+- The VG Resource (https://www.vg-resource.com)
+-- Forum: Archive (https://www.vg-resource.com/forum-65.html)
+--- Forum: July 2014 Archive (https://www.vg-resource.com/forum-139.html)
+---- Forum: The Archives (https://www.vg-resource.com/forum-66.html)
+----- Forum: Spamhaul (https://www.vg-resource.com/forum-30.html)
+----- Thread: [split] durr hee hee dogs (/thread-13027.html)
[split] durr hee hee dogs - Gold - 05-19-2010
![[Image: 83951.jpg]](http://www.viktorasites.com/balloonshop/ProductImages/83951.jpg)
RE: Pokémon Black & White - water dog - 05-19-2010
(05-19-2010, 03:27 PM)Koopaul Wrote: The thing is remember when Pokemon weren't characters with human emotions? They were animals. Animals you could capture and train.
As for an interesting design, I never said simple was more "interesting" I said it was more charming and easily recognizable. Something more humble in appearance is more flexible in many given situations. Something more complex is limited to a niche.
There's nothing wrong with Smugleaf. His design is simple enough... Although I would say that the shoulder things are a little unnecessary. But that's no big deal.
What is the point of a design being "flexible"? Again, we are talking about Pokemon here, NOT marketing. These designs aren't up for question and are not malleable, why would they need to be "flexible"? Your logic really doesn't make sense, your just using marketing design theories and applying them to Pokemon design.
Also how is Smugleaf's design any more simple than Treecko's?
Clutch Wrote:Not really. If you could argue Smugleaf's only personality is smugness based on official art alone, you also argue Snorlax's only personality is being lazy and fat, Electabuzz and Scyther are only irate, etc.
Heck, if we're addressing humanization in general, there's a reason there was a "human shape" egg group in Gen II.
this this this
RE: Pokémon Black & White - DioShiba - 05-20-2010
(05-19-2010, 05:57 PM)icarly viewer Wrote:(05-19-2010, 03:27 PM)Koopaul Wrote: The thing is remember when Pokemon weren't characters with human emotions? They were animals. Animals you could capture and train.
As for an interesting design, I never said simple was more "interesting" I said it was more charming and easily recognizable. Something more humble in appearance is more flexible in many given situations. Something more complex is limited to a niche.
There's nothing wrong with Smugleaf. His design is simple enough... Although I would say that the shoulder things are a little unnecessary. But that's no big deal.
What is the point of a design being "flexible"? Again, we are talking about Pokemon here, NOT marketing. These designs aren't up for question and are not malleable, why would they need to be "flexible"? Your logic really doesn't make sense, your just using marketing design theories and applying them to Pokemon design.
Also how is Smugleaf's design any more simple than Treecko's?
This, Pokemon design and Marketing are absolutely two different things.
I don't see how any logic can put them together. the fact they completely contrast each other makes it nearly impossible to use the same thing.
RE: Pokémon Black & White - Koopaul - 05-20-2010
Actually in a way it sort of does.
A character that needs to appeal to a wider audience needs to be straight to the point. Doesn't have unnecessary patterns or doodads sprouting out of them. Something you could scribble down and they would say: "Hey that's Kirby!" or "Oh! Its Bloo!"
On a subconscious level these are the things we remember. So yes Charmander was just a lizard with fire on its tail... But that's all it needed to be. A unique idea we could all remember and understand.
But you know what, it doesn't matter. This is getting downright annoying.
RE: Pokémon Black & White - Alpha Six - 05-20-2010
Dude, you literally do not get it. It's like there's no point in even bothering to explain to you how Pokemon work because you won't listen or understand.
This discussion is over, it's going in a circle.
RE: Pokémon Black & White - Koopaul - 05-20-2010
Because YOU know how Pokemon works right?
RE: Pokémon Black & White - Alpha Six - 05-20-2010
Misphrased. Meant to say "character design."
RE: Pokémon Black & White - Koopaul - 05-20-2010
I suppose you took classes on this or researched this subject? Maybe applied Cognitive Psychology to this as well?
RE: Pokémon Black & White - slut - 05-20-2010
CAN YOU JUST SHUT UP ALREADY, GOD DAMN
RE: Pokémon Black & White - triptych - 05-20-2010
can i have the ability to thank a post multiple times
thx u
RE: Pokémon Black & White - JarJar - 05-20-2010
None of you know shit about pokemon. Can't prove me wrong, only right.
peace.
RE: Pokémon Black & White - Alpha Six - 05-20-2010
(05-20-2010, 04:41 PM)Koopaul Wrote: I suppose you took classes on this or researched this subject? Maybe applied Cognitive Psychology to this as well?hurf da durp i took classes look at me guys im totally super intelligent let me rub my balls on your face like you even care
Who cares. It doesn't matter if you took classes, you were obviously taught wrong if you legitimately think personality doesn't matter in a character design, and you should get your tuition refunded.
Now shush.
RE: Pokémon Black & White - Koopaul - 05-20-2010
Hm I think there's a confusion here. I said simplicity was important. Personality is another subject, which I personally believe Pokemon don't need but that's just me... No personality and simplicity in design are different you can apply a personality to a simple design.
If you remember my original complaint with Smugleaf was not the personality, it was those shoulder things.
RE: Pokémon Black & White - triptych - 05-20-2010
god damnit koopaul shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
shut up
RE: Pokémon Black & White - Koopaul - 05-20-2010
Can't back up my statement?