Here is an example of an objectively bad design. That doesn't

Why is it objectively bad?

>>29625638
You should probably explain how exactly it's "objectively bad."

>>29625661
>>29625666

Not OP but it looks like it's about to unleash a mad toot from its head.

File: magmar.png (988B, 96x96px) Image search: [Google]

988B, 96x96px

>>29625661
>>29625666
Sure thing.
The anatomy is extremely awkward. Look at its legs and try to imagine it waking.
The tail doesn't appear to connect to the spine.
The hips and shoulders are simplified round spheres, while the claws and spikes look intricate. It looks like a mashup of two completely different Pokémon. The confetti arms don't make the design any more cohesive either.
I'm not going to comment on things like the tacky flame pattern, the forehead, the duck bill because that's getting into opinion.

>>29625753
It is an awkward design, but I'm sure that we're not meant to see the black parts of its legs as some rigid exoskeleton that is incapable of bending.

If anything the feet is the only thing in its body that looks like it's a solid casing.

>>29625638
>not liking based boober

I really liked magmortar's design until I noticed the lips. Magmar is just a mess though

>>29625753
the animation you posted from B/W2 or whatever is even more awkward.

why the fuck are its arms constantly raised like that? that's not how you stand around during a battle.

I used to like to imagine that it was a quadruped that was occasionally bipedal, and that seemed to make a bit more sense (although the shoulder placement is still weird)
But all art and animation shows it walking around on its hind legs so that clearly isn't the case

>>29625823
This thread isn't about liking or disliking ol' Boober. It's strictly about its design, and about every design. /vp/ doesn't seem to get that designs aren't 100% subjective. Every single art form can be evaluated objectively.

>>29625847
Yup, they're both pretty bad. I can't decide which one is worse.

>>29625859
Probably easier to animate. You'll notice that most of the infamous lazy animations of gen V are for older Pokémon that had already established sprites. The Pokémon that they had to make new sprites for looked fine moving around.

>>29625753
>>29625638
I can agree with this.

File: magmortarsprites.png (30KB, 498x548px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 498x548px

I think magmortar's design is actually better
especially the shiny backsprite in xy, but i couldn't find an animation for it

>objectively

people keep using that word.

File: shinymagmortar.gif (108KB, 102x89px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 102x89px

>>29625909

>>29625921
anon said backsprite

>>29625666
It is a spawn of hell, why even ask, satan?

>>29625909
>>29625921
It's kinda funny - Magmortar's one of the mons that would actually look good with a bright flashy saturated color scheme, but the shiny's this rather dull looking pink.

You can point out that the 6th gen model's colors are washed out, but it still looked rather dull in Gen IV and V.

>>29625989
I agree, but the shiny looks far better than the default color scheme

>>29625920
Good job on being the first person who didn't read the thread.

File: shinyswagmortar.gif (960KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 500x280px

>>29626008
in my opinion anyways

In Red/Blue electabuzz and magmar were the only pokemon that were both version exclusive and not used by any other trainers. I always assumed this was because GF was embarrassed by their shitty designs and they were trying to minimize exposure

>>29626168
Electabuzz got a lot of exposure in the anime though. They pit it against scyther in the Pikachu ketchup episode and it was one of the faces of Haymaker in the TCG. Electivire was even the forerunner for Gary showing Ash his first Gen 4 Pokemon to lead him to Sinnoh.

>>29625638
>That doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to like this design

Then it's not objectively bad, retard.

File: 126.jpg (157KB, 620x650px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 620x650px

>>29625847

I like Magmar and Magby, but thing Magmortar is a mess with the only redeeming featuring being the arms.

>>29626168

Magmar was Blaine's signature Pokemon in the anime.

The first season of the anime just didn't feature certain Pokemon for whatever reason. I remember having the Topps Pokemon cards which drew on the anime and there were a bunch who were listed as saying they hadn't appeared in the anime yet.

>>29625638
>objectively bad art
your first mistake

>>29625638
who cares anon it's a design from 1996 and even before perhaps, whoever came with this idea probably doesn't even think his reasons to create it are valid anymore.

OP's complaints are about awkward anatomy and not design, though.

>>29625638
>objectively bad
this alone is enough to qualify yourself as a fucking retard not worth listening to

>>29628075
Which is very important for designing a character

>>29625638
>objectively bad design
ITT: People who don't know what objectivity is.
>OP is objectively stupid

>>29628089
That is true, but a design can still be salvaged if drawn another way.

>>29628089
accurate anatomy isn't necessary for a good design, especially not for a fictional monster. OP has a complete misunderstanding of art, subjectivity and opinions

>>29628123
Anatomy has to have a form of logic to it, even if its a fictional creature. Otherwise your character design will end up awkward like magmars.

>>29625638
That's not Magmortar tho.

>>29625753
Hey OP, good thread. At least you spent some time trying to explain why the design is bad unlike some of the autists on this site.

File: klefki.png (15KB, 298x237px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 298x237px

>>29625638
Would this be classified as bad design or just lazy.

>>29628352
>criticize a gen 1 Pokémon with analysis
>"good going op, glad you backed up your opinion"

>criticize a newer Pokémon with analysis
>"YOU CANT HAVE THAT OPINION BECAUSE MUK IS SLUDGE WITH EYES/VOLTORB IS A POKEBALL WITH EYES"

Fucking tired of people throwing a few gen 1 Pokémon under the bus whenever you try to say anything bad about the new games

File: lavaplume_by_lydario.png (564KB, 795x896px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 795x896px

>>29628313
>Mortar cannon arms
>Lack of face buttchecks
>Sinister grin which highlights aesthetic personality and formidablity
You can't be serious.

>>29628445
But anon, there are many Pokemon i dislike from more recent gens. In my eyes Bewear is one of the worst Pokemon design wise.

>>29628389

Yes, before pallosand it was the worst and laziest design in the game, but people act like all object Pokémon are the same even though sometimes they can be justified like voltorb being a mimick, and sometimes they lazily slap eyeballs on a sandcastle and call it a day.

I remember the shit storm that happened that rightfully happened when klefki was leaked. Then the contrarian apologists seeped in

File: download.jpg (21KB, 190x265px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 190x265px

>>29625638
my nominee

>>29628459
magmortar doesn't get enough credit for how much of an improvement it is

>>29628269
magmar's anatomy isn't illogical. It fits together in a way that makes sense with joints that would allow movement. Obviously its anatomy isn't similar at all to any real animal but it doesn't have to be because magmar itself isn't a real animal. Sure he may look a bit stiff but you can say the same thing about most pokemon. Blastoise, Charizard and Venusaur don't look like they should be able to move at all but their movements are exaggerated because they don't have to have an accurate basis in reality or conform to real world rules. It's a video game. You sound like you want magmar to look like a velociraptor with a red texture swap

>>29628459
I don't like the magmar line that muchnin general but I do like magmar more than mortar purely because mortar's sinister grin makes him seem more 'human' which I find weird, I prefer how magmar looks like an animal. It's personal thing tho and I get that some other people like that he has more personality and looks less vacant

Magmar is one of those really strange designs the more you think about it

>the fuck is he based off?
>what's with those arms?
>why are his legs black tubes?
>why does he have a duck bill?
>why the fuck does he have a butt on his head?

>>29625638
>objectively bad
by whose standards?
that fucking garbage mon is worse than this shit
like come on stop throwing that word around like you think it fits

>>29625661
Butt forehead and does it even have knees? Its torso is an Easter egg, its arms look like they're wrapped in tissue paper.

The more I look at Magmar the more I think What the FUCK were they thinking? Still think Magmar's cool though.

>>29628352
Thank you.

Most people don't get the point of this thread, though.

I'm saying that you can like a design while acknowledging that it's a bad design.

File: wynaut.gif (78KB, 76x53px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 76x53px

>>29625753
If we are talking about awkward anatomy, then Wynaut is even worse, how it can even stand.

File: 250px-248Tyranitar.png (55KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 250x250px

>>29628626
I don't think Wynaut is as bad.
It has the cute card going for it, and one could say that its legs are simplified and not indicative of actual anatomy. Many baby Pokémon have stubby limbs like that.

Magmar is bad because even taking stylization into account the anatomy still doesn't make sense. There's also the inconsistency of the design - parts of it are very simple, while other parts look complex. It looks like a mashup of two completely different Pokémon. I wanted to use Magmar as an example because it's on the extreme end of bad and it's very easy to see why.

Here's an example of a Pokémon that doesn't have that inconsistency problem. Tyranitar is a fan favorite for very good reasons, it's an objectively good design. Drop any bias you have about it being "generic" or too closely based off of something else - that's irrelevant. We're looking at the execution of the design, which is objectively good. We can see that its body looks like it's made of a hard carapace-like material. The entire design is consistently complex - compare Tyranitar's limbs to Magmar's. We can actually see how it would walk. The color scheme of green and blue works well and is very appealing to the eye.

No, I'm not saying that Magmar should look like a red Tyranitar. And I don't think Magmar should look like literally my mom's animal, either. I'm saying that Magmar should have consistency. And the entire point of this thread is, again, you can like something and acknowledge its flaws.

Lastly:
>OP, stop using the word objectively! It's not true, designs aren't objectively good or bad!

If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need for a board like >>>/ic/, because EVERYONE would be a good artist. Yes, designs are subjective, but they're not 100% subjective. Character design is a pretty complex thing. Liking something doesn't mean it stops being a bad design. We've already got people crawling out of the woodwork to defend Alola Persian.

>>29628559
>mortar's sinister grin makes him seem more 'human' which I find weird,
Thats the intention though. You do realize Magmar's only egg group is the "Human-like" group right? Becoming more humanoid makes allot of sense.

>>29626168
Nobody ever used Golem either

File: Magmar-Fire-Blast-81925.gif (359KB, 391x290px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 391x290px

>>29625753
Honestly, you made good points, OP.
Magmar was such a badass in his first anime appearance, but it's design is just awkward.

Nidoking is an objectively good design.

