What makes a pokemon look like a pokemon?

[acetrainer]

In my opinion a few of the new pokemon do not look like pokemon. They are starting to look very digimony in my opinion. Lopunny is an example of a digimony pokemon.

Some of the new evolutions of 1st gen pokemon don't even look like their previous versions at all, or are just bigger burlier versions of them.

Artist: "What should I do for the new magmar and rhydon evolutions?"

Boss: "Add some burl and cannon arms kids love that stuff!"


When we start seeing pokemon with machine guns, and torpedos hanging off of them, we will know the end is near. I just miss the charm and simple design of the old pokemon.

So my question is:

Is there a certain criteria that makes a pokemon look like a pokemon or can I just draw a smiley face on a toaster name it Tostada and call it a pokemon?

 

[Batbloodx]

I would say there's a certain criteria... the difference between Pokemon and Digimon is that a lot of Pokemon are based off of something, whereas Digimon just look like cutesy monsters.

 

[Bikini Miltank]

While I don't agree that Pokemon designs are getting worse on the whole, or that they're getting Digimon-y (I remember that criticism being tossed around in regard to the Gen II designs), there do seem to be design aesthetics that are common to most Pokemon. These things are hard to pin down, and it's often easier to pick out ones that don't appear to fit than to explain why the others do fit. I don't think Deoxys looks very Pokemon-like, personally, but I'd say the same of Tauros.

In my opinion, Pokemon have got more stylised over the years... as in, the designs have more consistency with each other nowadays. Whether or not this is a good thing is entirely a matter of opinion, but in the first generation it seemed strange to me that the cartoony Jigglypuff existed in the same world as Tauros or Ponyta, which had the look of real animals.

The difference between Pokemon and Digimon, design-wise, is hard to pin down but it's definitely there. There are two elements at work, I think. The first is in the art itself: Pokemon are characterised by clean lines and simplicity, whereas Digimon are rather more detailed, thus often appearing 'fuzzier', for want of a better word. The second is in the underlying design concepts. Digimon fans may disagree, because this is rather subjective, but I think Pokemon tend to stick to a concrete idea whereas Digimon can be very... chimera-like.

Incidentally, I don't think Lopunny strays especially near the Digimon boundary: she just happens to bear a passing resemblance to one specific Digimon. Nor, really does Rhyperior, though I agree that it's a horrible design. It looks like Rhydon's angry mum.

 

[acetrainer]

I guess my complaint isn't about the all of the new designs, just a specific few that look very uncreative in my opinion.

Making the pokemon slightly bigger and slapping an angry face on them is not good design in my opinion Floatzel is one that follows this design theology.

By digimony I meant that the evolutions are just bigger more "bad-ass" versions of the smaller monster, and often have weapons for apendages. I hope the next generation of pokemon does not go this route in an attempt to be "edgy" and appeal to older demographics.

I don't want pokemon to end up looking like this:

http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm319/cakeabake/Pokemon.jpg

 

[BBHood]

I don't see how Lopunny looks "Digimon-y" at all. There is only one Pokemon that looks like a Digimon at all, Blaziken.

 

[Bikini Miltank]

I agree about the Buizel/Floatzel thing, but it's nothing new: the first gen was really prone to this: see Poliwhirl/Poliwrath, Mankey/Primeape, Omanyte/Omastar, or Kadabra/Alakazam. I'm no fan of it, but we actually seem to see less of it these days than we used to.

I guess weapons-for-appendages is acceptable as long as it stays within a few families and doesn't become the norm. I mean, Blastoise had cannons, so once again it's not new.

Rhyperior and Magmortar looked horrible, as did Electivire, but I think this has less to do with the design skills being applied, and more to do with what they're being applied to. Rhydon, Magmar and Electabuzz were supposed to be fully evolved Pokemon. They were supposed to look badass. So when you decide to add another evolution on top of that, you have to make it look more badass, which takes you into hit-and-miss territory. I think that's why these designs jar so much: they're unnecessary embellishments on an already-complete design.

 

[acetrainer]

I don't see how Lopunny looks "Digimon-y" at all. There is only one Pokemon that looks like a Digimon at all, Blaziken.

