I'm digging most of the new Pokemon so far but man, can we agree that the artwork quality has reached a new low this gen? Pikipek has to be the worst offender of this, especially compared to some of the early birds from the previous generations. Would it really hurt them that much to add talons to it's legs? To make the tufts on it's head and the chest actually look like they're made of feathers? To draw the wings with more than three feathers? I'm not asking for Rembrandt tier masterpieces here, just a little bit of effort that would seperate these drawings from shit I used to scribble in my notebook when I was 12.
Also, feel free to discuss Pokemon artworks in general I guess.
I don't know I'm liking the new artstyle. Make the pokemon seem more vibrant.
Pidgey is literally just a bird
>>26760649
Pikipek has talons, are you blind? Do you even know what are anisodactyls, didactyls configurations and such?
A woodpecker does not have the same toe configuration as a pigeon.
>>26760649
To be fair, each region's main bird is based off a different bird each time. Some have more noticeable or distinguished features than others. Pikipek's based off a woodpecker, so there's no reason for unique talons.
>>26760649
>shit I used to scribble in my notebook when I was 12
post said shit for comparison.
>>26760663
What makes them seem more vibrant? The colors? With the black/red color palette Pikipek is as generic of a woodpecker as it gets.
>>26760667
And so is Pikipek. Thats not even the problem I wanted to touch upon here. As they say, the devil is in the detail.
It's a common trend sadly. Sugimoris art has gone to shit.
Just compare these two pony pokemon. Keldeo looks like a fucking balloon animal, all glossy and shiny and round edges anywhere and the awful cartoon eyes. It looks like a neopet.
Ponyta on the other hand has nice detailing on its legs and muscles, realistic fire and "real" eyes and looks like an actual animal
>I'm not asking for Rembrandt tier masterpieces here, just a little bit of effort
Non-artfags still think that drawing realistic takes more effort than drawing stylized.
Non-artfags don't realize that good stylized art comes after the artist has mastered realistic anatomy
>>26760649
This is is a Hummingbird, instead of based off a pigeon,
But I agree that the art has gone downhill, it has after gen 1.
This is the stylization of pokemon now, it has been for a long time,
this is a stylized hummingbird.
>>26760708
Sugimori's barely drawing any of the Pokemon art at this point.
You can easily see the difference between his Magearna and Ohmura's everything else.
I personally just don't like the head being over 50% of its total mass. It's fuckugly. Like a baby with wings. Pokemon isn't SD.
>>26760714
They're still easily impressed by youtube videos of Bryan Cranston portraits
It's not their fault, anon.
>>26760714
I can attest to this as a drawfag.
>can we agree
No we can't agree because /vp/ is full of shitters that gobble up shit, don't waste your time.
>>26760672
I'm not an expert on bird anatomy so I googled woodpecker leg and I can see talonsor claws? not a native english speaker so I might be confusing the termspretty damn clear here. Pikipek leg doesn't have talons/claws on it's official artwork, the leg just kinda extends into four featureless digits and thats it. It just looks really lazily drawn especially when compared to some of the gen 1 designs such as Pidgey.
>>26760724
Magearna is over-designed. And just as 'round' as the gen 7 mon you condemn
>>26760678
Wish I could but I know the thread would instantly derail into my past self's lack of artistic skills
>>26760755
If you're talking about toenails then yes, Pipikek isn't drawn with them.
Though I wonder why you're using the updated artwork instead of the original artwork when pidgey was first drawn.
>>26760755
>lazily
It takes no effort for them to add claws anon, they could have drawn a line. It's not like the artist forgot birds have claws; it was an obvious design choice. In character design, you generally don't add claws/spiky shapes/scary eyes/pointy ears etc. to something that's supposed to look cute.
The designers of pokemon obviously don't stick to this train of thought for EVERY design but it's clear to see the curly lines on the cute mons and spiky shapes on the "scary" ones.
>>26760714
>realistic
When did I ask for realistic drawings in Pokemon you faggot? Neither Pidgey nor Pikipek are realistic, it's just the latter was drawn like shit and that's it.
Not even a genwunner but there is a reason people (even on /vp/) still cite gen 1 Pokemon as the most well designed batch of Pokemon of all time. With the direction the series is taking I don't see it changing anytime soon.
>>26760813
But I actually like gen 2 more. Gen 1 designs are just bland, and some of them are questionable/truly lazy.
>>26760724
He has been watching too much digimon
>>26760733
This so much
>>26760649
>shit I used to scribble in my notebook when I was 12.
I doubt my old me can draw a nice pikipek but the old, child me can easily draw electrode, magneton, ditto and dragonair.
