• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

Do Pokémon Designs Go Too Far (or not far enough)?

Enzap

Enzap

No thoughts, head empty
Enzap - Chief of Staff
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
16,703
Reaction score
6,863
Pronouns
  1. He/Him
  2. They/Them
Hello everyone,

So when a new Pokémon comes out, I usually hear one of two complaints from the fandom:

"It's too simple, it just looks like [insert what it's based on]"

"It's way too overdesigned, it looks like a Digimon!"

So do you think on the whole Pokémon are kept too simple or do you think they go overboard with excessive detail? Does it vary by Pokémon or region? Which is your preferred aesthetic?
 
I find myself doing this a lot since returning to the fandom after many years. I'm impressed with the overall creativity that goes into each Pokemon, but some of the more recent ones make me pause and wonder.

They resemble robots, seem overpowered, resemble Digimon, or don't make sense. And I think it really just goes back to generation one - in that I judge each Pokemon by it. They seemed more animalistic for the most part, and I liked it.
 
Designs look complicated with robotic physiques =/= Digimon.
None of the critics criticizing Pokemon looks like Digimon have a clear understanding of the design concept of Digimon at all...... Please stop dising my second favourite franchise......

Regarding on the Pokemon design so far, well I actually don't have much problem with their design concepts. If looking at only the design concept itself, I think GF is still very creative and imaginative. It is just that, the art style is more of my matter of concern.
The kind of opinion I have is, as it went further into newer generation, I think pokemons were drawn in the style more and more being "mascot-like cartoonish". Meaning the outline and line-sketch become more and more simpler, finer details such as zigzag lines for furs are gone, there are no more sharpness, even claws and teeth and pointy protrusion are now all round-shaped. Also the degree of SD deformation is higher and higher, the general head-and-body ratio of pokemons is lower and lower, we had more and more large-headed pokemons with a small body. The "dangerousness" of pokemon in its physical appearance (due to design art style) is getting further diminished as we went further into newer generation.
Of course we do get exceptional ones like the legendaries and selective fully-evolved ones, where they are always meant to be coolly-designed. But still, by looking at the common mons and quantities of such mascot-like cartoonish designed pokemons, that is just the kind of feeling I have regarding on Pokemon art style.

From GF and TPCi's POV, such mascot-like cartoonish art style may not be all that bad, because it is attractive in the eyes of children. But personally, I hope for pokemon draw in less cartoonish art style, because then that kind of "animal-like wilderness" feeling is more distinguishable by first glance. Currently when I look into many GenVI and new GenVII pokemons battle animation, I kind of have the feeling of they are not living creatures, but just plushie dolls able to move on its own.
 
Overall I think it's very well balanced; there are definitely examples that can be taken (such as Ditto being too plain or Reshiram being too extravagant) but it also comes down to personal taste in what one considers to be simple/too much.

For me, I like the simple designs a lot better because I find them to be more realistic, and also that the lore behind them is more thought-out. Of course that's not always the case but it is what I find a lot of times.
 
I'd just like to say for the record I didn't mean to imply anything about the quality of Digimon, in the OP I was just generalizing using a somewhat stereotypical complaint I've heard a lot. It was especially common with the reveal of Generation V.

But yeah nothing against Digimon whatsoever. They are just generally really complex in design and rarely as practical as most Pokémon.
 
I agree 100% with クリスタル. I have noticed that the Sun and Moon artwork is quite a bit worse in that regard, with very minimal shading, making it look a little too sickeningly marketable in my opinion. It doesn't resemble the art style of the previous generations as much. My husband and I have discussed how the artwork has this... playdolike feel, and that's part of the reason why a lot of the newly revealed Pokemon haven't resonated with us. Honestly, I don't think complexity or simplicity is the issue at all. In fact, I'd say some of these newly released designs are pretty simple. It's more so just that it looks too childish and I prefer a more sleek, elegant aesthetic than the overmarketed cuteness. They're going too far in their stylized proportions and flanderizing Pokemon designs, I feel. That doesn't mean I reject all new Pokemon or completely dismiss Sun and Moon because of it. I just... prefer a more subtle style.
 
