Register

Author Topic: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!  (Read 39547 times)

Grefter

  • Villain.
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 10386
  • True and Honest. Smarter. More aggressive.
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #300 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.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 11:38:14 AM by Grefter »
NO MORE POKEMON - Meeplelard.
The king perfect of the DL is and always will be Excal. - Superaielman
Don't worry, just jam it in anyway. - SirAlex
Gravellers are like, G-Unit - Trancey.

Dark Holy Elf

  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 8134
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #301 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.

Erwin Schrödinger will kill you like a cat in a box.
Maybe.

Hunter Sopko

  • Heavily in Debt
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4556
  • Hai, Kazuma-desu
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #302 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.

Random Consonant

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2189
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #303 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.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #304 on: April 20, 2018, 06:25:18 AM »
Hm. You guys can consider this a small victory.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #305 on: April 20, 2018, 07:56:01 AM »
Plusle: Allow me to give this review exactly the amount of effort it deserves. 2/5

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

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

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

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

Gulpin: :3/5

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

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

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

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #306 on: April 21, 2018, 07:12:01 AM »
Wailmer: ...why don't you have a tail? 2/5

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

DjinnAndTonic

  • Genie and Potion with Alcoholic Undertones
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6938
  • "When you wish upon a bar~"
    • View Profile
    • RPGDL Wiki
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #307 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.

Cotigo

  • Jerkface
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4176
  • Yoo-hoo, Mr. Tentacle Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #308 on: April 23, 2018, 01:59:06 PM »
Volbeat: Blah blah blah blah blah. wrong/5

« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 02:00:07 PM by Cotigo »

Lady Door

  • Coming up with words is, like...
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1998
  • ... really hard.
    • View Profile
<Demedais> Humans look like cars to me.
<AndrewRogue> That must be confusing in parking lots

Random Consonant

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2189
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #310 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

Grefter

  • Villain.
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 10386
  • True and Honest. Smarter. More aggressive.
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #311 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.
NO MORE POKEMON - Meeplelard.
The king perfect of the DL is and always will be Excal. - Superaielman
Don't worry, just jam it in anyway. - SirAlex
Gravellers are like, G-Unit - Trancey.

Magic Fanatic

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1346
  • As if it wasn't already.
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #312 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.

AllTheseDangCats

  • New User
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #313 on: May 01, 2018, 10:19:57 PM »
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

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.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #314 on: May 05, 2018, 07:03:48 AM »
Gen 8 is gonna come out before I finish.

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.

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.

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
« Last Edit: May 05, 2018, 11:56:38 PM by AndrewRogue »

Dark Holy Elf

  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 8134
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #315 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.

Erwin Schrödinger will kill you like a cat in a box.
Maybe.

Hunter Sopko

  • Heavily in Debt
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4556
  • Hai, Kazuma-desu
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #316 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!

Random Consonant

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2189
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #317 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.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #318 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. >>

Cotigo

  • Jerkface
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4176
  • Yoo-hoo, Mr. Tentacle Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #319 on: May 06, 2018, 07:13:02 AM »
If you go through the evolutions backwards, that turtle is getting high

as a kite

Hunter Sopko

  • Heavily in Debt
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4556
  • Hai, Kazuma-desu
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #320 on: May 09, 2018, 02:38:20 AM »
Torkoal does feel like a more natural evolution to Numel than Camelrupt.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #321 on: May 29, 2018, 08:20:24 AM »
Spoink: Well, it is certainly unique, I'll give it that. Like, it is dumb, but it's trying? 2/5

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

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

Ranmilia

  • Poetry Lover
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1687
  • Not a squid!!
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #322 on: May 29, 2018, 08:25:09 AM »
Spinda has no actual eyes.  You will never be able to un-learn this.

Lady Door

  • Coming up with words is, like...
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1998
  • ... really hard.
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #323 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.
<Demedais> Humans look like cars to me.
<AndrewRogue> That must be confusing in parking lots

Hunter Sopko

  • Heavily in Debt
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4556
  • Hai, Kazuma-desu
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #324 on: May 30, 2018, 05:50:34 AM »
Without the balloon on its head Spoink is 4/5 on name alone.