Whelp, So much for no more non-organic Pokemon - Blogs - Bulbagarden Forums
View RSS Feed

Bluelatios

Whelp, So much for no more non-organic Pokemon

Rate this Entry
"Pokemon are not tools of war" - Sage Li

502px-hitotsuki_new_pokemon.png

edgeworth-shrug.gif

Egad, Gamefreak you cannot resit the weird ideas can you? But flying swords are too awesome! But you miss the point, for the past generation (and even before then) has already proven that non-organic material is most often met with mixed opinions. Pokemon are meant to be creative, but how far can you go in the name of creativity before it's "not" a Pokemon? Putting aside the simplicity of a sword which aids in making the design more believable than others, my problem is the logic behind that object's existence in the firstplace. What is nature's purpose for man's design? The answer is none. Man's design serves man. Pokemon came first, humans second. Without an explanation behind it, such as with Porygon and Voltorb, I find it questionable when Gamefreak's human footprint is visible on their works of art.

Also, happy 4th! Go 'Merica. And, go Texas because Texas

texas_ten_gallon.png

Submit "Whelp, So much for no more non-organic Pokemon" to Digg Submit "Whelp, So much for no more non-organic Pokemon" to del.icio.us Submit "Whelp, So much for no more non-organic Pokemon" to StumbleUpon Submit "Whelp, So much for no more non-organic Pokemon" to Google

Updated 4th July 2013 at 03:53 PM by Bluelatios

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Reila's Avatar
    It is not the sword, but most likely a spirit possessing a sword, like Golurk is a spirit possessing the giant clay doll, Cofagrigus is a spirit possessing a sarcophagus, etc. I don't know why you are jumping to conclusions, though. An explanation behind it will be provided with the Pokédex entries.

    And yes, it is a Pokémon like any other, a very creative one and no, Game Freak isn't going to far. Why people easily accept things like fire-breathing foxes, dogs, lizards without "explanations behind them", but have troube accepting Pokémon like Hitotsuki and others is something I don't understand. The hate towards Hitotsuki is starting to piss me off.

    Lastly, no offense intended, but you have trouble accepting Hitotsuki and yet you like Latios, a Pokémon which is a mix of a not well known concept (aeons), a dragon and a freaking JET. Double standards much?
    :P
    Updated 4th July 2013 at 04:07 PM by Reila
  2. Bluelatios's Avatar
    Ah, but whether or not Gamefreak goes to far is highly subjective isn't it? Different Pokemon have different degrees of human influence.Even my examples of Porygon and Voltorb are still controversial designs anyway, but that is more difficult to justify so I am focusing on making a broader point. Do you blame me for making a case for what should be the accepted standard for Pokemon? Everyone has standards. Yet already, you are offended.

    Unfortunately today's culture in the Pokemon fandom these days is rather hostile when it comes to design. It seems that nobody is allowed to object to any Pokemon without usually being labeled as biased or nostalgic. How is one supposed to object to anything and be legit in doing so? Therefore I cannot expect to convince everyone, only that some might hear me out.

    For the record, I have not yet ruled out the possibility that it might, and should be a spirit possession in order to better connect the design with nature. There is no need to go at me. Latios' sharing similar aerodynamic properties to a jet does not even come close to the point at hand.
  3. Misty Calls Masquerain's Avatar
    I agree, That does look lame, what were they thinking making a SWORD POKEMON.
  4. Gaga's Avatar
    I like Swordmon and it seems like a rather obviously possessed sword.
    Almost as much as I like the Vanilluxe line :D

