gen 7+ and gigantamax. just no, no thanks. and have u seen the scarlet/violet legendaries? holy shit, they're the worst designs ever. one has kunais as his teeth, not icicles, not fangs, kunais. the other i was just sweeping leaves on the sidewalk and made a pile of them, turns out that pile started to jiggle and move around. and the last is very useful for cooking, he's got a bowl already. i love pokemon, been part of my childhood and i play at least one game a year but the last gens do sucks. that's why they're making remakes. because the other gens SUCKS and they KNOW it.
Glad you enjoyed the video, that's exactly what this video was trying to explain because for the longest time I had the same feeling about pokemon designs past gen 4 but didn't know why until I looked into it for the video.
I hate the general trend with proportions and general sillier ideas but there still are some good gems
YES. They are absolutely getting worse and worse.
I agree with 90 percent of this. All except the concept of jynx and Voltorb, etc. They're no where near as tacky as the newer gens and if you ask me they're interesting designs. All in all the newer design are most definitely lacking and are akward
Not even being biased because of nostalgia but, gen 1-4 had superior designs gen 5-6 were pretty decent not really that bad, gen 7-8 was alright coulda been better, but gen 9 honestly dropped the ball big time
I ended up completely agreeing with you. I think you actually hit the nail in the head with this one!
ahah thanks appreciate it, that doesn't happen often as seen with the comments of the video so glad you enjoyed it.
I'm honestly not bothered by the design of the new Pokémon, heck, knowing myself, I'd end up getting too attached to the new mons the second I use them on my team, happened with Incineroar, Kommo-o, Chesnaught, Rillaboom and more recently Drampa.
Gen 1: Perfect, they combined real animalas and myth with cool consepts and they could be abit edgy.
Gen 2: more of the same but looket a litmore tame
Gen 3: Here they began to overdesigne and exagurated
Gen 4: On the line with gen 3 but they looked "cooler".
Gen 5: More back to the roots, in more simper desinges, bur started to be too consepualised. Its kind of a mirror of gen 1 or a parody if you will. And the coulor scem more grey or broun.
Gen 6,7,8,9: I havent played thouse games but my feeling is that they are have a lighter coulor scem they gen 5 but countinued on that conceptiual trend from gen 5 and stated too bee more funny.
Are pokemon designs getting worse? Yes
People used to pretend that pokemon designs were always like this, and as an argument they'd compare Garbodor with Weezing or Muk, arguing that they're all pollution pokemon.
I responded by saying that if weezing had been made with current gen design ideas they'd have probably made it a literal f-ing chimney, then they literally made a new version of Weezing that is a literal anthropomorphised chimney. Forever cementing me as correct, and the greatest prophet since Nostradamus.
Idk in my opinion I think they’re doing a great job…even though we already have a cat starter Pokémon
YES. YES THEY ARE!
Some are hits, but most now are lazy designs that don’t stay true to the Pokémon theme :/
This generation has the most bad designs of any generation
I like the fire starter and I feel some of the designs in this gen r actually pretty good
There is a right way to use humanoid shaped figures for the basis/inspiration of character models like Lucario, Gardevoir, etc. And then there's the wrong way like Probopass... The devs keep thinking kids want more Pokemon designs like Probopass....