Depends. I don't like pokemon that have a pink design and very feminine. It is not by style of pokemon. My style is Dragon pokemon who all have great designs.
 
Enzap said:
So do you think on the whole Pokémon are kept too simple or do you think they go overboard with excessive detail? Does it vary by Pokémon or region? Which is your preferred aesthetic?
Click to expand...
They've done both. It does vary by Pokemon of course, and I think there are some trends between regions as well. Unova went a bit overboard while Kanto was more simplistic. Everything else falls in the middle, although we got some overdone ones in Kalos too.
I don't have a preferred aesthetic, as long as the end result is something that I like.
 
The adjectives of "simplistic/simple" and "complex/complicated" is just too insufficient to describe the aesthetics feelings of anything related to art and design. Please try to explain it using other adjectives.

For quite some easy comparison to demonstrate what I mean in my previous post, I'll take two similar pokemon pairs selectively from each generation as an example, just for the sake artistic comparison purpose only. Note this is not meant to depreciate the designs of any pokemon.
240px-216Teddiursa.png
240px-Stufful.png

Basically, these two pokemons are both based on bears, specifically cute bear dolls. One is teddy bear, and one is stuffed doll bear. But, isn't teddy bear also stuffed doll bear...? So technically speaking their design concept are the same, despite they have different physical appearance.
Let's just disregard all the obvious physical characteristics that separates the two pokemons. Although they are both based on cute bear dolls, why they both look that different in the "feeling"? This is just my personal opinion, but for Stufful, despite that in its description said it is very powerful where it may even knock out trained pokemon upon struggling, but from its physical look by first glance, I don't think it feels more dangerous than Teddiursa.
Why? Firstly, Stufful lacks sharp nails and toes! Secondly, its round-shaped body and limbs looks soft just like a stuffed doll, so it is not convincing at all that this pokemon is "dangerous" just because it is said that it is powerful. Within the head of the audience, whether one think of this consciously or unconsciously, one just won't like link Stufful to the adjective "dangerous" if there doesn't exist any Pokedex description.

And when you look at Teddiursa's evolution comparing to Stufful's evolution, one will tend to group Teddiursa more to the adjective "dangerous", despite Teddiursa's Pokedex entries never said anything of it being a harmful species.
20090819061600%21078Rapidash.png
240px-523Zebstrika.png
240px-Mudsdale.png

These are three different fully evolved horse pokemons (Well, Zebstrika is not exactly "horse", but zebra is still a family of horse, so I include it as well). Complete disregards their physical characteristics that defines their uniqueness, I just wanted to look at their body shape without considering their manes, tails, and any body marks. Now, what do you notice?
For Rapidash, its body shape structure is crude and natural to Real-Life horse. But as it went to GenV Zebstrika, neck becomes shorter, body and limbs are no more slender and finely drawn with muscle line visible, head-to-body ratio decrease. Then went to GenVII Mudsdale, its neck becomes even shorter than Zebstrika, head-to-body ratio is actually another further decrease (quite insignificantly minor, but still there is decrease, if you go take out a ruler and actually calculate the ratio), and there is no more fine lining at the bone joints to indicate joint muscles. Although Mudsdale is said to be super strong in physical power, I didn't have that feeling when the first time I saw this pokemon. My first impression for Mudsdale was in fact: A fat horse that seems reluctant to move its body, rather than a powerful horse strong in muscular strength as intended in its Pokedex description.
240px-016Pidgey.png
240px-519Pidove.png

Out of all the bird pokemons, I specifically choose these two because they are both based on pigeons and being regional birds findable at the beginning routes. But, aren't they just that different in the drawing art style? That is not just because of the difference in feather colors and arrangement, but more due to the style of how they were illustrated.
For Pidgey, there exists zigzag lines to indicate the roughness of its feathers, its beak shape is also more natural to its Real-Life origin, additionally its talons are rather sharper than Pidove's, leg lines are coarser and unevener which looks more realistic than Pidove's legs drawn in very smooth lines.
With Pidove, its large round eyes and low head-to-body ratio makes it look much more cuter than Pidgey. Pidgey's physical looks (largely thanks to its art style) gives out an impression of that is a "wild" bird, whereas Pidove gives an feeling of that is a "pet" bird always being feed by some human beings.
240px-037Vulpix.png
240px-653Fennekin.png

The two almost identical pokemon in terms of design concept, both are fox and are both fire-type. But, their body structure is just all that a complete contrast.
Regardless of their body colours and tails and furs, just look at their body shapes. They are both fox of fire-type, but one side had such a large head with small body, very slender (or, rather use the word "thin") limbs, and such a large ear. When I look at Fennekin, I always have a doubt that isn't its head too heavy for such a small fragile-looking body?
Vulpix on the other side, its body shape looks much more well-balanced and healthily built. Although compare to Real-Life fox its head-to-body ratio is still not enough to be consider as realistically-looking, but not such an extreme like Fennekin where that is just a SD mascot.
240px-058Growlithe.png
240px-Rockruff.png

Despite being different in types, but they are both pokemons based on puppies. Well lets assumed they are based on different breed of dog, so I accounted their difference in body structure and and body builds. But, how about the furs?
Compare to the tail furs of Growlithe and Rockruff, the former is more "sharper" with many uses of fine zigzag lines, whereas the latter is simple round-shaped lines completely free of sharpness. For Growlithe's fur from its physical look, I imagined it shall have a very fluffy feel that is just soft. For Rockruff, I rather imagined its fur shall have a woolly feel that is a bit hard.

As one should see, the art style and manner of how pokemon illustrated is an important issue in transferring the inner image of the respective pokemons. It has nothing to do with how complicate/simple its design is. Rather, if now goes compare similar pokemons side by side, newer pokemons may even turns out to be aesthetically simpler than older pokemons.
 
@クリスタル While I see your points overall and I agree that designs have gotten more cartoonish with less "realistic" details and more hard, smooth lines, I would like to clarify a couple of things.

First of all, Mudsdale is a Clydesdale horse:
cracker_sidbild.jpg
These horses are known for their great size and strength, but are also a lot bulkier (and fluffier) than your average horse, especially the lithe wild horse Rapidash seems to draw inspiration from.

Second, Pigey's name is really a misnomer. Their line is much more similar to raptors such as ospreys or maybe a finch/sparrow than they are to pigeons.
Osprey_mg_9605.jpg
cassins_finch_sim_2.jpg

This is one reason why they have rougher feathers and a sharper beak. Meanwhile, Pidove is literally a pigeon, which are very smooth and round birds by comparison and their beaks are more straight.
pigeon_PNG3410.png

I definitely see what you mean about first stages in particular becoming more doll-like and less animalistic, but you also have to account for the fact that they're using on different species as models and focusing on different aspects of the animals when they make new designs, so that's going to shift what they emphasize.
 
I'd also like to mention that fennekin and vulpix are based on different foxes. Vulpix is the more 'usual' fox design with japanese kitsune features (multiple tails) thrown in. Fennekin is a fennec fox. Smaller bodies, heads that look a little bigger than normal for their body size and HUGE EARS.
Fennec_Foxes.jpg
Granted, Fennekin's head is exaggerated to be larger. They did this to emphasize cuteness, making it look more baby like and cute for its first stage of evolution.
 
Well yes, of course I do take in the consideration of origin as well. However, still it doesn't change the fact the Pokemon design focus shifted more towards being "cartoonish cute" rather than "animalistic" as it goes into newer generations. The degree of SD deformity is just goes up and higher.
 
I think BW was the point where there was a major design change. Things got simpler and "cartoonier," which I liked.

I find Gen II to be the "cutesiest" Gen, honestly. It's the only gen where I don't like the Grass starter. In fact, I don't really feel attached to any of the Gen II starters aside from maybe the Totodile line. A lot of the Pokemon tended towards cute compared to Gen I and future Gens, even when evolved.

