What Pokemon do you loathe and why?

[kromaticlanturn]

@ascendedbidoof

This is probably going to rustle some jimmies but Charmander is probably my least favorite Pokemon. It has such an uninspired design, like they just made a lizard stand up and called it a day. You can’t even tell that it’s a fire type lol.

Wow, this made me literally laugh out loud. Good show, sir!

[tonysandlin]

@brendantheclayboy

@tonysandlin

@kaldoverde , Klefki is a fantastic design and may not point to specific lore, but has roots in the myth that fairies steal household items. Great concept. More thought put into it than just literal animal becomes Pokemon.

There’s no way you’re not just trolling everybody at this point.

My living room rug has roots in the fact that my feet are used to walk on it. So my new pokemon design is ruggety. It was motivated and thought out with a purpose, so it is acceptable… great even, right? IT IS CLEARLY LAZY AND UNINSPIRED. How 'bout the goddamn ice cream cone!?

Like it or not, but Pokemon, the thing all the people on this forum (and the world for that matter), for the most part at least, fell in love with, originated as Pocket Monsters based on insects/animals and organic living creatures that have a relationship and synchronicity with our natural world and draw from spiritual conceptual ideas like Shintoism, harmony and love with nature and energy. Early inorganic Pokemon were birthed out of the idea that such energies and natural and believable phenomena manifested itself in different ways, and were thus believable, or at least accepted.

You can’t just trash what is the core and root of this very institution as a basis for defending the mutation (or evolution) of its core to introduce new stuff for future generations to keep a fanbase and maintain being interesting. New people came in and had different ideas, and retroactively, but in many cases, haphazardly tried to tie it together with the past generations. If you are gonna sit here and argue that “literal animal” becomes pokemon is a negative quality, when every aspect of even the most animal-like pokemon is sheer originality in every aspect of their creation and personality outside of the likeness of the animal it is based on (and even then, their animal-ness is part of the allure and beauty of Pokemon..), that all the characteristics they have are cohesive and harmonious with the rest of the designs of their similar counterparts and indeed most if not all early pokemon, that it took VISION to bring all these original creations to life from the minds of just a few people that did what ARTISTS do and take inspiration from pre-existing surroundings of their reality on one hand and on the other their imagination and conceptualism and morph the two with artistic coherency, I’m sure I won’t be the only one who will laugh at you, here in this community of people who like Pokemon. Ekans and Arbok have so much character that I couldn’t entertain anyone’s idea that they are lazy and uninspired. They are memorable… as hell. At that point it’s just like, why do you even claim to like Pokemon? Aren’t they all just stupid?

If you wanted Pokemon to be different from what it was at the start, that’s different. Sure, go create something. But it was what it was. Now they are objectively changing it to something different. And that has caused a schism or dichotomy in the appreciation of the Mon’s between generations. This is why it is always brought up. It’s a real thing. Debating on that point forward you’d have to engage in the idea that at some point Pokemon clearly changed entirely, and it isn’t a question of which you hate, it is a question of what do you want Pokemon to be? This is effectively the reasoning behind why many prefer one main generation (1-2, possibly 3), or the other (4-now), where the stylistic split and change occured. And some people like them all, even though different artists are now adding to a franchise, which, as said, spells out objective and new directional change which artistically leads to a lack of universal and world-building cohesiveness.

But, if you’re just messing with everybody, then… nevermind. I was amused and you are funny and have a good sense of humor!

Oh my god I don’t even know where to start here. First, you really need to restructure ypur sentences because they are so overly wordy and run on forever. Don’t take that as an insult, just constructive criticism. I was losing the point of the long sentences by the time I was halfway through them.

But to respond the main points… Pokemon exist in nature in universe, but they are not meant to be believable in the sense that they came from natural evolution. They are literally inspired by Japanese monsters, demons, ghosts, etc. If you complain about Vanilluxe existing, then surely you dislike Voltorb, Magnemite, and Muk. And speaking of that line, you do know they aren’t literally ice cream cones, right? Its sentient icicles with snow accumulated on top to give it an ice cream appearance. I don’t understand where how basing youre criteria for what is considered lazy and uninspired. You literally pointed to Ekans as a well thought out concept.

In terms of the changing design philosophy of Pokemon through the generations, that is a personal choice. But I feel like it’s a pointless argument unless you can point put what about the changes you don’t like. Is it the softer features? Larger heads or rounder bodies? Because gen 1 and 2 had massive differences in design philosophy, so if you don’t care about that then I think it’s just nostalgia that drives your opinion on this.

Anyway. I’m not trolling. Your points, when they were making any sense, were literal examples of the inconsistency in reasons for hating certain Pokemon designs or generations.

I, for one, enjoy the vast majority of Pokemon. There are probably only a couple of dozen designs I don’t like. And all of the inanimate objects Pokemon are kings.

[tonysandlin]

Also, come on. Let’s not pretend the inspiration for Klefki is even remotely close to the inspiration for a Pokemon based in carpet. Just because you are unfamiliar with it’s particular inspiration doesn’t make it lazy.

[bluebulba]

This might be my favorite thread

[fasttonydeniro]

Pokemon that wear clothes. Like…did someone dress Machoke when he evolved? Did he dress himself? Or did those pants just appear? Because now Pokemon are capable of creating mass from nothing, which is…a pretty big deal.

[theobest]

Sorry its ****

Couldn’t find a better image.