DP Pokemon-Unoriginal?

H

Habunake

追放されたバカ
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
11,088
Reaction score
5
Alot of people are saying this, and personally I think people mistake ugly with being unoriginal.

What are your views? Are these Pokemon the result of people "out of ideas" or some very creative ideas that have springed forth?
 
A few ARE unoriginal.

Etebossu is just terrible.

The Mukkuru line is the same Normal/Flying type rehash, adding to Pidgey/Pidgeotto/Pidgeot/Taillow/Swellow.
 
It's a bit like goat cheese I guess. People like it, people hate it. It's not really bad, just an acquired taste.

I like the designs personally, and I doubt they've run out of ideas seeing as there are several main designers, plus any member of Gamefreak is allowed to contribute ideas (according to an interview with Junichi Masuda.)

As above though, the designs of some pokemon are indeed made as rehashes of others. The ideas for gym leader designs and trainers, though, I like guaranteed. Haven't heard anyone call them unoriginal on that regard.
 
Eteboth may be ugly, but I don't see how it is that "unoriginal", it certainly looks pretty unique.

The Mukkuru line is the same Normal/Flying type rehash, adding to Pidgey/Pidgeotto/Pidgeot/Taillow/Swellow.
Click to expand...
That's more of a tradition though, but I wish they made them pure Flying.

It's more the fact that I've seen some people act like ALL the Kanto Gen had super creative designs. Bashing the 4th Gen because "it's fat", "it has a mustache", and my favorite "it's not an animal".
 
Eteboth is ugly, but what else could you do with an much-needed Aipom evolution? Give it wings?

And I think they're very original, aside from the necessary rodent and birds we get in every generation. I mean, a UFO? Dainose? The freaky bagworms that change depending on location? Those aren't original ideas?
 
I have also seen people writing "unoriginal" while they actually seemed to mean "ugly". It gets fucking annoying if you start trying to expain to them what the difference of those two words is. Most of them will stay ignorant and not believe.
Perhaps it sounds better for such people to say "Nah that's really unoriginal" instead of "Ew I think it is ugly". Maybe they think that they seem smarter that way. o.o
 
To be honest, the only reason why people didn't complain about the first generation of Pokemon was because they were brand new.

People complain because they can.

And if they wanna accuse me of being a Pokemon fanatic, then let them tell me how many parrot Pokemon were introduced in the first, second and third generations.
 
This is the same thing that happened when Hoenn (and probably Johto) came out. By the time of Gen 5, they will be bashed while Gen 4 has established itself in the franchise.

I have also seen people writing "unoriginal" while they actually seemed to mean "ugly"
Click to expand...
Dainose is the main victim of this.
 
If a few more were like the Fukamaru line then maybe they would have a point. But they aren't so originality isn't a problem that I can see. Or if there is a problem then it's one that has always been there.

(And it's a bad thing that evolutions look a bit like their previous forms?)
 
No. People complain that Tangela looks too much like it's evo, but yet complain that Buuburn doesn't look like Magmar enough.

If a few more were like the Fukamaru line then maybe they would have a point
Click to expand...
Errr....what about them?
 
They're a hyrid of old Pokémon. I don't have a problem with it just in that line but I could see the originality issue if more were like that.
 
I love the Grovyle/Sharpedo Gabite has going on though. Makes it neat. And look back, wasn't Shellder a Gastly with a shell and different eyes? And Tangela was a Shellder, minus the shell, covered in vines.

Now, stuff like this...

Yeah, but grimer was original and it was a Pokémon, that's (Mikaurage) not a Pokemon, that's what my little brother drwas when he wants to draw Pokémon. I can't tolerate that
Click to expand...

Is simply idotic.
 
Yeah, but grimer was original and it was a Pokémon, that's (Mikaurage) not a Pokemon
Click to expand...

I'd like to ask people who say stuff like that what their definition of a "pokemon" is.
 
There is one basic fact. Unoriginal=hate. Pure and simple.
 
From a linguistic standpoint, would "not the original [151]" be a valid definition of "unoriginal"?
 
That's what it seems to boil down too, a Pokemon is "unoriginal" because it's not part of the "original 151" who I bet if they were released as the Fourth Gen would be bashed as "unoriginal" as well.
 
Oh? If you mean what I mean by "unoriginal", then I mean by that the Pokemon aren't creative and anyone could easily create them.
 
I wouldn't say they're unoriginal as much as there's just a lot of evolutions tacked on to old Pokemon, a lot a lot.
 
4th gen proved that we can expect the unexpected. Who knows. Maybe in the 5th gen, we will get a Golduck evo? All the evos sometimes look like their pre-evos because that's where they come from. I really have no issues with the birds and rodents being redone since in our world, we have many different species of birds and rodents and cats, why not Pokemon?
 
Please note: The thread is from 19 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