People not liking a Pokémon design doesn't make them genwunners.

>People not liking a Pokémon design doesn't make them genwunners
but trying to educate the few retards that genwun makes you a retard

>>27145002
>I don't like this pokemon so you are not allowed to like it!!!

Just grow up, op.

>>27145002
>People not liking a Pokémon design doesn't make them genwunners.

No, but saying that all or most post-Gen I designs follow a different and inferior "design philosophy" would put someone pretty close to that status.

File: 1404609827215.jpg (67KB, 935x960px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 935x960px

When i saw this one and that wet rag on the ground i thought it was fake. Im still blown away they aren't.

The model made it look fine to me, though I'd also like to see how it moves. Something about the art this gen has just made everything seem really "flat".

Boohoo, you're gonna be buying the fucking game anyway.

File: 1468148717882.jpg (29KB, 665x662px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 665x662px

MODS DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SHITPOST FIESTA

>design philosphy
Please enlighten us all about what the fuck is a design philosophy.

>I don't care. I don't like this Pokémon. It's "backstory" or whatever won't make me like it, the main reason being that I don't like it's design.
And people who like this pokemon also don't care about your opinion about it.

File: 250px-143Snorlax.png (51KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 250x250px

>>27145002
soo complex

>>27145053
But anon the rag is the best design in years =^)

>>27145002
>I don't care. I don't like this Pokémon.
>So what do you think?
That I don't care if you don't like it. What's the point of this thread? Check my 7.

File: 250px-102Exeggcute.png (58KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 250x250px

>standarts

>>27145002

you are like that retard that thinks that mobpsycho 100 has terrible animation because character design is "bad". fuck off

File: 214px-Sugimori_204.png (60KB, 214x250px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 214x250px

>design philosophy

>>27145137
hey don't shit on my nigga pineco

>>27145044
I clearly said
>Most of the Pokémon from the following generations were designed with that philosophy as a standard.
And it's true. Just like Yokai and Digimon have their own design philosophy, Pokémon has its own. When you deviate from it, you get a Pokémon that doesn't quite looks or feels like a Pokémon.

>>27145084
>>27145137
It's a set of standards that the designers use in order to keep a unity between several different proyects and designs. Things such as proportions, colors, lines, sizes, etc. should be respected; when you start using different colors or diferent proportions, you're deviating from the norm. It's like if you were building an apartment complex with 4 towers; 3 of them are simple and identical, but then the fourth is taller, thinner, and built of a different material. Which one looks out of place?

File: dawn.png (194KB, 700x800px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 700x800px

I actually like the design for the new mimic Pokemon. It falls in line with a lot of other monster games and it makes sense that it would try to mimic Pikachu, one of the most popular Pokemon. It's a ghost sheet Pokemon kinda like Shuppet.

But I agree with you on the bear, OP. It just looks so...not Pokemon. To say it's design is simplistic would be an understatement, it's straight up what a child would draw. And I get that it's supposed to be a mascot and not an actual bear, but why even use that reference if it's going to look like this? I've played every Pokemon main series entry from Gen I up to Gen VI, and this is by far the worst design I've ever seen.

>>27145087
You see, the problem with this is that it's just two flat colors, if you gave it some more rugged fur to make it blend in a bit it'd look a lot better!

>>27145104
So we're back to designing things with a single shape and no detail? Jesus Christ gamefreak has really been scrapped for ideas lately.

>>27145137
I don't even know what this thing is supposed to be, a fucking jewish top that they spin at Christmas? Seriously, what the fuck?

>>27145002
>Hau is just comic relief and it's always with a stupid grin on his face.
It's nice to know you have the game already and can state this as a fact, as opposed to just making this claim based on early-game footage, which would be stupid.

>>27145162
What is the design philosophy for Pokemon? Please, tell me the set rules for creating a pocket monster.

>>27145002
Excuse me, but "design philosophy" and "lacks volume"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that.

My girlfriend has been keeping up on the new designs with me. She's an extremely casual fan--Go is her first game in 17 years and she probably doesn't know all 151 by sight let alone name, but she loves cute designs.

She went crazy over Rowlet, Litten, Togedemaru, Rockruff, Komala. She almost cried at how cute she thought Pikaboo was. But she hates Gruzlee and thinks it's ugly.

Pretty damning when someone whose only standard is "is it cute" hates something that is specifically designed to be cute.

>>27145193
Why would a man whose T-shirt says "genius at work" spend all his time playing a children's video game?

File: 208_1.jpg (57KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x480px

>>27145174

>>27145162
>When you deviate from it, you get a Pokémon that doesn't quite looks or feels like a Pokémon.

That only makes sense if you adopt an entirely inflexible view of what a Pokemon should look or feel like. It's completely circular - "this Pokemon doesn't feel like a Pokemon because it's not designed like a Pokemon."

>>27145002
at some point in your life someone made you think that what you like or dislike is important. it is not.

there are lots of people in the world that could objectively prove that this design is bad or good for whatever reasons - but you are not included in this group because you think that your personal preferences with something count as argument. they don't.

>It's a "OP claims that their opinion is fact" thread
We don't need more of these threads. You're free to dislike a Pokemon, but please, "Pokemon design philosophy"? What is this philosophy that you claim exists?
Here, I'll give you the actual "philosophy" -- If it's a creature that can be captured and used in a Pokemon game, it's a Pokemon.
Stop trying to validify your opinions with this nonsense, you look like a pretentious retard.

>>27145265
I withdraw my question.

I think I dislike Huggabear because it lacks texture. It feels like a hollow design.

Even the simple designs like the aforementioned Voltorb or Eggs have expression, they have some semblance of detail going into their basic forms.

Grizzlles just looks blank.

>>27145324
It looks really flat too. Like literally flat

>>27145324

The expression is supposed to be empty. I'm pretty sure its face is actually frozen that way.

It could definitely use some more texture though, the art this gen has been unusually bad.

File: pokemon.png (323KB, 500x1781px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 500x1781px

>>27145187
What was that about chickens that he said? He clearly will be handholding you through the whole game and be spouting puns.

>>27145191
Look at the eyes; look at the colors; look at the thickness of the lines; look at the sizes; look at the fur, the skin. These are not Digimon or Yokai; even if you're not into Pokémon you will be able to recognize them as Pokémon, because they follow a standard.

>>27145193
You're fired.

>>27145301
It exists, faggot. Or else the designs would be even more over the place. There's a reason why there is no Chair Pokémon or Toilet Pokémon.

>>27145268

Are you legitimately autistic?

>>27145385
"Look this guy is saying Pineco is based of a pineco. What a retard."

>>27145359
>There's a reason why there is no Chair Pokémon or Toilet Pokémon.
We have Fan, Oven, Washing Machine, Lawnmower, Fridge, Candle, Lantern, Chandelier, Ball, Eggs, Rock, Pinecone, Snowflake, Magnet, etc. Pokemon. I think a Toilet and Chair fit perfectly well into the """Pokemon design philosophy""".

>>27145428
pinecone*

>>27145433

>>27145433
Convenient you left out that a large chunk of those are different forms of the same ghost whose entire premise is haunting household electronics.

>>27145469
So? What if it's a possessed ghost chair that turns into a ghost toilet? Does that fit into your - I mean, Gamefreak's """design philosophy"

>>27145359
>Just look at it, it's not a Pokemon.
Same thing that other Anon was saying, people like you cannot describe what makes a Pokemon a Pokemon. There's nothing wrong in disliking a design but it's just as much a Pokemon as anything in that image. Every single thing feature of that new Pokemon can be found on an existing design. Do those break your imaginary design philosophy or are they simply exceptions?

And it's funny that you'd use Luxray as when Gen 4 came out it was lambasted for its stripes and ears much like most Gen 4 Pokemon at the time.

>>27145515
If I wanted to entertain autists I'd get paid to do so.

>>27145469

Not him, but I don't think that negates his point, that object-based Pokemon can fit within whatever nebulous "design philosophy" exists. The fact that they're related doesn't really bear on the question of whether they satisfy whatever requirements you're purporting to lay out.

File: Char-cheeksqueek_2x.png (183KB, 800x735px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 800x735px

>>27145433
>>27145515
No. A Toilet wouldn't fit with Pokémon, for example, because toilets in children media are always meant for shitty (pun) jokes and Pokémon has very little to no toilet humor. Unless they wanted to scrap what they've been doing for 20 years, there won't be ghosts possessing toilets in Pokémon. It would fit with the Yokai, however. I could imagine there being a toilet yokai because in Yokai Watch there has always been toilet humor.

>>27145469
What if Rotom possesses an electronic portapotty?

