>it is based on something so it's not also a clever but

>>29172000

I agree, but the execution of Alolan Muk is flawless.

File: 1476249573618.jpg (440KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1080x1920px

>

>>29172000
It went from a pile of sludge with a face to colorful sludge with rocks

>it's a shit design CONFIRMED because i, the king of anons, dislike it

>>29172000
pic unrelated?

>>29172000
Might wanna reread that greentext of yours, because it doesn't sound right.

What is it even supposed to be though? Why is it colorful?

>>29172029
>>29172000
This, you fucko.
>Wahh I don't like it so no one else should!

>>29172000
when i saw the picture i was disappointed, but when I saw it in motion I was like "oh fuck its moving thats cool"

>It is based on a oil puddle.
Am I the only one who like the idea and the design?

>>29172000
The color choice is kinda off-putting but it still looks really nice

File: 1473538368353.png (11KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 500x368px

>>29172000
My point: some people likes a Pokémon when it's an interesting concept more than if a Pokémon is just cute/badass but it's "soulless".

I prefer a Pokémon, ugly or not, who has an interesting battle style or a new concept in Pokémon. If you only like Pokémon that only are "pleasing to the eye" ok, enjoy your cats, your dragons and your waifus. Many people like me will enjoy our pocket MONSTERS.

>>29172000
Coming from an interesting idea makes a pokemon more interesting but doesn't automatically make it good

But I think aMuk looks great, just wish they hadn't included two unrelated and not fully realised ideas. Think they just saw the backlash from garbodor and didn't want to go full rubbish

>>29172076
Me too, the animation is awesome

>>29172000
Post an example of someone saying this. We'll wait.

>>29172000
> This anon again

Your butthurt has a good execution

File: 1476370864701.jpg (29KB, 594x598px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 594x598px

Who the fuck cares
Big deal, you don't like it, this isn't your blog
A thread died for this

>>29172000
>it's based on a heel wrestler named el tigre, so it's automatically good!!!
>even though it looks lazy as fuck since it's just a guy wearing a tiger fursuit i will defend it!!!

There's a reason people wanted a goddamn fire tiger pocket monster, even with some extra theme elements added on like they always are. Classic designs like that work and people miss them in Pokemon, besides standing out and being cool looking by default. It's great that underage fags feel superior because they googled the reference so they "got it" and all, but that still doesn't make it good. Yeah, I'm slightly peeved.

>>29172103
THIS. I hardly care of a pokemon's overall appearance, if it has an interesting concept and can still pull a great design, then it's a good mon for me. Yeah I do take competitive value in consideration some times, but not all the time. It's probablt why I really like Komo-o, but I simply don't care for any of its pre-evo or why I prefer Lurantis over Tsareena or why I like all three of the starter evos, it's the concept, not the "eye pleasing" look that matters to me.

>>29172000
"Yes, there are official Pokémon characters based on garbage. They were deliberately conceptualized, finalized and forever approved while the dark/psychic wolves and dragon/steel velociraptors of your dreams are rotting in the art department's reject pile. Go ahead... soak your gardevoir body pillow in your anguished tears."
> Bogleech

>>29172104
>just wish they hadn't included two unrelated and not fully realised ideas
?

File: 250px-676Furfrou.png (53KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 250x250px

>>29172000
>

>>29172000
I agree, I'm tired of lorefags that begin to love a pokemon after we know it's pokedex because it "justifies" the flaws in the execution and a lot of them just say "muh lore".

Although Muk is a bad example of this.
>>29172141
Palossand and its antenna thing.

>>29172192
You mean Pyroar? Solgaleo? What do you mean by classic, dragonball eyes?

>>29172204
>Dragon/Steel Velociraptor
I love dinosaurs but that's just a Garchomp 2.0 waiting to happen.

Grovyle pulled off the Raptor style decent enough.

>>29172245
Not gonna say Palossand is perfect, but the antenna also kind of resembles the kind of thin decorations at the top of a palace to me. The radar thing feels like it's only there so it's not useless.

>>29172254
Not him, but I'd rather have simpler designs.

I'm not saying I hate "overdesigned" shit, one of my favorite Pokemon are kaiju-like, but the El Tigre literally came from nowhere and looks like shit.

Just look at the big hands, small and ugly head, etc., color schemes... There's so many flaws with this design.

>>29172076
I understood the reference straight away and loved it

>>29172283
None of those are because it's over-complicated. In fact it IS simple, it's TOO simple.

>>29172231
Oil spill and those weird crystal things

It is lacking some colours and the shine of an oil spill, and the crystals could have worked as compacted plastics or scrap materials

Inspiration is kinda muddy as is, personally would have made it have rusted scrap metal instead of the crystals and have it be the product of oil spills that once occurred near the island

>>29172068
It's your faggot rainbow cum

>>29172192
>>29172283
It's just the anime art, which we know for a fact that every thing in the SM anime looks fucked.

Luchalitten's actual officIal art probably won't even look half as bad, and even then it'll still probably look better in game since almost all the art we've hitting doesn't look as good as the models do.

>>29172000
It was about time they made a pokémon based on the lgbt community.
Fuck off

>>29172204
This is why I prefer official designs over those made by fans, as much as I love making fakemon. They have more tought put into them instead of just looking cool for the teens. It's the reason why I'm glad what we got with the starters. I've seen the concepts made by fans for the XY starters and I lived through the phase when evolutions were made for the starters in SM and holly shit, I'm glad we got what we got. Yeah you can shit on Chesnaught and Helltigre all you want, but at least they're better then all the "it just gets bigger" evolutions they all came up with, probably why I don't really like Torracat. Seriously, Robinhoot is a blessing and I'm actually GLAD we got Poppmaid, I love the concept of a pop star mermaid. Almost every other Popplio evolution either made me go "are these people serious ?" or were flat out just Popplio with a bigger frill and a pink pearl ball.

>>29172000
>stop liking what I don't
>stop disliking what I do
>opinions are objective when they're mine

Fuck off.

>>29172283
I would suggest to wait for the model before passing judgement on Luchalitten, because the art in this generation has been pretty bad so far

>>29172275
The thing is a lot found it stupid when they saw it rotate but people only started to defend it when they read the entry.
Yeah, it's a radar, but that doesn't automatically stop it from looking dumb.
It would have been better as a helmet spike. Also a lot of ghostfags jumped the ship when the description was revealed, and then proceeded to literally use the word "lore" as a whole counterargument for any criticism.

Also, personal opinion, the mouth-tunnel is neat but Pallosand looks way better without it.

>>29172333
>which we know for a fact that every thing in the SM anime looks fucked.

Wait, wow, this would explain a LOT

>>29172254
You named two lions, goddamn it /vp/. And I mean "classic" as in charizard for example, keeping with the fire starter theme. It's a dragon with a torch in its tail that fits the pre evos since it ended the theme of the fire lizard beautifully. It's not too complicated, its streamlined and it has worked for twenty years while being consistently popular.

I don't mind bizarre pokemon, I like them along with the ones based on objects, but if you're too dense to see why people don't like ( even though it's based on a wrestler and ergo everyone should just immediately adore it), at least people could admit that it's not what the majority wanted or expected. Same with Popmaid for that matter, but that one at least isn't so ugly.

>>29172404
>at least people could admit that it's not what the majority wanted or expected.

Oh shut the fuck up, no one cares what the majority wanted.

>>29172000
Post the gay pride image.

File: 009_Blastoise.png (60KB, 204x230px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 204x230px

>>29172404
Funny you mention classic, when one of the classics throws away everything the previous two evolutions builded up. outside "turtle".

>>29172000

> People just cannot enjoy designs easier than you.

Fuck you. I love ALL Pokémon. Until now, none of them has a bad execution, at least in design. Yes, there are Pokémon that could be more cool (Goodra makes no sense between its preevos and it) but all are good designs in their own way.

Show me a Pokémon that has a bad concept AND a bad execution, please. I'm waited.

>>29172068
Oil spill

>>29172401
I don't think it really looks stupid at all. I mean without the lore the shovel is just functionally an artifact from its Sandygast days.

>>29172420
>>29172420
>Oh shut the fuck up, no one cares what the majority wanted

kek, are you 12 or something? El tigre's existence doesn't bother me other than the fact that I find it ugly and underage fags push it so much. I just gave you the most reasonable cause for people not liking it and it's what everyone's been saying from the beggining, but I'm glad you live in your little autist bubble safe space where the rest of the world and it's big, meany opinions don't exist. Enjoy being contrarian.

>>29172343
Ballio isn't even real and fans gave it much more soul than Poppmaid will ever have

>>29172453
Not taking his side, but Squirtle didn't build anything outside "turtle", and Wartortle, the last designed in the line, was literally a filler made way later in development when they decided Blastoise would be one of the starters.

>>29172517
>kek

>>29172453
At what point did wartortle and squirtle stop being turtles that shoot water? Because wartortle has these fluffy ears and tail and it looses them upon evolving? Come on, you could've came up with a better example

>>29172554
At the same point that Litten and Torracat stopped being cats that produced fire.

>>29172542
>>29172554
Not him

>based on myths of incredibly old turtles, which apparently is where the fluffy tail comes from
>suddenly changes to cannon turtle with a regular tail and nothing its lore talking about longevity or battle experience

Most people only even defend it because they picked Squirtle as a kid.

>>29172484
I don't mind people who don't find it stupid, or love it: we all have our tastes and none of them are objective.
What I'm criticizing is not Pallosand itself, but again the way some people use "lore" as a mean to shut off any kind of complain for things that other people don't like about a design.

>>29172526
AHAHAHAHHAAHA
delusional balliofags actually believe this

your shitmon was never even considered to be real by any community outside of the sphere of contrarian autists that is /vp/ and none of them even care enough to remember the five seconds it had any sort of relevance

>>29172517
GF doesn't care about what fans want. GF approves pokemon designs that THEY like, not outside influence for better or worse.
They are also a bunch of middleaged japanese men, so their taste is gonna be very different from the core audience(children) and the western audience(manchildren)

>>29172307
There is also the fact that it's the fourth starter that will have a Fire/Fighting theme and people are sick of it.

>>29172589
First one you replied to.
What you quoted doesn't negate anything of what I said.
Again Squirtle didn't build anything outside of "turtle", the first line you quoted is all about Wartortle, the outlier who was designed last in the line to fill the space between Squirtle and Blastoise.
Squirtle shares as much theme with Wartortle as it does with Blastoise.

>Most people only even defend it because they picked Squirtle as a kid.
You can say that about any starter, and arguing with hypothesis is just walking in circles.

File: smug_gambling_man.png (131KB, 250x504px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 250x504px

>>29172000
Usually when people complain about Pokemon design, the first thing to come oout their mouth is "They're running out of ideas" as if to imply they just made shit up.

When in fact they might have don't their homework a little more than their critics give 'em credit for and if anything this probably exposes more ignorance on their part than it shows incompetence on the designers' part.

>>29172000
You again?

>>29172662
If you look at the Gen 1 index number's you'll see Squirtle, Wartortle and the Charmander line in one squeezed up area indicating the 5 were made for the purpose of being starters.

My point being that Wartortle wasn't made way after Squirtle, it was designed alongside it.

>Squirtle shares as much theme with Wartortle as it does with Blastoise.
Squirtle sets up for the fluffy tail on Wartortle while not seeming any more proficient with Water shooting than most other Water Pokemon.

>You can say that about any starter, and arguing with hypothesis is just walking in circles.
Okay that's true

Pokémon is a kids-friendly franchise. Thus pokémon designs are made to be seen and catch your eye the first time, because kids are not certainly scurring the net lookibg for the origins. If you look at a pokémon and go "hey that's pretty good", that design is a sucess. If you need to go research whatever stupid concept was used in order to like a pokémon or justify weird design choices, then it failed as a pokémon.

Therefore is utterly stupid when some underage Litten3 fag goes all "b-but it's based on Tiger Mask!". All pokémon have concepts. Even something simple like a rattata has a concept, in this case being a rat. Things like Litten3 are shit because they don't grab your eye

>>29172695
litten3 was the only one of the three that did grab my eye.

>>29172692
You're right, Squirtle and Wartortle are pretty close, but Blastoise still appears way sooner in that list compared to them.

>>29172692
>Squirtle sets up for the fluffy tail on Wartortle
How.
No seriously, point out the common things Squirtle has with Wartortle outside "turtle that shoots water" (which is the same thing it shares with Blastoise).

>>29172000
Thank you for posting this, retards say the same thing about turtonator whenever I say how terrible it looks

File: ivosky III demonstarates proper squating posture to future komrades.jpg (55KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x450px

>>29172595
>>29172526
>mfw I genuinely liked both

I didn't think ballio was real, but I still liked his design. The other two in that set were boring though.

I want the shiny to be even more colorful. Maybe replace the dull green it has for a purple.

And yes its appeal to me is completely base on how colorful it is.

It is going on my team.

i thought i walked into a /v/ pokemon thread for a second

File: 655Delphox_Dream.png (80KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 300x300px

>>29172456
>Until now, none of them has a bad execution, at least in design
Except Delphox. I find not having a large staff and the ear hair not forming a hat a missed opportunity for it's concept. The design would've been flawless. As it is now, its just a bigger Braxien with a robe. Losing the broomstick tail and not replacing it with a new "witch motif" sucked too. I can understand how this design is flawed enough to have it's popularity eclipsed by it's pre evo.

>>29172695
> Pokémon is a kids-friendly franchise. Thus pokémon designs are made to be seen and catch your eye the first time, because kids are not certainly scurring the net lookibg for the origins.
Yeah.

> Things like Litten3 are shit because they don't grab your eye
And then, you ruined your post.

I don't like Litten3, but you're questioning a thing who you really cannot know. I know a guy that has a niece and she said "I don't like Charizard". Charizard, one of the most loved Pokémon. And she dislike it. How can you know that nobody will like it?

They makes designs for all type of people. They made Gardevoir, Skitty, Pikachu, Ninetales... for people who love cute species. They made Charizard, Tyranitar, Garchomp, Machamp... for people who love strong species. They made Weezing, Probopass, Scrafty, Garbodor... for people who love goofy/funny species. And I'm sure all of them have a big fan who loves this Pokémon. Litten3 will not be an exception.

>>29172000
I agree, I'm not sure why /vp/ is so bad about that this gen. Just because the ugliness of a design is based off of something, it doesn't mean it suddenly looks less shit.

>>29172905
>Just because the ugliness of a design is based off of something, it doesn't mean it suddenly looks less shit.

For you. Some people change their opinion when they realize that it's ugly with some reason.

>>29172689
Yeah, his autism is strong. I feel bad for he.

>>29172938
If you have to look for a pokémon origin in order to like a pokémon, then it's a shitty pokémon.

Remeber pokémon are meant to catch your eye when you look at them, not be only appreciated when you spend 3 hours reading about how Goodra is based on a super obscure french snail-dragon legend

>>29172938
No. An ugly design is an ugly design. I don't care if turtonator, for example, is based off of the ugliest fucking turtle I've ever seen, it's still bad looking.

>>29172824
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>29172000
>alolan muk
I do not get it. What is the joke?

>>29172968
Or maybe there are people who love know the origins.
Or maybe there are people who a shitty Pokémon (for you) catch their eye.

>>29173008
>>29172905
Context matters for a lot of people. Obviously it doesn't for you but clearly it does for a large portion of Pokemon fans.

I don't like Muk (either form) either.

>>29172938
>Some people change their opinion when they realize that it's ugly with some reason.
So that justifies unappealing designs? Okay?

File: 1440865781850.jpg (127KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 550x550px

>>29172905
>Just because the ugliness of a design is based off of something, it doesn't mean it suddenly looks less shit.
I don't understand this mentally. Why is it so hard to comprehend a design that tries to convey it's concept? Why does Greninja using a tongue as a scarf makes it a flawed design, when ninjas have their faces hidden all the time?

>>29173057
>it does for a large portion of Pokemon fans.
It really doesn't. If you go search for Garbodor you'll find inspirations from trash monsters from obscure kaiju series as well as a likeness to Totoro, a nature spirit, and it's totally super clever because Garbodor is a trash pokémon so he's basically an anti-Totoro.

Most people still hate it though. SO we have two paths here
>Most pokémon fans don't give a shit about muh concept and judge pokémon based on their visual appeal
>Most pokémon fans researched Garbodor but still dislike it because it looks like shit

Either one you pick, the final conclusion is that ultimately what people care about the most is how it looks, not what is based on. Just because some udneraged anti-genwunners like to spout how Litten3 is based on Tiger Mask when someone says he dislikes it doesn't mean most of the fanbase is like that

>>29173080
Yes because it shows some thought went into the design.

>>29173130
Hating Garbador is a spook, learn to think for yourself

File: 1464400319172.jpg (296KB, 1858x1353px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1858x1353px

>>29173091
>Why does Greninja using a tongue as a scarf makes it a flawed design
It doesn't. Greninja is something "special", I would say.

It uses its inspirations perfectly, so it can satisfy both groups-- people who prefer serious-looking Pokemon and people who like the funny comic relief.

If Greninja would've looked like this, it'd only appeal to one group.

>>29173080
Yes. If a Pokémon is based on trash. it will be an ugly design. If a Pokémon is based on a glorious queen, it will be a cute design. That's all.

>>29172103
I like every Pokemon. Granted, I do gravitate quite a bit towards cute Pokemon, but I love and appreciate every Pokemon for what they are, what they accomplish, and what they bring.

There's a very small handful of Pokemon I like the least, but I can't hate them, and I'll never understand how people seem to think that just because they don't like a design, it is bad.

>>29172000
I think it looks cool. The Alolan forms, in my opinion, should be executed in a way that makes the Pokémon look new and unique but still distinguishable as the species it is. Exeggutor, Marowak, Sandslash, Sandshrew, Ninetales, and Vulpix were great in that aspect. Shameless recolors that do nothing besides give the Pokémon a new typing is the bad way to do it.

Alolan Grimer suffers from that, where it is literally a Shiny Grimer with a yellow beard and teeth. However Alolan Muk could be its own new Pokémon. It looks fucking great.

>>29173217
>Shameless recolors that do nothing besides give the Pokémon a new typing is the bad way to do it.
Isn't that basically what the Alolan Ninetales line is?

Not meant to attack you in any way.

>>29173217
Here's something I don't get; apparently Cubone, Pikachu and Exeggcute don't get Alola forms. Ok, I can see why Exeggcute doesn't, given the lore and that there isn't much to change, but the other two?

Why does Grimer get an alola form but not Pikachu and Cubone?

>>29173130
I have a third path:
> Many people who like a Pokémon aren't bothering all fucking days with its tastes.

We have an Alolan Muk hate thread all the days, but they are responded by many lovers of it that don't make love threads all the days.

Only autistic fans are bothering with its Pokémon. All haters shit on those Pokémon who they hate.

>>29173217
But it's literally a rainbow muk

>>29173145
What I said about Garbodor can be applied to any pokémon that is generally hated by the fanbase. Hell, why not look at Dugtrio, a pokémon /vp/ loves to bash because the default reaction to someone not liking something new is "GEN 1 WAS SHIT!"?

Searching for inspiration on Dugtrio shows that is based on the commom animal mole, notorious for burrowing underground, having a large nose to sniff it's way around, beady-eyes because you don't really need 20/20 vision when you tunnel all day AND based on those whack-a-mole toys, which explains their cilindric shape, the existence of three heads, and their up-and-down motion when moving around. /vp/ and a lot of people dislike it. That is because

>Most people don't give a shit about Dugtrio and his inspiration and dislike it because of how it looks and dismiss it as a lazy evolution, even though it makes sense, when the concept is considered
>Most people know about Dugtrio, his lore, his inspirations but in the end concluded that despite all that "oh-so-clever" lore it still looks like shit

Either way what people care in the end is how the pokémon. Only a small minority prioritizes concept over design

>>29172843
Delphox is different enough from Braixen just with the robe.

It's not a kawaii witch apprentice anymore, it's an experienced mage. That's why waifufags hate it.

