Which style do you prefer?

>>31085831
I lol'd hard but I still like it haha

>>31085815
Stop posting this fucking garbage. That's not a gen 1 garchomp.

>>31085975
what is that then? it sure looks like that to me

>>31085815
Gen 1 by a longshot. Boils my blood when these people who joined later on in the franchise have the audacity to call some of the older designs boring, since they're accustomed to features extraneously tacked onto a design.

Obviously there are extremes like the simplicity of Grimer and Voltorb and the transition from Poliwhirl to Poliwrath, but that isn't to say there aren't extremes on the opposite end of the spectrum as well, especially among Legendaries.

If I had to pick a good example of not too busy a design from each gen,
Charizard
Kingdra
Shedinja
Hippowdon
Jellicent
Gogoat
Lycanroc-Midday

File: 1476042758375.jpg (32KB, 342x260px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 342x260px

Does anyone have the image with crabrawler and krabby?

>>31085831
this is pretty dope actually

>>31086075
seconded

>>31086075
I've been since first gen and some designs are boring, stop seeing everything through rose tinted nostalgia glasses

>>31086047
Because you're an underage b&.

Gen 1 mons almost never had just plain white as their secondary color. It looks like a fucking orca. And the white sclera is completely wrong.

>>31086138
I'm not underage and I've been into Pokémon since Green Version... also, just because "Gen 1 almost never had just plain white as their secondary color" it means another mon couldn't have?

>>31086047
It is quite there but I think if garchomp really did come out in gen I, the torpedos on its head wouldn't exist. It'd be a literal landshark.

I also wonder if it would have been water/ground instead of dragon/groind

>>31086128
That's such a half-attentive read of what I said. If I had nostalgia glasses I wouldn't be critical of such older designs. But for example, when someone calls Typhlosion a boring design, it begs the question of what they want out of it since it is a 'full' design.

File: fixed.png (158KB, 508x596px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 508x596px

>>31086178
there, fixed that for you

>>31086176
>try to look like a gen 1 mon
>don't look like a gen 1 mon

Are you actually this stupid

>>31085815
>tfw they look nice either way
Gen 1 Lilligant would be neet.

>>31086128
why are you pretending to be from the first gen? Its obvious you started with Pearl

>>31086316
Why that? I didn't state in first post but I actually prefer Gen I "style"

>>31086075
>the transition from Poliwhirl to Poliwrath
Poliwrath is literally just angry Poliwhirl

>>31085815
>>31085831
wow they suck

File: OH DEAR GOD.png (954KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 1280x720px

>>31086225

File: wotter.png (250KB, 325x299px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 325x299px

>>31086075
You have nice taste, anon.

>>31086316
Not really but keep deluding yourself

>>31086075
I've started with Sinnoh and I agrre 100% with you

>>31086075
Some of the older designs ARE boring, though, and so are some of the new ones, for that matter.
I think you posted some good examples of what should be considered the standard for Pokémon designs. Most of your picks are Pokémon that are reasonably detailed and visually interesting, but also uncluttered with nice flow to them. I'd only really disagree with Hippowdown because the transition to 3D made that thing look like hot garbage.
For a personal list I'd go for,
>Venusaur
>Kingdra
>Any of the three Regis
>Skuntank or Vespiquen
>Volcarona
>Gogoat
>Xurkitree
I think all of these hit a good balance when it comes to design, even if I don't count most of them among my favourites.

File: shit.png (131KB, 429x435px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 429x435px

I tried something but...

File: Generation VI Charizard.png (2MB, 2624x1184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2624x1184px

>>31085815
Why are you using that shit fanart of Charizard? We have official design of a later Generation Charizard. Use these. Oh wait, these actually look good.

Mega Charizard X
>Great pallet with black overall to make it look more dragon and a nod to its shiny form and blue flames as a nod to the Pokedex entry
>Neck spikes as a call back to the original Charmander
>Shoulder spikes to make it look more than just a pallet swap of a normal Charizard
>More rigged wings to signify it losing its Flying-type

A good design. Edgy, but in a good way. The shoulder spikes are a bit too much, but without them, it looks too plain. They could've done something better, but I'm overall happy with it.


Mega Charizard Y
>Simplistic like normal Charizard
>Huge wings, my favorite of all Pokemon
>To balance the increase of orange color with larger wings, the white on its belly now goes all the way up to the jaw
>Overall not as fat, something I always wanted with Charizard

Even better than Zard X. It takes the charm of the original Charizard and maximizes it. I disliked its fingers, but it's an Mega, so that isn't a problem at all. It just overall gives off a feeling of a fast special attacker.

>>31086779
OP here, didn't want to waste time editing the image I found online, but I agree, Mega Charizard Y is a New-Gen version of Charizard.

In my own headcanon, Mega Charizard X is Alain's version of Ash-Greninja and I call it "Alain-Charizard"

>>31086779
I only half agree with you.
Charizard Y fixes almost every problem that I have with Charizard, whereas Charizard X just exacerbates them.

>>31086885
Actually it's Alain that was made to fit Mega-Zard X

>>31085815
Gen 4 Charizard, if only because the eyes on gen 1 Garchomp freak me out.

>>31086930
not in my autistic headcanon

>>31086901
I agree with this. Zard X is too much, and Zard Y is a lot better.
Though I don't hate Zard X as much. I think Origins softened the blow for me by revealing it in a good way.

File: 141Kabutops.png (118KB, 431x431px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 431x431px

>>31086721
Nigger you have an actual gen 1 golisopod and it's still more complex than that.

I'm sick of this "gen 1 is simple" meme. Gen 1 had complex SHAPES. Later gens have simplistic shapes and excessive colors and patterns.

Holy shit nobody understood my thread. I WANT THE SIMPLICITY BACK

>>31085831
>Linux Empoleon

>>31087138
this guy gets it
people here think that a lot of details = overdesigned

>>31086779
>Edgy, but in a good way
stop fucking spreading this shit, there's nothing edgy about the pokemon series you fucking idiots

>>31086779
I really like Zard X because of how plain terrifying it looks. Like something from a gothic nightmare. It could lose the shoulder horns and maybe add them in the black part of the wings just to give it some more horror.

File: 1472762151687.png (403KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1000x750px

>>31086107
That one?

>>31087424
Holy shit if Crabrawler was like that I'd actually use it

File: 1466183817420.png (427KB, 1105x1000px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1105x1000px

>muh design
It's about the style, obligatory

File: 250px-428Lopunny[1].png (50KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 250x250px

>>31086075
I can see where you're coming from, but I enjoy a tad of complexity in a design when it can serve to differentiate the Pokémon from "literally a real-world animal or thing drawn in Sugimori style," like that Gen 1 Empoleon above.

A great example of what I mean is Lopunny; its design is obviously based on an anthropomorphic rabbit, but the fluff and black sclera serves to give it an identity beyond "Pokémon Bugs Bunny." I really have a distaste for the sort of oversimplified designs you cited in your post; in fact, I believe their designs are frankly rather uninspired.

One more thing: I agree with your picks on "perfect-blend" visual designs.

>>31087424

You can't just assume that's what crabby would look like

His entire focus, especially when he evolves is his giant claw

>>31086075
>>31087424
>>31087557
YES
Though the real reason early gen designs look so different from later ones is the gradual shift after gen 2 from organic to plastic in terms of the animal-like pokemon designs.
Clutter is definitely a factor too, but is only really there to make up for the simple shapes.

>>31087424

I don't think the artist saw what Crabrawler animated is supposed to look like

His mouth is like that for a reason

it moves and flaps,their gen 1 design wouldnt work

Can gen 1 even do Golisopod properly without fucking it up

He seems like a pokemon that can only work and be intimidating because of the current artstyle

When everything is the original artstyle Golisopod can't look intimidating

>>31086075

>Obviously there are extremes like the simplicity of Grimer and Voltorb and the transition from Poliwhirl to Poliwrath, but that isn't to say there aren't extremes on the opposite end of the spectrum as well

>but that isn't to say there aren't extremes on the opposite end of the spectrum as well

Your acting as if future gens werent shitposted to hell and back in the first place

