What generation of games had the best Pokemon creature designs?

#1 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -
#2 Posted by InfiniteGeass (2052 posts) -

Second generation easily. The 3rd and 4th gen are just dumb and the 1st had good designs, but the 2nd gen really improved things.

#3 Edited by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

I made this because I found that other poll interesting, but it was obvious some people were choosing their favourite game whereas others were choosing which Pokemon were their favourites. The OP didn't make this clear. I want to separate the confusion as I thought my interpretation of the last thread was more interesting.
 
This asks what generation had your favourite Pokemon overall. The first generation is the first 151 Pokemon and so on. The generation names are from Bulbapedia.

#4 Posted by NeoGecko (151 posts) -

first gen. no doubt.

#5 Edited by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -
This recent thread already exists.
 
Edit: Or a similar one enough.  I see that you're the first reply in that one.  But whatever, I suppose that the best in design was either the 2nd or 3rd generations.
#6 Posted by AgentJ (8778 posts) -

This is tough. the first and second were very consistant with great designs, but the third and fourth both have designs that I really like (along side a lot of crap). I'll go with the second, because it has the Cyndaquil/Larvitar family.

#7 Posted by CornontheCobbe (2645 posts) -

I'd pick First Generation.
 
Only for the simple fact that it was the generation that i got so used to, and truly loved. 
 
Sure you got your Togepi's and whatnot, but it'll never be as cool as Dugtrio.

#8 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -
#9 Posted by DanielJW (4915 posts) -

Always first. 

#10 Edited by FluxWaveZ (19325 posts) -
@MysteriousBob: Was that edit there before I posted?  If so, I apologize.  Rectified it in my last post.
 
Edit: Or actually, I think it's because i posted it at the same time, before my edit...
#11 Posted by ajamafalous (11959 posts) -

That's a really tough question.

#12 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -
@FluxWaveZ said:
" @MysteriousBob: Was that edit there before I posted?  If so, I apologize.  Rectified it in my last post.  Edit: Or actually, I think it's because i posted it at the same time, before my edit... "
I apologise myself if I came off as rather harsh.
 
Just as I said in the previous thread- I'm for the original 151. I could never even remember the names of the Gold/Silver Pokemon even though I spent slightly longer playing Gold than Red as a kid. I don't think it is just nostalgia- I honestly believe that Red/Blue managed to capture all of the archetypes for made up creatures. An electric mouse. A butterfly. A golem made out of rock. A turtle. Simple stuff, but designed well. Gen II is a very close second but like I said- I didn't find them as memorable. 
 
Generations III and IV just went insane. They're TOO original for what started out as a relatively straightforward idea for kids. I dislike the ridiculous number of legendaries they've added.
#13 Posted by LiquidPrince (15909 posts) -

I'd say second.

#14 Edited by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

I definitely vote on the first generation, the art was much more traditional, minimalistic, and, well, it was rougher. The Pokémon looked like fabled Japanese monsters, not like something that'd been pooped out of Photoshop using a formula to make the cutest possible creature.  

Notice the green wing? Charizard was so awesome nobody ever noticed when I was little.

 This art style makes me think of old Japanese wall scrolls.
These guys look badass, don't they? i mean, the art style certainly doesn't look like American cartooning, to say the least. There's plenty of intricate shading, irregular lines, and, well, color variation that makes them look more artistically interesting. It's sort of like how Wookies will always look better than Jar Jar Binks; sure, Jar Jar Binks isn't just a guy in a costume, but in a way, that not only takes away a lot of the charm, but also makes him look so sterile you can't honestly believe in the poor guy. The same goes for many of the new Pokémon, made so clean they look less like anime characters and more like something out of Spongebob Squarepants. 
 
   
 


 Chimchar looks like he wandered out of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends.

 Munchlax's smile reminds me of Chowder from the Cartoon Network show of the same name.
You can see the difference, right? The perfect roundness of most of the shapes, the clean colors subtracted only by the light shading done, and, essentially, the movement from traditional art styles to cartooning makes the new Pokémon look more sterile. Now, I will admit, I chose two of the cuter Pokémon from the newest generation, but even Pokémon like Dialga and Arceus are this cleanly drawn. I guess the reason I don't like this style for Pokémon is because there's a lack of romance in it. Arguably, these are the higher-quality designs; if Charizard were made here, his back wing wouldn't accidentally be tinged green like in the above shot. But to me, although these probably win on a technical level, the design of the previous generation is just far more interesting, romantic, and, well, relatable than these characters that might've walked out of the newest Cartoon Network feature.
#15 Posted by Pinkshley1 (453 posts) -

First. The later generation pokemon look either goofy or overly cute.

#16 Edited by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -
@Little_Socrates: While I admire your obvious passion for this subject, I'm not sure why you're talking so much about the illustration methods rather than actual thoughts behind the designs.
 
I would also argue that the new Pokemon look more anime than the older ones and thus- less desirable (the Japanese may think otherwise but I know what I personally like). Anime is all about adding pointless things to simple designs. Like adding a huge sword to a giant robot. A giant robot is cool enough without a sword, the sword just makes it overbearing and -dare I say it- pretentious. The basic idea wins out because simplicity rules for a memorable design. Not to mention half of the new Pokemon look like early 90s "baby versions" of existing pokemon. And yes- I know the baby designs are for the breeding gameplay introduced in gen II.
#17 Posted by Romination (2777 posts) -

Second generations as well. They were still making them look like they could pick a fight and introducing new evolutions that didn't feel completely contrived (like whatever that new Magmar evolution is). Third generation has some winners, like Flygon, while 4th doesn't really have any that I care about...although Torterra and Lucario are really great. Second generation still has a good mix of 'useful' as well as 'well designed'. And no Bidoof.
But one thing stands true- you can't fucking beat this shit
 

 THAT'S SOME FUCKING ADORABLE NONSENSE.
#18 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -
@MysteriousBob: Well, art techniques are a large factor as to what makes art design so interesting. We're talking more about the art design than the gameplay functions, aren't we?
#19 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -
@Little_Socrates said:
" @MysteriousBob: Well, art techniques are a large factor as to what makes art design so interesting. We're talking more about the art design than the gameplay functions, aren't we? "
Yes, but you're talking about the illustrations. They don't factor in for 8-bit sprites.
#20 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -
@MysteriousBob: That's true, but I always thought of the drawn versions as the authentic designs and the game sprites as the closest representation they could get. If we're just talking sprite design, it's probably Ruby/Sapphire. XP
#21 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

There isn't even a debate here, its the first generation in every way.

#22 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@CornontheCobbe said:
" I'd pick First Generation.  Only for the simple fact that it was the generation that i got so used to, and truly loved.   Sure you got your Togepi's and whatnot, but it'll never be as cool as Dugtrio. "
I caught a Dugtrio in Pokemon Gold though. 
 
For me, the second. It had the the 1st gen Pokemon too so...no brainer really. 
 
 
If were not talking about the games though, then the first. I think we're talking about the games though, since you put the systems next to them...right?
#23 Posted by RichardLOlson (1852 posts) -

Pokemon sucks in general...never really got into the game myself.  I mean if someone walks up to me and says "Lets battle" and then throws some red and white ball on the ground and some weird creature comes out of it.  And then he says "Overly cute creature, that is small enough to fit into my anus, ATTACK".......I would probably pull out glock and shoot it in the head, and then I would say "I WIN"
 
   Yea I never really liked Pokemon or Digimon or any other of the "mons" of the time.  There is just something creepy about kids who walk around with creatures they can pull outta there ass at any moment.  I mean they could easily over throw a small country.

#24 Posted by JonathanMoore (1858 posts) -

1st. It was a simpler time, it was an awesome time.

#25 Posted by gla55jAw (2687 posts) -

1st gen.

#26 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5254 posts) -

Give me Blastoise any day.

#27 Posted by JJWeatherman (14558 posts) -

I'm attached to the Gen 1 pokemon, cause I grew up with them. It's hard to consider any of the other generations designs "better".

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.