The RPG Duelling League

Social Forums => Discussion => Topic started by: AndrewRogue on September 12, 2015, 05:02:43 AM

Title: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 12, 2015, 05:02:43 AM
This is a topic I've been meaning to do for a while, since, honestly. I love Pokemon. I love monster raising sims in general. But Pokemon was my first and that makes it special.

Plus, the game has some great visual designs. And honestly, what's more important in a collecting game than aesthetics?

As mobile games have proven time and time again, nothing.

So yeah, I'm just gonna chat Pokemon looks when I get bored, because I feel like it.

~~~

First batch of Pokemon now starts in the next post, since I think, with 2 Gens down, we can use the first post for stats!

Generation 1 - R/B/Y

Average Score
3.09

Best of the Best
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/ec/001MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/6b/002MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/c/c3/027MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/8/85/037MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/10/038MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/9/96/041MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/a/ad/056MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/0/0f/081MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/4b/131MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/b/be/134MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/30/136MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/4e/148MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/a/a7/151MS.png)

Absolutely Shameful
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/4d/020MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/0/0d/023MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/31/031MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/d/d0/042MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/5/5e/062MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/34/076MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/9/98/097MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/69/101MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/a/a6/102MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/d/db/103MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1a/107MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/c/ce/112MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/45/114MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/5/58/122MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/f/f5/124MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/e7/126MS.png)

Generation 2 - G/S/C

Average Score
2.58

Best of the Best
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/a/a7/196MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/7/76/197MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/8/89/200MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/0/0a/213MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/10/220MS.png)

Absolutely Shameful
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/ea/159MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/6d/160MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/8/89/184MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/b/ba/189MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/e5/191MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/6c/209MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/b/b5/224MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/c/c9/227MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/40/234MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/ed/236MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/ed/237MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/0/00/238MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/b/b5/239MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/e4/240MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/8/80/243MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/4e/244MS.png)(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/c/c8/249MS.png)

Generation 3 - R/S/E

Average Score
2.66

Best of the Best
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/32/280MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/4a/282MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/30/292MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/60/302MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/c/c5/304MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/f/f8/328MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/eb/330MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/5/5a/350MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/2/2d/376MS.png)

Absolutely Shameful
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/f/ff/254MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/41/266MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/e9/267MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/64/268MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/a/ad/269MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/e/e1/271MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/a/a0/272MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/c/c6/274MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/34/275MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/9/96/279MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/7/73/294MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/c/c2/295MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/b/bd/313MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/41/314MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/7/7d/349MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/f/fc/351MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/9/9d/351SMS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/3c/351RMS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/d/dc/368MS.png)(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/f/fa/386SMS.png)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 12, 2015, 07:36:40 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/21/001Bulbasaur.png/250px-001Bulbasaur.png) Bulbasaur: Look at this adorable motherfucker. LOOK AT HIM. Honestly, over the years, I've gained a lot of respect for Bulbasaur and I think I consider him the best of the original starters. He just represents good pokemon designs really well. He looks like something that is almost able to exist. The little touches (the splotches and the nails) are good and help an otherwise dull design, while the bulb on the back is perfect. A pokemon should tell you what it is at a glance, and Bulbasaur tells you that. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/73/002Ivysaur.png/250px-002Ivysaur.png) Ivysaur: This fucker is perfect. Absolutely. Until I contradict myself later, he is the best mid-evolution in the game and possibly one of the best designs in the game. He's just a very nice, smooth transition from Bulbasaur. He looks a bit more mature, the bulb is flowering, and look at how FIERCE he is. He will wreck your shit. See those fangs? Yeah. He's not a pup. He's a strong independent plant-frog who don't need no trainer. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/ae/003Venusaur.png/250px-003Venusaur.png) Venusaur: And we kinda lose the train a little bit here. He just goes from strong and fierce to... kinda fat and plodding. Also, I didn't notice until this examination, but he gets REALLY froglike. Those hindlegs are nuts. Anyhow, loss of the splotches makes his body a bit less interesting, and the tree-like flower just doesn't quite do it for me. It works on the body (adds to the bulky nature), but ehhhhhhhhh! The raffelesia design is cool, though. I dunno. After Ivysaur I really wanted something more vibrant and more exciting. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/73/004Charmander.png/250px-004Charmander.png) Charmander: Beloved by 11-year olds everywhere! Charmander also has a pretty great design. Fire dinosaur! Good contrast of colors, the fire tail tells you everything you need to know about it. The perfect roundness of the head bothers me a bit, though. Also, this guy looks like he's not going to be able to do anything but waddle around. Lookit those stubby little legs. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4a/005Charmeleon.png/250px-005Charmeleon.png) Charmeleon: Awkward teenage years here. This design does nothing for me. It's a reasonable evolution. Somewhat bulked up. Fiercer. Sharper claws. Color deepens a bit. Fire on the tail is more intense. My complaint about the round head is addressed by giving it some shape... and a really stupid horn. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/7e/006Charizard.png/250px-006Charizard.png) Charizard: Suddenly, motherfucking dragon. HELL YEAH. 11 year old me is excite as hell. He's pretty good. Not a lot to say. The wings are a bit out of nowhere, the doubt horn thing works better, and all that. He's still got that weird issue where he looks prone to waddling. Look at that beer belly and those short legs. Plus, bro skipped arm day. Super thin arms. Still, all told, he manages to look pretty fierce and capture the western dragon thing well despite being a bipedal chump. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/39/007Squirtle.png/250px-007Squirtle.png) Squirtle: Blue turtle. Least exciting of the starters. The shell contrasts pretty badly with the blue body and the bipedal thing looks goofy. Seriously, can we get a pokemon who can actually move? 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0c/008Wartortle.png/250px-008Wartortle.png) Wartortle: Squirtle with some stuff glued on. The color scheme got worse. Can you tell I don't like the Squirtle line? 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/02/009Blastoise.png/250px-009Blastoise.png) Blastoise: What the fuck is with those weird, segmented arms and legs? I never noticed those. They are dumb. So are the water cannons. I dunno, this design just really doesn't work for me. Not a ton to say. You suck Squirtle line. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/5d/010Caterpie.png/250px-010Caterpie.png) Caterpie: It's a caterpillar! It's a pretty decent caterpillar! Good colors, the little yellow circles add some nice detail that don't overwhelm. Those tiny round feed are weird, though. But yeah. He's a good bug. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cd/011Metapod.png/250px-011Metapod.png) Metapod: It's a cocoon! Honestly, it's weird shape seriously bothers me. Why is it vaguely triangular? Why does it have a mouth plate? Why horns? 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d1/012Butterfree.png/250px-012Butterfree.png) Butterfree: Well, it is a butterfly? Honestly, it's a pretty decent design. The color is good. The bug design is good. It just... really doesn't look like it came from caterpie. To be fair, butterflies do often look really different from caterpillars! I dunno. As the end of the Caterpie line, he doesn't impress. Would have been nice for him to keep something on his design that said "Look, I was Caterpie!" But, in general, he works. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/df/013Weedle.png/250px-013Weedle.png) Weedle: Hey look, it's that enemy from Mario with SPIKES. His nose seriously bothers me, which is a shame, because otherwise I sorta dig the spikey worm look. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f0/014Kakuna.png/250px-014Kakuna.png) Kakuna: The better cocoon. This guy? He looks like he's gonna mess a bro up once he feels like it. It's actually got a pretty good sense of danger. Like, I see Metapod? I'd kick that bugger. This guy? I'd think twice about it. He might kill me. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/61/015Beedrill.png/250px-015Beedrill.png) Beedrill: Actually a wasp. Also kind of a badass. He's gonna fuck a bro up. He doesn't need six legs to be a bug, because he's going to impale you. This is what a deadly bee pokemon should look like. 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on September 12, 2015, 09:00:34 AM
I think it'd be cool if you did them in groups instead of just going numerically. Like, do all the 'earlygame bugs' from each generation and see how they compare? Or do all the ones of the same dualtyping at once (all the water/flying at once, all the rock/ground types at once, etc.)

Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on September 12, 2015, 05:33:44 PM
I'm for sticking with chronological order, myself.

Enjoying this so far. Holy crap, I never noticed Beedrill only has four legs, that kinda lowers my opinion of it. I agree that Venusaur kinda fucks up an otherwise great line. Really the only major disagreement I have so far is that I think Squirtle's design is excellent; I love the colour scheme and I think it's just adorable (and while I love turtles, I don't think they're easy to make adorable). But then Wartortle turns around, makes the colour scheme worse and attaches some stupid head-wings (which promptly disappear for Blastoise anyway?) so yeah I certainly am not going to hype that line beyond its first form.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Meeplelard on September 12, 2015, 09:14:54 PM
I think sticking with Chronological Order just works better from an organization stand point.  Simply seeing where you left off and knowing exactly where to follow up, as well as others knowing what to expect for what is being reviewed next, it just works more elegantly than being random.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 12, 2015, 10:46:02 PM
I might do some groupings later, but I prefer chronological so we can have more excitement tackling the OLD VS NEW thing. See how my emotions change as we get further. Also allows me to do small batches and large batches as I please.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on September 13, 2015, 12:48:21 AM
Squirtle colour palette I am dead certain was built for the existence of GBC and Super Gameboy.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 13, 2015, 01:37:56 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/55/016Pidgey.png/250px-016Pidgey.png) Pidgey: You know, I was planning on hating on Pidgey way more, but after looking at it for a while, I think I've actually decided I kinda like the bird. Is he fairly plain and generic? Yeah. Does he have a lot of nice touches? Yeah. Color scheme is good, with the black around the eyes acting as a good highlight. The crest is actually really attractive and the chest/wing ruffles create nice details that make him look like a pretty floofy bird. Like, he looks like he's got feathers and size. Not going to win any super exciting design awards, but he's actually pretty solid if you're looking for realistic pokemon. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/7a/017Pidgeotto.png/250px-017Pidgeotto.png) Pidgeotto: You win some and you lose some. The improved crest is actually pretty awesome, but the loss of the floof on the chest and wings is a serious disappointment. The tail's bicolor thing doesn't really do it for me either. The ever so slightly sharper beak is a nice touch. A solid evolution. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/57/018Pidgeot.png/250px-018Pidgeot.png) Pidgeot: Fun fact: I can barely tell Pidgeot and Pidgeotto apart. I mean, I can't say I hate design? The bicolor crest looks better than the bicolor tail (though I think the crest is a bit too long and flowing now). The beak is looking real mean now. The black still looks good. But it's a pretty meaningless evolution considering how closely it resembles Pidgeotto. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on September 13, 2015, 02:20:24 AM
For what it's worth those particular two shots de-emphasise one of the greatest differences between Pidgeotto and Pidgeot: the length and shape of the crest. I tend to find that distinctive enough that the two don't blur together for me. That said it's not the most exciting evolution, and I do agree that the loss of detail on the wings and especially chest is disappointing.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Meeplelard on September 13, 2015, 02:25:30 AM
Pretty much echoing Elfboy here.  The anime showed all 3 in the same pose in one exposition about Pidgey to Pidgeot evolution and you could clearly tell what made Pidgeot different from Pidgeotto, just the images in question obscure the more telling evidence.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on September 13, 2015, 04:29:08 AM
You suck Squirtle line.

No, you suck.

I think it'd be cool if you did them in groups instead of just going numerically.

No, you suck.

I'm for sticking with chronological order, myself.

N.... .... mmph.

You know, I was planning on hating on Pidgey

...

Fun fact: I can barely tell Pidgeot and Pidgeotto apart.

Racist.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 13, 2015, 05:02:29 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/46/019Rattata.png/250px-019Rattata.png) Rattata: He's... okay? He's a purple rat. I dunno. Not a lot to say about him. Nothing about him really excites me, but he's not bad or anything. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f4/020Raticate.png/250px-020Raticate.png) Raticate: This fucker, on the other hand, sucks. Why can you not close your mouth? Why are you INCAPABLE OF MOVING YOU FAT BASTARD WITH YOUR TINY LIMBS? First you draw an oval, then you draw the rest of the Raticate. The tufts of fur are are a nice improvement over Rattata, but that's about it. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8b/021Spearow.png/250px-021Spearow.png) Spearow: Spearow... baffles me. Great head (so ruffled!) with it's wonderfully fierce beak and eyes. The red wings are a nice contrast. The feet are nicely taloned for wrecking shit. But that body. That body. Why is he mostly sleek black? Why does he have armored plates? Seriously. Remove the middle part of Spearow and you have a good design. As is... meh. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a0/022Fearow.png/250px-022Fearow.png) Fearow: See, remove that shitty middle part and you've got something cool. I really dig this design. This is a mean looking bird. Look at that face. He will FUCK YOU UP. The really long neck and beak just work for menace. The tubby body is a bit meh, as are the feet, but the wings make up for it. He's hella scruffy too, which is awesome. I really love the wing scruff. Just a really nice bird of prey/vulture, hybrid who is only really let down by the roundness of his body. 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 14, 2015, 02:04:57 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/fa/023Ekans.png/250px-023Ekans.png) Ekans: Holy shit Ekans, why are you terrible? First, you are a stupid shade of purple. Second, you have stupid body segmentation. What is with all those dumb little lines, seriously? Third, tube snakes are dumb. Fourth, WHY DO YOU NOT HAVE TEETH? Wartortle has teeth. Why don't you? All that aside, the head shape is pretty nice, the eyes are cool, the yellow neckband is neat, and the rattle kinda work? But seriously, not a huge fan of this one. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cd/024Arbok.png/250px-024Arbok.png) Arbok: Hey, look. Teeth. Boy, a venemous snake might want those. I wonder what kind of stupid fucker wouldn't have them. This guy looks better in purple and I don't know why. The hood design is awesome. That face reads "I'm a murder snake and I will murder you." None of this excuses that stupid segmentation. Seriously. Stop doing that. 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on September 14, 2015, 08:36:36 AM
I think you are inherently biased towards Ekans because of your history with reptiles and because you see him as competition.

Ekans could totes beat you at a deepthroating contest.  You don't have that same drive to remove your teeth, make your jaw detachable and have your mouth be 80% of your face.

When it comes to blowies, Ekans is DTF.

u jelly
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 17, 2015, 07:43:05 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0d/025Pikachu.png/250px-025Pikachu.png) Pikachu: Ah, the face of the series. What do I think of him? This is actually kind of a tough one. It's pretty obvious as to why he succeeded: he's very cute. The exceptionally simple face actually works pretty well in his favor, with the rosy red cheeks, decently sized eyes, and cat-like mouth. The tail tells you everything you need to know about his type. The stripes on his back serve to nicely break-up the yellow, as does the patterning of the tail.

There really is a lot of good here, but ultimately, I get kinda hung up on how round Pikachu is, particularly around the face. But hey, credit to one of the chubby pokes that looks like it can actually get around as a quadraped. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/88/026Raichu.png/250px-026Raichu.png) Raichu: You know, I used to like Raichu's design, but more review puts it into the same category of design as Wartortle: it glues a bunch of unnecessary stuff onto Pikachu's basic model. The color scheme works way less well (it clashes all over) and it looks far clunkier. Meh. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9e/027Sandshrew.png/250px-027Sandshrew.png) Sandshrew: Fucking adorable. Another really stellar pokemon design. Very nice rodent design. The addition of the brick-like, armored back adds a nice element of fantasy to the creature. Simple and effective. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0b/028Sandslash.png/250px-028Sandslash.png) Sandslash: I think Sandslash is a nice evolution of Sandshrew, trading the brick for spines and the claws sharpening significantly. Color scheme and overall shape remains pretty good. The forelegs frustrate me, though. Most angles have them looking segmented, which, in case you haven't gathered, I despise. 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on September 17, 2015, 01:33:38 PM
Doesn't like segments, does like bricks.  Got it.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 17, 2015, 08:43:38 PM
Body segmentation on non-bugs/non-crustaceans is a terrible thing.

Brick patterning is different and, in this specific case, works really well on its subject.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on September 17, 2015, 08:57:08 PM
Segmentation doesn't stop Arbok's design from being great. Totally a pokemon I would fan over if he wasn't so consistently bad in every game (besides being kinda okay at wrap-spam in RBY).

My thoughts mirror yours pretty well on Raichu; I used to like its design a lot, but I think I was maybe more attached to the idea of "grown up Pikachu" than its actual execution. Its RBY sprite made it look larger than it actually is, too, which I think was a good thing as Raichu is IMO too small for the look it is going for.

Pikachu is outstanding; I can't count the number of times I've seen non-pokemon players react to it with a "awww, that's adorable!" in a way that few other pokemon can manage. Its design just works, I dunno.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on September 18, 2015, 05:34:50 AM
I like Raichu's tail but agree about his design looking like Pikachu with more stuff glued on and an inferior color scheme.

Pretty much every other Pika-clone looks nicer than Raichu.

Sandslash is awesome. Segments be damned.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Meeplelard on September 19, 2015, 03:15:56 AM
Quote
Pikachu is outstanding; I can't count the number of times I've seen non-pokemon players react to it with a "awww, that's adorable!" in a way that few other pokemon can manage. Its design just works, I dunno.

Piggybacking off this, I believe it was Ciato who, when playing Leaf Green for the first time, came into chat yelling "I saw a Pikachu and caught one! IT WAS SO CUTE I HAD TO GET IT!!!"  Just one such example of Pikachu having the "awwww, adorable!"

That aspect possibly combined with how Pikachu is pretty much the first remotely interesting Non-Starter Pokemon in the Gen 1 games to show up (he's this adorable electric rodent that shows up when you're fighting just generic looking bugs, birds and rats.   Something like that is going to stand out provided you run into him), and then consider the age demographic of the original games (kids ranging from like 6 to 14), it's really easy to see why Pikachu just ended up being this extremely big favorite that opened the path to him being the series mascot, and he remains appealing enough to stand the test of time and work in the long term as well.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 23, 2015, 06:30:15 PM
Holy crap, it's been five days. Sorry about that! Let's do a healthy number as an apology. Two big evolutionary lines!

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/81/029Nidoran.png/250px-029Nidoran.png) Nidoran (Girl): A variant rodent pokemon. And the original gendered line. Woo. Variant rodent design with a touch of dinosaur to it. It works. Doesn't particularly wow me or anything, but it functions. It definitely has the feel of a fantastic rodent though, with the little back spines and uniquely clawed feet. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cd/030Nidorina.png/250px-030Nidorina.png) Nidorina: A solid evolution. Bigger and tougher, while still maintaining the rodent dinosaur qualities. Still not overly inspired by it (and it has that stupid shoulder plate thing), but it works. Gen 3 sprite is great. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bf/031Nidoqueen.png/250px-031Nidoqueen.png) Nidoqueen: I hate this design so very much. It's terrible. The bikini cut is ridiculous, going full on T-Rex really reduces the interesting elements of the rodent/dinosaur thing, and did I mention that goddamn bikini cut? Seriously. Why? We establish a gender differential early on in the line (color and spines and such) and then STILL insist on boobs on a reptile mouse. Argh. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4a/032Nidoran.png/250px-032Nidoran.png) Nidoran (Boy): I actually dig the boy Nidoran quite a bit. Nicely similar to the girl Nidoran, but sharper and spikier which I think is a positive trade. This thing I'd use in a fight. It also needs to see and orthodontist, though. Those front teeth (that front tooth?) needs some work. Also purple is a better color than that weird light blue. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9f/033Nidorino.png/250px-033Nidorino.png) Nidorino: Hm. I was actually expecting to like this one a bit more. My memory had it a little differently. The utter lack of a neck is upsetting me greatly. Good body and head otherwise (same deal as Nidorina: just a nice evolution that maintains the cool stuff), but seriously, the brickhouse look isn't working at this size or with this build. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c6/034Nidoking.png/250px-034Nidoking.png) Nidoking: It's better than Nidoqueen! The segmentation here works better due to hoar armory it looks, the shape properly builds into a mean looking motherfucker, and it doesn't have a bikini cut. I failed to mention this back under Nidoqueen, but the lack of mottling is bad for both of these evolutions, as it makes them look too smooth and clean. Just a little bit of the mottling would have improved both these designs substantially. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on September 24, 2015, 03:06:15 AM
The thing about the Nidorans is that I always forget they are poison-type.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on September 24, 2015, 03:54:47 AM
I always forget that they're ground, myself. There's nothing remotely ground-ish about them and they learn no ground moves IIRC. That said they're not much better on the poison front (they are uh purple). They just feel completely generic to me.

Also they are lame designs. Pretty easily my two least favourite lines in the thread so far.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on September 24, 2015, 08:01:16 AM
Pretty sure that means we split it down the middle and expect everyone to remember them as Normal boring trash.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on September 24, 2015, 08:36:18 AM
Could you start including the names of the pokemon next to the pictures? It's been ages since I played and honestly I thought the blue one was the male line until we got to Bikini Dinosaur Gendering.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Meeplelard on September 24, 2015, 04:58:40 PM
Probably not a bad idea, honestly.  I mean, yeah, a bunch of us can recognize Pokemon by appearance on the fly, but for those who are just interested in the analysis of the design and would like a name to go along with it, wouldn't hurt.

I'd do a list for ones we've done this far but wouldn't really help the issue that much, probably easier Andrew just edit them in.  Nonetheless, at very least, names should be placed alongside the picture, that much I agree, and I say this as someone who generally doesn't need them.

EDIT: Regarding the Poison vs. Ground thing?  I find it weirder to forget the Poison thing seeing as they're Mono Poison in the first 2 stages and only get Ground in the final stage myself, and you deal with so many of them in the first two stages while King and Queen are fairly rare, so the poison weakness you're exploiting all the time, rarely the Ground one.  Also the female line I believe learns Poison Sting early for some poison association, while there's no innate ground moves.

From a design perspective, I've always been apathetic to Nidos.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 24, 2015, 05:46:27 PM
Your wish is my command, Zenny.

That said, I will say you all are right from a typing perspective the designs are pretty fail and I think I'm just so used to thinking of them as poisons that the little associations (color, spines, etc) just cue correctly to me as do the gameplay elements. Visually the poison thing is super indistinct unless you pick up on very debatable clues and, yeah, I honestly forgot about the ground typing on the final evos too. Was too busy being mad about the bikini cut.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on September 24, 2015, 07:40:18 PM
Which is, of course, entirely reasonable.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on September 24, 2015, 07:44:59 PM
I prefer the original Nidoking picture. The resting, don't-fuck-with-me look manages to be a lot more menacing than any of the action shots that've come out later. Also plays up the spikes more.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Lady Door on September 28, 2015, 05:44:25 AM
Dude, where are the pokemen?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 28, 2015, 06:56:42 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f4/035Clefairy.png/250px-035Clefairy.png) Clefairy: I'll be honest. I love Clefairy and I dunno why. I guess it is just a very good sprite design. The very simplified body allows for a humanoid shape without being odd or grotesque. The legs and arms have just enough length to not be stumpy (and the little claws are nice), the face is adorable (Pikachu clause here) and the hair tuft and ear colors are just nice touches. I dunno. The little wings really add to the mystique too. I dunno, might be biased from portrayals in other media where they are a little less overall round? Still, I like it. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a9/036Clefable.png/250px-036Clefable.png) Clefable: Evolution pattern is nice, since it is both distinctly the same but a bigger and stronger Pokemon, but eh? I dunno. I want to like it, but I can't. It might just be little things, like the loss of the impish expression or the significantly longer body not working for me? I'm pretty sure other media has had better versions of it, but the image I'm looking at right now is just bugging me. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/60/037Vulpix.png/250px-037Vulpix.png) Vulpix: Goddamn fucking adorable/10. Another one of the top designs in Pokemon, IMO. Accurately captures the idea of an animal while adding some unique elements to make it fantasy. The colors work well, the swirled coat and tail are wonderful little touches and the colors blend nicely while at least suggesting Vulpix's type. And I never noticed, but Vulpix has socks! ADORABLE SOCKS. Vulpix eyes are kinda weird though, but they work. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/05/038Ninetales.png/250px-038Ninetales.png) Ninetales: Another design I love, though one you could argue about how good a follow-up to Vulpix it is? The complete colorshift and the loss of curls is pretty jarring (though it does keep the upper tuft and the unusual eye texture). The design would probably have benefitted from a bit more color (the golden hue, while nice, does lead to it looking sort of washed out), but the mane-ish thing proves some good body texturing. Look, I can't unilaterally say the design has no issue, but I love it, okay? 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3e/039Jigglypuff.png/250px-039Jigglypuff.png): Jigglypuff: You know, this design works better than I was prepared to say and I'm not sure why. Probably the massive eyes and the very minimal attempts with arms and feet? I mean, I'm not especially enamored by it, but I can't in good faith say it's a bad design. It's cute in an odd way and looks like something that works in context of the world. Minimalism is probably saving it here. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/92/040Wigglytuff.png/250px-040Wigglytuff.png) Wigglytuff: I hate this one. And once again I was expecting to label it as utterly terrible, but buckling down for a second and looking at it... I can't... really bring myself to say it? Like, it's once again saved by minimalism and playing to the "cute." The ear design feels really out of place, though. Which is probably better for it. I think looking more rabbit like would have been really bad for Wiggly. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/da/041Zubat.png/250px-041Zubat.png) Zubat: I like Zubat's design. This is a bat taken to it's logical extremes. Bats don't see well? Fuck his eyes! He don't need them! Bats bite stuff with fangs! FUCK YOU HE HAS A GAPING MOUTH WITH DEADLY TEETH. Bats have freak mixtures of fur and skin? Screw you, he's blue and smooth! The lack of feet is weird though. It looks good, but I have trouble thinking if how Zubat relaxes after a hard day of fucking with people in caves for hours. Seriously though, Zubat feels like a pretty iconic "this is a pokemon" design to me. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0c/042Golbat.png/250px-042Golbat.png) Golbat: Pfffffffffffft. Hey, look. We took that neat eyeless design and gave him stupid tiny eyes. Hey, look. We took that neat gaping maw and made it utter ridiculous! Hey, look, we took those neat tendrils and made them look like cartoony feet! Fuck Golbat. Fuck this son of a bitch. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/43/043Oddish.png/250px-043Oddish.png) Oddish: Nothing to write home about, but I like him. If you were designing a sentient plant creature this feels like a design you'd naturally make. Beauty in simplicity, I guess. I'm starting to notice a lot of Pokemon have red eyes. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/2a/044Gloom.png/250px-044Gloom.png) Gloom: Not a big fan. Suffers from that "take a basic design and add more awkward stuff to it" problem. Like, he isn't overcomplicated or anything. It just looks weird to have more stuff on that ultra simple body. The leaves to flower thing also doesn't follow particularly well to me either. Not the worst design in the world or anything, but I don't like it. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6a/045Vileplume.png/250px-045Vileplume.png) Vileplume: I should've stopped. I actually have no idea how to deal with Gloom or Vileplume and I can't quite put into words what bugs me about them. Oddish works for some magical reason (maybe just the roundness and lack or arms) while Gloom and Vileplume don't. The idea for Vile's flower is nice, but it is actually kinda less interesting to look at than Oddish's leaves were, which is weird. This design just somehow looks less interesting/engaging. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 28, 2015, 07:36:53 AM
Adding a numeric score so I can do stats as I finish generations and stuff. Using a 5 point scale because a 10 point scale is too finagly for me. Might change my mind later.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on September 28, 2015, 08:52:48 AM
I'd like to say that your taste is terrible but you did make me appreciate Fearow.
What a badass.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on September 28, 2015, 10:14:44 AM
Vulpix line fanboyism 10/10, would read again.

I personally quite like Vileplume. The Rafflesia design is nicely evocative of the original 'rotting meat flower' while cleaned up enough that it just looks like a cool flower petal design instead of something grotesque. It also has a cute enough little face to match Oddish's. I absolute abhor Gloom though. It is basically my first example every time I think about "pokemon middle evolution syndrome", because it literally looks like this deformed melted Skittle and we're supposed to believe it connects the adorable Oddish to the still-adorable Vileplume? Ugh.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on September 28, 2015, 03:20:52 PM
What fucking flower is shiny?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on September 28, 2015, 04:41:23 PM
I never understood why Gloom was randomly drooling. That would have made for an awesome sleep animation in games which have specific sleep animations, but normally? uhhh

I like Jigglypuff quite a bit (not a personal favourite, but accomplishes its adorable look well and I think there is a reason it caught on as a fan favourite) but Wigglytuff just completely does not work for me. It's admittedly even worse by the RBY sprites (see here (http://www.smogon.com/dex/rb/pokemon/wigglytuff/)) where it just looks creepy, but in general I'm just not sure what the design is going for. The longer body and changes to the tuft and feet all make it look less cute, and thus the eyes now just look totally out of place instead of part of a larger design? I'm not sure. (Igglybuff also does not work for me, but I guess we'll save that for quite a bit later.)

Agreed on Zubat >>> Golbat, fortunately in any game past the first you have Golbat for approximately one level before it evolves back into something cool.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Meeplelard on September 30, 2015, 12:58:19 AM
Just going to echo to Golbat hate; I've always felt it looked like just a giant fat bat that was blue.  I mean, the first time I saw it in the Anime it wasn't so bad, but outside of that? It's just blech.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 02, 2015, 06:43:56 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d4/046Paras.png/250px-046Paras.png) Paras: Simultaneously adorable and horrifying. It's actually a pretty neat design, though, seriously, the adorable giant eyes really only add to the horror. Also, the clearest dual type ever. It's a bug with plants on it. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/80/047Parasect.png/250px-047Parasect.png) Parasect: Another very solid evolution that amplifies it's previous design. It's a bigger bug with a bigger mushroom! Also it's freaky as hell. Look at those dead eyes. LOOK AT THEM. They eat your soul. Seriously, pretty simple design that looks great. Another definitive "this is a pokemon" to me. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/ad/048Venonat.png/250px-048Venonat.png) Venonat: Another round design. I kinda like him, though. He's got a good bug face that works oddly well with that fuzzy little body. We can also add him the legion of purple pokemon. There's a lot of them. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d3/049Venomoth.png/250px-049Venomoth.png) Venomoth: Honestly, despite it being disproven, I really buy the Venonat was supposed to become Butterfree theory. The design follows a LOT more logically than Venomoth's. That said, Venomoth looks pretty decent too? He doesn't really scream "moth," but he's got some neat design elements to his face (the crest, the fangs) and the fuzzy thorax is cool. Colors are pretty bland though. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/31/050Diglett.png/250px-050Diglett.png) Diglett: First you draw an arch. Then you draw the rest of the Diglett. Really simple design that functions. WHAT DOES IT'S BODY LOOK LIKE? 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e5/051Dugtrio.png/250px-051Dugtrio.png) Dugtrio: It's three Digletts. I dunno what you want out of me. The concept isn't terrible or anything? 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d6/052Meowth.png/250px-052Meowth.png) Meowth: Not a big fan. The face and colors are pretty good, but the bipedal body looks really weird, giving him this simultaneously lanky and chubby look. I get the reference and it's cute, but I really dislike the overall structure. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/13/053Persian.png/250px-053Persian.png) Persian: I like this design much more. This is a mean, murderous death cat. The face retains some nice elements of Meowth's (the whiskers, the head adornment) and the shared tail is interesting. The loss of color... I think it's for the better (gives a fancy, regal look), but Persian really needed something to replace it to make it's body look more interesting. More obvious fur or something. Overall, while I do tend to favor simpler designs, I think this one just doesn't do enough. Also, that curled tail looks weird. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/53/054Psyduck.png/250px-054Psyduck.png) Psyduck: It's a chubby, bipedal, yellow duck with dopey hair and seriously dilated eyes. I really shouldn't like it given some of my tastes, but honestly? It really nicely captures it's concept. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/fe/055Golduck.png/250px-055Golduck.png) Golduck: So, independently, this is a really cool design, blending elements of Kappa and duck into a pretty awesome killing machine. Look at those sharp claws. Look at that muscular bod. Look at that beak that speaks to both being a duck and sharp. Lot of nice little features. Boy does it not really look like it comes out of Psyduck. Completely different color and build and all that. Still, he looks good. Shoulda been part psychic. 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on October 02, 2015, 08:08:44 AM
This whole set is basically the "wow those are forgettable" set of pokemon. Nothing really -wrong- with them, but Pokemon could axe them from the series and I'd not bat an eyelash.

Paras/ect is probably the one I like the most out of them, but even that's just because I think cordyceps are neat. But Paras does NOTHING with it :( They could have given him a Ghost typing or something to reflect the whole zombie mushroom thing. Though that probably wouldn't have worked in Gen 1 as well as it would work now? Hey, maybe a fun idea for a Mega Evolution?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on October 02, 2015, 09:37:25 AM
Paras/ect are so cool. Definite best pokemon design out of all of them. Creepy as hell. I'm glad to see they get proper recognition here.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 02, 2015, 10:58:07 AM
Y'all are wrong about Diglett.  Diglett and Dugtrio are the second best designed pokemon ever.  Minimalism is life.

Persian should have kept the socks and the tail colouring since he is such a riff on Siamese cats.

I don't care about Paras or Parasect, just will note that Paras has Vagina Dentata.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on October 02, 2015, 01:39:55 PM
Parasect is the best pokeymans and anyone who doesn't agree is a poopyhead.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on October 02, 2015, 03:09:00 PM
Quote
Also, the clearest dual type ever. It's a bug with plants on it.

Worst thing written in this thread. If there was any justice, the entire DL would have responded with this (http://41.media.tumblr.com/cc920a9a16807adec99d8f6ab891cea1/tumblr_nj4nw5S4OJ1qzeimko1_400.jpg), switching in the words mushrooms and plants.

Not really a huge fan of the Paras line, but then I never found it remotely creepy. Might have helped if I knew about cordyceps back in the 90's? I dunno. I also don't like Golduck; it comes from a distinct-looking first stage and sheds everything memorable about it, leaving you with some generic blue hodgepodge aquatic monster (with a stat build just as boring as it is). So yeah, I'm with Djinn, this is a weak set. I do like Meowth/Persian, but you'd probably have to try pretty hard to screw up a cat-inspired design for me.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Meeplelard on October 02, 2015, 10:39:58 PM
Just echoing the "yeah, meh set" here.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on October 03, 2015, 11:01:37 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2RBTyckuD8

I never knew that Arbok had a different design for each region of the game.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 04, 2015, 07:24:42 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/41/056Mankey.png/250px-056Mankey.png) Mankey: Hey, another round pokemon, but one I absolutely love. The pig nostril is kinda weird, but overall the strange body shape works. Coloration is good, rough fur makes it look rough and tumble and accents the angry eyes quite well. Despite being a furious beast, you can see some hints of the martial arts background in it's posture. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9a/057Primeape.png/250px-057Primeape.png) Primeape: Let's start with the good. Primeape looks bigger, angrier, and fiercer. The anime anger vein is a bit odd, but it functions, and the longer and spikier fur is excellent. I don't like the loss of fur coverage on the arms and legs, since it really amplifies the strange roundness of Primeape. I was on the fence about the feet and hands, but I think I've decided the gloves look is pretty good, because it further amplifies the "I'ma beat you guys look." The wrist and ankle decorations are whatever. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 04, 2015, 07:30:42 AM
Also, sorry I've been lazy about responding to comments. I am reading them all and gnashing my teeth angrily, I promise.

