What constitutes a good Pokemon design? What qualifies as a bad Pokemon Design? And don't just say that it's a good design or bad design because it looks like x, tell me why x is a desirable or undesirable aesthetic trait.
>>25792613
Subjective taste.
>>25792613
>What constitutes a good Pokemon design?
A good design is one that takes an idea and puts a unique twist on it. The less expected the better.
>What qualifies as a bad Pokemon Design?
One that's all too predictable. Pokemon that are just oddly colored animals are the worst offenders of this right after the ones that just get bigger and meaner looking. It may as well not have an evolution at all.
A bad design is made worse with an obvious or unclever name like Talonflame or Hurricanine.
>>25792852
>One that's all too predictable. Pokemon that are just oddly colored animals are the worst offenders of this right after the ones that just get bigger and meaner looking. It may as well not have an evolution at all.
But none of that is really bad Pokemon design either.
Pokemon come in many different shapes, sizes, and concepts. Even the most simple of Pokemon can have appeal if they are cute or make it work.
>obvious or unclever names
Welcome to a majority of Pokemon then.
This is a Lottie pile of nonsense.
>>25792629
Well no shit aesthetics is subjective, but that doesn't mean we can't reach a majority conclusion on criteria for what is good or bad.
>>25792613
Great: Noivern
Good: Zebstrika
Ok: Claydol
Not ok: Cacturne
Bad: Rhyperior
Awful: Gothitelle
>>25792613
Well, Israel, that's a good question and one I'm curious about as well, since so many people seem to have a clear standard of evaluation.
I don't. The one thing I'm adamant about, however, is proportion. If a pokemon looks out of proportion in some way then I automatically dislike its design. The 3D model of Rampardos is an example of this, and there are a few, though really only a few, others.
I would say I like originality, but ultimately I like too many pokemon that can't seriously be deemed original. Probably the best criterion for a design would be how well it's looks match with its concept. This can be standard, too, though originality will likely work in its favour.
>>25793063
So what's the criterion? At least say what specific aspects of their design make them more/less than okay.
>>25792948
>Pokemon come in many different shapes, sizes, and concepts. Even the most simple of Pokemon can have appeal if they are cute or make it work.
Simply doing something isn't the same as making it work. Just because people find it appealing doesn't make it a successful design.
Look at Rhyperior and Diggersby. They both have the same design theme but one works better than the other.
Rhyhorn and Rhydon don't have a construction worker theme in their design, so the change in evolution doesn't make much sense. You can argue that the Protector justifies the change, but there isn't anything in Rhyhorn/Rhydon's lore would imply that it has any interest in construction working.
Meanwhile Diggersby's construction worker theme was present in Bunnelby's design.
>welcome to the majority of pokemon
I think the majority of pokemon have bad designs and dumb names.
You should consider playing a game other than pokemon. You'll learn a thing or two about subtlety and good monster design.
>>25792613
>Israel
I
l>
l
l3
l
l
>>25793263
Noivern:
Colors used meaningfully (e.g. compared to Garchomp's splash of yellow torso), innovates the bat nose into a crest that stretches into eyebrows, sound element well incorporated with the ears, and easy to identify the bat & wyvern aspects.
Zebstrika:
Elements of electricity identifiable with the white patterns. Head and neck are a tad too bloated and blob-like, but nothing offensive or exaggerated as with Keldeo's tiny neck and huge snout. The pattern around the eyes could be a bit more distinguished, since the closeness makes it resemble sclera or eyelashes which diminish its fierce gaze.
Claydol:
An interesting design in terms of body shape. The torso symbols are divisive as they would have served well as true eyes if the head were a hat ornament (for deception), but seeing as that's not the case, they're just pseudo eyes themselves which have no place on a torso -- poor choice in filler. The yellow around the head could be removed, as it serves no purpose. The eyes trading roles of looking and not looking is nice, but it would have been better if two eyes were prominent, since Claydol itself is bilaterally symmetrical.
Cacturne:
Gets somewhere with the head and spikes, but the laziness of the blobs that are its appendages just makes it look unfinished. Perhaps if the spikes were to vary in length or size as they reached the end of each appendage, it would have made the blob-like appearance less apparent.
Rhyperior:
Took a good line and ruined it by associating it with something the line didn't care for with the orange construction worker vest appearance. A lot of Pokemon get ruined this way with Megas as well. Rhyperior was also made too stocky with its arms being level with its head, and that gray plating just under the chin for the illusion of a chest. If anything, the gray plating could have done it good if applied in more places and in place of the orange bricks.
Gothitelle:
Horrible facial execution and tiny feet.
>>25794313
Thanks for that, I find it really interesting.
Shame you didn't explain why Gothitelle's facial execution was horrible, but I suppose that itself is ultimately a matter of taste.
>>25794842
Actually, it was because I hit the text limit and was too lazy to make another post. On mobile now or I would.
Good Pokemon are ones I like. Bad Pokemon are ones I don't like.
>>25792613
One thing I like in a pokemon design is being based off of various different real life creatures to make something unique.
Take Cradily, for example. At a glance it looks like a plant-y brachiosaur creature, but it's actually based off of a number of deep-sea creatures that exist/have existed in real life.
Also Kaijumon like Aggron, Nidoking, Rhydon, etc.