>It's a "people who don't know anything about art and design talk about art and design" episode
>>26760755
because it's not a woodpecker, it's a hummingbird.
also, talons and claws are two words for the same thing. It's only a talon on a bird.
a Cat has claws, not talons, a Eagle has talons, not claws. they are the same thing, but one word if for when applied to birds, one is when applied to not birds.
>>26760813
You're advocating for pikipek to have more feathers, more claws, more obviously realistic features than its current design and you compare it to the blandness that is pidgey, a design from back when they were hesitant to simplify/stylize their designs (not that it's their fault; it was the 80's and they were relatively new). I love pidgey but come on.
>but there is a reason people (even on /vp/) still cite gen 1 Pokemon as the most well designed batch of Pokemon of all time
If you haven't noticed, these people are in the minority on /vp/.
>>26760792
BIRDS DON"T HAVE CLAWS, THEY HAVE TALONS
>>26760851
You don't have to be a cook to know the dish you're eating isn't tasty, do you?
>>26760813
>there is a reason people (even on /vp/) still cite gen 1 Pokemon as the most well designed batch of Pokemon of all time
Yeah, its shit taste combined with nostalgia blinding them of anything new and different
>>26760860
>Pokemon
>80s
uw0tm8
What do you think Pikipek would look like if it was gen 1 styled and had proper anatomy?
>>26760851
>NO, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. YOU THINK IT LOOKS LIKE SHIT, BUT AS AN ARTIST, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S ACTUALLY BRILLIANT AND YOUR OPINION IS WRONG.
>ALSO PLEASE GIVE ME MONEY I'M SO FUCKING HUNGRY WHY DIDN'T I MAJOR IN ENGINEERING
>>26760851
This guy is saying the truth >>26760866 You have to be a chef to state you like chicken, instead of beef, or broccoli, instead of squash? That you have to be a chef to think that chicken is better roasted, instead of boiled?
>>26760864
That's only on a bird of prey, not all birds you massive mongoloid. Don't even try to challenge my stupidly large and unnecessary knowledge of birds.
>>26760866
You have to be a cook to know how to make it taste good.
>>26760880
Not shit.
>>26760884
That's the super huge claws that bird of prey have, but a smaller bird, say a parrot, they aren't referred to as claws, they are referred to as talons.
>>26760884
all birds have talons you cocksucker, what bird has claws?
>>26760889
Pikipek looks fine you fag
>>26760880
Generic and boring but more realistic with some absurd 90's expression.
>>26760877
I was of the understanding that the first gen pokemon were designed before the 90's but feel free to correct me.
>>26760880
fat and like a farfetch'd
>>26760887
No shit, and this is a rebuttal to that?
You're not allowed to critic the chef if food is too salty or too bland?
>go into restaurant
>steak is burnt and sooty
>call chef and complain
>"If you're so good at complaining, why don't you cook steak yourself? You have no right to critic me"
>>26760906
You wish, faggot.
talon
[tal-uh n]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a claw, especially of a bird.
>>26760904
>>26760903
>>26760917
>A talon is the claw of a bird of prey, its primary hunting tool.[6] The talons are very important; without them, most birds of prey would not be able to catch their food. Some birds also use claws for defensive purposes. Cassowaries use claws on their inner toe (digit II) for defence, and have been known to disembowel people. All birds however have claws, which are used as general holdfasts and protection for the tip of the digits.
Talon and claw is interchangeable except on raptors. Regular birds have claws. This is why you first learned "talon" when you passed by the eagle exhibit at the zoo and not the pigeon exhibit.
>>26760714
Clearly you're not a good artist since you can't handle criticism of one's "style".
>bad artists hide behind their "style" to avoid criticism
>>26760915
I'm so sorry you have such shit taste anon.
>>26760841
younger you can draw near perfect circles?
i cant even do that now.
>>26760939
Even seen these things before?
>>26760936
This thread confirms that you're the only one with shit taste, and even shittier opinions.
>>26760649
I feel the same. The designs aren't bad, but you can't deny that Pokemon has become more cartoonish in general. But there were of course still cartoony Pokemon earlier on, especially in gen 2.
>>26760860
>If you haven't noticed, these people are in the minority on /vp/
If you visit any thread that asks you to list your favorite game generation AND Pokemon generation seperately, you'll actually find out that most people list gen 1 as the best or second best in the second category. Clearly GameFreak had to be doing something right if two decades later people still call their original, not nearly as "artistic and stylized" designs the best.
>>26760935
I'm well acquainted with the existence of the "muh style" degenerates. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference from a design based on background knowledge of anatomy from something drawn by a deviantautist.
>deflecting criticism on something I didn't draw
???
>>26760954
How so?
>it's an "anon spergs about muh gen 1 designs but nonetheless will buy every fucking game that comes out" episode
>>26760959
That's probably because no one actually visits those threads except autists; no one seriously cares what people's favourite generation or pokemon or flavour of pancake is.
Why do pipipek look so superior? Gen 1 a shit.
>>26760691
>As they say, the devil is in the detail.
And the detail on Pidgey makes it look generic as fuck instead of a cartoon monster.
That's the problem a lot of generation 1 and 2 pokemon had.
>>26760759
Magearna is the right amount of designed to be honest. It's got just the right amount to say "This is a machine that was made in an older society" without being as over-designed as that theme could be.
Everything was more ornate and decorative in the past. Just look at the buildings. Everything now is designed to be quick to build and cheap to build, an iPod manufactured in the fifteenth century would have engravings on the back, and be gilded on the edges.
Magearna has just the right amount of gilding and decoration.
>>26760998
>it's right
no it's not, you're just biased because it's made by sugimori
>>26760985
No one cares but somehow the threads of this kind consitently hit autosage, huh? I don't care much what generations random anons like, but some trends are clearly noticeable.
>>26760989
This. As I said, pokemon designs in the first gen are still dabbling with stylization based on real animals. It's a transitional stage you can spot in a lot of animes that typically don't draw animals.
The further you get in the generations, the more you see the designers try to identify the key features of different animal species and exaggerate them rather than focus on drawing realistic knobbly knees and muscles.
>>26761003
Please most people don't even care who designed it.
Fact of the matter is that Magearna lies in that crevasse between gen 1 simplicity and gen 4 clutter creating the perfect balance of detail and coherency to match the cartoon style of the series while getting its inspiration across to the viewer.
>>26761007
I restate my previous reply.
>>26761021
>ad populum
I'm telling you YOU do.
>>26761021
Speak for yourself, faggot. Your opinion is shit.
>>26761029
And I'm telling you that most people INCLUDING ME don't give a shit.
Hell I'm not even the anon you were arguing with in the first place.
>>26761049
And I'm telling you YOU do. And you're at fault for resorting to ad hominem
>>26760649
I think the worst bird design wise is still flechling- His art looks flat. It looks like a drawing.
>>26761015
That's all that op was trying to say. He wasn't saying newer ones are bad, but they're going for a more exaggerated, stylized look over the semi-realistic look from gen 1.
>>26761052
>>26761049
>>26761029
>>26761061
>I'm digging most of the new Pokemon so far but man, can we agree that the artwork quality has reached a new low this gen?
>>26760989
Generic=/=bad
People enjoy familiarity, it makes the Pokemon easier to relate to. Tyrantrum was one of the most popular Pokemon last gen despite the fact that it was literally just my mom's T-rex. This is Pokemon, a children video game franchise, nobody's going to care what kind of epic obscure reference the artist had in mind when adding a random red line that makes an otherwise fine design look overdesigned and shitty.
>>26761052
You can't tell me what I care about and don't care about anon. I didn't even know that Sugi made the damn thing until today you retard.
Jesus Christ.
>>26761068
>what is reading comprehension
>>26761072
>Generic=/=bad
Generic is always bad in a fantasy setting, people want to see something outstanding and fresh rather than safe and sound.
After all the thing people like about Pokemon is the variety of the monsters, if you begin to make them all generic you lose the main thing people enjoy about the series.
After that you might as well just go bird watching because you're seeing the same things but in real life.
>overdesigned
Oh so you're one of those shitposters.
You do realise that this is meaningless jargon right? Nothing can be over or under designed. The word you're looking for is cluttered and even then it doesn't apply to recent designs because all of their design aspects mesh together rather than stand out individually.
Understand?
>>26761072
>Tyrantrum was one of the most popular Pokemon last gen despite the fact that it was literally just my mom's T-rex.
Considering they snuck feathers onto it after the disaster of dinosaur representation that was Jurassic Park, that's not quite true.
Don't mind me. Keep arguing you kids.
In the picture, a bird and a mon.
>>26761072
>Tyrantrum was one of the most popular Pokemon last gen despite the fact that it was literally just my mom's T-rex.
But it wasn't just a T-rex anon so that kind of just goes against your point.
>>26761098
Feathers are in "my moms T-rex" territory now that we know most dinosaurs had them.
>>26761135
Are you seriously going on a technicality? Especially when it was based on the T-rex without feathers?
>>26761135
You'd be surprised when it comes to the dumbed-down general public's idea of the t-rex.
>>26760724
>You can easily see the difference between his Magearna and Ohmura's everything else.
Considering that Magearna is probably the ugliest new Pokémon so far, that has not won me over.
>>26761109
>But it wasn't just a T-rex anon
Guess what? Nobody cares. People liked it because it was a T-rex that looked like a T-rex, period. I'm willing to bet 90% of people who like Tyrantrum can't name the inspiration(s) behind the design. Not that it's a necessarily a bad thing.
>there are people who deny that gen wun had fantastic designs
>designs good enough to literally carry the entire franchise for a decade
>a generation good enough that the mascot of the series has yet to be changed
>>26761180
Are you an idiot or something?
There's no hidden inspirations in it's design but it's not "just a T-rex" in the same way Pidgey was just a bird or Charizard was just a dragon.
Why do you think that just because something has one design inspiration that it's generic? Many pokemon have one inspiration and they still haven't reached the levels of generic in Gen 1.
>>26761180
>>26761218
Actually tyrantrum's feather king's beard and cape and horn crown are pretty genius and a good example of the simplistic exaggeration that the newer gens have been aiming for.
>>26761198
>>designs good enough to literally carry the entire franchise for a decade
Except they petered out after a few years and now people only remember Charizard, Pikachu, Mewtwo and Meowth. You'd be hard pressed to find any genwunners or casuals that know the rest.
>>a generation good enough that the mascot of the series has yet to be changed
Did it ever occur to you that it may be because it's an easy recognizable symbol?
It's the same reason why Mario and Sonic are still the mascots of Nintendo and Sega respectively. They're faces known throughout time that people associate instantly with the business.
>>26761242
>>26761242
That's what I'm talking about, it's more than just a generic T-rex but it doesn't over step the boundaries and become cluttered as fuck.
>>26761250
>Except they petered out after a few years
compared to the timeless designs from gen 3 onward?
Pokemon became popular with the first generation. Obviously there is merit to that.
What about this, OP?
Took details from Spearow and Pidgey and tried to make them fit on Pikipek.
>>26760855
>>26760723
pikipek is a woodpecker. hummingbirds do not peck.
>Muh realisim
>New Pokemon are too over-designed
>New Pokemon are too under-designed
>>26760649
>I'm digging most of the new Pokemon so far but man, can we agree that the artwork quality has reached a new low this gen? Pikipek has to be the worst offender of this, especially compared to some of the early birds from the previous generations
Hahaha, yeah no. Gen 2 is still the worst offender at EVERYTHING.
These are "wings".
>>26760649
>this gen
everything I saw from this gen is amazing, the last 3 gens were a fucking mess
>inb4 ruby memes
>>26761621
now THIS
is what I would call [/spoiler]__overdesigned__no but seriously, I really like pidgey, but the weird spikes used to emulate feathers on gen 1 birds were always a little off. it's true that most designs nowadays are more cartoony and simple (although genwunners will always complain about certain new pokemon being overdesigned while others being too simple) the old designs are just bland in my opinion. most were just based on an animal with barely any changes compared to their real life counterpart, and others were so boring that even their imitations pulled off the concept better (see grimer/muk-trubbish/garbodor and voltorb/electrode-foongus/amoongus)
tl;dr gen 1 was good in its own way, but the later gens were just as, if not better
>>26761621
I actually like this quite a bit
>>26761077
Something you evidently lack, OP is very obviously using those points to claim the original designs are superior.
new bird pretty good in early game
stab fury attack with skill link
>>26761621
The detail around the eye is unnecessary but otherwise your edit makes my genwunner heart jump with joy. Think you could make a gen1ified edit of Yungoose too?
>>26760649
You can go fuck yourself.
When this thing was released everyone was complaining about it because it was literally their mom's pigeon.
Then they make animals even more cartoony to differentiate them better from real life BUT now you want them to look more like your mom's bird again.
You autist don't know what you want, they could release Charmander today and you would complain it doesn't have the same "feeling" as gen 1.
>>26761885
Here's an updated version with the original eye feathers.
>>26760998
Looks like a Zelda character
>>26761916
"My mom's X" wasn't a meme before 2013, stop talking out of your ass. Most people were fine with Pidove.
>>26762005
I still see people shitting on the entire pidove line frequently.
>>26761995
I don't care what anyone else says, it's perfect. Saved for future reference.
>>26761781
This, gen 2 is shit
>>26761072
>nobody's going to care what kind of epic obscure reference the artist had in mind
Apparently I'm nobody. I love much more the clever designs with interesting references than literally my mom's dragon.
But apparently all Pokemon should be generic designs because some people just like those designs, right?
>>26760649
You are aware that for a franchise to stay healthy for 20 years it will have to adapt right?
Oh wow another thinly veiled genwunner thread.
Kill yourself.
>>26762036
>>26761781
Hey no, these Pokemon have TALONS
>I can't fuck it
Come on it can take it
>>26762044
>some people
More like most people.
Most people have very simple tastes, yes. They'd rather eat at McD abroad or cook their favorite food than taste some of the local cuisine. Sorry for another food analogy but the same logic applies to Pokemon designs. Dragons and dogs sell, while shit like Jynx (an interesting japanese pop culture parody) ends up being shunned.
We want realism when the head is fucking bigger than the body, I thought these were supposed to be living things
>>26762181
Hopefully it evolves into something with more neck power
>>26762005
Pidove and the rest of its line are the most hated birds so you're wrong
>>26762211
Not really hated, more like forgotten. Talonflame gets a lot more hate for its bravest burd shenanigans.
>this entire thread
>>26762247
OC?
>>26762122
Still the wings are shit
>>26760851
Thanks for weighing in with your informed and enlightening opinion.
>>26762104
Degrading is not adapting.
Yea Ive been drawing fakemon for years and can name 11 artists including myself that wouldve executed better designs for these ideas. Not just referring to the lineart and design but also the coloring. Looks like pop promo art for the anime or Pokemon Shuffle.
>>26762359
Post your work.
I like the new art and think the simplistic cartoony style fits the overall feel of the game better than the semi-realistic anatomy of the old pokemon. Most of my favourite old pokemon like Starmie and Dragonite were like that despite being gen 1, and I never liked how washed out and pastel gen I's palette was.
>>26761995
This is really cute
These threads are so fucking repetitive and shitty.
Every time, the OP or whoever it is championing the gen 1 designs can only prove that the majority of gen 1 pokemon were more realistic and that newer pokemon are more stylized, but the argument never evolves past that. Not once, ever have I seen someone make a compelling argument for why the old designs were inherently better or stronger, only ever that they're simply different.
It gives me the feeling that most are just resentful of change. Gen I was your first gen, it's designs were your first exposure to pokemon and became the standard, so all the new pokemon and the evolving artstyle feel "wrong" purely because they're different. Little kids who's first games were gen IV or V probably feel the same way looking back at gen I and II after being exposed to the new pokemon first.
>it's different from my childhood, so it's objectively bad
>>26762169
Haha true. I every time my work sends me on a business trip, i only ever eat korean food
>>26762469
> Not once, ever have I seen someone make a compelling argument for why the old designs were inherently better or stronger, only ever that they're simply different.
You only really say that because you don't agree with it. Nothing will change your mind, that's why you dismiss any argument.
I acknowledge that the style of Pokemon has changed over the years.
But I like the change. Gen 1 Pokemon were great, and new gen Pokemon are great. Popplio and Pikipek are my favorites of gen 7.
>>26760649
>>26760708
>>26760759
>>26762036
>>26761781
>shitting on pokemon designs
A reminder to get a load of this and be grateful for what you have
>>26761995
Designed a later Pidgey. Apologies for sloppy drawing.
>>26762646
I like it a lot.
>>26760883
You don't have to be a chef to decide whether you like steak or not, however you do have to be a chef to go around telling other chefs how to cook their steak.
>>26762646
It's shit, at the very least draw it properly.
>>26762646
>>26761995
Finally people are starting to understand what I meant with this image years ago.
>>26760708
I never got the Keldeo/Ponyta comparison. Not that I'm defending Keldeo, good lord no, but simplistic looking pokemon and more 'anatomically correct' (for lack of a better term) pokemon with similar animal basis coexisting has always been a thing. I think the most extreme example I can think of are Charizard and Dragonite from gen 1. Let's not kid ourselves, those two are pretty much the exact same thing taken in two different directions. Dragonite is the Keldeo and Charizard is the Ponyta.
Even then it delves into evolution lines. Like Psyduck, who is literally just a bunch of circles, to Golduck, who has visible musculature and joints and a bill that isn't just a blob.
I mean, fuck, as far as being overly simplistic goes, yeah, Pikipek is far simpler from Pidgey. But separates Pikipek from the likes of Psyduck? Or Golbat? Poliwhirl? Horsea? These are all ridiculously simple designs made up of basic shapes and patterns, and nobody has a problem with them.
>>26762712
THIS , we need more realistic pokemon like butterfree.
>>26762712
>STILL shitting on pokemon designs
Fine, get a bigger load of it
>>26762714
Wow, the first paragraph is a really really interesting example. Nice post.
>>26762731
I never said gen 1 was perfect. It's just a fact that later gens have way too many dragonites.
>>26762778
You are exaggerating and generalizing.
>>26762762
> Simplify simplified Pokemon
New potential meme incoming
>>26761781
I was about to post this. This shit started immediately after gen 1, Pokemon became more cartoonish.
>>26762571
Fuck off with your memes
>>26762788
Show a single bird after gen 1 with as much rough detail as the Pidgey line.
Here, I'll save you the trouble and post the only one, which attests to my majority argument.
>>26762796
> This shit started immediately after gen 1
> When Muk and Electrode exists
>>26762822
Muk's art is extremely detailed for a Pokemon you dipshit. Ironically it's more detailed than the vast majority of post gen 1 Pokemon when it's just a fucking slime.
>>26762818
> Implying Mandibuzz is caroonish
>>26762818
I already posted that faggot pidove.
Also staraptor, talonflame, noctowl, ho-oh, etc.
>>26762646
Probably more like this.
>>26762822
I'm talking about birds and other animal-based Pokemon. My point being it's nothing new, so people should stop complaining. Gen 1 may have been the first but it's not the standard.
>>26762676
And that's different again how?
Shitty analogy - One is providing feedback, and the other is teaching. Providing criticism about how bad the steak is prepared is different from providing lessons on how to make the perfect steak.
With your infalliable logic, nobody is allowed to critic a movie, drawing, or food that is shit, or point out why and where did it go wrong.
>>26760851
>It's a "you're criticizing it so that just means you don't understand it" episode
>>26760855
Reminder that the only reason anyone thought it was a hummingbird is because of a fake leak that included a hummingbird Pokemon.
>>26762984
Kek, I like how you used raticate instead of rattata because it didn't fit your argument.
>>26762984
>posting gen 3 revisions
Every FUCKING TIME
>>26762916
If you don't know what you're talking about then you're critique is going to be shit.
You can go around "criticizing" whatever you want but without at least a basic understanding of what you're talking about then your opinion isn't going to be worth a damn.
When people "criticize" the new pokemon designs, it's usually really just a matter of personal preference rather than something objectively wrong with the design. I don't like onions on my food, but I don't go around telling people to stop eating onions.
>>26763023
>When people "criticize" the new pokemon designs, it's usually really just a matter of personal preference
That's what critiquing almost always is retard.
>>26762984
>head is oversized
so basically a dog
>>26763042
That's not at all what criticism is about. "I don't like it" is not critique.
>>26763061
Saying WHY you don't like it (which people are) is perfectly fine for a critique. Fuck off GF apologist.
>>26763023
So you treat providing subjective opinions and providing critic the same thing?
You're still dodging the "I'm not allowed to complain that my pork is raw because I don't have 5 Michelin Stars" argument.
>I don't like onions on my food, but I don't go around telling people to stop eating onions.
What does this reasoning have to do with anything?
>I don't like X pokemon either, but I don't go around telling people to stop playing that game because X pokemon is in it.
>>26762998
>>26762984
>>26762778
>shitting on pokemon designs
>in 2016
This is a toughie, how about a load of this?
>>26763071
Only when it's a valid reason. If I don't like a hamburger because it has onions on it, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the burger.
It's fine if you don't like the new pokemon designs, but you're not an art critic. People are acting like their personal tastes are objective metrics of quality.
>>26763083
The pork isn't raw though retard. Just because you don't like how something tastes doesn't mean there's something wrong with it.
>>26763099
>>26763111
You are allowed to say why you don't like the pokemon designs, even if you don't have a Masters in artwork.
You are allowed to say why a fanfiction from Deviantart is stupid, even if you don't have a phD in Literature.
Was it that hard to understand?
>>26763099
>Only when it's a valid reason
Not liking Pokemon because they're making the proportions cartoonier is a valid reason. You're not any better just because you happen to like the designs. Now fuck off GF apologist.
>>26762793
electrode is clearly overdesigned
>>26762951
>>26762712
>>26763111
So you're not allowed to complain if your spaghetti ravioli is too salty, spicy, sour or garlicy unless you're fucking Gordon Ramsay and you have to cook your own version of a spaghetti ravioli to prove your point? Wow.
>>26763124
>You are allowed to say why you don't like the pokemon designs, even if you don't have a Masters in artwork.
I never said you're not allowed to do that.
Let's look at OP's post:
>I'm digging most of the new Pokemon so far but man, can we agree that the artwork quality has reached a new low this gen?
>the artwork quality has reached a new low
Basically, because he doesn't like how they're designed, that means the quality is low.
He's not just saying he doesn't like them, he's saying they're objectively bad.
>>26762712
Nothing?
>>26763170
If the spaghetti is supposed to be spicy, then complaining that it's spicy is pretty stupid. That's what I'm saying.
>>26763167
oh my god its so cute
>>26763175
Well yes, I do agree with what you said.
He has provided no reason on why it's bad (on the OP) except that "I dislike it"
That isn't criticism, that's just treating his own opinion as fact.
>>26763191
Ever heard of the Scoville scale? Spiciness has different levels, and a jalapeno definitely has its spiciness at different intensity from like say, scorpion chilli, or cili padi.
