Is this accurate?

I like the updated Gen 3 one, but the Gen 5 one feels like it's missing something. Like, horns on its head or something.

Other then that, pretty much, yeah.

>>32625609
Not at all. The gen 3 one is even less accurate than last time. Back to the drawing board, Johtoddler.

File: 1494561917754.png (73KB, 1188x1381px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1188x1381px

Obliitory.

File: 1492845159633.png (355KB, 1239x441px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1239x441px

Original by comparison

>>32625609
>Gen 5 isn't bootleg Gen 1

>>32625609
I'd use gen 1, gen 2, and gen 5 if they were real mons honestly.

>>32625623
Would use 1, 4, and 6 from here.

>>32625643
i would use every one of them

if

you

know

what

i

mean

>>32625609
The original is better. I don't know why you put eyes on the gen 2's tail when Wobbuffet is literally the only Pokemon that does that.

File: 1487693276209.jpg (58KB, 540x471px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 540x471px

>>32625623
>tfw you finally realize that all artstyles are shit and thus all Pokemon designs are aswell

>>32625609
i wonder if this pic was made by the same artist who did the original. the only good one is gen 3 even though it doesn't really look like a gen 3 pokemon.

>arbitrary spikes
sick of this maymay. how many gen 4 pokemon actually even have spikes? barely any. the only "arbitrary" ones are on dialga/giratina and they look fine.

>>32625623 at least this one's clearly a joke

>>32625659
Girafarig, spinirak

File: image.jpg (6KB, 123x102px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 123x102px

>>32625659
Probably in reference to the face on Spinarak's rear, Girafarig's tail-head, and if you really, really wanna stretch it, there's a vaguely eye-like pattern on Quilfish's tail as well.

Possibly also Xatu's chest-face thing.

>>32625684

Mantine has eye patterns on its back also

Gen 3 is probably the hardest gen to condense into a "generic" design of.

>>32625715
Gen 3 confirmed to be the most diverse Gen.

>>32625609

What would Gen 7 be?

>>32625725
Beyond "Waifubait" that actually would be kind of an interesting thing to look at. Just because of how intricately designed each pokemon seems to be.

>>32625716
Hoenn was the region of diversity. Volcano, desert, rainforest, rivers, lakes, beaches, sea, caverns, underwater caverns, ocean current...

>>32625609
Where's gen 7?

>>32625812
>>32625725
Apparently the artist forgot about the gen7

>>32625862
Or this was made before SM came out

>>32625609
The only one I don't like is Gen 6.

Gen 5 is perfect, though.

Someone add the chicken picture.

Here's my quickly made analysis after looking through every generation's Pokemon.

Gen I
Pokemon have very simple concepts to them, like it's just an anime, or just an elemental animal, or it's just a slime monster, or something like that. Or they are kaiju-like monsters that look only vaguely like a real world animal. There's mostly a trend towards making the Pokemon look cool or threatening.

Gen II
Tends towards more naturalistic colors. Still tend to have simple concepts behind them, but there's almost no kaiju-like monsters, and the Pokemon tend to look more cartoony in a way that mostly makes them look cuter and cuddlier. Legendaries have very Japanese youkai like designs to fit with the region.

Gen III
Pokemon tend to have more bright, saturated colors, perhaps to fit with the tropical region. The concepts behind them are starting to get more complex or "gimmicky", and they're designed in a way that exaggerates whatever base appeal the Pokemon is supposed to have, like cool, cute, scary, or weird. Legendaries and some fully evolved Pokemon have a lot more small details added on to them. This pretty much holds true for all legendaries from now on.

Gen IV
We go back to darker, more natural looking colors. Pokemon across the board have more intricate details. There's very few simple concept Pokemon, they almost all have some theme or gimmick to them. Like the starters aren't just elemental animals, they also have a world turtle, Sun Wukong, and Napoleon theme. The fossils mons are themed after a rampart and a fortress. Many Pokemon have form changes or variations. For some reason, quite a few of of the cross-gen evolutions look round and bulky.

>>32626039
Gen V
Pokemon tend to have contrasting bright and dark colors. Not as many details are Gen IV, but more than Gens I and II. Almost all of the Pokemon now have some sort of theme or personality trait to them that are often emphasized through exaggerated designs. The grass snake is also a smug noble. The water otter is also a proud samurai. The route 1 rodent is cautious of danger and has strips like a road worker vest. The elemental monkeys are also based on the three wise monkeys. There's a grass-type who's also a southern belle. A desert lizard who's a street punk. A chinchilla that also loves to clean and has feather-duster like fur. A legendary trio is based on the three musketeers, I could go on.

Gen VI
The Pokemon tend more towards lighter, pastel colors. There's a trend towards the Pokemon being cute or "elegant", with the "cool" ones tending to be more cartoonish rather than monstrous. The Pokemon are either based on some obscure animal, or are a common animal with a theme to them. A large number of them have form variations or form change gimmicks. These themes or gimmicks are more like Gen IV in being based around some specific thing about the Pokemon's basis, or are an animal with a loose theme, with only a couple having an exaggerated personalty like in Gen V.

>>32626047
Gen VII
The Pokemon are the most cartoony looking yet. They're mostly all brightly colored, and look as if they were designed with the intent of them making cartoonishly exaggerated movements and expressions. Many of them have more obscure basis to them like, like many Gen VI mons. They all have some sort of theme or personality to them, with that personality being emphasized heavily by the design and outside info, sometimes to the point where sounds it's describing an individual rather than a whole species. In general, there's less "cool" or monstrous Pokemon, instead there's a big trend towards Pokemon that are "weird" in a funny sort of way. The legendaries have the most personality of any generations legendaries, and those personalities are mostly things that make them funny and endearing.

File: dailyreminder.png (107KB, 668x1014px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 668x1014px

>>32625609

>>32625609
>gen vi
>more saturated

>>32625725
The gen where almost everything is based on obscure animals, scarce, slow and in NU.

>>32626054
both of these are shit

>>32625609
Shockingly accurate.

>>32625609
>Is meant to encapsulate the aesthetic of each gen
>Literally says "BROWN' "HAS EYES ON TAIL"
Like, we can see the fucking image man holy shit
Show don't tell

>>32625609
>should be representative of a whole gen
>describes two or three mons from that gen at best

>>32625609
Do Gen 7.

It's just a girly version of Gen 6.

>>32626600
This. Needs hips and eyelashes.

File: 1493965737575.png (397KB, 1785x243px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1785x243px

>>32625982

>>32625609
>>32625631
They look like they'd all make some pretty cool Pokémon.
I'd use Gen 2, 3, 4 and 5 for sure.

>>32626661
This is awesome.

>>32625623
>tfw this one is the most accurate

>>32625609
>extremely round evolution of existing Pokémon

That's really only for Rhyperior and Lickilicky, and even then it's not to the extent of them not having a head.

>>32625701
Don't forget wobbuffet. Even remoraid has two spots on its tail. I think the inspiration also comes from Unown, hoothoot, ursaring having a circle on their central body

File: a72.png (544KB, 1270x1014px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 1270x1014px

>>32626744

>>32626661
kek

>>32626755
You forgot Sentret.

>>32626755
>The discussion started with Wobbufet's tail
>Uhhhh don'd forged aboud wobbubbet anon lol

>>32626744
>Magmortar
>Electivire
>All the other examples

>>32626054
These both look like Digimon.

>>32626661
>Mad Chicken
>Derp Chicken
>Red Chicken Blue Chicken
>Edgy Chicken
>Chicken Nuggets
>Baby Chicken
>Sexy Chicken

File: 1492647727502.png (9KB, 454x288px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 454x288px

>>32625609
>color scheme contains black, white, or grey
>gen 5 games are called black and white

Also, I really like that Gen 5 fakemon

>>32626794
Thanks, I'm stupid and couldn't tell what I was looking at!

>>32626600
>sexy plant-animal hybrid

>>32625609
I don't really agree with gen 5 since it looks like they just decided to recolor sawk and throh. Gen 6 I'm kind of iffy about.

>>32625609
I wish that Gen 3 mon was real.
Grass/Dragon maybe?

File: 1459001842644.png (663KB, 1200x1039px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 1200x1039px

>>32625609
>>32625623
>>32626661

>>32627141
chicken one was better but thanks

>>32627172
I never saw the chicken one before the thread but just felt like posting this since pretty much all of the others were getting posted

>>32625609
>>32625623
>>32625631
I feel like Gen 1, 2 and 4 are the easiest to recognize. The other ones kinda work, but not really. The designs in gen 3, 5, 6 and 7 are too diverse, I think.

Really digging the updated Gen 2 design in the OP.

>>32627188
Gen 6 feels like Gen 2 but cartoony, and Gen 7 feels like the midpoint between 2 and 5

>>32625609
i want to fuck the gen 3 and 4 ones t b h

>>32626039
>>32626047
>>32626051
Great but you missed the whole point of the thread

>>32625659
And ur literally...entitled to ur opinion but litcherly no breh deres murr dendat

>>32627182
Did u make this?

>>32626794
U ok anon?

>>32627289
Someone made the base image but I edited a few of them and added the newer gens. Gen 1 and 2 had no edits to the cow for instance

File: 1459015941583.png (340KB, 1213x675px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1213x675px

>>32625609
Also, I think the regional birds really show off the design philosophies of each gen really well

>>32626756
This is strangely arousing.

>>32627446
>implying owls are birds
how long will they keep getting away with it?

>>32625659

>Sentret (eye on stomach, supposed to look like spotlight)
>Spinarak
>Ariados
>Xatu
>Wobbuffet
>Girafarig
>Qwilfish
>Scizor (both claws)
>Mantine (eyes on its back, Mantyke from gen 4 has a Spinarak smily face there)
>Stantler (antlers)

also Slowking, Umbreon and Tyranitar can be argued to have a similar thing going on but I'll leave them out for now

>>32627480
this really isnt funny anymore

Gen 5 looks like something from Ben 10

>>32625609
I don't think gen v is accurate. It really only applies to the fighting mon.

>>32625617
A hamburger bun on it's head or a lmap shade and gen V would be fine.

Updated 3 and 6 are good but updated 2 is worse and 5 is eh

File: DA-8GRbUIAAG_4p.jpg (137KB, 1200x728px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1200x728px

>>32627704

>>32625682
Torterra, at a push Staraptors hair, Both fossils, Pachirisu, Garchomp, Lucario, Toxicroak, Rhyperior.
That's just the ones that randomly gain spikes in odd places. Most of the Gen IV pokemon are sharp looking by design.

>>32625623
>Gen 1
Toriyama's eyes were always full and not everyone had Vegeta brows. Also you're blocking out Mr. Mime, Psyduck, Diglet...

>Gen 2
Scizor
Tyranitar
Ursaring
Pineco
Entei
Houndoom
Sneasel

>Gen 3
Masquerain
Hariyama
Cradily
Shuppet
Claydol
Grumpig
Metagross

>Gen IV
That's just Garchomp and Garchomp's line is the only one that looks like that.

>Gen 5
>Everything looks goofy
That's just two lines. 3 if counting Beartic

>Western Cartoons
Name 8

Because the shit that came to mind for me on some Pokemon was either Mother/Earthbound (Durant, Trubbish, Sandile, Vanillish), Sesame Street (Throh/Sawk), Mega Man X (Heatmor) and Kamen Rider (Bisharp, Accelgor)

>>32626661
Always my fav

>>32628299
Posting exceptions means nothing, these are about general trends seen by a lot of the pokemon in a Gen. Unless you can find a more obvious general trend with the excpetions, you have no argument

Not that you're all wrong, gen 5 is an odd ways to describe it

>>32625623
Only Dialga and Palkia look like that.
Maybe Garchomp a bit.
OP's is better.

>>32628422
lolno
>>32628218

>>32627511
Anything that isn't Wobbuffet, Xatu, or Girafarig is grasping at straws. OP's design has LITERAL eyes on its tail. Circuclar markings aren't eyes you retard.

>>32628445
Staraptor, Pachirisu, Torterra, the Fossils, etc look like biomechanical robots?

>>32628449
OPs design has two of the markings that are on it's chest on it's tail. Neither of which are the same design as it's actual eyes. So they're markings that look like eyes.

>>32628466
>Robots
Said literally nobody. Easy mistake but bio-mechanical purely refers to biological things, nothing mechanical. But my admittedly lazy response just meant they both have sharp bits in random places and other questionable details. In fact the latter is so vague you could find dozens more that fit the criteria
But I'm lazy

>>32628466
>biomechanical robots
Pick one

>>32628497
>>32628505
Woops didn't mean to put down like robots, the word was on my mind amd I'm trying to multitask.

Still, those Pokemon don't look biomechanical.

Only the DiaPer box legends fit the bill.

>>32628401
>Exceptions.

A lot of Pokemon in Gen 1 didn't have those so called Toriyama eyes and were hardly dinos. If anything the ones being generalized WERE the exceptions, bro.

Gen II and Gen VI are probably the only ones that are spot on and that's because they have the least amount of new entries.

>>32628467
Except they look like actual eyes. No gen 2 design does that except Xatu, Wobbuffet, and Girafarig.

>>32628531
Did you even read the image? It says "Face like markings" not "Actual eyes"
It happens to put those face like markings on the two places that multiple Pokemon in Gen 2 have them.

>>32628523
I would argue but honestly the image is kind of guilty of causing the problem here. Something looking "biomechanical" is pretty damn vague since biomechanical doesn't actually refer to appearance, so it's very open to interpretation. I was mostly defending the image they used, but since that's up to interpretation too I guess I answered a lil hastily.
They do put spikes in stupid places though

>>32625623
>>32628497
>>32628523
>>32628559
the real problem with the image (and a couple of the others here, but to a lesser extent) is the text. You can understand it with the image, but the text is either too vague or too specific and needs to be explained better. Gen 4 does have a lot of extra details, sharp angles and lines, but it's always called spikes, which is a bit too specific

and biomechanical was just a stupid thing to use

>>32627735
What about the other 142 gen V mons?

>>32628542
>Did you even read the image? It says "Face like markings" not "Actual eyes"

But none of them LOOK like actual eyes except 3 of them. The others are just circular markings.

>It happens to put those face like markings on the two places that multiple Pokemon in Gen 2 have them.
Only two of them have "eye markings" on their tail and none of them have a giant one on their chest.

>>32625609
>>32625631
Gen 2 and 3 are extreemely accurate. Gen 4 and 5 somewhat, Gen 1 sort of but not really, and 6 not at all

>>32625623
Everything here is accurate exceopt that for gen 4, that's only true of legendaries, and foer gen 3, none of the designs are that orgnaic

>>32628606
Do they have a design trend? Because if not, then that pic is still the biggest one, which is why it's mentioned

>>32628632
Sentret and Ursaring have markings on their chest. But the point of the Gen 2 one isnt specifically the location of the markings, but the fact that they look like regular cute animals with a marking on them to fictionalize them. Like Teddiursa just being a bear with a ring on it's head.

>>32628648
I'd say Gen 6 is pretty accurate, since pretty much every image here that describes it is somewhat similar.

>>32625623
That Gen V example is 10/10.

>>32627735
>Plant monsters
That's a justified case, though Not particularly on the monkey, but the bug and flower.

Same with the shedding lizard.

Ernie and Bert, I can't explain but that's really no different from Machamp's skinflap underwear and Hitmonchan's "robes."

>>32628702
>Sentret and Ursaring have markings on their chest

But they're not "eyes" you faggot.

>>32628716
You're getting caught up on something very specific when these images are by their nature, broad.

And nobody has called the chest thing an eye marking

File: mfw.png (22KB, 369x657px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 369x657px

>>32628531

>>32628724
>face-like markings

But where is the porn of 2, 3, and 6

>>32628724
>And nobody has called the chest thing an eye marking

>THESE POKEMON HAVE FACE LIKE MARKINGS WHERE GEN 2 HAS THEM ANON, THAT'S WHY IT HAS THIS FACE LIKE MARKING ON ITS CHEST

read the thread.

>>32628734
>circular markings are eyes

ah, more straw grasping I see.

honestly OP's image is trash. The original one was fine.

>>32628757
Yes, a lot of pokemon have face like markings, and you're replying that they dont have eyes on their chest or eyes on their tails. Those arent the same?

>>32628785
you are making them out to be literal eyes so you can say it's wrong when people bring up any other examples

>>32628632
Did you even read the part where I said "did you even read the image?"
You are the one adding the "actual eyes" thing. That's not what it says. It doesn't even imply it. The image shows markings that YOU describe as actual eyes, but are nothing like the ACTUAL EYES in the image and the words describe them as "Face like markings", not actual eyes.
Lots of them have face like markings, which is what the image says and shows.