And yeah, Arbok's variant thing is super cute because it is mentioned in it's pokedex entry.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 04, 2015, 11:33:31 PM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3d/058Growlithe.png/250px-058Growlithe.png) Growlithe: Ehhhhhh. Let's start with the good. Great body. The coloration is fantastic and, although it conveys tiger, helps with the fire typing. The chest floof is great as is the tail. Body is pretty good too., though those stub feet with claws are a bit weird on dogs. The face, however, I hate. This is a pretty standard thing for me. I hate snub-faced dogs. The small of the bulge only makes it look goofier here. So I'm torn. Ultimately, I'll give the body credit over the face. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b8/059Arcanine.png/250px-059Arcanine.png) Arcanine: Good evolution ahoy. Takes everything good about Growlithe and amplifies it, while getting rid of the dumb snub face for the most part. Those rear leg floofs are hella weird, though. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/49/060Poliwag.png/250px-060Poliwag.png) Poliwag: Your lips are stupid. Otherwise a perfectly passable design. It's a tadpole! Lookit those adorable eyes! 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a9/061Poliwhirl.png/250px-061Poliwhirl.png) Poliwhirl: His swirl goes the other way! Also he's got arms and not tail. And the stupid lips are gone and replaced with stupid gloves. I... am kind of stumped here. I mean, it does capture the idea of a frog weirdly well, but it doesn't do much for me. At the same time, I can't really bring myself to hate it? Bah. You know what? Gloves are dumb. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/2d/062Poliwrath.png/250px-062Poliwrath.png) Poliwrath: Pidgeot clause, except worse. 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 05, 2015, 12:06:00 AM
Quote
Arcanine: Good evolution ahoy. Takes everything good about Growlithe and amplifies it, while getting rid of the dumb snub face for the most part. Those rear leg floofs are hella weird, though. 4/5

It is fire.  It is a fire dog.  It's legs are supposed to look like fire.

Quote
Poliwhirl: His swirl goes the other way! Also he's got arms and not tail. And the stupid lips are gone and replaced with stupid gloves.

What is that?  Neo is evolving!
(http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/matrix_mouth.gif)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 05, 2015, 12:12:01 AM
I get the idea. I'm just stuck thinking about the FF7 logo looking at the back ones. I think they'd be fine if they were more similar to the front ones. The intensive of the back ones just looks clunky.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on October 05, 2015, 10:41:50 AM
MY DOG HAS METEOR LEGS

WHAT DOES YOUR DOG HAVE?

YOUR DOG AIN'T GOT SHIT ON MY DOG
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 05, 2015, 05:30:59 PM
My dog is regal as fuck.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBJ1QwHWUAA8zq8.jpg) 5/5, best pokeymans
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on October 06, 2015, 01:51:31 AM
My dog is regal as fuck.

Regal in the sense that the way the resting tongue indicates massive inbreeding.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on October 06, 2015, 02:10:09 AM
Agreed on Poliwag series. Passable but bland.

Growlithe/Arcanine are basically the best Pokemon designs ever as far as I'm concerned. Straight up 11/10s there. Fire dog is already a great concept. Fire dog + massive + tiger accents + Japanese mythological beast influence + actually a decent Pokemon in all of its appearances just makes it the best. I'm kinda surprised he doesn't rate higher given your status as a dog lover is certainly higher than mine.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on October 06, 2015, 05:51:06 AM
Quote
actually a decent Pokemon in all of its appearances

This statement is more than a bit of a stretch.

I do like Growlithe/Arcanine though (Growlithe always, Arcanine varies by art but generally pretty good).
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on October 06, 2015, 05:06:05 PM
Quote
actually a decent Pokemon in all of its appearances

This statement is more than a bit of a stretch.

I don't want to hijack an aesthetics thread with gameplay discussion, so I'll just assume you're right because you always remember these sorts of things better than me anyway. But since I care about this particular 'mon more than most, quick summary of why it's such a stretch?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on October 06, 2015, 08:44:08 PM
In RBY, it learns no fire attack stronger than Ember before Level 50, and if you evolve it before then it never learns one at all. It has a very shallow movepool and doesn't even learn Strength. In GSC, it gets Flame Wheel at 34 but otherwise has the same problems, with a bonus demerit for being unable to learn the storebought Fire Punch. (It got a 3.3 in the in-game use thread since for some reason this is the only version we rated.)

In gen 3 it gained Intimidate and in gen 4 it gained physical fire (and dark) moves to make use of its good Atk stat, plus had its good moves pushed earlier level-wise, so it's been solid since then.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on October 06, 2015, 10:13:14 PM
I hate snub-faced dogs.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBJ1QwHWUAA8zq8.jpg)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 06, 2015, 11:35:14 PM
The fur and angle obscures it somewhat, but Remy has a distinctly canine muzzle. Somewhat small, obviously, but very much the correct shape.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8I7MwpIgAATeub.jpg:large)

Compare this to, say, (http://www.earthintransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/pets-on-planes600p.jpg)

It's why Poms are one of the better toy breeds! They actually have correctly dog-shaped ears and muzzles.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on October 07, 2015, 12:31:25 AM
There's no way Growlithe has a pug nose. Maybe the angle of the image is throwing you off.

It usually looks more like:

(http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u137/DjinntoTonic/growlithe_by_alounea-d6uyesw_zpsxzcdivo1.png) (http://s167.photobucket.com/user/DjinntoTonic/media/growlithe_by_alounea-d6uyesw_zpsxzcdivo1.png.html)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on October 07, 2015, 01:14:37 AM
The RPGDL: Where you can start an argument over literally anything.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 07, 2015, 01:35:45 AM
Which hole?
Agree?
Still get in a fisting fight.

Zenny & #rpgdl, a tale of two (body) parts
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 07, 2015, 01:37:29 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/3/3a/Spr_4h_037.png)
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/5/54/Spr_4h_058.png)

I like the more pronounced muzzle/longer skull, plain and simple.

Growlithe is definitely not quite as bad as a pug or anything, but it is still a very short muzzle. And having now looked at it for longer than almost any of the other pokemon in this topic (and compared it to the eeveelutions, who have pretty variable muzzle portrayals), I have come to the conclusion that it is really the white poofy muzzle thing that I can't accurately describe that really contributes to me not liking the it's face. While it works reasonably well on Arcanine because of it's blending and the shape of the muzzle, on Arcanine it ends up looking like a big poofy clown smile, especially in the original art.

And I swear, if I have to have an argument about inconsistency in my opinions re: dog muzzles because of this one on every future canine pokemon, I will gut someone. Or start review MLP color palletes or something.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on October 07, 2015, 09:55:50 AM
And I swear, if I have to have an argument about inconsistency in my opinions re: dog muzzles because of this one on every future canine pokemon, I will gut someone. Or start review MLP color palletes or something.

You're just begging for it, aren't you.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 07, 2015, 10:07:53 AM
Let's cut to Herdier and see what he thinks about this.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/9/96/507Herdier.png)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on October 07, 2015, 10:10:09 AM
i feel like that dog taught me sociology in college
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 07, 2015, 02:50:01 PM
That is pretty much exactly why I went corporate instead of staying in the education and becoming a lecturer.  I can't grow the necessary facial hair to lecture the subjects I would teach.

Also you guys don't even know with Remy.  He has something no other Pokemon can do.  He can be used as a broom in real life, and not only in the "Dog will eat everything from the floor" way either.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on October 07, 2015, 03:10:36 PM
i thought it was because you liked having money to fuel your distractions more than you liked having a fulfilling-if-wrought-with-anxiety career
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 10, 2015, 08:53:19 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/62/063Abra.png/250px-063Abra.png) Abra: Hey, a pokemon with segmentation that I like. The alien design just lends itself to it and it breaks the body up nicely. The two colors work well enough (with the tiny stripe saving the tail nicely). The fox face is interesting... I dunno. It is a nice alien/humanoid design and, while it doesn't look overtly psychic, the concept plays well to it. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/97/064Kadabra.png/250px-064Kadabra.png) Kadabra: Abra minus. That's unfair. There are good elements to the design. The head is well improved and the mustache is rocking. But eh. I just can't get excited about the rest of the design. That super fat tail is pretty urgh, and the whole leg/waist/hip area just doesn't work for me. The bowlegging is weird. The more armory chest is fine, though. Spoon is stupid and the added squiggles, while probably necessary, don't endear me. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cc/065Alakazam.png/250px-065Alakazam.png) Alakazam: Kadabra plus. Body shape looks good, the wrists and kneepads break things up nicely and the less overbeating chestpiece is cool. Loss of the head star is a drag (he's a little too plain, I think), but the stache is still rocking. Spoons remain stupid. Honestly, this is kinda what I want of humanoid pokemon. Basic bipedal shapes, but do something different with them and minimize the inclusion of human things (belts, etc). 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/85/066Machop.png/250px-066Machop.png) Machop: Meh. I don't care much for him, but I think the design works. The chest ripples are weird, but the headcrest looks good. The slight dino face is good too. I dunno. I can't really bring myself to hate him despite not being that interesting. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8e/067Machoke.png/250px-067Machoke.png) Machoke: Bro has been lifting and he has not skipped leg day. Nice bulking up which adds more texture to his body, fiercer face works really well, and the little tears on the arm, while technically terrifying, do provide some nice contrast. I'm torn on the belt and speedo. On the one hand, it helps the design by filling otherwise blank space and, honestly, I do kinda feel he would look naked without it. On the other, I'm not a big fan of actual clothes and such shit on pokemon. Still, I think, on the whole, it is one of the more inoffensive choices. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8f/068Machamp.png/250px-068Machamp.png) Machamp: What the fuck happened to your face? Holy shit. Those lips are terrible. Four arms is kinda a neat choice, but he honestly feels less ripped than Machoke in a lot of ways. Just less dense. Screw it. This ranking is based on that stupid face. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a2/069Bellsprout.png/250px-069Bellsprout.png) Bellsprout: I honestly have a soft spot for Bellsprout but, looking at him, the design just doesn't do much for me. The sentient stem with leg roots and leaf arms is adorable, but the head is just kinda... eegh? Tiny beady eyes. Sex toy mouth. No real color or texturing. Just doesn't blend well. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9f/070Weepinbell.png/250px-070Weepinbell.png) Weepinbell: Get the sextoy jokes out of the way. You good? Does a much better job with the flower than Bellsprout did. Bigger eyes and spots lend it a little more design. Lips are kinda freaky and the stem looks stupid though. And the leaves look hella glued on. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/be/071Victreebel.png/250px-071Victreebel.png) Savior of his evolutionary line. The whole body is much better shaped thanks to the slight curve. Mottling helps it avoid looking too plain. The combination of leaves and stem/vine make it look more like a real plant while it's sitting there (and better capture the pitcher plant imagery), the added teeth look threatening and the lips are helped by actually looking like a pitcher plant now. Wouldn't want to run into this thing in the forest, is what I'm saying. 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on October 10, 2015, 09:31:03 AM
Huh, I think this is the first entry where I 100% agree with everything you said! Didn't ever put much thought into those Machoke arm-tears until you pointed it out, but that -is- kinda awesome and terrifying.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on October 10, 2015, 03:32:26 PM
I too, pretty much agree with all of these 100%.

Machoke -> Machamp screws a remarkable number of things up for a change which overall is on the less significant end of evolutionary changes.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 11, 2015, 09:23:58 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4e/072Tentacool.png/250px-072Tentacool.png) Tentacool: So. This is awkward. I was kinda prepared to say I like Tentacool. The shape is nice. The gems are cool accouterments. The tentacles, while they could be more expansive, work in the dual form. But I finally realized that his face is a shrunken beak. While this explains Tentacruel... it kinda looks weird on Tentacool when you really look at it. And now I can't unsee it. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f6/073Tentacruel.png/250px-073Tentacruel.png) Tentacruel: Different, but the same. Hood still looks cool. Additional tentacles are very good. Even the eyes are pretty good. I want to like the "beak" (it's actually unfair to call it that since it isn't), but it ends up looking like a real stupid nose. And the black void body doesn't do much for me. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/98/074Geodude.png/250px-074Geodude.png) Geodude: It's a bro rock with arms. I dunno, not a lot to talk about it. It's kind of a logical design. It isn't OMG BEST DESIGN ever, but it belongs. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/75/075Graveler.png/250px-075Graveler.png) Graveler: Let's talk about why I like Geodude a bit more. His face looks like it belongs on a rock The short body gives him a sorta block head, with some clear cut chin and such going on. His expression is sorta rocky too. Graveler kinda fails here. His face looks very pasted on and it's got this kinda trickster element going on, which doesn't really fit with a giant fucking rock. Also those tiny inset arms are weird. Still, despite all my whining he doesn't look terrible or anything and I can't bring myself to hate him. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f2/076Golem.png/250px-076Golem.png) Golem: Especially when this fucker exists. Holy crap is Golem terrible. I'm a rock with some dinosaur shittily attached to it. I look nothing like my previous evos. Despite my previous evos not having legs, I think they still get around better than me. I would probably call this a 2/5 kinda design in isolation, but as an evo of the Geodude family, I reall hate it. So let's go 1/5.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 11, 2015, 09:45:49 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3b/077Ponyta.png/250px-077Ponyta.png) Ponyta: It's a pony with fire instead of mane and tail and some extra stuff. The white body is... interesting and I'm not a huge fan of it? It just makes Ponyta look really pale, even with the fire. The extension of the flame down the whole back is good as are the touches on the legs. Like Geodude, not the most inspired design, but you know what? Sometimes trying to be unique gets us Golem. 4/5

(http://iambrony.steeph.tp-radio.de/mlp/gif/twilighte1504200.gif) Rapidash (http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3f/078Rapidash.png/250px-078Rapidash.png): It's Ponyta, but bigger, fiercer, more flamey, and it has a horn. I'll be blunt here. I actually don't like realistic horses that much, so I end up liking Ponyta (and other things) slightly more because they have the less horse-like builds. So, it's a good evo, but I just don't like it. Biased Andrew. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/70/079Slowpoke.png/250px-079Slowpoke.png) Slowpoke: I've recently been gaining respect for this dude and his evo. He's a bit plain looking, but it works. The derp face says everything that needs be said about him, really. The official art not having the distinctly white tip to the tail is kinda a drag, though. It's really good at breaking up his fairly plain look. Single nails, while somewhat logicaly, also look weird. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/80/080Slowbro.png/250px-080Slowbro.png) Slowbro: I'm losing respect for them as I do this entry. Stomach segmentation is lame (though the belly differentation is a good idea). Added claws are good (thought they detract from the sloth comparison). I really do like the shell though. It's a weird addition (and the story logic of it being Shellder makes negative sense), but it still looks pretty awesome, creating the Hermit Derp. I'm to sleepy to articulate why this is aweomse. 4/5

Oh, also. As of this post, we are 1/10th of the way done. Holy hell have I made a mistake.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on October 11, 2015, 10:26:05 AM
Biased Andrew. 3/5

I demand ethics in my pokemon games journalism
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on October 11, 2015, 03:01:24 PM
I actually don't like realistic horses that much

Shocking reveal.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on October 11, 2015, 05:10:15 PM
Biased Andrew. 3/5

I demand ethics in my pokemon games journalism

#NotYourPokeshield
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on October 12, 2015, 04:49:29 AM
I personally kind of like Golem, but I agree he's terrible as part of Geodude's line.

The Rapidash score is in fact, quite shocking.

Also, totally a 4/5 design at -least-. If Gen 1 did one thing right, it was its Fire-Type designs. Later gens are more arguable. Well, and Magmar. That's... questionable, but apparently it and Electabuzz have some ridiculous number of fans.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on October 12, 2015, 10:52:47 AM
Well, and Magmar. That's... questionable, but apparently it and Electabuzz have some ridiculous number of fans.

For the record, so does Nicholas Cage.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Ranmilia on October 12, 2015, 08:40:20 PM
Huh, I like Tentacruel and Golem quite a bit.  Graveler's a total 1/5 to me though.  Horses... "completely normal horse but with fire instead of hair" does nothing for me, but I guess that's my personal preference for Pokemon to not directly mimic real animals.  (No fan of Arbok and Pidgey and such either.)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Excal on October 12, 2015, 10:34:28 PM
Yeah, no.  Like the Andies, I like the Geodude line less as it goes along.  It starts great, Graveller is okay, and Golem just does not work.  It just looks like something stuck inside a rock, and not a third tier badass.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 12, 2015, 10:40:24 PM
We have to break up Andy.  Being wrong about literally every single Pokemon ever created is one thing.  Being wrong about Geodude I can even forgive.  Being objectively wrong about Abra line?  I can't even pretend to love you any more.

Edit also Golem is literally >:D (http://youtu.be/_bSEfx6D8mA)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Meeplelard on October 13, 2015, 02:16:32 AM
Late, but never noticed until I bothered to look at them side by side how different Machamp and Machoke are (besides the obvious four arms) and yeah, Machoke clearly superior in that regard.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 18, 2015, 11:46:01 PM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6c/081Magnemite.png/250px-081Magnemite.png) Magnemite: I think, this is my favorite looking "constructed" Pokemon by far? Captures elements of being made while being abstract enough to look like a creature, basically. Not a lot to say for as much as I like it. Just, despite being a ball bearing, two magnets, and three screws, it looks like something that might exist in the pokemon world as a wild creature. Also another good example of enough detail to not look dull, but not so busy that it looks stupid. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/72/082Magneton.png/250px-082Magneton.png) Magneton: Consider it a bonus from just liking Magnemite more and giving more credit to the trio design looking better here. These things look like they should be connected, while Dugtrio is just sort of a group that hangs around together. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f8/083Farfetch%27d.png/250px-083Farfetch%27d.png) Farfetch'd: He works. I dunno. It's a good looking bird, coloration works well, shape is nice. Leek is weird, but it beats a goddamn spoon. Unfortunately the design just doesn't excite me. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/54/084Doduo.png/250px-084Doduo.png) Doduo: Two-headed kiwi with a neck. Ironically looking up a kiwi to check if they had necks weakened my opinion of Doduo a bit. Kiwis are adorable. Also, this will mark the one-billionth bird with brown feathers. And this is a huge problem in gen 1 (that will be ironic later when I start complaining about MORE COLORS): there are a few colors that get used a lot (brown and purple in particular). Anyhow, like Farfetch'd, it's a passable design but not exciting me. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/93/085Dodrio.png/250px-085Dodrio.png) Dodrio: Man, I never noticed how much Dodrio steals from other designs. Look at that red tail stolen from Pidgeotto! Standard fiercer evolution improvement, but I think the additional details make Dodrio look really busy (and it has that weird black skin thing that Fearow has). The "I don't give a fuck" head is great, though. 3/5.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on October 19, 2015, 01:57:54 AM
Magneton kind of works because of the mono-eye on Magnemite. It already looks like a partial creature, so when three of them magnetize together, it actually looks somewhat complete.

Doduo has such cute eyes that I'm sad when it gets voltorb eyes as a Dodrio...
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 19, 2015, 04:30:28 AM
magnemite's hit some good fucking heroin guys
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on October 19, 2015, 07:08:17 AM
Yeah, I dig Magnemite/Magneton, they manage to capture the natural construct thing well.

I'm a pretty big fan of Dodrio too. Takes a cool design concept (three-headed flightless bird) and makes it look all badass; it (they?) will fuck you up. The specifics aren't too special (beyond the beaks which I quite like) but the overall design feels like it just works.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 19, 2015, 07:33:37 AM
Since the only two posts I made in this subforum today have been drug jokes, lets be real for a second.

Magneton/Magnemite - Yeah they are rad as fuck.  Magneton suffers slightly from them being connected North/North South/South next to each other, but it looks better than them being alternating.  Science suffers for art.

Why does Doduo have an extra joint on its feet than Dodrio?  Also when I evolve I want to grow another head that is sick of this shit.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Meeplelard on October 19, 2015, 10:30:57 PM
Never thought about Magneton that way, but you're right; as a Pokemon that's literally just "3 of it's prior evolution", it actually fits because of the nature of the Pokemon where as yeah, Dugtrio is "...we have no idea what to do, here's 3 of them together."
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 23, 2015, 10:43:03 PM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/1f/086Seel.png/250px-086Seel.png) Seel: Your face is stupid. That is all. What do you want? Okay, okay, fine. The water spout tail is actually kind of a neat design and the horn is a clever addition that nicely blends seals and narwhals and manatees. Face is still stupid. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c7/087Dewgong.png/250px-087Dewgong.png) Dewgong: Your face is less stupid. But still not great. Nothing exciting going on here. The nice texturing on the fins is about the only thing this design has going for it. White is nice for communicating the ice thing, I guess? Honestly, I would rate this thing and Seel pretty high on the "Gen 1 Pokemon Andrew Barely Ever Remembers" list. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on October 24, 2015, 04:04:31 AM
I only remember Dewgong because he was the most powerful Pokemon card I had in the brief ~2 weeks I tried to get into the Pokemon card game. This may or may not have contributed to me losing interest in the pokemon card game.

Also, your mom's face is stupid.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on October 24, 2015, 04:18:49 AM
I like seals so I've always kind of liked Seel and Dewgong. That said, these aren't particularly inspired designs and they'd definitely be on the list of pokemon I'd cull to streamline the roster. Not the first on the list, but definitely on the list, particularly with Spheal fulfilling the 'adorable sea mammal' quotient far better.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 28, 2015, 02:05:41 AM
Seel series so boring it killed the thread.

Fact.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on October 28, 2015, 02:20:02 AM
Can't argue.

C'mon Andy, talk about some sludge.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 28, 2015, 03:53:48 AM
Sorry. I had some other writing I had to do over the last few days and felt a bit burned out. Gimme a day or three and I promise y'all a big batch.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 31, 2015, 07:05:17 AM
Okay. I promised. Let's fucking get this train back on track.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a0/088Grimer.png/250px-088Grimer.png) Grimer: I honestly like slimes, but Grimer is pretty low tier in that category. His shape is just unpleasant. He puts me more in mind of a dude melting than a sentient pule of sludge. The weirdly distinguished hands are part of it, as is the very distinct head area shape thing. 2/5 is probably harsh, but whatever. I'm back and I'm gonna rock this shit.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/7c/089Muk.png/250px-089Muk.png) Muk: This is more what I want out of my toxic slime monsters. This thing looks like a heap of creeping sludge that is gonna ruin your day. Also, did I complain about the overuse of purple in Gen 1 Pokemon? Because Grimer and Muk contribute to it. Still, Purple is a decent toxic sludge color. 4/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/40/090Shellder.png/250px-090Shellder.png) Shellder: Shellder is adorable. Lookit those big eyes and that derp tongue. The shell's lines and spikes are nice, and the black, indistinct body is fine for a shellfish. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/1d/091Cloyster.png/250px-091Cloyster.png) Cloyster: Vagina jokes. We good here? I actually love Cloyster's shell (it's awesome, that's what an angry, aggressive death clam looks like), but the super distinct orb body and spike on Cloyster don't do it for me. I'd like this design more if if it had a less distinct shape like Shellder, I think I'd like it more. I get it's the whole pearl thing, but I just don't like it. Still, that shell is awesome. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/ca/092Gastly.png/250px-092Gastly.png) Gastly: Literally all purple pokemon today. Still, he's cool. Orb design works way better here, though I'm still not the biggest fan. Ghostly trail is wonderfully jagged and cool. Fangs are sorta odd but actuall work to me and the eyes are appropriately menacing. The eyes actually coming off the body is actually a great, great touch and really hammers home that he's abnormal. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/62/093Haunter.png/250px-093Haunter.png) Haunter: Mixed opinions, here. I don't like the shape of Haunter's main body, but the mouth and the eyes are also pretty awesome and I absolutely adore the disconnected hands. Too sleepy to decide on 3 or 4, so credit for the disembodied hands. 4/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c6/094Gengar.png/250px-094Gengar.png) Gengar: You know what kind of ghosts are awesome? Not fat ones with stubby legs and arms, that's for sure. Holy crap, I hate all the trade evo pokemon almost. Face is great, but the rest of it enrages my sleepy mind. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9a/095Onix.png/250px-095Onix.png) Onix: Something not at all purple. Not a ton to stay here. It's a giant rock snake made of boulders. Rocks are nicely craggy and detailed. Feel a bit weird about the horn, but eh. It's a solid design 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Meeplelard on October 31, 2015, 01:40:40 PM
I personally liked Gengar's design.  It feels like it's less menacing and more going for a Prankster Poltergeist, which is how it's portrayed in just about all external content, so the fact that it's not scary or menacing I think actually works with the design.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 31, 2015, 03:15:06 PM
Gengar feels just disconnected from Gastly and Haunter to me.  Both Gastly and Haunter are essentially floating eyes and mouths with Haunter looking like a tear in reality or something.  Gengar distinctly has form and that is super boring

Also

Quote
Cloyster: Vagina jokes. We good here?
Nope.

Quote
I actually love Cloyster's shell (it's awesome, that's what an angry, aggressive death clam looks like)
Because you are still talking about vaginas.

Also cloyster is shit and I never undestand why people like it.  So you take Shellder which is like a mussel or something and it evolves into a smirking battle pearl?  They have nothing to do with each other.  I suppose it is fitting that Cloyster fucking suck because Shellder evolves from a clam into clam shit.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on October 31, 2015, 04:34:14 PM
I am definitely with Andy on Gengar, one of the most disappointing evolutions of all-time. I really do like Haunter a lot, Gengar just looks like a dopey teddy-bear who falls somewhere between cute and scary while being nowhere close to either. Those limbs, man, what the hell.

(Also, quite aside from opinions on Cloyster's appearance, which I like but don't love and certainly prefer to boring vague Shellder, I'll note that gameplaywise the pokemon definitely does not suck. Unless that is a reference to some move it has that I am forgetting.)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dhyerwolf on October 31, 2015, 08:35:56 PM
Honestly Gengar's score is higher than I thought it would be.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on October 31, 2015, 11:04:36 PM
Entirely about appearance.  In game it is an anything that gets Ice Beam.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on October 31, 2015, 11:48:07 PM
Honestly Gengar's score is higher than I thought it would be.

It takes a lot to get a 1 from me. Gengar is at least tolerable.

We've got some garbage coming up.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on November 01, 2015, 12:39:23 AM
Dunno what you are implying.  The Evee line is still like a month away at least.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: jsh357 on November 01, 2015, 03:07:43 AM
Personally, I like Gengar's design a lot. I just hate that he's the evolution of Haunter; there's not much of a logical progression there. Would have been cool if he'd been a second Ghost type for Gen 1 too.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on November 02, 2015, 01:01:59 AM
I like Gengar's design a lot too. It is very cool for being such a nonstandard 'ghost'. Like, it has some ghostly shadow-like elements, but then it more resembles a mini-goblin. And then there's the whole "Dark Clefable" thing going on. It is a neat design. Not my favorite, but certainly nowhere near 1/5 level. As for it being Haunter's evolution... Well, I can certainly agree that they could have come up with something different from Haunter, but that doesn't make Gengar's design bad. Just disappointing.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on November 02, 2015, 05:16:23 AM
Contrast to previous Pokedudes is always going to come up though in the evolution lines though.

Gengar is fine and all, but after Ghastly and Haunter which Andy insists on being wrong about but both get 4s?  Dropping the ball on that is going to reflect badly. (He might be wrong about the 1 I GUESS, but in the context honestly I kind of agree.  Gengar could be literally anything else and it would be 2 points better for it at least).

I am sure we are going to see something brought up higher because the stuff before it sucks so hard.  If it was Goldeen -> Sea King -> Gengar?  Yeah Gengar would easy be a 3 to me (Fuck goldeen).
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on November 11, 2015, 04:31:18 PM
'nother big batch coming by the weekend. Been a bit preoccupied.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on November 16, 2015, 06:46:13 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3e/096Drowzee.png/250px-096Drowzee.png) Drowzee: This is one I'm kind of torn on. I find the design kind of clever. Encapsualtes the idea of a psychic tapir monster well. But, at the time, it does a lot of things I dislike. Bipedal design for a quadraped (derp), really overused colors (brown and yellow), having a stupid face... Eh. I'm feeling generous. I'll give it a mercy 3/5 for respecting the idea of what they did with the tapir.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0a/097Hypno.png/250px-097Hypno.png) Hypno: Fuck this piece of shit. 1/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a7/098Krabby.png/250px-098Krabby.png) Krabby: Crab pokemon! It is a crab, basically. Not too much special going on here. Captures the idea well, but doesn't do anything special with it. Not quite cool enough to earn a bias bump, so 3/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/71/099Kingler.png/250px-099Kingler.png) Kingler: Good evo. It's Krabby, but bigger, meaner, and more awesome. The giant claw is pretty rocking, as is the crown and "fang" design. Plus, I love that "You wanna go, bro?" look it's got. It still isn't technically that special I think (fairly plain color scheme, nothing tooooooooooooo interesting going on), but it is enough for a bias bump. 4/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/da/100Voltorb.png/250px-100Voltorb.png) Voltorb: It's an angry pokeball. Yay? The angry expression is all this thing has going for it, but it actually does a surprising amount. It gives the ball some real texture and character. This is the epitome of lazy design that I'm barely gonna let slip with a three, because you can get away with something like this once if you add something to it. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/84/101Electrode.png/250px-101Electrode.png) Electrode: Goddammit GameFreaks. If you want a more serious thing, the additional face details actually take away from the design. Voltorb works because the angry eyes are actually a pretty excellent defining feature on a simple design. Electrode's don't. Also, and this is something I dunno anything about, but Red/White looks better than White/Red. 1/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/af/102Exeggcute.png/250px-102Exeggcute.png) Exeggcute: Goddammit GameFreaks. Wow, we are in a part of the pokedex I hate. Look, it's a bunch of oblong, pink Electrodes. 1/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/24/103Exeggutor.png/250px-103Exeggutor.png) Exeggutor: I quit. 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Magetastica on November 16, 2015, 07:41:35 AM
The bias is showing real strong on this one. A full 1/5 for Exeggutor and Hypno? Not a 0/5? I am disgusted with you and your lack of ethics in pokemon gaming journalism.

But seriously. Fuck those pieces of shit. I'm so glad they basically just threw them both under a fucking bus after Gen 2 started. Holy WOW are they just... bad. Like, there's questionable and weird and kinda bad, but those 2 are probably my least favourite because they just look dumb, and I can't even tell what they were trying to do with them. Yes, a tapir becomes... this... weird... thing with white clown-tuft? And some eggs become... a tree? With feet? And a bunch of faces? What?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on November 16, 2015, 08:23:26 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/af/102Exeggcute.png/250px-102Exeggcute.png)
Quote
Plus, I love that "You wanna go, bro?" look it's got.

This would have been factually accurate.  Exeggcute exists for a really terrible pun, but Egg Gang Clan ain't nothing to fuck with.

Exeggcutor kind of has a greek tragedy thing going but is a pile of shit and you are right for once even if there is the seed of a good idea in there.

Also again wrong on most other points Drowzee > Voltorb.  The sine wave going on around the midriff is rad and you just made cause he is happy (and will devour your dreams).  Hypno got a Brofist thing going on but yeah is kind of bad, looks like half formed Batman villain.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Ranmilia on November 16, 2015, 10:45:12 AM
Drowzee is a Baku (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku_%28spirit%29) so there is something going on there.  Both it and Hypno pull a lot more from the Japanese Mythology bag than the goofy animal bag.  I could respect the design if they did anything or weren't yellow. 

Rest of these though... I'd give them all 1/5 except Exeggutor, at least that one has something interesting going on, even if it is LSD-induced B-movie nightmares about putting the egg in the coconut and drinking it all out.

Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: jsh357 on November 16, 2015, 12:48:44 PM
Was exeggcute a pun in Japanese too? I thought they were always meant to be coconuts and that was a translation quirk, but I could just be wrong.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Nephrite on November 16, 2015, 02:58:42 PM
Exeggcute's Japanese name, like almost all of them, is stupid and you shouldn't think about it.

It's "Tamatama," tama being the word for ball and also part of the word "tamago" which means, surprise, EGG.

Exegguctor's Japanese name is "Nasshii," which they get from coconuts and yashi, for palm tree.

Seriously, the Japanese names for Pokemon are all fucking horrible and stupid.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on November 16, 2015, 03:01:05 PM
Exeggcute's Japanese name, like almost all of them, is stupid and you shouldn't think about it.

It's "Tamatama," tama being the word for ball and also part of the word "tamago" which means, surprise, EGG.

Exegguctor's Japanese name is "Nasshii," which they get from coconuts and yashi, for palm tree.

Seriously, the Japanese names for Pokemon are all fucking horrible and stupid.

Untrue. The Bulbasaur line's Japanese names are fucking great. You are correct about the rest though.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Nephrite on November 16, 2015, 03:13:20 PM
I'm sorry, "Bulbasaur" is infinitely better than "Mysterious Seed."

It isn't even a pun! It's just two words!
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on November 16, 2015, 03:58:50 PM
I'm sorry, "Bulbasaur" is infinitely better than "Mysterious Seed."

It isn't even a pun! It's just two words!

Or you're missing the pun.

ふしぎだね

だね could mean seed, but also could be the casual form of ですね, so the name could either be Mysterious Seed or, "That's strange, innit?"

It's a pretty good pun.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on November 18, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Exeggcute's Japanese name, like almost all of them, is stupid and you shouldn't think about it.

It's "Tamatama," tama being the word for ball and also part of the word "tamago" which means, surprise, EGG.

Exegguctor's Japanese name is "Nasshii," which they get from coconuts and yashi, for palm tree.

Seriously, the Japanese names for Pokemon are all fucking horrible and stupid.

You missed out that "Nasshii" also sounds a lot like the japanese word for "Eggplant"! (Which really is kind of a missed opportunity in English if you think about it...)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Nephrite on November 18, 2015, 05:38:20 PM
It still doesn't explain why a bunch of gang eggs turn into a weird egg palm tree. Seriously, what?

It should've just turned into like one giant egg that opens up like a russian doll with a smaller egg inside.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Veryslightlymad on November 18, 2015, 07:37:52 PM
That's perverse. Anyone who has played the Sims 3 will tell you that Egg trees are a perfectly cromulent way to grow your produce.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 02, 2015, 05:39:18 PM
Still interested in this. I just have a couple other things eating my time up. Nevertheless, I'll make an effort to finish Gen 1 before the year is over.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 22, 2015, 08:54:12 AM
Okay, the I quit was a joke. Seriously. I've just been working on other projects and neglecting this one. If I want this to get through Gen 1 before the year's end, I gotta do this.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/2a/104Cubone.png/250px-104Cubone.png) Cubone: Hey, it's one of the bipedals I like. Got a cool primitive dinosaur vibe going and the detailing on the skull works in a way that detailing on the face wouldn't. The entire quality of that design is how amazing that skull looks on it, since otherwise it is pretty simple. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/98/105Marowak.png/250px-105Marowak.png) Marowak: And they fuck it up instantly. Stupid body segmentation and the skull being the actual head (and less interestingly deteailed) is a huge loss. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/32/106Hitmonlee.png/250px-106Hitmonlee.png) Hitmonlee: The Hitmon I sorta like! What I expect a pokemopn martial artist to look like. Something that is vaguely human but quite far removed. The legs are emphasized for the awesome kicks, though I don't understand the stupid yellow heel circle. 4/5 (technically 3.5, but I don't want fractionals so have a half point for not being Hitmonchan)

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a3/107Hitmonchan.png/250px-107Hitmonchan.png) Hitmonchan: Too human? Check. Stupid clothing? Check. Seriously, fuck Hitmonchan and his stupid skirt. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/00/108Lickitung.png/250px-108Lickitung.png) Lickitung: Can I quit again? I'm not even really sure what to do with this design. Fat pink bipedal lizard with a massive tongue and weird designs. I think what frustrates me here is that I can't even be inspired to hate this design. It's dumb, but not in any meaningful way. Like, it sorta vaguely works instead of disgusting me. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on December 22, 2015, 08:30:37 PM
Lickitung could be purple (um except for the whole Gen 1 purple thing) and be much better of for it.  Let's make a thing that's primary feature is its big pink tongue.  Let's make the rest of it pink too. 

Also nice fucking knee pads nerd.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 22, 2015, 08:36:42 PM
You know, I didn't think about that, but that is a good point. The overall coloration actually detracts from it's major defining feature.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on December 22, 2015, 09:07:34 PM
Also your Hitmonchan hate ain't cool bro.  Those purple clogs match the belted summer mini dress.

Serious though, why is a boxer wearing shoulder pads (that are made of them-self????) and the head ridge is fucking terrifying.

I think it would work in another kind of series (like not Pokemon but a boxing sports anime based around monsters... so like grimdark pokemon I guess?) and it reaaaallly suffers being put up against Hitmonlee which I like a lot more than you do.  I dig how featureless the torso is.  It really emphasizes the arms and legs, which then highlights the comparison of the segments/wraps around the arms really highlight the legs being the important part.  Even with that though Hitmonlee doesn't have T-Rex arms, they are actually mostly in proportion with the body for its height. 

If you take out the crown of the skull and replaced it with shoulders and a head Hitmonlee would be pretty much straight up human, but small change and good visual design make it distinguishable yet very not human.

Hitmonlee is fucking great.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Lady Door on December 22, 2015, 09:19:49 PM
[quote
If you take out the crown of the skull and replaced it with shoulders and a head Hitmonlee would be pretty much straight up human, but small change and good visual design make it distinguishable yet very not human.

If you change something, it is no longer that thing, and the fact that it is not that thing when you don't change anything is why it is great.

I am pretty sure the humanoid thing was the problem, and I gotta agree. It's why Gardevoir is so goddamn creepy.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 22, 2015, 09:40:05 PM
I am pretty sure the humanoid thing was the problem, and I gotta agree. It's why Gardevoir is so goddamn creepy.

Well this is gonna get awkward in 174 more reviews.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 28, 2015, 02:56:51 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/17/109Koffing.png/250px-109Koffing.png) Koffing: He looks like a toxic sac of gas. The ports give the design some good texture and the skull and crossbones is pretty rad. That totally satisfied face makes the design work though. He's all "I know I'm foul, what're you gonna do about it?" I should tally how many goddamn purple pokemon there are. Still, he's good! 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/42/110Weezing.png/250px-110Weezing.png) Weezing: Eh. As far as a merged design goes, it looks pretty decent, but the more dour, thicker lips and eyebrows don't really do it for me. I feel like I should like this design more and credit it better, but biased Andrew is biased. Weezing is just too dour. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9b/111Rhyhorn.png/250px-111Rhyhorn.png) Rhyhorn: Rock rhino is pretty rad. Lotta detail that makes it look way cooler than it's RL counterpoint and to give it that inorganic feel. The triceratops frill too. This thing looks like it'll murder you if you run into it. I will say, the big open flat, undetailed space that is it's ass is hella weird looking though. Seriously, check out the Gen 5 sprite. I feel like the shell should come down over that instead of giving us an upskirt shot. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/47/112Rhydon.png/250px-112Rhydon.png) Rhydon: And they ruined it. We're gonna take your rocky design and... shed most of it to make you a bipedal whatever. Seriously, this design is a weird corss-section of pokemon things I hate. Random biped for a quadraped. Segmentation in dumb places. Stupid, off-color horn with unnecessary spiral. And I didn't notice this until I looked at it, but why does it have like three different face frills? It honestly doesn't even look like a rock type! 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cd/113Chansey.png/250px-113Chansey.png) Chansey: I... have honestly never known what to make of Chansey. Like, seriously, what is this thing? The design... is there, I guess? It's distinct from Jiggly and Clefairy, which is impressive, considering how little it has. The hair tentacles are there, and so's the tail, which are nice touches. The egg is weird and the stubby arms and feet are nothing. You got me. I feel I should hate this more, but maybe Gen 1 bias is in full effect? Because it doesn't really bother me. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3e/114Tangela.png/250px-114Tangela.png) Tangela: Why are you blue? Why do you have stupid red shoes? I feel this design would be improved if it were basically just natural, leafy vines with some eyes peering out. Possibly less derp looking eyes. As is, this is the 1/5 I forget exists all the time.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4e/115Kangaskhan.png/250px-115Kangaskhan.png) Kangaskhan: Rad, if a little weird when you actually look at it. No stupid segmentation on the different colored underbelly! Rad dinosaur build, with a few weird little... plate things that I don't really understand on it. The back spines give it more texture. Black headplate works, but those horn things are... odd. Three totally different colors all clumped together bug me. Oh, and having a rad, adorable baby version of it around in it's pouch is awesome. Good shape overall, but some really weird detail choices. Still, enough to earn 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/5a/116Horsea.png/250px-116Horsea.png) Horsea: You know, I thought I liked this design, but it turns out I don't. Dunno what it is. Underdesigned, maybe? Stupid goddamn belly segments? The face spikes are a nice touch, but yeah, Horsea just looks too much like a cartoon seahorse, I guess? The bug wing fins are kinda stupid too. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/26/117Seadra.png/250px-117Seadra.png) Seadra: Well, I like it more than Horsea? The tail curling to the side of the body like that looks weird. I think it would have been better if it were more S shaped, with an added curl at the bottom of the S. The "wings" are cool fins. Looking at it, I think something that bugs me about both this and it's preevo are that their heads are basically balls with tubes on them, while actual seahorses have more of snouts. (http://www.liveaquaria.com/images/categories/product/p-73187-dwarf-seahorse.jpg) I think that would have improved both designs a lot. Also, Seadra's art is angled weird. Whatever. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/7b/118Goldeen.png/250px-118Goldeen.png) Goldeen: Let's get the good out of the way. Goldeen's fins are rad, as is the coloration. And we're done. Horn looks glued on, lips are stupid, eyelids are stupid, and first you draw a bean then you're done drawing Goldeen's stupidly shaped body. Seriously though, that tail fin is AWESOME. Unfortunately, it is attached to an otherwise terrible design. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6a/119Seaking.png/250px-119Seaking.png) Seaking: Fuck yeah! Also rad fins, also rad colors, also stupid goddamn stupid lips and glued on horn. Look, I get nature glues bits on animals sometimes, but when you have such sick colors, you should take adcantage of them. Also maybe not always make every horn just a sharp cone. A firm improvement on Goldeen, though, and one I like a lot more than I expected. And yes, arbitrarily round is better fish shape than Goldeen. Those lips though. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4f/120Staryu.png/250px-120Staryu.png) Staryu: Did you know Staryu's gem thing is only attached via a single wraparound on one of it's lower left arm? I didn't. That's actually a really neat touch. Staryu is way cooler than it should be. The simple combination of starfish plus odd looking amulet is just nice looking. This is what simple designs should look like. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cd/121Starmie.png/250px-121Starmie.png) Starmie: Pretty awesome evo, too. The second starburst behind it and the improved gem are solid improvements. This is a displayed art thing, but I don't like the way it's "main" arms are drooping, but I think that's a non-neutral pose. Colorshift is good and, hey, it's more of a blue than a purple, so that's cool, right? 4/5.

Boy am I hype right now! I'll probably do some more after dinner! I hope they're all awesome looking!
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 28, 2015, 08:55:52 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/ec/122Mr._Mime.png/250px-122Mr._Mime.png) Mr. Mime: 1/5, only because I'm not using 0 on this scale. Nothing redeeming about this design at all. Why do you have suction cup fingers? Why the pink balls? Why the stupid hair and differently colored joints on your knees? What the fuck is your problem?

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/ba/123Scyther.png/250px-123Scyther.png) Scyther: I want to like Scyther more than I do, but the actual bug body kinda creeps me out. Like, non-existent waist into fat thorax thing that has segments. Everything else about the design is cool though. Scythe-arm dragon dinosaur. 13 year old me is still hype. Just make it black and red! Seriously though, 4/5 despite freaking me out whenever I actually pay attention to it.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/7c/124Jynx.png/250px-124Jynx.png) Jynx: No. 1/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/de/125Electabuzz.png/250px-125Electabuzz.png) Electabuzz: Why do they clump stupid designs next to each other? The coat is pretty awesome (it conveys electricity well) but that's sort of the end of it. Sorta dumb, shapeless body with chocobo frills and robot antennae. Why? I'd kinda think it's trying to be an electric ape, but then it has a goddamn cat tail and prominent canines so what the fuck do I know? Still, you aren't Jynx or Mr. Mime I guess. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8c/126Magmar.png/250px-126Magmar.png) Magmar: Dear sir, you have a butt for a head and a duckbill. Also, you're fat. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/71/127Pinsir.png/250px-127Pinsir.png) Pinsir: Oh thank Arceus, something not completely terrible. This design is really all about those horns, and they are awesome. That thing will pince you to DEATH. Everything else is kinda meh? Like, why do you only have a lump for a body and spindly arms? But honestly, those pincers are worth a lot. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b8/128Tauros.png/250px-128Tauros.png) Tauros: I kinda think the fact that I'm giving Tauros a decent score says a lot about my taste, for better or worst. Just a competent bull redesign. Triple tails, mane, and metallic horns and head thingies that I don't understand but like. It works well. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/02/129Magikarp.png/250px-129Magikarp.png) Magikarp: Why do all fish in Gen 1 have lips? But better design than Goldeen overall, though. Fish shape. Colors are nice. Whiskers are a neat touch. The eyes tell you everything you need to know about this fish. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/41/130Gyarados.png/250px-130Gyarados.png) Gyarados: Give this fucker a real carnivore snout and he'd be an easy 5. Lotta nice details all across this one. Like, that entire body is perfect sea serpent. Just stellar. Except for that stupid mouth that will never close. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/ab/131Lapras.png/250px-131Lapras.png) Lapras: See, your horn doesn't have to look stupid and glued on. Plesiosaurs already look pretty nice, and adding a spiny shell onto one is a really nifty idea for an alteration. The color is pleasant and the little mottled spots as well as different colored underbelly provide interest to the boring parts of the body. The curly ears are a bit weird though. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/36/132Ditto.png/250px-132Ditto.png) Ditto: I am not sure how to score Ditto since the point is an amorphous blob that becomes anything. Looks better than Grimer but worse than Muk? But it's also purple because purple. Seriously, someone tell me: how many fucking purple pokemon have I reviewed so far? Too many. Also his face is dumb. Whatever. 2/5 for wasting my time.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on December 28, 2015, 09:20:16 AM
Mr Mime doesn't have weird knee joints.  Those are knee pads for how much he fucking sucks.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Excal on December 28, 2015, 10:04:33 AM
Just gonna say.  They live, and they're trying to escape.

(http://media.tumblr.com/13964383a6b645b200e39108a45923ed/tumblr_inline_mv8x0ymll81qcy1wq.gif)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on December 28, 2015, 11:37:09 AM
1. Staryu's gem is also clearly attached through its legs and may be attacked above it's shoulders, hard to say from that angle.

2. Seriously, you spend the last 100 some pokemon bitching about unnecessary segmentation and then give Gary.DOS a 4/5 without commenting on the segmentation at all? #k

3. Lapras best Gen 1 Pokemon agree or be incorrect.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on December 28, 2015, 04:23:29 PM
3. Lapras best Gen 1 Pokemon agree or be incorrect.

Agree.


Fun fact:  Rhydon was the first pokemon designed.  So yeah it's gonna suck.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on December 28, 2015, 09:20:14 PM
Also can we review Kangaskhan and how fucking shitty it is actually?  Since we are going to call out every time stuff is segmented and you love it Andy.  That isn't how pouches work.  If you are going to reference Kangaroo's at least get the basic anatomy correct.

(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/109/590x/Kangaroo-top-ten-facts-441768.jpg)

The pouch is not an extra bit bolted on the front. 
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on December 29, 2015, 02:16:43 AM
Quote
How many purple?!

21 to 24, depending on if you're counting things like Jynx, Machamp, and Butterfree, which aren't technically classed as Purple.

Starmie is rad and I just wanted to point that out. Lapras is also quite possibly the best design in Gen 1. Arcanine is my favorite but Lapras is awesome without any bias for it.

I'm also really glad that Electabuzz and Magmar aren't rated highly here because I see a surprising number of fans for them and it just boggles my mind.

On Chansey, I think the general theme is Egg, considering the overall shape. It's a solid design and I think you gave it the right rating but part of it is that it does the whole Egg themed Pokemon thing better than Exeggcute. (Though not nearly as well as Togepi that thing is stupid cute.) Chansey's evolutions are also a lot less stupid looking than say Jigglypuff's.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on December 29, 2015, 05:20:12 AM
Magmar is great because he is a Butt Billed Playipus

Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on December 29, 2015, 08:28:26 AM
My favourite typing is Garbage Fire Pokemon.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on December 29, 2015, 04:44:23 PM
My favourite typing is butts and cocks going into butts
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on December 29, 2015, 10:12:10 PM
Well yeah.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 31, 2015, 09:33:31 PM
I have decided that Lapras gets the distinct honor of being the first pokemon to receive a score change after posting. Congrats!

Also, re: Staryu: (http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/8/80/Spr_b_5b_120.png)

That said, I said I'd finish Gen 1 before the new year, so here we go! I'll do some neat aggregrate stat stuff after I finish the Gen.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e2/133Eevee.png/250px-133Eevee.png) Eevee: Eevee's head is too boxy. Like, way too boxy. Which is a shame, because it's body is great. Floofy mane (that nicely contrasts the body), that adorable foxy tail (with the white tip), and a great toy canine body. Give it a bit more of a canine/vulpine/feline face and it'd be pretty close to a five, but as is... I'll go with a slightly generous 4/5 given the sprites address the head issue by making it smaller than the official art.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/fd/134Vaporeon.png/250px-134Vaporeon.png) Vaporeon: Second best eeveelution. Pretty much what you'd expect out of a water dog. Nice coloration (the two blues and accented yellow on the ears work really well). The "mane" is probably the oddest bit of the design, but it's a nice holdover from eevee (all of the first three evolutions have one!). The back ridge looks fantastic, as does the fish tail. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bb/135Jolteon.png/250px-135Jolteon.png) Jolteon: Worst eeveelution. Not that this is the worst crime or naything. Eevee line on the whole looks great. The spikey look just doesn't work for me. You'd lose an eye hugging jolts. Plus those weird lightning butt-wings are weird. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/dd/136Flareon.png/250px-136Flareon.png) Flareon: Best eeveelution. Adorable as fuck. 6/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6b/137Porygon.png/250px-137Porygon.png) Porygon: Neat concept, but I'm not overly fond of it in practice. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/79/138Omanyte.png/250px-138Omanyte.png) Omanyte: Unexpectedly adorable. Nautiluses are pretty adorable to begin with, but those massive googly eyes and tiny tentacles make this pokemon work. Sugmori needed a few more colored pencils in his box, though. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/43/139Omastar.png/250px-139Omastar.png) Omastar: From cute to kinda terrifying, and not in a particularly good way. Basically just too much effort into making him scarier. The slit eyes and beak think in particularly just don't work for me, but the transition to two giant tendrils and a bunch of noodly ones isn't too great either. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f9/140Kabuto.png/250px-140Kabuto.png) Kabuto: Less cute than I remember. The divots on top of his shell are weird, as is the concentration on his underbody. Black void is generally uninteresting for body, his eyes are focused directly on the ground, and I have no idea how those little claw feet work. The focus should have been on top of the shell. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/29/141Kabutops.png/250px-141Kabutops.png) Kabutops: Also worse than I remember. The idea is kind of neat, but it doesn't work in practice for me. Why a random bipedal horseshoe crab? I feel like the Omastar approach would have worked better here: expand Kabuto's design into something bigger and meaner. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e8/142Aerodactyl.png/250px-142Aerodactyl.png[/img ]Aerodactyl: Your proportions are fucked. Giant weird jaw, fat belly, and kinda tiny wings. Still, it's a decent approach to a prehistoric flying reptile. 3/5

[img]http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e8/142Aerodactyl.png/250px-142Aerodactyl.png) Aerodactyl: Didn't get copy pasted into the post somehow. I should like Aerodactyl less, what with his really odd proprotions and that goofy ass underbite, but the design generally works for me. This is what a ferocious dinosaur pokemon should look like! 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/f/fb/143Snorlax.png) Snorlax: Your mom. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4e/144Articuno.png/250px-144Articuno.png) Articuno: Best of the legendary birds. That tail and crest are amazing, as is the chest tuft. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e3/145Zapdos.png/250px-145Zapdos.png) Zapdos: Same problem as Jolteon, really: I don't like the spikey look. Jolteon wore it a little better though, since his head didn't look half as stupid. Also, why does he had brown leg tufts? 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/1b/146Moltres.png/250px-146Moltres.png) Moltres: Fairly standard phoenix design. Not the best, not the worst. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cc/147Dratini.png/250px-147Dratini.png) Dratini: Sorta cute sea serpent thing. The white snout makes for a dumb looking nose, though. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/93/148Dragonair.png/250px-148Dragonair.png) Dragonair: And it becomes something really beautiful. The blue and white remains nice, the little beads on the tail and neck are nice affectations, the snout is a great shape, and, surprisingly, I really like the ear wings. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8b/149Dragonite.png/250px-149Dragonite.png) Dragonite: And it becomes this. I'm pretty harsh on Dragonite for being a stupid looking puff the magic dragon thing, which is kinda unfair. I mean, it's an okay design overall (I wonder why he's yellow, though)! But after Dragonair, I was expecting something beautiful, not this chump. So, basically, fuck Dragonite even if his design is technically not terribleish. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/78/150Mewtwo.png/250px-150Mewtwo.png) Mewtwo: Well, he looks like a terrifying genetic abomination. So, props on succeeding, I suppose? Kinda blends alien, animal, and humanoid elements pretty well. Not sure what the neck tube is. The pecs are a bit weird but nicely give a little more design to the otherwise plain upper body. I thought I hated him, but you know, all told, it succeeds well at what it was trying to do. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b1/151Mew.png/250px-151Mew.png) Mew: Super adorable. 5/5

Happy New Year.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on December 31, 2015, 10:08:04 PM
Give it a bit more of a canine/vulpine/feline face and it'd be pretty close to a five

Then proceed to give the one with a proper muzzle 3/5.

Fucking biased agenda.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on January 01, 2016, 04:49:27 AM
This thread has earned my approval for hype of Starmie and Articuno.

Enough that I'm totally willing to ignore hype for Mew.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on January 02, 2016, 01:27:57 PM
Articuno needs 5/5.

Also Kabutops is pretty badass, and unlike the gen 5 robo redesign, his design really looks like a natural organic creature. Feels like something out of half life, which is a sweet direction to take a Pokemon design.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 04, 2016, 06:26:20 PM
Gen 2 starts this week.

Brace yourselves. Pokemon are coming.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on February 04, 2016, 11:59:10 PM
My body is ready. And my pokeballs.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on February 05, 2016, 12:03:43 AM
This one will be easy, you just do it in one post.

Gen 2 in its entirety - 0/10 fuck off forever

Then move on to Gen 3.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 05, 2016, 12:42:37 AM
Oh, and in case anyone was interested...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xZnLaow2wwWum9UwQDtOO19WFpYx_xcwmOKd8UExO_A/edit?usp=sharing

All the current stats organized into a nice little doc. Includes types for eventual sorting and averaging shenanigans.

If anyone was curious, I apparently understand how to rate, considering Gen 1 came out with an average score of 3.09.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on February 05, 2016, 01:01:30 AM
If anyone was curious, I apparently understand how to rate, considering Gen 1 came out with an average score of 3.09.

I think the data actually shows you know how to be average given how many times you are objectively wrong about pokemon design.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Excal on February 05, 2016, 08:44:05 AM
This one will be easy, you just do it in one post.

Gen 2 in its entirety - 0/10 fuck off forever

Then move on to Gen 3.

You just called Houndour 0/10.

I am sorry Grefter, but we must be enemies now.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on February 05, 2016, 10:48:08 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/20/206Dunsparce.png/250px-206Dunsparce.png)
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a1/247Pupitar.png/250px-247Pupitar.png)
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/92/235Smeargle.png/250px-235Smeargle.png)
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0e/238Smoochum.png/250px-238Smoochum.png)
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bb/165Ledyba.png/250px-165Ledyba.png)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on February 05, 2016, 11:10:15 AM
Yeah, I kinda agree. I don't think -any- generation of Pokemon is entirely worthless. Gen 2 has Houndour, Suicune, Lugia at the very minimum for objectively good designs.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on February 05, 2016, 11:45:17 AM
I would've thought you'd be a fan of Dunsparce's buttplug inspired design, Grefbro. Guess you can never really know people.

Also, no love for the 6 ANLFSTs of Ladyba?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Excal on February 05, 2016, 08:20:47 PM
Ladyba is adorable, Grefter.  Don't give me so much enmity it forges a new timeline.  That never ends well.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on February 06, 2016, 02:08:23 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/92/235Smeargle.png/250px-235Smeargle.png)

This is a doggy and you are a bad man. Plus it looks like his head fits perfectly in Magmar's.

Quote
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0e/238Smoochum.png/250px-238Smoochum.png)

She is way too sassy to be putting up with your shit, Grefter.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on February 06, 2016, 03:04:23 AM
Yeah, I kinda agree. I don't think -any- generation of Pokemon is entirely worthless. Gen 2 has Girafarig, Miltank, Slugma at the very minimum for objectively good designs. According to canon
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 08, 2016, 06:12:18 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bf/152Chikorita.png/250px-152Chikorita.png) Chikorita: I think, over time, my dislike of Chikorita has faded. Despite the stupid face (FFT wants its lack of noses back), the overall body is actually quite nice, along with the little ring of buds on its neck. That face is really fucking stupid though. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/ca/153Bayleef.png/250px-153Bayleef.png) Bayleef: Hey, look. You look better with a snout. Who'da thunk it? Head leaf is awkwardly positioned (it should be a bit further back, I think) and the shift to yellow is not a plus, but I still like it marginally more than Chikorita. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d1/154Meganium.png/250px-154Meganium.png) Meganium: What is with the middle color of starters being different? Anyhow, pretty good plant dinosaur. The petal frill is the highlight of things, with the antennae being kinda the big minus. I get what they were going for (pistil and stamen or whatever), but eh. Still! A decent design. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9b/155Cyndaquil.png/250px-155Cyndaquil.png) Cyndaquil: Cyndaquil's head is really stupid looking. Which is a shame, because I like the body, the coloration, and the flameback. It's a fire pokemon that isn't red! But yeah, dumb anteater face. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b6/156Quilava.png/250px-156Quilava.png) Quilava: You know, I liked it better before I looked at the alternate sprites to get a better idea of it's back. It's haunch is kinda dumb and fat. Why does it not have legs? I'd also like it way more if the fire wasn't just head and ass. So it goes. Some pokemon get unlucky and I want to learn more. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/47/157Typhlosion.png/250px-157Typhlosion.png) Typhlosion: This whole line has this problem where I'm not really sure about the evolution line. We go from tiny anteater to weasel to dinosaur? Dunno, would have liked a clearer evolutionary line. Also, once more, why really limit the fire just to the neck? 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/df/158Totodile.png/250px-158Totodile.png): Totodile: Ugh. Why are we a little bipedal crocodile that can't shut our fucking mouths? I really shouldn't hate the design as much as I do, but it is so blocky and stout and awkward and immobile. Just ugh. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a5/159Croconaw.png/250px-159Croconaw.png) Croconaw: Holy crap. First 1/5 of the new gen and we're there early.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d5/160Feraligatr.png/250px-160Feraligatr.png) Feraligatr: Wow, I forgot how bad this design was. Nice spine. Nice random rectangles on your body. Just... geeze. Fucking hideous. Nice t-pose arms. I just can't stand this one. 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on February 08, 2016, 06:21:07 AM
Gen 2 not the best, but Chikorita line is great. Meganium in particular is one of the few really good final evos for starters, which I'm generally not a big fan of.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on February 08, 2016, 08:07:44 AM
I think the Typhlosion is meant to be a Wolverine?

Also can we talk about how A) Feraligatr should be FRLGTR and B) looks straight up like some Five Nights at Freddie's stuff.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on February 08, 2016, 09:12:51 AM
I always thought Quilava looked pretty cute - kind of a fire rodent with a spiky mane that just so happened to be fire, kind of like Ponyta's mane. Not a pokemon I'd argue over, but I feel like he could rank a 4/5.

The Totodile line has always been my least favorite of all the starters.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on February 08, 2016, 10:13:51 AM
I thought you liked characters with arrows pointing down at their junk?

Quote
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d5/160Feraligatr.png/250px-160Feraligatr.png)
LADIES
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on February 08, 2016, 10:23:50 AM
There is clearly no junk, 0/10 do not want
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on February 08, 2016, 12:04:25 PM
He dissed Chikorita, this is already starting poorly.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on February 08, 2016, 12:57:18 PM
Why is Baileef using psychic powers to make green French sticks hover around its neck
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on February 08, 2016, 06:05:56 PM
Wouldn't you, if you could?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on February 08, 2016, 07:19:28 PM
Good point, but where are the floating rillettes and goat cheese?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on February 08, 2016, 07:56:33 PM
Wouldn't you, if you could?

I should have mentioned that I already can, quite obviously

(http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/06/1454961321-index.png)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on February 08, 2016, 08:01:06 PM
Touche.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 08, 2016, 11:18:32 PM
This is belated because, honestly, I really didn't want to waste precious minutes of my life staring at Croconaw, but what the fuck is with those two completely opposite facing teeth at the very back of its jaw? Seriously, what do those even fucking do?

Fuck me, I don't think I can do 142 more of these.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on February 08, 2016, 11:30:30 PM
Good news, GSC doesn't have that many pokemon! You only have 91 to go, actually. You can do this!
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on February 09, 2016, 05:55:06 AM
(http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/06/1454961321-index.png)
Okay now we can skip to gen 3 after 0/100 all of gen 2.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 09, 2016, 07:57:51 AM
Good news, GSC doesn't have that many pokemon! You only have 91 to go, actually. You can do this!

Did it? Thank God.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c5/161Sentret.png/250px-161Sentret.png) Sentret: First you draw an oval, then you FLEX, then you draw the rest of the Sentret. At some level, the design is kinda clever with the name and all. Then you remember it's stupid. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4b/162Furret.png/250px-162Furret.png) Furret: Why don't you have back legs? Why is your face pasted onto a tube? Give it a snout and some legs, and this thing is a solid 3/5. The color pattern and design is nice! As is, though? It's 2/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/53/163Hoothoot.png/250px-163Hoothoot.png) Hoothoot: Look at me, I'm a boring Pidgey color. I mean, I can sorta dig the one leg and the red eyes, but what's with the clock motif on the eyebrows and stuff? Also, the four talons kinds freak me out. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/fa/164Noctowl.png/250px-164Noctowl.png) Noctowl: Generic owl is one of the better designs the game has to offer so far. The crest and brows are kinda cool, though. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bb/165Ledyba.png/250px-165Ledyba.png) Ledyba: Stupid face, stupid fists. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/5b/166Ledian.png/250px-166Ledian.png) Ledian: You know what doesn't improve Ledyba's design? Giving it more humanoid characteristics. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/75/167Spinarak.png/250px-167Spinarak.png) Spinarak: The color scheme is kinda stupid and we have a nice return to form with the pointless, silly horn glued on, but otherwise, you know what? This is a decent spider pokemon (minus the missing legs). EDIT: Thanks for reminding me it had the sad face, Grefter. Frankly, that's worth some credit, I think. Spinarak knows what gen it's part of. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/76/168Ariados.png/250px-168Ariados.png) Ariados: Sigh. Color scheme is still stupid, we lose another set of legs to give it... back legs? And I'm kinda stick wondering how it's thorax doesn't drag on the ground at all times. EDIT: They don't even let you keep the thorax face. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on February 09, 2016, 08:02:23 AM
Ledian has blowjob face.

Spinarak has :[ face.

Furret has a blowjob face and is built to deepthroat.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on February 09, 2016, 09:04:22 PM
This is belated because, honestly, I really didn't want to waste precious minutes of my life staring at Croconaw, but what the fuck is with those two completely o

You also forgot to comment on Croconaw's Fred Flintstone caveman onesie.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on February 09, 2016, 09:24:17 PM
Or how he is a member of the Ministry of Silly Walks.

Most pokedudes can't actually walk with their proportions.  Crocoshit is brave for proving it though.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on February 09, 2016, 11:09:32 PM
Re: Furret
Have you ever actually seen a ferret in real life? They are practically legless. Honestly, the issue I'd have with Furret is that it is too much like its namesake to the point of not even being a new creature. ...and I think he's still the best design on this list. Jesus Christ, Gen 2. Hurry up and get to the legendaries.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on February 10, 2016, 12:47:19 AM
Jesus Christ, Gen 2. Hurry up and get to Sudowoodo.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 10, 2016, 01:25:32 AM
(http://www.biogroom.com/app/wp-content/themes/biogroom/images/animals/ferret_large.png)

Featured: 300% more goddamn legs than Furret
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on February 10, 2016, 02:02:14 AM
Featured: 300% longer goddamn legs than Furret

ftfy

I wasn't getting 12 legs no matter how many times I counted.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on February 10, 2016, 03:20:09 AM
The RPGDL: Where you can argue about LITERALLY anything, up to and including "Do ferrets have legs?"
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on February 11, 2016, 01:21:36 AM
We should make that our motto in all our advertising.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Excal on February 11, 2016, 10:44:15 AM
Oh come on, the use of literally here as a literal statement is a universal claim, and the only claim that is universally true is the paradoxical no universal claim is ever true.  The RPGDL is not a place where you can argue about literally anything.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on February 11, 2016, 12:04:43 PM
....*slow claps*
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on February 12, 2016, 04:00:47 AM
no u
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 12, 2016, 04:24:00 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/17/169Crobat.png/250px-169Crobat.png) Crobat: Hey, something that doesn't totally suck. In fact, Crobat is better than Golbat! By a lot. Nice evolution of Zubat with the extra wings and not having that stupid fuck-off mouth. He's a good bat! The shift to purple did him no favors, though. Still, maybe it's the rest of this garbage talking, but I'll give Cro a 4/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d9/170Chinchou.png/250px-170Chinchou.png) Chinchou: It's Oddish with fins, cross-eyes, and two dangly light bulbs. Why does it have feet? 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9b/171Lanturn.png/250px-171Lanturn.png) Lanturn: I wish the body was less boring. The angler bit is pretty rad looking, as is the fade into yellow on the tail. The mask works well too. Just the utter lack of anything on the body but the potbelly is kinda weird. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on February 12, 2016, 06:59:35 AM
Crobat is legit cool, it took an RBY pokemon I failed to give a shit about (referring to Golbat; Zubat is fine for what it is) and made it great.

Generally speaking I feel like gen 2, despite its woes, nailed most of its evolutions-of-previous-gen pokemon. Especially compared to gen 4's which are largely bad.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Ranmilia on February 12, 2016, 10:35:31 AM
Pokemon designs that are "real animal plus one minor 'cool' point": dozens!
Pokemon designs that are "real animal but somehow less cool than in real life": somehow, Lanturn manages to be one.  Ah, Gen 2.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on February 12, 2016, 11:14:37 AM
Crobat: Dat ass
the two other things i couldn't be fucked scrolling back up to check their names: Both blowjob face.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 12, 2016, 05:45:33 PM
Pokemon designs that are "real animal plus one minor 'cool' point": dozens!
Pokemon designs that are "real animal but somehow less cool than in real life": somehow, Lanturn manages to be one.  Ah, Gen 2.

Yeah, I really don't get why they didn't use an actual anglerfish style design.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on February 28, 2016, 01:00:09 PM
Why not do mega evos of gen 1 if you're bored of gen 2? I mean you will have to do them anyway.
And mega beedrill is pretty high up there on the list of pokemons that will murder you
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 02, 2016, 10:54:50 PM
Why not do mega evos of gen 1 if you're bored of gen 2? I mean you will have to do them anyway.
And mega beedrill is pretty high up there on the list of pokemons that will murder you

Not actually bored! Just been working on other projects. This has actually been on my mind lately, so no worries, I'll get some more shitty Gen 2 Pokemon rated soon.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on March 02, 2016, 11:43:13 PM
<RPGDL> It's great that you got married and everything, but you've been slacking on your pokemon reviews.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Laggy on March 02, 2016, 11:46:31 PM
i was gonna say something like this but then NEB totally beat me to it like a pro
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on March 03, 2016, 12:00:41 AM
fucking priorities andrew jeez. what came first, pokemon or your relationship?

I think this shows exactly where you stand and you have a lot of thinking to do young man.

that is to say you are still fucking wrong about pokemon and rate gen 2 consistently 3 points higher than it deserves
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on March 05, 2016, 03:58:37 AM
Andy, you're making me agree with NEB. Stop it and get to work.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on April 19, 2016, 02:19:00 AM
I need more of this in my life.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 19, 2016, 04:56:23 AM
Christ, has it really been a month and a half? Blargh. More Pokemon coming soon.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on May 10, 2016, 07:25:28 PM
Hey, Sun and Moon starters were revealed and GF continues the proud tradition of making shit tier water starters.

Let's celebrate with some Gen 2 Pokemon. Because they are also terrible. Where did I leave off? The baby Pokemon?

Fuck me.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b9/172Pichu.png/250px-172Pichu.png) Pichu: Hey look, it is a Pikachu with a body made out of weirdly geometric segments. Seriously, that round head and ears are terrible, and the black collar is pretty ugly too. 2/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e4/173Cleffa.png/250px-173Cleffa.png) Cleffa: Okay, this baby is actually pretty decent. It's what a young Clefairy should look like and, perhaps more importantly, it is actually cute. The proportions are all fantastic. The line of evolution is really smooth. This is probably hands down the best baby Pokemon. 4/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4d/174Igglybuff.png/250px-174Igglybuff.png) Igglybuff: Kill it with fire, please. This terrifying fetal abomination is just... bad. And the red eyes are immensely upsetting. Like, why? And why does a triple bun thing turn into Jigglypuff's little swirl? And why the swirl tattoo? Just... ugh. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6b/175Togepi.png/250px-175Togepi.png) Togepi: The design concept is kinda neat, but the overall execution is bland. It's basically a round body, flat face design. That said, the design on the egg is kind of a neat fantasy egg and Togepi's crown thing works well with the cracking of the egg. 3/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/11/176Togetic.png/250px-176Togetic.png) Togetic: I don't get what's happening here and I don't like it. Body shape is all sorts of terrible. Why does it suddenly have wings? Why is it white? I'm asking why a lot. Look, it sucks. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/5b/177Natu.png/250px-177Natu.png) Natu: Is fucking rad. The weird pokemon stylizing of animals works well here because Natu is modeled off stylized art. The absolute roundness of it's body is a bit off-putting, but I just think the whole concept gels super well. 4/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f4/178Xatu.png/250px-178Xatu.png) Xatu: And we lost it. I like the stylizing still, but they overdo it a bit here. I think it's the black collar that's a step too far, really, especially with the eyes already there on the chest. I'm also not really fond of the shift for a more humanoid form (though the wings as robes thing is cute) and I still find the perfectly round head off-putting. hook on the beak and evolution of the head feathers look good, though. 3/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6b/179Mareep.png/250px-179Mareep.png) Mareep: It's a super cute sheep design (and the blue goes well with the white), but I'm not at all sure what those ears or tail are really supposed to be. And the more I look at them, the more I think they just straight detract from the design. I think just the tail would have been good. The ears are really odd. Stil, it's adorable. 4/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6f/180Flaaffy.png/250px-180Flaaffy.png) Flaffy: I do not understand Flaffy. It works as an acceptable transition between Mareep and Ampharos body wise (going upright, losing fluff, etc) but... why is it pink? Why is the tail bulb blue? This thing does not -at all- look like an electric type. Though it does make me wonder if just making Mareep's ears and tail blue would have helped sell those pieces. I dunno, I'm expending a weird amount of words on what is basically a super forgettable middle evo. Colors are stupid, everything else does it's job. 2/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/47/181Ampharos.png/250px-181Ampharos.png) Ampharos: Well, I don't quite how we get from Mareep to here, really, but I count Ampharos among Gen 2's better pokemon. The flipper arms are weird, but eh. Something about the overall design speaks to me. It is one of those designs I consider very "Pokemon." Colors are solid, red bulb on the tail works for an electric type and the red gem on the head creates a bit of something that isn't symmetry, but is similar. Body is nicely broken up by various small design things - white belly, black stripes, etc. Shape is good, though mouth is in a weird place. But the more I look, the more those flipper arms are driving me nuts. 4/5.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on May 10, 2016, 08:11:41 PM
That explains Flipper Arms Gone Wild on your wall of shame.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on May 10, 2016, 08:38:33 PM
Xatu seems to be modeled after a Navajo/Hopi Kachina doll (or possibly the totems of the Northwest tribes).  I think it works pretty well in that respect.

Example: http://media-cdn.alltribes.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/8081d36d33c1b3b87f9db6e943dec4cd/0/0/0055-22047-kd-01_2.jpg
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on May 10, 2016, 11:09:05 PM
Xatu seems to be modeled after a Navajo/Hopi Kachina doll (or possibly the totems of the Northwest tribes).  I think it works pretty well in that respect.

Example: http://media-cdn.alltribes.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/8081d36d33c1b3b87f9db6e943dec4cd/0/0/0055-22047-kd-01_2.jpg

Completely random fact: My family actually had a ton of Kachina dolls.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on May 10, 2016, 11:44:13 PM
Had?  Did you disown them for owning a bunch of Gen 2 Pokemon memorabilia?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on May 10, 2016, 11:58:41 PM
Hey, Sun and Moon starters were revealed and GF continues the proud tradition of making shit tier water starters.

http://nintendoinquirer.com/blog/2016/05/10/rowlet-litten-popplio-revealed-pokemon-sun-moon-starters/

Oh god, that water starter really IS awful... Actually, I'm not too keen on any of them in their base form. I hope they at least evolve into something cool. At the -concept- of Grass/Flying for a starter is great - probably gonna be my favorite?

Fire Cat and Circus Sealion are also acceptable starting points but the execution on them isn't great. They look better in motion at least? This is generally how I feel about most pokemon designs.

They are kind of hard to parse as 'real' when they are static (and geometric) designs. But in motion, the animators had to actually think about how such an impossible creature would have to look in real life. Then the designs tend to start looking a little more organic and believable instead of the "Oh won't this look cute on a lunchbox or phone strap!" tangrams that we see on things like Pichu or Oshawott (both of whom I find adorable but only when I first saw them animated, before that I was pretty much in the Andy camp on them).
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on May 11, 2016, 12:03:14 AM
Had?  Did you disown them for owning a bunch of Gen 2 Pokemon memorabilia?

I don't actually know what happened to a bunch of the older ones. Dad still has a few on his shelf at home, but a lot of them are newer. </serious>
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on May 11, 2016, 02:55:18 AM
Regarding Sun and Moon starters, I actually like the owl.  Cat is meh, dog seal is horribad.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on May 11, 2016, 02:11:58 PM
Dogseal looks like a 1930s Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer cartoon reject and yet I can't help but love it just because it's so jarring in execution. I'm already instantly in love with the owl. Firecat... yeah, execution is worse than the concept. The only one that truly captures the "OHMYGAWD SO CUUUUUUUUUUUTE" requirement for most starters is Rowlett, though. I just can't get over its 90º head-bobbing.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on May 19, 2016, 03:40:18 AM
http://deathbulge.com/comics/343

Literally all better than Gen 2
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on May 19, 2016, 09:19:32 AM
Is this becoming the thread where we only post the objective truth?  Because that looks like what Zenny is doing.

If that's the case


Fuk ur dik Zenny
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on May 20, 2016, 06:49:58 PM
Fuck my life. I'm only on GSC #55? Seriously?

Blargh.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cd/182Bellossom.png/250px-182Bellossom.png) Bellossom: So we're gonna hear me bitch about this a few times, but the additional evolutions in GSC are weird. For the most part(?) the overall designs are okay, but they take weird departures from their preceding forms. For example, Bellossom largely abandons the color scheme and overall shape of the Oddish line. The design, on the whole, is good though (the whole hula thing is good for a plant type) and the colors are nice, but I just wish it had more to do with it's previous evolutions. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/42/183Marill.png/250px-183Marill.png) Marill: Hey look. It's a horrible amalgamation of Pikachu and Jigglypuff. I'm just gonna say I hate this one more than it probably, technically deserves and move on. 2/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a5/184Azumarill.png/250px-184Azumarill.png) Azumarill: Seriously, just look at any part of its design. Why? 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/1e/185Sudowoodo.png/250px-185Sudowoodo.png) Sudowoodo: Okay, so I really like the concept of Sudowoodo, but the actual execution kinda sucks. It looks weirdly humanoid for being a tree mimic, and the idea of it being rock isn't really communicated at all. I'm not sure how I would have suggested designing this idea, but this is not it. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a4/186Politoed.png/250px-186Politoed.png) Politoed: Go read the Bellossom section again, because it's basically the same deal. The thing that really bugs me is the color. Why is it green instead of blue? And the pink cheek spots look dumb. I know some frogs have those, but these just look like unnecessary additions, alongside the antenna. 3/5.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on May 20, 2016, 09:52:31 PM
This one will be easy, you just do it in one post.

Gen 2 in its entirety - 0/10 fuck off forever

Then move on to Gen 3.


I like how Andy posts a pic of some frog thing without the name.  I can't remember what the fuck it is and it could even be about proving a point about Gen 2.


Also ur rong about Sudowoodo.  Well you are right about the Rock typing, but wrong about the design.  Sudowoodo is the greatest derpiest design.  Feet spread wide, now is its time to shine alrighty Sudowoodo you've got this. Brace yourself.  Strike a pose.   Now VOGUE!

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/1e/185Sudowoodo.png/250px-185Sudowoodo.png)

Note how another mimic Pokemon copies Ditto's dumb vacant smile?  Motifs yo.

Also someone doing translation knew to call it Sudowoodo rather than Sudowood and that's money in the bank.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 08, 2016, 07:14:52 AM
This still exists. Fuck me. I'm gonna do a bunch of these. Rapid fire reviews, go.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f8/187Hoppip.png/250px-187Hoppip.png) Hoppip: Honestly less dumb than I want it to be. It's different enough from Clefairy I can't criticize it for that. Like, sort of an interesting variant on that basic type by almost looking like a quadraped with a more elliptical body. Nice touch with the tail and ears being some extra detail. Great normal type thing. Then you get the leaves on the head. And, you know, it being Flying in addition to grass. Whatever. Would've been better as normal grass or something. 2/5.

Jesus I just wrote that much on Hoppip. Fuck my life.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4f/188Skiploom.png/250px-188Skiploom.png) Skiploom: Closer to what I would expect out of this typing. Better sells me on the plant, at least. I mean, it's a little thing, but it being green is kind of a plus. The flower looks a bit less goofy than the two leaves. Like Hoppip, I honestly like the bodyshape more than I should. 3/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/5e/189Jumpluff.png/250px-189Jumpluff.png) Jumpluff: It is a fat Oddish with tiny leaves and cottonweeds. Jesus, this thing is ugly. Why did we need three evos to get to this? 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/42/190Aipom.png/250px-190Aipom.png) Aipom: I mean, I guess this is fine? It splits its two colors pretty nicely, though the feet look a bit glued on. No actual hands aside from the tail hand is kinda clever. Little hair poof is important and ears have a bit of a unique shape that differentiates it from a lot of normal pokes. Face is simple, but more detailed than a lot of similar ideas. Is that sufficient for due diligence in actually discussing? Because I don't care about it. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/95/191Sunkern.png/250px-191Sunkern.png) Sunkern: This thing is among pokemon I'm least likely to forget. The tiger stripes are stupid. Really stupid, honestly. Fuck this thing 1/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/98/192Sunflora.png/250px-192Sunflora.png): Sunflora: Does anyone care about this thing? 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/dd/193Yanma.png/250px-193Yanma.png) Yanma: Dragonflies look kinda weird to begin with. This thing... works, I guess? I dunno. I have no issues with it and should probably feel better about it, but eh? Goggle eyes are kinda neat and go with the speedster thing. Why does it have tail spikes? The propeller makes sense. I don't get the spikes. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/78/194Wooper.png/250px-194Wooper.png) Wooper: You know, this thing actually looks a lot better than I thought. It's disappointing as an axolotl, but as its own thing, I dunno. Unique body shape, the little spines work, the belly stripes, etc. I'll give it a mercy 4/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a4/195Quagsire.png/250px-195Quagsire.png) Quagsire: See above, really. Surprisingly better than expected. Moving away from the Satoshi art hurts it a bit, though. That back spines look a little stupid (for all that probably needed something to break its body up a bit). It being an actual biped sucks a bit too. Satoshi art makes it look more like it is just sitting back on its haunches. It does look like a newt of sorts, though. Honestly, the in-game art damage this one a lot, making it look more... blobby and less animal. Uuuusually I go mostly based on the Satoshi art, but when I need extra details and have to look at game art, I'm gonna use it too. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a7/196Espeon.png/250px-196Espeon.png) Espeon: Oh thank God, an eeveelution. Espy looks great. Nice, elegant shape. The split tail is a cool touch. Carbuncle gem is always neat and does imply the magic powers nicely. The ear tufts are good detail. I'll minor nitpick it being the "Sun" pokemon isn't conveyed well, but eh. Fuck it. This is Gen 2. I'm grading on a curve. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3d/197Umbreon.png/250px-197Umbreon.png) Umbreon: Also a rad design. I feel the eevees deserve some real credit for, despite having a reasonable amount of distinction between individual bodies, being pretty identifiable as part of the same line. I wish I could figure out the difference between why I think some geometric ornamentation looks good (Umbreon) and others look like shit (Serviper). Probably just amount of variation and how much its piled on? The rings are just wonderful little extras on Umby that basically define it. The fact that it uses both circles and bands is important (Umby would look worse with just one or the other). Also, it is a nice shade of yellow on black. Red eyes add just a bit more color without look out of place. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/33/198Murkrow.png/250px-198Murkrow.png) Murkrow: The witch motif is weird. I mean, it's well realized, I guess (though the crown is a bit odd). The tail feathers are particularly nice with the broom thing. 4/5, I guess?

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e1/199Slowking.png/250px-199Slowking.png) Slowking: I... uh? It is too late to deal with this. The fact that it still has the angry eyes on the back of the shell is nice touch. The frill is stupid. 3/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/be/200Misdreavus.png/250px-200Misdreavus.png) Misfreavus: Hey, a ghost that looks like a ghost. Missy D is rad as shit and another of Gen 2's high points. Great, great colors, excellent design without being too complex. I guess my only complaint is she looks a little too short, being mostly head and all. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/77/201Unown.png/250px-201Unown.png) Unown: Honestly, I like Unown. They look sufficiently alien and creature while still managing to do the letter thing effectively. I mean, they aren't the best thing ever, but honestly, I think they are kinda cool. Also, Gen 2, grading on a curve, etc. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/17/202Wobbuffet.png/250px-202Wobbuffet.png) Wobbuffet: I don't even understand. (Edit: Before anyone says it, yes, sex toy is nowhere near pokemon's worst design). 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 08, 2016, 08:44:05 AM
I don't understand why this post wasn't "Fuck all this garbage" with a pile of pictures until Wooper. Holy shit.  This isn't even my usual Gen 2 is garbage and you should skip it post, buuuut that garbage fire of a run is literally the reason for it.  Holy shit there isn't a good thing among them.

Wooper :Before anyone says it, yes, sex toy is nowhere near Pokemon's worst deaogn.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on July 08, 2016, 11:46:09 AM
Yay! Eeveelutions! Yay Wooper!

...wow everything else is really awful. Well, Misdreavus is acceptable at least.

I forgot Wobuffet was a Gen 2 mon. Was he just as brokenly good in Gen 2 as he was in Gen 4? I don't remember hearing about him much until Gen 4 competitive started being a thing.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on July 08, 2016, 12:11:58 PM
Wobb became broken when abilities were introduced in Gen 3.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on July 08, 2016, 01:50:24 PM
Wobb is broken because of Shadow Tag, which prevents opponents from switching away. It was actually totally useless before then (competitive-wise). His whole counter game was useless, as the opponent had unlimited time to switch to the pokemon most suited to buff up and sweep (or at worst, could switch until Wobb ran out of PP).

Largely agree with the comments this week, aside from not seeing the appeal of Wooper. I even like Jumpluff as a pokemon, but it's certainly not for design reasons (and yeah its final evo is a definite downgrade).
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on July 08, 2016, 02:12:49 PM
I like Sunkern. It looks like a disembodied head crying with mascara running down all over its face, smiling like a crazy person
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on July 09, 2016, 12:03:43 AM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Ard6dO5zpWiJO/giphy-facebook_s.jpg)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on July 09, 2016, 12:45:12 AM
Perfect
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 09, 2016, 05:02:57 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/11/203Girafarig.png/250px-203Girafarig.png) Girafarig: This... is honestly a design I should consider worse than I do. I guess the core idea is kinda neat (body split and color shift). The back spines are stupid, though, as are that really weird nose. Can give or take the antennae. I think it'd be better if the tail wasn't quite as derp looking. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0b/204Pineco.png/250px-204Pineco.png) Pineco: Yeah, I like him. It is simple, but it works in kinda that same way Kakuna does. Where it gets weird is him being a bagworm instead of a, you know, pinecone. Gen 2, curve, etc 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/68/205Forretress.png/250px-205Forretress.png) Forretress: And he turns into a rock. Yeah, I dunno. Going from something quite so naturey to something that's rocky and has cannons is weird to me. I just feel it loses the character Pineco had. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/20/206Dunsparce.png/250px-206Dunsparce.png) Dunsparce: Yeah, fuck this thing. It's pretty stupid looking. I mean, it isn't the worst looking Pokemon in the game or anything. The face is pretty neat and the coloration is pleasant, but... like, what's with the wings? And the drill tail? This had potential to be a workable pokemon but eh. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/04/207Gligar.png/250px-207Gligar.png) Gligar: Ah, good ol' purple. It's a scorpion bat. I dunno. He looks fine. Doesn't inspire me. Why is his tongue sticking out? 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/ba/208Steelix.png/250px-208Steelix.png) Steelix: Decently rad. I don't like the headshape or the serious underbite, though. Onix did a better job of representing the rock snake in the head. Also, no clue what's up with the iron bars. Not bad or anything, just unsure of what they are. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/7f/209Snubbull.png/250px-209Snubbull.png) Snubbull: I don't like bulldogs in real life. Why would I like a pink biped one with stupid gemoetric shapes on it, glued on feet, or a dress? 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b1/210Granbull.png/250px-210Granbull.png) Granbull: Wow. I totally forgot what this thing looked like. It is... uh... better than Snubbull? The -way- overexaggerated jaw does look a bit better. Ironically, though, the body is too boring. Like some fur tufts or texturing would help. Also, why is thing a biped? 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/21/211Qwilfish.png/250px-211Qwilfish.png) Qwilfish: I love Qwilfish, but can't possibly justify it. The lips are stupid looking and the little paddle tail glued onto a ball is doofy. He's a 2/5, but has a special place in my heart.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/55/212Scizor.png/250px-212Scizor.png) Scizor: I would not guess he evolved from Scyther, honestly. I mean, the body similarities are technically there, but everything else is so different. That said... he's honestly pretty decently and probably better composed overall than Scyther. I dunno, I want to find something to complain about, but I really can't. The little heels and his dumb bug thorax, I guess? 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c7/213Shuckle.png/250px-213Shuckle.png) Shuckle: Lookit this adorable fucker. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/47/214Heracross.png/250px-214Heracross.png) Heracross: I just realized he has no mouth. That's just the base of his horn. Bleh. Decent design, but I wish he weren't a biped. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/71/215Sneasel.png/250px-215Sneasel.png) Sneasel: Edgelord as fuck. Yeah. He's pretty good. Monkey weasel thing. The claws come out of the limbs pretty well. The one ear feather thing is a bit odd, but, like the tail feathers, breaks up the body nicely. The gems are weird, though. Necessary to break up the color, but weird. I think the GSC sprite is the best representation of Sneasel, though. Still, file this one under pokemon that really look like pokemon. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e9/216Teddiursa.png/250px-216Teddiursa.png) Teddiursa: Meh. It's a teddibear with a moon on its head. Like, uninspiring and uninteresting, but not bad. Just boring. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e9/217Ursaring.png/250px-217Ursaring.png) Urasing: See above, basically. The biker jacket shoulder flare is a nice touch, I guess? The body ring is... a thing. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/68/218Slugma.png/250px-218Slugma.png) Slugma: Yep. Slug made of lava.The fire eyebrows and... face things are okay, as are the freaky eyes, but all in all I am left feeling cool. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/65/219Magcargo.png/250px-219Magcargo.png) Magcargo: Same thing with a slight stupider face and a rocky shell that's on fire. It works. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b5/220Swinub.png/250px-220Swinub.png) Swinub: Lookit this adorable fucker. 5/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/49/221Piloswine.png/250px-221Piloswine.png) Piloswine: Eh. He works. His height is a bit goofy. I've probably like him more if he was a bit shorter. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/fc/222Corsola.png/250px-222Corsola.png) Corsola: I mean, the color is good for a coral pokemon and I like the way it transitions from white to pink. The branches look good but... eh. They are glued onto an oval with a two dot and line face. Whatevs. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/95/223Remoraid.png/250px-223Remoraid.png) Remoraid: You know, I'd honestly like Remoraid if it's body shape weren't so stupid. Like, why is it basically two balls? Still, the fins are cool, the little lines are cool. Color is really bland for a pokemon, though. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cb/224Octillery.png/250px-224Octillery.png) Octillery: I don't want to talk about Octillery. 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 11, 2016, 01:10:48 AM
Made some small rating changes as I take one more look at certain pokes. Forretress, Teddiursa, and Octillery can all go one point down. I'm being too merciful.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 11, 2016, 04:08:55 AM
Okay, let's finish this. Gen 2 makes me unhappy.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3f/225Delibird.png/250px-225Delibird.png) Delibird: Random Santa pokemon is stupid. Unfortunately, the face and chest are kinda neat bird designs. Nice, fluffy, feathery. The rest of it is stupid, though. I'm torn. 2/5

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Yo20b7WI-mw/hqdefault.jpg) Mantine: Body is fine, if generic as hell. Underside coloring works, back sports are dumb, loose flowing tail fits oddly well. That face, though. The attached Remoraid in early sprites would be cute if Remoraid was not totally improperly built to be a Remora. And it's own pokemon. EDIT: Also I should hold the flying type against it more, but I really can't describe how badly Lugia is distorting my view of everything right now. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/35/227Skarmory.png/250px-227Skarmory.png) Skarmory: You know, I never realized how stupid Skarmory looks. Like, Steel bird is a cool concept, but they really kinda... went too metal. What is that stupid tail? What is with the ridiculous bowling pin body and tiny legs? Why a shark fin hat? Why TEETH? The wings are kinda neat, though. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/53/228Houndour.png/250px-228Houndour.png) Houndour: Pretty cool concept actually. Hellhound! The skeletal motif is pretty rad too. The ankle bands aren't too great, though. But hey, props for not being full edgelord red and black. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/51/229Houndoom.png/250px-229Houndoom.png) Houndoom: Blah. I mean, I realize we did the skill with Cubone, but seriously, if they'd just amped up the skeleton over a dog thing, it would've been super sick. As is... eh. None of the additions, beyond the horns, really do it for me. And the Satan tail is too much. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3c/230Kingdra.png/250px-230Kingdra.png) Kingdra: I like the concept, but the actual application is just... underwhelming. Needed more leafy seadragon weirdness. Needed less random brick patterning. And I think I complained about this for Seadra (am too lazy to confirm), but having a... mouth? really messes with the facial design. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d3/231Phanpy.png/250px-231Phanpy.png) Phanphy: Dumb colors. The body shape isn't bad for being a tiny, alien elephant. The little orange pads don't work well, though. The lead-in to Donphan could be better presented. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/53/232Donphan.png/250px-232Donphan.png) Donphan: You know, I like this thing better than expected. The tread design could be a bit less overtly tire and the ears being airplane horizontal is weird. The tusks being separate from the mouth and angled like that bothers me, too. Still. It works. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/99/233Porygon2.png/250px-233Porygon2.png) Porygon2: What did I say about Porygon? I assume it applies here. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/50/234Stantler.png/250px-234Stantler.png) Stantler: What. The. Fuck. What is the jowl face? What is the ball tail? What are those stupid as shit horns? Should've just taken the Urasing route with this. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/92/235Smeargle.png/250px-235Smeargle.png) Smeargle: I... really don't want to finish Gen 2 anymore. Colors are okay, I guess? I don't actually hate Smeargle, oddly, but I just don't know what to do with it. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c7/236Tyrogue.png/250px-236Tyrogue.png) Tyrogue: This is terrible. What is even going on here? Why can't its colors at least match its evos? 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/94/237Hitmontop.png/250px-237Hitmontop.png) Hitmontop: So stupid it literally killed my internet connection. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0e/238Smoochum.png/250px-238Smoochum.png) Smoochum: It's better than Jinx? For values of better. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/5d/239Elekid.png/250px-239Elekid.png) Elekid: Almost everything here is stupid. Chest lightning bolt, round body, stubby dumb legs, LITERAL PLUG ON HEAD. Fuck this entire generation because of Elekid. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cb/240Magby.png/250px-240Magby.png) Magby: It's better than Magmar? For values of better. 1/5

I... am going to go pick up Ashley, rethink my life, and then finish this fucking generation.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on July 11, 2016, 04:15:48 AM
Delibird: Random Santa pokemon is stupid. Unfortunately, the face and chest are kinda neat bird designs. Nice, fluffy, feathery. The rest of it is stupid, though. I'm torn. 2/5

You suck. Fuck you.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 11, 2016, 07:04:28 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/13/241Miltank.png/250px-241Miltank.png) Miltank: It's a cartoony cow. I mean, it works. The ol' overused pink is back. I dunno. Like, I kinda find the overall build... cute? Gota pretty good face. Though that tail is stupid as shit. Why is it an off-color rat tail with a ball? Falls into that dumb "Why are you a biped?" thing, though. And I'm really tired of that. Also the teats are weirding me out after staring at them too long. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/56/242Blissey.png/250px-242Blissey.png) Blissey: I... guess it's better than Chansey? Maybe? The flares are nice, though the hair things are kinda stupid? Eh. I gave Chasey a 3? I guess I can give this thing that. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c1/243Raikou.png/250px-243Raikou.png) Raikou: *sigh* So, body looks great. Then everything goes terribly wrong. I mean, I could probably deal with one or two of the other accessories, but all of them? Seriously, the whole face thing there is... just a mess. I get the cloud mustache thing, but what's the ice blue nose plate? Or the steel helmet? The wind/cloud mane could work, I guess, but it constrasts so heavily with everything else. And seriously, the fuck is that tail? Oh, and of course, moving to the sprite reveals the most ridiculous butt fur outside a pomeranian. Fuck this thing. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f9/244Entei.png/250px-244Entei.png) Entei: God I hate this set of legendaries. Take the Raikou review and repeat it here again. There are some good ideas. The smoke mane is rad. But what the fuck are those wings? An explosion? Why are they grey? And why'd you steal the Hound- line's ankle rings. And what the FUCK is happening on your face? Like, I think the red/yellow is supposed to be fire, but I really don't understand the position, or the faceplate. Like, is that a volcano and the yellow is an eruption? Also the fact that the smoke mane is above the body and not also a tail kinda upsets me. Ugh. I -think- I hate it less than Raikou, but whatever. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/da/245Suicune.png/250px-245Suicune.png) Suicune: The non-stupid member of this trio. Setting aside that it really shouldn't be water. Those ribbons being its... tail are kinda weird, but whatever. The diamond patterning could be better recognized, but the coloration is pleasant, with the crest and mane standing out but not conflicting. The crest is a bit weirdly shaped (Pokken does a better job with it by making it look crystalized) but the shape fits that thematic thing of being icy. Like I said, these designs work fine when you don't pile on ALL the stuff, and Suicune avoids that. Also a proper snout. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/70/246Larvitar.png/250px-246Larvitar.png) Larvitar: He's fine, I guess. His tail is a bit stupid and I think the ab diamond and black diamonds are a bit excessive together? This guy is also in that category of "Wait, what is your type?" Meh. I'm not feeling generous. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a1/247Pupitar.png/250px-247Pupitar.png) Pupitar: Not an exciting cocoon. Also totally different color from anything involved, no carried over features/designs, no clear typing. Pity 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/82/248Tyranitar.png/250px-248Tyranitar.png) Tyranitar: He's fine. I've never really cared about him. The general body is okay, though the probably could have fone for more spikes/layering over the dumb black triangles. Exposed belly is also kinda weird (segmentation sucks too) and it is arbirtarily a different color. The tail tip is stupid too. Why is it blooming into a segmented bit? Rock I can kinda see. Dark not so much. Head is pretty cool though. I like the flow of the spikes. Meh. On the whole I like the top half of Tyranitar a lot better than the bottom half. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/44/249Lugia.png/250px-249Lugia.png) Lugia: Am I almost done? Look, I don't even get what's going on here. Why does it have hand wings? And I know I'm getting hung up on this, but for some reason this typing stupidity is jumping out at me. Why is Lugia Flying/Psychic? What does any of this have to do with being the Guardian of the Seas? Or a Diving Pokemon? I'm done. I quit. Fuck Gen 2. Fuck Lugia's back quills. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/67/250Ho-Oh.png/250px-250Ho-Oh.png) Ho-oh: Nice colors. Not a big fan of the head crest, but phoenix motif, sure. 4/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e7/251Celebi.png/250px-251Celebi.png) Celebi: Grass fairy thing. It works. The little bits of blue are a nice accent. The pants are kinda stupid but I'm too annoyed about Lugia to care. 3/5

Gen 2 average rating is 2.58, compared to 3.09 for Gen 1
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on July 11, 2016, 10:45:06 AM
Your assessment of Lugia and Suicune are just wrong, but otherwise, I agree with your ratings and your overall hatred of 90% of Gen 2.

But seriously, if you're going to give Lugia a 1/5, I want more than just two lines complaining about his wings.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 11, 2016, 01:43:19 PM
What the fuck is going on with Lugia's face?  Why does it have coloration and spikes growths coming out of it?  Why does it have another one on the back of its head?  Why does it have teeth and not a beak?

It has stegosaurus plates and spike on its tail.  It has bipedal legs.  I could give you more than 2 lines about those wings holy fuck that suit is the pits/

What the fuck does any of that have to do with Sea, flying or Psychic?  100% with Andy on this, fuck Lugia's design.
Also goddammit Andrew you gave some of this trash 4s and just now you start giving out the right scores.

I would eve dock points from Ho-Oh just for being a shit Moltres.

Gen 2 is the Gobots of Pokemon.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on July 11, 2016, 02:31:49 PM
Lugia is awesome. It has that simple design aesthetic you keep harping on, too. Literally only 3 colors, all of which evoke both a cloudy sky and foamy sea color scheme. It has a pretty sleek design because it's a dinosaur-thing that dwells in the sea, but it flies, so it has wings too. The combination of which kinda of feels like what we got with Lugia's design. The fact that it's a unique design that doesn't look exactly like a real-world animal, but still borrows mostly from natural organic designs really feels Lugia is exactly what you've been asking for in all of the other reviews. I'm not getting the Lugia hate at all. I mean, I guess I can kinda see being offput by the uncanny-valley hands on the ends of the wings, but honestly I think that kind of helps Lugia to stand out from the more bog-standard monster designs you see in a lot of these monster-collection games/series.

The Psychic typing thing is a fair point, but I think in Gen 2 they were just like "Cool legendaries are psychic types because they are".
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on July 11, 2016, 02:58:24 PM
I'm pretty much down with hate for Lugia's design, sorry. Like Jumpluff I think it's another pokemon whom I first encountered as a gameplay entity so I have some fondness for because it's cool gameplaywise, but has a pretty lame design. tbh most ubers have weak designs and it'll get worse from gen 4 on. They try to be too otherworldly in order to convey power and it totally doesn't work for me.

On the other hand literally scoring the Swinub line above Suicune is pretty crazy. Suicune is pretty much what I want a legendary to look like. (Houndoor line also really underrated, but I can at least understand some of the criticisms there more, there are some goofy elements to it which I hadn't really noticed until Andy pointed them out.)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 11, 2016, 05:59:48 PM
The problem is that Lugia's design just feels incoherent, especially when one considers the mythos behind it. The colors really don't evoke the sea and storms for me (and that third purple does not help with that - further made weird by the fact that it is mostly found on glue-on spines). The hand things -technically- don't cause me that much trouble, until I remember they're supposed to be wings, at which point I really have trouble reconciling them. The head is fine, though the eye flares are unusual.

"Sleek" is an interesting descriptor for you to use, because, used another way... well. Lugia is kind of the opposite of sleek. This looks like some weird, lumbering amphibian or land animal that'd suck at both swimming -and- flying.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on July 11, 2016, 06:17:29 PM
*inserts Djinn-like rant about how Miltank is better than every eevolution*
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on July 11, 2016, 10:27:15 PM
*inserts Djinn-like rant about how Miltank is better than every eevolution*

Fuck off. Have an actual criticism or opinion. Coming in to mock me for discussing aesthetics in a topic that's literally about discussing aesthetics especially when there's already three other (at least somewhat-fleshed-out) negative responses is just piling on me for no reason other than to be pithy and demeaning. That's just dickish, not to mention it's not very conducive to continued discussion.

...Unless of course you're serious about liking Miltank that much? In which case I apologize for reading the dripping sarcasm in it wrong.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on July 11, 2016, 10:37:38 PM
Yeah I like Miltank?

Part of the appeal is Miktank being the hardest single fight in all of Pokemon despite its goofy as fuck aesthetic, I'll admit
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on July 11, 2016, 10:43:24 PM
I am also generally on board with Miltank hype.

EDIT: For all that I'm generally on team "gen 2 was lame for design" I find myself defending them a fair bit in this thread, go figure.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 11, 2016, 11:27:40 PM
NEB: That's because I'm harsh, tactless, and brutally dismiss Pokemon I don't care about with little regard for decency.

Someone's gotta stand up for them.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on July 11, 2016, 11:30:11 PM
*inserts Djinn-like rant about how Miltank is better than every eevolution*

Fuck off. Have an actual criticism or opinion. Coming in to mock me for discussing aesthetics in a topic that's literally about discussing aesthetics especially when there's already three other (at least somewhat-fleshed-out) negative responses is just piling on me for no reason other than to be pithy and demeaning. That's just dickish, not to mention it's not very conducive to continued discussion.

...Unless of course you're serious about liking Miltank that much? In which case I apologize for reading the dripping sarcasm in it wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qkrKTAOv2M
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Magetastica on July 11, 2016, 11:36:36 PM
Y'know, that is literally the first time I've ever seen Lugia's wings so distinctly hand-like. I've seen the curl before, but the 'fingers' were closed, so they looked like actual wings. I honestly think the biggest thing holding Lugia back (IMHO) is the finger-wings, since they've already shown they can do fairly competent renditions of wings+hands together.

Also, Andy, I'm fairly certain that the big bipedal craze is because Gen 2 is the one where everything was supposed to be more of a "human-ish" type of whatever. Like, say, Granbull. Or Elekid. I'm not saying they -work- but that was for sure the feel I got from Gen 2.

Oh, and Dark-Type being signified by being "edgy" and having black somewhere in the colour pallet.

Seriously, I love quite a few of the pokemon in Gen 2, but I do have to wonder what they were actually hoping to aesthetically accomplish with most of it. *coughELEKIDcough*
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on July 12, 2016, 12:03:46 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qkrKTAOv2M

Like you have any room to talk considering how you get your panties in a twist if someone so much talks about something you're not interested in. Seriously, quit being an asshole. I know it's your "thing" or whatever, but it gets old. You are almost thirty, it ain't cute anymore.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 12, 2016, 12:20:29 AM
Serious request to everyone.

Keep all personal attacks leveled at my taste in Pokemon, please.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on July 12, 2016, 12:33:10 AM
No. The only thing that can stop this is more design reviews! Gen 3 when?!
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: SnowFire on July 12, 2016, 02:34:27 AM
[02:53] <%SnowFire> http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=6812.0  --> For the Pokefans (aka not me).
[02:55] * +DarkestRogue chuckles
[02:55] <+DarkestRogue> You should make sure to link it in the beauty topic too



Also:
A) Miltank is indeed pretty rad, better than Andy gives it credit for.
B) I dunno, I'd say Chansey > Blissey myself.
C) Celebi strikes me as at least a 4/5.  This is a Pokemon I can trust to go open a branch office for my firm.  Real get-up-and-go, can-do attitude.
D) Hey, ALL the later legendaries aren't terrible.  Look at this cute jellyfish thing:
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d0/482Azelf.png/250px-482Azelf.png)

(just...  skip the siblings)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 12, 2016, 03:55:34 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qkrKTAOv2M

Your arsehole isn't cute anymore. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_BxBs4f4RIU)

If we want to stay on topic though, much like Ho-Oh is showed up by Moltres, Articuno is way more on point for the kinds of design points Lugia's tries to hit.

It has a tripointed crest similar to Lugia's but it sits just above the eyes like a brow or a hat where as Ligia has eyes poking through a growth (that make it like a mask or something?)

It's wings aren't actually really functional being kind of jagged and blocky kind of like Ice.  Then it's whispy tail kind of like Suicune invokes either wind or an Aurora.

It has that solid pale blue all over with the softer blue on the underbelly.  Complimenting colors instead of the hard contrast of the dark blue on white that Lugia has.

Also it has chicken legs like an actual bird instead of T-Rex legs.

Now I know that isn't super fair because I think (?) Articunonis/was generally one of the more well liked Gen 1 pokedudes, but I find it the most direct comparison.  Though I could talk sugar about Suicune for a same gen comparison I guess?  (Suicune is what Vaporeon should have been).
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on July 12, 2016, 04:09:10 AM
The problem you seem to have with Lugia is that it's not bird like enough? I mean, birds are cool and I also like Articuno more than Lugia. But Lugia isn't a bird. It has T-Rex legs because Lugia is more dinosaur than bird. I don't think "not being a bird" should be held against it just because it flies?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 12, 2016, 04:51:09 AM
Edit  to fix up a URL and I guess put in a TLDR; of didn't mean to rambly ramble, its all just "yeah but I don't get it and think its ugly".

I mean it's counterpart in Ho-Oh is a bird, it is closely related to a bunch of birds apparently (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Lugia_(Pok%C3%A9mon)).  I mean... isn't it supposed to be a bird thing?

If it isn't a bird and it is a dinosaur thingo I would also kinda like it to look like a flying dinosaur and not have gigantic ridiculous hands?

Fuck I would take a giant flying Manta Ray or Plesiosaur (Henceforth referred to as a Pleasureosaur) with oversized flippers that act as wings or something.  There is tons of things involving the Ocean that look similar to flying things with the overlap of fluid dynamics and aerodynamics and none of those have enormous freaky hands.

Even if I go okay it isn't supposed to be a bird, it still looks like a fucking mess to me?  If it is supposed to look like a dinosaur, it mixes a bunch of types of dinosaur that don't make a great deal of sense to me. 

Lets be generous and go with the neck is a Pleasureosaur, the spines and tail are solidly in your Stegosaurus or similar space (so a land based herbivore), like unless it is supposed to be quoting a Spinosaurus(?) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinosaurus)  but those have a membrane between the spines to make that distinct dorsal .  And then we still have the tail bits?

I am really struggling to find a bipedal dinosaur that has knees that bend that way as well, unless like it walks on the tips of those feet instead of with them flat on the ground (unless it doesn't ever walk and they are just like... steering for under the water?  In which case it seems terribly inefficient to have them on such bulky legs).

Like... If it isn't quoting a bird and is purely quoting dinosaurs I don't get what it is riffing on.  (Bulbapedia quotes Pleisureosaur and Stego as well, but I came to that distinction separate from it).

If it isn't quoting anything and just is its own thing then it is a thing I find baffling and not particularly visually appealing.  It doesn't score bonus points with me for being minimalist just because it uses 3 colours.  Everything in dark blue on it juts out all over the place and makes it visually noisy and it doesn't interact at all with the paler blue that should be complementing them. 

I mean you could strip them out and it would look a lot sleaker, but it would be missing something to tie it together, you would want it to be about at the shoulders.  For some reason they decided that should be giant fuck off freaky hands.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on July 12, 2016, 07:43:15 AM
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/pokemon/images/b/b3/Lugia_M02.png/revision/latest?cb=20150306173858)

I do agree that the hand-wings aren't that great, and I prefer shots where the design looks more like standard wings. But I can kinda get behind the uniqueness of it. Pokemon is trying to create new creature designs. I feel like Lugia is one of the few that isn't just "take real animal(/object) and put anime googly eyes on it and color it funny". And yeah, a lot of the other too-original designs fail pretty hard (Dunsparce), but I think they nailed it with Lugia and I've never seen a negative reaction to Lugia's design until today, so I suppose that's why I'm also baffled.

(http://img04.deviantart.net/70e1/i/2011/365/a/3/lugia_by_chiblu-d4ktu7n.png)
(http://pre12.deviantart.net/03ce/th/pre/i/2014/025/1/9/lugia__by_sapoltop-d73p3cx.png)
(https://cdn.scratch.mit.edu/static/site/users/avatars/455/8958.png)

The fin-things also apparently can flatten against Lugia's body and I think that's kind of a neat effect.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 12, 2016, 08:15:22 AM
I would probably have ranted a whole ton more in the past about how much I don't like Lugia, but well... it is far from the worst thing in Gen 2 and by the time you get it you have been staring at Stantlers, Girafarigg, Aipomms, Sentret, Hoothoots and Dunsparce for hours.  So like you run into it super late after game (remembering that lol this is gen 2 aftergame so like 600 billion hours later or some shit), at that point, who even gives a shit that this one legendary pokemon isn't great?

you just played most of a gen 2 pokemon game and half the stuff you have run into either looks like garbage, plays like garbage or both and is a sentient buttplug.

Gen 2 games are pretty good, but holy damn they are great and burning you out on Pokedudes due to pacing and the tumult of Gen 2 being such a standout of mediocrity.

Quote from: Electric Six - Pulling the Plug on the Party
Now just because no one likes you
Don't mean they don't want you around
They wanna throw things at you
And for an encore they push you down, push you down

They sent a man to the moon just to watch him die
We dropped turkeys out of planes just to fill up the sky
And they know damn well they can't fly
(http://pre12.deviantart.net/03ce/th/pre/i/2014/025/1/9/lugia__by_sapoltop-d73p3cx.png)

Edit - Just trying to tone back language to be less hostile in a few places, not because I am mad but because my resting rageface isn't what I want this to be unless we want to go back to talking about zenny's butt hole.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on July 12, 2016, 10:33:14 AM
tl;dr still worse than magmar got it
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 12, 2016, 10:59:46 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cb/240Magby.png/250px-240Magby.png)

Zenn "literall" y
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on July 12, 2016, 11:09:30 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cb/240Magby.png/250px-240Magby.png)

Zenn "literall" y

Only thing better than a onebuttduck is a threebuttduck

EDIT: OH GOD LOOK AT THIS THING WHILE LISTENING TO BABY MARIO CRY THAT IS EXACTLY THE ANIMAL SOUND IT WOULD MAKE
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 12, 2016, 06:16:40 PM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cb/240Magby.png/250px-240Magby.png)

Zenn "literall" y

Only thing better than a onebuttduck is a threebuttduck

EDIT: OH GOD LOOK AT THIS THING WHILE LISTENING TO BABY MARIO CRY THAT IS EXACTLY THE ANIMAL SOUND IT WOULD MAKE

https://youtu.be/1cjXqvi4ajU?t=11m1s
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 12, 2016, 09:03:38 PM
Oh right, I did want to say, the non-Sugimori art does help deal with some of my issues with how... ungainly Lugia looks. Smoother lines and the like.

Anyhow, before I start Gen 3, I figured I'd give you guys a chance to mock my taste ahead of time. I've updated the first post to nicely feature the best and worst of Gens 1 and 2, so, if you want, feel free to do some spoiler hidden guesses for what will be Best of the Best and Absolutely Shameful in Gen 3 if you'd like!
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 12, 2016, 10:33:56 PM
I predict you will like some trashy fire Pokemon that isn't even that good looking and there will be something that you list off a bunch of reasons that it is trashy and then give it a 3/5.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on July 12, 2016, 10:52:30 PM
I'm seeing a pattern with Andrew's best here

Anyway.

Spheal.

5/5.

Right? Of course.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on July 12, 2016, 10:58:05 PM
Nope. Spoink
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Fenrir on July 12, 2016, 11:03:14 PM
Naaaah

By the way Grumpig is going to be the most obvious 1/5 for Andrew out of all of Pokemon, even including gen 2
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 12, 2016, 11:03:40 PM
I predict you will like some trashy fire Pokemon that isn't even that good looking and there will be something that you list off a bunch of reasons that it is trashy and then give it a 3/5.

Well, shit. Nailed it.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 14, 2016, 08:05:42 PM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/2c/252Treecko.png/250px-252Treecko.png) Treecko: Bleh. Not off to a good start, here. I like lizards. Lizards often have pretty rad shapes. Treecko... does not. Setting aside the standard "bipedal animal" complaint I like to bandy about, Treecko is just obnoxious lumpy. The way overexaggerated eye structure, the fact that it has a bulbous nose rather than a shout, the tail structure... The coloration is nice (though that extra line on the stomach is pointless). Also, despite my complaint, there is a neat and nice plant element to the tail (ala Bulbasaur), but it also doesn't integrate that well. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/ea/253Grovyle.png/250px-253Grovyle.png) Grovyle: What is with evos and being a shade or two different in color? That said, I like the darker tone here. The biped thing also works a bit better here because we're looking more raptory. We also get a bit more plant which, while glued on, the extra additions and the predatory look... actually works. The tail thing is a bit weird though. I realize it is basically the unfurled leaves, but they lose so much size and density in the transition that it ends up looking really lacking. I'm torn, but the tail thing really upsets me. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3e/254Sceptile.png/250px-254Sceptile.png) Sceptile: Sigh. Okay. First, why the fuck does the number of fingers/toes (and overall shape of them) change so drastically at during every evolution stage on this line? It's irritating. What even are those yellow bulbs on its back? Why do the eye crests that vanishes come back? Why'd we get rid of so much of the nice red and turn it into a weird jaw thing and a dumb band? What is that stupid V-line across thee chest? Tail is kinda cool, but really downplayed on a biped... particularly one that basically had no tail last evo. Oh, and we lose the extra foliage that was making it look leafy on the rest of its body. 1/5 EDIT: I also want to say, tree tail would look way better on a quadraped. Just saying.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 14, 2016, 10:52:03 PM
I think I would probs give Grovyle a 4.  It is a pretty straight riff on a feathered Velociraptor which is kinda sweet.

I can also answer all you questions about the weird line on Sceptiles neck and everything that is going on above it.

Clearly it grows an entirely new head over the top of its old one, so the line is where you separate old flesh from new younger stuff.  That explains the completely different shapes.

Those yellow orbs?  Those used to be its eyes before the Sceptiling happened and that young Pokemon dies and can no longer see becoming something different.

Also you should talked way more shit for the weird wrist blade things.  They are the same green as its body and not a darker shade like all the other leafy outcroppings so all I can assume is that this is part of its body.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Magetastica on July 14, 2016, 11:14:28 PM
Going to second the motion that Grovyle deserves a 4. Smug feathered Velociraptor is pretty sweet.

Also, are we not going to mention that Sceptile suddenly loses the very obvious toes that the previous evos have in favour of weird-ass toenail-claws? Or the fact the tail is literally the size of its body? Because having a Christmas Tree for a tail is kinda unwieldy for a creature that's supposed to be all about the speed. (Seriously. Tree-for-tail does nothing except say that this is a slow creature with lots of power, which... it isn't. It's a fast creature with decent power.)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on July 14, 2016, 11:47:16 PM
The entire line is 1-2 points too low (Grovyle is great) probably due to Andy's brainwashing by porcine communist farm-owner propaganda, but I do agree with the trajectory, Sceptile is a pretty big fall-off.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on July 14, 2016, 11:53:52 PM
septile needs a fedora cuz his eyes r sayin m'lady
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 15, 2016, 12:03:41 AM
Re: Grovyle score. I was torn, but the lack of a true tail really just makes it look weird to me.

Re: Sceptile armblades. Yeah, I was annoyed by the end and just sorta lumped them into the losing the foliage part. They're stupid.

Re: Fedora. Yeah.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 15, 2016, 01:55:48 AM
Yeah definitely spot on with the Fedora.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 15, 2016, 04:17:18 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/91/255Torchic.png/250px-255Torchic.png) Torchic: Pretty cute. Looks pretty distinctly like a chick. Not a lot going on here, but the neck ruffles are a nice touch. No wings at all is kinda weird, but whatever. Very small body so hard to notice. The head crest/flame... eh? I don't like it that much, but it suffices. Another one kinda sitting on the borderline. Eh. I don't think it is exciting me quite enough. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/29/256Combusken.png/250px-256Combusken.png) Combusken: Well that happened. Suddenly limbs and stuff. The neck ruffle taking over is a bit weird, but its functional and flares out in the right places. Getting massive arms with claws is unusual, but more defined feet/legs are fine. The crest looks better here (likely due to headsize comparison). The beak is weird as fuck, though. The hell happened there? I thought I hated this one, but, honestly, it's actually a pretty smooth evolution. That beak, though. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/90/257Blaziken.png/250px-257Blaziken.png) Blaziken: I... kinda don't know what happened here. We were on track for a smooth evolution, then this. There are... things here I like. Like I sorta like the face and crest, and the overall body shape work okay. Flares on good places. The red and yellow still look good, and the claws are fine. But... what's with the hair/wings/vest? And how did we get here? And why the crotch ruffle of all things to break up the overall blandness from torso to... shins, I guess? And why are the hair wings a different color? Also obligatory "seriously why the massive color change?" 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: jsh357 on July 15, 2016, 04:44:56 AM
I'm with you on this one. Blaziken's popularity continues to elude me. One of the dorkiest looking Pokemon ever...
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on July 15, 2016, 05:08:37 AM
Combusken higher than Fire Captain Falcon. Andy do you even have eyes

To clarify both are garbage but Combusken should be a 1.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Magetastica on July 15, 2016, 05:09:19 AM
My only complaint with this is that Combusken is definitely not better than Blaziken. They are both dumb and deserve 2/5. Unless you're awarding it points for accurately portraying the Torchic line's awkward teenage years?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on July 15, 2016, 06:15:41 AM
I'm quite surprised at how much y'all seem to dislike the Torchic line, I always thought it was pretty solid throughout. Memorable and distinct certainly (Torchic less so on the distinct part, but it works and is cute). Certainly as far as fire starters go I thought it was a major improvement on the Cyndaquil line.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 15, 2016, 07:01:21 AM
Blaziken hype is mostly just for the Taekwondo Gi look I think.

Crotch ruffle is 4 u  tho bbe
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on July 15, 2016, 07:04:29 AM
I predict you will like some trashy fire Pokemon that isn't even that good looking and there will be something that you list off a bunch of reasons that it is trashy and then give it a 3/5.

Well, shit. Nailed it.
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/29/256Combusken.png/250px-256Combusken.png) Combusken: Well that happened. Suddenly limbs and stuff. The neck ruffle taking over is a bit weird, but its functional and flares out in the right places. Getting massive arms with claws is unusual, but more defined feet/legs are fine. The crest looks better here (likely due to headsize comparison). The beak is weird as fuck, though. The hell happened there? I thought I hated this one, but, honestly, it's actually a pretty smooth evolution. That beak, though. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 15, 2016, 07:41:21 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/60/258Mudkip.png/250px-258Mudkip.png) Mudkip: I liek Mudkips more than I thought. The body is actually pretty great. Very puppy-like, with a pleasant two-tone blue. The paddle tail also looks pretty awesome. The head is there I have problems. A perfectly round head is pretty disappointing. The crest is pretty great and parallels the tail nicely. The axolotl side things are also a bit disappointing. They look a bit better than Wooper's, IMO, though. I really want to rate Mudkip higher, but that head is so blah. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/27/259Marshtomp.png/250px-259Marshtomp.png) Marshtomp: Can we get Sugimori a marker that lasts for more than one drawing at a time? Anyhow. I like the crest and tailfins. I like the arms and legs. I don't like us going biper again. Face is still stupid. Changing to a single cheek spike with a much larger cheek pad is also awful. God, all these starters are on awkward borderlines. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b6/260Swampert.png/250px-260Swampert.png) Swampert: So uh... back to one tail? And with two headcrests instead? Back to quadrapedish, which is nice, though. This is more the headshape and face I wanted on Mudkip. The headcrests and tail looks pretty good. The cheek stuff is back to decent (and looks better with an oval base). Not sure what's with the... armor plates, though? It needed something in those areas, but those weren't them. Best final evo of this generation by a mile, but I'm not sure I have in my heart to give it better than 3/5.

I may readjust some of these scores since a lot of them are sitting on borders.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on July 15, 2016, 01:24:45 PM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/27/259Marshtomp.png/250px-259Marshtomp.png)

Two fins on its arse, one on its head.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b6/260Swampert.png/250px-260Swampert.png)

Two fince on its face, one on its arse.

Its arse became its face.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 25, 2016, 08:14:25 PM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/fc/261Poochyena.png/250px-261Poochyena.png) Poochyena: I'm kinda torn on Poochyena. Love the tail ruff texture, but, unfortunately, it makes the color shift on the face, chest, and feet look weird. I'd love this design if it could have sold the furriness better. Also those back teeth. And honestly, the mouth shape in general is weird. But still, I really love that tail ruff and you can't go too bad with an actual dog design in general. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f1/262Mightyena.png/250px-262Mightyena.png) Mightyena: You know. I honestly wrote that previous line completely seriously, because my mental picture of Mightyena does not at all match the real design. Why does he have a carpet on his back? Why does it come off his neck in a way that makes him look bald? Why does his tail form an upside down L? Just... really disappointing. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on November 01, 2016, 06:53:34 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/47/263Zigzagoon.png/240px-263Zigzagoon.png) Zigzagoon:  Fucking sucks, looks like a pinecone. How does it move around? 1/5

(http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/archive/f/f7/20150110192538%21264Linoone.png)Linoone: Evolves into a completely different kind of creature that has less claws.  Also fucking sucks, but doesn't look like a pinecone. Has legs that work even less than Zigzagoon.  Any other picture of Linoone is better.  Also it took looking at other pics to realise it is an Air Bender.  1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on November 01, 2016, 07:30:50 AM
Well, when a kind soul jump starts something like this, how can I not at least add a few more.

Though I shamelessly score Zigzagoon at 2/5 myself, despite those stupid as shit pigeon toed feet. Seriously, what the hell IS up with that? I like the zig-zag mouth.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/76/265Wurmple.png/250px-265Wurmple.png) Wurmple: You are kind of a rad, spikey worm. Like, you look like a fantastic, prickley caterpillar. A less stupid Weedle, really. Wait. I gave Weedle a 3/5? Seriously? Past Andrew is fucking stupid. Well with that stupid butt-face, I'm certainly not giving Wurmple a better score than 3/5. But seriously past Andrew? What is your deal? Fuck, I have to deal with you and all the shit that's coming up? 3/5 I guess.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/ef/266Silcoon.png/250px-266Silcoon.png) Silcoon: I don't understand why you are a ball. With spikes. and red eyes. 1/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4c/267Beautifly.png/250px-267Beautifly.png) Beautifly: You're a worse Butterfree. The wings are nicely colored, but the ugly black and white body really detracts from them. A butterfly is like, mostly awesome wings. Why does this shitty teddybear body take up so much space? You have stupid blob hands and feet and your black nose is glued on. 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a3/268Cascoon.png/250px-268Cascoon.png) Cascoon: I don't understand why you are a ball. With spikes. and red eyes. 1/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/34/269Dustox.png/250px-269Dustox.png) Dustox: I want to like you. I really do. Those wings are cool. But so much else about you is stupid and ugly. Why are your eyes screaming drama masks? Why are your antenna so phallic? And I guess the same goes for your creepy bug feet and blimp body. Also derp lines everywhere. And the smiley face. Why the smiley face? Any why does your ass explode? Sigh. 1/5.

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/ee/270Lotad.png/250px-270Lotad.png) Lotad: It's an oddish variant, but it's kinda cute. The concept just sorta works. Though I never noticed... why do you have 6 feet? That's really weird. Also, the yellow bill really messes with the color scheme. 3/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8b/271Lombre.png/250px-271Lombre.png) Lombre: (https://derpicdn.net/img/view/2015/4/18/876954__safe_rarity_animated_screencap_vinyl%2Bscratch_octavia%2Bmelody_dj%2Bpon-dash-3_reaction%2Bimage_facehoof_bloom%2Band%2Bgloom.gif) 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/ff/272Ludicolo.png/250px-272Ludicolo.png) Ludicolo: (https://media.giphy.com/media/XPCccTI27hF96/giphy.gif) 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on November 02, 2016, 09:01:33 AM
(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/84/273Seedot.png/250px-273Seedot.png) Seedot: I'd respect this fucker more if he didn't have feet. Plus those feet look stupid. Why do they have that line? Did I score Pineco in a way that makes it possible to give Seedot a meh score without hating it too much? I did? Great. 2/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/07/274Nuzleaf.png/250px-274Nuzleaf.png) Nuzleaf: Well. I mean. He's better than Lombre? But seriously what the fuck is wrong with these two lines? We go from sort of an okay opening to a bipedal... what exactly? I mean, I guess you can credit the parallelism? But it is paralleling stupid things. I was gonna sort of let this thing escape without bitching that much more (I was even gonna skip the thigh segments), but two things jumped out at me. One, what are the stupid lines on the head? Two, why the fuck does this thing have nipples? On, and since I said I should do it more... where the hell is the Dark typing on this thing? 1/5

(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f7/275Shiftry.png/250px-275Shiftry.png) Shiftry: What. The. Fuck. Just... why? There is so much wrong here. Why did it give up its hands? Why does it have a Jay Leno chin instead of a body? Why does it have the crazy sandal feet? About the only redeeming feature this pokemon has is the white fluff stuff. 1/5

Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on November 02, 2016, 09:11:06 AM
A less stupid Weedle

Quote
that stupid butt-face

Quote
Seriously? Past Andrew is fucking stupid.

....

seriously past Andrew? What is your deal?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on November 02, 2016, 06:29:04 PM
Hey, it looks pretty good, butt-face aside. Good body can do some work for a bad face.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on September 05, 2017, 05:43:15 AM
Where was I?

...oh.

...oh.

No wonder I stopped for nearly a year. Fuck me.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e4/276Taillow.png/250px-276Taillow.png) Taillow: Nothing too fancy. It is an okay bird. I was gonna ding its stupid face, but the sprites look decent enough for me to forgive it. The colors are nice, but I wish it had some Pidgey-esque texturing or something more interesting than the tail split or wing tips. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/45/277Swellow.png) Swellow: Uh... basically a better looking Taillow. The head still looks worse in the official art then anywhere else (too flat), but everything else is fine. Nice sharp build for a predatory bird, the coloration is even better with the fancier red, and the head feathers are pretty great. Tail is distinct too. I dunno, the more I look, the more I like this bird. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/39/278Wingull.png/250px-278Wingull.png) Wingull: This bird, on the other hand... mmmmm. Have I gone soft? I want to hate this thing, but looking at it, it does kind of achieve "cute" decently. A lot like clefairy from way back when, it is how relatively simplified the design is. The beak is the biggest problem I think, not really looking like it fits with the otherwise kinda cute and compact body vs the long wings. And the color scheme is pleasant and stands out. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f2/279Pelipper.png/250px-279Pelipper.png) Pelipper: This on the other hand. Pelicans look stupid to begin with, this doesn't help. The anchor shape on the body is sorta neat, but the body/mouth split is honestly kinda grotesque. The little glued on feet are stupid and it'd probably be better to lose them. Those wing fingers are worse than Lugia's. And I have no idea what's going with your fucking eye, mate. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e1/280Ralts.png/250px-280Ralts.png) Ralts: Ralts is great and a lot of what human shape Pokemon to be. It suggests the idea of a humanoid without falling deep into the uncanny valley like Hitmonchan does. I'm kinda hard pressed to focus in on what I like about Ralts. The colors are, again, nice (I might be failing to remember things, but is there more white in this generation?), and the looks good together. The bowl cut hair looks a bit doofy, but otherwise the body has a really nice flow (thin to wide, with the circle head being conveniently disrupted by the hair) and is simple enough to just be super cute. It really suggest a child wearing clothes too big for it (that it will eventually grow into) without getting too close. 5/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/00/281Kirlia.png/250px-281Kirlia.png) Kirilia: Hello awkward teen years. You are here, looking awkward. So, again, it at least does the looking humanoid without looking too human thing, but I really dislike a lot of the design. Primarily the body, which trades a really nice, smooth flow for the super poofed out skirt into comically narrow legs. Also like half the sprites have its butt sticking out, which is weird. I go back and forth on the head. The twin-tail idea (with the shards standing in for bows or something) is neat and the "beak" helps create a nice, unique shape, but the way it all falls again messes with the nice smooth flow Ralts had. Looking close, I hate it less than I thought I did, but eh... 3/5

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b0/8c/06/b08c0668d5409858e2bd979057aaf87c.jpg) Gardevoir: A pretty logical endpoint for Ralts, really. Really... *sigh* Shut up Grefter, Zenny, Sopko, whoever else... the curves on Gardevoir are super nice and carry through the entire body, giving it a really elegant look that again captures the idea while looking rather fae-like. The stronger white/green blending is a nice touch. The pointy ears help break up the round head stuff and go well with the beak and swooped hair. About the biggest complaint is the red pick thing which ends up in a weird place given the previous two evolutions. I like the final placement, but it is odd to go from head to chest like that. 5/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f6/283Surskit.png/250px-283Surskit.png) Surskit: I wish I could like you more. You're cute and a cool idea, but when I really look at you, I'm hard-pressed to actually justify liking you. The blue and yellow is ugly together, IMO (fuck your complementary color BS) and the stem is just... goofy. The extra lines make it look like a dumb hairdo. I kinda suspect I'd have liked it better if it just had a round top. I also think the little marks under its eyes would be a bit nicer if they were less pronounced. Blah. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0a/284Masquerain.png/250px-284Masquerain.png) Masquerain: The first pokemon this topic has really hurt in my view. I actually used to like Masquerain a lot, but when I look close... ugh. Ugh, ugh, ugh. So the front of the design IS cool with the fake eye wings and a very clean, clear evolution from Surskit (colors aside). The single eyelashes are a big weird, but otherwise everything continues nicely. Then I realzed it has some weird tiny body with wings behind all that (I originally thought the wings were attached to the main body) and it just sort of ruins it for me. Like, it just looks so awkward and gross. The reference sheet with the "body" below it and using the little wings as legs looks okay, but ultimately I think the extra torso with horizontal flight is just eeeergh. Still, there is a lot of cool here. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on September 05, 2017, 03:06:12 PM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e4/276Taillow.png/250px-276Taillow.png)
TFW you are Grefter and you don't have to make the joke

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/4/45/277Swellow.png)
TFW you are Sopko and no one can tell if you are being sarcastic any more or that is your speaking voice.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/39/278Wingull.png/250px-278Wingull.png)
TFW you are Zenny and you are kind of high and look like you are barely held together existentially.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f2/279Pelipper.png/250px-279Pelipper.png)
TFW you are Andy thinking about the next three images in the post.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on January 21, 2018, 07:05:44 AM
I'm not sure I actually intended the title to be literal.

Ahem. Anyhow, since I started play ULTRA MOON, I figure I should resume poke reviews, yeah?

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d8/285Shroomish.png/250px-285Shroomish.png) Shroomish: Literally Grefter. I like this cranky little fucker, but I think ultimately his design ends up not quite working for me. Cranky waddling mushroom? Good. He just... doesn't look very mushroomy. He looks more flowery, less mushroom. Same for the green body spots, creating the illusion that he just has an odd skirt draped over him. Still, I like it a little better than something like Oddish, and since I can't remember what I scored that, I'll score this one 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/de/286Breloom.png/250px-286Breloom.png) Breloom: Oh you. I like you. Mushroom dinosaur is cool. You share some neat stuff with your pre-evo, but you just... change so much so as to look like a totally different thing. Like... arms! And stuff. I'm also not too fond of how the green and beige are kept pretty indepdent of each other instead of being allowed to mingle. Also the way his head expands into the mushroom freaks me out a little. Agh. Still wish he and Shroomish had a bit more relation. 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on January 21, 2018, 08:05:22 AM
Breloom barely having arms kinda weirds me out, because it's known for some of the most powerful punching attacks in the game. Mushroom dinosaur is still pretty cool, though.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on January 23, 2018, 01:16:30 AM
Honestly, I kinda like the idea that Breloom has surprise stretchy arms. It is the claw thing that bothers me more about the punch identity.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on January 23, 2018, 01:29:59 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d2/287Slakoth.png/250px-287Slakoth.png) Slakoth: Sloth. Is a sloth. It has a stupid face. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/61/288Vigoroth.png/250px-288Vigoroth.png) Vigoroth: Honestly, this is a pretty cool evo. You can tell that it comes from its previous evo, it maintains most of the defining features, and it makes changes that reflect the altered characterization. The color change is a bit odd, but I think it reflects the pumped nature pretty decently. The red hair thing is a bit goofy though. Would look better more scruffy. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/71/289Slaking.png/250px-289Slaking.png) Slaking: Insert your own jokes here. The loss of the claws are a shame and I think reduce this design a bit, but it at least continues through its theme and evo line. Also really ugly. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on January 23, 2018, 03:52:06 AM
I will say that Slaking is a pretty inspired pun name for a fictional sloth king.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on January 23, 2018, 04:10:42 AM
Anyone else feel that Slaking looks kinda like Homer Simpson?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on January 23, 2018, 07:07:10 AM
I would HONESTLY be shocked it it wasn't an inspiration somehow.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on January 24, 2018, 07:08:29 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/90/290Nincada.png/250px-290Nincada.png) Nincada: A pretty cute take on a horrifying insect. Big eyes and all. And look, segmentation that MAKES SENSE. The green is a nice little touch and I agree that there needed to be something else to break up the grey, but I'm not sure how much I like just those front claws being brown. Drawing that coloration back a bit more I think would be nicer? Still, it's a good bug. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/76/291Ninjask.png/250px-291Ninjask.png) Ninjask: I feel like I shouldn't like this one, but I do. Basically, while it borders on over detailed, I think it manages to come in just under that point, as well as communicating the idea of cicada + ninja well with the face "mask." 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/59/292Shedinja.png/250px-292Shedinja.png) Shedinja: Is amazing. Like, great concept and great realization of the design. Like, super cool the approach they take and how well they communicate a sort of uncanny dead imagery with the exploded back of the cicada husk forming wings. Just a great design. 5/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6c/293Whismur.png/250px-293Whismur.png) Whismur: *sighs* The FUCK is wrong with your eyes? I mean, I'll actually yield that this design is kinda cute? It works better than something like I Jigglypuff I guess? Having a hard time placing why, though. Also the hole under the ears is something I've never noticed before. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/12/294Loudred.png/250px-294Loudred.png) Loudred: Well that went downhill fast. I mean, I guess it makes a bit more sense than Golbat thematically, but this gaping mouthed motherfucker is still ugly. Especially those stupid plug teeth and nails. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/12/295Exploud.png/250px-295Exploud.png) Exploud: I... guess you're better than Loudred but... not enough to really justify any higher ranking. You're made of fucking ugly ass tubes. You're basically a speaker with a bunch of fucking exhaust pipes. 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on January 24, 2018, 08:53:08 AM
Can you imagine the farts though?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on January 25, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
Shedinja is such an A+ bug. If I was forced to choose a bug pokemon, it would totally be a Shedinja.

Just... apparently if you look at the hole in its back, it will suck your soul into it.

Awesome.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 04, 2018, 09:25:05 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b6/296Makuhita.png/250px-296Makuhita.png) Makuhita: The original trash bag pokemon. I mean, look at him! He's even go the little tie on top of his head! Seriously though, he's fine. I'm not overly fond of him, but like Gardevoir, he kinda fits in that category of what I want humanoid looking Pokemon to look like: something humanoid but clearly distinct from humans. And he gets the idea of fight across well without really having the problems of the Machop line or Hitmonchan in really going too far with clothes. Not really underdesigned, not really overdesigned, he just functions. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6f/297Hariyama.png/250px-297Hariyama.png) Hariyama: More pokemon really need smoother evolutions. More involved color/shape maintenance. That sort of thing. Independently the design is... fine. The coloration on the hands is a bit goofy, the massive earholes look stupid, and the coloration (hands & belly not matching skirt but being close) is irritation, but the rest more or less works? Leaning positive meh, I guess. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on March 04, 2018, 08:02:20 PM
TFW bae makes fun of humanoid things that look look like full trash bags and you are actually a garbage human.


Ha ha ha.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on March 14, 2018, 07:49:40 AM
Makuhita's cheeks bother me a lot. I also hate humanoid Pokemon, and this one doesn't do anything but look derpy and bland all at the same time.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 26, 2018, 06:24:54 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/ac/298Azurill.png/250px-298Azurill.png) Azurill: Looks to be in pain, likely because its existence is misery. I dunno. Seriously, I actually can't be too mean here as nothing really offends me. It is a bit weird that its body is shaped to a point where its tail connects, but that's the only thing. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/89/299Nosepass.png/250px-299Nosepass.png) Nosepass: The magnetic arms are a cute touch, but I personally really hate this thing. The nose looks stupid. I mean, it isn't the worst idea and it carries though well, but really with that nose? Also the typing only being rock is a bit bothersome. I dunno, I really think it'd look better without the nose as a sort of golem thing. As is... 2/5.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8a/300Skitty.png/250px-300Skitty.png) Skitty: Oh Skitty. I love you. I just wish you looked a little less goofy. Color is pretty good, body is actually a really great minimalist quadraped, the ears are good, but the expression is good. The flat face is a demerit, the half-moon color break is eh (I wish it were a bit rougher, but I guess it partially conveys Moon Stone connection) and that tail is... a thing. Seriously, I dunno what that tail is. At all. Little rat tail condom balloon with pins things. The fuck? Still. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f4/301Delcatty.png/250px-301Delcatty.png) Delcatty: Worse than Skitty. Also seriously evolutions stop randomly changing colors for no discernable reason. The ears are kinda neat and the stupid pincushion thing looks better around its neck and the tail isn't as stupid anymore, but overall the extra body space just ends up looking a bit boring despite being another nice quadraped build. Also I guess the longer I stare at them, the face fluffs look really goofy, like its face is being pulled out. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d3/302Sableye.png/250px-302Sableye.png) Sableye: Severely underrated little gremlin. Good structure, creepy posture, the gems are nice ways to break up its body, and the little flares like its elbows and ears give it a good silhouette. Really excellent. 5/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: VySaika on March 26, 2018, 05:22:13 PM
1: The evolution randomly changing color palettes is something that's been bothering me a bunch too. Especially with Makuhita -> Hariyama. I keep thinking that Makuhita is just wearing some ridiculous yellow body stocking and when it evolves it unties the trash bag top to the mask and lets it fall down to become the skirt revealing the tan-grey actual skin of the 'mon's face underneath. It's the only thought that makes the Yellow Skin -> Tan Skin w/Yellow Clothes bit make sense!

2: Sableye getting a 5/5 is good and proper. Fantastic looking critter, kinda want to adapt it to be a DnD spook.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on March 27, 2018, 12:32:33 PM
I read your comment and now I want Pokémon Drag Race in my life, Gate.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on March 28, 2018, 08:08:05 PM
I like Skitty's tail because it looks like ... well... a cattail, the plant. And sort of combined with a cat toy.

It wouldn't work well on a real animal that has to move realistically. But in animation, the thin part of the tail can maintain that arc which keeps the whole silhouette looking very pleasant.

Hate Delcatty's ears. Not the worst evolution or anything, but just such a step down from Skitty.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 29, 2018, 02:42:33 AM
I can sort of see the cattail connection, but eh. It just doesn't work great for me. It isn't the worst or anything, but it just doesn't end up appealing.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 10, 2018, 08:59:34 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c0/303Mawile.png/250px-303Mawile.png) Mawile: Oh Mawile. I love you so much and you are super adorable and conceptually cool and I can just never quite square away your humanoid half with the rest of your design. I'm not sure what I'd want you to be otherwise, or even really what doesn't work about you (the coloration, while simple, is appealing and nicely distributed, the skirt/frayed pants gives some nice additional affectation). Maybe it is the beak? Or maybe it is just that the whole thing ends up looking really off-balance because one one side if a giant murder jaw and on the other side is a little goblin. Still, I like Mawile and think there's a lot of cool stuff here, I just can't justify giving it the score I wish I could. 4/5.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 13, 2018, 06:48:49 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bb/304Aron.png/250px-304Aron.png) Aron: Seriously, the small body types with the stubby legs are super adorable in Pokemon. While his head being a fully enclosed metal thing is a bit weird, honestly, I don't have much to complain about here. I guess the Rock-type part doesn't come through well? But otherwise, he looks great and carries his theme well. Little armored critter. The pitting (spots? It is actually super hard to tell, but official art seems to put them as pitting) break up his bodly nicely and the belly segmentation is a bit more forgivable here given he looks armored. I guess maybe his legs would look a bit better if they were plated and not solid metal? 5/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bf/305Lairon.png/250px-305Lairon.png) Lairon: I think the biggest issue here is that Lairon ends up feeling less armored than its predecessor, and that's a bit weird. I'd much rather have seen the steel plating down his side rather than the... bands holding his leg thingies on? I actually like his face profile, though I'm a bit undecided on the "beard." The leg rings are super weird though. Still, I like this guy. Landshark design follows nicely for grown-up Aron. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6d/306Aggron.png/250px-306Aggron.png) Aggron: And then you become Rhydon. Quadrapeds stop becoming bipeds. Aggron basically amplifies all my complaints about Lairon multi-fold. Less armor. More weird "straps." The tail, in particular, looks really stupid with the black rings on it. The horns look awkward coming out of the armor. Etc. I do think the metal jaw looks tight though. That's about the biggest saving grace here. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 14, 2018, 04:35:23 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/71/307Meditite.png/250px-307Meditite.png) Meditite: Diaper-onion-monkey. I got nothing. I'm hard-pressed to defend why I don't hate this design as much as like, Mr. Mime or Magmar or Jynx or something. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/05/308Medicham.png/250px-308Medicham.png) Medicham: If it weren't for those stupid lips, I'd like this better than Meditite. Much like the flowing for Gardevoir works to be distinct from "clothing", Medicham's pants work well enough when combined with the head thing to just look like natural colorized bits of its body. And given its emphasis on kicks to a degree, it functions pretty well. The head halibut is a bit doofy though. And seriously, those lips are fucking awful. Also. Again. Color changes. Why? 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Random Consonant on April 17, 2018, 02:20:20 AM
[21:00:41] <+RandomKesaranPasaran> i never feel like posting commentary in the thread for some reason
[21:01:10] <+WorkRogue> You should. People shittalking my opinions gives me the power to go on

[21:01:21] <+RandomKesaranPasaran> but i have to say medicham at 2/5 is way too high
[21:01:49] <+RandomKesaranPasaran> why the fuck does it have those stupid anything

Like seriously the complaint about Aggron's tail seems like peanuts compared to anything Medicham, remove anthro pokemon

e: I feel like I should go deeper here but look at that thing, how do you even get there from Meditite?  It looks two minor details away from being a really ugly bowling pin.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Captain K on April 19, 2018, 02:23:00 AM
I think the pants are supposed to be poofy Arabic pants.  Making it some kind of dervish?  No idea what that has to do with psychic type or previous evolution.

Something like this?

https://wanderinginpixels.deviantart.com/art/dervish-371980483
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 19, 2018, 07:05:12 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/47/309Electrike.png/250px-309Electrike.png) Electrike: His head is fucking stupid. The spikes on his ass are stupid too. Like, no matter what nice things I say about anything else on this design, it comes back to the fucking triple dildo head setup. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bb/310Manectric.png/250px-310Manectric.png) Manectric: His head and tail are all stupid, but for entirely different reasons. I think the stupid crooked tail actually offends me more here. Not that the head spikes don't look dumb, particularly with their ear holes. And honestly the color scheme just doesn't look good. Nor do the hip flares. Elerctrike at least sorta looked okay if you ignored the head dildos, but this thing is a mess everywhere. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on April 19, 2018, 08:41:56 AM
Manectric is my favorite terrible design in Pokemon.

Like, I love this dog, but everytime I look at him, I want to redraw him to look better.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on April 19, 2018, 11:36:32 AM
The worst dildo Pokemon evolves into the worst butt plug pokemon.   Good job pure electric types on fighting with Fire types for being garbage.

I guess an electric type being a butt plug os at least some kind of pun, but like Manectric’s design, it isn’t a good one.

Also someone needs to build a time machine so Electabuzz can be renamed Manectric and some bug lightning type can be Electabuzz.

Or it can be Buzz Aldrin’s campaign slogan.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on April 19, 2018, 03:02:20 PM
Manectric's not the best design in the series, but I never thought of it as outright terrible (and still don't, looking at it) - a bit confused that you have it below Medicham.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on April 19, 2018, 03:14:46 PM
Or it can be Buzz Aldrin’s campaign slogan

Goddamnit stop showing me why I miss you so, Grefbro<3

Anyway, I agree with NEB. It's not great, but for Manectric I think they were just going for those zig-zaggy lines and contrasting colors and didn't think it through all the way. The tail isn't really any dumber than a pug's curl tail. Not sure why they tried to add a lion's mane to a wolf though.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Random Consonant on April 19, 2018, 05:49:04 PM
Thirding.  The design's junk but at least it's the kind of junk where you can get what they were going for but trashed it in the name of distinctiveness or w/e, which is still better than some of the stuff you inexplicably rated above it despite the fact that those things belong in a trash fire.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 20, 2018, 06:25:18 AM
Hm. You guys can consider this a small victory.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 20, 2018, 07:56:01 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a3/311Plusle.png/250px-311Plusle.png) Plusle: Allow me to give this review exactly the amount of effort it deserves. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e7/312Minun.png/250px-312Minun.png) Minun: Honestly these deserve lower scores on principle, but they aren't really ugly enough to justify it, unfortunately. But they are really lazy. Like, they are Pikachu, but rabbits. Well, more Pichu, but you get the idea. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d6/313Volbeat.png/250px-313Volbeat.png) Volbeat: Popped collar bug with swag. Volbeat is dumb. Like, what the fuck are those antennae? Or the human bug face with a nose. And being so fat. And the stubby useless wings. and the little arm and leg rings. I really am hating this thing the longer I look at it. And seriously, those antennae. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/55/314Illumise.png/250px-314Illumise.png) Illumise: I hate it a little less than Volbeat, but that's because it ain't popping its collar at me. This thing can also go in the trash. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f1/315Roselia.png/250px-315Roselia.png) Roselia: Uninspired. I dunno. This design is just boring and doesn't do anything for me. Well, that's not true. Not having a large leaf on the back for symmetry offends me. Otherwise... like, I feel like this thing would look better without the rose hands. They just seem doofy. The way the head spikes are presented isn't a lot better, but it is something. I dunno. Like, you compare this to something like the Tsareena line in S/M and it just feels lacking. That's what I'm looking for. it isn't a cohesive design. It is thing with rose hands and some head spikes. It does not convey "rose pokemon" to me. Still better than Volbeat. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f0/316Gulpin.png/250px-316Gulpin.png) Gulpin: :3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/ad/317Swalot.png/250px-317Swalot.png) Swalot: While Gulpin is kinda cute and derpy, Swalot is just meh. The design carries at least (though why mustache instead of head feather?) outside the GIANT COLOR SHIFT THAT SO MANY POKEMON DO, but it is less cute and honestly way more ungainly looking because of height. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/98/318Carvanha.png/250px-318Carvanha.png) Carvanha: This gets a bit into some of my problems with later gen designs: mostly I feel they're kinda overdone. Like, does Carvannah need to be that many different colors on different part of its body like a paint by number? Does it need all three up and down fins and to be so jagged everywhere? Like, there's a decent design here, but it is just buried under too much that's all sorta glued together. The face deserves some credit, though. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a8/319Sharpedo.png/250px-319Sharpedo.png) Sharpedo: What is with water types and saying "fuck it, new animal" on evolution. Sharpedo is fine. I think it being so stubby is a bit dumb. Why not a long torpedo shark? The eye slits are a bit weird too. Also, why less toothy looking than Carvanha? Still, I can't really find the energy to hate this design. Its fine. Whatever. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 21, 2018, 07:12:01 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/71/320Wailmer.png/250px-320Wailmer.png) Wailmer: ...why don't you have a tail? 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b9/321Wailord.png/250px-321Wailord.png) Wailord: Well. At least you've got a tail? A teeny, tiny one, but one nevertheless. His body shape is a bit weird and bulky, but it gets the idea of a gargantuan creature across pretty well. It just ends up looking a bit like a blimp. I dunno. He's boring, but I don't hate him. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on April 23, 2018, 04:32:04 AM
I don't agree with Plusle and Minun being so low just for being iterative designs. I honestly like Plusle more than vanilla Pikachu or Pichu. It's okay to reuse some design elements when making new Pokemon, especially if it's iterating on the most popular fictional rodent in the world. It's not as if real-world animals of different-but-related species don't resemble each other...

Also, Sharpedo is awesome, at least a 4. And Roselia >>>> Tsarlegs. Mostly agree with the rest.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on April 23, 2018, 01:59:06 PM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d6/313Volbeat.png/250px-313Volbeat.png) Volbeat: Blah blah blah blah blah. wrong/5

(https://i.imgur.com/rSRIKLD.jpg)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Lady Door on April 24, 2018, 07:32:10 PM
Volbeat & Illumise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utWrIWq2_tk
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Random Consonant on April 24, 2018, 10:34:32 PM
Volbeat and Illuminse: things that I wouldn't call good but still deserve to not be rated lower than Medicham
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on April 24, 2018, 11:43:40 PM
How has no one else like just camped out on how fucking thirsty Illumise is.  It sees what it wants and looks straight down the camera at and is like :> I will have some of that.


Illumise is here for one thing and it ain’t leaving till it has picked up the one thing it left the house for.  And it is some fuck.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Magic Fanatic on May 01, 2018, 01:58:57 AM
So.

I just thought of an extra project for Andy regarding this.

Going through all the gens and double-ranking everything based on their shiny coloring.  I don't expect many scores to change, but Tangela goes up to a 2/5?  Also why that Azurill artwork, there's so much other pieces of it looking happy, and you pick the one that makes it look like it lost a fight in a Nuzlocke and got put in TFS's Poke-press while still conscious.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AllTheseDangCats on May 01, 2018, 10:19:57 PM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8a/300Skitty.png/250px-300Skitty.png) Skitty: Oh Skitty. I love you. I just wish you looked a little less goofy. Color is pretty good, body is actually a really great minimalist quadraped, the ears are good, but the expression is good. The flat face is a demerit, the half-moon color break is eh (I wish it were a bit rougher, but I guess it partially conveys Moon Stone connection) and that tail is... a thing. Seriously, I dunno what that tail is. At all. Little rat tail condom balloon with pins things. The fuck? Still. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f4/301Delcatty.png/250px-301Delcatty.png) Delcatty: Worse than Skitty. Also seriously evolutions stop randomly changing colors for no discernable reason. The ears are kinda neat and the stupid pincushion thing looks better around its neck and the tail isn't as stupid anymore, but overall the extra body space just ends up looking a bit boring despite being another nice quadraped build. Also I guess the longer I stare at them, the face fluffs look really goofy, like its face is being pulled out. 3/5

http://idontwantaurlgoaway.tumblr.com/post/173491206976/sounddesignerjeans-weekoldcereal seems relevant right now.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on May 05, 2018, 07:03:48 AM
Gen 8 is gonna come out before I finish.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c6/322Numel.png/250px-322Numel.png) Numel: Huh. I... don't dislike this design as much as I remember. That's weird. While the body is not as cute as something like, say, Skitty, because of the slightly bulkier build, it still features a lot of the characteristics that make the Skitty build so cute (small, combat, simple). The color scheme is fine (though green on the back is a little unusual for its typing, even if you're going unexploded volcano design). About the only thing I really don't like are the rings around its eyes. It doesn't quite edge into that perfect score spot, but it is enough to justify a high 4/5.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/7d/323Camerupt.png/250px-323Camerupt.png) Camerupt: Oh. Maybe this is why I remember hating Numel. Because I strongly dislike Camerupt. I mean, the idea is solid, but it just doesn't work either for me independently or as an evolution of Numel. As an evolution, it really carries nothing forward outside the "hole in back" thing. Independently, the design just looks like two volcano tops glued on the back of an otherwise decent looking quadraped thing. There's just not a good sense of blending or cohesiveness, further enhanced by the fact that it looks like someone spraypainted 000 on the side. I mean, as far as designs I hate go, this one isn't the worst by any margin, I just wish it blended better. Still, I can't really go below 3/5 in my heart of hearts.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3b/324Torkoal.png/250px-324Torkoal.png) Torkoal: Right next to each other in the pokedex, eh? Torkoal really wishes it had Camerupt's volcano back gimmick, because, as is, Torkoal is super boring. Fine. But boring. Color communicates what it is okay, the shell with the lava pocks works, etc. The bands on its body are a bit weird but they at least break up the mono-color. The weirdest and most objectionable thing about Torkoal is the weird friar cap it has got going on on its head. And being boring. And after Camerupt that is making me more cranky. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on May 05, 2018, 04:28:21 PM
Whaat? Camerupt is great, 5/5 design for me for sure. I don't think the volcanos look glued on at all, in fact the way they rise out of the fur looks a lot like the rocky part of a mountain rising above its forests. I like the fact that the hooves have a similar stony design.

Numel on the other hand is whatever. If it didn't have the evo it does I'd barely remember it.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on May 05, 2018, 05:47:24 PM
I like both. But Andy is right on Camelrupt where the O's on the side ruin an otherwise great design.

Are they speed holes? Are they meant to make Camelrupt go faster? They don't help at all!
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Random Consonant on May 05, 2018, 09:53:43 PM
I think 5/5 for Camelrupt is a bit overblown myself but it's still pretty great (pointless blue circles aside) and I do think I like it a bit better than Numel, I have no idea what the complaints are about, though at least this time it was given an okay score.

Also Torkoal is apprently so bland Andy left out its picture.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on May 06, 2018, 12:01:00 AM
The issue, to me, is the rocks at the base of the volcanoes that really lend more twoards the glued on look. The fur does a decent job of trying to cover to it, but ultimately I think they'd work better if it were just the cones and the fur was way bushed up around them. I will give credit to this though: using the stone color for its face is better than I generally expect of Pokemon coloring sometimes. >>
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Cotigo on May 06, 2018, 07:13:02 AM
If you go through the evolutions backwards, that turtle is getting high

as a kite
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on May 09, 2018, 02:38:20 AM
Torkoal does feel like a more natural evolution to Numel than Camelrupt.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on May 29, 2018, 08:20:24 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9e/325Spoink.png/250px-325Spoink.png) Spoink: Well, it is certainly unique, I'll give it that. Like, it is dumb, but it's trying? 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/54/326Grumpig.png/250px-326Grumpig.png) Grumpig: Arguably less dumb, but also not trying. Kinda Drowzee 2.0. I kinda like the baggy sleeve arms? The ears are weird though, as is the choice to differently color the front of the snout and the tail. The black and purple was fine, why this random fleshy pink? It is gross. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8f/327Spinda.png/250px-327Spinda.png) Spinda: Is fine. The gimmick is cute. The colors are fine. The drawn on look for the spirals is a bit weird but not crazy by Pokemon standards. Sure. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Ranmilia on May 29, 2018, 08:25:09 AM
Spinda has no actual eyes.  You will never be able to un-learn this.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Lady Door on May 29, 2018, 10:00:05 PM
I was going to make some comment about Grumpig's random cabochons holding up his flesh-pants, but then I read that he may have been inspired by the whole "pearls before swine" thing and now he's a little more sinister than expected and I'm good now.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on May 30, 2018, 05:50:34 AM
Without the balloon on its head Spoink is 4/5 on name alone.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: VySaika on May 30, 2018, 08:32:08 AM
Honestly I love Spoink. It's so stupid, but in an adorable way. One of the few that manages to register as "cute" for me, i guess.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on May 30, 2018, 11:20:23 AM
Sproink

After all these years thst is still the effect you have on me too bbe.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8f/327Spinda.png/250px-327Spinda.png) Spinda: Is fine. The gimmick is cute. The colors are fine. The drawn on look for the spirals is a bit weird but not crazy by Pokemon standards. Sure. 3/5

I wish I knew how to quit you.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on May 30, 2018, 08:29:20 PM
Honestly I love Spoink. It's so stupid, but in an adorable way. One of the few that manages to register as "cute" for me, i guess.

Also this. Spoink and Spheal are my two favorite names and they're both just so goofily adorable looking
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on June 03, 2018, 08:43:38 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/76/328Trapinch.png/250px-328Trapinch.png) Trapinch: So, random fact of the day: mousers were one of my favorite parts of TMNT. I just love the chomper jaw design. So... yeah, I like Trapinch. I'm not fond of his colors scheme (that orange is just a bit ugly to me), but it works conceptually for the idea of a desert dweller. Also, his eyes are cool. He can see victory. Also, I must say, the fact that he has wing shells on his back is nice for his evolution direction. 5/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/af/329Vibrava.png/250px-329Vibrava.png) Vibrava: A pretty decent dragonfly pokemon. I really like the wings on this one, as well as the eye shields and the tail. I don't too much like the wing sockets or legs, but eh. Also, like so many pokemon evolutions, the color change is pretty dramatic. I like Vibrava's overall scheme, but it is a pretty dramatic departure (for all that it represents reality as well). Still, I don't quite love it quite as much as Trapinch. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f1/330Flygon.png/250px-330Flygon.png) Flygon: Is fucking awesome. I am a little disappointed in the color shift. I think Vibrava's black and green looks better than the red and green, plus I think it would work better than the fact that the dark green is absent from most of its torso. Probably could have fixed it up a bit by adding some additional stripes to the body or the wings, but hey. Can't have everything. Also the tail fan is cool. 5/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on June 04, 2018, 07:51:19 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/12/331Cacnea.png/250px-331Cacnea.png) Cacnea: I stopped last night because honestly, I don't know what to make of Cacnea. I think I actually like him. More spines would be superior to the green diamonds, but everything else... works pretty well. He's a stubby little cactus dude. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/41/332Cacturne.png/250px-332Cacturne.png) Cacturne: I like the head and face, but that's kinda it. The body isn't bad, but it is very... plain, especially given how much of it there is. So yeah, the scarecrow thing is cool, but he just ends up feeling massively underdesigned. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/99/333Swablu.png/250px-333Swablu.png) Swablu: You are one doofy looking bird. Like, the body shape really is a bit odd, being Hershey kiss like. I dunno, maybe I'm just generous today, but the cloud winged bird idea just works for me, and despite being kinda eh built, the concept delivers. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/da/334Altaria.png/250px-334Altaria.png) Altaria: Looks a lot better if you don't really see the 3D model. I guess I never really considered the design implications, but the fact that it has cloud wings + breast and then a bare back is... really lame. I think the clouds at least wrapping the whole of its torso would be superior, but here we are. It's feet sticking out are a bit goofy too. I do like the head (though I'm undecided on the cheek pads) with the crest. Blah. I want to give 3/5 on the Sugimori art alone, but I can't unsee the model. So 2/5 it is.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d3/335Zangoose.png/250px-335Zangoose.png) Zangoose: 3edgy5me. He's fine. I actually thought I disliked him more, but it turns out I don't. The red designs end up looking better than I remember. Him having thumbs is a bit weird to me, though. I never noticed that before. I guess I'd rather see a quadraped moongoose thing though. I dunno. I've been nice tonight, so let's round down. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d6/336Seviper.png/250px-336Seviper.png) Seviper: My go to example for some of my issues with later Pokemon design where there is just too much going on. Like, what are all these weird yellow knob, emblem, scale things that are a hexagon with a circle inside them? Why the random purple designs on top of that? Why is his body super scrunched on top of all that? Why a TAIL BLADE? Why the two spots of pure red? Like, I like the basic outline of Seviper, and I think the individual designs elements (those weird knobbly bits aside) are fine, but taken together they just feel overwhelming. That said, all bitching aside, Seviper at least has a decent shape so it can escape the worst score. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on June 23, 2018, 08:40:03 AM
Someone review the next few for me. No? Fine.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/eb/337Lunatone.png/250px-337Lunatone.png) Lunatone: Honestly, the duckbill is the only thing here that really upsets me. Psychic rock moon. I can do with that. The body works with a little roughness, the eyes are sufficiently weird alien to make the design work, but that duckbill is really stupid. Like, I don't get it. Why? I was gonna rate this dead average, but the longer I look at the bill, the madder I get at it. WHY? 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/90/338Solrock.png/250px-338Solrock.png) Solrock: I actually thought I hated this one more, but the Sugimori art is pretty decent. Same caveat as Lunatone really. Psychic rock sun with an alien twist works. My biggest complaint is the stupid eyelash things around the eyes. What is it with this pair and having something stupid added to them? I think a more uneven distribution of the little rocks rather than a full circle along its vertical equator would have worked better. All annoys me way less than Lunatone's duckbill though. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/60/339Barboach.png/250px-339Barboach.png) Barboach: Go little dildo-fish. Be the hero we need but don't deserve. Pleasant colors, nice fin placement. The more I look, the more I like, but it doesn't quiiiiite feel like it deserves top marks. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/60/340Whiscash.png/250px-340Whiscash.png) Whiscash: (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a2/dc/83/a2dc832c2316024f9e6ed0b89fedca1e.gif) 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on June 23, 2018, 03:34:26 PM
Whiscash is a derpy little motherfucker but I like him. Not sure how much of that is design and how much of that is being one of the few things to learn Earthquake at a reasonable level, though. <_<
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Lady Door on June 25, 2018, 08:45:52 PM
Lunatone and Solrock: (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/19/62/3f/19623f8fe9b2ccb5dd97caabc7821d16.jpg)

Barboach: (http://media.gettyimages.com/vectors/eggplant-closed-by-censorship-symbol-adult-only-vector-id517741578?s=170667a&w=1007)

Whiscash: (http://iconpopanswers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/icomania-large-278.jpg)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on June 28, 2018, 03:31:25 AM
Top Marks Flygon is accurate. My only issue with Trapinch is how much I just want a fully-evolved Antlion pokemon.

I really like Altaria's head plumage. It gives the whole thing a great silhouette. I can understand not liking the weirdness with the cloud wings, though. Still, would have given it the same score as its pre evolution though.

Barboach is fucking awful. Solrock and Lunatone look better in those pics that LadyDoor posted.

Seviper/Zangoose are only notable for being a nifty rare instance of Pokemon attempting some kind of notable species interaction (in this case, a rivalry). I'm not sure why Pokemon is so hesitant to form natural ecological connections between members of its fictional ecology.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 19, 2018, 08:04:44 PM
My daughter will one day have to finish this topic for me.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/3d/341Corphish.png/250px-341Corphish.png) Corphish: I liked you better when you were Krabby. Seriously, the idea here isn't bad, but like. You couldn't have spiced the colors up a bit instead of being Krabby 2.0? The head spikes too? And what the fuck is wrong with those pincers. He can pince near his eyes and that is it. I do like how later sprites changed his eyes a bit to make them less dopey. I dunno, I complain, but I do sort of like him? He's cute in a horrible lobster way. I just wish they'd differentiated a bit stronger from Krabby. Also, proper segmentation use for once. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f4/342Crawdaunt.png/250px-342Crawdaunt.png) Crawdaunt: Would it be gauche to make a Jordan Peterson joke? Uh, anyhow. A nice progression on the whole, with a lot of little details that... really bug me. Like the color shift is good. Why was this not Corphish's base color? Calls back to Krabby/Kingler without looking the exact same. And the stripe of blue is a good add, as is the little tale stripe. Just little touches to break things up without being too busy. I have no idea what that star is all about though. Like, it is an evolution of the head spikes but... why? And the feet. Those are creeping me out. Why does he have giant feet and then little... balancing legs? Those legs upset me immensely. They haunt my dreams. Just let him be a lobster. Give him lobster legs, not horror feet. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8b/343Baltoy.png/250px-343Baltoy.png) Baltoy: I like this little dude. Simple and clean. It's just a pleasant shape and the color is nice and generally good at communicating what it is. He works. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/07/344Claydol.png/250px-344Claydol.png) Claydol: I really hate those stupid arms. Everything else here is pretty cool (though we could use a bit more color continuity) but those arms... Honestly, I tell a bit of a lie. The shape just isn't as aesthetically pleasing as Baltoy, but I really do like the mult-eye design. Sure, let's just say slightly worse than Baltoy, but still kinda cool. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/34/345Lileep.png/250px-345Lileep.png) Lileep: Feather dusters are cool. Lileep... ah... I like Lileep, but I'm kinda hard-pressed to justify it. The overall design is just really weird. I guess it sorta imitates another thing with hair, keeping its gragile face safe inside the cup (explaining the general layout of the body and the yellow "eyes"). The segmented neck/stem is kinda lame though and the color combination just doesn't super work for me. Are yellow and purple agreeable colors with pink? I dunno. *tosses hands up* I guess it also doesn't super convey its plant typing well given the petals look more fleshy than anything. Mercy 2/5.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/38/346Cradily.png/250px-346Cradily.png) Cradily: An improvement. The colors work better here and the overall design is more interesting with a clearly imitatory look going down. Still kinda unsold on the petals? But definitely an improvement. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 23, 2018, 08:39:36 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/45/347Anorith.png/250px-347Anorith.png) Anorith: For the longest time I never noticed Anorith's actual eyes. Like, we're talking took until Gen 6 to notice. They aren't too bad here, really, since it makes him look like a cute and doofy little bug guy. The claws kinda bug me because I really don't understand how they are positioned or how they work there, but the overall body shape is pretty good and I go back and forth on like the feather/fan legs. He's fine, I guess. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/1d/348Armaldo.png/250px-348Armaldo.png) Armaldo: The eyes here, on the other hand, look really stupid. He's... not awful, but I just don't like the progresion from Anorith to him, really. Its the same sort of goofiness as Kabutops. The overall shape is fine (though the hell is going on on his back with the little wing fin things?), but I just find myself not liking him and about 90% of it comes back to those fucking goofy ass eyes. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4b/349Feebas.png/250px-349Feebas.png) Feebas: If it is trying to be ugly, can I really score it low for succeeding? Yes. It is a borderline case, but in honor of what it is trying to be (and because those lips are really truly hideous, along with the sort of emaciated lower body) I will give it the desired 1/5. Congrats.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/36/350Milotic.png/250px-350Milotic.png) Milotic: The pretty sea serpent is pretty. I think I'd like it better without the odd head horn or if the coloration carried further up its body (or if it managed to maintain a little more of the Feebas look in its evolution) but honestly I really do like this one a lot. I guess I just like flowy designs, and the ear-fins and eyebrows help there, as well as just the very smooth snout shape. Much like its pre-evo it is borderline but I will give it the desired 5/5 anyway.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f3/351Castform.png/250px-351Castform.png) Castform: The biggest breasts in all of Pokemon. There is nothing else to discuss about this design. That decision defines Castform. Caster the busty fucking ghost over here. Why did I come back to this topic? 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b6/351Castform-Sunny.png/110px-351Castform-Sunny.png) Castform (Sunny): Why GameFreaks? 1/5
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/89/351Castform-Rainy.png/110px-351Castform-Rainy.png): Castform (Rainy): What did I do to you? 1/5
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f9/351Castform-Snowy.png/110px-351Castform-Snowy.png) Castfrom (Snowy): This is the best one and maybe it is the suffering talking, but this probably makes 2/5 on the basis of not having giant breasts or being a weather emoji.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on December 26, 2018, 02:29:54 AM
Castform is such a shame because its innate ability that allows it to transform into different types and get different moves based on the Weather effect is incredibly rad to me.

If that ability was on a different pokemon, (maybe something akin to the Therions from Gen 5?) and it had cool transformations, it would be amazing and probably my favorite pokemon. I already have a fondness for Castform and I absolutely loathe its aesthetic design.

GameFreak has this bad habit of not being able to give cool and interesting RPG-mechanical designs to any of the Pokemon who I like for aesthetic design...
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 26, 2018, 09:04:07 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/50/352Kecleon.png/250px-352Kecleon.png) Kecleon: Gen 3 has a lot of yellow highlights and random zig-zags. I get why they exist (breaking up mono-color) but there has to be a better way to do that in most cases. I dunno. I don't... hate Kecleon. I just don't like him either. Chameleons look weird. He looks weird. Those little wings are definitely stupid though. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/4b/353Shuppet.png/250px-353Shuppet.png) Shuppet: I love this little sheet ghost. Giving him a head is a decent choice, and the eye color is surprising cool. A simple design that just works. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0a/354Banette.png/250px-354Banette.png) Banette: I like it less than Shuppet. The design isn't bad, but I just find it less clean. I just have no idea what is going on with Banette's head shape. Why its eyes look like that. Etc. The concept (possessed doll) is solid, but the actual design feels a bit lacking? Still, the zipper is a nice touch, and I like the limp hands. Not sure what that tail is, though. Chalk it up to another random yellow affectation on a Gen 3 pokemon. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Lady Door on December 26, 2018, 05:57:23 PM
The detail choices on Banette are weird, but face it: if that thing were to rise from a pile of stuffed toys, it would still be ~super effective~. I think the zipper mouth is what really gets me. What are you hiding, Banette? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING.

In other news, Castform is a tragedy as Djinn says. It's a neat concept, and you even get to start with something as simple as a cloud. Why did you have to fuck it up, Game Freak?

Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Ranmilia on December 26, 2018, 10:49:28 PM
https://twitter.com/princessproto/status/1077707200854978570
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on December 27, 2018, 12:56:21 PM
I'm personally more of a fan of the high-Orbosity pole and the high-Noodliation pole, while the High-both pole is really "...meh" to me.

Spheal is friend-shaped. Dragonair is a platonic ideal of beauty. Tangela is... meh.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on December 29, 2018, 09:21:20 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e2/355Duskull.png/250px-355Duskull.png) Duskull: Much like Shuppet, I like this fairly simple and straightforward ghost design. It is grim reaper ghost. It works. I do think the bones on the back (sweatshirt logo style) are too much though. And it is really hard to notice in a lot of the art, but I find the fact that it only has one eye that drifts between the two eyeholes on the skull to be wierdly neat. A totally small and pointless thing, but neat. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/12/356Dusclops.png/250px-356Dusclops.png) Dusclops: And then... this happens. Like, I don't... hate the core idea of a cyclopic mummy ghost, I just really don't like the chubby humanoid ghost thing, and it is really pronounced here. Like, he is ultra waddly compared to even Gendar. And I'm not sure what is with those slightly off-color ears and head thing. I dunno. There's clearly something here because despite not liking any of the individual pieces outside of maybe the mouth thing (which kinda nicely follows off Duskull), I don't really hate Dusclops as much as I'd expect. That said, he's still not good. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/dd/357Tropius.png/250px-357Tropius.png) Tropius: You are... so weird. I legit forget this thing is Grass/Flying just because it is such a weird choice of dinosaur to model it after for that. That aside, there's nothing really wrong with the design? The banana beard is a bit weird, but it doesn't exactly jar overly badly. I'm just gonna go ahead and give it 3/5 because I dunno.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e5/358Chimecho.png/250px-358Chimecho.png) Chimecho: I actually kinda like Chimecho. The color and patterning is really nice and the shape is mostly okay. I think I'd like it better if its tail didn't look so -exactly- like it was a windchime and more hung down from it without looking like it were glued on, but hey. And look at those helpless little nub arms. It's adorable. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/00/359Absol.png/250px-359Absol.png) Absol: Edgy/5

Honestly, I like Absol but whenever I look at it, I have a lot of trouble actually justifying it. The mane is cool and nice and fluffy, the headscythe is acceptable, and I actually like its feet and face pretty well. A decent cat/dog predator hybrid along the lines of the eeveelutions while still looking rather distinct. The "hair" really bugs me though. I get it is going for the magatama thing, but it just looks so... weird with its perfectly straight lines. If they could have scruffed it up a bit like they did with the mane I'd have dug it more. And that tail is a... thing. Just glue a little scythe to its butt. And those two things really, really bug me. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d0/360Wynaut.png/250px-360Wynaut.png) Wynaut: It is a baby wobbuffet. I mean, the design does successfully look like a younger version of it? Or at least I can track like, all of the design choices that lead from one to the other.  The head dick looks pretty stupid though. I dunno. What'd I give wobbuffet? 2/5? That works here.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on January 02, 2019, 08:19:03 AM
We continue on in 2019. It's cold. I'm cold. Let's do this.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/6b/361Snorunt.png/250px-361Snorunt.png) Snorunt: Its been a great 2019, see you all next year.

No? Fine. It's... I have no idea what to do with this, really. It's weird. I guess it isn't the worst or anything, but it is like an oddish with a parka. I don't really like the colors at work here and I just find it kinda forgettable. The diamonds on the back are okay? Whatever. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/62/362Glalie.png/250px-362Glalie.png) Glalie: I notice the parka is gone. Honestly, this is a surprisingly... consistent evolution from Snorunt, which always surprises me when I think about it. Like, they definitely look really different, but there are a lot of solidly consistent elements. I definitely like Glalie better as a design for all that is a just a floating head covered in ice. But ultimately I don't really think there is anything particularly great here, and frankly it is a really unclear design. Like, the ice part is not even clear unless you know what you're looking at. Also I hate hockey masks. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9f/363Spheal.png/250px-363Spheal.png) Spheal: O/5 (EDIT: Under additional consideration, I have opted to upgrade this score slightly 4/5)

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f6/364Sealeo.png/250px-364Sealeo.png) Sealeo: I forgot this thing existed. Like, I was thinking Spheal went straight to Walrein. Go figure. And for good reason. This thing is both boring and bad. The body shape kinda works, but the fins are placed really poorly, creative a fairly awkward looking thing. Like, the tail is just flued onto the end of that fat worm body and I just dunno why those flippers are right there. The mustache isn't bad, but I think it being stark white doesn't work with everything else going on here. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/61/365Walrein.png/250px-365Walrein.png) Walrein: I liked this design more until I looked at it from behind. Like, that tail is worse than Sealo. And the old man hair is atrocious fucking looking. The beard stuff looked better as a face frill and mane, not this whole entire head covering hair thing. The walrus elements are fine (though I think one of its legs are broken in the art) but holy shit that stuff on the back is awful. 2/5 I guess.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Lady Door on January 02, 2019, 07:05:43 PM
Snorunt is criminally underrated. It's a little ghost child who brings good luck! It's an adorable little candy corn shape! It does have a parka 'cause it's cold. It has a simple design that does not have any excessive detail or extra frill, just clean outlines with small touches that give it texture and depth. It clearly has a face and there aren't any hidden "haha, you thought that was a mouth" moments that a ridiculous number of Pokemon seem to have. Yellow/orange cloak and black/teal eyes are a good pair and it's well balanced. It has ghost snowball hands!!! It deserves at least a 4/5.

Spheal is also adorable but I have no idea whether it'd pop if I tried to squeeze it so ultimately I think it gets the score it deserves. Spheal -> Sealeo -> Walrein is just disappointing. What a boring line. The fractal/haha just kidding not fractal snow-inspired beard & hair for Walrein just does not fit in with the rest. Sealeo sprouts a frayed white snow moustache, and then it goes fuckin' nuts all over its head in Walrein? Is Walrein's throat cartilage escaping out of its neck? Did it get caught in a soda ring as it evolved? What the hell, Walrein?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Hunter Sopko on January 03, 2019, 03:24:37 AM
Spheal is an adorable round boi you heretic
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on January 03, 2019, 05:49:49 AM
Spheal's one of the most adorable Pokemon out there, criminally underrated here. I'd probably give the line like 5/4/3 myself.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on January 12, 2019, 10:15:54 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/11/366Clamperl.png/250px-366Clamperl.png) Clamperl: This was a hard one to come back to. I guess its fine? It manages to distinguish itself from Shellder well enough. It emphasizes its existence as a pearl thing mounted in the shell. The colors work well. The shell shape is kinda neat and reminds me of forretress. I'm just not sold on the overall design of it being the little pearl thing being held by a... whatever is holding it. I dunno. This is weirdly hard. I don't hate it. I actually like a lot of its pieces. I just don't feel like it comes together to really wow me. Let's just call it a slightly worse Shellder and be done. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/11/367Huntail.png/250px-367Huntail.png) Huntail: Can we go back to Clamperl? This, Gorebyss, and Octillery are like, three of the worst evolutions in the game for making sense. The color here is hideous if you ask me, color wheel be damned. The overall shape isn't bad (though is its tail supposed to look like Gorebyss?) but the coloring and spots and weird round little backspines just do nothing for me. Also, unsure why it has a headfan. Once I look at the sprites, goddamn is its head big in some of those. 2/5
 
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/37/368Gorebyss.png/250px-368Gorebyss.png) Gorebyss: Man, fuck this thing. The colors here are better than Gorebyss, but uh... yeah. Why does it have a shell bra? Why? WHY? Also I guess the tail fan looks like the one on Huntail's head. I didn't even notice the eyelashes until right now. And just the weird trilogy of noodles that make up its face. And its head is so goddamn big too. Fuck I hate this thing. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/78/369Relicanth.png/250px-369Relicanth.png) Relicanth: I actually think of this thing when people talk about coelcanths. It has actually supplanted the real animal in my mind. (And yes, I know theHonestly, outside the back fin (the actual one, not the horn) is the only thing I don't really like. The muddy design is good for its rock-typing, the head looks solidly bony, the little fins are neat. I guess the tail could be a bit more pronounced? The little red dot is neat too. I like this fish. It is very close to the real one, but the head is a really nice and pokemon update so I'll give it the credit. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/1d/370Luvdisc.png/250px-370Luvdisc.png) Luvdisc: You know what. I think it is bed time. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on January 16, 2019, 02:54:39 AM
"Trilogy of Noodles" is going to be my new 3-man garage band.

But wow, I had never looked at Goreabyss closely before. Dear god that seashell bra is quite a misstep... Good use of that rare 1/5. What a strange name for such an oddly-plain Pokemon...
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on January 19, 2019, 08:58:51 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d2/371Bagon.png/250px-371Bagon.png) Bagon: Lookit the little adorable t-rex dragon with his stubby arms. The head shell is kinda weird, but I don't hate it. I also don't really like the overall color scheme, but it isn't terrible? Those ears are fucking dumb though. I guess the nub arms and hoof feet are kinda lame too. I dunno. All the little elements don't bug me that much when taken together. He'd probably look better with a tail. I think this manages 3/5.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a5/372Shelgon.png/250px-372Shelgon.png) Shelgon: We once again are forced to ask: what is dramatic color changes between evos? From blue and tan to black and red. Why? I kinda like this guy a bit more than I should. I think he'd look better with a tail or the back totally closed, but egg with angry eyes and little nub feet works. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/41/373Salamence.png/250px-373Salamence.png) Salamence: And back with a brighter blue than Bagon plus the red from Shelgon. I like him. He's a dragon-y dragon. Probably the worst parts are the stupid face fins and those awful, awful wings. What are they even? Just Red sheets glued to his back. Everything else is kinda nice though. A lot of carryover from his previous forms (the various coloring, head ridges, the shell remaining on the belly). And honestly the thicker bodied lizard dragon thing is pretty cool. Also I seriously think that is one of the better tails in all of pokemon for lizard-y type tails. But man those wings are awful. Dream big, but maybe next time sprout better wings. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d4/374Beldum.png/250px-374Beldum.png) Beldum: I have no idea what to make of Beldum. I guess it is a neat, non-organic pokemon? It certainly looks distinct and odd. Sure, I'll give it a weird mercy 4/5.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/62/375Metang.png/250px-375Metang.png) Metang: You on the other hand... It's the nose. It really looks stupid. The rest is fine, but the nose and the I guess like... side hair spikes are atrocious and I can't stop looking at them. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/05/376Metagross.png/250px-376Metagross.png) Metagross: Why does Gen 3 have two... whatever the lategame 3 stage evos are called as a group anyway? Anyhow, you know what, I actually think Metagross looks great. A nice kinda alien looking inorganic thing. The psychic typing is a bit mysterious, but eh. There is just a very nice clean progression here with the merged Beldum design. And he traded the stupid nose for a decent looking faceband, which is a rarity. Usually they double down on things I hate. I guess if I was gonna complain I'd complain that I don't like the main body being a symmetrical design? I think I'd prefer if the bottom were just flat. But hey. I'll give Metagross a 5/5 because I just realized I like it.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Lady Door on January 22, 2019, 10:36:14 PM
These are all really uninspiring Pokemon. They don't exactly look like knockoffs, which is suprising - I'll have to have a deep think about what could possibly be so consistent amongst 700+ designs as to constitute a "style bible" strong enough for me to casually retain it - but they aren't shining beacons of design meeting purpose or anything.

The things that are contiguous may be even more confusing and upsetting. Why does Bagon's head thingy become the entire shell for Shelgon and then reduce itself down to a belly plate for Salamence? What's the significance of that? I'm assuming the lore behind Beldum, Metang and Metagross is they're some conglomeration of the creatures, as that's what the design progression suggestions (arm, body + arm, four arms + body), but does that actually suggest that Metagross is some final evolution wherein the anima of the previous creatures is subsumed in some rock/metal tomb and donated to the greater glory of the parasitic diamond they now find themselves enslaved to?

Also why does Metagross just have a metal X whanged onto his face. why.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on January 23, 2019, 06:52:31 AM
I think the Salamence line is meant to reflect some sort of caterpillar-cocoon-metamorphosis, but instead of a butterfly, you get a fuckoff huge dragon. I quite like the concept, even if neither the first nor last stage appeals to me all that much. I kinda love the cocoon phase though?

Metagross might be one of the only inorganic Pokemon designs that I don't hate, so sure, I can support this being one of the rare 5/5s. Inorganic designs aren't for me, but *somebody* must like them, so I'm glad there's one that isn't shitty. Also, there is a Cross on his face because he is MetagROSS. I think? IIRC, the anime does show how some Pokemon merge with others during evolution, so I think that is EXACTLY what has happened here. Metagross is the Gem Fusion of 4 Beldums.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on January 23, 2019, 08:35:19 AM
Since talking to my wife is a challenge, Metagross pokedex entry:    Metagross has four brains that are joined by a complex neural network. As a result of integration, this Pokémon is smarter than a supercomputer.

So it is indeed 4 linked Beldums. Or two Metangs for some reason on many of the entries.

Also this:    Metagross is the result of two Metang achieving fusion. When hunting, this Pokémon pins the prey to the ground under its massive body. It then eats the helpless victim using the large mouth on its stomach.

What the fuck.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/aa/377Regirock.png/250px-377Regirock.png) Regirock: Yep, he exists. His backspines are kinda lame. Color isn't bad and I guess I like the braille eyes or whatever. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/fe/378Regice.png/250px-378Regice.png) Regice: Being made out of a bunch of different icicles is a downgrade from being a pile of rocks. It just looks less like a conglomerate of ice and more like a bunch of crystals stuck together. Also the feet are extra dumb. Just decisively like the clunkiest, most awkward looking of the Regis. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/22/379Registeel.png/250px-379Registeel.png) Registeel: Man, why is Regirock the only one of you that doesn't have stupid legs? The little flare out hips to table legs are kinda goofy. As are the totally round shoulders. Like, I kinda like the shell metal design here and the colors are great but overall I just end up liking it slightly less than Regirock. Stop making piles of rocks have some of the more appealing shapes. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/24/380Latias.png/250px-380Latias.png) Latias: Colors fine. Big expressive eyes are cute and I like the ear things and the little head mark. The bug arms are kinda offputting though. The tail fins work pretty well up until I look at the sprite from behind and I'm kinda unsure what to do at that point. It is just a mess back there with how everything lines up. Probably needed the back wings to be more along the back instead of grouped at the end? I dunno. Mercy 3/5 for the adorbes face.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/52/381Latios.png/250px-381Latios.png) Latios: Yeah, it is just that they end up looking really ungainly for supposedly being inspired by jets. Uh, largely second verse, same as the first. There ARE differences in them, but conceptually what works and doesn't are largely the same thing if you replace cute with DETERMINED. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Lady Door on January 23, 2019, 05:20:49 PM
Since talking to my wife is a challenge,

I am going to assume you are referring to the fact that you posted this after I went to bed rather than implying something else BUT

Anyway, kudos to Game Freak for successfully conveying their intention through design I guess. I stand behind what I said regardless.

I want to like Latios and Latias, but they feel like Japanese product mascots that got a little too literal while still trying to be clever. It's not just a cute plane, it's a cute plane that looks like a DRAGON! And it comes in two colors! Does anyone explain why they have geometric shapes on their chests? Also: they have fiberglass feathers and I'm going to be really disappointed if they don't have needle or glass-themed move sets despite being Dragon/whatever.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on February 04, 2019, 01:45:05 AM
Well, Latios and Latias DO learn 'Steel Wing' and 'Sandstorm' by TM, so there's a bit of fiberglass violence if you squint.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Grefter on February 12, 2019, 10:36:52 PM
Latias has 4 toes flipper feet that you can see quite clearly.

Latios left foot has 5 toes that flare out.

what the fuck
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 20, 2019, 06:30:53 AM
Let's fucking finish Gen 3.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/41/382Kyogre.png/250px-382Kyogre.png) Kyogre: Well, its fin fingers are less stupid than Lugia's wing fingers? I actually kinda like Kyogre, honestly. The geometric patterning is pretty mellow and mostly used to nice accent parts of its body. The shape is an excellent fish shape that actually has a lot more orca in it then I realized now that I think about the white spots near its heard. I have no idea how I've never noticed that. It also makes sense with the teeth when it opens its mouth. The fingers really do suck and I wish they weren't there. The tail... flag is also a bit weird. I don't hate it, but I think use the sharp pointed tail with it looks weird and with the main body potion was also flat. That back fins are neat but the red outline creates this issue where it looks like he's wearing a waistcoat. I guess ultimately I think there are just too many little flaws holding it back, so 3/5 for you.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/70/383Groudon.png/250px-383Groudon.png) Groudon: You actually look better than I thought. The really awkward hunched back is lame, but the overall coloring and shape is good. The head ridges and tail... claws? Are weird and distinct. I think the amount of spikes on the side are overkill and probably something else to break things up would have been better. How flat his body is in the game is in the official art is kind of interesting, kinda making me think of a worm more than a dinosaur... which works here. To my own surprise, I think the design just comes together a bit better than Kyogre. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e4/384Rayquaza.png/250px-384Rayquaza.png) Rayquaza: He looks perpetually surprised. There's a lot I really don't understand in this design. The little fin rings are stupid (especially the two fin one on the shoulder). The lipstick/red teeth. The little stick arms and ball shoulders. The topmost horns that come out of the neck. Even the coloring is just a lot less satisfying than the other two. He isn't... quite pure garbage - I really dig the head shape for examples - but he is cloes. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/85/385Jirachi.png/250px-385Jirachi.png) Jirachi: Is a pretty good humanoid poke. I like it. It's got the same sorta mystical look that Gardevoir has going for it. The little ear dangles are a bit weird, and the tags maybe look a little too tag-like (for all that I do think they are necessary for breaking up the amount of yellow there), but it all comes together really well. I guess the little teardrops are a bit odd? I have no idea why those exist. They don't look bad though. Its close, but I don't think it quite makes the top for me, so let's go 4/5.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e7/386Deoxys.png/250px-386Deoxys.png) Deoxys (Normal): Of course the last thing I have to review this gen is a four form jackass. Sigh. I don't like Deoxys much, but I don't actually hate it and I'm not sure why. I guess the idea that it is supposed to be an alien pokemon helps it a bit here since it overall shape and ocntent wise still looks "pokemon to me" and I'm willing to give a bit of leeway for the affectations that are a bit weird. Like the head fins or the leg flares. The color is pretty nice. I feel like I should hate this, but I really don't. Whatever. 3/5.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d8/386Deoxys-Attack.png/110px-386Deoxys-Attack.png) Deoxys (Attack): Basically takes the normal design, but looks sharper. I think the additional black here doesn't work as well, but overall I like this marginally better than normal. Also the tentacles look better hanging loose instead of DNA spiraled. Still, the likes are just barely over Normal, so we'll count it as 3/5 too.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cc/386Deoxys-Defense.png/110px-386Deoxys-Defense.png) Deoxys (Defense): I think this is my favorite? I think the thicc design best features its... features. It also has the least obnoxious points and other things. The kneepads are a bit weird though. I really love the head/shoulders/arms area though. Just a good hulking monster design. Still not enough to get us out of 3/5.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/2b/386Deoxys-Speed.png/110px-386Deoxys-Speed.png) Deoxys (Speed): This one I hate. I get the idea with it shedding most of its layering, but it just looks so stupid, especially with those massive hip things and the idiot speed skater hat. The reduction to one tentacle on each side also makes it look really... underdone? Lacking? The stupidest things on this design are so prominent though. I think this actually goes down to 1/5 for me.

Am I done? Is Gen 3 over? What year is it. Fuck me.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 20, 2019, 06:40:11 AM
Apparently I never reviewed Linoone myself

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f7/264Linoone.png/250px-264Linoone.png) Linoone: Uh. Yeah. Pretty boring. Not actively offensive. It deserves about this much attention. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 20, 2019, 07:50:24 AM
So. Gen 3. My favorite Gen as far as the games go. It... fared worse than I expected. A lot of designs I thought I liked or at least found okay just didn't stand up or score well under scrutiny. Take that nostalgia, I guess. On the other hand, though, the designs I DID still like, I like a lot. Even some of the 4s and 3s are Pokemon I really like. SO I think that's ultimately why I come across with a stronger opinion of Gen 3 than 2. Probably.

Onward to Gen 4. Jesus Christ I will never finish.

Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Lady Door on February 20, 2019, 06:11:43 PM
Kyogre, Groudon, Rayquaza: HELLO DIGIMON HOW ARE YOU

I'd like Kyogre a lot more if it didn't have a blunted version of stupid Digimon fingers. Groudon is like a backhoe flatworm and it seriously disturbs me. Rayquaza is one of those Pokemon that look pretty neat at the first glance but then you look closer and you're like "Why is it wearing lipstick badly" and "Are those fins turbines" and no thank you.

Jirachi: Come the fuck on, Andrew, this is Tanabata personified. It's star-shaped and has wish tags. I even looked it up in the Pokedex. It's CALLED THE WISH POKEMON. ... I also don't get the shapes under the eyes, though, so I'll give you that one. If you reaaaaaaaally want to stretch, with the three points of its head/hair, the two drops of hair, and those two under-eye triangles, you get 7. And 7 is important here. But getting there is one hell of a workout.

Deoxys: These forms all speak in μ-No.12's voice.

Linoone: Cute badger but it is not a Pokemon.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on February 21, 2019, 03:55:21 PM
I think the lipstick/teeth are supposed to be GUMS in Rayquaza's case, which makes it even worse. Are you telling me the mighty dragon entity is supposed to rule the air from a nursery home, Pokémon!?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Random Consonant on February 21, 2019, 06:36:40 PM
I never really noted what the heck was up with Rayquaza's mouth before, but now I can't unsee it.

Way to ruin what was otherwise a rather unremarkable design.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on February 22, 2019, 02:28:51 AM
Rayquaza is one of those Pokemon with a little much going on, but it has such a great outline that I have a hard time hating it.

Like... seriously, remove all of the color from it and Rayquaza is just a kickass Japanese dragon with an awesome head shape.

Kyogre is also another favorite of mine. Gimme more of that Digimon-looking shit. This is a Legendary Pokemon, let him stand out! 5/5 design.

Groudon's the one I dislike from this set of Legendaries personally.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on February 22, 2019, 09:36:37 AM
I never really noted what the heck was up with Rayquaza's mouth before, but now I can't unsee it.

Way to ruin what was otherwise a rather unremarkable design.

Thank you, we'll be here all night
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 27, 2019, 09:01:29 AM
Let's do this. Gen 4. DPP. Team Galactic. Now updating daily because I will never finish otherwise. I will attempt to do a minimum 1 evolution line a day.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/5c/387Turtwig.png/250px-387Turtwig.png) Turtwig: His jaw hinge is a bit weird. Design is kind of a bit boring outside of that. I mean, there's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't excite me too much. The twig on its head is a little weird too, especially given where this evolution goes. The starburst on the headtwig and feetyellow are a bit weird. Let's call this one average. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/53/388Grotle.png/250px-388Grotle.png) Grotle: Suddenly, anklyasaurus! However that is spelled. Conceptually I like the design here, but the details kinda kill it for me. The yellow socks are dumber looking here than on Turtwig (should have kept the jagged edges) and the bushes only growing on 2/3 of the back ridges is weird. Plus that little line in the middle of its torso is dumb. And we again have a bit of an issue with the fact that this evolutionary line isn't a very clean Stage 1 -> 3 movement which is lame. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/df/389Torterra.png/250px-389Torterra.png) Torterra: Evolution color shift go. The colors look good here, I just wish it wasn't such a bit jump. That said, Torterra is fucking rad. There are definitely elements to the design I don't like (cheek spikes, black beak) but that shell is super cool with its rock garden design. Like, it is just a really great concept and in practice looks pretty good too. And look at those rough, stompy legs. Torterra never skips leg day. I do wish the shell was a bit better blended with the back instead of shell being an extra thing over the armor plates, but whatever. This is early on and I'm in a good mood. 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on February 28, 2019, 01:09:23 AM
Torterra is a very rare starter pokemon whose final stage is the one that looks best IMO.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on February 28, 2019, 07:28:56 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/76/390Chimchar.png/250px-390Chimchar.png) Chimchar: The hips don't lie (Shakira, Shakira). It looks fine. Kinda boring honestly, outside the fire butt. The little chest swirl is nice, the colors are good. The fur on top of its head looks a bit stupid and doesn't convey fire quite as well as it wants, I think, but it isn't bad. I am biased against filthy apes though. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/2e/391Monferno.png/250px-391Monferno.png) Monferno: Suddenly blue mask. It doesn't look bad. It's just weird. This basically works out the same as Chimchar in that it works and is kinda boring, but I find myself hard-pressed to complain. The blue is weird though. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/fb/392Infernape.png/250px-392Infernape.png) Infernape: And suddenly the head is on fire and the blue is gone. The white spread is nice though and makes for a pretty good color combo. The gold is a bit of a surprise since Monferno picked up a little stripe and that was it, but sure, it works. Honestly, it's a better design than I remember it being. The gold thing on its chest being a wraparound is weird? I dunno. This is striking that spot JUST before being overdesigned for me. Blagh. Kinda torn on score this one, so will score it 4/5 for the moment.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on February 28, 2019, 12:15:26 PM
The wraparound thing on his chest is one of those ubiquitous references to Son Goku the Monkey King's magical band/crown. (https://www.kickemintheghoulies.com//film%20pictures/film%20stills/monkey%20magic%202%20pic.JPG)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 01, 2019, 06:08:49 AM
Makes sense enough I guess. It is just odd it is the only part of his design that wraps around the back. But good call.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b1/393Piplup.png/250px-393Piplup.png) Piplup: Penguins are stupid fucking animals. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/df/394Prinplup.png/250px-394Prinplup.png) Prinplup: Seriously, fuck all penguins. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/7f/395Empoleon.png/250px-395Empoleon.png) Empoleon: Fuck them and their stupid suits. 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on March 01, 2019, 10:31:08 AM
In this topic, I will now rate AndrewRogue: 0/10. Penguin hater. Nothing more needs to be said.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Luther Lansfeld on March 01, 2019, 02:15:33 PM
I propose that we burn him at the stake.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Cmdr_King on March 01, 2019, 02:17:55 PM
I’m more baffled at rating Empoleon below Prinplup though. Middle child’s just an insufferable prick right there.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on March 01, 2019, 04:23:39 PM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/7f/395Empoleon.png/250px-395Empoleon.png) Empoleon: Fuck them and their stupid suits. 1/5

That's it, Andrew, you're fucking dead
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Ranmilia on March 01, 2019, 04:39:58 PM
SCORCHING HOT TAKES
Piplup too high.  There isn't anything to it, it's just a chibi bird, that's fine but not 4/5 worthy.  Prinplup's yellow Nerf-football-head-tumor-fin thing is really bad... is it 1/5 bad?  I'd struggle with 1 or 2.  Empoleon 6/5, a full five points too low. Best design of any starter evo in the series?  I think so, and only the Alolans and a couple others even hang.

this is all in good fun as always, thanks for topic, pls don't feel dogpiled or serious
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: SnowFire on March 01, 2019, 04:54:40 PM
Andy bought this as a child, and was forever traumatized:
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/s-hmFg5hipf-ceNJjBc4iM9jJiM=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13974160/obviousplant7.jpg)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on March 01, 2019, 05:52:11 PM
Piplup a point too low, Empoleon is at least three points too low.  Prinplup is the worst of the lot but by awkward middle child standards I'm not sure it's even -that- bad.

In short.

I propose that we burn him at the stake.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on March 01, 2019, 06:25:58 PM
I’m more baffled at rating Empoleon below Prinplup though. Middle child’s just an insufferable prick right there.

Empoleon is stupidly impractical. Prinplup can at least move without having his vision obstructed by a front-fin-chin-spaulders-tie and a trident glued to his face. Plus he has the eyelet-lacey scarf of a Lord High Judge printed on his chest. Inept palm claw things with minor articulation but swallowed whole by a stiff vambrace-sword-arm combination.

Empoleon looks like Howard the Duck and an Emperor Penguin had a nuclear accident with King Triton and the medieval section of the British Museum.

1/5 is too good.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on March 01, 2019, 07:30:47 PM
ok I wasn't going to say anything past what I already said because despite the tounge in cheek burn-the-witch commentary, taste is ultimately subjective and Empoleon's royal excess design isn't going to be for everyone and it is okay to dislike it, saying it deserves a sub-1/5 score is the most objectively wrong opinion I've seen expressed in this thread and I would say that even if I hated the design.  It has a clear sense of what the designers were going for, follows a reasonably clear progression with no especially egregious breaks in logic (like, sure I don't get why it suddenly has tiny flipper clawspikes or even necessarily how it's Steel-typed, but that's small potatos in comparison to some of stuff the stuff here, sup Shiftry how do you get tengu from anything there), isn't vaguely racist, weird fetish material, or looks like it belongs in a sex offender registry.  In short the only way I could find it in myself to disagree harder is if we were discussing some serious real-world issue here.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on March 01, 2019, 08:49:25 PM
I'm glad we've set the bar for "1/5" to isn't vaguely racist, weird fetish material, or looks like it belongs in a sex offender registry. That's about where it ought to be.

And Empoleon still falls below it.

But fair, it at least follows a progression and looks like it's in the right neighborhood with Piplup and Prinplup, even if that neighborhood is due for eradication. (Also I blame you for me now casting these characters in a gritty procedural where Empoleon is the kingpin, Prinplup is the pimp, and Piplup is the... exploited... for lack of a more fitting term.)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on March 02, 2019, 12:00:32 AM
Now I wonder if this was Andy's plot to get everyone interested in this thread again.

I don't have much to add personally that hasn't already been said by Mr. Consonant.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on March 02, 2019, 12:29:52 AM
And Empoleon still falls below it.

[citation needed]

(Also I blame you for me now casting these characters in a gritty procedural where Empoleon is the kingpin, Prinplup is the pimp, and Piplup is the... exploited... for lack of a more fitting term.)

 ::)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 02, 2019, 05:36:42 AM
In honor of my quantum anniversary, here's another stupid bird I'm reviewing while sick.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/af/396Starly.png/250px-396Starly.png) Starly: It's a birb. 2/5.

...kidding, kidding. I'll leave the starter with the shitty review and give the stupid earlygame bird a real one instead. It gets the little chubby city bird look down but honestly I just find the details lame. The little lion collar. The black beak tip. The cowlick. The clubs patter on its face. It's beady, soulless eyes. The colors are generally nice and complimentary and the body does work okay, but eh. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f8/397Staravia.png/250px-397Staravia.png) Staravia: Why did you make the cowlick stupider? Bird body is decent and the color patterning up on its face and chest are pretty near with divisions that look less asinine than Starly's collar. The pattern going flat over its eyes makes it look... I dunno. Nerdy? Like it has a bowl cut. I don't like that. And I seriously don't like the little black on its beak. It is immensely distracting for reasons I do not understand. Kinda borderline annoying me with that cowlick enough, but I'll let it skate by. Sick Andrew is filled with Mercy. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/5e/398Staraptor.png/250px-398Staraptor.png) Staraptor: You're a decent hawk bo- oh you're head feathers you poor thing. I guess the AXE CUT is less stupid than Staravia's deathlick, and the little color dash is a nice change up. The chest feather floof is nice looking and that's a great pattern. I like the own "ears" thing too. But then you have that stupid beak still. Even dumber for the PREDATOR POKEMON to have that doofy ass beak. Also, I'm not going to count it against the design, but what is with the way the wings are bending up at the end? It looks like its flexing feather fingers but none of the other designs seem to do anything of the sort. It's weird. 2/5, I guess going the positive way this time? Andrew giveth mercy and Andrew giveth none.

Also why did he lose his one white tailfeather?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on March 02, 2019, 06:58:45 AM
I think Starly is cute but "it's a birb" pretty much adequately sums it up and its evos are pretty on the meh side.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 03, 2019, 08:47:57 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f5/399Bidoof.png/250px-399Bidoof.png) Bidoof: He's fine. His little tail bulbs are kind of weird. Otherwise he looks like a slightly stupid beaver. Boring but not actively offensive is fine for a 3/5 with my ears hurting the way they are right now.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/91/400Bibarel.png/250px-400Bibarel.png) Bibarel: I kinda forget you exist. But hey, there is the tail. All around the different proportions on the face (and the little "mask" of fur) end up making it look a bit stupid and honestly less interesting (marginally) than Bidoof. So, since that was already borderline... 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Ranmilia on March 03, 2019, 06:02:32 PM
Bidoof at least 2 points too low.  If you're gonna do "just a real animal, ish"...
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 04, 2019, 07:34:54 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/33/401Kricketot.png/250px-401Kricketot.png) Kreicketot: It is... slightly less stupid than Volbeat and Illumise? The colors are more complimentary and the design is a lot more cohesive. It's a little less ridiculously fat. The little cape on its back is almost clever as wings/wing covers. I don't really like it, but I feel bad scoring it at the same tier as the other two humanoid suit bugs, so... 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e5/402Kricketune.png/250px-402Kricketune.png) Kricketune: There's... an idea here. The string instrument patterning isn't horrifically offensive. The not-quite-scyther arms are cute. The drop down of the head thing to be a mustache is a choice. The little... ear danglies exist? Those are some good bug eyes! Yeah, I got nothing. he's kind of a stupid mess. 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Ranmilia on March 04, 2019, 04:04:38 PM
https://castlevania.fandom.com/wiki/Abaddon
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 06, 2019, 07:40:44 AM
Sickness makes this hard to do daily. Please end sickness. Two lines tonight to make up for it.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/32/403Shinx.png/250px-403Shinx.png) Shinx: Honestly I think I just hate electric types. I should go back and see if this is true at this point. This is just kind of... too much. Half and half color scheme with three different random tufts and weird ear crosses and multi-ring eyes and little ankle bands and a tail topper thing. It's just a lot and none of of it is really cohesive. The yellow speaks electric, but why... pretty much anything I listed previously. This design is just pulling in a ton of different directions. It isn't the ugliest but it is pretty much a hot mess. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/49/404Luxio.png/250px-404Luxio.png) Luxio: A shame the design is such a hot mess considering this is one of the better jobs GameFreaks does of just nice progressive grown on an evolution. Pretty much all the same elements, just... more. Also its mane beard makes me think of the amish. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a7/405Luxray.png/250px-405Luxray.png) Luxray: And suddenly red eye. Probably should have introduced that element a bit earlier. This is probably the best looking Shinx gets, and that's mostly because the growing in black serves to add a lot more coherency to the design by actually blending its elements. The sweep of all the tufts is also guided now instead of going just like... every direction. The receeding black on the back actually looks better here because, again, there is like, actual design being done in the way it hugs the legs. Ehhh. Its enough of an improvement over the other two I'll let it scrape by at 2/5.

Oh, and I guess since I remembered at the last second, this line does read a bit weirdly to be pure electric.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d3/406Budew.png/250px-406Budew.png) Budew: Is part poison. I honestly didn't know that. Or that Budew -> Roselia -> Roserade was an evolutionary line. The fuck. Uh. Budew exists. It is a very boring plant thing but not actively offensive? 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/05/407Roserade.png/250px-407Roserade.png) Roserade: I honestly thought this was independent of Roselia and there were just two rose pokemon for some stupid reason. Uh. What did I say about Roselia? One sec, please...

...

...

Uh. I 'unno. I guess I like it better than Roselia, with the rose head being better than the spike head. The "mask" appearance on its face is kinda weird, but the body being more bud -like is cute? And I guess I like a cape more than a poncho? Cold medicine is kicking in hard, so let's just settle at 3/5 and say it is an improvement on its predecessor.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on March 06, 2019, 08:47:31 AM
I'd probably give the Luxray line a 2/5 throughout but yeaaaaaaah electric types are pretty bad design-wise on average.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Hunter Sopko on March 07, 2019, 12:19:55 AM
Also its mane beard makes me think of the amish. 1/5

Tis a fine barn, but tis no evolution, English.



Anyway, agreed mostly on Shinx. The first stage is just kinda dumb. But I do think it gets better. Luxio scrapes 2/5 and Luxray borders on 3/5.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 07, 2019, 06:22:21 PM
Daily updates are a little spotty until I stop being sick.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 12, 2019, 08:27:58 AM
Apparently I will never feel well again, so I guess here we go again.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/cd/408Cranidos.png/250px-408Cranidos.png) Cranidos: I wish I had something more exciting to say, but I really don't. It's okay. The colors are nice and complimentary, the body shape is okay, it looks a lot like its source so isn't too exciting. It is a cute little headbutting dinosaur. Its art crushes both the sprites and model? Like, a lot. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8a/409Rampardos.png/250px-409Rampardos.png) Rampardos: And now it looks kinda stupid. The more cone look to the head is way less clean looking than the dome. The horns look.. utterly useless based on the dome. The whole hunchback thing is clunky looking (and the raised spine look that sinks down to the neck is weird). I mean, I get what they are going for, but I feel like there must have been a better way to do it that didn't look quite so janky. Oh, and the knee spikes. What even are those? 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 13, 2019, 07:22:15 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e2/410Shieldon.png/250px-410Shieldon.png) Shieldon: I look this goofy little cutie. Once again, nicely complimentary colors and a cute little dino body. Also that face. LOOK AT THOSE EYES. The grey bars are a little weird, but I do like the solid frill quite a bit. The single grey nail on each foot is a bit weird, though, as is the little single piece grey piece on the back. I want to keep it a little lower because of those details, but those eyes are too pure to let me go below 4/5. They see my soul and cleanse my sins.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bc/411Bastiodon.png/250px-411Bastiodon.png) Bastiodon: You are less cute. And your eyes are less pure. The castle frill is right on the border of being too obvious, but I think they play it down just enough that it works. And I have to admit, that is a face that looks like it can take a goddamn hit. The additional growth on the legs and back are pretty good, though the way the coverage drops down on a single rectangle to the tail is weird? But I do like how rough it all looks. Honestly, I think the eyebrow nosebone is the worst part? I think it is just one step too far and really makes the space around its eyes look too busy when combined with the tractor teeth. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: DjinnAndTonic on March 13, 2019, 07:52:34 AM
Cranidos at 4/5, but the entire Shinx line at 1/5 or 2/5?

I think I know why you are feeling unwell. This is karma telling you to change your heathen ways.

(For serious, though, I hope you feel better soon. I imagine having a small child is probably contributing to your general unwell-ness... they are cute, but they are germ-factories...)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 15, 2019, 08:09:07 AM
It takes 7 days to form a habit. In the meanwhile, you forget that you're supposed to do thing. Let's catch up with... oh. Oh no. No...

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c9/412Burmy-Plant.png/250px-412Burmy-Plant.png) Burmy (Plant Cloak): What's the deal with the swirly bit on its head? The overall design is okay, but that thing kinda bothers me, partly because it just looks gross. But I like the way the leaf cloak looks. It conveys the bug covering itself in plant life well. Unsure what the deal with the little brown sticks are though. I dunno. Its fine. I find it okay. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/1f/412Burmy-Sandy.png/110px-412Burmy-Sandy.png) Burmy (Sand Cloak): The sand covering is way less exciting and... honestly a bit less sensible than the leaf one too. I kinda feel more rocks would have been good here, as the sand cover is just sort of dull. What makes the leaves more interesting is that there is just more going on there. The three rocks are just meh. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8e/412Burmy-Trash.png/110px-412Burmy-Trash.png) Burmy (Trash Cloak): Did... did it roll in insulation? I just don't get what they are going for here. At all. Like, I don't get why insulation is the design choice here. And it is as boring as the sand one. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/db/413Wormadam-Plant.png/250px-413Wormadam-Plant.png) Wormadam (Plant Cloak): Not awful, but I really liked the more haphazard feel of Burmy more. This is just a bit too neat and comfortable. Which I guess is a direction you can take, but eh. For it being covering, I kind of want it to be more irregular. No perfect balanced flowers and leaves and all that. The "beak" is also a bit goofy looking and oddly bird like. And I really dislike the coloring at the end. It basically distracts from the core design without adding anything. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/1c/413Wormadam-Sandy.png/110px-413Wormadam-Sandy.png) Wormadam (Sand Cloak): This is not what I meant when I asked for more rocks. I don't even know what is going on here. The leaves made sense up there, but these rocks are uh... This is just dumb. Should have been rock, not ground, focused. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/0/0b/413Wormadam-Trash.png/110px-413Wormadam-Trash.png) Wormadam (Trash Cloak): I forgot to mention. This is steel type as its baby form. NOTHING about the design communicates that. At all. I'm done here. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/18/414Mothim.png/250px-414Mothim.png) Mothim: I don't really like the color blend here, but the wings are actually pretty neat looking structually with their little tassles. The face makes sense coming out of Burmy. I dunno. This one is weird. The entire design more or less reads a bit bland but okay, but I can't help but end up disliking this and I don't know why. Like, none of the pieces really bug me, but the whole assembly does. Eh. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on March 15, 2019, 05:36:08 PM
I can get the discarded insulation bit but yeah why the heck is that form steel?

Also I forgot Burmy and its ilk even existed.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Hunter Sopko on March 16, 2019, 12:08:31 AM
For Burmy, I always got the sense that it's supposed to be another one of those Cocoon types and the swirly part is the bit connecting it to a tree or something
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 17, 2019, 08:26:10 AM
I am the fucking worst at remembering to do things.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b6/415Combee.png/250px-415Combee.png) Combee: It freaks me out that only one of the faces has a torso to go with it. Are the other two real? I mean, at one level, this thing is utterly impractical and impossible to imagine. At the other, it is kind of a neat take on the bee thing (and I like the anime image of them forming a WALL OF COMBEE). The little female differentiator is cute given this is a gendered evolution. But it is really hard to get over how awkward it looks with its three-headed honeycomb with one bee body. 3/5 But it's so happy.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/2c/416Vespiquen.png/250px-416Vespiquen.png) Vespiquen: That's really not spelled with two e's? It really isn't. Uh... let's see. Always a positive for an evolution when it keeps elements of previous designs  (the whole honeycomb thing). The vision is there and exists. Those wings are super tiny though. I dunno. I feel like I should have more to say about this design but I really don't. It's oddly generic all things considered. Regal queen bee thing. 3/5.

And since I am one behind on account of being too stupid yesterday...

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f4/417Pachirisu.png/250px-417Pachirisu.png) Pachirisu: This gen's electric rodent. It's one of the better looking ones I think? There isn't a lot to it, but the blue and white is nice, as is the slightly spikey design to the blue on the head/ears as well as the tail spikes. The yellow cheeks are the worst part of its design I think, not only not blending well with the rest of it, but also way too strongly calling it out as this gen's Pikachu wannabe. I also think maybe doing more with the tail spikes would have been better? But I find myself just feeling fine about this. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Captain K on March 18, 2019, 02:11:17 AM
If I remember correctly, VespiquEEn is actually too long to fit in the number of spaces alotted.

EDIT: Nevermind I just looked. Gen 1-5 was limited to 10 characters, which is enough to accomodate Vespiqueen. So it's just stupid.

Currently the only pokemon with a name more than 10 letters is Fletchinder.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on March 18, 2019, 07:42:04 PM
Pachirisu has cheek pouches to store its electric juice. It's not its fault that Pokemon nature is uninspired and couldn't think of a better way for rats to store electric power until they got to Hawaii or whatever.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 20, 2019, 08:46:14 AM
Togedemaru has cheek pouches too, love. YOU WERE THERE. YOU WATCHED SUN AND MOON WITH ME.

I seem to remember every other day I should be doing this. No double tonight because I am tired.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/83/418Buizel.png/250px-418Buizel.png) Buizel: Exists. Honestly, it is a decent looking otter, the split tail is a nice little addition, the arm fins work better than I'd expect for composition and color. The face is really cute with the color toning and the sorta whiskers. Eyebrows are kinda eh though. Hairlick is okay and actually gives its head a bit of fish shape. The floatation ring is the iffiest part of the design. I get what they are doing with it, but I just think it looks a bit awkward. Maybe a little low, but 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bf/419Floatzel.png/250px-419Floatzel.png) Floatzel: I don't like the direction this goes in for the most part. The face patterning is a bit less interesting with how much more even the white is, the little black lines less attractive positioned over where they are, and the dot on the forehead is weird. The bigger, sharper armfins also look worse and the flotation device ends up about the same. The little waterdrop mark on its belly (and the white twin on its back) are kind of cute. And really, for some reason, I do find the floatation less bad here then the choker. Meh. I like it less, but not that much less. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on March 20, 2019, 06:16:15 PM
Okay, so electric rats have electric juice cheek pouches everywhere in the Pokemon world. Still doesn't mean Pachirisu is dumb for having them. Yellow is a complementary color so it's not weird. Also Pikachu's electric juice pouches are red like Dimple's. Maybe he's just possessed by an evil spirit??

--

So I'm always curious how the transition between evolutions is supposed to work. In this case, Buizel has a soda ring trapped around his neck, and then Floatzel has a giant inner tube he's oh so casually wrapping around himself. Did Floatzel shrink? Did the flotation device ALSO evolve? Did he get the old one cut off and found a new one? Or maybe he stretched it out and when he was finally free his body expanded to its natural proportions? When does a Buizel/Floatzel earn more tails? Is Buizel 200 years old???
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 21, 2019, 02:12:06 AM
The general case is most pokemon accessories are actually part of them. So the flotation device is just rubbery skin neck waddle that expands later on.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 21, 2019, 07:15:40 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a7/420Cherubi.png/250px-420Cherubi.png) Cherubi: Colors are pleasant and look how happy and content they both are. I kinda question the like... feet? though. This thing looks immobile as fuck despite those. Honestly its a simple design without much going on that generally effectively communicates what they are going for, which is a generic fruit. What'd I rate Oddish? This is probably around that. 3/5? Sure. I do kinda dislike the dark red line on its face, just because it really stands out as an obvious attempt to break up the plain-ness, but it doesn't really add anything.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/25/421Cherrim-Overcast.png/250px-421Cherrim-Overcast.png)
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bc/421Cherrim-Sunny.png/110px-421Cherrim-Sunny.png) Cherrim: Okay, gonna violate the way I normally do multi-form because I have to address these two together. Individually both designs are kinda cute and their own neat little things with decent color and shape (though uh... poor Cherubi part two apparently gets absorbed in this form). I think the Sunshine form looks a bit worse being more generically fey plant, but it isn't really an awful design or anything. But taken together, they kinda suck because they do not really follow from each other effectively. Like, try to map the two forms. The parts just don't line up well. You can sorta see how the bloom works, but it should not be sort of see. When the gimmick is "you are a blooming flower" you should actually take care to map them super well onto each other. So despite finding both forms to be decent, I feel obligated to smack these down a bit with a 2/5 score for Cherrim in general.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on March 21, 2019, 07:52:45 AM
2/5 seems a bit kind for that kind of botch.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 22, 2019, 06:33:46 AM
It mostly slips by because I don't think the individual designs are bad and it isn't like there is no connection between the two. It is just way worse than it should be. You might be right I'm being too soft but eh.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/72/422Shellos.png/250px-422Shellos.png) Shellos: Oh my god why so many forms in this gen. Uh... they are both okay designs, honestly. I think the smiley face is a little too much? I like the rest of the look on both of them, but thick lips like that just do not do it for me. I slightly favor the east design since the little wings are really cool (and the highlighting looks great) but west isn't bad. I just wish the spikes had a little more going on. Really the worst part on both of them is just their goofy head ornamentation, neither of which features nodules I particularly like. Good colors and comp though. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/18/423Gastrodon.png/250px-423Gastrodon.png) Gastrodon: See? No lips looks better. I do with they'd both kept their back features more true to their pre-evo, as the new stuff is just boring. The head ornamentation looks better though. Colors are still nice. Souless slug faces are cute in a weird way. I like them better than their pre-evos, but not enough to bump the score I think. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on March 25, 2019, 07:19:28 PM
Shellos definitely reminds me of those sea slugs, nudibranches. But they're adorable in the same way I'm okay with lobsters being a roly poly of the sea - as long as I don't think about it too hard, it's cute.

They're shell-less gastropods. Shellos. Gastrodon.

... you know, Game Freak, I feel a lot less clever when you just go around and steal real words for your Pokemon. LOOKING AT YOU, EKANS.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 28, 2019, 08:29:17 AM
Will you ever stop being mad at Ekans, love? What did he ever do to you?

Also, daily is hard when I forgot I haven't done it.

Where were we?

Oh fuck me.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/86/424Ambipom.png/250px-424Ambipom.png) Ambipom: It is Aipom but worse in literally every way. The tail hands look horribly diseased and swollen (not helped by the red), the Moe cuts on its bangs is awful, that nose is just what even. It looks like its face is just some horrible mask covering purple. The oval shape for the eyes is less cute and welcoming. The stupid hair antennae are a lot worse than the little frill. I was about to say the only improvement was the little fluffy fur by its tail which looked neat, but it turns out those are just vestigial horror tails as well so no. Fuck this thing forever. 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on March 28, 2019, 01:54:44 PM
I always thought the tail hands on Ambipom looked like udders, which makes the design all the more perplexing.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Cmdr_King on March 28, 2019, 10:58:29 PM
Honestly two prehensile udders would be a more respectable design choice.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 29, 2019, 08:57:37 AM
I ALMOST forgot. But I remembered instead.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/eb/425Drifloon.png/250px-425Drifloon.png) Drifloon: I kinda like Drifloon. I mean, it is basically a balloon, but it has just enough going on with the little feelers and the little bandage on its face. I think the biggest weakness is the weird little head cloud which kinda looks a bit like a bad toupee. Purple ghost, too. Never seen that in pokemon. Still, all that said, I actually find myself still liking him even if I struggle to justify it. I think it is mostly just that it hearkans back a bit to Gen 1 design, with a fairly simple structure overall. Whatever. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/71/426Drifblim.png/250px-426Drifblim.png) Drifblim: Ashley is gonna be mad about that name. It's even dumber than Drifloon, if you ask me. Well, he's definitely an evolution that comes from his previous form. The ideal is solid and the overall shape is good. The hot air balloon lines are good too. I think the colors here are a bit intense though, with dark purple, light purple, red, white, and yellow all competing. Just all too much. Just ends up going down a notch from Drifloon. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on March 29, 2019, 01:17:36 PM
Ashley is gonna be mad about that name.

Good, Ashley backseat reviewing is part of what we're here for.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on March 29, 2019, 03:42:32 PM
A bit late but while Ambipom is completely awful and deserves that 1 it is somehow not the worst evo Gen 4 added to something from a previous gen, at least in my opinion.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on March 29, 2019, 06:35:41 PM
The worst part about Ambipom - no seriously, the worst - is that it has all of those weird details, like the bloated, diseased hand-udders, weird grass-hair, a fluffy purple bottom, are brought together into true horror by that frozen, empty smile and eyes. That thing is fucking creepy.

I like Drifloon because it's so unassuming. I think what I like most about it, though, is its Pokedex entries, which imply that it steals children who mistake it as a balloon. Don't worry about me, I'm just a derpy purple balloon with these bright, heart-shaped yellow tags held at child level!

You are indeed correct that Drifblim is a terrible name. I know what they're going for, but jesus stick another vowel in there or something please? Drifoblim? Drifbloom? It's really uncomfortable to say that name. The Pokedex says it carries people. It doesn't say how or where, though. Makes you think. Try not to think too hard, though, there's only one apparent hole in this thing. Well, two, if you don't assume the X-bandage in its face is concealing a horrific tunnel of pointy teeth.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 30, 2019, 08:53:40 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a7/427Buneary.png/250px-427Buneary.png) Buneary: I don't really like rabbits. It's fine. Honestly the most interesting thing is the asymmetrical ear design. I dunno. Its face looks kind of smushed, honestly. Colors are fine if a bit dull. I actually like the choice to make the feet white as well since it makes the fluff look less like a diaper or something. It is fine. 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c9/428Lopunny.png/250px-428Lopunny.png) Lopunny: Looks a lot better when it isn't sticking its ass out. The floof collection moving to the arms is a bit weird? I do like the look of it on the ears though (with the added addition of looking distinct thanks to the flop). The face is also a bit less flat which is nice. The eyes on Lopunny are a bit weird though, looking like sunken red demon eyes in black abysses. And those eyebrows are kinda nuts. Not sure why the legs/feet avoided the floof. I dunno. Honestly I expected to hate it more, but it honestly seems to be more the posture in the official art that is the annoying bit. It looks better in other pieces with more dynamic poses. *shrugs* 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on March 30, 2019, 10:22:20 AM
loppuny deserves a 1 for the sole fact that anyone thought that pose was a good idea imo
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Dark Holy Elf on March 30, 2019, 08:48:03 PM
Why is there floof around its arms? How does that even work?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on March 30, 2019, 10:37:19 PM
I think the floof is supposed to be arm muffs for some reason, which just raises the question of why does it have arm muffs.

Though I guess the same could be asked about whatever is going on with those feet.  Does it have knee-high floof boots?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Captain K on March 31, 2019, 04:20:09 AM
ITT: Andrew hates all new pokemon except the hooker-mon.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Hunter Sopko on March 31, 2019, 04:55:59 AM
ITT: Andrew hates all new pokemon except the hooker-mon.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on March 31, 2019, 09:38:50 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b4/429Mismagius.png/250px-429Mismagius.png) Mismagius: Man, Misdreavus had really good art.

Missy G is pretty rad. I dig the hat and the flowing robes. The colors are still good (I forget that Missy D is less purple, though). The banshee to witch transition is pretty cool. But like... why is you neck/torso a tiny football? That's really my biggest bugaboo about the whole design. And it is a big one. Missy D works with the nice fade, but the football neck is just hella clunky. Still, there's some real cool here. 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 01, 2019, 07:59:18 AM
No pokemon tonight. Another writing project eats my energy.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on April 01, 2019, 06:49:48 PM
Mismagius is pretty rad and I almost want to give it a 5 for nailing the ghost witch thing but I can't help but feel like part of that is grading it on a curve compared to all the other evos Gen 4 added to assorted idiots from previous generations.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 02, 2019, 07:09:52 AM
Mismagius would be a definite 5 for me if it weren't for the weird football joint. I just really hate it for some reason.

Anyhow, one more night on other writing project. Updates resume tomorrow unless I forget.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on April 02, 2019, 08:53:19 AM
I think it's meant to be some kind of robe collar that just looks like a weird football joint because ghost but I can see it looking a little off.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 03, 2019, 06:37:54 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/46/430Honchkrow.png/250px-430Honchkrow.png) Honchkrow: Pimphat bird, reporting in. What's with the little feather bends on some of these? They look so stupid when the bird is otherwise being hella bird-like. The white chest floof is pretty cool, honestly, and I like the overall puffed up look. The tail feels a bit anemic given how big the rest of the bird is? And the broom aesthetic loses a bit without the more witchy look of Murkrow. Colors are nice though. Honestly, I kinda wish the hat was played up more? It is almost underwhelming given how big Honchkrow's body is. Still, I like this birb overall. 4/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on April 03, 2019, 06:09:33 PM
The hat is actually feathers. What the heck.

Also that pom-pom growing out of its butt, under its tail - dare I ask how that's attached? Does Honchkrow fly? CAN he, with these malformed wings and tail?

Maybe he'll just use his wizard beard to conjure up some teleportation.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 04, 2019, 08:15:12 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/26/431Glameow.png/250px-431Glameow.png) Glameow: As far as kitties go, I like a lot of what this one has going for it. Its a pretty decent cat shape that manages to be distinct. The way the fluffs on it are kinda bulbous are weird though (especially the ones near the neck and the tail). The colors are good, but I wish the white was on its body somewhere instead of just the adorable little boots. The eyelids being pink is really weird. And kinda gross. That tail though. I have no idea what is going on with that tail. Like, none. I dunno. There's some decent stuff here, but the weird and bad is weird and bad. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/80/432Purugly.png/250px-432Purugly.png) Purugly: Sure. 1/5

There is just, so much wrong going on here. The super weird proportions. The way its coloring makes it look like its tearing. Those horrifying hand-ears with extra purple. Those mutilated whiskers. But the most baffling thing to me is why did its tail fluff merge with its torso?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 05, 2019, 08:23:06 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/ed/433Chingling.png/250px-433Chingling.png) Chingling: This is high on the list of pokemon I never remember existing. Why the fuck would you make a pre-evo to Chimecho of all things? Like, the existence of this thing is way weirder than anything else. That said, this is pretty high on that meh object scale. And it is made a bit worse by the fact that is is basically just a bell with tiny hands and feet instead of at least being some weird psychic floating bell thing. The mouth is kinda cute with the bell elements though. Like, I actually don't hate this design. But still. I think we can afford a downgrade for being what it is. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on April 05, 2019, 03:14:43 PM
Purugly's panhandle face makes me want to slap things, ngl.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 10, 2019, 07:07:54 AM
I blame Sekiro.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/7/75/434Stunky.png/250px-434Stunky.png) Stunky: It's face is a butt. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bc/435Skuntank.png/250px-435Skuntank.png) Skuntank: They really went cat-like with the design here. Uh. Colors are fine. It is mostly just boring, with a pretty simple round body, no real ornamentation, and a tail draped over most of it. Say what you will about Stunky's doorstop body design, it is at least interesting-ish looking? This is just another mostly ugly cat design. And it still has a butt for a face, it is just less obvious. 2/5

Also, is eyeshadow this gen's thing? I feel like I've seen it a lot this gen.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Grefter on April 10, 2019, 12:30:11 PM
it grew a tail long enough to try and cover its arse face and it evolves to lose 2/3's of the facebooty.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Jo'ou Ranbu on April 10, 2019, 02:16:47 PM
I'm almost certain the buttface design on the skunk line is deliberate in that "eleven-year-olds will find this genius" kind of way.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 14, 2019, 09:32:43 AM
I'm very bad at daily.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/c/c1/436Bronzor.png/250px-436Bronzor.png) Bronzor: I don't have a lot to go here with. Bronzor is fine. The color is nice. Patterning is fine without being overwhelming. But he's pretty boring. The design on the back is a bit weird too. *SHRUG* 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/aa/437Bronzong.png/250px-437Bronzong.png) Bronzong: I really feel like I should have more to say considering my lazy lately, but... yeah. I don't have a lot here either. I think the darker shade looks better than the lighter shade, so losing so much of that kind of sucks. The tooth/mouth pattern is goofy. Not sure why the eyes changed color. I dunno. He's just TOO bell like. Like, remove the eyes and that's what I'm pretty sure he is. Patterns are all fine and everything but it just doesn't ring (heh heh) to me as a pokemon. Not the most awful, though. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 15, 2019, 07:21:00 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/e/e2/438Bonsly.png/250px-438Bonsly.png) Bonsly: Is a pretty decent baby pokemon. Carries most of the design through well, is fairly cute on his own, and I actually like him better than his evo. I dislike the pot/diaper design, though. It probably deserves some credit for being cute, but it is one step over for me. I also wish there was maybe a bit more texturing down on its lower half to break up the sea of dull brown? Still. 3/5, maybe bordering on the next rank?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on April 18, 2019, 10:52:37 PM
Bonsly

I raise you one (https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/bokunoheroacademia/images/1/16/Minoru_Mineta_Full_Body_Hero_Costume_Anime.png/revision/latest?cb=20160118115800)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Captain K on April 19, 2019, 01:36:32 AM
Like, how do grape dude's boots even work?
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: VySaika on April 20, 2019, 03:07:45 AM
Bonsly deserves better than to be compared to terrible grape child.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 20, 2019, 06:14:58 AM
That is harsh, Ashley.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/3/37/439Mime_Jr.png/250px-439Mime_Jr.png) Mime Jr.: Well. He's better than Mr. Mime because he is way less creepy pedophile looking? Though the kinda balding look is still pretty bad. The cupcake body is kinda interesting though. I don't know why they are doing that but hey, I'm not gonna complain about anything that looks less terrible than Mr. Mime. Clown noses are terrible. Overall it just really ends up with too much of a human look for me. Whereas something like Gardevoir at least ends up looking like a weird fey thing, Mime Jr... doesn't. So for all that it is less abysmal than its evo... it still sucks. 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 23, 2019, 09:03:15 AM
Sorry, I have been a lazy butt.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/2/27/440Happiny.png/250px-440Happiny.png) Happiny: I think the problem with this gen's baby pokemon is that they really went in on looking childish. Happiny's little pony tail here, for example. And the diaper/pouch. That said, I kinda actually like Happiny? Like, it does capture a younger Chansey pretty well, and the idea of the pouch shrinking is kind of neat. Though it is way redder than its evo, but hey. Pokemon evolution color plot. I dunno. I kinda like the pony tail, but then I look at it and go "this is just a 4-5 year old girl's hair except made of fleshy tendrils" and then I'm not sure what I'm doing with my life. 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Grefter on April 23, 2019, 12:55:55 PM
That is harsh, Ashley.

That is like the whole damn point.

High fives to Ashley as always.




Happiny is a baby egg pokemon that is carrying around a baby egg.   That is some Carolinas shit right there.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 25, 2019, 08:00:19 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/bf/441Chatot.png/250px-441Chatot.png) Chatot: Is not happy about this bullshit. Kind of an incoherent design. I mean the sound idea is there and present, but I think it is sort of overdone with just like. You know. The musical note head and the metronome tail that don't really do anything else at all. The bird body is... fine? The colors are all over the place, but I guess that happens with birds. I do wish the body were more feathery looking stuff outside the ruffled collar? I dunno. Like I said, the design is sort of incoherent with nothing really combining or going together well. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8e/442Spiritomb.png/250px-442Spiritomb.png) Spiritomb: You know, I always kind of assumed his ghostly body was spherical, not flat. That's weird. Otherwise this is... okay? His facial design is a bit goofy, but it works for weird spoopy dark ghost I guess. I dunno. He's fine. Emerging from the rock is kind of cool? 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on April 25, 2019, 08:11:10 PM
If people would be less dumb, I wouldn't have to be here tearing things apart, would I. (I don't anyway, but I feel a calling.)

--

Chatot and Spiritomb both feel like cartoons more than any other Pokemon I can think of so far. Maybe it's because of the weird 2D angles that make them look best? And yes, I DO distinguish Pokemon from cartoons thank you very much.

I mean, Chatot's got some serious side eye going on a la (https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/i/853c225b-36c1-44fc-9bdd-072a5f601c81/daxtj8x-63332c7a-df0b-4157-9f2a-1040ac752c2a.png). But it also has a lot of highlighting? And a ridiculous ruff/head note thing that is too "this is an animal, only WaCkY" to live outside a cartoon.

And Spiritomb has irregular edges and neon colors and unclear facial features. He's just begging to be a completely non-corporeal mist beast. Apropos of nothing, this is what you get when you image search "ghost rock": (https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12400748_1695438520672780_525995611512874398_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_oc=AQlckjsE7-a5E4vRfKJo92YN0TaMaiS7MMoPFfKDA7NKHgKXVxEofo5PoYd0WUxzK3o&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=cbe81880741f2899bcd1d6626e0a310f&oe=5D741BCB)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Grefter on April 27, 2019, 11:41:12 PM
That is a pic of the band Ghost.  I don't know much of their stuff, but what I do is pretty dope (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_ijc7A5oAc).

Edit - Linking because I think they are just the kind of theatrical stuff I know Andy enjoys in some symponic metal.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on April 28, 2019, 09:34:42 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/68/443Gible.png/250px-443Gible.png) Gible: What an adorably pudgy little landshark. I actually kinda like him. The hammerhead portion feels pointless and kinda ugly though. The rest of it really is shockingly cute as you think about him tearing stuff up. He's so tiny and angry! Colors and head-fin are pretty okay. It really is that hammerhead that ruins him. Also he could probably use more teeth. Still, I'm feeling positive. 4/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/9/9d/444Gabite.png/250px-444Gabite.png) Gabite: The stupid hammerheads are still there and still suck. He also loses the cool headfin. And concentrates all his weight into his belly area. The little arm claws are okay as are the arm fins. He just looks a bit too awkward. Which sort of works for the transition between the chubby and goofy Gible and the more ferocious and athletic Garchomp. But it doesn't do Gabite's design any good. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/fa/445Garchomp.png/250px-445Garchomp.png) Garchomp: And suddenly yellow. Honestly the coloring remains pretty decent. The single claws look better. The spikes are kinda stupid, but the overall shape is more sleek and speaks better to the super fast landshark. The hammerhead stuff is still dumb, but the head is better shaped to complement it. And while the headfin did not return, the flatter, broader shape of the head works fine without it, unlike Gabite. And the nicked backfin is decently fitting. I also think it might have been better looking without the tail having three points and looking more authentically shark-like. So, in honor of that... 3/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Captain K on May 02, 2019, 05:00:07 AM
(https://tfwiki.net/mediawiki/images2/thumb/c/c7/TFLegendsApp-Sharkticons.jpg/300px-TFLegendsApp-Sharkticons.jpg)
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on May 05, 2019, 08:22:29 AM
Sorry. Been lazy.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/b/b2/446Munchlax.png/250px-446Munchlax.png) Muchlax: Pretty decent baby, overall. I think the head patterning could have been better to match Snorlax, since otherwise the idea of Muchlax growing up and out kinda explains a lot of the remaining coloration and patterning. The fur skirt is a little weird but it actually works pretty well with the aforesaid qualities of growing up and out of it later. The biggest problem is really just that hard divide of color on its face. Ultimately it is as good as a Snorlax, so I guess I'll score them the same. 3/5.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on May 06, 2019, 08:22:47 PM
Munchlax is cute but also super weird in the Ultra Sun & Moon anime. He's small so the animators are like, "Let's have him dog-pile on top of the other Pokemon and humans!" but then he's dense like a motherfucking baby blackhole, like having a 2-foot-tall toddler weighing like an obese adult would not break bones and/or organs.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on May 10, 2019, 07:46:49 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/a2/447Riolu.png/250px-447Riolu.png) Rilou: Everyone else's favorite furry friend. Almost. Uh. He's... okay, I guess? I dunno. He does an okay job of not being like, just an anthro puppy? The colors are okay, though I'm not really sure what to do with the lumps on the forearms. And not that I've been staring at his torso I see that it kinda looks like a dick and balls so I'm not sure what to do anymore. That aside the ways his legs connect are kinda weird, as are the... secondary ears? Whichever ones the ones attached to his mask are. Actually this is getting actively worse the more I put it together and am starting to think this really needed one more draft to smooth it out. There's just a LOT of disjointed stuff going on. That tail is kind of stupid and glued on.

Geeze this design really kinda collapses when you look at it. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/d7/448Lucario.png/250px-448Lucario.png) Lucario: Everyone else's actual favorite furry friend. Well he fucking looks better than Riolu. The hand and chest spikes are weird and frankly I will never understand why he ends up steel stype off that. The head is good and the ear things being pushed back more like dreads looks WAY better. Still goofy if you get it from behind, but eh. The neck ruffle is cool, though I dislike the arm bands. I legit never noticed how much it looks like he's wearing shorts though. Don't like that. Tail also remains a bit goofy looking. Like, come off the spine, not the ass. That said, I can see the reason people like Lucario? He manages the martial artist look way better than a lot of other pokemon with the visual clothing cues being built more into his body naturalistic than a lot of other fighting pokemon. And that's a good fierce dog head. And they even let the yellow be patchy in some places, which is a design element I feel you see a little less in later pokemon gens (really repping the fur). Sure, I'll give him the 4/5.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on May 23, 2019, 06:33:54 PM
The clay pot hippopotamus has traumatized Andy so much he has lost the will to carry on. That or the fact that he picked up Pokemon Go again and is busy hating Magikarp or Ditto or whatever he's stuck on at the moment.

--

I like Lucario a lot without his spikes and pants-legs. But then he also talks in the anime and I am extremely offended by this, yet still not quite so offended as when Pikachu spoke in I Choose You! (the latter mostly because of the words he spoke because if he's going to speak only short phrases in the 20 YEARS he has been a character, did they seriously have to be like that?).
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on June 03, 2019, 07:59:04 AM
Daily means every day? What the fuck kind of moron would try to do something like that.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/a/ab/449Hippopotas.png/250px-449Hippopotas.png) Hippopotas: WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR EYES? They have like, skin tags on them and it is freaking me out. Otherwise its a fairly cartoony looking hippo. The sand spraying holes are things and the color is some decent camo on both the male and female versions. Its... fine. I don't actually have a lot to tall out here besides those weird eyes that look weirder the more I look at them. 3/5.

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/5f/450Hippowdon.png/250px-450Hippowdon.png) Hippowdon: And this is the more serious take on it. Not to say there aren't other pokemon that do cute pre-evo into more serious evo, this one just really jumps out at me because they just feel like two different takes on the same idea. Not a lot of feature overlap outside the back holes expanding, not really sharing a color pallate, etc. I mean, I didn't super like Hippopotas' eyes, but completely losing the periscope look seems like a shame. The loss of the patterning kinda sucks too. I do like the extra nose holes though. I dunno. I don't think this is decidedly worse than its pre-evo for all that bitching, I just am somewhat disappointed at how the transition goes. 3/5.

Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on June 03, 2019, 11:38:08 PM
Babymon, edgymon.

Hippopopopopotas looks like a clay pot that someone threw, saw wasn't working very well, and slapped some extra slip of various colors on to make it look cool. Then they abandoned the idea and tried to bury it in the sand. Then a frog found it and got stuck trying to get out of the hole at the top.

Hippodown is like someone made a Digimon of the failed art project (it's those metal bracers that do it). While I get that eyes may become irritated and itchy when exposed to large amounts of sand, this seems like it's maybe overdoing it? Maybe?? I do feel a little sad for him, though, because his attempt to drag himself out of the quicksand is not going so well, even though his body is trying to bail out the extra sand.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Grefter on June 04, 2019, 05:33:35 AM
I forgot they existed.   I forgot this for a reason.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on June 04, 2019, 08:43:03 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/47/451Skorupi.png/250px-451Skorupi.png) Skorupi: Accordion scorpion. Also the return of purple. I feel like the weirdest thing about this design (eyes popping off the head aside) are the fact that its "claws" are just single balls attached to its head. Like, I have no idea what to do with that. I think the core body looks decent (if a little weird), but those arms really mess with the whole design. Beyond that, something about the aesthetic here really makes me think Gen 3 for some reason, but I can't place it. 2/5.

I can't handle Drapion tonight. I'm too sleepy.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on June 04, 2019, 05:35:31 PM
"Okay, let's start with a nice, cute round head. And give it a spheroid little body. Oh, and add four legs! We like things with four legs. And then I guess since it's a bug we'll have to add in, like, angular eyes? And --"
"HORNS!"
"What?"
"IT NEEDS HORNS! ON ITS TAIL!"
"It has a tail? Well, alright, I guess, it can have a tail too. Oh, I know! Slinky Pops are kind of neat, let's do one of those."
"WITH HORNS."
"Okay, sure. So then because it's a bug we can give it some mandibles, and --"
"MORE HORNS."
"... what? Where? On its head? I guess --"
"NO! ON BALLS ON ITS HEAD."
"... what? Wh -- you know what, nevermind. Sure. Extra pokey things on balls on its head. Why not. We have like 80 more of these things to finish. We'll do better on the next one."

OR WILL THEY
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 06, 2019, 08:30:21 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/1/13/452Drapion.png/250px-452Drapion.png) Drapion: Its been a month and I still don't know what to do with this fucker. Its a man scorpion made of slinky pops with its arms coming out of its head. And the fang/mandibles became, like, tissue paper. There is just a lot of stuff going on here, and literally none of it is good. I hate this thing so much. 1/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/fa/453Croagunk.png/250px-453Croagunk.png) Croagunk: Also not fond of this thing. The design just doesn't... really evoke anything for me. Purple gets you poison I guess and like... the wraps get you fighting? I don't know. The colors don't super compliment each other well. Its just uninspiring without being so hideous that I absolutely loathe it. Without knowing anything about it, the orange middle finger is super goofy (and doesn't really communicate what reading the dex tells you). 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/8/8b/454Toxicroak.png/250px-454Toxicroak.png) Toxicroak: I made a mistake coming back to this. The froggy throat pouch looks like a tumor. The upper lip(?) line looks stupid. The white wraps have movede down to look like a diaper. There's a lump on its back that looks like another tumor. I guess the stabby finger at least better communicates what it does. Except they then add a random orange toe that looks pointless. Just... every individual element here is kinda stupid, and they do not add up to be more than the individual pieces. Or maybe they do, but they just are all worth negative numbers. 1/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Random Consonant on July 08, 2019, 07:41:27 AM
I for one can appreciate declining to give Croagunk and Toxicroak numerical rankings out apathetic contempt.
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: AndrewRogue on July 22, 2019, 09:10:12 AM
(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/d/df/455Carnivine.png/250px-455Carnivine.png) Carnivine: Man. Grass really has some of the like, super forgettable pokemon. It isn't like, the worst or anything. It just feels really uninspired for such a cool plant. The colors are good (nice little red vines), the body is kinda weird and reminds me of the issues I had with Mismagius though, where they just sorta put a bulky shape there for... reasons? It at least makes a bit more sense with a plant since it looks like it is sprouting out of a seed, but that kinda makes it a waste as a one-stager. And those eyes are really googly. Which I usually don't have a problem with but for some reason it just kinda sits poorly with me here. 2/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/4/45/456Finneon.png/250px-456Finneon.png) Finneon: It is fish. But I like it. The colors are relaxing, the body shape is nice (better than the slightly misshapen Goldeen), and the butterfly tail is cute. And the little triangle by its eye makes it look so happy! And its got anime girl bangs on its head as top fins! Its cute. But also really generic and continuing this post's theme of "pokemon no one really remembers." 3/5

(https://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/f/f0/457Lumineon.png/250px-457Lumineon.png) Lumineon: Reminiscent of an angelfish, but less good. Like what is that horrible tail it has? And why are the butterfly fins attached on like, the top of its body? And why does it look smug/stoned? Colors remain nice, but yeah. Its the negative side of generic and boring. 2/5
Title: Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!
Post by: Lady Door on July 23, 2019, 12:31:48 AM
I like Finneon as a design, but I don't think of it as a Pokemon. It's one of the few I can think of off the top of my head where the shiny version actually looks like a decent color scheme and not just subjected to some washed-out or yellow-ified filter.

(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/dd58e350-6762-44ba-a196-57d616d1e436/d6uy1gp-3e712aa0-e7d6-45a8-9e27-8c0f4b835369.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2RkNThlMzUwLTY3NjItNDRiYS1hMTk2LTU3ZDYxNmQxZTQzNlwvZDZ1eTFncC0zZTcxMmFhMC1lN2Q2LTQ1YTgtOWUyNy04YzBmNGI4MzUzNjkucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.a_pK3eP5W4BPFqJyzAoVHtntnGKPh0eZGPYl0VksgEE)

I mean, yeah, it's still yellow-ified, but at least it looks coherent.