(01-15-2013, 07:43 PM)Sol Wrote: I don't see you complaining that pikachu has a tail shaped like a lightning bolt or that ponyta has fire coming out of it, what's up with that

Ponyta and Pikachu don't look like robots.

Neither do many pokemon? Please don't tell me you're trying to say newer generations are lifeless, because I will tell you right now that you're so wrong.

(01-15-2013, 01:59 PM)Gaia Wrote: TO THOSE NOSTALGIA-GOGGLE WEARING DOODS OUT THERE.

Read this, it's interesting for those familiar with Norse Mythology.

Quoting because I felt like this was really interesting/ has quite a few points to back it up. The part about the third legendary makes the most sense that I can think of right now.

(01-10-2013, 08:34 AM)soulcaliburfan Wrote: This is getting heavy Doc... Also, since foxes are canines, the zodiac is obviously still sound. (dog)

thats like saying replacing the tiger with a lion

would still be the zodiac

(01-15-2013, 09:24 PM)Hipster Bastard Wrote: Neither do many pokemon? Please don't tell me you're trying to say newer generations are lifeless, because I will tell you right now that you're so wrong.

Not lifeless, although some of them are. They're just really inorganic. They look more like Digimon than Pokemon.

Honestly Kriven I just want to say Pachirisu seriously looks like a blue, squirrel version of Pikachu.
Why must they all look like plain animals...? I thought we already got our share of those from first Gen., some rats, insects, objects like magnets and eggs, kangaroos and bulls...

Digimon are brimming with weapons and machinery, I don't see any pokemon like that. Even the power ranger pokemon was distinctly a pokemon in nature.
Digimon go from a small creature to some gigantic machine motherfucker.

I don't recall any pokemon that do that, and there's a lot of stylistic differences between pokemon and digimon, if you put up a list of pictures with each series represented in them I'd feel confident in most people being able to pick them apart.
I never got that argument, as they don't really look like digimon at all.

(01-10-2013, 08:34 AM)soulcaliburfan Wrote: This is getting heavy Doc... Also, since foxes are canines, the zodiac is obviously still sound. (dog)

EDIT: Scratch that part, that's restating what you said and I completely misread the post.

And since technically dogs are a part of the Canidae family since they're all just mutations of a wolf, it still fits with the Chinese zodiac unlike most people believe if you put in that factor in.

It's kind of an interesting fact to bring up since chances are game freak is going to get all creative and shit with Fennekin's evolution line, I'm more than interested to see it.

I agree

(01-15-2013, 10:13 PM)Mighty Jetaku Wrote: "I just want to say Pachirisu seriously looks like a blue, squirrel version of Pikachu."

=

just sayin'

(01-15-2013, 10:08 PM)Kriven Wrote: Not lifeless, although some of them are. They're just really inorganic. They look more like Digimon than Pokemon.

So basically all pokemon have to be like the older ones and be completely "Organic" otherwise they look like digimon.


I'm sorry but I really disagree with that, A few examples in mind:





Sure maybe they do have some crazy patterns, too many spikes, or whatever. But that doesn't make them any less organic than the last generation. To be fair that's just silly to think that designs are loosing the integrity that was "supposedly" in generation 1 because they're getting more creative.

(01-15-2013, 10:26 PM)Sevenstitch Wrote: I agree

(01-15-2013, 10:13 PM)Mighty Jetaku Wrote: "I just want to say Pachirisu seriously looks like a blue, squirrel version of Pikachu."

=

just sayin'

This highlights my problem with Pachirisu. Pikachu has reasonably sized limbs; I can picture it running. Pachirisu cannot possibly propel itself along the ground unless it slowly waddles on its hind legs or it drags its massive head along the ground.

(01-15-2013, 10:33 PM)Mr. Popo Wrote: So basically all pokemon have to be like the older ones and be completely "Organic" otherwise they look like digimon.

I'm sorry but I really disagree with that, A few examples in mind:

Sure maybe they do have some crazy patterns, too many spikes, or whatever. But that doesn't make them any less organic than the last generation. To be fair that's just silly to think that designs are loosing the integrity that was "supposedly" in generation 1 because they're getting more creative.

Cluttered =/= Creative.
More is not always merrier.

You're completely missing what I mean by organic. They don't have to resemble real creatures at all, they just shouldn't look like they're made out of plastic and metal**

**Unless they are made out of plastic and metal. That's a little different.**

They evolved, biologically, to fit some purpose and function in their natural habitat. They should look biological.

I guess my biggest issue is that *most* of the modern Pokemon just don't make any sense to me. They don't look practical. Like Pelliper up there. Why is its head so hard looking? It doesn't look like a feathered bird, it looks like an axehead glued to a toy boat.

(01-15-2013, 11:52 PM)Kriven Wrote: They evolved, biologically, to fit some purpose and function in their natural habitat.

They don't look practical. Like Pelliper up there. Why is its head so hard looking? It doesn't look like a feathered bird, it looks like an axehead glued to a toy boat.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure a bird that needs to be able to swim and dive deep into the water would benefit more from a sleek appearance, like a penguin, rather than being overly feathery.

animals that evolved biologically to fit somewhere into their natural habitat:

To be fair, Porygon is a man-made Pokémon and has always been described as such (except Pokémon Snap that places it inside a rock formation). The other ones I agree (specially Mr. Mime)