File: 2.png (43KB, 364x408px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 364x408px

>>32628769

Gen 3 is the best

>>32625609
The gen I mon I assume tries to mimic the Kaiju designs. But it has some very uncharacteristic characteristics in that regard. I would have added a tail and made the legs "glued" on instead of naturally connecting to the rest of the body. The face is also weird, kaijumons tend to have more detailed and realistic faces, and the mons with simple face tend to have round shapes. I can't think of a single mon from gen I that has a similar snout to the one portrayed here.
The eyes on the gen II mon's tail need to just be white or black dots. Most of the eye patterns that aren't actual eyes tend to be slightly more sublte.
I don't agree with the color choices for the gen VI mon. Most gen VI mons have either one bland main color with colorful details, two related colors or pastel colors. Something as clashing as bright yellow and pink is not something I associate with gen VI. No idea what the holes in the ears are supposed to be either.

I have always loved the gen IV one, it is the one I feel does its job the best. Gen III and V are fine.

>>32628866
I agree with all of this

Also, I think the holes in Gen VI are just style and not really speaking to the designs

>>32627446
...they really DO, don't they!

File: MegaBanette-Pokemon-X-and-Y.jpg (33KB, 400x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x480px

>>32628866

>>32628884
it's uncanny

Put the classic and updated gen 3 thing together as a pair, then you've got a real gen 3 mon. That generation had a lot of Pokemon pairs for some reason (Beautifly/Dustox, Plusle/Minun, Solrock/Lunatone, Zangoose/Seviper, Huntail/Gorebyss, ect).

>>32628802
>when people bring up any other examples

But that's the thing. There are no other examples.

>>32628803
>You are the one adding the "actual eyes" thing.
I said they LOOK like actual eyes. Read. No Gen 2 Pokemon has a giant circular eyeball marking on its chest and then other eyeball markings on its tail. SOME Gen 2 Pokemon have circular patterns. But they don't look like literal eyes like OP decided to draw it.

File: 1384198726763.jpg (29KB, 220x208px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 220x208px

>>32628977
Are you brain damaged or trolling?
YOU said they look like actual eyes
The image said "face like markings"
YOU are interpreting those markings as eyes despite the fact they are not what that image uses to depict eyes nor does it describe them AS eyes.
Lots of Gen 2 Pokemon have FACE LIKE MARKINGS on their face or tail.
THAT is what the image says and THAT is correct.

>>32628992
Not him but his point is that the mon depicted has too obvious markings. They have to be toned down a bit.

>>32629049
Too obvious as in what? Looks too much like eyes? Because again, those markings aren't eyes according to that image, it depicts eyes and markings as two different things.

>>32629063
>Looks too much like eyes? Because again, those markings aren't eyes according to that image, it depicts eyes and markings as two different things.
Yes, exactly that. I have no problem with the description, but the execution the artist went with. That's what most people here care about. Real gen II pokemon with eye-like markings are clearly markings and not real eyes, with Xatu maybe being an exception. This thing's tail can easily be seen as a real second head.

>>32629063
>Too obvious as in what?

They too obviously look like real eyes. Holy fuck are you illiterate?

> Because again, those markings aren't eyes according to that image
Not the point.

File: 1384206518507.png (246KB, 404x308px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 404x308px

>>32629114
>>32629144
That is literally the point.
You're taking HALF of the image out of context. Those do not look like the POKEMONS eyes and the image does not claim anything about REAL eyes.
They are markings that may be SEEN as eyes but DO NOT resemble the actual eyes of the Pokemon which is exactly what gen 2 does.
The fact they look like actual eyes is because the eyes that the Pokemon has DO NOT.
Yes, Xatu fits that description.
It has markings that may be taken as eyes but that do not match it's actual eyes.
As one of you said, Wobbuffet and Girafarig both have markings that resemble ACTUAL eyes, but you're missing the point, which is that the markings do not look like the eyes of the Pokemon they are on.
Spinirak/Ariados, Scizors claws etc all have FACE LIKE MARKINGS that are not the eyes of those Pokemon.
If you think that that image says "Real eyes" when it both implies and outright states it simply means "Face like" you are a fucking retard.
Am I being baited?

>>32628977
There are, but you called them reaching because they dont have literal eyes. here >>32628449