One belief common to many members of the Pokémon fandom is that new Pokémon simply aren't as creative as the older ones. This belief isn't usually forcefully imposed on others or even explained; rather, it is accepted as a truth to the series. Some people believe it without questioning, and others wonder why anyone can think that at all.
Now, the concept of creativity is relative so it can't so easily be suggested that one concept is more creative than another. The direction of design for Pokémon has simply evolved over the years in a way that can be seen through the common themes present in each new generation. The only way to give a serious answer to whether or not Pokémon now lack creativity is to look at these design themes and see how they changed over time and whether those changes can be seen as negative or positive.
Red and Blue
Red and Blue versions introduced the first 151 Pokémon that have since come to define a generation and become the standard to which all new Pokémon are held against. Many classics found in this generation can still be seen in teams to this day. The popularity of the originals cannot be denied.
But what defines a First Generation Pokémon? As the first generation, the designs should be relatively simple to explain. After all, Red and Blue were the pet project of Game Freak so they didn't have the time or backing to do much experimenting. They had to design some monsters and get the game out. That was all they could do, and hope it worked.
Because of that limitation, many of the First Generation Pokémon are simply real-world animals: Seel is a seal, Krabby is a crab, Ekans is a snake, and so on.
When a Pokémon isn't so obviously based on a real-world animal, the origin can still be pretty accurately assumed. Many are just anthropomorphized basic elements (Geodude is rock and Bellsprout is plant) or based on simple concepts (Slowpoke is sloth and Machoke is a strength).
Cultural and mythological origins are present, but generally were vague enough that the player wouldn't even realize that Arcanine or Magikarp have some significance to the Japanese audience.
Gold and Silver
The second generation had a lot riding on it. Red and Green were a huge success in Japan, as were their counterparts of Red and Blue in the West. Many people were eagerly awaiting Gold and Silver and the promise of new Pokémon to add to their collection.
This generation was Game Freak's test. They needed to create Pokémon that were just as memorable as those in the previous generation, and to an extent they did. It's surprising to see exactly how much the themes in design changed in three short years, but there clearly are vast differences, as well as similarities, between the Pokémon of the First Generation and the Second.
As before, many of the new Pokémon were simply based on real-world animals (Stantler is a deer and Miltank is a cow), but now they began to represent distinct personalities that played off their origin to a greater degree. While Murkrow is based off of a crow, it is also based off the common belief that crows forebode darkness and are crafty. And while Teddiursa and Ursaring are simply bears, they also represent the constellations of Ursa Minor and Major-- which are bears.
The real-world animals also began to become more exotic (Girafirig is a giraffe) and specific (Heracross is a rhinoceros beetle). So while previous Pokémon were simple in design and origin, these new ones began to embody much more than just being animals. They were beginning to have cultural significance to a developing fictional world.
This developing mythology becomes apparent when you consider Ho-Oh, the three Legendary Beasts, and even Houndour/Houndoom. While previously Pokémon with some mythological background were vague and you could easily overlook that origin, these new Pokémon were less conspicuous. It's hard to look at Ho-Oh without thinking "phoenix", a creature of many cultures, and realizing that the Beasts represent the winds and elements (another common theme of mythology trying to describe the physical world). Houndour and Houndoom are possibly based off Cerberus of Greek mythology, or more generally on various "hounds of death" that frequent many superstitions. Either way the relevance is obvious: Pokémon were no longer simple animals that represented nothing.
Even Pokémon that were not based off real-world animals, rather concepts, had begun to show developing relevance. While Machoke represented strength and Snorlax gluttony, Unown represents the concept of language and Smeargle self-expression. Concepts themselves and their Pokémon-embodiments were now more abstract and complex than before.
This may come as no surprise, however, since most people consider Gold and Silver to be the height of the Pokémon series. Opinions run deep, and only do the later generations seem to come under fire in terms of creativity. So do the Pokémon of Ruby and Sapphire, and then Diamond and Pearl really lack the previous creativity and imagination of the first two generations? Let's find out.
Ruby and Sapphire
The Third Generation is an interesting case. Themes, if any at all, are difficult to describe. This is probably the reason why many accuse the Pokémon of this generation of being the least creative of the 493-total. But this reason could also be argued as the designers returning to "the basics".
Just look at Slakoth: it's a sloth. No unusual design, no significant metaphor... Nothing out of the ordinary about this Pokémon. It's simply a real-world animal plopped into a fictional setting. The same can be said for Wailmer just being a whale, Corphish a crawfish, and so on. All are nothing more than counterparts to real-world animals. Exactly the same as the Red and Blue Pokémon.