>i'm gonna call everything outside of the cool/cute spectrum ugly and if you call me out i'll hide behind saying its execution is awful and that you're being an apologist over its concept
every time

>>29172000
>upset about other's taste

File: 1476585879214.png (272KB, 1021x636px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1021x636px

>>29172000

>>29173267
And riding the train, let's talk about Turtonator, that is pretty divided: some people love it, some people hate it. Perosnaly I like it, it remind me of Magmar, which I also like

Looking for the concept, it's based on a mata-mata turtle, which explains the long neck with protusions on each side, the flat head, the trump-like nose and the overall shape. It also might draw inspiration from kappas due to the peculiar shape the flattened head does, and bipedal position. It also draws inspirations from landmines and explosions, thus that bit of his shell blowing up when touched and the visual aspect of the shell looking like a classical explosion. The people who hate it:

>looked at it, decided it looked like shit and went on with its day, not giving a fuck about whatever concepts came into play
>looked up the concept, and concluded the design is not appealing for them even if they like the concept

The same way, a lot of people out of /vp/ said they enjoy it. Most justify themselves saying "it's a badass-lookign fire-dragon turtle!", and most don't know it draws inspiration from kappas or whatever other "clever" origin it has

Bottomline what most people care about is the finished product, how visually appealing it is, not the ebin references behind it

>>29173575
kek

File: tototototototodial.gif (21KB, 150x160px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 150x160px

>>29173575

File: 1471292459493.gif (477KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 225x225px

>>29173632

In conclusion, you think Game Freak should make their designs only with visually appeal. If a Pokémon can be creative but ugly, they shouldn't be Pokémon.

Okay, enjoy your waifus and dragons. I don't want to lose more time with you. Game Freak will continue making ugly but clever designs, just admit this.

>>29173800
Not him but there can be a balance between the two.

Something I'd point at as a balance is Lurantis. I mean yeah it's another Grass waifumon, but it also has that clever background of orchids mimicking insects.

Kommo-o looks like the usual big armored kaiju/dragon thing but has a warrior look to it while having the khakkara tail invoking the image of a warrior monk.

The Rowlet line which this board favors on visual appeal alone does very well with its concept of Dartrix being a noble before becoming robin hood.

I don't feel Pokemon should always be only accepted based on how badass or cute they are since that would kind of limit the scope of what a Pokemon could be. Not to say there aren't bad designs because there are, but there's always gonna be your mons that look ugly because of their concept/intent to look less serious with concept and execution ranging from clever to incredibly simple, and there's always going to be those mons that just have the cool/cute/waifu appeal.

Just as not everything needs to be a badass mammal, a kaiju, a dragon, a moeblob or a waifu not everything needs to have the world's most clever concept either. I don't think I've met anyone who has Probopass and Charizard in their favorites at the same time like I do before, for example.

>>29173800
If the extreme unpopularity of Vanilluxe is any indication, the fanbase largely prefers appealing and simple to "creative" and ugly, but that's not really the point in this discussion, is it?

You're moving goalposts, because your initial point is that "most of the fanbase cares about the concept the most", and I quote it here where you said that

>>29173057
>Context matters for a lot of people. Obviously it doesn't for you but clearly it does for a large portion of Pokemon fans.

It doesn't. Design and visual appeal clearly matter more to most of the fanbase.

You're also distorting my original point, by mistake or on purpose. I never said "ugly" pokémon don't have the right the exist, I merely debated with you if the fanbase prioritizes design or concept when deciding they like/dislike something. Hint: the answer is "design"

A Pokemon design is only ever really bad when they accomplish what they WEREN'T going for.

Muk is supposed to be Ugly, it looks ugly, so GF got their design across.
If they were trying to make it ugly But instead it turn into shitty waifu bait THEN it would be a bad design since that ruins the point they we're trying to convey with it.

Ugly doesn't inherently mean bad, especially when that's the intension.

>>29173940
>I don't think I've met anyone who has Probopass and Charizard in their favorites at the same time

Hey anon, I love them at the same time too! Probopass is fun to use and Charizard was my starter in Red.

>>29172000
We are in 2016, there are 30 years old shaders that work better than that moving shit they did

>not liking Vanilluxe

You faggots disgust me.