Let's talk about Pokémon designs

I think the issue I have with inanimate object pokemon (specifically Vanilluxe, klefki and Klink lines) is the lore behind them and whether or not they fit within the pokemon world that Game Freak have established. The poison types (muk, trubbish etc), electric types (magneton, electrode etc) and ghost types (chandelure, aegislash etc) all have a lore or reason as to why they have sparked life. Poison due to toxins/ radioactive matter interacting with organic components, electrics through magnetism and galvanism and ghosts through possession.

Vanilluxe, klefki and Klink have no such explanations towards their existence, they break the 'rules' of the pokemon universe. I could excuse vanillux if perhaps it gained fairy typing and existed as a sort of ice pixie, but it didn't, it's an ice cream with a face...

On this, there's a pokemon design who I adored as a child that now shits me off to no end- Blastoise. Why and how does it evolve to have man made industrial canons? It is so out of place in both gen 1 and later gens. With the exception of clothing which I will touch on next, no other pokemon that don't share a steel type have man made equipment fused as part of their body. Blastoise's pre evos don't even suggest a mythology that gives the canons an explanation.

Continuing on from this idea of unexplained man made objects finding their way into designs, the clothing of humanoid mons (machokes belt, sawk and throhs robes) reeeallly bothers me. I was considering including hitmonchans tunic and gloves in this list but I suppose I can pass that off as skin and flesh similar to human clothes. Clothes on pokemon doesn't make sense biologically and is creepy canonically. There is no explanation where the clothes come from and in sawk and throhs case, why they wear them (other than being way too close to humans in my monster fighting game)
 
I think the issue I have with inanimate object pokemon (specifically Vanilluxe, klefki and Klink lines) is the lore behind them and whether or not they fit within the pokemon world that Game Freak have established. The poison types (muk, trubbish etc), electric types (magneton, electrode etc) and ghost types (chandelure, aegislash etc) all have a lore or reason as to why they have sparked life. Poison due to toxins/ radioactive matter interacting with organic components, electrics through magnetism and galvanism and ghosts through possession.

Vanilluxe, klefki and Klink have no such explanations towards their existence, they break the 'rules' of the pokemon universe. I could excuse vanillux if perhaps it gained fairy typing and existed as a sort of ice pixie, but it didn't, it's an ice cream with a face...
I apologize in advance for making an example out of your post. You are fully entitled to like what you like and dislike what you don't and you don't need a logical reason for it.

But this right here is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said people hate these guys due to Uncanny Valley. Klefki, Klink, and Vanniluxe are pokemon, they aren't breaking any rules for existing. They are breaking YOUR rules. You couldn't justify why these inanimate objects could be alive, so you don't like them because they don't follow YOUR rules.

Again, I'm not forcing anybody to like these guys, but I am calling out how people push their rules for what and what isn't a pokemon and then blame the game on not following them. If you don't like their shape, symmetry, color, size, whatever that's fine. Just take agency in your opinion.
 
I apologize in advance for making an example out of your post. You are fully entitled to like what you like and dislike what you don't and you don't need a logical reason for it.

But this right here is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said people hate these guys due to Uncanny Valley. Klefki, Klink, and Vanniluxe are pokemon, they aren't breaking any rules for existing. They are breaking YOUR rules. You couldn't justify why these inanimate objects could be alive, so you don't like them because they don't follow YOUR rules.

Again, I'm not forcing anybody to like these guys, but I am calling out how people push their rules for what and what isn't a pokemon and then blame the game on not following them. If you don't like their shape, symmetry, color, size, whatever that's fine. Just take agency in your opinion.
I mean I did quite explicity say that that was my opinion and things that bothered me with their designs so uh yeah... that's exactly my point lol. I never said they should be removed or boycotted or whatever, just that I personally dislike their design elements because I don't believe they fit in flavour wise with the other 720 plus pokemon that have been designed.

Edit: and to address your point of the uncanny valley, I think it is a valid gripe for fans to have as part of pokemons major appeal of their creatures vs other franchises is the "canniness" of their designs. Pokemon's lore is heavily rooted in references to the real world with more fantastical elements. Regions are based off of countries, the world more or less obeys our world's laws of nature and physics (minus the fantastical creatures themselves of course) and the pokemon themselves have references to the real world in their descriptions such as mew being discovered in south America and raichu taking down elephants. I think it's entirely justified for fans to dislike the "uncanny" elements as they break this illusion and world without a justification.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JES
I think the issue I have with inanimate object pokemon (specifically Vanilluxe, klefki and Klink lines) is the lore behind them and whether or not they fit within the pokemon world that Game Freak have established. The poison types (muk, trubbish etc), electric types (magneton, electrode etc) and ghost types (chandelure, aegislash etc) all have a lore or reason as to why they have sparked life. Poison due to toxins/ radioactive matter interacting with organic components, electrics through magnetism and galvanism and ghosts through possession.

Vanilluxe, klefki and Klink have no such explanations towards their existence, they break the 'rules' of the pokemon universe. I could excuse vanillux if perhaps it gained fairy typing and existed as a sort of ice pixie, but it didn't, it's an ice cream with a face...

On this, there's a pokemon design who I adored as a child that now shits me off to no end- Blastoise. Why and how does it evolve to have man made industrial canons? It is so out of place in both gen 1 and later gens. With the exception of clothing which I will touch on next, no other pokemon that don't share a steel type have man made equipment fused as part of their body. Blastoise's pre evos don't even suggest a mythology that gives the canons an explanation.

Continuing on from this idea of unexplained man made objects finding their way into designs, the clothing of humanoid mons (machokes belt, sawk and throhs robes) reeeallly bothers me. I was considering including hitmonchans tunic and gloves in this list but I suppose I can pass that off as skin and flesh similar to human clothes. Clothes on pokemon doesn't make sense biologically and is creepy canonically. There is no explanation where the clothes come from and in sawk and throhs case, why they wear them (other than being way too close to humans in my monster fighting game)
While I don't have a huge problem with klefki and the likes (well, maybe a bit with vanillux and cryoginal) I agree that it totally bugs me when Pokemon seem to wear human clothes. throh and sawk are the worst perpetrators. Where did they get those clothes? Why do the have them? How does every single one of them have it? Are those clothes supposed to be skin? (Keep in mind these are primarily rhetorical questions). The problem is that clothes are not subtly incorporated into their design, they are just straight up wearing clothes as far as I can tell.
 

Stellar

of the Distant Past
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
While I don't have a huge problem with klefki and the likes (well, maybe a bit with vanillux and cryoginal) I agree that it totally bugs me when Pokemon seem to wear human clothes. throh and sawk are the worst perpetrators. Where did they get those clothes? Why do the have them? How does every single one of them have it? Are those clothes supposed to be skin? (Keep in mind these are primarily rhetorical questions). The problem is that clothes are not subtly incorporated into their design, they are just straight up wearing clothes as far as I can tell.
Throh's dex entry states "When it tightens its belt, it becomes stronger. Wild Throh use vines to weave their own belts." I assume the same applies to its other pieces of clothing (and to Sawk's by extension). They definitely don't look like vines, but at least the games try to offer some explanation.
 
I mean I did quite explicity say that that was my opinion and things that bothered me with their designs so uh yeah... that's exactly my point lol. I never said they should be removed or boycotted or whatever, just that I personally dislike their design elements because I don't believe they fit in flavour wise with the other 720 plus pokemon that have been designed.

Edit: and to address your point of the uncanny valley, I think it is a valid gripe for fans to have as part of pokemons major appeal of their creatures vs other franchises is the "canniness" of their designs. Pokemon's lore is heavily rooted in references to the real world with more fantastical elements. Regions are based off of countries, the world more or less obeys our world's laws of nature and physics (minus the fantastical creatures themselves of course) and the pokemon themselves have references to the real world in their descriptions such as mew being discovered in south America and raichu taking down elephants. I think it's entirely justified for fans to dislike the "uncanny" elements as they break this illusion and world without a justification.
I guess I just see statements like "they break the 'rules' of the pokemon universe" and "more or less obeys our world's laws" my counter is always what rules? Inanimate object pokemon have been around since Gen 1. And what's "realistic" about toxic sludge, magnetized scrap metal, and haunted candelabra's that isn't for living snow or magical car keys? What's sOOOOOOOOooo realistic about a magical flying dragon that can control the weather? Or just a dragon? We need to stop using realism as an excuse to condemn designs we hate but then ignore it on designs we like. It's hypocrisy.

But despite all that, you are correct. Uncanny valley is a valid criticism (Mr. Mime gets it all the time and it is completely valid). I personally don't like Vanniluxe's 3 faces (third is on the back) and asymmetrical design. I wish they just put a cherry and chocolate sauce on Vannillish instead for an evolution. I also don't like Weezing as much as Koffing for the same reasons. But I also think that's our fault for preferring designs that are safe and familiar versus those that take risks and break expectations: those that don't conform.

If we limit designs to only what's been established as a real animal, plant, or myth then we are just limiting creativity.
 
I guess I just see statements like "they break the 'rules' of the pokemon universe" and "more or less obeys our world's laws" my counter is always what rules? Inanimate object pokemon have been around since Gen 1. And what's "realistic" about toxic sludge, magnetized scrap metal, and haunted candelabra's that isn't for living snow or magical car keys? What's sOOOOOOOOooo realistic about a magical flying dragon that can control the weather? Or just a dragon? We need to stop using realism as an excuse to condemn designs we hate but then ignore it on designs we like. It's hypocrisy.

But despite all that, you are correct. Uncanny valley is a valid criticism (Mr. Mime gets it all the time and it is completely valid). I personally don't like Vanniluxe's 3 faces (third is on the back) and asymmetrical design. I wish they just put a cherry and chocolate sauce on Vannillish instead for an evolution. I also don't like Weezing as much as Koffing for the same reasons. But I also think that's our fault for preferring designs that are safe and familiar versus those that take risks and break expectations: those that don't conform.

If we limit designs to only what's been established as a real animal, plant, or myth then we are just limiting creativity.
I think there have to be laws and limits to the fantasy world that you create- not necessarily our own worlds laws but a theme or "mythology" (for want of a better word) that allows immersion and sets the tone. Video games or cartoons vary rarely employ different artistic styles in the same game or show for example, and this also includes the in game lore itself.
Pokemon for example has set a precedent of "fantastical realism"- water puts out fire, fire beats grass, you need wings or some sort of psychic energy to fly and charmander doesn't evolve into Venasaur are examples. Pokemon has created it's own "laws" of what is natural and what is "unnatural" in the pokemon world. Now I certainly don't make these "laws" of biology and physics in the pokemon world, and the fact that mons such as Mr Mime and Vanniluxe exist proves that in The Pokemon Company's vision of the pokemon world they fit in- but I also think it's telling the overwhelming hate these pokemon get due to the fans feeling that these pokemon don't fit in based on the precedent or norm set by the 720 others.

As you said, there are no rules to pokemon designs or realism in the pokemon world, purely an unquantifiable "vibe" of what designs fit and what don't (and this ties in with the general dislike for overcomplicated designs for the same reason).

There are a lot of game design aspects that break this "realism" as well such as cut progression mechanics, which mons can and cannot fly, where you can run and ride your bike etc. And they all receive their valid share of criticism as well. I think people feeling that designs such as Vanilluxe don't fit into the pokemon world is just as valid opinion as thinking it's dumb my charizard needs cut to pass a shrub- there's no "law" that's been broken, but the vibe of the universe seems off.

(That was so long and wordy it probably made no sense whatsoever lol)
 
Last edited:
It now occurs to me the irony of this whole conversation after they showed us the Rotom-Pokedex today.

...granted, it's not a full fledged pokemon. Or at least appears to be.
 
It now occurs to me the irony of this whole conversation after they showed us the Rotom-Pokedex today.

...granted, it's not a full fledged pokemon. Or at least appears to be.
Ironically the major issue I have with the rotom pokedex is the fact that rotom is meant to be a semi-rare pokemon... but now it appears they give them out to every ten year old in the region lol. (Unless the pokedex owners are "chosen" ones as in pokemon adventures).
But the actual possession of the dex itself? I have no issue

Edit: Jibaku clarified the rotom dex so yep I'm boarding the hype train lol
 
Last edited:

Jibaku

Who let marco in here????
is a Top Team Rater Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Two-Time Past SPL Champion
I highly doubt they're giving out rotom-dex to every Pokemon trainer. Official site says. "The Rotom Pokédex is an extremely rare device. There are only a few Trainers that have one, even in the Alola region."
 
I doubt Rotom-Dex will be anything more than a Pokedex with a few extra functions. I haven't played too much of Yokai Watch but it seems very similar to Whisper. Other than that, the handful of Pokemon revealed for gen vii so far make it look as if this will be one of the best designed generations we've had.
 
Flamedood

I think when it comes to Blastoise and other Pokémon with man made body parts you may be putting the cart before the horse. We look at that with a real world view and say "why would a Pokémon get man made water cannons on its back?" When in the Pokémon universe, man made water cannons are probably an idea adapted from Blastoise.

Maybe humans walked around naked until some friendly Throh and Sawk were like "my dudes, cover up".

Granted, we see these designs with a real world view so to us they may seem like lazy pulls from real life, but the world of Pokémon itself is (in a fantasy sense) not defined by the timeline we see of it. Presumably Pokémon existed long before their human made counterparts like the water cannon on Blastoise.

"Hey that Klefki could keep things shut let's make something like that for our doors"

"What if we attach something to the bottom part of Klink, couldn't we utilize more efficient motion using gears?"

Even...
"Hey that thing Mr. Mime does ia funny. Let's do that."

I suppose this may fall a bit out of the scope of this thread, but if we take a step back and look at designs as a function of the Pokémon universe these particular designs make a lot more sense, seeing as humans to this day make a lot of use of the natural adaptations of creatures around us.
 
Flamedood

I think when it comes to Blastoise and other Pokémon with man made body parts you may be putting the cart before the horse. We look at that with a real world view and say "why would a Pokémon get man made water cannons on its back?" When in the Pokémon universe, man made water cannons are probably an idea adapted from Blastoise.

Maybe humans walked around naked until some friendly Throh and Sawk were like "my dudes, cover up".

Granted, we see these designs with a real world view so to us they may seem like lazy pulls from real life, but the world of Pokémon itself is (in a fantasy sense) not defined by the timeline we see of it. Presumably Pokémon existed long before their human made counterparts like the water cannon on Blastoise.

"Hey that Klefki could keep things shut let's make something like that for our doors"

"What if we attach something to the bottom part of Klink, couldn't we utilize more efficient motion using gears?"

Even...
"Hey that thing Mr. Mime does ia funny. Let's do that."

I suppose this may fall a bit out of the scope of this thread, but if we take a step back and look at designs as a function of the Pokémon universe these particular designs make a lot more sense, seeing as humans to this day make a lot of use of the natural adaptations of creatures around us.
You've literally changed my perspective on so many mons. Wow. Thankyou for this post!
 
Was considering whether to make this post here or in the Little Things That Annoy You thread. Decided on here because it's not exactly Little.

I'm quite bugged by the design parameters that GF took in defining Fairy-types. A quick look at Bulbapedia's Fairy-type Pokemon list suggests that they were pretty consistent in this regard -- pick two of the following traits, pink/white/frilly/fluffy, and you manage to describe most Fairies. But I'm more disturbed by what isn't a Fairy-type, that clearly exhibits those traits.

PRIME OFFENDER.

When the Fairy-type was first introduced, everyone and their mother placed their bets on Blissey joining the Pink Side. Not only did it seem logical that the final member of the Fat Pink Blob trio would get Fairied like the other two -- but when you think about it, Blissey is the very epitome of the Fairy-type in design. Pink. White. Frilly. Vaguely angelic. Mother of all Special Defenses. But sorry folks, Blissey...is a Normal-type. Balance concerns? Afraid it'll shut down the superstar types in the higher tiers? Sure -- valid reason. But from a design perspective, it's a gigantic middle finger to the Fairy-type. My brain lapses into a brief short circuit every time it registers Blissey as being not Fairy-typed.

Then we scroll down to the movelist, and realize that love and attraction are also part of the Fairy-type's concept design. Charm, Sweet Kiss retconned in. New move -- Draining Kiss. Great. Now how about that one Pokemon that learns all three of these moves by level-up, is heart-shaped, named after the word love, has a painfully generic typing --


......NAH. Who the hell cares, right? Luvdisc can suck itself. Who cares if it looks like anthropomorphized love. Nope.

Speaking of which, I'm deeply disturbed by the lack of consistency in retconning Fairy-type moves. Charm switched sides, what happened to Captivate? Covet? Attract? Lovely Kiss? "Oh but it's a signature move it shouldn't change ty--" no. It's a Normal-type signature move of a Psychic/Ice type Pokemon. There's no excuse.

And I still haven't touched on Pokemon that make you go "what the shit are you doing in the Fairy club". No one wants you, Dedenne. And Mawile is another can of worms. Until next time.
 
Then we scroll down to the movelist, and realize that love and attraction are also part of the Fairy-type's concept design. Charm, Sweet Kiss retconned in. New move -- Draining Kiss. Great. Now how about that one Pokemon that learns all three of these moves by level-up, is heart-shaped, named after the word love, has a painfully generic typing --


......NAH. Who the hell cares, right? Luvdisc can suck itself. Who cares if it looks like anthropomorphized love. Nope.

Speaking of which, I'm deeply disturbed by the lack of consistency in retconning Fairy-type moves. Charm switched sides, what happened to Captivate? Covet? Attract? Lovely Kiss? "Oh but it's a signature move it shouldn't change ty--" no. It's a Normal-type signature move of a Psychic/Ice type Pokemon. There's no excuse.
Except for the fact Charm, Sweet Kiss and Draining Kiss are not love or attraction-themed moves. Charm, just like Baby-Doll Eyes, involves manipulating the target to not hit hard by looking cute and helpless, Sweet Kiss confuses the target through cuteness and Draining Kiss... well, drains.

For that matter, the Fairy type is, for the most part, themed around being deceptively cute (Which is why the likes of Play Rough exist), or related to the moon. Nothing related to love, attraction and the like.

Attract and Captivate are attraction oriented, and Lovely Kiss does not even try to be cute (Its japanese name is Demon's Kiss for Arceus's sake, and the descriptions state that it's a forced scary kiss). Now, why Covet is not a Fairy-type move is something strange.
 
I'll grant that for Attract, but when Captivate can clearly be seen a direct Special counterpart to Charm, I'm just not too convinced. Lovely/Demon's Kiss does at first sight bring to mind the likes of Draining Kiss, but you do have a point that it has nothing to do with cuteness...



I'm reminded of another move though -- Heart Stamp clearly fits right in with the concept design of Fairy-type moves. The user unleashes a vicious blow after its cute act makes the target less wary. It may also make the target flinch. It's exactly what you've described the Fairy-type's theme to be. Why they left it as a Psychic-type move is beyond me.
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I'll grant that for Attract, but when Captivate can clearly be seen a direct Special counterpart to Charm, I'm just not too convinced. Lovely/Demon's Kiss does at first sight bring to mind the likes of Draining Kiss, but you do have a point that it has nothing to do with cuteness...



I'm reminded of another move though -- Heart Stamp clearly fits right in with the concept design of Fairy-type moves. The user unleashes a vicious blow after its cute act makes the target less wary. It may also make the target flinch. It's exactly what you've described the Fairy-type's theme to be. Why they left it as a Psychic-type move is beyond me.
I always wondered why Lovely Kiss wasn't a psychic move or a dark move.
Dark in Japanese is Aku, and Demon in Japanese is Akuma.

Bit like how Morning Sun remains to be normal, I guess?
 
First let me open by saying that if you hate sylveon solely because of it's "flesh ribbons" and don't hate suicune too you don't even know like what the heck I hate you and a pox on your mailman

before I give my definition of a good design let's explore a bit about Gamefreak design philosophy and how people react to it:

looking at Gamefreak's general design intent when making a pokemon, I found 3 general trends:

Cool: Pokemon whose intent is to get it's audience to think "man that guy looks awesome, I want to battle with it" pokemon like Garchomp, Scizor, etc. it also encompasses Scary pokemon too because they convey the same message: this guy is good in a battle. Note that that's the intent not the competitive reality.

Cute: Pokemon that try to make the audience go "awww that' so cute I wanna raise one" Pokemon like Cinccino, Wigglytuf, etc. it also includes Beautiful pokemon like Milotic or Aurorous.

And finally Goofy: Pokemon whose intent is to make the audience laugh "ahahaha, look at that guy, it'd be hilarious to own one" guys like Slowpoke or Spinda.

So why do I bring that up? Because regardless of it's inspiration, is pokemon that are Goofy the ones that generate controversy among western fans.
People didn't complain about Golem because he's Cool even though it is literally a rock, also Chandelure is generally agreed to be one of the best gen V designs among fans in spite of being a chandelier (I re-emphasize generally) and I'm pretty sure it's because Chandelure is also a Cool/Scary design.

Now let's look at some of the designs that people complain most about; Garbaodour, Vanilluxe, Bibarel, Stunfisk, Kelfki, two of those are animals but all of them have the same design philosophy behind them, they're all Goofy (arguably Klefki could be Cute but it certainly looks to me like the intend behind it is to be Goofy)


Now as for why that is, I found two main reasons, and both have to do with Pokemon's origins and I don't mean the species but the franchise, so sit back and listen to an ondo while I hipotesize

the 1st and more obvious one is simply that japanese humour loves goofy things (and it is a japanese thing not an eastern thing, the sinosphere is fragmented like that), specially among kids, if you look at othe franchises like the super popular (in japan) Yokai Watch you'll see most designs are super goofy or jibanyan recolored


but this is not a recent trend, like look at the classic an influential anime (in japan) Gegege no Kitaro

ant thats a horror series! (kinda), look at how goofy those guys are; heck just search for the original z-less Dragon Ball, japan loves dumb looking/acting characters, even One Piece is mainly about goofy looking characters!


as for the 2nd and more speculative reason, well lets talk about Neopets; I know, nobody cares about Neopets anymore but it's designs where popular for a reason
if you look at the designs of neopets you'll see they're almost exclusively either Cool or Cute in nature, there are some Scary designs but as we already determined those are a subcategory of the Cool aesthetic, so it's pretty much either Cool or Cute

Now Neopets is a western franchise with western tastes and while not as popular as it once was I yet to see any argument from its fans about a neopet "not looking like a neopet", tangentially there are to my knowledge no neopets based on objects

but In Pokemon, every time a Goofy design is revealed people inmediatly argue about how "it's awful" and "they're runing out of ideas"

So in conclussion: Most of those designs you hear so many complain about? It's a cultural thing, japan likes them fine (seriously stunfisk is very popular in japan)


and seriously suicune has flesh ribbons, extraneous junk attached to it, is so ill-defined it might as well be based on nothing (what is it suppoused to be anyway?), is overdesigned and generally sucks
 
Last edited:
Looking at the Yo-kai above, note that they aren't designed for their superficial appearances. Even though they have a lot of Jibanyan recolors, at least they act like individual characters in the anime. Yes, even the dub's snarky depiction of Whisper. Just remember to believe in the Shmoopie.

At least Pokémon refuses to use palette swaps to fatten up the numbers, unlike most monster collectors I've encountered. Heck, it's amusing how recolors tend to be stronger than their original-colored counterparts! The closest Pokémon to palette swaps are from Unova, particularly the basic-stage monkeys and the Incarnate genies Forces of Nature.
 
No one wants you, Dedenne. And Mawile is another can of worms. Until next time.
Well, Dedenne might be based on the tooth fairy. You see, in Europe (particularly FRANCE which Kalos is based on) the tooth fairy is a small mouse. It doesn't really come up in any of Dedenne's pokedex entries or anywhere really (other than the name which invokes both antenna and dental) but it seems way too coincidental to not have some connection.

This comes up basically everytime some says "why isn't [x] a fairy type" or "why is [y] a fairy type" but fairy is a really large and broad term in mythology. It's not just tinkerbelle and friends, it's stuff like this guy too:
upload_2016-6-25_20-19-10.jpeg

So broaden your horizons people.

But since this is a design thread, we need to consider every aspect of pokemon design, including gameplay impact. Do we really want to see the best special wall in the game, Blissey/Chansey, given the (arguably) second best defensive typing in the game? Sometimes what we want isn't what we need.
 
Expanding on what stage7_4 said, I'm sort of disappointed with the Fairy-types we've got. Fairies are incredibly diverse across different mythologies, ranging from benevolent, to mischievous, to downright terrifying. When GF introduced Fairy as a type in XY, it opened up a ton of potential for more "otherworldly" Pokemon. We could have gotten a goblin, or a banshee, or even a Fairy/Dragon Naga.

So why is it that all we got are pink, fluffy cutemons?

Other than Mawile, Mr. Mime, and *maybe* Klefki, every Fairy is cute and/or pink, and thought of as harmless. (Yes, some like Azumarill and Xerneas are far from it, but I'm talking from a lore perspective.) I'm tempted to say that since the Pokemon games are targeted at a younger audience, they wanted to maintain the "fairies = cute" association brought on by Tinkerbell, Navi, and friends, since those are the first fairies most young kids will encounter today. Still, though... there's just so much potential for designes that GF just didn't act upon. I really hope we get some more diverse Fairy-type Pokemon in Sun and Moon.

However, there are a two Pokemon that I really feel should have been made Fairy-type, but weren't:



The lore behind Absol is that it senses natural disasters, and then comes down from the mountains to warn people about them. However, because it is always seen before the disasters, it is thought to be their cause. When it Mega Evolves, it takes on an almost angelic appearance, sprouting "wings" of fur and gaining Magic Bounce, which can be seen as a form of divine armour. I have always thought that this symbolizes Absol being able to fully save people from calamities, instead of just warning them. Becoming Dark/Fairy upon Mega Evolution would perfectly reflect this change from a harbringer of disaster to a saviour from it. On a practical level, it would also be quite powerful, giving it STAB Play Rough and an immunity to both of Lati@s's STAB moves.



Remember when I said a banshee Pokemon would be awesome? We sort of already have one... that didn't become a Fairy. Mismagius is the Magical Pokemon. Its head looks like a witch's hat, and its Dex entries state that its incantations can cause torment or happiness... just like casting a spell. Now, what is it that practically every folktale fairy, from the adorable to the nightmare fuel, has in common? Practically all of them have to do with magic in one way or another. It would certainly make sense for it to become Ghost/Fairy, given its obvious magical nature. Resisting Dark and having STAB Dazzling Gleam would also be cool.

I was also hoping Lunaala would be Ghost/Fairy since a) Ghost/Psychic is among the worst defensive typings in the game, and b) Lunaala is the emissary of the moon, which seems to be another common theme for Fairies in the Pokemon universe.
 
Last edited:
Before I go into some horrible long babble about designs, let me explain what I like in pokemon designs:

1) Biologically Neat Things: basically if the pokemon is based on some interesting animal (or plant or other organism really) or if it's typing or abilities are a reference to some aspect of that animal that is not generally mentioned in fiction it is fine in my book, for example Stunfisk is an ugly design (intentionaly so and fairly popular among it's intended audience) but because it's a flatfish I can't get myself to hate the guy cause flatfish are neat, by the same token I really like Anorith but hate Armaldo cause anomalocaris is supercool and Armaldo looks nothing like one.
Now, I usually prefer animals rarely seen in fiction but anything that makes a clever (or semi-clever) allusion to a real animal's biology makes me like a pokemon more.

2) Mythological Neat Things: same as above with with one key difference (besides replacing animal with myth :P) made up things are fine as long as they are clever, for example Klefki, it is not based on anything but key-rings really but it's supposed to both steal and protect keys, to both help and distress people; now that doesn't seem like much but Klefki is also a fairy type and the way it acts is so totally how faeries act in folklore even the fact that what it does it is a relatively minor thing fits with faeries in spite of there being no actual myths about key stealing faeries. References to things that aren't technically myths but are archaeologically interesting and somewhat mysterious (oOoOoOoOoOooh) are also alright in my book, the fact that there a pokemon based on moai and kachina dolls is something I really like and I hope to see more of.

3) It Doesn't Have Random Stuff Attached to It: more of a dislike really but in short as long a any part of a pokemon doesn't conflict with the rest of the design or is complementary to it that pokemon is kinda ok i guess, take for example Reshiram, is overdesigned yes but it looks good until it gets to the tail, see how it conflicts with the rest of the pokemon? It makes it look clunky an confuses the overall design, Machamp on the other hand is both wearing a belt and a pair of knickers (Ok technically those are markings that only look like knickers but whatever) but since it's based on a bodybuilder not only do they not clash but actually reinforce the idea so it works.

4) It's At Least Somewhat Original: this last category is gonna be a lot trouble (oh belive you me it's gonna be trouble) because while it seems straightforward enough: as long as the animal/myth/concept been referenced isn't just copied whole is an alright design; in actuallity lots of fan favorites are just that, for example Durant is not just an ant made of Steel but a robotic ant (you can see "rivets" in it's body, its antennea, etc,) as reference as how ants seem to be more like part of a machine than animals wich is a really clever reference, and on the other hand we have Nidoking who is just strtaight Baragon, no changes, no references (maybe his ground type because hes supposed to fight Frankenstein?) he's even the same color, sure Gamefreak made a "baby Baragon" and a "teen Baragon" but Nidoking is just Baragon which makes him a bad design

now compare the popularity between Durant and Nidoking

so yeah, this is gonna be fuuuuuuun
 
Last edited:
now compare the popularity between Durant and Nidoking

so yeah, this is gonna be fuuuuuuun
Regarding Durant and Nidoking.

First of all, I didn't know about Baragon before and I must admit the resemblance is striking (down to the ears!). I don't mind Nidoking per se, never been a huge fan though. I think most of its appeal is that it is a "generic" monster, that is, it is clearly a strong, fearsome monster but you can't quite put your hands on what it exactly is. You can't associate it to a specific animal or concept unlike, say, Greninja which you can sum up as "ninja frog". I'm actually a little disappointed that Nidoking isn't as original as I thought.

Now Durant. I actually like it. Yeah, the concept is as simple as "ironclad ant" and it makes no efforts to hide it. Even the name says it clearly. That said, I don't think it's a bad design. Not the most original maybe, but it's clearly cut. It's supposed to be an armored/robotic ant. It's simple, straight to the point, and decently executed. Now, Durant is just an example, you can say the same for tons of other Pokémon. Charizard is a "fire breathing dragon", Rapidash is a "fire unicorn", and Houndoom is a "hell hound", and you can go on forever. None of those are too original, but they're clearly cut and immediately recognizable.

So yeah I am team Durant =P (it also kicks ass in randbats, which is cool!)
 

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

Top