Something to think about...

I think species of Pokemon have always been subjective. There are Pokemon out there for each person to be mesmerized by, especially these days now that the audience has been broadened. If you ask me, that's something people who have created the stigma of Pokemon designs gradually decreasing in creativity each generation need to understand. You don't have to like every Pokemon - not every design will appeal to you, and if it doesn't, that's completely fine. Does it mean the team behind the designs is lazy and uncreative? No, it just means said design isn't fit to your tastes.
For example, I'm not a huge fan of Charizard or the evolutions before it. That doesn't mean that I think they're ugly - I'm just not into dragons in general. I prefer cute and bubbly Pokemon like Jigglypuff. There are also some "dark and edgy" Pokemon that I like, such as Absol and Lucario. There's just something about their designs that grabs my focus.

I think it's inevitable that you're going to have salt with such a large roster... because only so much of that roster can be represented in side material or available at the early stages of the latest generation. Just as an example, somebody partial to generation 2 Pokemon might feel pretty jaded about how little representation they have in either the Smash Bros. games or Pokken Tournament. Their only historical representation in the former franchise is a clone character that hasn't been around since 2001, and in Pokken Tournament all they have is Suicune (when, given the game's premise, you'd think Heracross would be a sure thing...). Compare that to Gens 1, 3, and 4 (which I feel are probably the most divisive generations) representation in Pokken, and 1 and 4 again in Smash Bros., and you can see why some portions of the fanbase might feel ignored. There might be a Pokemon for everybody, but not everybody's Pokemon can be in everything. So when people see that the characters they don't like being more prolific than the designs that they do, they might just decide "Well, I don't like Pokemon as a franchise" because those are the associations being made.

For my part, I think there was a radical transition in the design philosophy of Pokemon beginning with Generation 3... Pokemon in the first two generations were designed in a very simple manner in order to better convey what they were in smaller, two-dimensional images. After that point I feel like the Pokemon were designed with more dimensions in mind... they were designed to be striking when seen in 3D as opposed to 2D. As a result, the 2D images can make the newer Pokemon look cluttered, but seeing them in 3D can make them more endearing.

Probably doesn't help how dragons in modern fiction are almost exclusively stock designs: Asian, quadruped with wings, or wings for arms.
Just Googling "medieval dragon paintings" and you can see that they came in different varieties. They were animalistic abominations.
Still, I like Asian dragons more because they look cooler. Especially in artwork, sculptures, video games or anime.

One figure I own is a statue of a Lóngguī (Chinese Dragon turtle) I always felt this was the true inspiration for Bowser.
Not the ox-tortoise-dragon mashup monster as confirmed by Nintendo. It looks more obvious.

And now another favourite character design: The Dopefish from Commander keen

Sure it's a simple design, a fat bucktoothed green fish with a retarded facial expression. But that's what gives the thing it's charm. 
Doing nothing but swim, chase after food, and go after the main hero. It managed to become a memorable enemy in the series.
Because of how iconic and ridiculous it is. It cameos in a lot of games, even ones not by ID Software or Apogee/3D Realms.

You're forgetting Gen 5 which gets lots of neglect too. I'd say Gen 5 gets neglected as much as Gen 2. And they have some of my favorite Pokemon. Did I mention how much I love Vanilluxe?

(02-16-2016, 04:32 AM)Koopaul Wrote: You're forgetting Gen 5 which gets lots of neglect too. I'd say Gen 5 gets neglected as much as Gen 2. And they have some of my favorite Pokemon. Did I mention how much I love Vanilluxe?

I was just using Generation 2 as an example.

It's pretty sad Gen 2 doesn't get much rep anyway, because its the generation that brought out the majority of the potential for the series, just like any other 2nd or 3rd game in a series. This is how series work.

1st game: "Experimental" release. They throw down an idea and work with it enough to make a full game, but hold back to check to see if there's a market for this. The sales of this game will determine if they should make more or not.

2nd game: Path branches. Either, another experimental game, or what a 3rd game will be. If they choose to be experimental again, things like Zelda 2, Mario 2 (Doki Doki Panic hack) and Final Fantasy 2 are born, where they play around with different gameplay styles to see if there's a market for those. The sales of this release determines what kind of game the third entry will be; either closer to the first, more successful entry, or closer to the second, more successful entry.

3rd game: Now that they know what works (especially if they skipped making a 2nd experimental game, and went straight to this phase), they have a formula, and they can bring out more of their ideas off the drawing board, that will permanently stick with the series. This is shown heavily with Pokemon Gen 2; most of the staples and streamlines came from this generation, such as PokeTech with functions (there's a piece of tech given to the player in every game from here on), Day/Night (including exclusive Pokemon to the time of day), Breeding, Special Pokeballs, Roaming Legendaries, incorporating the legendary within the story (Crystal), larger post-game content (it and its remakes still have the most post-game), and much much more. In the case of other games, like Zelda 3 (A Link to the Past), Mario 3, Castlevania 3, and etc., this is where their potential is also mostly drawn out, as well as polish.