>>27145469
That's besides the point, they all break your ludicrous idea of design philosophy. If they existed as a singular mon or seperate Pokemon is irrelevant as each design exists and is recognized as a Pokemon.

Why is light pink the primary focus on the bear Pokemon?
Why is black the secondary color if light pink and black don't go well together?
Why did they have to give it a white tiara that looks like ears?
Why is THIS our Red Panda Pokemon when it could have looked much better?
Why does it look like a sausage from behind?

There's just so many aspects of this Pokemon I can't like.

File: e592d240fafc5b593f669c3afc09dbfd.jpg (2MB, 3685x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3685x2400px

>>27145521
>>27145534
See the pic. Notice something in common with the designs of these Yokai? Notice how the sizes, the colors, the lines, the shapes, are all similar?

It's because they follow a standard. And that standard is a design philosphy.

>>27145576
It's okay not to like it. If you want to cry about people calling you a faggot for not liking it then you should go and create a circlejerk thread for it.

>>27145589

I'm just curious, do you have any educational or occupational training in graphic design?

>>27145605
Why? Do you?

File: 1468412453664.jpg (79KB, 750x737px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 750x737px

Mods pls

>>27145589
I'm not noticing any similarities. Care to point them out? Side by side if you can so that others can understand what makes it not a Pokemon.

>>27145597
I don't care what people think. I dislike the Pokemon design for said reasons. I think you're too quick to dismiss someone's opinion as "crying" instead of adding your own input.

Basically, if you can't add to the conversation, why reply?

>>27145632

No. But I'm trying to gauge how much stock to place in your assessments of Pokemon's "design philosophy" and what is and isn't consistent with it. You're acting as if you're an expert in the subject, so I think it's a fair question.

>>27145655
It is okay to dislike the Pokemon. However there is no set rule on what makes a Pokemon a "Pokemon".

>>27145661
People like >>27145650 and >>27145690 are denying that all Pokémon look alike, when it's obvious that they do resemble each other one way or another because they're created by a team that is supposed to have quality controls and standards. There are clear rules but they're ignoring their existence, and that's the reason why shitty fakemons are made all the time.

I wanted to study a major in Arts, but I decided to keep art as a hobby and to study Linguistics instead.

>>27145714
>all Pokémon look alike
Jesus fuck what am I reading.

No, they don't. The only reason you think Pokémon as different as Persian, Hariyama, Jigglypuff, Deoxys, Scizor, Burmy and Samurott "look alike" is because you KNOW they are from the same franchise. Fuck all the way off.

>>27145714
Then you're just a faggot who isn't qualified to talk about this

>>27145714
Then tell us what those "clear rules" you moron.

>>27145714
What makes a Pokemon a Pokemon? You quoted me twice by the way.

>>27145714
>There are clear rules but they're ignoring their existence

If there are clear rules about designing Pokemon, but the people who are responsible for designing Pokemon aren't following those rules, are there really clear rules?

Again, your argument is circular. You're picking one possible standard and saying *that's* the standard, and that designs that don't fit your standard are illegitimate. But there's no reason that the standard you chose is *the* standard, particularly where they all come from the same designers. They're in a better position to choose the standard than you are.

File: opinions.jpg (89KB, 441x705px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 441x705px

>>27145714
What about a comparison between, say, Alakazam and Reuniclus, anon? I really don't see how they look alike at all. It's almost as if Pokemon's artstyle and aesthetics have been diverse over the course of a 20 year history.

>>27145714
So you don't actually know what you're talking about

>>27145002
You know what?
Almost all art of new Pokemon look meh but they spark with lovely animations in game. This is the first time this happened.

>>27145690
You're right. Despite what is said in this thread, there IS no set rule to define a Pokemon. Doesn't mean people can't call out a certain design that is clearly unlike any other Pokemon that already exists.

>>27145002
There is definitely something really 'off' about the bear.

There are plenty of Pokemon designs I don't like, but I've never hated anything as much as this bear. Can't explain it, it just doesn't fit with Pokemon.

>>27145714
Anon, if those """rules""" are being broken by the very same people who established them, maybe those rules simply didn't exist, or at least not in the way you perceived.
At the end of the day, you're not the one designing Pokemon. You're absolutely free to criticise ones you dislike, but in the form of your own biased opinion. There's nothing wrong with that.
So please, grow up, and stop trying to justify your opinions with some bizarre law that you claim to be knowledgeable of.