>muh genwun that has only a handful of memorable mons
>no cartoons allowed only complex designs
>unless it's overdesigned then that's bad for some reason
>food analogies
these threads go nowhere fast
>>26763217
It's great that we can come to an agreement.
>>26763167
like this better than regular ponyta desu
>>26763221
The food analogy is only for the all-time stupidity "You don't have the right to critic artwork unless you're better" excuse.
>>26762998
Just sketches now, I'm getting tired.
>>26763221
Hence why genwars are against the rules
>>26763167
Only good thing about this thread.
>>26763167
I WANT IT
>>26760649
Please remember that not all birds look the same, so it would make no sense making each and every bird look the same as the previous one but with a palette swap.
>>26763248
I don't think anyone has made a "You don't have the right to critic artwork unless you're better" argument, that's just a straw man. The problem is that genwunners often conflate their personal tastes with objective fact.
you faggots need to understand that times change, kids no longer grow up in the 90's and gamefreak has to compete with brighter, more vibrant and deformed shit
and insert all of your possible anecdotal evidence like "my wife's son inside her womb enjoyed the older pokemon more than the newer ones!" up your asshole where it belongs
>>26763304
It's mostly this >>26760851 guy that I find problems with, even if I'm on his side.
>>26762731
>butterfree
>realistic butterfly
are you actually retarded?
>>26760708
>real" eyes
Maybe if ayyliums are real.
>>26763350
Just google horse eye.
>>26762951
needs a bigger head
>>26763167
that's just terrible all around
>>26763374
>not the same shape
>no visible eyelid
>no white sclera
>not even the fucking characteristic of the horse eye itself, the flat but long and weird shaped pupil
>not only that but Rapidash drops it for standard anime eyes like Keldeo's but "as an adult"
Ok.
>>26763374
You know, one could easily counter-argue and say that Keldeo's better than Ponyta simply because Keldeo's stylization makes it very memorable, as it hasthe motifs to D'Artagnan. The exaggeration also makes it an interesting character for the children to draw, and yet it still resembles a horse. One can tell that it's a water-type thanks to the colour blue, without shoving it right into the viewer's face.
Ponyta on the other hand, is literally just a horse with a firey. What makes it so special? What theme does it have? How is it an original theme and what makes it special? The realisticness makes it worse, as it makes it even more generic and unmemorable because it's almost no different to a real horse.
I'm surprised nobody here said that.
>>26763386
>>26763374
Pikachu's eyes look more like a horse eye than that.
>>26763461
>>26763167
These are really cute. Gen 1 redrawn game when?
>>26763456
Ponyta is more iconic due to its simplicity in design. The flaming mane works well, especially in artworks. You can visualize a herd of Ponyta with ease because it was created to fit in the wild. I don't see why you say it's generic.
Blue= Water is a bland reason really. It looks balloony and rubber-like, like a water balloon.
The style is what makes them different.
>>26763429
I prefer this, it's cute.
>>26760649
Now back to the original post. Why is Pikipek better than Pidgey?
First you must consider what the world of Pokemon is - a world with fantastical creatures that while has similar counterparts in the real world, are still vastly different.
What is the problem with Pidgey? It's the Ponyta problem again - it's literally nothing special, it's generic. You can put a couple of Pidgeys on the background in the Pokemon anime or manga and most people may not even notice it.
>>26763504
>Ponyta is more iconic
Would you truly, seriously use Ponyta more than Keldeo as Pokemon's mascot to introduce to a group of children that's new to the series?
Pokemon isn't the first company to invent a horse with a fiery mane. Nintendo can easily be lazy and make another uninspired horse with lightning for it's mane, or bubbles, your choice.
>>26763461
Make it angry.
Make the feathers on its chest triangular instead.
Add another feather on its tail.
>>26763548
>You can put a couple of Pidgeys on the background in the Pokemon anime or manga and most people may not even notice it.
Yes, that's why they're good designs. They were made to fit into the Pokemon "world". You're saying this like it's a bad thing.
You're right about that, as Keldeo is a legendary so it's used to be more individual and special, so giving it a more cluttered and brighter look will be more appealing for kids.
>>26763195
>>26763237
>>26763264
>>26763489
the fuck is wrong with yall
>>26763548
They did it
>>26763630
>Everyone has different opinions
Wow, who would have thought? Also is it really that surprising that that is drawn to look cute is called cute?
>>26763599
>They were made to fit into the Pokemon "world"
I probably should have explained better, my previous statement is pretty weak.
The problem with Pidgey? Get a photo of a sparrow, and add some crests to it, and you get a pidgey. I would say that's 'lazy design'
Growlithe and Seel as well are pretty lazy designs - just get a real animal and modify it slightly. Come to think of it, almost the entire RBY Pokemon minus the starters, Pikachu, Dratini-line and the legendaries are just lazy designs in general.
>>26763630
Its cute like the plushies
>>26763429
>>26761621
Make the beak, wings, and eye more realistic.
>>26763687
I can see what you mean. Their laziness might have been effected by the lack of resources, time and staff.
Growlithe is one of the best designed dog Pokemon. It's colour gives off warm vibes coupled with its fluffiness and Fire type. This "warm" feeling contributes to its pet friendly nature, it's loyal like a dog but regal with its stripes and colours. Red colour and dark stripes with claws also can look fierce, it looks battle ready but cute at the same time.
With Arcanine, I can never hope to design a dog Pokemon as well as them.
>>26761686
>muh stylized
>>26763725
I love it.
>>26761621
Split the beak (add a mouth) and give it angry gen 1 anime eyes
>>26763843
Is this loss?
>>26760649
I wish genwunner shitposts didnt happen every fucking new gen. "Omg art is worse, omg is literally a bird".
>>26762571
>>26762769
>>26763085
Yes, Eggman, the Yo-kai Watch fanbase could teach the Pokémon fanbase a thing or two about being grateful for what you have.
>inb4 "so nobody with more than two brain cells" or any variation thereof
I said Yo-kai Watch, not Family Guy or Adam Sandler.
>>26760855
>Clearly has woodpecker feet
>Hummingbird
I agree, artwork became worse and worse. Pokemon sucks now.
>>26763725
FUCK YEAH!!!
>>26763884
>>26763787
>>26763725
Artwork is getting worse because they are trying to make new pokemon easier to turn into figures and plushies for merchandise $$$
only reason
>>26760855
>colored like a woodpecker
>known for pecking
>feet shaped like a woodpecker's
>literally called the woodpecker pokémon
>is a hummingbird
give me something of what you're smoking anon
I can't even BEGIN to tell you how much Pikipek shits all over Pidgey. I could write a full novel on the subject.
>>26763994
You couldn't even write one sentence on it.
>>26763963
That looks like the face of an evolved form
>>26760649
>tfw chance to get another good flying type with drill run
noice, shame my flying mon will be Rowlet this gen
>>26763504
>>>>>>>>>>>>Ponyta is more iconic
WEW LAD
>>26762714
prime postu
I honestly like the newer art style. It may be "rounder" but newer mon obviously have more going on design wise compared to old mon. Smoother art doesn't mean something is simplified.
>>26760649
They are kids, they like cool and dangerous or cute designs. And something looks a lot cuter with a giant ball head and kawaii eyes or more dangerous with a lot of spikes.
Pidgey is neither cool nor cute. That's why people call it boringThese people are either children or retards and should be ignored
>>26760714
As a fellow art fag, I agree with all dis
There's literally nothing wrong with the bird. I don't understand why so many /vp/reons pick apart every fucking detail.
Do you just want a Pidgey recolor? Because that's what it sounds like.
>>26764016
Good argument
>>26764004
Based off Spearow
>>26763963
Eyes not blue and a solid 8/10
>>26764031
You are right
The bird is actually good.
That piece of shit you posted on the other hand is awful.
>>26764031
Nostalgiafags feel the need to choose between shitting on new gens or shitting on Yo-kai Watch while leaving the true worst offenderwhich is Digimonalone
>>26764031
>I don't understand why people have different opinions
>>26764031
>Fellow art fag
>Participates in the draw general
>Draws gay shit all the time
>Thinks his opinion matters
>>26763504
>Ponyta is more iconic
Ponyta is not iconic, Keldeo's silhouette is easily more recognizable thanks to its exaggerated anatomy and features.
![Pokemon SunMoon - Nintendo Treehouse Live @ E3 2016.mp4_snapshot_27.32_[2016.06.14_20.28.16].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Zmpf8uo.jpg "Pokemon SunMoon - Nintendo Treehouse Live @ E3 2016.mp4_snapshot_27.32_[2016.06.14_20.28.16].jpg")
>>26764003
Its colours are infinitely better.
No angry eyes, it looks cute.
It'll evolve into something great and not just a bigger Pidgey.
I can go on.
>>26764027
When you were a kid, why do you play Pokemon? Aren't you playing the game for the cute, the pretty, the tough, or the cool?
Are you sure you have a satisfying childhood that's not bland?
>>26763630
Females with a different taste I guess?
>>26764097
>Pokémon has two separate "pretty" types
>>26764027
>I like my Pokemon bland
Does your Pokemon team roster consist of Rattata, Pidgey, Silcoon, Bidoof, Finneon and Magikarp?
>>26764097
If I wanted to play with cool monsters I would've played yu gi oh or digimon.
