• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Fifth Generation Evolutions?

I think Bachuru is adorable and I despise spiders. And Denchura gets awesome points for not being creepy looking either.

TBH, I was disappointed that Luvdisc didn't get an evolution, but its probably for the best this way. They aren't hampered by having older Pokemon in the Pokedex, after all.
 
I still like how some of the Pokemon look. But it's been a turn off since the game is turning from "exotic creatures" into "viruses from Megaman Battle Network".

I mean, I saw a Pokemon wearing a Dobok! THAT ISN'T NATURAL!

inb4hitmonchanhasgloves
 
Kabigon said:
I still like how some of the Pokemon look. But it's been a turn off since the game is turning from "exotic creatures" into "viruses from Megaman Battle Network".
Click to expand...

Eh? They all still look like Pokemon to me. Here is a good guideline to tell a Pokemon from a non-Pokemon, aesthetics wise:

1)It has interesting use of color. You can say a lot about Pokemon designs, but they usually are not drab. Even when using white, black, or just monochromatic schemes, the coloration is usually used in an interesting manner.
2)Pokemon usually doesn't just have a theme or idea for something. They usually mix in various thoughts and ideas about it.
3)Pokemon usually are not overly complex, and if you pair two Pokemon together, even from different media, they usually look similar.


Lets apply those principles.


hisyarumonb.jpg

384rayquaza.png


Now, barring that you already probably know one or the other, which one is the Pokemon and which one is the Digimon? The top one has pretty standard-coloring, is pretty straightforward in its "Japanese dragon" theme, and has rather complicated amount of detail with the scales, whiskers, et. al. The bottom one uses colors in a unique way, has odd markings and head configuration and other details that don't say "Japanese dragon!" very clearly, and while it has some detail it still looks rather sleek. Thus, using those design aesthetics, we can find the bottom one is a Pokemon, and the top one is a Digimon.
Now, I have yet to see a Gen V Pokemon that fails criteria 1-3, so I don't think we have a problem.
 
Eloi said:
Eh? They all still look like Pokemon to me. Here is a good guideline to tell a Pokemon from a non-Pokemon, aesthetics wise:

1)It has interesting use of color. You can say a lot about Pokemon designs, but they usually are not drab. Even when using white, black, or just monochromatic schemes, the coloration is usually used in an interesting manner.
2)Pokemon usually doesn't just have a theme or idea for something. They usually mix in various thoughts and ideas about it.
3)Pokemon usually are not overly complex, and if you pair two Pokemon together, even from different media, they usually look similar.
Click to expand...

The thing is that quite a few of Gen IV and V fail the last criteria, in my opinion at least. I'm not saying that all Gen IV and V pokemon are bad (Bachuru~), but some are just too overloaded with little designs and/or look too similar to another unrelated pokemon.

Take, for example, Kuritaran.

631.png


I mean, just what in the world is this thing? It's not an animal, nor a plant, nor a fish, or even an object; it's just a thing. It has too much stuff all over its body. What are we supposed to be looking at? The stripes on its body? Its weird drill-like claws? Its pointy head? And just what is up with those brown strips all over its back?

Pandoraa, for example, is only trying to get across two things: its bright-pink poisonousness and its caterpillar-ness, which is accomplished by the segmented body and antennas. Ok, Pandoraa is a poisonous worm, we got this. But it's not a boring poisonous worm either; the antennas and tails are a nice touch, and it's a fat, poisonous worm. I'm still a bit iffy on the purple color of the rings (I'd like them better if they have more contrast), but it cuts up the pink and spices up the design as a whole. Without the purple rings, Pandoraa would be a rather boring, fat, poisonous worm with too much pink.

Back to Kuritaran. The thing is that the yellow stripes on its front accomplish nothing. It draws attention away from the cooler parts of the design, such as the claws and the pipe-tail, and instead makes our eyes focus on the clown-like stripes. Maybe it's supposed to look like magma or something, but there's better ways of doing that than putting bright yellow stripes all over its body! I think the focus of Kuritaran should be on its claws, its strange body shape, and maybe its tail, and anything else is unnecessary; it's got enough details on those three parts to look interesting.

And the first thing I thought when I saw Wargle was "this pokemon looks like a digimon". Yes, it's made of awesome, but doesn't it look like it could have evolved/digivolved from Hawkmon?

And I think Kyuremu and the three fat cloud gods look like Yu-Gi-Oh monsters.
 
Crazy Linoone said:
631.png


I mean, just what in the world is this thing? It's not an animal, nor a plant, nor a fish, or even an object; it's just a thing. It has too much stuff all over its body. What are we supposed to be looking at? The stripes on its body? Its weird drill-like claws? Its pointy head? And just what is up with those brown strips all over its back?
Click to expand...

It's an anteater + a flamethrower, and probably a bit of lava/volcano thrown in there. Hence its rivalry with Aianto, which is an ant. The red/yellow colouration is probably a fire-type thing, the brown stripes are pipes, and the tail is an exhaust pipe. I think its fairly clever, actually.
 
Crazy Linoone said:
The thing is that quite a few of Gen IV and V fail the last criteria, in my opinion at least. I'm not saying that all Gen IV and V pokemon are bad (Bachuru~), but some are just too overloaded with little designs and/or look too similar to another unrelated pokemon.

Take, for example, Kuritaran.

631.png


I mean, just what in the world is this thing? It's not an animal, nor a plant, nor a fish, or even an object; it's just a thing. It has too much stuff all over its body. What are we supposed to be looking at? The stripes on its body? Its weird drill-like claws? Its pointy head? And just what is up with those brown strips all over its back?

Pandoraa, for example, is only trying to get across two things: its bright-pink poisonousness and its caterpillar-ness, which is accomplished by the segmented body and antennas. Ok, Pandoraa is a poisonous worm, we got this. But it's not a boring poisonous worm either; the antennas and tails are a nice touch, and it's a fat, poisonous worm. I'm still a bit iffy on the purple color of the rings (I'd like them better if they have more contrast), but it cuts up the pink and spices up the design as a whole. Without the purple rings, Pandoraa would be a rather boring, fat, poisonous worm with too much pink.

Back to Kuritaran. The thing is that the yellow stripes on its front accomplish nothing. It draws attention away from the cooler parts of the design, such as the claws and the pipe-tail, and instead makes our eyes focus on the clown-like stripes. Maybe it's supposed to look like magma or something, but there's better ways of doing that than putting bright yellow stripes all over its body! I think the focus of Kuritaran should be on its claws, its strange body shape, and maybe its tail, and anything else is unnecessary; it's got enough details on those three parts to look interesting.

And the first thing I thought when I saw Wargle was "this pokemon looks like a digimon". Yes, it's made of awesome, but doesn't it look like it could have evolved/digivolved from Hawkmon?
Click to expand...
I think the Pokemon you first mentioned shows how they don't just stick to one idea (criteria 2), and Wargle definitely accomplishes criteria 1 (its interestingly colored), 2 (it is an eagle, Native American war chief, and U.S.A. flag all in one), and 3 (the feathers and talons aren't too detailed). And I don't think Wargle is a Pokemon that is Digimon-like, just that Hawkmon is (kind-of, its overly loyal to the hawk concept and the coloring is not interesting) a Pokemon-like Digmon.
 
Big Red Cherry Bomb said:
It's an anteater + a flamethrower, and probably a bit of lava/volcano thrown in there. Hence its rivalry with Aianto, which is an ant. The red/yellow colouration is probably a fire-type thing, the brown stripes are pipes, and the tail is an exhaust pipe. I think its fairly clever, actually.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. I think it's clever, too, but it just has too many details. There's not one or two especially significant trait that makes us go "oh look, a Kuritaran" but many, many of them. If they spread the details out to two pokemon instead of cramming all of them on just one, it might look better. I really love the claws and the pipe-tail, but the yellow stripes and squiggly things on its back draw attention away from the more special, interesting parts.

Eloi said:
I think the Pokemon you first mentioned shows how they don't just stick to one idea (criteria 2), and Wargle definitely accomplishes criteria 1 (its interestingly colored), 2 (it is an eagle, Native American war chief, and U.S.A. flag all in one), and 3 (the feathers and talons aren't too detailed). And I don't think Wargle is a Pokemon that is Digimon-like, just that Hawkmon is (kind-of, its overly loyal to the hawk concept and the coloring is not interesting) a Pokemon-like Digmon.
Click to expand...

Some Digimon and Yu-Gi-Oh monsters fit that criteria, too, so it gets hard to argue sometimes. Wargle is definitely not the most digimon-like pokemon out there, but it's just a feeling I had, so just disregard it.

I think the main thing that separates (most) pokemon from other monster-things is that pokemon have simple, cute designs. They're not overloaded with lines and wings and feathers and random spikes and what have it, and they don't look especially menacing. For example, Charizard is a flaming dragon, but it still doesn't look scary because it's kind of fat and has a largish head. The design is simple (dragon + fire, yay).

On the other hand, Digimon and YGO usually has monsters loaded with designs. The Blue-Eyed White Dragon, off the top of my head, has many layers of armors and pointy things all over its body, and it looks pretty darn scary and pointy. Same with Digimon -- a lot of the final digilutions have huge claws, lots of armor and color, scales, wings, spikes, or some combination of the above. And lots and lots of lines.

Pokemon designs are meant to accomplish something, to convey its theme -- Charizard is a flaming dragon, so it has fire coming out of its tail. Wargle is a native american war chief eagle, so it's a bird with Native American hair-dress-like feathers and colored like America.

Hence I don't like Kuritaran much: it's an anteater-volcano-flamethrower-thing, and I get the anteater and volcano part (awesome claws, body shape, coloring), but the yellow stripes makes it look like a clown, not magma or fire (Magmar pulled off the magma part pretty well). I think I'm just butthurt over those yellow stripes.
 
Bachuru said:
"Game Freak are running out of ideas" is a stock phrase said by nostalgic fans who don't like the new Pokémon but feel they need to justify this with something that sounds objective.
Click to expand...

There was this one morning at school when I said something about B/W looking really cool to a number of kids who liked Pokémon but didn't keep up with the current news (they didn't know B/W existed). At one point, I said "There's a literal American eagle in this!" Their response was, quite literally, "They're running out of ideas."

I ignored that at first, but when referencing B/W again a few minutes later, I mentioned the existence of that chandelier-ghost-thing, to which one of my friends (who hadn't even been there when I mentioned Wargle!) went "Oh my god, they are so running out of ideas!"

This resulted in all of the kids deciding that Pokémon's Pokémon designs had Jumped The Shark, both out of unfamiliarity and the fact that "we have a time and space legendary and a God Pokémon, where else is there to go?" (I don't think they heard me when I attempted to argue "The second set of games didn't have an all-powerful legendary!")

Finally I went "SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO ME FOR A MINUTE. The first set of games had a mole that evolved into three moles. The first set of games had a magnet which evolved into three magnets. The first set of games had a pile of sludge that evolved into a bigger pile of sludge."
 
The most immediately obvious difference between pokemon and digimon is pokemon's relative simplicity. This, of course, stems from the fact that pokemon's native environment are 80 * 80 pixel boxes. But this is not the only difference.

I think the real difference is simply that pokemon are not mere fighting machines. The creators of pokemon were very clearly inspired by biology and the natural world to a much greater degree than the creators of digimon, and the creators of other works that heavily feature monsters. For example, it is impossible to imagine this digimon finding a place in an ecosystem anywhere, or in fact doing anything other than fighting. But with something like Charizard (probably the pokemon most analogous to that specific digimon) it is very easy to picture it curling up in a cave somewhere, or flying over mountain ranges, or something like that.

You might say that there are pokemon like Magnemite, who are obviously not natural. But I would argue that even the unnatural pokemon like Magnemite or Muk sort of occupy an "urban" ecosystem that has no counterpart in real life. I kind of recall from the anime that Magnemite have animal societies and animal behavior just like the more natural pokemon do. Simply because certain pokemon are not based off of animals does not mean that they do not exhibit the same behavior as animals.

And then of course there are pokemon like Nageki and Dageki. I will concede the fact that these pokemon are not really in the spirit of pokemon that I described above. Still, there are very few pokemon like these two, and I think that one or two doesn't really hurt in the long run. Lucario is another pokemon that doesn't fit in "the spirit", and in fact I probably consider Lucario the most digimon-like of all current pokemon.

A lot of the rest of the difference between digimon and pokemon can simply be chalked up to difference in the art style. Agumon could be a pokemon if he was drawn by Ken Sugimori, and Charmander could be a digimon if he was drawn by the artist who draws digimon. However, Hawkmon is not interchangeable with say, Pidgey, because Hawkmon simply does not resemble birds in nature. It looks too ready to fight, and not ready enough to peck at the ground or build a nest or anything that birds actually do.

I don't think there's a problem with certain pokemon resembling digimon, or even the series evolving so that the pokemon look like digimon. However, I do think that pokemon is the vastly superior and more sophisticated series, for the reasons I described above. The fact that pokemon is based around "natural" elements allows you to imagine an entire alternate universe while you play the game, whereas digimon is simply all about battling and does not have the same appeal.

edit: I think this is also why people didn't appreciate the 4th gen legendaries or 4th gen evolutions of previous pokemon very much.
 
Last edited:
#1 bro said:
I think the real difference is simply that pokemon are not mere fighting machines. The creators of pokemon were very clearly inspired by biology and the natural world to a much greater degree than the creators of digimon, and the creators of other works that heavily feature monsters. For example, it is impossible to imagine this digimon finding a place in an ecosystem anywhere, or in fact doing anything other than fighting. But with something like Charizard (probably the pokemon most analogous to that specific digimon) it is very easy to picture it curling up in a cave somewhere, or flying over mountain ranges, or something like that.
Click to expand...

Counterpoint: darksilvania.
 
Cuddlefuzz said:
Mind you Darksilvania never called his fakes Pokémon, he called them Powermon, something different hence why his designs were over the top from the very start.
His fake evolutions are far less exaggerated, but still looks rather unPokémonlike.

Plus he is one of those people who are convinced there should be a Light-type.
Click to expand...

Calling them POWERMON seems more like an excuse to make his fakes over the top than an a valid explanation.

And considering all the fakemon galleries his stuff gets submitted to, I think they're more or less the same.
 
#1 bro said:
This guy is obviously a talented artist, but his pokemon of course look nothing like pokemon for the precise reasons I described. I think you just helped me prove my point??
Click to expand...

My point was that people don't complain that his things don't look like Pokemon.
 
#1 bro said:
Anyway here are some animals to replace those invalid ones: toucan, daddy long legs spider, squid, orca, chimera, peacock, okapi, yak, kiwi bird, naked mole rat.
Click to expand...
Shimama is an okapi; Ho-oh is based off a peacock.
 
Crazy Linoone said:
Take, for example, Kuritaran.

631.png


I mean, just what in the world is this thing? It's not an animal, nor a plant, nor a fish, or even an object; it's just a thing.
Click to expand...

That you didn't realize what this is right away (especially since the Pokemon right after it is a steel type ant- this thing being a fire type makes the ant really obvious prey) boggles my mind. D: I think you're looking too hard at the wrong things here.

surskitty said:
Shimama is an okapi; Ho-oh is based off a peacock.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure okapi only have stripes on their butts and legs, that Shimama is a corruption of the Japanese word for zebra (you of all people should know this too), and that it evolves into a Pokemon that also has zebra in its name. Okapi aren't even really related to zebras, either, they're giraffes. And Ho-Oh is definitely supposed to be a phoenix, and while I guess you could argue that many phoenix representations draw elements from the peacock, the designers were probably looking at peacock-like phoenixes instead of making a phoenix-like peacock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom