Are Pokemon ugly on purpose? Why can't Nintendo make Pokemon

>>27337243

because pokemons have different style? they supposed to be more simple

>>27337243
Look, son. Bait

>>27337243
That becomes a problem when everything has to become super badass or waifu tier while not having any ugly and useful simple things

>>27337243
Because Omegamon would show up and permab& them for being abominations in the eyes of our Lord?

>>27337243

That's the problem with Digimon; every final evolution is either "badass", a waifu, or an armored humanoid. There's no middle ground.

Pokemon, on the other hand, has plenty of diversity in its designs.

File: Blackkingnumemon.jpg (29KB, 290x290px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 290x290px

>>27337260
To be fair Digimon probably has more of those than pokemon, just because there's more Digimon than Pokemon.

File: 1469341097083.jpg (56KB, 550x716px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 550x716px

Because digimon are digimon and pokemon are pokemon you colossal faggot don't talk to me or me son again

>>27337274
Nigga give me any pokemon and I'll give you a digimon with a similar air of design. If you just look at covers of DVD boxsets, then yes, you're only going to see that shit, but the same could be said of pokemon (walk into the tcg section at Walmart and all you'll see is Yveltal, Pikachu, Charizard and Mewtwo 80% of the time.

>>27337243

Digimon are what happens when gamefreak sends bad designs to the digimon corporation that either wouldn't work in pokemon or are just bad

look at the slug, tell me that wasn't a pokemon originally

prove me wrong

>>27337243
>Digi"mon"
>literally just a human on Steroids wearing metal Armor and wings

File: Quartzmon_(True).png (470KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1280x720px

>>27337337
You called?
Not every digimon is a Thirteen Royal Knights member, anon.

File: 4f5395ac749e46d34f195cf54b0060d2.jpg (73KB, 736x310px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 736x310px

>>27337335
>actually believes gen 1 pokemon were all that original

90% of them were based off actual things with little to no design to them whatsoever. Maybe a palette swap or over-exaggeration of features (see raticate's mouth)

Digimon had way better designs all along, and could actually be considered "monsters" and not just weird coloured animals.

I'm not saying that you have to like them, if you like simpler things then fine that's your thing. But if you're going to shit talk another show by comparing it to gen 1 (the only viable comparison), you're severely delusional if you think a Pidgey, Ekans or Rattata (and honestly all of their evolutions) etc are better than pic related.

>>27337402

look at every digimon you just posted

those look like pokemon designs that were rejected, not bad, just wouldn't work in pokemon.

Jesus christ read the full post.

>rejected designs that would not work in pokemon

I didn't even mention gen wun you stupid fucking kalosperm

File: gen_1_pokemon_part_1_by_keithaerickson-d5vitaq.jpg (162KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 894x894px

>>27337407
Or you know, you can read your own post and realize that your words essentially speak volumes about your simple biased taste in gen 1.

None of those look like pokemon, not a single pokemon can even compare to those designs until gen 6 megas and a few legendaries. You said they look like rejected pokemon when pokemon look more like rejected digimon.

This picture gets the job done, look at these pathetic things that look like nothing more than overly simplified real life creatures. Those aren't monsters, the only thing butterfree has going for it is that it's just big.

>>27337407
Je's saying it's comperable to Gen 1 because they came out around the same period and were both the vanguard designs of their respective franchises.
And couldn't you say pokemon are just rejected digimon designs, then?
Or that both are rejected Starwars designs?

>>27337274
You don't know anything about Digimon

>>27337243

I want to ride Wargreymon's dick so bad...

>>27337243
Different art styles obviously, but I have to agree, digimon designs have always been better. I'm a fan of both series about equally though.

>>27337274
>evolving gives you a refine humanoid physiology
It actually makes sense when you think about it, our human form is the peak of intelligent life on our planet so the humanoid form being connected to evolution would make some sense, and now all of those pokemon suddenly becoming bipeds makes alot of sense.

Actually, I can't really divine an answer other than simply having different design aesthetics. Even the Capsule Monster concept was simplistic. This may have merely been the preference of Sugimori. They would otherwise have little reason for being different since the audience would be the same.

>>27337243
>Are pokemon ugly on purpose?

Yes, for the sake of diversity, and Digimon aint an exception.

>Why cant Nintendo make Pokemon look badass like Digimon ?

Well, duh, because pokemon cant be digimon just as much as digimon cant be pokemon. Both subjects are aesthetically on their own league and very different in a lot of aspects so we shouldnt really compare them both. Sure, both subjects have "mons" at the end of their title and their concept's basically based off fictional creatures that are capable of changing their form, but thats just it. There's nothing more to compare especially if you learn both sides' lores and norms. If there's anything you want to compare digimon to, its Yu-gi-oh.

To me, Digimon's designs are overall superior as it's supposed to cater a lot of edgelords like you OP, but there are more designs in it that are like pills hard for me to swallow, more than pokemon could ever have.

>>27338631
Megas are the top of the food chain in the digital world of course they are gonna look menacing and powerful.

>>27338664
I'm aware of that. so ?

why are people comparing two different series focusing on two different aesthetics?

>>27338684
this guy gets it

Before anyone says so, I'm pretty sure the Tamagotchi was made for the same audience as pokemon was. If there was an aspect of pokemon that was supposed to appeal to younger children, that can be argued, but the language as far as I know seems to indicate that was not so. I assumed they were aiming for the same people all video games were at the time, roughly preteens. Perhaps I was incorrect and the central premise was made to appeal to small children. Digimon, however, WAS flat out designed for older boys.