But... there is a notable difference. While First Generation Pokémon were based on real-world animals as well, their evolutions were usually simply larger versions of themselves or made little sense. Ruby and Sapphire returned to the real-world and did it justice. This is plainly seen if you consider how Wurmple evolves into a butterfly-counterpart and a moth-counterpart due to split evolution. This is a reference to the common ancestry of moths and butterflies that developed from literal evolution.
Trapinch is another Pokémon that follows this mentality, yet also receives a lot of confusion for its strange evolutionary changes. It is based off the real-world ant lion, which does in fact pupate into a flying insect.
But perhaps the most brilliant Pokémon of the Third Generation is Nincada. It evolves into Ninjask, and under the right conditions its former shell may form a Shedinja. Nincada is based off of the cicada, an insect that leaves its skin behind after pupating within. The skin resembles in every way the animal it once was, and in the case of Shedinja it even has life. Ruby and Sapphire took real-life and turned it on its head, imagining a Pokémon so strange, yet in every way a real-life actuality.
So yes, the Third Generation returned to the simplicity of design seen in the days of Red and Blue... But did it in a much more creative and intelligent way. It can hardly be said that that was a step backwards.
Diamond and Pearl
Being the latest generation to enter the Pokémon series, it should come as no doubt that Diamond and Pearl receive some of the most vocal criticism for the new Pokémon they introduced. After all, time has changed both the players and the designers. The themes in Pokémon-design surely are much different now than they were for the original 151.
Because of all these factors the Fourth Generation Pokémon must be held up to the standards set by the previous generation, as well as on a level all their own. With a careful eye all aspects in direction of design must be accounted for. Here we go...
The first thing that becomes apparent are the new evolutions... There's a lot of them. Compared to the 19 evolutions and pre-evolutions introduced in Gold and Silver and two in Ruby and Sapphire, Diamond and Pearl introduced a total of 29 new evolutions and pre-evolutions. 12 of those were for First Generation Pokémon, which in combination with the Gold and Silver additions, means that there have been 31 Pokémon added to the original 151.
Is this a bad thing? Is coming up with new evolutions to give attention to the classics wrong? Most importantly, is it creative? I would have to say that it's not. Many of these evolutions and pre-evolutions appear cartoonish and exaggerated and definitely are not in the style of the Pokémon they're supposedly related to. While it is difficult to "improve" or expand upon a Pokémon once designed specifically not to have evolutions, the fact that Game Freak opted to do it anyways over creating original Pokémon does suggest a lack of creativity.
But whether or not the new evolutions were good additions is for another article. Instead, we should take a look at the Pokémon that were totally new. Though few, their origins actually say a lot.
While it may not be immediately apparent, several of the Pokémon are in some ways counterparts to the First Generation Pokémon. Combee and its evolution Vespiquen are another take on wasps, like Beedrill, Pachirisu is an electric rodent like Pikachu, Glameow and Purrugly are cats like Meowth and Persian, Carnivine is a carnivorous plant like Victreebel, and finally Finneon and its evolution Lumineon are graceful fish like Goldeen and Seaking.
Now what does this say? Most would suggest that Game Freak are ripping themselves off and have truly lost all creativity. If they hadn't, then they would be designing completely original Pokémon based on things never used before. Right?
While this may have been the case for the Second and even Third Generation, when previous Pokémon were still so few that Game Freak had a much larger pool of real-world animals to draw inspiration from, Fourth Generation has in fact run out of real-world animals to use. This is not to say that animals can't be used as the basis for new Pokémon; of course not. But animals common to many cultures and places, such as dogs and cats and rats, have already been used. Game Freak can't exactly make a mouse Pokémon again without it being called nothing but a Rattata rip-off.
One thing that should be considered is that while there are billions of different species of animal in the real-world, many of them are simply varieties, breeds, and sub-species. For example, there are as many as 12,000 - 14,000 different species of ant. The differences between them range from as small as a speck of dust to as large as your thumb; with colors as varied as white and green, and even some with radically different societies when compared to each other.
Because of this it would be rather unfair to think Game Freak must choose an entirely different animal each time. The very diversity of life just proves that one thing can be imagined in infinite ways. Pokémon are no exception to this.
Going back to whether or not Game Freak are ripping themselves off... I should say that they're not. It may not have occurred to many people that the above listed Pokémon were somehow counterparts to earlier-used ones. The reason is because Game Freak were utterly creative in how they designed these new Pokémon. They took something used before and imagined it in a totally new way.
Combee and Vespiquen represent a much more realistic portrayal of a bee's life-cycle, while the earlier Beedrill is more suggestive of a hornet's.
Pachiriru is an electric squirrel because in the real-world, squirrels and mice are both distantly related, so in the Pokémon world it could be inferred that Pachirisu and Pikachu are the product of shared ancestry.
Glameow and Purrugly are both house-cats while Meowth and Persian are street-cats: two sides to the same animal.
Carnivine is a carnivorous plant like Victreebel, yes, but Carnivine is a venus-fly trap rather than a pitcher plant.
Finneon and Lumineon are graceful, majestic fish like Goldeen and Seaking, but are dark and mysterious while Goldeen and Seaking are bright and colorful. (Interestingly enough, Finneon and Lumineon, while dark, seem cheerful and happy, while the bright Goldeen and Seaking seem annoyed and malevolent)
The theme of diversity among similar animals can even be found in Diamond and Pearl itself: Shellos and Gastrodon of the East Sea and West Sea are essentially the same Pokémon, but distinct depending on what area they're found in. These Pokémon are representative of exactly what the designers hoped to express in the Fourth Generation.
So while all of these examples are based on similar things, they were also imagined in entirely different ways that made them unique from their earlier counterparts. This reflects real-life in all its diversity, which could hardly be called "uncreative".
The Verdict
In the end every generation has had a design-direction unlike those that came before, but nonetheless still creative. Every generation has offered Pokémon that still feel like "Pokémon", but always in some way entirely new.
There will always be certain Pokémon that people won't like. Every generation will have a Probopass that is universally reviled, but that does not excuse the fact that so many other Pokémon easily became sought after and admired. Creativity is alive and well in the design teams for Pokémon.
But if this is true, why do people still generally hate the new Pokémon and consider them "uncreative"? After all, they clearly aren't. Maybe the reason is that people simply prefer the simplistic designs from before. The more a Pokémon may resemble their real-world counterpart, the more the player may relate to it. It's possible that players viewed Pokémon as monsters, but still animals that could be pets. Now most are just monsters without an obvious link to the real-world. This makes them harder to relate to and in turn makes them lose that subtle charm found in their predecessors.
While that is certainly possible, asking Game Freak to be "less creative" to return to the old design-themes is not. They are at a point where they can only move forward in their designs and will most likely create more and more strange creatures. The days of Rattata and Meowth are over, but they will certainly be honoured with future counterparts imagined in countless new ways.
Now, the concept of creativity is relative so it can't so easily be suggested that one concept is more creative than another. The direction of design for Pokémon has simply evolved over the years in a way that can be seen through the common themes present in each new generation. The only way to give a serious answer to whether or not Pokémon now lack creativity is to look at these design themes and see how they changed over time and whether those changes can be seen as negative or positive.
Red and Blue
Red and Blue versions introduced the first 151 Pokémon that have since come to define a generation and become the standard to which all new Pokémon are held against. Many classics found in this generation can still be seen in teams to this day. The popularity of the originals cannot be denied.
But what defines a First Generation Pokémon? As the first generation, the designs should be relatively simple to explain. After all, Red and Blue were the pet project of Game Freak so they didn't have the time or backing to do much experimenting. They had to design some monsters and get the game out. That was all they could do, and hope it worked.
Because of that limitation, many of the First Generation Pokémon are simply real-world animals: Seel is a seal, Krabby is a crab, Ekans is a snake, and so on.
When a Pokémon isn't so obviously based on a real-world animal, the origin can still be pretty accurately assumed. Many are just anthropomorphized basic elements (Geodude is rock and Bellsprout is plant) or based on simple concepts (Slowpoke is sloth and Machoke is a strength).
Cultural and mythological origins are present, but generally were vague enough that the player wouldn't even realize that Arcanine or Magikarp have some significance to the Japanese audience.
Gold and Silver
The second generation had a lot riding on it. Red and Green were a huge success in Japan, as were their counterparts of Red and Blue in the West. Many people were eagerly awaiting Gold and Silver and the promise of new Pokémon to add to their collection.
This generation was Game Freak's test. They needed to create Pokémon that were just as memorable as those in the previous generation, and to an extent they did. It's surprising to see exactly how much the themes in design changed in three short years, but there clearly are vast differences, as well as similarities, between the Pokémon of the First Generation and the Second.
As before, many of the new Pokémon were simply based on real-world animals (Stantler is a deer and Miltank is a cow), but now they began to represent distinct personalities that played off their origin to a greater degree. While Murkrow is based off of a crow, it is also based off the common belief that crows forebode darkness and are crafty. And while Teddiursa and Ursaring are simply bears, they also represent the constellations of Ursa Minor and Major-- which are bears.
The real-world animals also began to become more exotic (Girafirig is a giraffe) and specific (Heracross is a rhinoceros beetle). So while previous Pokémon were simple in design and origin, these new ones began to embody much more than just being animals. They were beginning to have cultural significance to a developing fictional world.
This developing mythology becomes apparent when you consider Ho-Oh, the three Legendary Beasts, and even Houndour/Houndoom. While previously Pokémon with some mythological background were vague and you could easily overlook that origin, these new Pokémon were less conspicuous. It's hard to look at Ho-Oh without thinking "phoenix", a creature of many cultures, and realizing that the Beasts represent the winds and elements (another common theme of mythology trying to describe the physical world). Houndour and Houndoom are possibly based off Cerberus of Greek mythology, or more generally on various "hounds of death" that frequent many superstitions. Either way the relevance is obvious: Pokémon were no longer simple animals that represented nothing.
Even Pokémon that were not based off real-world animals, rather concepts, had begun to show developing relevance. While Machoke represented strength and Snorlax gluttony, Unown represents the concept of language and Smeargle self-expression. Concepts themselves and their Pokémon-embodiments were now more abstract and complex than before.
This may come as no surprise, however, since most people consider Gold and Silver to be the height of the Pokémon series. Opinions run deep, and only do the later generations seem to come under fire in terms of creativity. So do the Pokémon of Ruby and Sapphire, and then Diamond and Pearl really lack the previous creativity and imagination of the first two generations? Let's find out.
Ruby and Sapphire
The Third Generation is an interesting case. Themes, if any at all, are difficult to describe. This is probably the reason why many accuse the Pokémon of this generation of being the least creative of the 493-total. But this reason could also be argued as the designers returning to "the basics".
Just look at Slakoth: it's a sloth. No unusual design, no significant metaphor... Nothing out of the ordinary about this Pokémon. It's simply a real-world animal plopped into a fictional setting. The same can be said for Wailmer just being a whale, Corphish a crawfish, and so on. All are nothing more than counterparts to real-world animals. Exactly the same as the Red and Blue Pokémon.
But... there is a notable difference. While First Generation Pokémon were based on real-world animals as well, their evolutions were usually simply larger versions of themselves or made little sense. Ruby and Sapphire returned to the real-world and did it justice. This is plainly seen if you consider how Wurmple evolves into a butterfly-counterpart and a moth-counterpart due to split evolution. This is a reference to the common ancestry of moths and butterflies that developed from literal evolution.
Trapinch is another Pokémon that follows this mentality, yet also receives a lot of confusion for its strange evolutionary changes. It is based off the real-world ant lion, which does in fact pupate into a flying insect.
But perhaps the most brilliant Pokémon of the Third Generation is Nincada. It evolves into Ninjask, and under the right conditions its former shell may form a Shedinja. Nincada is based off of the cicada, an insect that leaves its skin behind after pupating within. The skin resembles in every way the animal it once was, and in the case of Shedinja it even has life. Ruby and Sapphire took real-life and turned it on its head, imagining a Pokémon so strange, yet in every way a real-life actuality.
So yes, the Third Generation returned to the simplicity of design seen in the days of Red and Blue... But did it in a much more creative and intelligent way. It can hardly be said that that was a step backwards.
Diamond and Pearl
Being the latest generation to enter the Pokémon series, it should come as no doubt that Diamond and Pearl receive some of the most vocal criticism for the new Pokémon they introduced. After all, time has changed both the players and the designers. The themes in Pokémon-design surely are much different now than they were for the original 151.
Because of all these factors the Fourth Generation Pokémon must be held up to the standards set by the previous generation, as well as on a level all their own. With a careful eye all aspects in direction of design must be accounted for. Here we go...
The first thing that becomes apparent are the new evolutions... There's a lot of them. Compared to the 19 evolutions and pre-evolutions introduced in Gold and Silver and two in Ruby and Sapphire, Diamond and Pearl introduced a total of 29 new evolutions and pre-evolutions. 12 of those were for First Generation Pokémon, which in combination with the Gold and Silver additions, means that there have been 31 Pokémon added to the original 151.
Is this a bad thing? Is coming up with new evolutions to give attention to the classics wrong? Most importantly, is it creative? I would have to say that it's not. Many of these evolutions and pre-evolutions appear cartoonish and exaggerated and definitely are not in the style of the Pokémon they're supposedly related to. While it is difficult to "improve" or expand upon a Pokémon once designed specifically not to have evolutions, the fact that Game Freak opted to do it anyways over creating original Pokémon does suggest a lack of creativity.