>>27145803
Trading official Sugimori art for Ohmori was a mistake. He's good with the humans but his official art for Pokémom does lack depth.

This thing is a reverse Delphox. The small bit we got of it in model form made it look a whole lot better. The art looks like garbage, but I feel the model will redeem it slightly.

>>27145162
>Things such as proportions, colors, lines, sizes, etc. should be respected; when you start using different colors or diferent proportions, you're deviating from the norm.
What you're basically saying is that Gen1 mons don't look like pokemons either, since they have all sorts of colors, proportions and references.

>>27145857
For me personally, I find the unsettling aspect charming in a way. It's this massive bear that doesn't know its own strength obliterating the countryside. I think it looks fine, aside from not enough pink on the front to balance it all out.

File: digimon.png (117KB, 270x322px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 270x322px

>>27145751
Notice how these fucking Digimon look alike? They don't look like Pokémon, do they? If I were someone who were aware of the existance of both Digimon and Pokémon, but who weren't a fan of either, I would still not mic fucking Agumon with Pikachu because they look fucking different. However, Agumon would fit nicely with the other Digimon because they feature similar traits, just like Pikachu would fit with other Pokémon because they feature similar traits as well, because it was designed by the same artists who made all the other Pokémon, and Agumon was designed by the same artists who made all the other Digimon.

>>27145787
>>27145792
>>27145864
This is the point I'm trying to fucking make in the first place. GF are now deviating from the designs they usually do. They're changing their artistic direction and you can easily tell.

>>27145857
>>27145803
Its the new artist.

>>27145857
The art they used is shit. It doesn't look like a living being. I guess it makes sense since it's a giant mascot suit, but still.

File: Bruxish.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>>27145803

I really warmed up to Bruxish when I saw it in motion.

>>27145933
lmao

all those digimon are from the same generation of designs. They all have the same eyes and simila color saturation. You're saying that gen 1 Pokémon are internally consistent, which is true. All of the other generations except gen 2 are very different from gen 1. I certainly wouldn't think Grimer and Luxio are from the same series if I didn't already know that.

I like the bear thing and I really love Mimickyu's design.

I can understand why OP and other really hate the designs though, they're different in some ways, and anything different is ojectively wrong and bad.

>>27145933
>GF are now deviating from the designs they usually do. They're changing their artistic direction and you can easily tell.

Sorry, but I just don't see it. With all due respect, I think you may be seeing consistency in the early designs that just isn't there. You keep talking about colors and proportions, but those seem just as diverse to me within Gen I as in the more recent designs. At most the art style may have evolved a bit, but the designs themselves seem as consistently diverse as they ever were.

>>27145002
I swear I wanted to read your shitpost and have a good laugh but fuck it, you are just another retard.

>>27145950
that biting animation is amazing. I like that it floats back into place instead of swimming back like Sharpedo.

>>27145933
>Digimon
>Looking alike
Don't do this, you clearly don't understand that Digimon can be whatever the fuck they want and share a multitude of designers, much more than Pokemon even. Seriously, look at the possible evolutions for any of those Digimon and look at how wildly they deviate in style and inspiration from one another.

Compare the Digimon in Xros Wars to the ones in Adventures or Frontier.

File: it's the small details.png (23KB, 300x115px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x115px

>>27145985
Sugimori's always draws with a lot of jitter; you can tell when he draws just by looking at the lineart. He originally based his drawings on Akira Toriyama's work, but eventually he consolidated a style of its own, and that's the style that most Pokémon have. The other artists, such as Ohmura, have a style of their own and it shows, but they still imitate Sugimori's style by mimicking the color saturations that he uses, the style of the shadows, the textures, etc.

File: j214fdf23i243.png (114KB, 386x200px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 386x200px

>>27146020
Those eyes just give it away.

File: pokeSkuntank.png (57KB, 400x240px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 400x240px

>>27145536

Pokémon already went there.

>>27146753
Yeah, this. Skuntank's cry us literally a fart

File: egg shape with featureless blob limbs.png (46KB, 230x230px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 230x230px

>>27145174
>back to
You say that like it hasn't always been a consistent thing.

>>27145002
Wow! Thanks! I didn't realize how shit that bear is and how much I don't like it until now. You made me change my mind for good! You are the savior! Your truth is universal!