This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Creativity and objects.

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon X
  3. Creativity and objects.
2 years ago#41
Lord_Ka1n posted...
pokemon are basically fantasy animals.

a key ring is not an animal

this is why people hate that stupid key.


Voltorb and Magnemite for best fantasy animals.
---
Official member of the Omastar Club.
Official Gen 6 First Route Generic Bird of the Pokemon X/Y boards
2 years ago#42
Lord_Ka1n posted...
pokemon are basically fantasy animals.

a key ring is not an animal

this is why people hate that stupid key.


No Pokemon are whatever the **** GameFreak wants them to be. The key is great.
---
3DS friend code: 1848-2159-5405 (Richie)
2 years ago#43
Lord_Ka1n posted...
pokemon are basically fantasy animals.

a key ring is not an animal

this is why people hate that stupid key.


Life is basically a game

You can respawn in games

I'm gonna go jump off a building
---
Not changing this sig until Gamefreak brings back the Trick Master. Started 9-19-10
I'm not a hater, I just have a low threshold for stupid.
2 years ago#44
As an art student and more of an intermediate step between the you and others, I would say a lot of it is aesthetics and visual appeal.

If you had but one canvas, would you rather paint a literal bag of garbage or an animal? Or really, what would your audience, what would those who view your work enjoy more? Because that matters here, a lot. What's more, the flourishes are what give all Pokémon life. If they are not going to have any of Sugimori's character added in they may as well be photorealistic, and no one wants that. It's as I was once told, "if you want to make something photorealistic you should just take a photo." That said, too much character and they begin to fall on the side of looking like Digimon, or simply out of place.


The fact is, it must take a good chunk of resources and money to add any Pokémon in, and the series is very much geared toward those who are younger than those who are middle-aged or elderly. So something memorable, colorful, cool, something that will be remembered and liked both for its battle prowess and for its looks is very important.

Space for new Pokémon is limited. And, really, I fail to see just how much personification is done to many, though not all, object-based Pokémon. Popping some googly eyes on a rock doesn't always go over so well in a series like this because we know it's a slot used up for what could have been something striking or unique with a history or lore behind it rather than a soapbox for global urbanization- we have been receiving more Pokémon that have an urban feel to them, the food, trash, and other such Pokémon.

Too much character and things begin to rub people the wrong way- kind of like uncanny valley and graphics. Everyday objects do not have the same appeal as the exotic, I think is safe to assert. There are several balances to consider, and they can rather easily be tipped in a few different ways.

Not all object Pokémon are outcast, and some have a basis in Japanese folklore, but people connect to animals easily.


And, I wouldn't say "the layman" couldn't come up with anything similar or even better. What is an artist but someone who has taken the time to learn a few fancy tricks and practiced their brush strokes to better translate their ideas and expressions into a physical form? Heck, I know people who insist they can't do anything artistic or creative and they come up with things I never would if I was given two lifetimes. Art is one of the least solitary activities we've developed- the audience, the advisors, and the critics are how we grow overall.

A final point I should add is that, while Nintendo as a whole has shown they're still a bit out of touch with their fans as a whole, as far as Pokémon go, they have repeated many ideas as it is while skipping over many that the fans would like to see. They will never be able to do much about quelling the fanbase, but it really starts to embitter some people when ideas are repeated (butterflies and moths, anyone?) in similar ways rather than trying out new ideas (I've seen wolves come up often), or, yes, objects. Fighting clocks, spoons, and keys probably doesn't fire up as many fans as dragons, pandas, and venomous slugs. The only real way the types of Pokémon we get may change, or stay the course, is if people speak up.


But hey, I could be completely off base here, haha.
---
I won't forget my friends, I'll always be true. You've been there for me, now I'll be there for you.
2 years ago#45
Duskull24 posted...
Lord_Ka1n posted...
pokemon are basically fantasy animals.

a key ring is not an animal

this is why people hate that stupid key.


Life is basically a game

You can respawn in games

I'm gonna go jump off a building


i wont stop you
2 years ago#46
Lord_Ka1n posted...
pokemon are basically fantasy animals.

a key ring is not an animal

this is why people hate that stupid key.


You must have hated Earthbound.
---
R.I.P. Pokemon Cycle
Fact: Things are so much better when taken at face value.
2 years ago#47
CrimsonCerberus posted...
As an art student and more of an intermediate step between the you and others, I would say a lot of it is aesthetics and visual appeal.

If you had but one canvas, would you rather paint a literal bag of garbage or an animal? Or really, what would your audience, what would those who view your work enjoy more? Because that matters here, a lot. What's more, the flourishes are what give all Pokémon life. If they are not going to have any of Sugimori's character added in they may as well be photorealistic, and no one wants that. It's as I was once told, "if you want to make something photorealistic you should just take a photo." That said, too much character and they begin to fall on the side of looking like Digimon, or simply out of place.


The fact is, it must take a good chunk of resources and money to add any Pokémon in, and the series is very much geared toward those who are younger than those who are middle-aged or elderly. So something memorable, colorful, cool, something that will be remembered and liked both for its battle prowess and for its looks is very important.

Space for new Pokémon is limited. And, really, I fail to see just how much personification is done to many, though not all, object-based Pokémon. Popping some googly eyes on a rock doesn't always go over so well in a series like this because we know it's a slot used up for what could have been something striking or unique with a history or lore behind it rather than a soapbox for global urbanization- we have been receiving more Pokémon that have an urban feel to them, the food, trash, and other such Pokémon.

Too much character and things begin to rub people the wrong way- kind of like uncanny valley and graphics. Everyday objects do not have the same appeal as the exotic, I think is safe to assert. There are several balances to consider, and they can rather easily be tipped in a few different ways.

Not all object Pokémon are outcast, and some have a basis in Japanese folklore, but people connect to animals easily.


And, I wouldn't say "the layman" couldn't come up with anything similar or even better. What is an artist but someone who has taken the time to learn a few fancy tricks and practiced their brush strokes to better translate their ideas and expressions into a physical form? Heck, I know people who insist they can't do anything artistic or creative and they come up with things I never would if I was given two lifetimes. Art is one of the least solitary activities we've developed- the audience, the advisors, and the critics are how we grow overall.

A final point I should add is that, while Nintendo as a whole has shown they're still a bit out of touch with their fans as a whole, as far as Pokémon go, they have repeated many ideas as it is while skipping over many that the fans would like to see. They will never be able to do much about quelling the fanbase, but it really starts to embitter some people when ideas are repeated (butterflies and moths, anyone?) in similar ways rather than trying out new ideas (I've seen wolves come up often), or, yes, objects. Fighting clocks, spoons, and keys probably doesn't fire up as many fans as dragons, pandas, and venomous slugs. The only real way the types of Pokémon we get may change, or stay the course, is if people speak up.


*Slow clap*
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYYJF0c4VA
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llmkrldAkh1qdqxczo1_400.gif
2 years ago#48
jimmyzeke13 posted...
Pokemon are living creatures.
Inanimate objects are not living creatures.
For that is the definition of inanimate.

The idea for Klefki almost certainly grew out of a designer desperately looking around the room for something that he could turn into a pokemon.


Yeah! Just like they were totally desperate when they came up with the rock with arms! Oh wait, that was Gen I...

But that stupid looking living magnet- What, Gen I again?

Well surely the laziness that is the toxic pile of sh- Gen I? Get out!
2 years ago#49
uberking422 posted...
jimmyzeke13 posted...
Pokemon are living creatures.
Inanimate objects are not living creatures.
For that is the definition of inanimate.

The idea for Klefki almost certainly grew out of a designer desperately looking around the room for something that he could turn into a pokemon.


Yeah! Just like they were totally desperate when they came up with the rock with arms! Oh wait, that was Gen I...

But that stupid looking living magnet- What, Gen I again?

Well surely the laziness that is the toxic pile of sh- Gen I? Get out!


You jumped to the conclusions that I like all of those designs, and that I think Gen 1 is flawless.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYYJF0c4VA
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llmkrldAkh1qdqxczo1_400.gif
2 years ago#50
jimmyzeke13 posted...
uberking422 posted...
jimmyzeke13 posted...
Pokemon are living creatures.
Inanimate objects are not living creatures.
For that is the definition of inanimate.

The idea for Klefki almost certainly grew out of a designer desperately looking around the room for something that he could turn into a pokemon.


Yeah! Just like they were totally desperate when they came up with the rock with arms! Oh wait, that was Gen I...

But that stupid looking living magnet- What, Gen I again?

Well surely the laziness that is the toxic pile of sh- Gen I? Get out!


You jumped to the conclusions that I like all of those designs, and that I think Gen 1 is flawless.


The statement about desperation tends to imply an assumption of a lack of ideas, tending to imply a common genwunner mentality.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon X
  3. Creativity and objects.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived