Let's talk about Pokémon designs

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
Despite being such a crucial part of Pokémon, and a source of much debate and conflicting opinions, we haven't really had a general thread on Pokémon designs for as long as I can remember. There's the odd "Worst Pokémon" thread, or the silly sprites thread, but the designs themselves are usually only addressed in off-topic discussions in other threads. From Smeargle's Studio and Create-a-Pokémon I've seen that many Smogonites are knowledgeable about Pokémon designs and what makes them work, but the issue has seldom been on-topic in OI, and the aforementioned forums don't have general discussion thread dedicated to the issue.

So, yeah, discussion. I must admit I don't usually like listing bullet points, but they are easy to address and gets the conversation rolling, so here's a few suggested topics to discuss. Don't feel obliged to respond to all of them, they are just suggestions:
  • What makes a good/bad Pokémon design to you?
  • Are there any Pokémon designs you like or dislike for specific reasons? Can you point out exactly what the designers did right/wrong?
  • How do other aspects of the Pokémon work with or against the design? Can movepool, abilities, lore or the design basis affect the way you view a Pokémon design? That is, can it ruin an otherwise good design, or remedy a bad one?
  • For a long time, we've been used to see Pokémon in sprites only, but now 3D models have entered the main series games (console games nonwithstanding). Do you think some Pokémon made this transition better or worse than others? Were Pokémon troubled by bad sprites finally justified when seen in glorious 3D? Or did the 3D transition reveal that the Pokémon only looked good in specific poses from specific angles?
  • Have you ever immediately liked/disliked a Pokémon when you first saw it, only to change your mind after seeing the Pokémon in a different pose/setting, or learning a new aspect of its lore or design background?
I'd like the discussion to be a little more general than the ultra-specific "Judge a Pokémon" articles Smogon does from time to time, but feel free to provide examples. I'll chime in with my own pair of cents later, but first I'd like to see what you come up with.
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I'd look more into a Pokemon's design rather than just the simple "it looks good/ cool/ pretty" mentality.
I do look at whether the design expresses what the Pokemon is.

For example, I see the designs of Hypno, Drowzee and Jynx to be good, despite they look ugly. (I honestly feel sad when Pokemon fans act so superficial and immature when expressing their feels against these 3 Pokemon.)

Hypno and Drowzee both have very perverted facial expressions, which is exactly what Game Freak would like to express. They are kidnappers (and rapists).
I find Drowzee better than Hypno, because the dark patterns on Drowzee look like the black pants middle-aged men in Japan like to wear. It fulfills the fact that Japanese believe that middle aged men are the most perverted men.

Jynx also has a very good design when it comes to being expressive. Jynx is a play on the humor of heta-uma (a term meaning bad/nice).
It is hilarious how something can turn out to look this bad.
In Japan, big boobs, shiny blonde hair, shiny lips, big eyes are all supposed to be pretty. Nearly every Japanese girl would like to have these.
If you describe to someone "she has long shiny blonde hair, big lips, big boobs and big eyes", most people would assume she's someone who is very pretty.
But look at Jynx, it has all of these "good qualities", but it still looks like shit.
The heta-uma humor is very well played.
This also explains how its kiss is an attack. No one wants to be kissed by someone as ugly as this. Hence the recurring gags in the Manga that is still running strong in XY.

A design I dislike is Meloetta, even when I know that it is quite pretty.
Meloetta's design is basically like a Gardevoir/ Kirlia rip off-- white skin, tiny waist, tiny and simplified legs.
It's nothing new in the world of Pokemon. Just a smaller Kirlia with a different hair style.

A thing that I feel the designers have done wrong is that they changed Sawk and Throh's design to look less like Oni.
I felt that they would have looked better with the Oni horns. The eyebrows in Sawk and Throh's final design totally ruins their aesthetics, and also make them too much more like humans.
If they had Oni horns, it would look like they are Onis instead of just humans.
Even if they had Oni horns, they wouldn't look too much like Landorus/ Tornadus/ Thundurus group, because the latter are not shown with legs. I personally wouldn't confuse legged Onis with these cloud thingies.
(The reason why the designers changed them is to make them look less like Landorus... etc)

Another group of design I dislike are with the Landorus/ Tornadus / Thundurus group.
They are the same thing. Why make 3 of them?
Even in Japan, they are collectively called Copyparus. (copy + paste + rus)
Look, everyone feels that they are the same.
However, the therian formes look quite cool in my opinion.
 
This sounds like an awesome thread

I'll write some more when I have time but for now I want to touch on the design of legendary pokemon. Imo legendary pokemon should reflect their purpose/theme very well with their appearance. Game Freak does a sick job at this most of the time.

I would say it's pretty hard to create a godly figure but they were spot on with Arceus. The white/gold colour scheme gives it a heavenly vibe and it's stance is just majestic. It just looks omnipotent and what a god would look like. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say Arceus doesn't look like a god.

Buuuut his sons Dialga and Palkia aren't so lucky. Dialga and Palkia are supposed to be space and time dragons... right? Nothing about their appearances scream space or time. They do look pretty cool but don't really connect with their theme. Giratina does fit his underworld/hell theme but it's altered form looks like a fkn caterpillar lol. What I do like tho is that Diagla/Palkia/Giratina all share a similar face to Arceus. Nice touch GF.

I could write so much about this but I leave at that for now.
 
Last edited:
I don't care about the looks of a Pokémon, so that means there do not exist any that are particularly cute, cool, or ugly. Even if I were to judge a few of them for such an attribute, every generation has their fair share of cute, cool, and ugly Pokémon. Once I learned about the lore and background for these creatures, I've been looking forward to seeing even more of them. I can't think of a Pokémon that I even dislike anymore (The most recent dislike of mine was Pikachu, but only due to overexposure). Game Freak is not going to run out of ideas for a long, long time.
 
What really make me like a Pokémon design is ingenuity and "not-overdoneness" (I know it's not a word by any stretch of imagination, but it gives the idea). As a person who values balance, understatement, and keeping a low profile, I prefer Pokémon which look the part without being overdesigned.

Take Sylveon. It's all pink, it has big baby blue eyes, a smile, it's a Fairy and it has freaking ribbons on its body. It should be the epitome of cute. But I find it creepy, because it's trying too hard to be cute. Same with Kyurem and others who try too hard to be tough, aggressive, and end up being overdone.

On the other hand, we have genuine cuties like Slowpoke (simple and adorable without being outright dumb) and seriously kickass stuff like Scizor (a red ninja mantis you don't want to fuck with) and Garchomp (Mega Garchomp is utterly ugly, though. Ugh, that jawline. And give Scyther its blade arms back).

My favorite Pokèmon is Kingdra for that exact reason. It doesn't look like much, it's a seahorse. Seahorses aren't exactly the first animals you think of when you think of something tough. However, it doesn't look weak or derpy: rather, it is calm, serious, confident in its own power. It might be just a seahorse, but he's one hell of a seahorse, even without spikes, glowing things and such (and he's a dragon!). Its stats make me like it even more: they are balanced and without outliers, reflecting Kingdra's nature. It doesn't need Palkia's 150 SpAtk or phallic appearance to look cool, because it's frikkin' awesome in its own balance.

(It also helps that a sea horse is the mascot of my favorite soccer team, though.)
 
Pokemon designs matter a lot to me, and often decide whether or not a Pokemon is going to be one of my favourites. The aspects of design that I value most are originality, visual representation of a good concept, and interesting character design. What I mean with the last part is that I appreciate it when the design is memorable and typical enough to stand out, but represents a complex character with a multitude of different assets. This is also why I like second-stage starter evolutions a lot. First stages are mostly 'cute', final stages are mostly 'tough'. But what about second stages? To me, that's the ideal representation of the Pokemon. People are never only one thing either, their characters are complex with a multitude of psychological layers. Second-stage evolutions have that position in the evolutionary line that enables their designs to look both adorable and tough, at the same time. I like these kind of contradictions, they make you think and I find them interesting. But one of my favourite designs has to be Farfetch'd. In a way, it looks utterly ridiculous. You wonder why they are even carrying a stalk, and why stalks are so important to them. But it's convenient isn't it? Because it would taste very good in Farfetch'd soup. That's the concept. At the same time, Farfetch'd takes itself very seriously. Not only can you gather that from the description in the PokéDex about its obsession with stalks. The black 'arrow' above its eyes also look a lot like self-confident eyebrows. But due to the ridiculousness of the rest, you can't help but laugh at the contradiction of it all. It's an interesting design, very original, and it suits its concept very well. That's what I am looking for in a design.
 
I want to compare Dragonite and Salamence and the assertion of "cartoonish" dragons.
Salamence is ruined by the way its wings are designed.

Some points:

  • The overall roundness of Salamence makes it look too cartoonish to me. More so than Dragonite. I think they really hurt the design.
  • The way you perceive power is going to affect your judgement. Personally, Salamence's narrow eyes and tiny fangs are less indicative of power than Dragonite's larger limbs and mysteriousness imo.
  • Dragonite does look kind and peaceable. That doesn't equate to cartoonish though.
  • I don't think I've ever thought Dragonite didn't exude power. Salamence on the other hand, doesn't look that tough with those stubby legs and plastic looking wings.
  • I'm not saying that Salamence is worse or not as cool as Dragonite. This is not about tier ranking or mega evolution either.
  • For being a gen 3 design, Salamence looks simple compared to Dragonite.
 
A lot of Pokemon turned out to have design flaws that you can't hide when you actually have to be able to see the whole thing in 3D (like how Salamence and Skarmory have wings that make no goddamn sense as usable appendages). Poke-Myspace angles were concealing a multitude of sins, I guess.
 

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
A lot of Pokemon turned out to have design flaws that you can't hide when you actually have to be able to see the whole thing in 3D (like how Salamence and Skarmory have wings that make no goddamn sense as usable appendages). Poke-Myspace angles were concealing a multitude of sins, I guess.
I moved this post from the "Worst sprites" thread as I think it fits better in here. Also, it was a point I'd really like to bring up in this thread: Many Pokémon, when examined closer, simply don't work. As stationary sprites viewed from one angle it may be fine, but as soon as you try to imagine it moving, you run into problems.

I've talked at length about Golem in previous threads. That's the worst offender I can think of. Its legs don't seem suited to carry the massive body (you can have stability or the ability to walk, but not both), and the reach of its arms is practically zero. It can't pick stuff up from the ground, it can't put things into its mouth, and the body will hinder arm movement in nearly any direction. Golem looks cool from certain angles, but in 3D you begin to see its problems.


Take its HGSS sprite, for instance. Looks decent, right? However, it's clear that the sprite designer has moved its head closer to its left arm for that pose to work. That Golem is clearly not symmetrical. In still images, appendages can be moved around to achieve a better look. Cluster the important appendages in the center of the sprite, disregard the fact that Golem is a ball, and just don't think about what that pose would look like from behind. In 3D, you can't do that. And so, you end up with... this:

All the flaws of the design exposed. Poké-Myspace angles indeed.


Another sinner is Tyranitar. The big, bad kaiju has a huge problem: It can't walk.

Look at those knees. Are they positioned in a way that allows for sensible leg movement? No, they're angled weirdly which at best would allow Tyranitar to waggle forward, swaying like a ship mast in rough seas for every step. In some sprites, it seems like its toes are even pointing away from the body in a 45-degree V shape. Is that functional at all? Tyranitar also shares Golem's problem with short arms. It can't reach its mouth, and it can't reach the ground.

The "kaiju knee" problem is shared by very many Gen I designs. Charizard, Blastoise, Nidoking, Nidoqueen, Rhydon, Kangaskhan, Magmar... the list goes on. Short, stubby legs placed on the sides of the body, which at best would allow for walking by twisting the hips in a strange motion. It is excusable as long as the Pokémon stays still, but factor in movement and it just looks ridiculous.
 
When I think about it, I haven't noticed these glaring problems in 3D with any 6th Generation Pokemon. Perhaps it is even logical, because these Pokemon have all been designed with the 3D models in mind.

I love Greninja's model (great and dynamic pose, especially compared to most models), and though Chesnaught is on the buff side (which usually resulted in the familiar problems in past generations), it does not look anatomically out of place.



Talonflame does not look weird in its flying pose either. In fact, it looks very powerful with the movement of its wings contributing to this aspect and giving the model a majestic feel.



The same goes for Noivern, where the model perfectly conveys the force and speed behind its wings.



So my conclusion is that the familiar flaws in 3D models stem from the sole reason that these past-Generation Pokemon simply weren't designed for 3D models. It's not the fault of 3D, nor the pose. The 'bad models' are a logical result of the flaws in the design of the Pokemon themselves.

I might even go further and say that altering the pose to make up for this would harm the purpose of 3D models, and thus wouldn't be a desirable solution. The purpose of the 3D models and new graphic style of the 6th Generation (and what may follow) is to make the games feel more realistic. Adapting the poses in past-Generations to 3D would not look realistic at all in most cases. I think these flaws are a necessary evil in order to facilitate the games to move forward.
 
I might even go further and say that altering the pose to make up for this would harm the purpose of 3D models, and thus wouldn't be a desirable solution. The purpose of the 3D models and new graphic style of the 6th Generation (and what may follow) is to make the games feel more realistic. Adapting the poses in past-Generations to 3D would not look realistic at all in most cases. I think these flaws are a necessary evil in order to facilitate the games to move forward.
It's worth noting that they probably could make some subtle design changes to better adapt certain mons to 3D in the future. There's a surprising amount of flexibility in the designs of earlier mons and the proportions tend to have subtle (or unsubtle) changes between each piece of art, let alone each generation. Like, 6th gen Golem is basically a smoothed out version of its 5th gen sprite: it's less that the design itself is awkward than the fact that its body is more rounded and uniform than its other sprites and its limbs are pushed farther down and more toward the front. Limb placement like the fourth or even first-gen sprites might help it look a bit more balanced. Or at least more monstrous.

I mean, you have bad sprites in every generation, I wouldn't expect that to go away because they've made the jump to 3D.

This is pretty widely mocked, but I wouldn't really say the problem is that the design doesn't translate, they just went off-model in a pretty noticeable way: it's got a really bulky body, those random tufts of protofeathers(?) are far less streamlined, and the wings are noticeably smaller than they've been in virtually every other piece of art or merchandise, even the 3D stuff.
 
It's worth noting that they probably could make some subtle design changes to better adapt certain mons to 3D in the future. There's a surprising amount of flexibility in the designs of earlier mons and the proportions tend to have subtle (or unsubtle) changes between each piece of art, let alone each generation. Like, 6th gen Golem is basically a smoothed out version of its 5th gen sprite: it's less that the design itself is awkward than the fact that its body is more rounded and uniform than its other sprites and its limbs are pushed farther down and more toward the front. Limb placement like the fourth or even first-gen sprites might help it look a bit more balanced. Or at least more monstrous.

I mean, you have bad sprites in every generation, I wouldn't expect that to go away because they've made the jump to 3D.

This is pretty widely mocked, but I wouldn't really say the problem is that the design doesn't translate, they just went off-model in a pretty noticeable way: it's got a really bulky body, those random tufts of protofeathers(?) are far less streamlined, and the wings are noticeably smaller than they've been in virtually every other piece of art or merchandise, even the 3D stuff.
In the past, yes, there was a lot of flexibility. But in the past, Pokemon games used sprites, and now they use 3D models. Several aspects of these models stand out as limiting the possibilities to remedy cases such as Golem.

1. Neutral Poses
In order for the battle animations to look active, a contrast was needed. This results in the need for neutral poses. These neutral poses limit the possibility for variations on limb placement (among other things) by a lot.

2. Shapes vs Lines
When using sprites, you can emphasize lines and flat shapes effectively. This is a natural result of the 2D. When creating 3D models, however, there will naturally be more 'roundness'. This is natural result of the added dimension. They could probably still figure out a way to convey the sharper and edgier design of Golem, but this takes time. When you have 700+ Pokemon to convert to 3D models, I can understand why the creators chose to aim for 'passable' instead of 'perfect'. This is their first adaption of Pokemon to 3D, and I imagine it will be a improved upon in S&M.

Also, I actually really like the Archeops model, especially because it's failing so hard. Archeops is supposed to represent the first bird Pokemon, a kind of 'prototype' for future species, and thus not yet adapted to using its wings effectively. It also makes me laugh, and that's a good thing.

I want to compare Dragonite and Salamence and the assertion of "cartoonish" dragons.
Salamence is ruined by the way its wings are designed.

Some points:

  • The overall roundness of Salamence makes it look too cartoonish to me. More so than Dragonite. I think they really hurt the design.
  • The way you perceive power is going to affect your judgement. Personally, Salamence's narrow eyes and tiny fangs are less indicative of power than Dragonite's larger limbs and mysteriousness imo.
  • Dragonite does look kind and peaceable. That doesn't equate to cartoonish though.
  • I don't think I've ever thought Dragonite didn't exude power. Salamence on the other hand, doesn't look that tough with those stubby legs and plastic looking wings.
  • I'm not saying that Salamence is worse or not as cool as Dragonite. This is not about tier ranking or mega evolution either.
  • For being a gen 3 design, Salamence looks simple compared to Dragonite.
I forgot to mention something about this last time. Even though I'm not a big fan of Dragonite, I must agree that Salamence has a far worse design. While I can still imagine Dragonite to have some kind of bone structure, such is not the case for Salamence. What is its neck doing? How does it even use its stubby legs? How are those wings even considered wings? I can see fanartists struggling with Salamence as well, and they have to obscure certain parts of its body to make a piece work at all. Dragonite doesn't have that problem, and it's genuinely friendly.


What surprised me is that I did not have this problem with Hydreigon at all.



It has the same kind of weird neck-pose, its wings doesn't seem practical when flying, and it doesn't even have legs.
So I asked myself: Why is this design not bothering me?
And I think that's simply because:
a) It's a Dark-type and these 'flaws'/rudimentary limbs give it a menacing vibe, like it's only existing to devour prey with its heads and digest its victims with bones and all in its large stomach.
b) Because it's not pretending to be a flying-type, and instead uses the ability Levitate to stay up in the air. I can accept this, because I imagine Dark-types to be possible of dark magic which would allow Pokemon like Hydreigon to use Levitate.


I also want to talk about another Pseudo-Legendary Dragon: Goodra.



Does anyone else think that this design is really unsettling? It seem to have been designed by a fetish artist, but for some reason it is actually an official Pokemon. It's also legitimately pretending to be friendly. A concept like that of Goodra could have adapted in so many more ways than, than, than THIS. I've actually seen very cool fan-adaptions of a more menacing looking Goodra, which I'll post in the hide tag below. They make me feel like Goodra had a lot of potential, and also sort of make me sad that the official design did not live up to this and wasted it on fetish fodder art. Surely they could've made a stylized version of the menacing interpretation, right?

 
Last edited:
I would say that it's because slime is rather common for fetish artists as a substitute for basically any bodily substance (like, about as useful as tentacles). Goodra's line is heavily based on RPG-typical slimes, especially Goomy, so this aspect had to be highlighted somehow. I do appreciate the design of a friendly dragon, though, because the design of Dragon-Types went more and more sinister as the generations went on.

Also, while some designs look particularly off in 3D, none of it beats the designs in Red/Blue/Green (particularly the japanese Red/Green sprites; Yellow made most sprites acceptable). Only jarring thing is that when they changed Jynx to purple in Yellow (which is consistent with later designs), they could have used a less eye-straining hue of purple.
 
I would say that it's because slime is rather common for fetish artists as a substitute for basically any bodily substance (like, about as useful as tentacles). Goodra's line is heavily based on RPG-typical slimes, especially Goomy, so this aspect had to be highlighted somehow. I do appreciate the design of a friendly dragon, though, because the design of Dragon-Types went more and more sinister as the generations went on.

Also, while some designs look particularly off in 3D, none of it beats the designs in Red/Blue/Green (particularly the japanese Red/Green sprites; Yellow made most sprites acceptable). Only jarring thing is that when they changed Jynx to purple in Yellow (which is consistent with later designs), they could have used a less eye-straining hue of purple.
According to Bulbapedia, Goodra is actually based on Lou Carcolh, a mythical serpent/mollusk from French folklore.

Wikipedia:
Lou Carcolh, or the Carcolh, is a supposed mythical beast from French folklore. It was described as being both a serpent and mollusk at the same time, taking characteristics from both types of animals. Its massive and long body carried an enormous shell upon its back, much like a snail's shell, that was believed to live in underground caverns in southwest France. Its gaping mouth was surrounded by several long, hairy, and slime covered tentacles that could extend for miles. These appendages stretched out from the cave it inhabited for a long distance and laid upon the ground among its own viscous slime. They would ensnare and drag back to its abode anything within reach. It would then swallow the victim whole with its gigantic mouth.

The Carcolh is a nickname given to the city of Hastingues, in the French department of Landes, due to its situation on a rounded-shape hill. Furthermore, the men of Hastingues used to say, as a pleasant warning to young and pretty women "The carcolh will catch you!".


//

Especially because of that last part, I understand why they went the route of pervy monster. I just don't understand that they made it a fetish pervy monster as opposed to a creepy pervy monster. Also, I don't see nearly as much inappropriate fanart of Tentacruel. Just sayin'.

Also, Dragonite's friendliness always seemed fitting to me. A mythical creature that is actually just looking for friends. Its cries in the anime reminded me of the sounds that whales make, and these are commonly regarded as highly intelligent and peaceful creatures, with a strong emotional vibe to their mystery and rarity.

Goodra on the other hand, is based on Carcolh the rape monster, yet it acts like a happy puppy that's drooling all over its trainer and glomping you as a show of (possibly unwanted) affection.
PokéDex: This very friendly Dragon-type Pokémon will hug its beloved Trainer, leaving that Trainer covered in sticky slime.
 
While I normally disagree with "genwunners" and the like who claim that all of the new Pokemon designs are terrible, I would like to address one thing that I feel has been happening more with later generations: overdesign.

There are a few Pokemon that I would call slightly overdesigned: Sylveon, Sigilyph, Palkia, Haxorus, Xerneas, Barbaracle (OK, Barbaracle's just plain ugly), but let's look in particular at the poster children for overdesign: The Kyurem Formes.



First of all, I understand what they were going for. They're supposed to be (possibly unnatural) fusions of Kyurem and one of the Dragons. But the designs are just so busy. You have tubes whose purpose I can't imagine, big chunks of ice seemingly glued on, and massive tail generators. (That's a complaint I have with the Unova dragons in general, actually - the tail generators look incredibly out of place and impractical for actually moving around.) Kyurem-B is the worse one in my regard, both due to Zekrom being fairly overdesigned itself and the fact that they just couldn't decide on a scheme for its wings and arms - one of each is Zekrom's and the other is Kyurem's. Wouldn't it make at least a bit more sense to give it Zekrom's wings and then Kyurem's arms (or vice versa)? This also happens with Kyu-W, but not nearly to the same degree. I feel like when GF designed it, they were just thinking "It doesn't look legendary enough. Why don't we just add more stuff to it?", the end result being something that doesn't even look like a Pokemon. Indeed, the Kyurem Formes are the perfect examples of what happens if you try too hard.

But I'm not one to rant. And Gen V's legendaries aren't all clunkers - For example, Cobalion.



Now this is an example of legend design done right! It has a simple colour scheme, being mainly blue with lighter feet. This gives it the appearance of boots, which is a very nice touch in my opinion. Cobalion is often depicted as the eldest and wisest of the Swords of Justice, and its long white "beard" and stoic gaze excellently complement that. Most importantly, though, there isn't a lot going on with it; only the horns, beard, and fins on its front legs.
 
Is it supposed to be 3 eyes?

Because to me it looks like 2 eyes and a big goofy nose.
Especially when in Pokemon Battle Revolution, when he got hit the red thing in the middle shook.
So, is it a nose or an eye?
 

Cretacerus

Survivor
is a Top Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Reactions Contest Winner
Is it supposed to be 3 eyes?

Because to me it looks like 2 eyes and a big goofy nose.
Especially when in Pokemon Battle Revolution, when he got hit the red thing in the middle shook.
So, is it a nose or an eye?
Well, judging from Magnezone's evolutionary line we can assume that the main body is actually a transformed Magnemite unit, so it would make sense for it to be an eye. Most of the images of Magnezone, including its depiction in the anime, also show the center eye looking into the same direction as the two smaller eyes, which implies that they generally serve the same purpose.
However, the center eye does seem to be more mechanic compared to the two smaller eyes, since it's far less expressive in the anime and in-game models. For example, the regular eyes may occasionally show slight changes when Magnezone is agitated or asleep, while the red eye in the center just continues to stare at the opponent all the same.

--------------------------------------------


Anyway, I'd like to bring up one particular Gen V design that I feel is severely underrated: the standard Kyurem form. Considering the abstract concept it's based on ("the absence of yin and yang"), GameFreak did an excellent job at coming up with a clever and creative design which symbolizes an empty shell without it actually being one. Kyurem incorporates many subtle design choices which manage to convey this underlying concept while still seamlessly adding up to one coherent creature.

  • The most defining aspect of Kyurem's design is the low contrast and saturation of its color scheme, which matches the idea of low energy very well. Hints of faded yellow keep the design interesting, and may be remnants of Kyurems original and complete form.
  • A rugged and rock-like hide, covered with layers of ice, give Kyurem an inorganic and lifeless appearance, as if it was petrified and put under suspended animation. The ice also encases most of the aforementioned yellow elements, leaving only fractions of them exposed.
  • Kyurem's hunched and stiff posture further adds to the concept of low energy and life force.
  • With the asymmetrical anatomy of its head and wings, Kyurem appears somewhat incomplete and broken, which references the shattered connection to Reshiram and Zekrom.
  • This is also indicated by the fact that Kyurem's tail is hollow at the spot where Reshiram and Zekrom have their signature energy turbines.
  • In addition, Kyurem's wings have a very unique design, and resemble chains strapped around its fore body and arms. This makes it seem like a prisoner to itself, locked away from its powers and potential.
  • Lastly, the lack of pupils in the eyes is very uncommon among Pokemon, and gives Kyurem its typical blank, almost zombie-like, expression. This effect is especially notable in the cutscene of BW2, where Kyurem opens its eyes with new determination after absorbing the essence of one of the other dragons. Similarly, we see Kyurem's fused jaws finally unlock during that cutscene, followed by it take its first breath of air since a long time, making the awakening of White/Black Kyurem that much more impactful.

White Kyurem cutscene
(referenced part at 4m 15s)
 
Last edited:

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
Kyurem is actually quite interesting for the reasons stated above, but I have one big gripe with it I can't shake off: More than 80 % of its body mass seems to be located in front of its toes. The vertical projection of its center of mass is nowhere close to the area spanned by its ground contact points. Put in a less engineer-y way: If put on its feet, Kyurem would topple over. It should have had a giant tail to keep it in balance, but no: It's short and stumpy, which really sets the entire design off-balance and makes it awfully front-heavy. Also, it can't open its mouth, although that might be intentional.

A similar "design error" can be seen with Fennekin, whose head is so large compared to its body that there's no way it wouldn't topple over with every twitch of its neck.

This type of imbalance isn't a deal breaker for me, but, like not having arms capable of reaching the mouth, or legs that can't manage a walking motion, it makes the design a lot less good in my opinion.
 
I can't believe I haven't posted here yet, especially after all the worst sprites mockery.

There seems to be two schools of thought on pokemon designs: the complex/busy and the simple/plain. Since Lucariomaster2 and Cretacerrus touched on the good and bad of complex design (and that I feel I've been too harsh on Gen 4 already) let's take a look at the simple designs:


Gengar is kind of my poster child for good simple design. He really doesn't have too much to him at first glance, but still manages to ooze character and appeal. I like how he's a ghost type and has a vague resemblance to Clefable. Add in that giant face and the deep royal purple and he's a pretty cool spook and very expressive, which I think is the appeal of the simpler designs they just look more alive. The complex ones look like modern art sculptures that would fall apart if they moved too much, Gengar looks way more malleable.



The bad, Dewgong. It's just soooooooo boring. Unlike Gengar that has the red eyes on dark violet to give it that "pop!" effect, Dewgong's all white with black eyes is so dull, at least Seel had the yellow mouth and red tongue. Add in the generic cuteness and a lack of distinguishing features (tiny horn, tiny tusks, big whoop di doo), and there's just not much to talk about. At ALL.

But let's not keep this a Gen 1 party. Let's look more recent 'mons.
upload_2016-4-17_22-59-48.jpeg

Ah Goomy. This one got popular for a reason. While I still prefer to think of it's cheeks as eyes and the eyes as nostrils, that big squishy face is easy to love. Great color choices too with the neon green to play off the purple pastels, and the clever four antenna for the dragon-slug reference. I like Goomy for the same reasons I like Gengar, big cartoonish faces and a body that seems built to move and groove.

Now due to the color palate increases as we get into later gens it is harder to find bad simple designs, and I'd say even my bad picks are still loads better than Dewgong, but you know what really grinds my gears?

upload_2016-4-17_23-11-50.jpeg

Close up it's okay but in action they just are uninspired, they are two gears. That's it. They spin with each other and nothing else. Don't really change expression or do much of anything. While this might be to illustrate their mechanical nature, I think the Magnemite line captured that pretty well and still managed to due it with class and style. Now its hard to tell if the Klink family is still simple-bad after evolution, or complex-bad as it becomes a jumbled mess of gears.

upload_2016-4-17_23-16-50.jpeg

I like Litleo's evolutions, but litleo herself suffers from simple-bad in my book. It could be the weird cat-bear-dog fusion taken to make this lion cub, or the tiny mouth under a huge upper lip, I personally blame the eyes. Those dull black dots in huge white irises just aren't working for me. If the just adjusted those a smidge it looks more like a living animal than somebody's stuffed animal.

upload_2016-4-17_23-20-35.jpeg

dduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuur.
 
Litleo just seems too... round. If it had small tufts of fur around the cheeks, ears, or body it would work so much better. I also think it should have been a slightly lighter shade of brown.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top