But whether or not the new evolutions were good additions is for another article. Instead, we should take a look at the Pokémon that were totally new. Though few, their origins actually say a lot.
While it may not be immediately apparent, several of the Pokémon are in some ways counterparts to the First Generation Pokémon. Combee and its evolution Vespiquen are another take on wasps, like Beedrill, Pachirisu is an electric rodent like Pikachu, Glameow and Purrugly are cats like Meowth and Persian, Carnivine is a carnivorous plant like Victreebel, and finally Finneon and its evolution Lumineon are graceful fish like Goldeen and Seaking.
Now what does this say? Most would suggest that Game Freak are ripping themselves off and have truly lost all creativity. If they hadn't, then they would be designing completely original Pokémon based on things never used before. Right?
While this may have been the case for the Second and even Third Generation, when previous Pokémon were still so few that Game Freak had a much larger pool of real-world animals to draw inspiration from, Fourth Generation has in fact run out of real-world animals to use. This is not to say that animals can't be used as the basis for new Pokémon; of course not. But animals common to many cultures and places, such as dogs and cats and rats, have already been used. Game Freak can't exactly make a mouse Pokémon again without it being called nothing but a Rattata rip-off.
One thing that should be considered is that while there are billions of different species of animal in the real-world, many of them are simply varieties, breeds, and sub-species. For example, there are as many as 12,000 - 14,000 different species of ant. The differences between them range from as small as a speck of dust to as large as your thumb; with colors as varied as white and green, and even some with radically different societies when compared to each other.
Because of this it would be rather unfair to think Game Freak must choose an entirely different animal each time. The very diversity of life just proves that one thing can be imagined in infinite ways. Pokémon are no exception to this.
Going back to whether or not Game Freak are ripping themselves off... I should say that they're not. It may not have occurred to many people that the above listed Pokémon were somehow counterparts to earlier-used ones. The reason is because Game Freak were utterly creative in how they designed these new Pokémon. They took something used before and imagined it in a totally new way.
Combee and Vespiquen represent a much more realistic portrayal of a bee's life-cycle, while the earlier Beedrill is more suggestive of a hornet's.
Pachiriru is an electric squirrel because in the real-world, squirrels and mice are both distantly related, so in the Pokémon world it could be inferred that Pachirisu and Pikachu are the product of shared ancestry.
Glameow and Purrugly are both house-cats while Meowth and Persian are street-cats: two sides to the same animal.
Carnivine is a carnivorous plant like Victreebel, yes, but Carnivine is a venus-fly trap rather than a pitcher plant.
Finneon and Lumineon are graceful, majestic fish like Goldeen and Seaking, but are dark and mysterious while Goldeen and Seaking are bright and colorful. (Interestingly enough, Finneon and Lumineon, while dark, seem cheerful and happy, while the bright Goldeen and Seaking seem annoyed and malevolent)
The theme of diversity among similar animals can even be found in Diamond and Pearl itself: Shellos and Gastrodon of the East Sea and West Sea are essentially the same Pokémon, but distinct depending on what area they're found in. These Pokémon are representative of exactly what the designers hoped to express in the Fourth Generation.
So while all of these examples are based on similar things, they were also imagined in entirely different ways that made them unique from their earlier counterparts. This reflects real-life in all its diversity, which could hardly be called "uncreative".
The Verdict
In the end every generation has had a design-direction unlike those that came before, but nonetheless still creative. Every generation has offered Pokémon that still feel like "Pokémon", but always in some way entirely new.
There will always be certain Pokémon that people won't like. Every generation will have a Probopass that is universally reviled, but that does not excuse the fact that so many other Pokémon easily became sought after and admired. Creativity is alive and well in the design teams for Pokémon.
But if this is true, why do people still generally hate the new Pokémon and consider them "uncreative"? After all, they clearly aren't. Maybe the reason is that people simply prefer the simplistic designs from before. The more a Pokémon may resemble their real-world counterpart, the more the player may relate to it. It's possible that players viewed Pokémon as monsters, but still animals that could be pets. Now most are just monsters without an obvious link to the real-world. This makes them harder to relate to and in turn makes them lose that subtle charm found in their predecessors.
While that is certainly possible, asking Game Freak to be "less creative" to return to the old design-themes is not. They are at a point where they can only move forward in their designs and will most likely create more and more strange creatures. The days of Rattata and Meowth are over, but they will certainly be honoured with future counterparts imagined in countless new ways.
