What do you look for in a pokemons evolution? I've seen

Ones that just get bigger, I like them the most.

i like pokemons

>>28504112
Ones that look good and aren't edgy furbait..

File: HNI_0063.jpg (12KB, 326x255px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 326x255px

>>28504112
I don't have any thing specific.

I just want them to look, 'good.'

File: Exploudline.png (37KB, 375x250px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 375x250px

>>28504112
Evolutions that feel different on their own, but retain or enhance visual traits of the previous stage. Like pic related. Whismer looks calm and quite, Loudred becomes alarmed and energetic, Exploud is a monstrous ear-raping beast. They all share a progressional transition but also look different on their own. THAT is the way how consistent evolutions should be.

>while I don't dislike it, seems a little too different to be Rockruff.
Pokemon evolution is the series equivalent of metamorphosis and not body growth. As the franchise was inspired by collecting bugs. Similar to insects, there will be some species that will undergo drastic changes on their appearance and structure to improve their life style.

It gets bigger but also takes on some new aspects.
That's my ideal. I think there should be a very clear thread linking back to the first form, but there should also be innovations in the later forms that make them distinct and build upon the original concept.

Rockruff's evos look pretty good, thought midnight could stand to be less edgy and more animalistic. I was hoping for something like a werewolf. I can already see the Rock/Dark typing.

File: 1473693405976.png (379KB, 1446x791px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1446x791px

>>28504112

>What do you look for in a pokemons evolution?

It depends entirely on the Pokemon. Some Pokemon start off with a design that's just so good on its own that I'd prefer if its evolution didn't stray too far from that excellent starting point. In other words, "it just gets bigger" can be a good thing if the Pokemon that's getting bigger was good to begin with.

Others may feel conceptually "unfinished" and begging to have said concept expanded on or explored in a more interesting or unexpected way. Unfortunately many Pokemon that don't evolve at all fall into this category for me. Pokemon like Qwilfish or Stantler that have very basic concepts, a lot of potential for growth, but ultimately get nothing at all.

And every once in awhile having a Remoraid => Octillery type evolution can be fun to keep things entertaining.

I think that Rockruff handled this perfectly, in that it has a pseudo-split evolution that attempts to appease both the people who just want a bigger, more adult Rockruff and those who wanted the more "out there" concept of a werewolf.

File: 1471671039111.png (228KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 750x750px

So, in my eyes, there's two types of evolution.

Visual continuation and Thematic continuation.

~A visual evolution is when a pokemon evolves and retains visual elements that relate back to its pre-evolutions in a logical manner. You look at the evo, and look at the pre-evo, and can at a glance tell they're related. All of the 'it just gets bigger' evolutions are visual, but not all visual evolutions are 'it just gets bigger.'

A bad visual continuation is one that changes only minor details without adding much to the design to differentiate it, like muk or electrode. A good one clearly retains elements but looks very distinct, like Raguragan-day.

~A thematic evolution is one that you might not be able to tell immediately that the two are related, but follow an underlying theme or lore.

Bad thematic evolutions don't make a whole ton of sense, my personal example is Duskull to Dusclops; the design changes quite a bit, but the thematic connection between the two is little more than 'ghosts'

A good thematic line is the Salamence line. You understand why it goes through the changes in design during evolution based on the Pokemon's lore.

This isn't a bash on any of the individual designs, just how the evolutions are related.

>>28505913
Couldn't this mean both forms of Lugrugan fit in each of your categories
"Rockruff is a sociable Pokémon, but as it grows, its disposition gets wilder. If it begins to howl when the sun goes down, that is proof that it’s close to evolving. It’s said that it leaves its Trainer’s side to evolve and returns again when fully evolved."

>>28505913

Duskull and Dusclops are both cyclops. Duskull has a single eye that moves between the two eye sockets in his face.

Dusknoir is fucking retarded though. It isn't anything, besides its main head lookin' a bit japanese lantern-ish.

>>28506659
Yeah, in terms of evolution I think both rugarugan's forms are fitting and fit nicely with Rockruff's design and theme

>>28506765
'Cyclops' is such a vague term though that you could hardly call it thematic. I mean the honedge line is made of cyclops' too, and so are magnemites

>>28506765
My biggest problem with the Duskull line, and some other lines in which a third member is added in a new generation, is that they seem to discard any sense of forward progression that the term "evolution" would imply. Why did Dusclops grow a full body and legs and become grounded only for Dusknoir to become a generic wisp-tailed ghostie again? Why did Dusclops' hands develop before its arms? Where did the whole mummy look it developed go? Where did the skull-like teeth go? Why the yellow stripes and stomach face? And suddenly it's now a radio that captures signals from the other side?

The only thing that really stays consistent with the Duskull line is the feeling of "reaper", but every stage in the line seems to have its own wildly different take on that, to the point where the shift from Dusclops to Dusknoir felt jarring to me, and that it might have made more thematic sense for them to be branching evos off of Duskull, just like Slowbro and Slowking to Slowpoke.

>>28504112
Doggo is objectively not an instance of "it just gets bigger." Anyone who says it is is just a moron. It carries designs cues and a color scheme forward but it is clearly very different.
The furfag version is an example of a bad design. It shares no design traits with Rockruff and it doesn't even look like a Rock-type.

>>28510452
none of them do

>>28510452
>and it doesn't even look like a Rock-type.

To be fair, we don't know what either of their types are yet, or if they even have separate types or not. But I agree, the werewolf is too starkly different from Rockruff from a design standpoint. But in a sense, I can understand that it's sort of the whole point. But as long as sun dog exists, I can't be too upset at moon dog.

>>28510494
none of what do what?

>>28505363
>>28505676
>>28505913
These 3 get it.

emo wolf literally looks like a devianart sonic character

>>28510521
From what I've seen and thought, I think Moondog's theme is "wolf in a sheep's clothing". Take a good and I mean a good look at it. The fur on its back ? That's supposed to be its original skin, the claws on the side are Rockroff's and the hair, that's Rockroff's tail. This thing literally ripoed its own skin off in order to evolve, that's why its fur is crimson and the lower arms and legs, the fur is supposed to represent open ligaments and tendons alongside bone.

Now tell me if you see it the same again.

>PRIORITY
>ROCK
>MOVE

Anything that meshes well with my tastes. Cute, Cool, and fluffy mainly.

I like pokemon with good/clever designs and have proper anatomy, not noodle arms and deformed hands.

>>28504112
Anything that doesn't look like an edgy Crash Bandicoot OC.

Actually the night version has more physical features of rockruff then day does, the ears and tail are more like rock, while day has strait ears a fallen tail and the collar thing. To me tho I like night more