Pokémon (Not-So) Griefing Thread - Scarlet and Violet Released with 10 Million Copies in First 3 Days in Buggy States

[Archeops]

This whole Dexit thing only became a big deal because of four factors. I think most people were willing to understand that like 1000 different Pokemon in a game was a bit unmanageable, however the situation had to be handled a lot better and with a lot of polish. I think they seriously underestimated that being the main appeal of Pokemon to begin with. I think it would have been forgiven if there weren't such a glaring issues.

1. Graphically the game is a mess, it looks lifeless and a dull. There are no real animations, all kinds of weird clipping/popping, it looks like a poorly ported HD remake of Sun & Moon.
2. They very obviously used a ton of assets from Sun & Moon, so much so that it doesn't really make any sense to cut Pokemon due to time constraints or otherwise. (The same models are used for X & Y, Sun & Moon, Pokemon Go, Let's Go, and now this title. It seems insanely lazy.)
3. They cut a ton of features, the new features added look comparable worse to the originals.
4. Cutting out over 60% of the Pokemon was never gonna fly, especially in Japan.

Seconding the 4h part to the Nth degree, IIRC that's also part of reason why LGPE did terribly over there the games first came out.

 

[Etrian Autistry]

New info: Gigantamax raids spawn daily, you get a currency called Watts from doing them. Watts are used to buy Technical Records, which are TMs but single use (infinite use TMs are still in the game) or wishing pieces, which are used to change a raid's Pokemon.

Spoiler: Eternatus at camp

 

[OddEyes]

this contradicts the previously-established concept of Pokemon being essentially souped-up wild animals, and just hurts the overall design of the Pokemon in question.

Except that doesn't really fly with that 'previously-established concept', even back in Generation 1 you had pokemon like Jynx and Mr. Mime, that don't have anything to do with wild animals. Electabuzz, despite being based on Japanese ogres, also falls into that camp as well. That's not even covering pokemon that were living plants like the Bellsprout line, the oddish line, or Tangela. As well as the the non-animal-like Voltorb, Geodude, and Magnemite

Gen two had more of a lore base to the creatures - Sneasel is based on kamaitachi (sickle weasels), dunsparce being based on the tsuchinoko, Espeon based on the nekomata, etc, etc.

I could go through every gen, but even in Gen 1, we had already cracked that concept of pokemon being souped-up wild animals.

While I'm not too wild on the designs, people always complain about the designs whenever a new pokemon game comes out, regardless of the controversy this one has tailing it, it's happened before, and will continue to happen.

Personally, I like the concept and some of the designs of the fossil pokemon, although, personally, what I would've liked to see instead of the mix and match parts, I would've preferred a fusion like pokemon - Kinda like Digimon fusion:

Then again, people were already complaining about how pokemon is now ripping off digimon.

As for anthromorphic starters...

*shrugs*

I don't really see that as a criticism, more of a subjective preference. Whether or not something is anthropomorphic shouldn't affect how a quality a design is. There's a difference between "I don't like this" and "This is bad design".

Like, I like Cinderance, but it has the opposite problem that Incineroar has - Way too small hands for it's arm type, like, give it hands like infernape, like gloved hands

 

[Rotollo]

apparently game freak and or TPC is canceling some launch event in japan for operational reasons

PokéXperto Ⓜ️ on Twitter

“Pokémon ha tenido que cancelar el evento de lanzamiento de Pokémon Espada y Escudo en Tokio, donde iban a estar Junichi Masuda y Shigeru Ohmori. Se supone que es por "motivos operativos".”

twitter.com

 

[Tour of Italy]

Except that doesn't really fly with that 'previously-established concept', even back in Generation 1 you had pokemon like Jynx and Mr. Mime, that don't have anything to do with wild animals. Electabuzz, despite being based on Japanese ogres, also falls into that camp as well. That's not even covering pokemon that were living plants like the Bellsprout line, the oddish line, or Tangela. As well as the the non-animal-like Voltorb, Geodude, and Magnemite

Gen two had more of a lore base to the creatures - Sneasel is based on kamaitachi (sickle weasels), dunsparce being based on the tsuchinoko, Espeon based on the nekomata, etc, etc.

I could go through every gen, but even in Gen 1, we had already cracked that concept of pokemon being souped-up wild animals.

While I'm not too wild on the designs, people always complain about the designs whenever a new pokemon game comes out, regardless of the controversy this one has tailing it, it's happened before, and will continue to happen.

Personally, I like the concept and some of the designs of the fossil pokemon, although, personally, what I would've liked to see instead of the mix and match parts, I would've preferred a fusion like pokemon - Kinda like Digimon fusion:
View attachment 1001782
Then again, people were already complaining about how pokemon is now ripping off digimon.

As for anthromorphic starters...

*shrugs*

I don't really see that as a criticism, more of a subjective preference. Whether or not something is anthropomorphic shouldn't affect how a quality a design is. There's a difference between "I don't like this" and "This is bad design".

Like, I like Cinderance, but it has the opposite problem that Incineroar has - Way too small hands for it's arm type, like, give it hands like infernape, like gloved hands

Maybe not all of them were based on wildlife, especially the exceptions you noted, but there was typically a reason for the exception, be it typing, or specific environment, etc.

The design philosophy has definitely changed though, for better or worse. The truth is that most Gen 1 and 2 Pokemon at least looked and moved like something you could conceivably see foraging in the wild. From Gen 3 on even the ones based more or less on animals looked more like something you’d see staring at you from a shelf in a toy store.

 

[Nauseated Courgi]

Maybe not all of them were based on wildlife, especially the exceptions you noted, but there was typically a reason for the exception, be it typing, or specific environment, etc.

The design philosophy has definitely changed though, for better or worse. The truth is that most Gen 1 and 2 Pokemon at least looked and moved like something you could conceivably see foraging in the wild. From Gen 3 on even the ones based more or less on animals looked more like something you’d see staring at you from a shelf in a toy store.

While I see your point, keep in mind that while this world has a semi-realistic setting, it's still a fantasy world at it's core.

Also, "Gen 3 and on ward", you're telling me you can't see pokemon like Zigzagoon, Foongus or Vivillion roaming about in the wild but you can see it for Gen 1-2 pokemon like voltorb or a magnemite?

 

[Tour of Italy]

While I see your point, keep in mind that while this world has a semi-realistic setting, it's still a fantasy world at it's core.

Also, "Gen 3 and on ward", you're telling me you can't see pokemon like Zigzagoon, Foongus or Vivillion roaming about in the wild but you can see it for Gen 1-2 pokemon like voltorb or a magnemite?

I get that it’s fantasy, I’m not making a value judgement either way, just observing that the core design principles have clearly shifted.

And I’m not trying to make the case that every Pokemon from Gen 3 onward looks like that, I’m saying that’s where it looks like it started to be more prevalent. Magnemite and Voltorb absolutely make sense as some sort of technological fauna in the ruined industrial habitats they tend to be found near. Meanwhile Lillipup is meant to be based on a terrier but looks more like a stuffed one, just as one example.

I actually like Gen 3 overall from an artistic standpoint, but if I had to pick a starting point for the shift, that’s what comes to mind. Pelipper and Volbeat are based on animals but have a mascot like quality to them, while Pokemon like Loudred, Ludicolo, and Spoink have a similar feel while going further into fantasy territory than RBY and GSC did.

Again, I’m not calling this out as the downfall of the series or anything, I’m just trying to put my finger on what causes the contrast between the designs in the earlier generations and the later ones.

Personally I do like the meshing of the creatures with their environments, and it’s something that they’ve been all over the board with as the series went on.

 

[OddEyes]

Maybe not all of them were based on wildlife, especially the exceptions you noted, but there was typically a reason for the exception, be it typing, or specific environment, etc.

The design philosophy has definitely changed though, for better or worse. The truth is that most Gen 1 and 2 Pokemon at least looked and moved like something you could conceivably see foraging in the wild. From Gen 3 on even the ones based more or less on animals looked more like something you’d see staring at you from a shelf in a toy store.

I mean, I could easily point that out for creatures back in generation one, dratini being a prime example - Hell, I remember having a Dratini plushie that I got from KFC when I was a kid (and yeah, that was a thing), or how about Blastoise with it's twin canons out of it's shell?

There's always been stylization in PKM, and while yes, there is a more cartoony look towards the newer designs, not going to deny that, to say that the earlier gens aren't like that is bit unfair.

I mean, tell me where you can see a Koffing?

Or a Gastly?

Hell, a lot of Psychic types don't fall into the 'every day animal" - Hypno, Execggutor, Abra. Then there's stuff like the fighting type - Machop line, the Hitmons, even the mankey line (which are based on pig monkeys mind you, not regular monkeys) aren't really things you'd find in the wild.

And frankly, we can compare and contrast some early designs to more recent designs:

Both are spider based pokemon, and yet Galvantula fits more with the spider motif and has much more detail.

Heck,

You've got pokemon like Zebstrika who is essentially just a zebra with stylized hair and stripes to match it's typing.

If anything, I'd argue it's not so much of a change in design philosophy as it is a change in artsyle and such. Then again, we don't know who's credited for what pokemon designs in the newer games, so this could just be the work of a completely different artist that we don't know about yet.

 

[Tour of Italy]

I mean, I could easily point that out for creatures back in generation one, dratini being a prime example - Hell, I remember having a Dratini plushie that I got from KFC when I was a kid (and yeah, that was a thing), or how about Blastoise with it's twin canons out of it's shell?

There's always been stylization in PKM, and while yes, there is a more cartoony look towards the newer designs, not going to deny that, to say that the earlier gens aren't like that is bit unfair.

I mean, tell me where you can see a Koffing?

Or a Gastly?

Hell, a lot of Psychic types don't fall into the 'every day animal" - Hypno, Execggutor, Abra. Then there's stuff like the fighting type - Machop line, the Hitmons, even the mankey line (which are based on pig monkeys mind you, not regular monkeys) aren't really things you'd find in the wild.

And frankly, we can compare and contrast some early designs to more recent designs:
View attachment 1001967View attachment 1001968
Both are spider based pokemon, and yet Galvantula fits more with the spider motif and has much more detail.

Heck,

View attachment 1001970
You've got pokemon like Zebstrika who is essentially just a zebra with stylized hair and stripes to match it's typing.

If anything, I'd argue it's not so much of a change in design philosophy as it is a change in artsyle and such. Then again, we don't know who's credited for what pokemon designs in the newer games, so this could just be the work of a completely different artist that we don't know about yet.

Again, I’m not saying that Gens 1 and 2 are all animal/plant like all the time. I’m saying that they tended to lean towards grounded, but foreign creatures more as opposed to a more cartoon-like entities, like you’re saying.

I agree that it largely has to do with the art style, but the art style used to depict a Pokémon and the underlying ideas behind why it looks that way are inseparable.

I actually like Koffing a lot because it has a mutant monstrous look to it. If you saw that thing hanging around a ruined chemical plant, you wouldn’t be but so surprised.

Thank you for bringing up Galvantula too, I think it’s a Gen V Pokemon that really nails the aesthetic that I believe was more typical in earlier generations. Not that that is necessarily a good or bad thing mind you; I’m only talking about this at all because I’m trying to figure out the root of the noticeable contrast and shift in design feel of the creatures over time.

And my point is not that each early Gen Pokemon had a grounded real-world equivalent, it’s that in a relatively grounded sci-fi/fantasy setting, they don’t seem out of place in their given environment. Machop doesn’t look like a specific animal, but it does look like it could scale a rock face and survive in a mountainous region. And again, there are absolutely exceptions to this rule.

As an aside, a more general rule as well that a like about most Pokemon designs is a tendency to become more fantastical as they evolve.

Anyway, I’m really not looking to start shit, I just like art and design and think Pokemon is a fascinating case study since it spans over two decades of pop art influences.

 

[robobobo]

I think it's maybe giving too much credit to say that they had a design theme that's shifted. It's probably more accurate to say that they had the time and creativity to make the first generation or two, then ran out of good ideas and had to just crank shit out with a looming deadline. It got kind of obvious when they reached the point of just emptying their pockets on the table and looking around the room for whatever desperate inspiration they could find to crank out yet another pokemon.

 

[Hideous K]

I think it's maybe giving too much credit to say that they had a design theme that's shifted. It's probably more accurate to say that they had the time and creativity to make the first generation or two, then ran out of good ideas and had to just crank shit out with a looming deadline. It got kind of obvious when they reached the point of just emptying their pockets on the table and looking around the room for whatever desperate inspiration they could find to crank out yet another pokemon.

exactly this, there's a lot of fans that can make pokemon from pixiv and some from deviantart (take that with a grain of salt) the core team has been losing stream for awhile since Gen 7 and Gen 8 has a penguin with a ice-block for a head, a far-cry of the devs who made the Piplup/Prinplup/Empoleon water starter from Sinnoh

 

[Love Machine]

I think it's maybe giving too much credit to say that they had a design theme that's shifted. It's probably more accurate to say that they had the time and creativity to make the first generation or two, then ran out of good ideas and had to just crank shit out with a looming deadline. It got kind of obvious when they reached the point of just emptying their pockets on the table and looking around the room for whatever desperate inspiration they could find to crank out yet another pokemon.

This is the most boomer fucking take I've ever seen.

 

[Nauseated Courgi]

I think it's maybe giving too much credit to say that they had a design theme that's shifted. It's probably more accurate to say that they had the time and creativity to make the first generation or two, then ran out of good ideas and had to just crank shit out with a looming deadline. It got kind of obvious when they reached the point of just emptying their pockets on the table and looking around the room for whatever desperate inspiration they could find to crank out yet another pokemon.

I wouldn't really go as far as to say that they're running out of ideas seeing as that's been a critique that people have had with the games since gen 5 (maybe a little later than that but I'm not sure). The whole "Game Freak is running out of ideas" statememt comes off more like "I don't like the designs so there must be something wrong with the developers".

 

[Love Machine]

I wouldn't really go as far as to say that they're running out of ideas seeing as that's been a critique that people have had with the games since gen 5 (maybe a little later than that but I'm not sure). The whole "Game Freak is running out of ideas" statememt comes off more like "I don't like the designs so there must be something wrong with the developers".

theyve been saying their running out of ideas since gen 3, obviously they dont shit on gen 2 because half the game is kanto.

 

[OddEyes]

Thank you for bringing up Galvantula too, I think it’s a Gen V Pokemon that really nails the aesthetic that I believe was more typical in earlier generations. Not that that is necessarily a good or bad thing mind you; I’m only talking about this at all because I’m trying to figure out the root of the noticeable contrast and shift in design feel of the creatures over time.

Not to start shit here either, but I think it has something more to do with the fact that the art style is becoming more round.

Like, let me give an example:

I think Nidoking is a great example for this - To the left you've got Gen 1's official art and current artwork for the poison rabbit (and yeah, he's a rabbit, that's what the asethetic was for the Nido lines) If you look at the horns and claws, you can see that the older version has more jagged and rough edges to it, meanwhile the right version has a more rounder shape.

The right has a much cleaner look, and the rounder shape is actually playing off of a psychological aspect of rounder shapes, it gives off a much more friendly and approachable design. It's part of the reason why people take to Wooloo actually, despite it's extremely simple design:

Here's the thing that we need to consider, and that's how pokemon's demographic slowly shifted from pre-teens to kids, and let's face it, that is a different kind of demographic, as well as it being a much more broad.
Again, designs have changed to be a lot more 'softer':

Stuff like fangs and claws have dulled a little bit. Fur has become a lot smoother.

That isn't to say that those elements aren't there, but they're a lot less prominent.

And there's nothing wrong with rounder designs either, just pointing out a possibility as to why you're feeling this way.

 

[TrippinKahlua]

People are moaning over Charizard being the only starter in, I'm here celebrating over it getting the title "Pseudo Legendary"

 

[$45]

I don't think the designs are essentially "bad" but are highly different from what we are used to. I personally find them funny and intriguing, guess I been liking weirder and more toony styles more lately.

Like Sobble's final evolution is inspired by fictional British spies like James bond. I find it highly imaginative in all honesty.

I think one of the major reasons why there is so outrage is simply a lot of the fans are getting onder and latching on how things used to be. I could be wrong.

 

[Love Machine]

Pseudo Legendary is a term for pokemon for a bst of 60, thats a club of Dragonite, Tyranitar, Metagross, Salamence, Garchomp, Hydreigon, Goodra, kommo-o and now with the 8th gen, Dragopult. Starters never get anywhere near that.

 

[Tour of Italy]

Not to start shit here either, but I think it has something more to do with the fact that the art style is becoming more round.

Like, let me give an example:

View attachment 1002051View attachment 1002052
I think Nidoking is a great example for this - To the left you've got Gen 1's official art and current artwork for the poison rabbit (and yeah, he's a rabbit, that's what the asethetic was for the Nido lines) If you look at the horns and claws, you can see that the older version has more jagged and rough edges to it, meanwhile the right version has a more rounder shape.

The right has a much cleaner look, and the rounder shape is actually playing off of a psychological aspect of rounder shapes, it gives off a much more friendly and approachable design. It's part of the reason why people take to Wooloo actually, despite it's extremely simple design:

View attachment 1002055

Here's the thing that we need to consider, and that's how pokemon's demographic slowly shifted from pre-teens to kids, and let's face it, that is a different kind of demographic, as well as it being a much more broad.
Again, designs have changed to be a lot more 'softer':

View attachment 1002057View attachment 1002058

Stuff like fangs and claws have dulled a little bit. Fur has become a lot smoother.

That isn't to say that those elements aren't there, but they're a lot less prominent.

And there's nothing wrong with rounder designs either, just pointing out a possibility as to why you're feeling this way.

I think the roundness and the general switch to more appealing and approachable designs are definitely major factors.

That said, I think there’s still a noticeable difference between the updated Gen I designs and the brand new ones. The eyeballs jump out as the Toriyama inspired designs have largely been phased out, but I still think there might be more to it.

One thing maybe worth considering is claws and digits? I notice our sheep friend’s feet terminate with Gumby blobs instead of useable extremities. So do Lapras’ fins, but that’s not out of place for an aquatic creature.

Textures play a roll too I think. I may have a glance full the full Dex and see if I can come up with something.

 

[$45]

I missed the days when people just had fun and accept flaws and imperfections in a game.

Now it just leaks, outrage, and 'muh graphics'.