>>31086075

There's nothing wrong with complexity though

Nidoking and Magmar has it and their awesome

Hell Golisopod is one of the best designs this gen

>>31086075
>Gen 1 by a longshot. Boils my blood when these people who joined later on in the franchise have the audacity to call some of the older designs boring, since they're accustomed to features extraneously tacked onto a design.
>Obviously there are extremes like the simplicity of Grimer and Voltorb and the transition from Poliwhirl to Poliwrath, but that isn't to say there aren't extremes on the opposite end of the spectrum as well, especially among Legendaries.
Got in on Gen 1, but gonna have to disagree on the word of the post, rather than the spirit.

Barring a few examples (Voltorb/Electrode), Pokemon has always been a series of easy identification. Regardless of what Pokemon it is, if I showed you its silhouette, you should be able to identify it easily. Because of this, Pokemon has very rarely had overly complex designs outside of Legendaries, but you could find said designs even going back to gen 1.

The big issue with more recent Pokemon designs is color palette and art style. Starting with gen 3, partially due to the more advanced 32-bit system of the GBA, they could have more fine details and color schemes. It's why everything looks more smooth. The same thing happened with the transition to gen 6, where everything got more easily translatable to 3D models.


If you're a spriter, a fun exercise that people can do is convert more recent generation Pokemon into Gen 2 sprites. You either lose a lot of the color palette, or the Pokemon looks shockingly good in that style without too much changes.

tl;dr aside from art shift of Sugimori over the years, technology allows new designs to be possible. His job as a designer is to make designs that can be easily translated.

Color palettes still often suck.

File: sprites.png (14KB, 348x232px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 348x232px

>>31088509
Generation 1 Pokemon didn't NOT have complex designs. It's more than gen 1 Pokemon had straightforward designs. You were supposed to be able to look at it, immediately tell what it's supposed to be and not confuse it with any other Pokemon you might have encountered. The restrictions of the GameBoy's limited graphics forced it to be this way; with 151 monsters, you needed to be able to tell them apart quickly and easily.
Now we're at 802 Pokemon, and it's far easier to have more vivid color palettes, complex designs and the like. Unfortunately, that has not translated into better designs. Hell, if anything, the designs from gen 3 up til recently have been LESS complex, really just round, shiny blobs with many colors squeezed together. And the only Pokemon that seem to endure to become well-established by fans are the ones that are the easiest to tell what the fuck they're supposed to be.
Gen 7 feels like a serious improvement when it comes to having straightforward designs, though that doesn't mean all of the designs have been great.

>>31085815
I Like both of those
What bothers me is the current trend to make pokemon heads bigger than their bodies, fortunately this is almost exclusive to pokemon that evolve to something with a non retarded head to body ratio.

>>31087138
THIS SHIT RIGHT HERE
you autists don't even look at the cool pokemon

>>31088878
>Generation 1 Pokemon didn't NOT have complex designs. It's more than gen 1 Pokemon had straightforward designs. You were supposed to be able to look at it, immediately tell what it's supposed to be and not confuse it with any other Pokemon you might have encountered. The restrictions of the GameBoy's limited graphics forced it to be this way; with 151 monsters, you needed to be able to tell them apart quickly and easily.
That's what I said in the post. If the tl;dr is what's getting you, I'm saying that as designer, Sugimori's job is to make designs that the modelers can look at and easily translate to a 3D model.

As for Gen 3~6 Pokemon, if you had an encyclopedic knowledge of their names and loose shapes, you can still quickly identify them as just a silhouette. Like, I can easily identify things like Klefki as Klefki, Whimsicott as Whimsicott and Gible as Gible. Their shapes are distinct, is what I'm trying to say on that part.

I'm not going to talk about designs being good or bad, because every generation has a fair amount of terrible designs and great designs, as well as forgettable and memorable ones. That comes down to subjective tastes.

>>31087440
this

>>31086779
Those would be Gen VI charizards, not Gen IV.

>>31088108
>design focuses don't change between evolutions

>>31085815
These are both pretty sweet

>>31085815
gen 1 style desu, despite being really sick of gen 1