HOME | DD

HaidarTheKnight54 In reply to purplecruiser [2019-04-05 13:46:22 +0000 UTC]

Even I'm wondering that now.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

purplecruiser In reply to HaidarTheKnight54 [2019-04-11 04:37:27 +0000 UTC]

Mm.... 3:

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mewitti In reply to Dark-Feanix [2013-08-24 15:07:57 +0000 UTC]

It is a pretty sad story.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mewitti In reply to Pablo09 [2013-04-15 19:28:00 +0000 UTC]

It's ~TeamHeartGold 's design.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mewitti In reply to Ross-Sanger [2013-04-12 00:57:02 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, I'm not sure what exactly it is about the Gamefreak Oshawott design, but it just looks clowny and weird...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ross-Sanger In reply to Mewitti [2013-04-12 09:31:45 +0000 UTC]

Exactly what I thought, it's like an inflatable clown doll! Yours looks much more ottery.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mewitti In reply to Ross-Sanger [2013-04-12 13:53:57 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! It's inspired by the design ~TeamHeartGold used for her Oshawott in Reign. Realistic Pokemon sure are fun.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ross-Sanger In reply to Mewitti [2013-04-12 15:40:10 +0000 UTC]

Indeed! Well... usually, I've seen some quite disturbing ones too

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gameb9oy In reply to Ross-Sanger [2014-02-20 06:53:55 +0000 UTC]

I agree realistic looking pokemon are often eyesores, but I don't see why your complaining about its design as your water starter could have been something like tympole or stunfisk which definitely had more rushed designs than oshawott did.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ross-Sanger In reply to Gameb9oy [2014-02-20 10:05:22 +0000 UTC]

Yes, but at least Tympole looks like a tadpole, whereas Oshawott, in game, looks like... a snowman? Maybe a clown? Definitely not an otter, and I know that Chespin has kind of a similar look in some ways but it does at least look recognisable as a chestnut-chipmunk hybrid, which I assume is what it's meant to be. Either way, a bad design is a bad design regardless of if there are worse ones -- Dugtrio's existence doesn't suddenly make Voltorb a creative design by comparison.

Also, stunfisk isn't actually a water type.

Regardless, if Oshawott had looked more like this picture, with fur around its neck rather than weird blobs, ears that look like ears rather than some kind of cones stuck to its head, and a nose that looks like a nose rather than an orange, I'd have been more inclined to buy the game.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gameb9oy In reply to Ross-Sanger [2014-02-20 21:37:39 +0000 UTC]

Your kinda sounding like a genwunner.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ross-Sanger In reply to Gameb9oy [2014-02-20 22:10:14 +0000 UTC]

If I were a genwunner, why would I be criticising generation one pokémon like Dugtrio and Voltorb? Gen 1 had a bunch of terrible designs too -- Jynx the racial stereotype pokémon, Mr. Mime the creepy clown (why, why did gen 4 add an even creepier baby version?), Voltorb the angry pokéball, Diglett the facial mole... although I don't know why some people hate on Grimer and Muk so much, I think a toxic slime pokémon is kind of cool, and you find them in an abandoned lab, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

The starter pokémon just put me off gen 5 a lot, along with some other bad designs like Timburr, Vanillite, Klink, and the genie triplets, but I've been playing Pokémon Y and there's a lot of gen 5 pokémon in that which actually seem pretty cool, like Hydragon and Venipede, and from trades and safari I've discovered some other cool ones, like Drilbur, Zebstrika and Liligant.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gameb9oy In reply to Ross-Sanger [2014-02-20 22:21:23 +0000 UTC]

I suppose I don't think oshawott looks much like an otter, but I like it because of the samurai aspect of its design.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ross-Sanger In reply to Gameb9oy [2014-02-20 22:33:11 +0000 UTC]

Well its final evolution looks okay, I just think its basic and first stage forms are kind of derpy. I suppose it's not just that it's a bad design that I dislike, it's that the design could have been a lot better with just a little bit more effort.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gameb9oy In reply to Ross-Sanger [2014-02-20 23:05:54 +0000 UTC]

I give'em some slack unless the design is just 2 ugly to ignore, like stunfisk

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ross-Sanger In reply to Gameb9oy [2014-02-21 01:27:51 +0000 UTC]

Eh, stunfisk I can ignore easily, it's just kind of bland but there was never much potential in a flat fish anyhow.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gameb9oy In reply to Ross-Sanger [2014-02-21 02:13:13 +0000 UTC]

U said yourself it's not a water type so it's not even a fish really.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ross-Sanger In reply to Gameb9oy [2014-02-21 02:35:28 +0000 UTC]

Not every pokémon's form fits its type -- Altaria is clearly a bird and not a dragon but it is a dragon type, Charizard clearly is based on a dragon but isn't dragon type (except for mega charizard x), Toxicroak isn't water type but it's clearly based on a frog, Garchomp isn't water type but it's clearly based on a shark, and Vibrava isn't a bug type but it's clearly based on an ant wolf/desert dragon fly, so just because Stunfisk isn't a water type, doesn't mean it's not a fish.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gameb9oy In reply to Ross-Sanger [2014-02-21 06:10:13 +0000 UTC]

U know what, we can probably end this argument a lot quicker if we just make a list of our top 10 least favorite pokemon and leave it at that. I'll let you go first if u agree with my proposal.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ross-Sanger In reply to Gameb9oy [2014-02-21 09:55:33 +0000 UTC]

Hmm... the ten worst pokémon, my "bottom ten" as Strongbad might say?

Well, I'll make mine purely on aesthetics of design (rather than, say, usefulness in battle) and I'll limit myself to one from any evolution line. Also, this is just off the top of my head:

10: Voltorb. I don't hate it, it's just kind of a lazy design.

9: Dugtrio. Oh no, my ugly zit turned into a cluster of zits! I think the thing that annoys me most about that one is how it can be burried in ANYTHING, even furniture.

8: The Genie Triplets. They're just... the same pokémon with different colourschemes! 

7: Ambipom. Aipom evolved into creepy-ass monkey thing.

6: Clink. Magnemite kind of makes sense, vaguely, if you suspend your disbelief enough, and the various ghost type objects are clearly possessed, but how did a pokémon evolve to look like a set of gears? and if it's mechanical, how does it grow and change and reproduce? It makes no sense!

5: Jynx, the racial stereotype pokémon. Even if that's not what she's based on, you'd think someone along the line would have realised that she could be interoperated that way and used their common sense to make her look less... weird.

4: Mime Jr. Just when you thought Mr. Mime couldn't get any creepier, it had a mutant baby.

3: Vanilite. How does something that looks like a frozen desert ever survive in the wild?

2: Slurpuff. Again with the highly edible-looking pokémon, and this one seems to have melted when it grew up.

1: Oshawott. It could have been great with just a little extra thought and effort, but they messed it up.

A harder choice would be my top ten favourites, there's just so many good pokémon... but Heracross with always be my favourite fighting type, for sure, even Kung Fu Panda couldn't change that, and I have to say I'm a sucker for Charizard when it comes to fire.

Your turn.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gameb9oy In reply to Ross-Sanger [2014-02-23 03:21:14 +0000 UTC]

1.Stunfisk, the main representive of ugly derp pokemon, 2. Diggersby, I was unable to convince myself to evolve bunnelby into this monstrosity, 3. Mega Blazekin, Rating battles + a noob using this against me = me raging over their cheap strategy, 5. Unown, abcdefg, this pokemon is useless to me, 6. Hoppip, it's pretty much just a magikarp that has synthesis so it can make you rage if you have to catch it in a nuzlocke, 7. Deoxys (defense form), a defense form that takes away the steel type that keeps dark and ghost type moves from harming it (smart move gamefreak ), 8. Koffing, it's pretty much representing my hatred of the explosion moves, since I'm alright with voltorb and geodude most of the time. 9. Zoarark, if u make a pokemon that has as cool a design as zorua, the last thing u should do is turn it into this, 10. Gyarados, I don't actually hate this dude, but I can't help but feel it's just a little bit overrated. (Sorry this is all jumbled together, I'm using my iPhone to comment on this and it won't let me skip spaces like a regular computer)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ross-Sanger In reply to Gameb9oy [2014-02-23 12:24:05 +0000 UTC]

I thought this was going to be purely based on design aesthetics, not strategy. For strategy I'd have a completely different list .

I also think you're being a little unfair on koffing -- I find that geodudes and graveller are far worse when it comes to self-destructing and exploding, which is why I usually use a ghost type as my first slot when travelling through caves. In fact the first shiny I've ever found was in pokémon Soul Silver and was a golden geodude... and it self-destructed before I could catch it.

No worries.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gameb9oy In reply to Ross-Sanger [2014-02-23 13:21:30 +0000 UTC]

I don't really have 10 pokemon I hate based on design, so I kinda had to go for a list like I did. Also, I know that koffing doesn't often use explosion very often, but of the pokemon that can use it, it's the one I like the least.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ross-Sanger In reply to Gameb9oy [2014-02-23 16:29:05 +0000 UTC]

Fair enough.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mewitti In reply to YunaAsakura [2013-01-19 16:01:12 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, Yuna. I draw animals better than humans thanks to Pokemon, actually! They gave me lots of practice.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

YunaAsakura In reply to Mewitti [2013-01-19 16:52:20 +0000 UTC]

lol I think your humans look pretty good, too. ^ ^ *enviously looking at Robins hands*

👍: 0 ⏩: 0