• Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

The hate for inanimate object pokemon seriously needs to stop.

I think the criticism I've heard most often is that inanimate objects tend to get chosen as a design basis over some exotic animal that hasn't been used yet, leading to a perception of the designers as lacking knowledge and/or imagination. One of my friends is utterly obsessed with capybaras and remains disappointed that we haven't gotten such a Pokémon along with a region based on South America.

Personally, with over a thousand distinct species to choose from now, plus alternate forms and mid-battle transformations, I'm thinking it might be time to ease up on introducing new Pokémon altogether and focus more on expanding the gameplay and lore. The Legends subseries has already taken steps in this direction, which I find encouraging. But I suppose that's a discussion for another thread.
 
My bold stance as a character designer is that even the most boring, blandest, "uninspired" objectmon will almost always be ten times more compelling to me as a monster than even the most well-designed animal Pokémon could ever be.

That's not just a reflection on my own personal tastes — I'm obviously a fan of many Pokémon that are based on real-life animals, and I certainly don't like every animate object Pokémon there is. There's a balance to be struck; you can't have one without the other. But either way, Pokémon are intended to be mysterious creatures from a fantasy world — impossible, unrealistic monsters that you would not be able to see in your ordinary life. Object Pokémon may occasionally be based on familiar everyday things, but by their nature they are inherently unbound by any sense of realism, which is exactly what makes them so great for that specific purpose! Designers are free to do almost anything they want, to push it as far or as little as they like, because there are no rules in place to define something that does not really exist. There will always be a near-infinite number of ways that a concept can be stylized, expanded upon, and turned into a living creature.

Meanwhile, animal-esque Pokémon are more likely to be bound by those rules, because they are based on already living creatures, usually with a set of common shapes and features that they all share. They can only play it loose and push the limits of the species they're based on so far before it renders the core idea unrecognizable (which has been utilized intentionally in great ways before, e.g. the Legendary Beasts). But as a result, they are instead that much more likely to "play it safe", and subsequently, many of them fall into the trap of being something you've seen before. As in, I've already seen a bird or a fish or a bear or a lion that looks like that before — so even if it has some kind of unique ability or feature tacked onto it, even if it's otherwise incredibly well-designed and has interesting conceptual origins — having one presented to me as something that's supposed to be extraordinary and fantastical is just not going to have the same impact nor leave as big of an impression on me.

What I think many people fail to realize is that in the moment, when you encounter any Pokémon for the first time, it does not matter how much thought or "imagination" went into its creation. A good creature design, from my point of view, forces you to be invested and suspend your disbelief in the world they're presenting to you just that little bit more. Because even if you may not personally like it, you first have to stop and ask "what is that, and why does it look that way?"... rather than "oh cool, it's like, a fire dog".
 
I love a lot of the inanimate object Pokemon because they feel more fantastical. They make the world of Pokemon feel a lot less like our real world. Some of my favorites are Chandelure, Hisuian Voltorb, the Magnemite line, and the Porygon line.

There's plenty I'm not a huge fan of too, of course, (I don't like Bronzong, for example), but there are always Pokemon in a particular group I'm not a fan of. For example, I love birds and many of my favorite Pokemon are birds. But I don't really care for Tranquil.
 
Last edited:
I've always been a fan of inanimate object Pokemon since day one. Really, the only ones I have a general dislike towards is the Klink line.

In fact, one of my top favorite Pokemon introduced in Paldea is Revavroom. It's really a beautiful organization of things that I both either desired or feel like a logical conclusion. It's an automotive Pokemon that feels like an apology when we were cheated out of a proper steam locomotive Pokemon in Gen 8 and it's a Steel/Poison type at long last; which itself is practically perfect for a gas-belching car Pokemon like it. It also has vibes of a spooky tsukumogami what with Varoom being stated to have descended from a Poison type that infested an engine to subsist, and the two being floating car engines; as well as that freakish tongue that Revavroom just loves to stick out. I love it so much.
 
objectmons, much like any other pokemon designed, have their "good" and "bad" designs. this goes without saying, of course, but it's odd to me that people single out these pokemon in particular as some sort of evidence of lack of effort on Game Freak's part or something. in actuality, there are some really well designed object pokemon (thinking of chandelure, here) and some that i'm not personally a fan of but tbh i think it's funny that it exists in the first place (bramblin and brambleghast).

it also never really made sense to me that vanilluxe became this "poster child" of objectmon hate, but i realise that subjectivity plays a massive part here and hey, who am i tell someone what pokemon to like and not to like? i'd rather people be fair though and give credit where credit is due in some of the more well-designed objectmons and not generalize all of them negativity because of one pokemon.
 
people care too much about pokemon being all cool and creative or cute and cuddly i think its good 2 have pokemon just for the sillies sometimes actually!! and some of them serve liek cool world building too i feel which is another huge strength pokemon has
 
Back
Top Bottom