As cutesy and SD-looking most of the newer Pokemon are in their first stages, their final forms often end up looking "cooler" to me than previous gens. Look at Axew and then look at Haxorus, or Pancham and Pangoro, or Froakie and Greninja. Pangoro is honestly the best out of all the bear Pokemon. Ursaring always felt pretty bland (like a lot of Gen II Pokemon, IMO), Beartic greatly disappointed me with its weirdly-shaped head and lack of a Water-type, and Bewear... Well, I like Bewear because it's honestly kind of hilarious (and I love the hilarious ones, like Slowpoke or Stunfisk), but Pangoro's more traditionally "cool." There are also some that are more "elegant" or "weird/funny," as well

Plus, we're getting obscure animals like pistol shrimps (by the way, Clawitzer is ridiculously cool-looking), weedy sea dragons, bee flies, lampreys, coconut crabs, mata matas and sea cucumbers, not to mention new takes on old species that are honestly better. I like Pinsir well enough, but Vikavolt is a lot more cool-looking IMO, and Excadrill is so much better than Dugtrio it isn't even funny. We're also getting species we've been waiting for for years, like T. rex, ants, pumpkins, and koalas. Then we're getting out there stuff like evil killer sandcastles, fire-breathing anteaters, and King frickin' Ghidorah.

Oh, and these days more and more Pokemon are getting "themes" attached to them besides their typing and animal/object/plant basis. All three of the Gen VI starters were themed around traditional RPG classes (fighter/knight, mage and thief/ninja), Pangoro is a banchou, Infernape is Sun Wukong, Bisharp is possibly a tokusatsu reference, Golurk is a freaking super robot, Braviary is the living personification of 'MURRICA, and Hawlucha is, well, a luchador hawk. I actually like bringing up Hawlucha as an example of how GF is more creative (and insane, really) than ever.

Point is, I honestly think Pokemon designs improved drastically from Gen V onward. As cutesy as the first evolutions and some single-stages are nowadays, the final evos and other single-stages are still usually cool, weird, or elegant.

I also find the "it's too simple" complaints hilarious, considering a lot of the Gen I designs. I like most of the Gen I Pokemon out of nostalgia, but even I have to admit a lot of them were very simple. As for the "they look like Digimon" complaints... Well, Digimon are more complicated than Pokemon, but there's still a major difference in design. Sugimori's style has never resembled Digimon. Plus, Digimon made these days are often too detailed.

I like italics way too much for my own good.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about this again. Not so much a complaint but a question mark, I suppose. But certain Pokemon look a little too humanoid. I've come to find out some of the strange fan art out there *shudders*
 
With the Pokemon are becoming more overdesigned crowd, I notice that comes mostly from fans of Generation I. At the same time, There's no denying the Pokemon of Gen I and Gen II are very simplistic. You take something as goofy yet simple looking as Dragonite compared to Pokemon like Garchomp, Salamence, and Hydreigon and you can see the difference. That's not to say every single Pokemon in Gens I and II are "simplistic" and generations beyond are "overdesigned." Ho-Oh is very lavishly designed along and there is nothing simplistic about the legendary beasts or even Blastoise and Gyarados. People just tend to fall back on stuff like Grimer/Muk, Voltorb/Electrode, and Magnemite/Magneton when remembering early designs.

In regards to being too overdesigned, I don't find that argument at all fair. Games evolve overtime and so do the designs. RGBY and GSC had what? At most 8 designers? The modern games not only have numerous designers for Pokemon but for trainers, as well. Many of them just starting their Pokemon careers as late as X and Y. It depends on the concept designers and who is on board.

In regards to being too much like Digimon, that's really rich especially back in 1999 people were often complaining Digimon was the Pokemon rip-off (despite having very different plots, designs, and concepts). Now fast forward to 2013-2016 people are saying Pokemon is too similar to Digimon (the only thing can find remotely similar is Mega Evolution where a Pokemon does not stay permanently evolved). Guess the "rivalry" never died.
 
I prefer the newer designs in general. Gen I just had way too many bland/forgettable mons in my estimation. This is coming from someone who started in Gen IV, however.
 
Please note: The thread is from 9 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom