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

Creativity and objects.

#51jimmyzeke13Posted 10/3/2013 9:58:16 PM
uberking422 posted...
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.


You know what they say about assuming...


(it makes you look silly)
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYYJF0c4VA
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llmkrldAkh1qdqxczo1_400.gif
#52MIssDevilingPosted 10/3/2013 9:58:45 PM
Because I don't want to own a keyring. I want an animal. It's not about creativity. I just like animals and feel a warmer connection with them than say magnets or garbage. I don't care if they're not creative. Ninetales wasn't creative (just based on Japanese folklore) but damn was it sleek.
---
http://keilis.deviantart.com
#53vital_tundraPosted 10/3/2013 10:00:19 PM
MIssDeviling posted...
Because I don't want to own a keyring. I want an animal. It's not about creativity. I just like animals and feel a warmer connection with them than say magnets or garbage. I don't care if they're not creative. Ninetales wasn't creative (just based on Japanese folklore) but damn was it sleek.


Then you don't have to have that one on your team. Never mind its all 1's and 0's.
---
3DS friend code: 1848-2159-5405 (Richie)
#54nofpskthxPosted 10/3/2013 10:26:01 PM
Sir_Badass posted...
CA0001 posted...
The reason why people can't accept inanimate object Pokemon is because they lack the imagination and creativity themselves.

No, the reason I can't accept it is because it looks ridiculous.


TC's points are great until the baseless assumption that a person's perception of a pokemon renders them 'unimaginative and uncreative' if it's critical.

AlbinoCrocodile posted...
Zamphias posted...
Who are you to say people lack creativity because they don't like a particular "theme" of a Pokemon? Ooh big deal, I can make a goddamn sock a Pokemon. It crawls around like a worm and steals socks out of your clothes dryer because it thinks they're its babies. Ooooh am I creative now?

How is "it's and object that magically came to life" any more creative than "it's a turtle that shoots water out its mouth"


Ah, the irrational and offensive people arrive.


Objectivity goes way farther... offensive or not, this person presents a valid question.

Why can't a person think a pokemon looks effing stupid and voice that w/o automatically being dimed out as 'genwunner' '14yo' or as TC says lacking 'imagination and creativity'? Not only are these arguments pointless, the foundation is so weak its hilarious. Its subjective; that's why its an opinion.
Why should dissenters be treated as if their opinion is a personal attack?
And if the presentation of their opinion actually is, then why on earth would you give them attention and fuel it?
#55JustCallMePosted 10/3/2013 11:52:35 PM
More people need to see this so I'm bumping it.
#56SpikeTbearPosted 10/4/2013 12:10:53 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#57SpikeTbearPosted 10/4/2013 12:24:33 AM(edited)
I am also an artist, and I don't mind most of the inanimate object Pokemon. Some of them are used very creatively. People constantly complain that Trubbish is a trash bag with eyes. I like the sort of optical illusion in his design. His twist ties double for ears. Neat. Magneton is multiple Magnemite who fused together permanently through magnetism. I can dig that. Honedge and Rotom? They're poltergeists inhabiting every day objects. Awesome! And some of my favorite designs are Drifloon and Chandelure's families. They flawlessly incorporated man made objects into these Pokemons' natural biology.

I'm having a little trouble with Klefki. This design, more than most others, directly features man made objects. I understand that it stole them, OK. A klepto Pokemon is pretty cool. But I wonder how many thousands of people lost their house and car keys in the Kalos region? Jeeze, must be a hassle to live there. Without the keys, I actually like its design a lot.

The one I really don't like is Vanilluxe. This Pokemon is overall OK I suppose. The thing that gets me is the straw. This is a way for a person to eat and kill this Pokemon. Am I supposed to believe it's born, from its mother's womb, with a straw already sticking out of its brain? Is it born to be eaten?

I think GF should probably cool it with the inanimate objects for a couple of generations after this, or at least try to include features that simply look like the object but can be explained, like hair shaped like a hammer instead of just being a hammer with eyes. GF may turn off a decent amount of fans otherwise.
---
"The most important thing is to never stop questioning." -Albert Einstein.
Xbox Live: AlteraLateralus
#58kalabasa19Posted 10/4/2013 12:21:16 AM
Lord_Ka1n posted...
pokemon are basically fantasy animals.

animals


No they're monsters.

Remember Voltorb and Magnemite from gen I?
What about most of the grass types? Are those animals too?

We've had object based pokemon from the start, having them again in this gen is nothing new.
#59Radeon165Posted 10/4/2013 12:23:01 AM
Sir_Badass posted...
CA0001 posted...
The reason why people can't accept inanimate object Pokemon is because they lack the imagination and creativity themselves.

No, the reason I can't accept it is because it looks ridiculous.

This.

I can understand what you're saying TC, and you make some very good points. But It is ignorant of you to say that people who dislike an inanimate object Pokemon lack imagination and creativity. Just because it is creative doesn't mean it's good. It doesn't matter if the Pokemon is inanimate or animate, in the end it's the design that we critique.

When I first saw Klefki, I didn't think it was ridiculous just because it was an inanimate object, I thought it was ridiculous because they literally just stuck a pair of eyes on a key-chain and called it a day.
If you're going to create an inanimate object into a Pokemon, it needs effort put into it's design as well. It may be creative that it's a Pokemon based off a key-chain, but the design doesn't do it justice.

This is just my opinion, feel free to disagree with me.
#60MidnightCrewPosted 10/4/2013 12:34:53 AM(edited)
jimmyzeke13 posted...
CA0001 posted...
jimmyzeke13 posted...
I would also like to add that a creative design is not necessarily a good one. Look at fashion, for example. Fashion designers may create outfits that no one else could ever even dream of, but they may also be hideous monstrosities concurrently.


Well I wouldn't want to comment strongly on fashion because that is another totally different type of art, they are not purely appearance and wearing them.

Alot of times they are there to let people realise just how insane it is if you push something in a certain direction.

Unless we have an actual fashion designer here, I don't think any of us can make any good argument about fashion on these boards.


You also don't have to be a professional artist to critique a pokemon's design. I think that Gamefreak has had a lot of highs and lows in the last couple generations.

Pokemon like Tyrantrum and Pyroar remind me that they still have good ideas, but pokemon like this one make me believe that they are letting more bad designs slip through the cracks.


Actually, as you and some other people have demonstrated in this topic, if anything you DO need to have at least some understanding of what constitutes a good or a bad design to properly critique a design. From what I see, you're one of the people who can't distinguish a bad design from a design that you simply don't like. The designs you named, for example, don't interest me. This is not because either of us are better than the other. It is because we like different things. We enjoy different designs, or aspects of designs. You would call those Pokemon interesting, while I would say Tyrantrum is just a brown T-Rex I've seen a billion times.

You should try to understand this, and also understand that you not liking something does not make it a bad design, in order so as not to come off as unintelligent in similar discussions in the future. c:
---
Official Scrafty Of The Black And White Clan. Official Lorelei of the BW 2 Boards. Official Beheeyem of the X/Y Boards.