>The Simpsons didn't get worse you just grew up
>>26305903
>Muh Realism
Yes, because JUST A GOLDFISH WITH A HORN or PILE OF SENTIENT EGGS is way better than, say, a Leafcutter Ant/Seamstress or an Afro Buffalo
>>26305952
>>26305952
its not about what the pokemon IS, its about the art design.
only idiots complain about "MUH ICE CREAM CONE/MUH GARBAGE" those are original and cool concepts just like the goo dragon, the point is the designs are just absolutely terrible based on what could have been. you obviously don't have taste if you can't see the issue
>>26305903
The newer generations are worse, in terms of design, if only because they are facing two problems. The escalation problem, needing more complex and interesting designs so people are still interested in the game and the reiteration problem, where they can't retread concepts they already developed with the simplicity that it was initially tackled with.
I mean, they aren't objectively bad (most of the designs anyways) but if you like simplistic designs which would be the majority of early pokemon players (since gen one was likely what grabbed you to play pokemon in the first place) then it makes sense for them to not like the latter generations.
>>26305992
deep down inside its not about "older gens went with simplistic designs"
newer gens don't take into account the roots of the series, aka pokemon are realistic wild creatures you could see in everyday life, not plasticy toys.
they could easily add more details and proper color blending to new pokemon but it would be harder to make toys of them so they don't. why do you think so many gen 1 pokemon toys look so derpy, because the designs were way more complex and realistic.
>>26305903
>Zorua compared to Vulpix
>Fennekin compared to Eevee
What?
>>26305903
REMOVE THAT FUCKING TYRANTRUM BULLSHIT YOU STUPID FUCK
THE GOLD ISN'T RANDOM, IT OUTLINES ITS ARMOR PLATES, IT BREAKS UP THE RED, IT'S FUCKING BLENDED JUST LIKE YOU SAID AND IT COMPLEMENTS HIS CROWN
YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOUR ENTIRE FUCKING POINT
CHANGE THIS OR FUCK OFF
>>26305903
>Waa these Pokemon are too simple!
>Waa these Pokemon are too detailed!
Why don't my imaginary Pokemon look like generic, real life animals!
Who can argue with that image?
Who can justify the lazy, cartoony designs?
>durr but magnet
And it's still more detailed than the new shit.
>>26306097
>And it's still more detailed than the new shit.
Here's your (You)
os design não estão piores, falar isso é muito contra-arte e suas nuances, possibilidades, variedades, etc. O mundo vive e gosta de coisas diferentes do mundo de 1996, os design estão apenas cada vez mais se adaptando ao mundo em que vivemos e a arte que este mundo atual é mais afeiçoado. Não é questão de menos detalhes, do tipo pelagem com mais pontas ou whatever, signifique que a arte é ruim, simplista, mal pensada ou inferior, é apenas um novo modo para um novo mundo, feito por um novo Sugimori. Então parem de chorar igual a retardados conservadores de merda e aceitem as mudanças, ninguém é obrigado a gostar dos novos caminhos mas essa discussão toda é extremamente infantil, como uma birra de criança que se joga no chão porque não quer aceitar a nova realidade que lhe foi oferecida, não como se fosse o fim ou as trevas. As novas gerações (os que estão nascendo) tendem muito mais a preferir os novos pokemon (os menos orgânicos), so stop fucking crying. Sugimori não se vendeu a arte da atualidade, ele apenas naturalmente mudou como acontece com todo artista
>>26305903
>jynx vs gothorita
realistic hair and dress would make this bitch just look like a human wearing a mask
>cubone vs vullaby
holy shit eggs are round and different than skulls what??????
>ivysaur vs grotle and venusaur vs flabebe
nigger thats 2 different types of leaves each
theyre indigenous to different climates
Am I actually the only one who doesn't give a shit that the new designs are more cartoony?
I actually like it and cartoony designs are clearly more marketable otherwise they wouldn't continue doing them.
>>26305903
Here we go again
If anything this proves that Pokémon designs are inconsistent as fuck.
>>26305903
This is probably the best comparison Ive seen so far.
Is it wrong to want something in the middle?
>>26306019
cherrypicking and completely off topic. its not about LOOK AT THIS EXAMPLE OF A SIMPLE DRAGON. its about how the art is designed. if you take a look at dragonite you can see his body isn't made out of basic shapes, he has curvitures on his wings and all over his detailed body, meanwhile newer pokemon suffer from basic shape syndrome. even tyrantrums neck "veil" suffers from this.
the truth is old pokemon look as if they were drawn by a better artist.
>>26306176
>cherrypicking
Pot, meet kettle
>>26306097
people without fuckingn taste
>>26306110
can't you see the problem with this design? the simplistic shapes and lack of detail on the handle's cape? this shit looks basic as fuck.
seriously only tasteless plebian retards without a brain for design would disagree with OP picture
>>26306150
>>26306177
>>26306184
i don't think you understand the point at all, you can cherrypick until the cows come home but the truth is blatantly obvious to those who aren't morons
>>26306158
Well, they are designed by multiple artists
>>26305903
This post gave me cancer.
>>26306194
>you can cherrypick
only if you stop cherrypicking, as well
let's hear your mental gymnastics on this one
Jesus why do you people keep trying to find flaws with everything gamefreak do lately?
If you don't like the games anymore just fucking leave, you're probably too old to play Pokémon anyway.
Like seriously, you're all so autistic; you all keep finding the littlest flaws or changes in designs and going "T-there you see? T-thats why gamefreak is d-dead" Whilst you preorder sun and moon.
>>26306184
>comparing gen 1 and 2 pokemon
gen 1 and 2 are the same. gen 2 pokemon aren't "new gen" in terms of design. only during gen 3 did shit start to get overly plasticy and lacking details
>>26306212
>gen 1 and 2 are the same
oop, now they're trying to switch goals and definitions. What's next?
Genwunner Daily will be back after a few posts.
>>26306184
>hating on the blue badger
I'll fite you, m8.
>>26306184
this is a PERFECT example of how shitty and cartoony and simplistic newer gen pokemon designs are.
>>26306232
and now they keep claiming gen 2 as old gen!! Amazing DETAIL!
>>26306243
how are you not getting the point at all?
i literally don't understand how anyone could be this blind.
>>26306259
>realistic vs simplistic toy-like anatomy
>with details vs lacking details
>literally both bears with similar fur details, nose/snout, proportional limbs, claws
HOLY SHIIIIT m8
>>26306194
>this is how much genwunners are in denial
>>26306259
>lacking details
How the fuck is usaring not lacking detail? He doesn't even have visible fur unlike pangoro.
Face it op you're getting too old for pokemon and you're using this 'argument' to justify why you've been playing a children's game for so long.
>>26306185
And yet still more fucking detailed than the Magnet.
And this coming from someone who fucking loves that line.
>>26306194
Both sides can claim cherrypicking until someone goes through every single fucking design and makes a master autism image organizing the realistic vs cartoony ones for each gen
>>26306304
Yes, thank you! Geez. It's not even that hard to understand that old gens also have simplistic designs and new gens also have detailed functional designs
>>26306304
On it.
I wish this stupid genwar shit was a bannable offsense
Oh wait
>>26306304
Seriously why do people care so much? Is it autism? I swear when a new pokemon gets revealed people literally study it's design to find any flaws, just fucking enjoy it. You'll still buy the games anyway.
>>26306243
That mole looks like the happiest cartooni stuffed animal with gigantic head and eyes. Diglett looks chill and remains a mystery for 20 years. Gee idk whos better... but its not the plushy toy
>>26306317
Hell if I know
I recognize there is a general style difference between the first gen and the rest, but I dont really see how the newer style is worse overall. It's just different.
A lot of the flaws they find in new designs are just opinionated nitpicking. I could make up similar flaws for 1st gen's designs too.
>>26306278
i can't tell if you are blind or a troll. anyone with a brain see's how newer pokemon design is toylike and plasticy
>>26306287
>pokemon design is exactly the same, you are just older
yeah just like how the simpsons is still the same nothing changes its just nostalgia. also you clearly don't have an eye for design or details if you aren't getting this. blinded by sheer fanboyism
>>26306304
The problem is you may love magnemite, dugtrio(one of my bro) but you see their fault and see very much pokemon are better.
A genowner will never see flaws of their gen 1 design.
And I hate when they cherrypicking to make gen 1 looks bad.
>>26306323
This is the most stupid argument I've never seen,is like say saying a pokemon is better because we don't know how is his/her heart and it's a mistery
>THAT EXAMPLE IS STUPID
You too and you're family don't sacrifice to make the mankind better ,m8
>>26306357
Hell even, I actually agree with most of ops points on more cartoony designs. But they were designed to be marketable and seeing how pokemon is still going strong, I'd say it worked. And I actually like them so I don't really see all the hate for the newer gens
>>26306385
>blinded by sheer fanboyism
>says a genwunner nostalgiafag
I've finally seen everything they will say about this matter
>implication that liepard is bad
I will deck a nigger.
Also why did this thread get replies, this picture is ancient. Not that I'm helping matters.
>>26306416
Lots of people only come here for the new gen leakathons
>>26306144
psyduck is a platypus not a duck...
>>26306385
How the fuck can you just cherry pick pokemon like that? There are over 700 designs most of which are extremely different, how can you say that there is a single design for all of them. There are functional pokemon in the newer gens that you BLATANTLY ignore and there are cartoony designs in gen 1/2 which you also ignore.
Comparing it to the Simpsons also makes no sense?
The humour of the Simpsons changed and the show got stale and boring, you can't watch an episode without having to endure that.
With Pokémon, even though you still encounter newer designs you can still catch the old ones, especially in games like x and y which have an overabundance of them. Plus nearly all of the new Pokémon games are miles ahead of gen 1 and its remake, and games like BW/bw2 are fantastic, where as new Simpsons episodes as a whole just got bad.
>>26306447
Psyduck is a shit.
>>26306447
Its still cartoony though, even for a platypus.
>>26306458
#REKT
>>26305903
>it's different from my childhood so it makes me butthurt
>>26306458
they're all cartoons...
>>26305903
So what I'm getting at is, instead of them actually trying to make the designs stand out and look like there own thing, you literally want each pokemon to look EXACTLY like the animal they're based on? Just go outside SENPAI, start a cockfighting arena or something.
>>26306474
Then op's point is literally invalid. Pack up everyone, shows over.
>>26306385
That reasoning makes no sense.
Simpsons writing style, animation (and I mean character designs being more standardized from Groening's older, looser work as well as the luxury of exaggerating the characters not even being a thing anymore) and tone has changed where as Pokemon's always been about battling monsters.
You're complaining about how the monsters are drawn which is a pretty nitpicky thing to do, you're trying to argue consistency in designs when really that's like trying to push for consistency in nature itself.
>>26306490
cartoon animal is better than new cartoon animal but both are cartoons therefore which is better is invalid?
>>26306144
>that
>detailed feathers
>psyduck has a defined beak, blue swan thing has a fortune cookie
>psyduck has a detailed hair thing
>swan has a growth
I mean they're both very simple designs but you chose a very poor example to lead with, psyduck has more appropriate detail for sure.
>>26306110
>Here's your (You)
oh thank you, just what I needed.
>>26306518
>you chose a very poor example
have you seen the OP? His reach on some examples extends to the stars
>>26306518
don't even bother replying to these blind morons, they obviously don't understand basic design and think cherrypicking means "pokemon designs are exactly the same now"
>>26306732
You seem upset.
ITT nostalgia goggles
>>26306732
>they obviously don't understand basic design
I assume this >>26306176
>its not about LOOK AT THIS EXAMPLE OF A SIMPLE DRAGON. its about how the art is designed. if you take a look at dragonite you can see his body isn't made out of basic shapes
is you
and yet you haven't responded to >>26306202
where Zapdos is literally basic shapes slapped on together and has less talon and feather details compared to Braviary
You also posted a generic answer >>26306194
to >>26306177 when reality is that Noibat DOES have more details to it and yet you complain of us cherry picking
>>26306202
dude this is the definition of cherry picking, old gens had a few duds sure but the newer gens have OBVIOUSLY gone for a more basic and simplistic un-detailed artstyle.
stop cherry picking and actually look at a picture of all the gen 1-2 pokemon next to all the later gen pokemon, if you are sreiously stupid enough to think the older pokemon had the toy like anatomy and lack of detail then you are blind and obviously haven't been playing pokemon very long
>>26305903
I get that this image has used the extremes in time difference to amplify the changes, but you'd probably be able to convince more people of this if you included other old gens, including 2 and 3 (inb4 >3 >old), and acknowledge that there are good:bad in every gen, just that the ratio tilted as time passed. As it stands, it just looks quite Genwunner-ish.
>>26306835
No it's not because there are other examples in this thread and you just conveniently choose to ignore them, like how you conveniently choose only to make statements on very detailed oldgen mons
where are your statements on Voltorb and Electrode? They are literally circles. What's that? That's the whole point of their design, you say? But new genmons can not use that to their defense?
Nah, fuck you m8. Why are you even here, just go find a forum that only has oldgenners
>>26306323
this. pokemon has literally become gay as fuck. pokemon either have to be incredibly cute or cool to pass now. no more strange/weird realistic monsters who have a natural look to them. they look like toys now. its not cool and theres no wonder pokemon isn't popular anymore
>>26306243
Are you fucking retarded? gen 1 and 2 are old gen. most of the pokemon from gen 2 were cut from gen 1 and both are Satoshi Tajiri games. gen 3 came out like 10 years later and was the beggining of the end of pokemons feel and design
>>26306323
>>26306852
and when they can't counter within the context they are trying to bring up, they attack the new designs in a different way
classic genwunners
>>26306243
no more creativity
>>26306852
>strange/weird realistic monsters who have a natural look
You are literally contradicting your own post and you expect us to believe you know what makes a good pokemon design?
>hurr overdesigned
>hurr very simplistic shapes
>hurr why do we have objects
>hurr where are the weird monsters
>hurr why doesn't it look natural
>hurr it's just my mom's pet animal
kys
>>26306862
>no argument
did you not see op's picture? but oh please keep cherrypicking like 2 random examples of how pokemon designs are actually more detailed and realistic now and not toy like.
its like you don't even play pokemon or you are blind if you don't blatantly see this
>>26306867
>no more creativity
you bring this up NOW because you can't deny that Diglett runs counter to the accusations you are throwing at the new gen. go fuck yourself
>>26305903
So what is your point in all of this? Are you saying that the old gen is better than the new gen? Or the opposite?
Please elaborate further.
>>26306875
*facepalm*
>>26306885
Gen 1-2 is better than the later gens because the designs of pokemon (most of them, there are a few examples of good designs) have become toy like anatomically and detail wise. pokemon has lost a very appealing factor
the newer designs suck. pokemon used to have tasteful and refined quality about them. the quality of the designs has gradually deteriorated, gen v onwards they look more like dragon quest monsters than pokemon, i have no idea why the designs are so popular here.
>>26306910
because most /vp/ers are autistic and completely lacking that part of the brain that lets them criticize the things they have liked as children.
some people actually try to doubt that there was even a design change when you don't even have to have an art degree to see it.
>>26306823
OP is right, it doesnt mean all older designs are as well done and detailed as the rest and vice versa. Haxorus is a good example of a good design in that matter, but Dragonite is not agood example of a bad design (inside he boundaries OP defined).
I'll give you Zapdos though. But one can argue it's because it's to more clearly resemble a lightning bolt as we normally depict it but it sure lacks detail on its wings
op here, posting examples of some of the next gen designs that were actually done right and could have been gen 1-2 pokemon
>>26306934
another example of late gen good pokemon design
IDEAS and CONCEPTS behind different pokemon are of more or less stable quality over the years, with occasional fuckups or masterpieces.
EXECUTION of those ideas is going downhill pretty much since they started to run out of first, original batch of concepts
Prove me wrong.
>>26306931
gen 1-2 has its stinkers (zapdos ect.) that can be cherrypicked but its un-comparable to the later gens which are mostly stinkers because of some "POKEMON HAVE TO BE EITHER AS CUTE AS POSSIBLE OR COOL AS POSSIBLE, AND THEY HAVE TO BE EASY TO MAKE INTO TOYS" mentality that has lead to simpler shapes and mix matched color blending that makes the creatures come out looking much less realistic
>>26306942
>downhill
you are 100% correct, only a complete and total fool thinks the complaint is "muh ice cream cones muh trash cans, meanwhile old pokemon were magnets and eggs!"
its the execution that makes the pokemon look as un-pokemon as possible. the over simplification of the execution on stylizing details is for the most part wrong.
pic related became a pokemon because of the idea "a dragon made completely out of goo". you can't even tell if they had this idea during gen 1-2 you would get a pokemon with more complex linework almost like a dragon version of muk, but because this is late gen its literally just a standard cartoony dragon with 3 simple goo drip blobs drawn on.
Too many anime eyes in the new gens honestly.
Skiddos model actually has beady eyes and I think it makes a world of difference.
"Cartoony"
Yeah how dare cartoons look cartoony. What is the world coming to?
>>26306990
Isn't the last one Ohmura's?
Who fucking cares?
>>26306835
You can't just call every reasonable example someone gives cherry picking. How much evidence do you need to ignore before you realize your original point might just be wrong?
There are inspired and uninspired designs in every gen.
>>26306985
>being this retarded
read ops image
>>26307012
the people who actually love pokemon and don't want to see it turn to hack garbage. people who actually enjoy good pokemon designs
>>26307016
Not him, and while I agree with you, you have to admit that the number of good/bad designs has shifted over the gens.
>>26307016
this has nothing to do with inspired or uninspired designs every gen. this is about how pokemon as a whole have had a drastic change in design to have more toy like anatomy when the whole point of the game was capturing real monsters to train and battle. it sucks and indicates a decline in quality. deny this only makes you a blind fanboy
>>26307023
why are you telling us though, what am I gonna do?
Go write a letter to the UN
>>26306176
>if you take a look at dragonite you can see his body isn't made out of basic shapes
ok
>>26306973
Good(ra) thing Goodra is a dragon COVERED in goo, eh? If it was made of it it would drop from everywhere.
Kill yourself.
>>26306990
>Sugimori art evolution
>last one isn't even Sugimori
Just drink bleach and put a tissue on your mouth, please.
>>26307032
But that doesn't apply when even the first batch of Pokemon had the same "flaw"
>>26305903
> the cartoon monsters I first saw as a 10 year old are more "realistic" to me than the cartoon monsters I first saw as a 25 year old man.
Dude they couldn't even be bothered to be assed to draw the claws on 90% of the Pokemon that should have them, and the three tied feet most of them have are a lazy ass cartoon drawing conceit dating back to the 1930s.
>>26307032
The way you word it sounds logical but when you honestly believe Pangoro has plastic cartoon anatomy compared to Ursaring then nah
>>26306910
>gen v onwards they look more like dragon quest monsters than pokemon,
I love this "New Pokemon look like something else besides Pokemon" meme. If you're actually serious, then compare the new Pokemon side-by-side to DQ monsters. Otherwise, you just sound retarded.
>i have no idea why the designs are so popular here
Wow, it's like its a Pokemon board or something. Go back to Facebook where you can circlcerk all day about your "superior" old designs.
>>26307237
You have to admit that old mons were mroe neutral in their designs.
Modern ones largely either cater to edgelord boys or flowery girls.
Old designs were more like "Here's a horse. Here's a snake. Here's a pigeon." I will concede Jigglypuff and friends are poor designs, but the older the gen, the harder these poor designs are to find.
But they were always meant to be toys, the hell is the problem here?
>Same arguments that were in the /v/ thread, even the same images and posts.
There's one seriously fucking bored troll on 4chan tonight.
early-gen mons generally look more natural
late-gen mons generally look more plastic
you are retarded if you disagreeand no, I'm not saying it's true 100% of the time, and I'm also not saying that one or the other is better or worse
So what is this trying to prove?
>>26306212
it's genwunner
not gentooer
>>26307411
This, basically.
>>26307411
OP can post the same threads on both /v/ and /vp/ and collect a high amount of (You)s
>>26307298
Wow, you're right. Holy shit, the fact that several people are arguing against OP on both boards speaks volumes about his autism
>>26307637
OP is employing advanced autism, I suppose
design wars should just be banned already
>>26305903
>goodra
>a pokemon made 100% of goo
You're more retarded than the people who think Sliggoo has a shell.
>>26307688
/vp/ should just be banned already.
>>26306506
What the fuck are you talking about?
There exists no unbiased charts
>>26306212
>Johtoddler's a genwarring shitposter
Kek, who's even surprised anymore?
>>26307688
> Back in the day Yokai were based on Japanese history instead of just being Americans
I'm on the verge of leaving this shitty board, none of you retards have any idea what you're talking about. It's pretty sad.
>>26306134
Por mais que eu concorde, não adianta muito tu emitir uma opinião de 6 linhas se praticamente ninguém na board for te entender??
>>26309460
I have the very right to say draGoo design is poorly executed and it is as close to rest of it's line as close Sweden is to civilized nation
>all these buttmad kiddies ITT
Face it kids. My childhood > your childhood.
>>26307347
this.
it makes me sick there are so many delusional people on here who flat out can't see it. i can't tell if they are lying to themselves about the design direction or are just flat out ignorant in terms of "artistic eye"/taste
>>26307448
gen 1 and 2 are the same in every sense. gen 2 is practically an expansion of gen 1.
anyone considered a gen wunner would say gen 2 was of equal quality since both are the only pokemon games from the original inventors brain. gen 3 is when shit started getting shallow and gen 6 broke any semblence of challenge effectively with exp all and trainer nerfs effectively stabbing the series in the heart and ruining the all ages appeal of the game. pokemon is literally for 3 year olds now
>>26311012
>>26306144
those feathers are not detailed at all. they are simplistic shape blobs.
pic related is an example of detailed feathers. i can only imagine how simplistic and cartoony fearow would have looked if designed this gen.
>>26306737
You seem blind or utterly tasteless and lacking of rational thought
>>26305903
I feel like they actually have a valid point with Kangaskhan.
Not in itself that the eyes look like something, but why the hell did they have to change?
>>26311057
>i can only imagine how simplistic and cartoony
Yeah, we can only imagine.
>>26311088
because the baby is more mature, and so it grew bigger and the eyes look like that of a grown Kanga
Those who wants detailed and realistic Pokémon, they might as well like to play Pokemon with real animal pictures instead of Pokémon.
>what is art done by different people?
(This reply is only for those who fell for OP's bait)
>>26305903
I never noticed all the curves and rounded edges.
It's MUCH easier to draw something made up of large curves, than to draw something more varied.
Honest question...Where do you guys come from? Why do you come here if you no longer enjoy Pokemon? What's the point?
oldgen:
pokemon tended to have complicated linework
newgen:
pokemon tend to have basic linework making a lot of them look "toy like"
/thread. if you disagree you know jack shit about pokemon. it was obviously a move to make product management's job easier
>>26306845
you do realize the chart compares pokemon of similar species? how is it cherrypicked?
Don't we have new janitors? Why aren't they deleting this shit?
>>26311181
Agree.
I don't mind the new designs, in fact I actually quite like a lot of the newer pokemon, but I kinda wish they had stuck to the older art style. I agree that they look too simplified most of the time.
>>26311180
>If you don't like pokemon designs, obviously you hate pokemon so just get out of my board!!!!!
Fuck you. Just hide this shit if you don't want to see it.
>this old pokemon is nice and simple and this new one is too detailed
>this old pokemon is nice and detailed and this new one is too simple
>>26311234
>spamming 2 fucking boards for days with the same retarded pictures
No, you get out first.
>>26311193
Because other people can find opposite examples. Besides, much of the OP is grasping and reaching--Jellicent is based on jellyfish like pic related. Of course, it would have "less tentacles" compared to Tentacruel.
Vullaby's skull is obviously a different one compared to Cubone's but hurrr let's not consider that and complain about the other skull being cartoony instead. Never mind that they were going for a human-skull asthetic to complete with Mandibuzz's jawbone.
The "fur detail" comparison between Growlithe and Lillipup is so fucking small it's almost negligible
this image sums up everything perfectly
>>26311099
you do realize when you post pokemon with proper linework and realistic and non toy like anatomy like farfetch and his stick you aren't making a point right?
>>26311377
I'm sorry, what did you say?
Cant believe I miss the days when people would complain about new Pokemon being "overdesigned digimon garbage"
Now they're "simplified plastic toys"
>>26311171
newer pokemon are 10 times easier to draw then older pokemon because of the simplistic linework
>>26311377
>>26311404
Well, I dunno, Weepinbell, all I heard was just "bitch"
>>26311342
okay, make a chart of pokemon with the same species from old gen compared to new gen then to prove ops picture wrong if its so cherrypicked.
>>26305903
No, I'm pretty sure the Simpsons got worse. I watch the reruns on Sky 1 and Channel 4 all the time and I can definitely say that the ones that don't use skeletons are animated much better and are funnier.
You know every time I see this thread I never get an explanation of just why one should consider realism aesthetically superior or simplicity aesthetically inferior. It's the whole premise of these images but the premise itself is unproven and if I don't accept these assumptions the argument has no merit beyond 'hey they're different', which proves nothing.
>>26311404
>>26311434
cherry picking
>>26311418
its not that simple anon. its actually reversed in a way
>>26311454
Just doing what OP did.
>>26306194
Look at this denial fag in damage control.
Every one point and laugh at this faggot!
hahahaha.
>>26311454
Yes, of course, if it's the newgen who does it, it's cherry picking
Here's another newgen with detailed leaves AND petals. Get fucked
>>26311446
because when fighting animals you train look more realistic and less like toys you become more invested and they generally look better.
>>26311485
>ops image is cherry picked
bullshit, lets see you take a list of all the similar series pokemon and compare how "EVERYTHING IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS ALWAYS IN TERMS OF ART DESIGN SINCE GEN 1-2"
i honestly can't tell if you are blind or just stupid
>>26311489
>detailed leaves
lol is that a joke?
>>26311404
>>26311434
>>26311489
Is there a party, guys?
Oh, it's OP's suck-a-dick party. Maybe my berries can satisfy him?
>>26311342
This
Thread summary:
>Cherry picking to the point the fields are barren as fuck. No cherries left to pick in these fields.
>If you don't agree with muh factualopinions ur a faggot
I've seen better arguments had between kindergartners.
>>26311540
>Lilligant's arm leaves aren't detailed because they just have one line in between them
>but Oddish'a crown of leaves are despite being THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING
>>26311508
What about something with no real life basis?
>>26311525
>i honestly can't tell if you are blind or just stupid
Maybe because you yourself are blind and stupid?
It's a good job I love cherries.
>>26311404
>>26311434
>>26311489
>>26311540
>>26311541
>>26311566
Who ordered detailed salad?
>>26306044
Genwunners tend to be retarded normies, so they barely know anything beyond a few animals, so even when Pokemon have completely different inspirations, they just bunch them up in stupid groups to judge them.
>>26311609
THey tend to also think that foxes are dogs
Look, ma! I can shitpost with no hands!
>>26311508
Your grammar is a little stilted but I understand what you are saying, however I must ask why should this be applicable to Pokemon; after all these are Pocket Monsters should it really matter how realistic it is? Also saying they 'generally look better' is not an argument as it does not explain WHY they look better, which is the intrinsic question of aesthetics, also it's a case of anonymous authority or weasel wording as you're applying a vague generalization with the impression that it is a specific point.
This does not mean your opinion is wrong, but you cannot assert it as 'right' with this as proof.
>>26311401
>farfetch'd
>proper linework, realistic and non toy like anatomy
Kill yourself.
>>26311560
>despite being THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING
I bet OP thinks these aren't detailed--but Oddish's crown and Bellsprout's "hands" are
>>26311508
Sure, looks win battles.
>>26311716
like i said there are some examples of good design in the newer gens but it is rare. this is why op's image is of pokemon of similar species compared side by side, it does away with cherrypicking for objectivism
>>26311744
>he still thinks this is cherrypicking when more than half a dozen cases have been brought up
Kys
>>26311744
>similar species
Again, read >>26311342
>>26311793
i'm waiting for another image of every similar species pokemon side by side.
its seriously ridiculous you think pokemon design linework has gotten more realistic. you are blind
>>26311807
>you don't agree with me, which must mean you believe the opposite of what I do
>>26311342
its not about the amount of tentacles its about HOW THE POKEMON IS DRAWN. its not about the concept or what the pokemon is of its about the EXECUTION OF THE IDEA AND DESIGN. this is something you tastless "later gen design is not toy like/more plasticy" idiots will never understand.
leave the discussion to grown ups who actually have an eye for design choices. you obviously aren't bright enough to have proper taste
Holy fuck, 90% of the posters in this thead deserve the gas chambers.
There's good and shit designs in every gen.
>>26311377
>comparing pokemon with single digit leaves to ones with hundreds
>>26311854
Ok, if it is about how the pokemon is drawn, then what is the problem with how it's drawn? Are you mad that is simple, because if that's it than that's because the ACTUAL animal looks more simple than the type of jellyfish tentacruel is based off.
Are you going to just get vaguer keep your point?
>>26305903
Wow it's almost like different artists designed older and newer Pokemon.
It's like getting mad that comic book characters look better or worse based on artist.
>>26311854
How the fuck will you and your "eye for design" draw a pokemon based on that specific jellyfish. Go on gramps, let's see it. And for your FYI, I fucking started with Gen1 and you should kys for being an elitist
Pic related has been my collection since RBY days
>>26311860
Except that's what we are trying to say but OP is adamant it's just the old gen that's good
>STILL shitting on pokemon designs
Fine, get a bigger load of it
>>26311941
>look at how much pokemon stuff i have i started with gen 1
nigga i know pokemon 10 times better than you, pic related is my shit. i can honestly say you know jack shit about pokemon if you don't see the design curve of the later gens
What does the amount of merchandise you own have anything to do with how well you know pokemon
>>26311990
My point was not how much I have but WHEN I started. And you keep reversing the burden of proof on us when we have been giving you evidence after evidence and counter after counter.
You keep throwing vague shit about your eye for design like who the fuck can prove and keep moving goalpost and are yet to answer >>26311932 and my actual question on >>26311941
>>26311990
Why isn't Pokemon Emerald with Ruby and Sapphire?
>>26311990
>STILL can't prove shit
Why are you niggas even replying to this troll?
>>26306447
platypus has a beaver like tail, that's no platypus
>>26312196
>>26311652
Well, I'm waiting for your rebuttal of this. If you cannot prove your premise then don't assert it as a fact.
>>26305903
>half the complaints are that Gen V designs are too complicated
>the other half are complaints that Gen V designs are too simple
Lolllll, imagine being this butthurt
>>26311932
not him, but
Tentacruel is decent design executed nicely. Its body is detailed, it's not two or three basic shapes mashed up together, colors aren't bland or excessive for what it is bound to represent.
Idea behind this pokemon is good, as it is based of Man-o'-war animal.
Jellicent consists basically of huge blob surrounded by exaggerated moustache/ruche, and even their lower, tiny body, which actually seem to be given more care than head, consist of flat lineart which very, VERY loosely resemble jellyfish tentacles.
Idea behind this pokemon is fine, as it's meant to resemble Japanese ghost known for stylish look, but way in which it was done is subpar.
>>26305903
Everytime i see this post it fills me with cringe. It goes for such easy targets. It doesn't touch things like TalonFlame or Pidgeot. Evolutions in earlier game's most times are just getting bigger
>>26305903
Did someone just defend Jynx?
>>26306016
because Muk, Mr Mime, and Electabuzz are shit I see in everyday life
Pokemon was simple back in the day because of hardware limitations,
>>26312312
But Jellicent looks exactly like its original >>26311342 only adding eyes, a crown, and the tentacles having a level of detail that no Pokemon had, has or will ever have. The ring was transformed into a moustache to give the idea of male, but it still looks exactly like the original.
If we want to talk Tentacruel, "it's not two or three basic shapes mashed up together"? Really? The black ball wearing a helmet with three other balls? Has nothing "detail" when compared to a real man'-o-war.
>>26312017
Do you happen to know the source on this image? I really like the design.
If you hate the new designs so much, just stop playing. There are plenty of games I don't like as much as I did when I was younger, but I don't go on their boards and talk shit for literally no reason. It seems like a huge waste of time. I just focus on the games I actually like.
>>26312448
>The black ball wearing a helmet with three other balls?
If this is what you see looking at Tentacruel, then I am afraid to think what you see looking at traffic lights
also back to Jellicent
>imperfect central part
>lel bubble with eyes
>not so distinct from central part ring with internal 'organs' visible
>lel comedic 'stache
>several feelers with varied structure and surface
>lel squid hands
>>26312499
could you stop baiting?
you're literally worse than >>26309460
>>26312549
How is it bait? I legitimately don't understand what this thread is trying to do? Convince others to dislike the game? Convince others to hate new Pokemon? There seems to be no real point.
Op, I agree with you on everything. But you'll never convince the people here of what you're saying and you're only making yourself angrier by being in this thread. You're correct, but it doesn't matter for the others. Just keep it to yourself and let the others enjoy their shitty new designs.
>>26312588
Maybe...
Convince others that there is steady decline in how much effort and quality is put into turning pokemon from ideaswhich actually preserve ratio of great/good/meh across all generationsto actual artwork and design?
Thanks for reminding me how shitty /co/ really is.
>>26312637
And what will that accomplish? Nothing.
>>26311854
>leave the discussion to grown ups who actually have an eye for design choices. you obviously aren't bright enough to have proper taste
I always hated this meme, but: *tips fedora*
>>26312637
Well you convinced me good OP! I was planing on choosing which game to get based on version exclusives but now I've seen the light. The new Pokemon are going to be shit no matter what, so why waste my money? Thank you for exposing my bad taste so that I may redeem myself by not buying into this shit anymore.
Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go flagellate myself because my favorite Pokemon happens to be a shitty newgen. Back to good ol' Charizard from now on.
>>26306990
As an artist, your style is bound to change over time. Whether you want it to or not.
And yeah, like >>26307118 said, last one isn't even his.
Are you just going to ignore me? Look all I want is for the premise to be proven, otherwise what's the point of showing that the designs are different?
>>26312702
Nothing, but several people starting to pass idea further and further, to the point where people conscious of this decline are capable of actually affecting merchandise sale on noticeable scale, and passing memo to GF that they can't be lazy anymore
>>26312717
0,75/8 made me give (you)
>>26312775
Is that meant to be a 0.75 out of 8? Was the last paragraph pushing it?
>>26312043
Emeralds good
>>26312775
Well, tell us how you would improve the designs. Take a pokemon you complained about, and redraw it to fit your preference. You know so much about pokemon design, it's gonna prove to all of us how you're right and we're wrong.
Do it faggot
>>26312766
Anon, stop taking this thread seriously.
It's obviously just genwars and funposting.
There is no point. Go home.
>>26312881
>not him
which part of this can't you understand?
My only on topic input in this thread is >>26312312 >>26312549 and >>26306942
Oh, you thought y'all facing one douchy faggot who can't into discussions?
Welp, bad for you.
Guys just stop replying to such an obvious troll. You're just bumping his thread.
>>26312939
Alright, we'll have a discussion.
>Tentacruel is decent design executed nicely. Its body is detailed, it's not two or three basic shapes mashed up together, colors aren't bland or excessive for what it is bound to represent.
Idea behind this pokemon is good, as it is based of Man-o'-war animal.
How the flying fuck does Tentacruel resemble this in any way?
>lel black orb + angry eyes
>lel oversimplified noodle tentacles that clutter the design (seriously, you're complaining about jellicent's tentacles?)
>jelly orbs out of nowhere
also back to jellicent
it's obviously a lot more faithful to its real-life counterpart than tentacruel. here's a secret: jellyfish aren't complex animals. i'm shocked you'd even complain about jellicent's tentacles when tentacruel's tentacles are less faithful and more simplified. the fact that it's also inspired by a yokai give the designers more leeway to make it cartoony. the "squid hands" resemble a cape and add to the regal theme. also, its colour scheme is fantastic and does a way better job at conveying translucence than those goddamned jelly orbs. i actually agree (!) that jellicent would be better if its lower half was a bit more complex and had some kind of "robish" feel with the tentacles stretching off but with the way it is it looks more "humanized" and potentially adds to the creepiness. weird how i can look at this jellyfish and actually tell that jellicent's inspired from it.
>>26313245
>>26305903
The difference could also be due to the globalization of the game. The older designs feel more Japanese - natured inspired objects with muted, natural colors and subtle, effective details. Having appeal to a world wide audience these days means that the design incorporate other cultural values on beauty. Bright colors and simple lines are probably safe bets when trying to broaden appeals.
>>26305979
Bullshit. I couldn't give two fucks about how many angles and lines a Pokémon has, as long as it looks appealing.
Literally an ice cream cone is neither appealing. Its concept does not make up for it. "Oh, dude, it's like, icefall, it just LOOKS like ice cream"? That's not clever. Who wants to have a talking "icefall" anyway? And who cares what you say it is when it clearly looks like an ice cream cone?
Garbodor is cool though. He is a well thought-out design, and people's reason for disliking him is seriously "ew, but garbage is gross!" as if that wasn't the whole point of the Pokémon. Not all Pokémon have to be cute or huggable, and it's bullshit hating on him because it's disgusting.
>>26313245
In my honest opinion quality of pokemon idea depends on ingenuity and innovativeness of scheme used to create pokemon.
Quality of design execution is based on how well it conveys theme or idea, and how good it alludes to source material used to translate idea into pokemon.
Tentacruel is based loosely on Portugese man-o-war, while latter owes its name to its shape resembling helmets of Renaissance infantry. So it is natural that Tentacruel looks like helmeted creature. Also, instead of simple shape, that helmet is detailed, as it has undulating brim, and merges suggesting that it's made of different parts.
Also, some of man-o-wars possess red or crimson colored regions inside it's body, which may be the origin of red blobs on head, which also aren't simple spheres, but have inner shading showing off depth of those structures.
Tentacles, while not truly based on source, resemble feelers that several of jellyfish species have.
Based on that, Tentacruel is decent design made from nice idea.
Jellicent is based on several jellyfish species, and probably also certain Japanese folklore creature. In my opinion it hardly evokes either of them. Jellyfishness of this design bases on blobby head lacking in detail, bar the crown, and tentacles that are more squid like and diverge from source material further than Tentacruel does. Using wavy and a bit jagged arms like dozens of jellies have would be better at conveying both jelly and regal theme. Instead of flat shaped and flat colored ' squid arms', detailed feelers would also make it look better. 'Stache and frill are also flat, without any subtleties in their composition. Eyes are kinda good, and though I'd argue about colors used, reversing them in other gender looks neat.
Based on that, I find Jellicent rather poor execution of far more alluring and creative idea.
Don't get me wrong, I like several new pokemon. I am just mad, that e.g. Fennekin is doomed to forever be two tiers below what it could and should be.
>>26305903
>ignores magnimite
>ignores Porygon2
>ignores electrode
>ignores other g6 Pokes
>ignores any good g3 + designs
>ignores bad g1/g2 designs
fucking cry more 90sfag
>>26314080
>>26306942
bait harder
>>26306176
>y-yuh chairy picking...
>>26306942
Diglett is pretty much enough.
>>26314334
for what?
To prove that also Genwun had it issues?
Hell yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Then stop playing pokemon fucking genwunners, don't shit on newer gens.
A true pokemon fan appreciates every gen and design, and will keep liking the franchise until the end.
I'm into pokemon since Gen l and there's a lot of new pokemon I like, as well there's a few I don't.
Gamefreak isn't doing anything wrong, if you don't like it then GTFO, nobody will miss you.
>>26314354
Not to prove that it has "issues", but that it has the same issues. For every complex feather and fur there's a sausage limb and simplified shape.
>>26314639
count bad pokemon in original 151.
I'll be amused if you somehow get more than 50.
count bad pokemon in Kalos.
I'll be even more amused if you get less than 20
>>26314695
Admittedly there aren't that very many bad pokémon in gen1, but I honestly can't find one that has no redeeming qualities in gen 6, bar maybe Binacle
>>26314730
>redeeming qualities
all 'bad' pokemon have redeeming qualities, they're bad just because they need redeeming qualities.
>>26306134
Christ you're a retard. If you can't speak English, don't post at all, viadinho.
>>26314695
That is actually not a fair comparison, number wise. And don't go "Oh but 1/3 each!" because there are few Pokemon in any gen that are bad.
That said, I only really disliked the icebergs, and only a little bit.
>>26314781
It is far comparison if main accusation is "share of 'meh' designs is increasing each gen"
Also I do not care about what you like or not, I am speaking about designs that scream 'for love of god, FIX ME!'
>>26306232
All that does is show how much better Pangoro is than Ursaring.
>>26314832
desu I worded myself poorly
it should be
>It is fair comparison if main accusation is "share of 'meh' designs has vastly increased since original batch ran out"
>>26314695
I'll be even MORE amused if i named these "bad" Pokemon, because no matter what you would object. Not to mention if i called the "bad" Kalos mons not bad, that would be amusement maximus.
There's no winning for either side, ever.
>>26311939
Remove the dumb leg spikes and gen 4 charizard isn't too bad.
>different us worse! Waaah!
Most of the new ones are more creative as well. The old pokemon were just animals.
Many of the new ones look imaginative. You don't have to like every design. I sure hope you don't.
>>26314962
>because no matter what you would object.
maybe
>if i called the "bad" Kalos mons not bad, that would be amusement maximus.
probably
>There's no winning for either side, ever.
There is.
GF stops being lazy/disheartened and allows us to get fine pokemon that you may like or not, but can't argue they're properly designed
>>26314985
>implying anyone but radical genwuns thinks so
0.75/8
>>26314985
This.
There's nothing wrong with new gens in terms of design. Gen VI had plenty of good ones, a few bad ones, just like most gens.