Subsequent Games: Not much really changes from here on out. Sure they introduce some new mechanics every now and then, and more streamlines, but from here on out, the next game is more or less like the previous game. Unless you're Final Fantasy, where you constantly change the gameplay style after 6, lol.

I miss the days of the experimental sequel titles that brought about the likes of games like Mario 2 and Zelda 2. You never see that happen anymore. If you ever get a completely new experimental title out of a franchise, it won't be until it's well established with a long line of sequels, resulting in branching franchises like the Pokemon Ranger or Pokemon Mystery Dungeon et cetera games.

I mean, it's clear to see why they do it that way; it's because they've learned from history and know that immediately abandoning the successful formula of the first game extremely rarely pans out well. But it sure did provide us with a fascinating and chaotic history!

Game devs these day really aren't fans of taking risks like during the old days...Which maybe is a good thing in terms of consistancy (look at how long the NSMB series has been wowing younger audiences since its release in 2006. TEN YEARS AGO, I just realized! x-x).

The only Animal Crossing game I've played was Wild World. To be honest, the human villagers never really caught my attention...I'd much rather be one of the animal villagers xD! I will definitely give the next installation a go if it allows you to be your own animal villager! I'd enjoy it that much more if I could play as a fluffy kitty with pink fur and cute hair xd!!

Oh man, if that game let me be a turtle villager I'd be all set. It's too bad they don't have turtle villagers in that game at all.

(02-19-2016, 11:24 AM)Koopaul Wrote: Oh man, if that game let me be a turtle villager I'd be all set. It's too bad they don't have turtle villagers in that game at all.

Yea they do!!!


oh

you mean a turtle that lives next door??? no way

"you all might get confused" - nintendo ):

You know, next time Nintendo releases a new Animal Crossing game, they should totally hold a "Create a New Animal Villager" contest.

Not only would it be fun, but it would also garner them tons of attention as well as increase sales for those people who want to see whose critters made it into the game.

(02-24-2016, 12:47 AM)Jermungandr Wrote: You know, next time Nintendo releases a new Animal Crossing game, they should totally hold a "Create a New Animal Villager" contest.

Not only would it be fun, but it would also garner them tons of attention as well as increase sales for those people who want to see whose critters made it into the game.

It's not really close, but Japanese girl's magazines did this for clothing contests. You could submit a drawing for an outfit you wanted to see a villager in - and winners' entries were converted into the "fancy" multi-texture QR codes for use by readers of the magazine. I think the pages of said magazine are floating around the Internet.


but yeah, we need new villager types!!!!!!!!!!!! besides personalities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(the "uchi" type is hilariously good though)

(02-24-2016, 12:47 AM)Jermungandr Wrote: You know, next time Nintendo releases a new Animal Crossing game, they should totally hold a "Create a New Animal Villager" contest.

Not only would it be fun, but it would also garner them tons of attention as well as increase sales for those people who want to see whose critters made it into the game.

Screw that.

Have the option to play as an animal in the next Animal Crossing. And have it fully customize-able. Like, be able to set what animal to be, and what personality to have, and what texture it would have and such. THAT would be cool, and might make interested in the games again.

Sure, there's the risk of seeing Hitlers and dickmen pop up in your town if regulations aren't made, but it would still be coooool.

(02-28-2016, 04:35 AM)SchAlternate Wrote:

(02-24-2016, 12:47 AM)Jermungandr Wrote: You know, next time Nintendo releases a new Animal Crossing game, they should totally hold a "Create a New Animal Villager" contest.

Not only would it be fun, but it would also garner them tons of attention as well as increase sales for those people who want to see whose critters made it into the game.

Screw that.

Have the option to play as an animal in the next Animal Crossing. And have it fully customize-able. Like, be able to set what animal to be, and what personality to have, and what texture it would have and such. THAT would be cool, and might make interested in the games again.

Now you're speaking MY tounge. B)

Speaking of Animal Crossing, I have kind of a soft spot for one of the new characters. No, not that overrated yellow puppy, but that charming blue alpaca at the shop. I like his pompadour and his buck teeth, plus his expressions and how he always acts shocked and angry if you don't give him something to do, and that expression he makes when an order is confirmed. "Leave the rest to me! *Heroic pose*"

Also I have a soft spot for Luna, kind of, but that's because I like tapirs.

Playing Wild World, I did have a bit of a girl crush on this mouse who was quite the rocker chick named Bella. We probably had the strongest bond in the entire village, to be honest. She's very relaxed and easy to talk to.
I also got along pretty well with the fancy kitty Olivia...But she always pestured me for furniture xD.

Unfortunately, I tried using the time-change cheat in order to pay off my house, but in return it was just infested with infinite roaches . And I do say infinite, because I skipped up to like months ahead...Maybe even years (if that's possible on the DS). I assumed they wouldn't go away because it had theoretically been so long. I even tried setting it back to the current time, but nothing happened. So I had to delete my town and restart :'(. I don't remember much after that.

Regardless I do praise Animal Crossing how much personality these villagers have. They really fit the mold for casual-genre characters. What I'd give to be able to play as an animal villager of my own...