>>29625638
>>29625753
It really isn't """""objectively""""" bad.

It has a good color scheme, balance, and a clear look that it's going for. Your complaints about the stylization of the design elements are simply opinions based on your own personal taste, which is fine, but don't go around throwing the words """""""""""objectively"""""""""" bad.

>>29628571
I always thought it was a hadrosaur of some kind

>>29628389

still can't believe there is a fucking keychain mon and a goddamn trashbag mon.

>>29629663
We already have a literally your mom's brown dildo Pokémon (which evolves into a bunch of 3 brown dildoes) so...

>>29629663
And I still don't see what's wrong with either.

>>29629135
He literally explained why its objectively bad without using taste you autist. It's anatomically stupid and impossible.

>>29631845
>It's anatomically stupid and impossible.

It's also a Pokemon, so I don't see how thats a fair criticism.

>>29632084
You're stretching suspension of disbelief.
There's a moving slime and then there's having a tail and not following how tails actually are.
You have expectations as to how things are, biased by our perception of what's natural, common or expected.
If a pokemon uses elements seen in nature you expect it to be consistent in its usage, and in any design you expect the theme to be consistent - and at the very least reasonable and mostly justified depending on the niche it resides in.

If you see an insect-like design, you expect insect-y things from it. If you see a tail, you expect the behaviour of how tails act out as it is not supernatural.

Having a tip of flame is supernatural but consistent in-universe. On the other hand, there's no justification for a heavy-handed flame pattern.

The point is, it needs to look natural in context.

>>29632221
>The point is, it needs to look natural in context.

Again: it's a Pokemon, one of hundreds of fictional creatures which vary in design from "could be an animal in real life" to "a rock with two human arms". I''m guessing you don't even know what Japanese folklore that Magmar is based off of, let alone having any objective basis to say what makes a good or bad Pokemon design.

>>29632266
>. I''m guessing you don't even know what Japanese folklore that Magmar is based off of
If you do, please elaborate. It's a better defense than "taste" when points of criticism that do not care about taste have been used. Perhaps that would give a much more solid explanation as to why the design is the way it is.

>having any objective basis to say what makes a good or bad Pokemon design

This isn't about taste. The fact that they're fictional creatures don't mean they get a free pass to not make sense.
Imagine a blob with human arms on the pokemon world. Wouldn't it feel out of place? It would be a bad design on the basis of being out of place.

A basis doesn't have to be fixed to make the measurements still valid.

This is one of the most intelligent threads I have ever seen on this board.

>>29632393
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karura

>The Karura (迦楼羅?) is a divine creature with human torso and birdlike head[1] in Japanese Hindu-Buddhist mythology.

>Imagine a blob with human arms on the pokemon world
You mean Grimer and Muk?

File: magmar.png (89KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 200x200px

a design is supposed to communicate or convey an idea or be consistent style. Magmar is my favorite pokemon and can still say he is designed poorly.

>>29632447
Grimer and Muk have slime arms and that link doesn't excuse any of the flaws listed in this thread.

>>29632513
None of the flaws listed in this thread are "objectively bad", so I'm not really worried about it.

File: IMG_0322.png (35KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 250x250px

>>29625638
Here is another example of an objectively bad design.

>>29632549
The fact that you posted at all means it bothered you. There's no need to try and act cool.

>>29632576
>lol u mad

I should have known from the use of "objective" to describe something that's inherently subjective, but thanks for confirming you're just another shitty troll.

File: FUG.png (278KB, 586x435px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 586x435px

>>29625638
OP, I had a conversation about Magmar today in class, who are you?

>>29632615
If you go around using quotation marks like this
>"""""""""""objectively""""""""""
it's because you're butthurt.

>>29632558
>design based on a Teru Teru Bozu
>looks exactly like a Teru Teru Bozu
>bad design

Yeah, no.

>>29632665
>everyone who replies to me is the same person

Pathetic to be honest my family.

>>29632681
I'm sure you just so happened to jump right into the conversation to defend that other anon as he left.

>>29628445
OP here. Magmar being a gen one Pokémon is actually one of the reasons I used it as an example. I knew it would just get derailed into "lol genwunners xD" if it was a newer Pokémon. It sucks, but it's the way /vp/ is. I don't have anything against gen one designs like /vp/ pretends to. I do think Magmar is the worst design in gen one, though.

>>29632629
Just coincidence. This thread was made yesterday, anyway.

>>29632667
I don't really know if I'd say Castform is objectively bad, but I don't think a good concept excuses bad execution. But that's another subject for another thread that I've made in the past

>>29632447
Grimer and Muk are not what I had in mind. Those are much more consistent - those arms are not made of actual literal human arms as much as it is their own. You've made a perfect example, actually. They've got a context, and a theme, and both forms are consistent with each other and the world they live in.

This source on its own is not really enough to convince everyone. Please draw your comparisions as to why magmar is a good execution of a design based on Karura.
I'm helping you improve your argument in favor of magmar, anon, not invalidating it.

>>29632549
If you want to argue that none of these points of view are objective, you need to explain how.
>fictional character
No counterarguments to the idea of verosimilitude yet.
>origin of the design
While there's no elaboration on how it performs to this goal, we know it's based off something.
>conveying an idea correctly
Yes, that's the point of evaluating the origin of the design.

>>29632667
>looks exactly like a Teru Teru Bozu
Is a good defense for castform's value.

>>29625753
Came here to call you a fag. You made some solid points however, good job OP.

I like Magmar for nostalgic reasons, but it's design is kind of awkward.

>>29632707
Defend what anon? I'm merely stating the obvious here, there's no objective basis for criticizing a Pokemon's design, and anyone who thinks there is has no idea what they're talking about. The fact that you have to deflect onto some other anon's poor choice of quotations doesn't help your argument.

>>29632712
>Please draw your comparisions as to why magmar is a good execution of a design based on Karura.

Design is inherently subjective, anon. You don't have to like it's design but once you use the word 'objective' you've gone full retard.

>>29628506
Retard
Kys

File: tehmeh improvement.jpg (268KB, 1280x1365px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1280x1365px

>>29632771
Design itself is not inherently subjective, else there wouldn't be any way to improve any piece of art. You're lying if you think the top looks just as good as the bottom in pic related. It's not design, I know, but it's similar enough.

How much one likes a design is certainly subjective, but designs themselves are not. Character design is pretty complex.

I'm not the person you're replying to, just to clear that up.

>>29632746
You already lost the argument. Now I'm just calling you stupid.

>>29632846
The problem is that OP has established zero criteria for what justifies his opinion of what is a good or bad Pokemon design, he just singled out one design without even knowing what it's based on or why it looks how it does. We're talking about fictional monsters here, everyone has a different idea about what makes a good design.

>>29632912
What argument? That Pokemon design can be objectively good or bad? Because you've done nothing to prove me wrong thus far.

>>29632948
>it's fictional so it doesn't have to make sense!

One of the most cancerous arguments out there.

>>29632977
>>it's fictional so it has to make sense to me personally! If it doesn't then its objectively bad! Anyone who disagrees with me is cancer becuase of I use circular reasoning unironically!

Any more clever greentext responses? And somehow I'm the cancerous one.

>>29632771
Evaluating the end result is, on its own, usbjective, but the execution with respect to the goals can be evaluated.

There's a frame of reference we've established to say on what aspect we're saying it's good and bad. Stop escaping by assuming that I am evaluating the subjective parts of the design, i.e. the end result on its own, but rather the end result with respect to a concrete aspect.

File: 60977_CTRP_AQE_char28_ad_Kopie.jpg (2MB, 3381x2712px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3381x2712px

>>29632948
>>29625753
And again, having a cool concept (as in what it's based on) doesn't excuse a poor execution, except in rare cases. It's extremely unlikely that Magmar is even based on that mythological creature, as it doesn't even have a bird head. It's just a bill.

I believe Magmar doesn't have any mythological background and it's simply based on generic fire spitting monsters.

>>29626043
That's some Mega Man's Robot Master -tier stuff right there. And as it's my second favorite franchise, I love it.

>>29633070
>It's extremely unlikely that Magmar is even based on that mythological creature

You can't be serious.

>>29633063
Which is why you're argument in entirely circular: if the basis by which you're saying the design is objectively basis actually subjective, then your entire critique is also subjective.

>>29633161
By that argument, you're saying that any tools of measurement that rely on a human's criteria to separate them individually are not a valid means of evaluating the thing as a whole.

No, of course you can't say that a console is shit solely based on its specs, since software and market penetration is a thing and those are "subjective measures" of the goodness of the console if only because different people give it different importance. You're not defining for who or what purpose. Not because something is "objective from a perspective" it means that it's a subjective point of view. What matters is the measurement, not the aspect.

>>29633253
>What matters is the measurement, not the aspect.

But you've established no standard of measurement by which to analyse a Pokemon's design that isn't based on your own subjective opinion.

>>29628808
i justed wanted to say that you are a cool guy, a lot of reflection about character design and aesthetics is showing and i wish more people would be like that.

>>29633282
For instance, market penetration is an aspect, not a subjective opinion of the measurements, a percentage of people that have a thing. It is established to answer a question: "How much reach could this potentially have?" by taking a measurement. A measurement within a margin of error, of course, but with a degree of certainty (that's a whole statistical aspect) is a "subjective criteria" as you say by which some option is evaluated as "good" or "bad".

Objectivity isn't about what perspective you're looking at a thing from. You can say "This is this and that" and as long as those facts don't change no matter where you're looking it from, it is fact. Looking at a thing from something, any context, then looking at a different thing doesn't make the perspective you had, which had an objective measurement go away, even if you're looking at it from your "subjective" camera.

>>29633389
>But you've established no standard of measurement by which to analyse a Pokemon's design that isn't based on your own subjective opinion.

File: 250px-625Bisharp.png (43KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 250x250px

>>29632709
You really have good arguments. But IMO, Jynx is the worst design of gen I.
Give me your opinion on Bisharp, OP.

>>29633446
Now you're just going in circles.
We already established standards of measurement - aspects that answer specific questions objectively about a design, that do not give conclusions of the design as a whole but of certain concrete points. Those concrete points are objective in spite of being human-picked aspects of a design that have to be seen through a specific filter to talk about them.
Look again.
>Verosimilitude
>Execution with respect to origin and goals of conveying points of that origin
Those are aspects of the design. Things we can objectively talk about and not have the design as a whole be any different. We can say its verosimilitude is poor. We can say the execution is poor. That doesn't mean the subjective view of someone saying "This design is good (for me)" is invalid because a few aspects of it are bad. Maybe those aspects add up to a whole that is greater than its flaws for that person. That doesn't mean that there are no objective measures around which you can tell facts.
This is how you say something is "objectively bad" in something: aspects of it add up to something that has no aspect from which someone could appreciate it - which is unlikely if not impossible.

At this point I expect you to repeat yourself.

>>29633599
>Verosimilitude
Once again, its a Pokemon, its not supposed to look real
>Execution with respect to origin and goals of conveying points of that origin
An origin that you'd never even heard of until I posted it in this thread.

>>29625638
They are called Pocket Monsters.

Magmar's design is on of the few that can truly be accurately described as a monster.

I would argue it is one of the objectively better designs for that reason alone.

Magmar and Electabuzz are the worst designs of Gen 1

Electabuzz was at least somewhat redeemed by Electivire but Magmortar just made Magmar even worse

>>29633746
>Magmar and Electabuzz are the worst designs of Gen 1
Nice opinion my dude.

>>29633459
I think you mean Sharpman.

>>29628459
>gets fatter
>digimon arms
>pink ruins the color scheme

>>29632477
youre talking about the body like it isnt flame and magma and not a skeleton

>>29632977
>a fantasy land needs to be completely grounded in reality
One of the most cancer arguments out there

>>29633713
>>29633721
A monster can still be a monster while keeping themselves grounded to the perceived reality.
By that, I mean looking real does not mean it's not a monster.

I'd suggest you dig deeper into Monster Hunter if you want to know how one can make a very realistic design of a creature while still keeping the monstrosity aspect.

>>29633990
Not because something makes sense means it's completely grounded in reality.

>>29633713
>Once again, its a Pokemon, its not supposed to look real
Verosimilitude is coherence, likelyhood, etc..

>An origin that you'd never even heard of until I posted it in this thread.
Which is why it's you who should defend how this origin makes magmar "impossible to objectively evaluate" in the light of verosimilitude. While explicitly defending that it can't be "objectively bad at things" because it is "subjectively good at thing". If you want to prove that something is "objectively not bad" you prove it is "objectively not bad" - you don't say it's "subjectively good" therefore "objectively not bad" because you deny to speak about the aspects it's "objectively bad" in. You can't claim that something is subjective if the only thing people speak of is things that are factual.

>>29632846
Design isn't subjective but art design is

>>29625638
>ITT: /v/irgin hangs out at /ic/ for like a week and tries to fling shit on /vp/

>>29634159
How did /ic/ get so goddamn pretentious?

>>29634082
>op makes subjective claim
>thinks others are obligated to prove him wrong

I think we're done here.

File: 1477131042450.jpg (32KB, 295x243px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 295x243px

>>29634342
T'was fun chatting with ya, anon.

>>29634535
Now there's a Pokemon with an objectively bad design

>>29625638
WHY THE FUCK DOES IT ONLY HAVE TWO TOES?

>>29625872
>Every single art form can be evaluated objectively.
I think you may just be the single most retarded person on the planet

>>29625638
Nothing is objective

Our concepts of positive and negative attributes ultimately have no meaning

Nothing matters OP

>>29634082
>it's you who should defend how this origin makes magmar "impossible to objectively evaluate" in the light of verosimilitude.
Not him but how about the fact that it's meant to be a creature that isn't meant to exist? Verosimilitude is literally a non factor when it comes to any art form.

>>29634811
This has been answered a few times on the thread.

>>29634615
You bastard. Thanks for the laugh.

>>29634011
If you use Monster Hunter as reference, them every Pokemon is objectivelly bad. Go play MH instead if all you want is bland, samey, realistic dragons

>>29634991
Nigga you're just as retarded as OP.

>>29633459
needs branched evolutions for other chess pieces

>>29635163
It's not a chess piece.

>>29628866
Yeah but I don't like human-like pokemon as much as animalistic pokemon, so naturally I'm going to like magmar more just because of personal preference and what I associate with 'good'

>>29634239
artists generally hate themselves

>>29634082
You seem to think that there's a universal 'good' OP, there isn't. Saying something is 'good' doesn't really mean anything but most people have the processing power to figure out that people mean 'I THINK this is good/this is good to ME' when they say that. This is what you were supposed to be figuring out in special ed

File: very complicated and inspired design.png (106KB, 1303x768px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1303x768px

>>29628478
>Pallosand is lazy
>Slap eyeballs onto a haunted sandcastle
>Voltorb is justified
>slap eyeballs onto a sentient pokeball

Wew that's lit AF. Next I see a castle I'll laugh because it's so much lazier to build than a ball holy shit balls are HARD TO DESIGN
Pic related took literally 2 hours

it's actually Mr.Mime the worst, Jynx had an unjust controversy in the U.S.A, Mr.Mime is simply unsettling

>>29633459
it's actually Mr.Mime the worst, Jynx had an unjust controversy in the U.S.A, Mr.Mime is simply unsettling

File: 1460247894167.gif (149KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 640x480px

>>29635461
Voltorb is a shit design, but it is justified. I'm not going to talk about Palossand because I don't really care about it.

Does Voltorb's concept excuse its execution? that's up to you. Does Voltorb have a legitimate reason to look the way it does? Objectively, yes. It is a mimic. If you can't grasp this you've probably never played an RPG before.

>>29635597
I personally don't hate Voltorb, I just know it's perhaps the laziest design possible. The concept isn't terrible, the execution isn't terrible. It's just the concept makes for a very lazy design and therefore a very lazy looking execution by default.

The point I was making is that calling Pallosand, who has just as good a concept (perhaps even more clever) as the sentient pokeball, and a much more complicated design, "lazy" or just bad while also saying a literal ball is completely justified makes no objective sense whatsoever.

Neither of them are very complicated, or probably took long to design. But one is clearly lazier than the other, especially for an artwork perspective

>>29635247
so
poorly executed is an opinion and bad design means i don't like it

didn't he explain in this thraed why it's bad, it's like saying samuratt is a good well executed design starter because it compliantly deviants from its concept and pre-evos and brakes a motif of the gen 5 starters because objective is not a thing and everything is subjective and fact don't exist

>>29625638
>Here is an example of an objectively bad design.
You're using "objectively" wrong.

>>29635597
>It is a mimic
Yeah no. It's not a mimic.
The key idea in a mimic's design is that it's mimicking a chest or something in a similar vein while having a true form that emerges from the box

Voltorb is just a Pokeball with eyes. Mimikyu and the Foongus lines are real mimicks.

>>29635988
how is it used then
what word would have been better for OP to use
(boober is still pretty bad thought)

>>29636456
"It doesn't fit my personal preference" Is what OP could have said.
As for the thread as a whole it shouldn't exist.

File: .jpg (168KB, 1200x1080px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1200x1080px

>>29636356
You can't be this stupid.

>>29636529
That's not what the thread is about. Hell, the thread isn't even about Magmar, it was just being used as an example.

The point is that there are objectively good designs and bad designs in this series. The point is that you can like a Pokemon while acknowledging that it, or part of it, is poorly-designed. And you can dislike a Pokemon's design while acknowledging that it has a good design. Most of my favorite Pokemon designs have objective design flaws. I've got no problem with admitting that.

This isn't about personal preference.

>>29636679
>The point is that there are objectively good designs and bad designs in this series.
You honestly can't be this retarded.
There's no such thing as objectively good and bad designs as art is inherently subjective. What looks good to you might not look good to another and vice versa.

Hell, there may be overwhelming hate for something but you know what? It's still subjective.

Everything you have been saying about verosimilitude doesn't and never will bolster your argument because of that fact.

>>29636679
>You can't be this stupid.
>It looks 1:1 like a Pokeball so it's a mimic!

Be honest here. You've never seen an actual mimic have you.

>>29636679
You're not too big on reading huh.

File: 1476806573225.jpg (68KB, 1081x638px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1081x638px

>>29636805
I'm not the person who's talking about verisimilitude.

If art is 100% subjective, you can never improve at anything. The image on the left is just as good as the one on the right. The artist isn't improving anything - he's just drawing in a different style. Everyone can be a master of character design because they can just claim that it's all subjective.

Do you understand the problem with this mindset? Just because one person out there might legitimately like Alolan Persian doesn't make it a good design. It is objectively bad.

>>29636840
A mimic doesn't have to be a chest.
A mimic just has to fool the player by luring them into thinking it's a valuable object, and turns out to be a monster. Voltorb was designed for this purpose. If the graphical limitations of the Game Boy were better than what they were, it's likely Voltorb wouldn't exist.

>You've never seen an actual mimic
Scroll up a few posts. I posted a mimic, the Big and Lil' Boxers from Chrono Cross. It's a generic RPG trope.

>>29637011
>A mimic doesn't have to be a chest.
You're a fucking idiot.
>a chest or something in a similar vein
I never said it was exclusively chests.

>and turns out to be a monster.
Which is exactly the problem with Voltorb, it wasn't designed as a monster, it was designed as a Pokeball with eyes. That's literally the only distinction between it and the original balls.

>If the graphical limitations of the Game Boy were better than what they were, it's likely Voltorb wouldn't exist.
Voltorb shouldn't exist as it is. Even taking in to account the graphical abilities of the gameboy there's no excuse in making it what it is.
Even making it something like an amorphous black mist with eyes and spiky teeth living inside of a Pokeball, which was entirely possible back then, would have been a true mimic.

>Scroll up a few posts. I posted a mimic
I know you posted the mimic, dumbass. I was being facetious.
The point is that despite posting a mimic you have no idea what makes a mimic a mimic.

>>29636840
>>29637223
It's not a traditional mimic but it's a mimic for the Pokemon games, in which Items and treasure show up on the map as Pokeballs. It's like you forget you encounter Voltorb and Electrode in the games by thinking you're picking up items only to get in a fight.

>>29637011
>If art is 100% subjective, you can never improve at anything. The image on the left is just as good as the one on the right. The artist isn't improving anything - he's just drawing in a different style. Everyone can be a master of character design because they can just claim that it's all subjective.
Exactly anon.
That's the entire point.

Art can be anything and everything. Using your logic people like Andy Warhol and Picasso are complete hacks for making art that doesn't fit your definition of "good".
The reality is that there is no good, bad or improving. There's literally only change.

>Do you understand the problem with this mindset?
There is no problem with that mindset as it's the mindset people have when creating something in general.
With that said you're the one who has a problematic mindeset. If there was an objective way to make art we would be stuck with extremely generic and boring looking designs that are derivative of each other. For example the image you're calling "objectively" better would be the only style seen on the face of this planet. No cartoons, no anime, no CG just that as it's the "correct" way of doing things.

>Just because one person out there might legitimately like Alolan Persian doesn't make it a good design. It is objectively bad.
http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

As I said before it doesn't matter how many people like or dislike something. It is all subjective and there is no truly bad design.

>>29637394
This is the most non answer I've ever seen.
I don't think you put a single thought into this post or even took the time to comprehend what was being said.

>>29625638
ITT:autistic OP lays claim that only his opinion makes something "objectively" bad while all others opinions will forever be wrong.

In short, OP doesn't know the difference between objective, and subjective.

File: girl-before-a-mirror[1].jpg (151KB, 650x805px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 650x805px

>>29637011
>this is objectively bad

>>29637446
>Explains why their treated as mimics in game
>non answer
I don't think you put a single thought into this post or even took the time to comprehend what was being said.

>>29637716
>>Explains why their treated as mimics in game
Except you didn't. At all.

All you said is that it's a mimic because it's in a Pokemon game and then rambled on with nothing.

What does that even mean?
How does any of that justify it being such a lazy and uninspired design?

>>29637586
In the context of this art style, maybe not. I'm not sure if there is a scale of good or bad when you get to really abstract shit. But pokemon, as abstract as it is, still adheres to a certain level of realism in most cases.

Now if pokemon were all designed like Picasso creations, you would have a point there, buckeroo

I'm not the guy you're responding to but people are really missing the point of context. Pokemon aren't real, but they aren't (for the most part) totally absurd either, within their own realm of possibility. They follow a certain level of physical realism, and they also typically follow a level of consistency in which body parts or colors or shapes go with each Pokemon. Seeing a Durant with a blood red dolphin tail coming out of its back would be pretty fucking weird, because it doesn't fit the theme of an iron ant and it makes no physical sense why it would be there. It doesn't matter if SOMEBODY likes that sort of thing, it objectively doesn't work well within the rules that pokemon designers typically adhere to in their own ficticious universe. Consistency matters, my main man

File: color theory.jpg (375KB, 1224x792px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1224x792px

>>29637223
You're saying that a mimic HAS to be a CHEST (or something in a similar vein, which in the Pokemon overworld is a Pokeball, woah what a concept) and that it reveals a "true form" once exposed. No one made this rule. You made this a rule so you could exclude Voltorb. If that rule applied, then Big Boxers and Lil' Boxers from Chrono Cross aren't mimics because they're LITERALLY chests with arms and legs. They don't have a hidden form.

Both of these examples ARE mimics because they rope the player into thinking they're getting some sort of reward and are surprised with a monster encounter instead.

I'm still saying Voltorb is a bad design, by the way. I never implied the contrary; just that it has a reason for looking the way it does.

>>29637399
Warhol and Picasso understood the concepts of composition and color balance. They aren't bad artists. This thread is about character design anyway, which, surprise! has rules that go with it.

Using the sketch as an example was a bad idea and I will admit fault to that. A better example would be to compare concept art versus the final product.

>>29637586
You're assuming I think all art should be realistic. I never implied that. I'm talking about improvement in art.

File: CaEKXo2UEAAKFrU.jpg (78KB, 600x627px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x627px

The problem that OP faces with his objective mantra on Magmar and the whole anatomy makes no sense on the clear fact that anatomical features work when you have a base on it. Drawing human beings be it faces or bodies are only stronger by being as approximately close to how we look in real life but notice I said close and not completely realistic as we use stylization to showcase aspects that you're aware that exists but abstract or highlight it more. Same goes for drawing animals and shit. Just look at anthropomorphic animals in cartoons.

And going back to Pokemon the absurd idea that it needs working anatomy to be a good design is an absurd idea because they're meant to call out ideas of fantasy monsters, concepts, animals and etc. in a manner of looking simple doing so. They don't have to be literal 101 drawn to their source base. Its about making iconic imagery and our brains can easily filter out any nonsense if they move or not because on the sheer fact that they look like anything we see in real life. Yes certain pokemon have far more detailed body structures but every pokemon has a different point to get across be them looking intimidating, cute, creepy, beautiful, goofy and etc.

Lastly the notion of objective art doesn't exist on the principle that art has no criteria that makes one thing good or bad. By the sheer idea of goodness or badness makes it detectable to be subjective. Because science is about discovering truth and art is about sharing personal truths. Art is a communication tool in the likes of a language tool. And like any languages its contextual viewing is prone to change overtime be it for many reasons.

>>29625638
>objectively bad design
Am I too old for this site?
The average adult should be too intelligent to pull this kind of shit.

>>29637772
So you have no reading comprehension? Good to know.

>>29637773
>still adheres to a certain level of realism in most cases.
Pokemon doesn't have an ounce of realism.

It's a game in which an 11 year old traverses the wilderness on his own armed with naught but a fresh, unused and unexperienced monster of which there are many more well trained and possibly feral ones outside. As well as ones trained by people who have to qualms against killing and winning against said people.

Then there are the designs that make no sense from mon that shouldn't be able to fly like dragonite and gyarados to mon that should have died out years ago like Slowpoke and Magikarp.

Pokemon is grounded in the absurd and fantastical. Judging it by the standards of the real world is completely absurd.

>>29637810
>Color theory is a RULE!
Jesus Christ.
Please stop spouting bullshit.

>>29637922
Okay great. We've established I can't read.
So why don't you just go ahead and explain what your words mean?

>>29635180
>Pawniard
>Bisharp

It's a chess piece. It's not solely a chess piece, yes he's also a tokusatsu superhero, but it's a chess piece.

He's the star of Toei's new show, Chessu Man

>>29637399
>>29637861
very eloquent, out of curiosity do you anons happen to be art makers?

>>29638043
Well, I am. And he's 100% correct. Art has no objectivity. Everything people would call a "rule" is only a tool. A method for expressing a spesific concept through the medium.

>>29637977
Voltorb and Electrode were designed to be Mimics, as they resemble the overworld sprites for items. In nearly every game there is an occurence where these Pokemon are interact-able in the overworld with the intent of fooling the player to think it's an item.
I could've worded it better the first time however, for that I apologize.

>>29638122
My post might have appeared unintentionally sarcastic. I agreed with what they said and have been trying to argue the same point

File: 1475923268336.gif (19KB, 437x569px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 437x569px

>>29638043
I'm the one with the image and funny thing is I'm actually in a STEM oriented college (I'm studying computer science with a bent of marketing to it). I just have a lot of passions towards many mediums be them games, comics, music, films, animation and etc. I understand the technical nature of them of what makes them tick but truth be told I'm more interested in the overall context a piece of medium brings that is how it stands up to other genre-like pieces and what does it do to stand out from the rest.

Technical prowess is nice but if it doesn't come from a person/team of interesting points of views to share or be relevant in a discussion point then you're just a nice image with no backbone. No humanity really. It's like how the best house and hip hop tunes from the 70s and 80s were from DJs who knew the best samples from old records that sounded fresh from the crowd while still bringing their own style that makes their work poignant to exist.

Also in regards to Pokemon, people may or may not care about Bogleech due to criticisms of his work (ie SJW and all that) but he's arguably one of my favorite people I've seen who has talked about Pokemon designs as he comes from a position of loving monster designs that are monster like and gave me an angle of appreciation towards pokemon I never would've considered to (like Garbodor and Magmar for example). And funnily enough he's also a big biology nerd, always harps on insect anatomy but he appropriates wild and abstract ideas that look more interesting as a result (like how he harps on the eyes for a lot of pokemon).

I feel like a lot of the pokemon fandom latches on more solid and easy to read designs and those happen to be the more animal like Pokemon even if most of em happen to be really boring like original Persian or Arcanine (which I really love personally but he is really bland in hindsight). Same reason why a lot of fakemon dex lists are more animals with literal type fusions.

>>29637810
>or something in a similar vein,
Key words that you've decided to completely gloss over. Reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit.

>and that it reveals a "true form" once exposed. No one made this rule
That's always been the rule for mimics from way back in the D&D days. Mimics are never the actual object they mimic and can freely change shape on a whim.
Hell the original Monster Manual even says they have a degree of flexibility in the forms they take rather than having fixed forms as they appear as doors and pillars in addition to the common chests.

>Mimics pose as stonework, door, chests, or any other substance or item they can imitate
The key word there is "imitate". Voltorb clearly doesn't fall under this as it's not mimicking a Pokeball. It IS a Pokeball and was designed as such.

>then Big Boxers and Lil' Boxers from Chrono Cross aren't mimics because they're LITERALLY chests with arms and legs. They don't have a hidden form.
Aside from the fact that they're imitating the box and it's not their true form.
The arms and legs are in fact an indicator of their shapeshifting ability common in mimics.
Not to mention they follow another D&D trope in the fact that there are large and small varieties of mimic.

>They are able to perfectly mimic stone or wood. There are two varieties of this creature, the large (9-10 dice), semi-intelligent carnivorous "killer mimic" and the slightly smaller, intelligent sort.

>Both of these examples ARE mimics
Once again Voltorb isn't as it was designed exactly as a Pokeball with eyes and not an entirely different creature that is merely inhabiting or imitating the chest in question.

> just that it has a reason for looking the way it does.
And that reason is laziness.
There's no reason why they had to just slap eyes on the ball and call it a day.

>>29637942
>Pokemon doesn't have an ounce of realism.
Yes it does. Or else they would never have plot tools to explain anything that otherwise makes no sense, or ever describe how pokemon get around, or ever need their sprites or 3D models to make sense in any way in relation to design consistency or how they move their physical bodies.
Granted, a small portion of the pokedudes are freaks with no sense baked into them or how they look, but that is an exception, not a rule.

If it were a game where everything was explained away with "it's subjective" with no care for consistency or context that would be cool. But then they wouldn't care about design at all and you'd end up with literal abstract art running around bopping things and winning banana points ONLY on thursday and experience every other day but also bananas look like glasses and the power of their attacks are based on how thick you draw the line and sometimes the line is a circle but it never explains that. Also the circles are ghosts so they do no damage. Also sometimes a starter pokemon with red on it will also have blue or else it goes invisible every 3rd turn of battle, but they never explain this either because it's just subjective art and doesn't NEED to make sense because it's all a fiction.

That is the kind of game we could be playing if they didn't care about context, consistency, and all the designs were completely made on a whim with no considerations with how it fits in the overall game, the theme of its type, what shapes make sense etc

Gyarados flying is a good example of locomotion that doesn't make much sense, but the body itself? Makes perfect sense. Should it be flying like that? Well it can shoot energy beams from its mouth so maybe. That is a different level of absurdity from, say, a Dragonite with car tires for limbs and brooms for wings.

Context and consistency are a thing, even in fictitious worlds. We are talking about two different kinds of realistic dysfunction

File: 1456267546520.jpg (19KB, 273x153px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 273x153px

>>29638380
>Or else they would never have plot tools to explain anything that otherwise makes no sense, or ever describe how pokemon get around, or ever need their sprites or 3D models to make sense in any way in relation to design consistency or how they move their physical bodies.
You do realise that movement, plot etc isn't grounded in realism either right?
Like I said there are pokemon that shouldn't even be able to function based on design alone. Everything about them is completely made up for the sake of being fantastical monsters.

Also I like how the rest of the post you're just subtly moving the goal posts. Also there's this part here.
>Should it be flying like that? Well it can shoot energy beams from its mouth so maybe.
You're basically saying
>it can do two fantastical things so it's real and believable!

>Context and consistency are a thing
A thing that has never existed in Pokemon. Especially since there's no actual boundaries on what Pokemon are. They vary from wild animals, to the lords of weather, to abstract entities that govern time and space.
Just about anything and everything can be a pokemon without distinction.

And if Ultra Beasts are any indicator that applies outside of the native pokemon universe as well.

>>29637977
A mimic is an object that the player assumes is going to be a treasure which will, when interacted with, attack them. Voltorb appeared as an object the player could interact with to get a treasure, but when interacted with, attacked them.

Now I was agreeing with you in this conversation, Voltorb and Electrode are shit designs and lousy mimics. They'd be great if they were actually something that lived in a shell that looked like a pokeball, or an electric sprite living in a broken pokeball, instead they're just a circle with eyes. So I agreed with you. Right up until the point you were being an obtuse fuckwit and just not reading people's posts because they explained QUITE FUCKING CLEARLY how Voltorb behaved like a mimic.

>>29637394
>It's not a traditional mimic but it's a mimic for the Pokemon games, in which Items and treasure show up on the map as Pokeballs.

They clearly explain that Voltorb mimics an item and you go "that's a non answer you didn't answer me where is your answer this is just drivel!" Fuck you.

>>29638125
I see now, you're confusing functional design with artistic design.
Functionally, yes they are mimics and act as such.
In terms of the actual design and art of the Pokemon no, it's simply the Pokeball with eyes with no actual thought being put into it or consideration as to what makes a mimic a mimic.
At the very least if there was a creature within say, a broken pokeball with a creature inside or even something that changed to represent the different Pokeball types then it would be a mimic.

I thought it was clear we were talking about how it looks considering the topic of the thread.

>>29638628
>Right up until the point you were being an obtuse fuckwit and just not reading people's posts because they explained QUITE FUCKING CLEARLY how Voltorb behaved like a mimic.
Not him but are you fucking kidding me?

Did you read that post he replied to?
Hell are you even posting in this god damn thread right now?
How in the fuck could you think that post added anything of significance to the conversation when it was just
>Hey it's a mimic because it's a pokeball!
Not to mention that it fails as a mimic in the majority of Pokemon games as the design of the ball changed to incorporate a fucking button and border between the two halves.
GF could have made it a subtle redesign like they did with, say, Pikachu or Charizard but no they just decided to stay with the shit they had. Hell they didn't even give it a Mega to show us that it's a real fucking mimic.

>>29638698
ar u troling???

So, aside from Voltorb are there any mimics that are just the item with eyes?

>>29636529
you moron this thread is not about an opinion, OP use magmar is an example because everyone keeps calling well executed concepts of new gens bad design, there are simple and elaborated Pokemon every gen and no one is going to love all of them but hes not stetting his feelings of the design that why he use objectively
he explain why is bad in this thread

so
is poorly executed is an opinion and bad design means i don't like it

it's like saying samuratt is a good and well executed design starter because it compliantly deviants from its concept and pre-evos and brakes a motif of the gen 5 starters because objective is not a thing and everything is subjective and fact don't exist

samurott is bad final stage
hes not a sea otter
nor shares resemblances with it's pre-evos
nor a shogun
nor armored >and hes HA being shell armor
his only armor prevents movement
and is awkward build for a swordsman >that is quadruped
he is a steed
oh AND HE DEVIANTS FROM CONCEPT INSTEAD OF FINISHING WHAT OSHAWOTT DEWOTT PLANTED

but ppl are going to like him regardless

the point is that ppl will praise gen1 ignoring all flaws and bash now mons. why is klevkey bad? it's a steel fairy that steal keys and its arms form ring why is jigglypuff not hated it's a balloon

'quantity vs quality of Pokemon' argument keeps poping up, but why? stop hes making a point your not adding anything

>>29639217
I think you're having a stroke.

>>29639326
in not why? was what i wrote hard to understand

>>29639217
What if someone were to say "Samurott isn't a bad design. It looks far better than Oshawott or Dewott and rescued their line from becoming generic naruto otters"? What makes your claim more 'correct' than this one?

File: .png (34KB, 1273x135px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1273x135px

>>29638347
>Key words that you've decided to completely gloss over.
I don't know how you missed this, but I'll make it easier for you.

>That's always been the rule for mimics from way back in the D&D days.
D&D doesn't make any rules. I don't know where you got that assumption from. Is D&D even known in Japan? Mimics have been in many JRPGs like Golden Sun and Final Fantasy.

>They're imitating the box and it isn't their true form
This video shows the mimic in the overworld. https://youtu.be/o3KvlpD2Blg?t=723
They're not imitating shit. They're boxes. There's no monster inside of them.
https://youtu.be/I4g5wC_HgYY?t=795
This video shows what's inside of this particular mimic.

>Voltorb IS a Pokeball
Your entire argument revolves around this assumption. It's not a Pokeball. It can't capture Pokemon, nor is it an item. It is a Pokemon that resembles a Pokeball. It's a mimic.

>There's no reason why they had to just slap eyes on the ball and call it a day.
There's no reason that they had to elaborate on the concept more, either. Voltorb resembles an overworld item and that's all there is to it. It's a bad design, it's a lazy design, but it is justified.

See this post >>29638125 for another explanation on why Voltorb is a mimic.

>>29638698
Again you're assuming that Voltorb is literally a Pokeball. The fact that it's a Pokemon disproves this. There is no rule that dictates that there must be a monster inside of it to be a mimic. Voltorb is a Pokemon that resembles a Pokeball. It was designed to fill the purpose of a mimic.

>>29639701
STEM bro here, just a reply on this part
> Is D&D even known in Japan? Mimics have been in many JRPGs like Golden Sun and Final Fantasy.
Yeah D&D was in fact somewhat popular in Japan. It and Wizardry are the reason why the JRPG industry become such a thing in the first place

>>29639527
my point was that he is a bad final stage for Oshawott or Dewott and a starter my points still stand they are allowed to like it over it's pre-evos, but it's still poorly executed it's not more correct id only stetted the facts there are no wrong opinion but the facts are there

>>29638563
>You do realise that movement, plot etc isn't grounded in realism either right?
Then why do they have limbs? Why give them feet that sprout from legs if body collision and supporting their weight and moving joins don't matter? Why care at all if any fucking scribble on a page would be just as good as anything else people design for the game? It's context and consistency, the quality of which usually help make a design good in a given universe.

You aren't reading what I'm saying, or you are ignoring it to throw up a strawdude. I'm saying there is a level of consistency and realism within the context of this imagined universe, and you aren't even TRYING to argue against that point. You're talking about what pokemon are, what the premise is. I'm talking about how they are designed and how their body shapes, sizes, color, and at times movement can and usually do conform to certain rules of theme, context, and physical realism. Just because they have special powers doesn't mean that all of their design is random and follow no rules.

I like how you just discard what I said right before the part you cherry picked too. The body of gyaradose, although fantastical, makes physical, consistent sense within the context of that world, and somewhat from what type it is. One could argue that it should be dragon instead of flying, but at least the body itself is something that makes sense.

Ultra beasts are a thing I would say DON'T fit in very well, as they are by far some of the most bizarre things they have shit up at us. And some legendaries are overdesigned shit. But they are EXCEPTIONS, not the norm. On top of that, they are typically considered really freaky and awesome in the world of Pokemon too, so maybe that allows for more creative freedom? I don't know, but i do know the vast majority of pokemon don't look nearly as crazy and inconsistent.
If consistency didn't matter, then Pokemon would be a MUCH different game.

>>29639811
>my point was that he is a bad final stage for Oshawott or Dewott
Except you have no actual facts to stand on. Only your feelings on what would be appropriate in your own eyes. That's not being objective.

File: 1477704731436.png (744KB, 637x894px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 637x894px

>>29639862
Because Pokemon are about imitating the essence of what imagery they're supposed to represent. Pokemon that look like cats don't exactly look like actual cats. They simplify or abstract details.

So this harpicking on limbs is kinda moot considering Pokemon aren't even designed with idea of having biological consistencies. Heck pokemon themselves are an oddity in the universe they inhabit as they happen to be natural critterins that adapt to their surroundings but also digital data easily manipulated by human hands (storing them in PC or doing evolutions or Porygon and you get the idea) .

Pokemon is ultimately a game about interesting monsters that reflect the world we live in but designed with the intent of being readable to young kids as much as older people. So of course with that design intent they're not gonna focus design ideas on making pokemon as logical to themselves. Heck the games have changed many ideas of what they are and do over the years. Pokemon are just meant to be cool in the first impressions.

Also Decidueye is my favorite pokemon so whatcha think of that?

File: pulseman.jpg (453KB, 689x671px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 689x671px

>>29633459
Pulsman is looking pretty nice

File: tumblr_nu4n8oxf6b1r7tm2fo1_500[1].gif (12KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 500x500px

>>29639701
>I don't know how you missed this, but I'll make it easier for you.
By highlighting something that only has importance if you disregard that part.
Wow.

>D&D doesn't make any rules.
D&D isn't just some kind of random game where you make things up on the spot. There are set monsters and world elements for the players to use. Wherever you got the assumption from that the game was entirely rule less is beyond me.

>Final Fantasy
You mean the game that was directly influenced by D&D? No they clearly don't know of it. With that said nearly all video game RPGs were derived from board game RPGs in particular Dungeons and Dragons with their various mechanics and elements such as mimics.

>They're not imitating shit. They're boxes. There's no monster inside of them.
Did you even watch your own video? Or read my post for that matter?
Also if you hadn't noticed regular boxes do not have arms and legs. Unless of course you're saying they're some kind of machine as opposed to a real mimic.

>Your entire argument revolves around this assumption. It's not a Pokeball.
Have you been paying attention to anything in this thread?
It's about the DESIGN of the monster in question not the function it has in the game. When Voltorb was designed it wasn't designed as a creature mimicking or inhabiting the item in question like the Boxers. It was just designed as a Pokeball with eyes.
This is what a Pokeball used to look like in gens 1 and 2 since you seem to have forgotten.

>There's no reason that they had to elaborate on the concept more, either.
Except for, you know, the general idea of a mimic?
>Voltorb resembles an overworld item and that's all there is to it.
There's a reason it resembles the overworld item anon, because it was designed to BE it. The only variance in it's design is that it has eyes. On top of that it doesn't convey what a mimic actually is.

>>29640083
If Voltorb opened up and was full of teeth and/or had goofy arms and legs would you be happy?

>>29640130
That is part of what makes a mimic a mimic yes.
Not only that but it would make it more than a Pokeball with eyes.

>>29640155
if that's what you arbitrarily define a mimic as then honestly I prefer voltorb the 'non-mimic pokeball copier' since at the very least it's original compared to chest mimics that appear in every other RPG while serving the exact same role

>>29640238
>since at the very least it's original
If it's just a Pokeball with eyes it's by no means original anon.

Not to mention it's considerably less varied than other mimics too.

File: 1450525679516.jpg (259KB, 726x879px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 726x879px

>>29640083
Pokeballs never looked like that. It looked like that because of the hardware limitations. Now you're going to tell me that the mini sprites for the Pokemon in the party screen are what they REALLY looked like.

File: 1477461427135.gif (806KB, 1440x932px) Image search: [Google]

806KB, 1440x932px

>>29640083
>D&D isn't just some kind of random game where you make things up on the spot.
You fucking idiot RPGs are about integrating story telling with the gameplay mechanics. The whole point of an RPG is to ROLE PLAY. The game mechanics are there to service the narrative and add tension to fights. And yes you can make up your settings and enemies and shit. The games are designed for players to play around or make up their own rules.

File: 250px-Poké_Ball_sketch[1].png (12KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x251px

>>29640277
>Pokeballs never looked like that.
Shows how much you know.

Also that just cements Voltorb as a poor excuse of a Pokemon. They couldn't even incorporate that into the design.

>>29640366
You do realise that you are literally give a manual detailing the monsters, mechanics and so on unique to D&D right?
Constructing the story is a completely different thing from creating world elements.

>>29640277
And your next post will be
>they couldn't on the GB!
But of course in seeing this you'll change it. To something like "That's Capumon""

>>29640056
I think you are disagreeing with me but also aren't. I'm not interested in arguing about it anymore, but I will say that I Decidueye is one of my favorite starters ever, even if I disagree with it's secondary typing. I love how it was designed, and regardless of how it doesn't match with other ghosts, I'm very alright with it not being grass/flying. Ghost makes it more competitive so I just willfully turn off my brain to it and pretend it's okay.
I'm gonna use it and love it.

>>29640390
>concept art
>final design
choose one

>>29640275
It's totally original. Voltorb as a concept is something unique to pokemon that couldn't be pulled off in another franchise simply because other franchises don't have pokeballs. It resembles something that you're drawn to as a player, and tricks you. Obviously they can't have a voltorb open its mouth and eat the player like a dark souls mimic, so instead it engages you in battle and uses self destruct with an incredibly high speed stat. The design works to make voltorb deceptive and threatening from an aesthetic perspective and also from a gameplay perspective.

>>29635163
It's not a chess piece in Japanese, it's a pun on a piece of Shogi and to cut.

Bisharp is a double pun in cutting. If anything pawniard and Bisharp have bandit armors from feudal Japan, Google the armor the resemblance is 1:1.

Heck the crests of Bisharp crown him as a bandit lord once he evolves.

But I love weird looking pokemon. Not a fan of the black bands though.

>>29640423
>Voltorb as a concept is something unique to pokemon that couldn't be pulled off in another franchise simply because other franchises don't have pokeballs.
Pokeballs are the pokemon equivalent of chests anon. If any game arises or existed prior that is just the item with eyes then Voltorb's unique element is gone.

The closest one I can think of at the moment is the Cannibox as one of the more minimalistic mimics

>>29638017
Only in localization, pawniard in Japanese is a pun on cutting and a Shogi piece.

Bisharp is a double pun in cutting.

Both are based on rogue Samurai armors with the motiff of losing their master, when Pawniard evolves it's armor gains commander pieces and its helm becomes that of a Lord.

It's a weird conceptual pun that is lost in English.

>>29639936
i give them in my post
it's a bad execution of it's concept and dismissis it
there is no correlation from it and it's pre-evo
it's lack and poor armor distribution with it's only armor prevents moment and it is supposed to be a fully armored
hes a swordsman but its quadruped build prevents it from wielding hes sword properly and he cant stand bipedally to use his impossible swords

the osawutt line showcase the feudal japan Hierarchy with samurutt as the shogun he dose not resemble one

>>29640505
Those aren't facts. Those are subjective viewpoints centered on your personal expectations.
Obviously the designers expectations where different. Neither of you are right or wrong. You simply want different things. The only difference is that the designers are the ones in power.

>>29625638
My biggest complaint with Magmar is the arms, the ruffled look doesn't appear on Magby or Magmortar and that bugs me. Don't get me wrong, I recognize that both of them were made after Magmar and it's more of a fault on Magby and Magmortar than it is on Magmar, but it just looks bad on 'Mar anyways.

>>29640610
he's clearly based on a bdsm duck pinata

>>29640579
dude wtf not everything someone says on /vp/ is an opinion

>>29640695
The vast majority of the time, they are.

>>29640579
you are a troll aren't you

>>29640726
Now why would you think that?

You can have opinions. You can back up those opinions with well thought out reasons and ideas. But to assume your opinions are objective facts is nothing more than concentrated arrogance.

>>29640695
but im pointing why it is a bad evolution and they keep dismissing it as an opinion when all am pointing isn't opinionated

>>29640759
Don't bother anon. Either they genuinely believe it or they're shitposting.
If it's the former than they've already been punished for not knowing what an opinion is in reality already.

File: 054.jpg (23KB, 600x682px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x682px

>>29638628
Except Voltorb and Electrode aren't Pokémon that imitate Poké ball to lure unsuspecting trainers. They ARE straight up Poké balls with eyes, that's it.

I don't have a problem if, upon interaction, they kinda morph into their true form, or even sprout some appendages just to show that their Poké ball form is just an imitation, but nope, GF just attaches googly eyes on Poké balls and goes, "T-they are mimics, t-that's why they look like a Poké ball. It's totally not because we're lazy or something."

>>29640794
>when all am pointing isn't opinionated
Your opinion is that it's meant to be based on certain concepts, and the fact that it doesn't follow those concepts makes it somehow objectively bad.

You can't prove that it's objective, because there's nothing to prove. The fact that it doesn't follow the concepts you see, is a determent to you personally.

You have an opinion (design = bad). You support it with observations and reasoning (It does not follow this pattern). This does not change the fact that it's an opinion (the fact that it does not follow this pattern = bad). Its core "badness" can never be factually proven and thus isn't objective.

I really don't know how to make this any clearer.

>>29640759
im pointing the facts those aren't opinionated if you're not a troll keep being ignorant ,yes every flaw is nonexistent, every thing is an opinion and am not going to argue with you i was just clearing out what was OP point

Oh an you cant back up opinions douse are arguments those to are defend
>opinion is view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge an
>arguments is an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion

>>29640966
OPTIONS AREN'T ARGUMENTS

>>29641048
Your missing the point.

Yes, you're pointing out facts. But those facts don't mean it's objectively flawed. The idea that it breaks from these patterns is bad is an opinion. That's all it can be.
It's not an argument against the facts you present. It's an argument against the idea that these facts give it an objective quality. It can't. Quality is perceptive. It's based on personal reflection and want. That's why they're engaging to discuss. Just don't treat them as objective.

>>29641008
OPTIONS AREN'T ARGUMENTS
i had an argument not an opinion all i posted was based an past info

you cant back up opinions those are arguments
>opinion is view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge an
>arguments is an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion

im not going to bother

>>29641173
>you cant back up opinions
You can always back up an opinion. Hell it wouldn't be an opinion without being able to state what made you feel that way.

>>29641126
???ಠ_ಠ

>>29641220
???ಠ_ಠ???

>>29641173
>OPTIONS AREN'T ARGUMENTS
Total bullshit.
This whole fucking website exists on arguing opinions.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?
>>29641222
That goes double for you.

An opinion is your feeling.
You can explain your feelings with objective facts.
This does not make your opinion fact.

Last time I checked, straight up Pokeballs don't explode when pissed off.

>>29641248
stop i get it opinions and arguments are the same to you and are based an personal feelings lets stop its going nowhere

>>29641337
if everything is an opinion then saying that everything is an opinion is an opinion therefore not an objective fact

yay paradoxes

>>29641337
You really are being intentionally obtuse.

>>29641337
It's going nowhere for you maybe.

>>29641440
>>29641425
relativism is self-defeating.

>>29641337
don't worry anon, this whole thread is running on false dichotomies that nobody really wants to accept. those who are being reasonable are still interpreted to have stakes on the extremes.
it's ironic: those that argue that things need not be black and white are being dismissed with arguments about how things can never be a fixed truth.

>>29641603
Then perhaps you can answer this simple question:
Why is Samurott deviating from the patterns of Oshawott and Dewott bad? And then give a reason why that answer means its bad. Then repeat till you come to a hard mathematically provable truth.

>>29635597
Voltorb has this excuse, Electrode meanwhile has no excuse

>>29625909
It really separates the family from being a discount Charmander. The "arm cannons" are fucking cool, they are basically sleeves.

>>29627661
I like Magmar, but I dislike Magmortar.

>>29633459
I'd think it's one of the best designs if it wasnt for the torso guillotine things.

>>29641693
That question is not simple at all, but here's a try.

Without knowing what the point of deviating from oshawott and dewott is, one can not judge the deviation on its own. But let's try anyway.

Consider the following: one could whether what they were set out to do by deviating was succesful or not, though. That has two hard dependencies: the intentions of the author and whether the results that are measured of the approval of the people the deviation was aimed at. Between different reasons.

But let's continue that line of reasoning.
Assume that whoever likes Osha/De has the assumption that the line is bipedal. Consider that the deviation may be jarring for this person.

Under this line, their attempt at appealing to this person didn't work. In other words, it was legitimately bad at fulfilling its intended purpose.

I think that is the ultimate point of this thread. We can agree that there can be flaws under a specific lens, but that ultimately doesn't affect one's perception of the end result.
I personally fucking love the oshawott line.

>>29641830
>>29635597
Voltorb and Electrode have very "ambiguous" designs. They can be Mimics, the can be batteries, they can be based of subatomic particles, they can even be ball lightning.
It's one of those Gen 1 oddities.

>>29641996
>it was legitimately bad at fulfilling its intended purpose.
Perceived promise.

Look. My point is that objective points can't be argued. They're facts.
Opinions can be based on facts, but their legitimacy is entirely dependent on the perceptions of the one with the opinion. That makes it subjective. Which is fine.

File: 1456294482629.jpg (498KB, 1728x3455px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 1728x3455px

>>29641996
Samurott is a strange case.
Within the context of its evolutionary line, it's terrible. There's nothing about the transition from Dewott to Samurott that looks natural. It's a failed evolution.

However.

Remove Dewott and Oshawott from the picture. Without the criteria of its evolutionary line being imposed upon it, it's a damn good design. It's a unique creature with a body type that's never been done before, and it looks believable. It has a really solid design.

I love Samurott. I can forgive it for deviating from Dewott and the samurai motif not being as well-executed. I think that it looks great on its own.

>>29641406
>>29641425
>>29641440
???ಠ_ಠ???
what do gain be this
>opinions and arguments are the same TO YOU
i was being sarcastic HERE
>and are based an personal feelings

>opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
>an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion

>>29641425
>"intentionally obtuse"
???

THIS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT WE ARE GETTING NOWHERE and it worthless to argue, this has little to do with my original point on samurutt and it was an example again
>i was just clearing out what was OP point

>>29636529
>poorly executed is an opinion and bad design means i don't like it
-that was his point ppl use "bad design" as i "don't like it" where there are bad ones and ppl are allowed to like them an he juged explained why boober is bad without influenced of his personal feelings

stop lettering me on opinion and arguments being synonymous because you arguing opinions

PLEASE STOP WHAT DO YOU GAIN

>>29625753
I can imagine the legs walking easily, how many characters have nothing but simple spheres (in a 3D design) and walk fluidly? Take into account animation, think of like, Mario 64 for example. The king bomb omb has big old round loafers, the goombas have spheres for feet, and they walk just fine.

The tail doesn't always need to connect to the spine, I mean, yes in real world biology that's the natural idea, but in fantasy worlds tails are more liberally placed, besides, suspend disbelief, you don't even know how its spine is arranged.

The third thing I can get behind, it does start to look like they mixed too many levels of complexity, but it doesn't clash in a really destructive way for me, it doesn't really ruin the design. I guess that's why they made magmortar though, to level things off

>>29642173
>PLEASE STOP WHAT DO YOU GAIN
TO CRACK OPEN YOUR SKULL AND SEE WHAT THE FUCK MAKES YOU KEEP TICKING.

File: 1463957386704.jpg (55KB, 514x440px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 514x440px

>>29642173

>>29642067
Well, it's a perceived promise because I began with the assumption that it is their goal to appeal to this person rather than any sort of backup that they really wanted to do that. I see where you're coming from on that aspect.

It becomes a fact if their intended purpose, which is documented somehow, is actually a failure.

That is, I agree that it's a subjective idea if you have no way to verify that promise is true. But if you can verify with its designer that it is true, it would be a measure upon which it can be objectively judged.

That doesn't mean it becomes a reason to hate the mon. True or not. That's the point.

I have to prove (as per your challenge) that there could be a measure for which there's propositions that follow each other. I don't particularily care about the propositions themselves.

>>29642158
It sure is.

>>29642415
>I began with the assumption
But the fact that you center on that makes it based entirely your own perception, and thus a product of little more than your own intuition, and thus subjective.

And even if you are right, then it just becomes a failure from a marketing perspective, which is only advantageous to the marketing team itself, and not to the innumerable other perspectives that exist, and are equally as valid in the structure of reality.
It's still subjective because it's still centered on a singual viewpoint.

File: Wotter line 13.png (1MB, 588x1502px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 588x1502px

>>29642158
I really don't understand how Samurott is that big of a jump. It feels like a more "refined" transition than a random one. Dewott's shells become swords, it's white whiskers get bigger, Dewott's vest disappears(as its vest is shorter than Oshawott's) and becomes armor as it stores the shell weapons like Dewott's vest did. Is Samurott only an inconsistent evolution because it requires heavy analyzing to understand how it's related to Dewott?

>>29625638
Agreed, this thing always looked fucking stupid to me. You could do away with the tail, the shackles, the weird arm squares, the duck bill, the back spikes, and the eyebrows.

The flame pattern is tacky as fuck but Magmar is one of those Pokemon that is supposed to be like an elemental, isn't it? It'd be like taking Electabuzz's stripes, it just seems to fit.

But other than that, yeah, it's a fucking mess. I've always disliked it. It's just so disjointed.

>>29642535
>And even if you are right, then it just becomes a failure from a marketing perspective
I know this. That's pretty much the point.

The issue is that often times judgments such as "good" and "bad" can only be done in perspective, and that means that "good" and "bad" are not something relative to the subject making those judgments.

That doesn't make those perspectives untrue, though. This is what some of us propose. While there can't be an all-encompassing reason to say it's bad, it doesn't mean there's no perspectives under which there are actual flaws.

>>29642635
>are not something relative to the subject making those judgments.

are something relative to the subject*
my bad

>>29642635
I see what you're saying. Something like a design that fails to entice people would be bad for someone trying to make money on it.

Though it would call into question why we, as the observing audience, would care about that perspective.

>>29641603
Thanks
it's weird is all going in circles "all art are juget the same","vorterb is not and dose not faction as a mimic","animalistic monsters don't need to follow anatomy roles","pokemon that din't execute well its concept are ~good~" and "poiting that and arguments are opinions" it's still a kids game about cartoon monters

>>29641693
>>29641996
>>29642067
>>29642158
Samurott is a really good mon, but he is supposed to be a shogun/samurai Pokemon even without Oshawott and Dewott it still poorly executed design

>>29642891
Why do you type so strangely?

>>29642834
>Though it would call into question why we, as the observing audience, would care about that perspective.
No idea. So we can argue endlessly on the internet about taste because we see mons under different perspectives?
The point of arguing isn't proving someone else wrong, I guess. It's more about expanding your own perspective by hearing what someone else has to say.

But that is my own personal perspective.

>>29642938
>So we can argue endlessly on the internet about taste because we see mons under different perspectives?
Why not? We've been doing it forever already.

>The point of arguing isn't proving someone else wrong, I guess. It's more about expanding your own perspective by hearing what someone else has to say.
That's why I do it at least. Or at least that's what I tell myself.

File: 1478050995855.jpg (306KB, 500x700px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 500x700px

Fuck it, post the best designs.

I legitimately believe golurk has tne greatest design in the series.

>>29642232
>>29642234
???ಠ_ಠ???

File: 1467561425575.png (503KB, 690x800px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 690x800px

>>29642999
Venusaur is my favorite starter. This entire line is perfect.

Sure thing OP.

There are more people that think that Magmar is cool and even attractive than people that find you tolerable.

How does it feel to be uglier than Magmar?

File: DENY.jpg (21KB, 243x263px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 243x263px

>>29643011
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH!

>>29643047
He's my life as a Pokemon.

>i-it's fictional so anything is allowed
This is a ridiculous argument. Pretty much every single fictional world is based on our own real world. Even if the inhabitants there aren't human, they're world still follows similar physics to our own and the inhabitants have similar emotions and characteristics to inhabitants of our own world.

There's a reason why "Tolkienesque fantasy" (for lack of a better term) is pretty much the standard for any fantasy game. While Tolkein's universe has many different fictional races, each one has characteristics that are still relatively "realistic".

>>29628389
I don't even get how it's lazy, there's thought put into it. It's not even literally my moms keychain. It's probably one of the best objectmon. I like how everyone who likes newer objectmons is a contrarian - meme words in a thread where they're being thrown around, big surprise - but the old ones are untouchable, despite being way, way lazier.

File: 1475189970349.jpg (30KB, 500x406px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x406px

>simple round design, easy to recognize
>swirl on stomach is a unique and memorable characteristic and a cool refrence to the animal it is based on
>appearance is neutral enough to make it appear and work in any situation
Poliwhirl's designis the best.

>>29643047
I like bulbasaur and ivysaur but venusaur is kinda ugly in my opinion. Nice taste though.

>>29643061
this is just mean don't you think

File: 58252030.jpg (51KB, 600x468px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x468px

for a second i thought this would be 250 posts of discussion about design. idk why i ever thought that was possible, i was just surprised to see this thread still up.
also
>all of you responding seriously to that dudes bait about voltorb not being a mimic.
shameful

>>29643183
>I don't even get how it's lazy, there's thought put into it.
Explain. I get that it's based off the legend that fairies steal keys, but the design is literally a keychain.

How could Voltorb even pass for a mimic, though? Isn't it like, two feet tall or something?

>>29642908
sorry im trying my best and English is not my first language your the 3rd person to point that out
with ppl dismissing my arguments on my Samurott example as a poorly executed design to lecture me that arguments are opinions might be getting to me
or that i thinking too much what i type and rely on google
sorry

File: 724Decidueye.png (894KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

894KB, 1280x1280px

>>29625638
>>29625753
Kind of odd to me how everyone agrees with Magmar's awkwardness yet when you bring up Decidueye's asinine bow everyone goes full white knight.

>>29643288
Item balls in gen 1 were massive.

>>29643067
you ok

>>29642158
It is fucking not a damn good design, it's a quadruped whose main weapons are held swords. Swords that don't even actually fit on its body, and just emerge from hammerspace twice the size of their sheath, which can bend for some reason.

It's a fucking rushed mess of ideas that contradict each other.

>>29643310
Some people may value the theme of a rogue owl more than asinine bow.
In that light, a bow reinforces the theme in expense for... being asinine.

I know a friend absolutely loved how the bow sold you on the idea of this so called "robin hoot".

>>29643310
Because people who complain about Decidueye's bow are going full autism about the functionality of a bow, rather than complaining about aesthetic design flaws.

The bow is a natural evolution of throwing, just like Incineroar's dirty wrestling is the natural evolution of Torracat's physical strength and tenacity, and Primarina's singing and bubble manipulation is the natural evolution of Popplio's showmanship using bubbles and Brionne's singing.

If you think the bow looks dumb that's your opinion and you're entitled to it but if your complaint is about how it physically works then you're officially going into autism territory and you need to calmly step back and rethink your life choices.

>>29625638
it's based on a Karura
it looks perfect

>>29643310
Well the bow comes from a vine, and it is a grass bird. So it isn't that much of a stretch.

>>29634535
>T'was
*tips*

>>29632667
Didn't know Teru Teru Bozu had testicles for a chin, conjoined eyes, and a hair curl.

>>29643451
Anon, what part of your body does your chin connect to?

If anything, castform has big, milky tits

>>29628389
>>29643183
>>29643273
it's arms form the ring it is supposed to be a keying fairy mon
it lest is not a two color ball that evolves into a bigger ball with inverted colors

>>29643478
The chin is part of the head. Castform is a floating head. Teru Teru Bozu at least have a body.

>>29643369
someone gets it
thank god
someone gets it's bad because it not a fully flashed out desing

>>29643310
Nobody gives a shit about the bow autism speaks.

>>29643442
>*tips*
>quoting
>cute

>>29643273
But it's not just a keychain. It's literally not. What keychain do you own that has a key attached to the ring, along with a small key hole? Not only is it not literally a keychain, it comes off more as a creature that only vaguely evokes the idea of a keyring.

>>29643497
>it's arms form the ring it is supposed to be a keying fairy mon
You can bullshit like that for any Pokemon. Voltorb is actually a large electron that is coloured like a Pokeball.

Hell, at least Pokeballs are common in the Pokemon world. Pretty much no-one uses keys in the Pokemon world.

>>29643704
>Pretty much no-one uses keys in the Pokemon world.

Yes they do? It doesn't really apply to the games but logically people in the Pokemon world do lock doors and drive cars.

>>29643737
>logically people in the Pokemon world do lock doors and drive cars
Not really. Everyone leaves their doors unlocked because the Pokemon world is fairly safe outside from the occasional evil gang. And key cards are a more common way of locking doors from what we've actually seen in the games.

>>29643788
Not to mention, cars are fairly uncommon in the Pokémon world due to general eco-friendliness.

>>29643568
But castform has that neck. The boobs go below he neck. Do you have a neck on your face?

>>29643407
There's that double standard though.

People complain about Magmar's anatomy being awkward for walking, or it's tail not being built like a real tail. The same form and function criticisms can be made for the bow.

File: 1471982357103.jpg (64KB, 532x767px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 532x767px

>actually rating and basing pokemon off of a design standpoint for a game that was made for children

Autism in this thread.

No pokemon is bad, they are all made for kids to enjoy the nice expansion of mons and the imagination that created those personas. I will never get or understand how you people breathe everyday living this life of judgment

>>29625753
If Blastoise can walk then Magmar can too.

>>29643841
Decidueye isn't Flying-type, so there's no need for the wings to function properly.

>>29643909
>Media aimed at children shouldn't ever be criticized

>>>/out/

File: BTgrxykyc.gif (23KB, 505x425px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 505x425px

>>29643950
The wings don't function as a BOW. Notice the way the bow bends and recurves. That's what actually launches the arrow, not just the string snapping into place. Its wing can't mimic that motion without detaching from its body.

>>29644008
>Its wing can't mimic that motion without detaching from its body.
It's a ghost-type, who's to say it can't detach parts of its body?

File: 1248141952059.jpg (9KB, 215x199px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 215x199px

>>29644053
You can clearly see that it doesn't in its animations.

>>29626011
You're not using objectivity. Being anatomically incorrect (which is fallacious as hell when talking about pokemon, anyway) is not akin to being objectively poorly designed. Are you saying it's bad as a piece of art? As a functional monster? As what? You're a fucking child whenever you bring objectivity into the necessarily subjective.

>>29628269
You're using circular logic.

>>29643841
>>29644008
You could make relatively simple changes to Magmar to alleviate these problems. The bow, on the other hand, could never work for the reasons you listed.

But being cool is more important than being realistic. Samurott's magical size-changing swords operate on the same principal.

Like I said, think whatever you want about the bow but if your beef is that it sucks because that's not how real bows work then you're being autistic.

>>29644008
>people who care about this: approximately 7

If you were this autistic about the rest of how physics-defying Pokemon was and still is your head would explode.

>>29628808
>There's also the inconsistency of the design - parts of it are very simple, while other parts look complex.
This isn't a negative. It is a thing that is true, but there's no objective quality assessment you can derive from this information.
>It looks like a mashup of two completely different Pokémon.
Assuming this were true, which it isn't necessarily, it's again, your opinion, it's not a negative about his design. Again, you're pointing things out but you aren't able to say why they're negative because designs and art aren't meant to be judged in that way, unless there's a contextual reason.

For instance, if I was drawing an actual bear and attempting to do so in a realistic style, one could say I failed or passed based on how much it looked like an actual bear. Even still, this would only be a contextual judgment derived from one particular situation. That picture of the bear outside of the context of comparing it to an actual bear has completely different artistic qualities and overall is objectively neutral in quality, like all art.

>>29644098
That's just an illusion.

>>29643950
are you serious?

File: .png (322KB, 640x363px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 640x363px

Objectively good design. (I'm not being serious.)

>>29644238
That just makes it worse. And the Samurott comparison only strengthens my point, since it's pretty universally regarded as a bad design.

>>29643047
>>29643196
>LITERALLY just gets bigger

Boring.

>>29625638
Magmar was designed to be an ugly looking fire monster to serve as Pokedex filler and make other cooler looking Pokemon look better.

It achieves its purpose, and I'd say that makes it an objectively good design.

>>29645121
>(He's not being serious.)

>>29625753
Fair points, and Magmar is just far and away from being my top 100. However, I favor consistency over anatomy. If the latter was addressed for all Pokemon, our selection would be drastically limited with all the whimsy gone and everything would look samey. There's a differemce between a balanced design and an absolute mess (anatomically correct or not).

>>29647904
>It's objectively bad on purpose, therefore making it objectively good.
Question Mark ?

>>29647946
Exactly

>>29647977
There are comics that make fun of this way of thinking as it's flawed in all aspects.

File: 1454495198285.gif (2MB, 400x187px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x187px

>>29643369
>>29643596
But Samurott doesn't even have higher physical attack. What makes you think it's swords are it's primary option of combat when it has other options to attack? The swords are more of multipurpose tool for it, because they're literally just massive shells.

>>29647986
Ur mum is flawed in all aspects