I was going to include Blaziken as an example, but I did not have anything to back that example up. Why do you think Blaziken looks like a digimon?

Also, observe the following comparison:
Lopmon

Lopunny

Look similar and named similar. Lopmon digivolve to... Lopunny(mon).

I agree about the Buizel/Floatzel thing, but it's nothing new: the first gen was really prone to this: see Poliwhirl/Poliwrath, Mankey/Primeape, Omanyte/Omastar, or Kadabra/Alakazam. I'm no fan of it, but we actually seem to see less of it these days than we used to.

I forgot about those. They weren't as obvious even though I have to admit Poliwhirl/Poliwrath is pretty bad as well. That is probably why Politoed exists (a real evolution for the tadpole pokemon), but that design ain't great either.

Rhyperior and Magmortar looked horrible, as did Electivire....I think that's why these designs jar so much: they're unnecessary embellishments on an already-complete design.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The tacked on evolutions are some of the worst offenders.

 

[Reign]

Of course Lopunny and Lopmon look similar, they're both brown rabbits.

 

[BBHood]

Ok, so they are both brown rabbits? So what? They still have very different styles to them, and Lopunny looks like a Pokemon while Lopmon looks like a Digimon. And of course they have similar names, they are based off the same thing.

 

[Falconwing]

Well, I'm thinking round edges, intelligent expressions, bright and colorful, bizarre, based of random things, and oddly named.

 

[acetrainer]

Ok, so they are both brown rabbits? So what? They still have very different styles to them, and Lopunny looks like a Pokemon while Lopmon looks like a Digimon. And of course they have similar names, they are based off the same thing.

That interesting about the Holland Lop. The styles aren't that different to me. Could you explain what makes Lopunny "look like a pokemon". The point of the thread is for people to attempt to explain what "look like a pokemon" means.

 

[Nidoking]

I was going to include Blaziken as an example, but I did not have anything to back that example up. Why do you think Blaziken looks like a digimon?

Also, observe the following comparison:
Lopmon

Lopunny

Look similar and named similar. Lopmon digivolve to... Lopunny(mon).



I forgot about those. They weren't as obvious even though I have to admit Poliwhirl/Poliwrath is pretty bad as well. That is probably why Politoed exists (a real evolution for the tadpole pokemon), but that design ain't great either.



I think you have hit the nail on the head. The tacked on evolutions are some of the worst offenders.

Why of coarse. They ran out of ideas a long time ago.

 

[Falconwing]

Why of coarse. They ran out of ideas a long time ago.

not true. A while ago a post was made on the originality of new pokemon. I saved it if you need reference.

 

[Spikeheila]

I would say there's a certain criteria... the difference between Pokemon and Digimon is that a lot of Pokemon are based off of something, whereas Digimon just look like cutesy monsters.

Most digimon are based off of something, just not always obviously. It's usually partially stated in the name
As for cutesy monsters
http://dma.wtw-x.net/DMA/DigimonStands/Bandai/HerculesKabuterimon.jpg
I do not think that constitutes as cute. If anything pokemon are generally more cute than most digimon.. Especially since most have veins sticking out,or super sharp claws..espcially super sharp claws. Only most babies and some rookies are 'cute',it's rare for anything above the 'rookie' stage to be cute, especially those representing god-like powers or gods to the digimon world in general, compare most god-like digimon to arceus and one finds that, though arceus is pretty intimidating, many digimon look much more fierce or scary

As for Lopunny vs Lopmon (with bits of antylamon in there too) sure they are based off of the lop breed,but what are the odds of lopunny having red eyes ,like antylamon, pink ear ends, like lopmon and antylamon, and being brown? Why didn't they make it red, or grey?

Anyways, what makes a pokemon a pokemon is usually determined by a low-to high cute factor,imo, like the dulling down of sharp fangs or claws,or the removal of where there should be some , like in lugia, though it has it's shadow form. Though some pokemon, in some games may intimidate you via sound (cradilly or milotic's cry) or in looks ,like aggron, dialga, and such, there is often sometime blocking it from being truly frightening, imo..though it does get your heart pounding sometimes.
For pokemon,it's usually the thought that may scare.. like haunter being able to stalk a person no matter the area, and lick them, causing them to have seizures till they die.

Digimon games were not meant for the tiny little handhelds besides the vpet, even then they still had a bit of art depicting digimon and their real-forms rather than the minute amount of pixels on screen, in the later games, they were no longer stuck inside the v-pet and designers were free to put as much detail as they could into their 3d models, pokemon are still based around what appears in games and a small sprite of the pokemon, they MUST keep the design relativly simplistic so the artists can more easily make their sprites.

 

[The Power of Pika]

Well personally I felt that Agumon and Charmander were similar and same with sunflora and sunflowmon.=/

I don't really bother about similarities usually due to thinking certain Digimon and Pokemon look similar because it's been like that for a long long time for me. It's the similarites that make me like both franchises.

While Pokemon fans complain about how Pokemon is supposedly looking more similar to Digimon believe it or not I have met Digimon fans claiming that later Digimon are looking more and more like Pokemon.

Digimon has over 800 Digimon and Pokemon has close to 500 Pokemon. They are going to overlap every now and then due to similar ideas and different designers.


Though lopmon is interesting. Personally I don't think Lopunny looks like a Digimon. I can't see lopmon digivolving into lopunny when the Digimon creators thought this would be a great digi-volution.

http://digimon.wikia.com/wiki/Wendigomon

That's probably what makes Digimon pretty unique. It's mainly in the way they evolve. Alot of evolutions in Digimon are drastic like that.

You get the few that aren't so drastic and then you'd get the extremely drastic ones. It's usually the drastic changes that throw me in Digimon. I'm usually really glad the games I have so far I can change them back.^-^;;;;;

The detail usually really starts to go overboard by the later stages of the digi-volution when I'm looking at them.

Now Pokemon has it's odd evolution where it's drastic (remoraid and octillery) but the detail is still simplistic even upon evolution. I mean I can still tell a Electivire is the evolved form of electabuzz since it still keeps the simplistic main features of the one prior.

Now I can see lopmon evolving into Lopunny in the Pokemon world due to the lack of change in evolution very similar to how Pokemon works. Lopmon wouldn't be that out of place if it were there instead of buneary. It even has the eyes like Pikachu and the little mark on it's neck just like Pichu.

Though yeah personally how I look at Pokemon and digimon in the long run. If the creator says it's a Pokemon then it's a Pokemon because it's been copyrighted no matter how good or bad thatsaid Pokemon looks. The looks of the Pokemon is dependant on the designer and with Pokemon and even Digimon what you add to your world when creating it is only limited to your imagination.

Oh yeah as for Pokemon with an obvious cannon. Blastoise started that. Not magmortar. Magmortar's parts to me are better blended in than blastoise.
Then there's Scyther's sword like blades, Hitmonchan with it's obvious as day boxing gloves, Primeape has bands on it's hands and legs ect. I can't see magmortar as a creature in the Digimon world neither can I see the rest. There's more to the Digimon for me than just a gun.

 

[Nidoking]

not true. A while ago a post was made on the originality of new pokemon. I saved it if you need reference.

Hmm, can you show me what its about.

 

[7487857]

whereas Digimon just look like cutesy monsters.

"Cutesy"? Sorry, but I have to disagree:

Spoiler

And that's really just the tip of the ice berg. Actually, come to think of it, a lot of Digimon are pretty badass looking.

 

[Falconwing]

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.

There you go.

 

[Batbloodx]

One thing I personally never liked about Digimon is the fact that they can just digivolve and then go back to normal whenever they want. That's not really "evolving," because the theory of evolution doesn't involve us turning back into apes (though on the subject of modern human intelligence, that can disputed). That's not really evolving, it's just morphing.

Though nowadays, you don't really hear a lot about Digimon anymore (at least I haven't). I remember back in the day when both were relatively new, and the kids at school would argue about which was cooler. Back then it seemed like there was going to be this ongoing rivalry between the two, but I think the concept of Pokemon has long since passed them up, now...

 

[TheRealRed]

If you're worried about Pokemon having guns and such, shouldn't you have been worried from Gen I when Blastoise had guns coming out of its shell?

Besides, every generation has Pokemon that people like and dislike. The fact is nobody can really like every Pokemon, especially now that there's nearly 500 of them!