    I frankly don't give two shits if a Pokemon is unrealistic since this series has long ago (1st gen) surpassed my suspension of disbelief.
  5. Bluelatios's Avatar
    Ironically, my immediate response to anyone who complains about gen 1 Pokemon is that, if certain Pokemon were poorly designed then, why haven't they learned from their mistakes? And I mean ok, ghost type Pokemon typically get away with looking like objects because of their possessive nature sooo, it could be worse. I just felt like I should take the time to point out as a general rule of thumb, I think Gamefreak would do better overall to avoid unnecessary backlash and stretching of boundaries and just go with what works; Pokemon that are from nature, by nature.
  6. Karamazov's Avatar
    I think Gamefreak would do better overall to avoid unnecessary backlash and stretching of boundaries and just go with what works; Pokemon that are from nature, by nature.
    I really disagree with this. Even if some (or most) people don't like a Pokemon's design, staying in this narrow box of "nature" Pokemon would just stifle a lot of creativity and force them to rely on tired ideas more often. Experimentation and variety is a good thing.
  7. Gaga's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluelatios
    Ironically, my immediate response to anyone who complains about gen 1 Pokemon is that, if certain Pokemon were poorly designed then, why haven't they learned from their mistakes?
    I wasn't complaining about gen 1 then. I don't think unrealistic or unnatural designs is a bad trait for Pokemon.
    I do have other complaints about generation one, mainly how plain and sometimes uninspired the designs could be. Which, obviously imo, they vastly improved on in later installments.
  8. Bluelatios's Avatar
    Mmk,well....when exactly does the box of nature become narrow? In general, I have yet to hear too many people feel it has become stale. Experimentation and variety are indeed good. But there should still be a system for how to go about implementing that. There needs to be a balance, there needs to be public assurance of what is the line that won't be crossed is At this point I'm not even talking about this Pokemon in particular. All I'm saying is that the definition of a Pokemon has been unclear for a long time, and more so with each generation.
  9. Kyriaki's Avatar
    @Bluelatios; Pokemon comes from Pocket Monsters - monsters that you can capture and carry around with you in your pockets. The name itself doesn't have any restrictions on whether the monsters should be organic or inorganic, natural or artificial in anyway.
  10. Bluelatios's Avatar
    Well, yeah that's the literal definition, but does that mean you could simply make anything and everything into a Pokemon? I'm not talking about the actual possibilities so much as typical social expectations here. Can we say that any (insert object here) will be acceptable? (Again bear with me). Generally speaking even if it were a Rotom-esque ghost possessing it, does that still make anything acceptable? My point is, whatever Gamefreak interprets as the core defining characteristics of a Pokemon seem to be unclear and challenged in every generation, and I think its why there is growing mistrust in their abilities for some folks.

    If every generation were to change the standard just a little more, and a little more, and a little more, how long is it before someday in the future, you find yourself looking at a generation and saying "that's not Pokemon!"? Because that is how the a group of human minds work when they attempt to keep looking for ways to refine something repeatedly over time. It is the path that Pokemon may ultimately end up on as the decades pass.
    Updated 5th July 2013 at 09:42 PM by Bluelatios
  11. Kyriaki's Avatar
    @Bluelatios;
    whatever Gamefreak interprets as the core defining characteristics of a Pokemon seem to be unclear and challenged in every generation
    And, that IS NOT limited to pokemons based on objects. Animal-based pokemons are more than often showing unclear characteristics as well, so you can't exactly blame the artificial pokemon for being artificial.
  12. Bluelatios's Avatar
    Mhmm, I absolutely agree! How does Kadabra acquire spoons? Or what's with Ludicolo's "sombrero"? Or Sawk and Throh's karate attire? We now have such a huge pool of Pokemon these days, that the standards ought to be made more transparent. We're humans, we all make inevitable mistakes someday. But standards, rules, guidelines, and expectations; these are tools to help us delay or even prevent those mistakes.
  13. Kyriaki's Avatar
    @Bluelatios; Then draw a standard line, divide the pokemons from humans.

    N's ideals more or less.
  14. Pokémon Master Ash's Avatar
    Yeah, Honedge's design made me laugh so hard for 5 minutes that I fell out of my chair laughing at how awful it was.

    It's a ghost sword with a sheath. Really? XD.

    [QUOTE=Contrary;bt288834]I[I][B] really[/B][/I] disagree with this. Even if some (or most) people don't like a Pokemon's design, staying in this narrow box of "nature" Pokemon would just stifle a lot of creativity and force them to rely on tired ideas more often. Experimentation and variety is a good thing.[/QUOTE]
    It can work, like with Chandelure, but with Honedge? Honedge's design is probably the only one in Gen VI I do not like so far (along with 2/5 of the Mega Evolutions but those aren't permanent).
    Updated 10th August 2013 at 03:21 PM by Pokémon Master Ash

Trackbacks

Total Trackbacks 0
Trackback URL: