Unpopular opinions

While I'm here, I have a pretty split opinion (I think). A lot of pokemon are not lazily designed, even the Vanillite line and the Trubbish line. When people say they are kinda lazy, I tend to disagree. When you look at the rest of gen 5, a lot of pokemon have good designs, for example, the Timburr line and the Solosis line. People may say they are far more creative, but then think about how they wanted a literal trash-based pokemon. Notice how Trubbish is only found on Route 5, 16, and 4? The three routes surrounding Nimbasa City, which is a very large city. For Vanillite, they wanted an ice cream pokémon, so they made one. I would even say that the designs aren't lazy even still in Sword and Shield. In fact, I would go so far as to say gen 1 pokemon are generally more lazily designed.
I agree with you on this for the most part. I think many designs (especially gen 5 pokemon and inanimate objects) get flack just because people don't like them. They're not necessarily lazy designs (although some definitely are, I'm looking at you klink line), but they're also not always good designs, which is why they get the hate. Also, gen 5 specifically kind of tried to recapitulate gen 1, which resulted in lots of "parallel" pokemon (timburr line = machop line, throh & sawk = hitmonchah & hitmonlee, etc). Imo it's tbh kinda uninspired, but I understand their motives.

In regard to gen 1 pokemon being more lazily designed, I think that has more to do with the simplicity of their designs due to the scope of the franchise and available hardware at the time rather than laziness.
 
A "simple" way to fix it is, just like the examples you mentioned, by introducing a mechanic. Rather than just taking three/four Pokémon of a type, giving it a TM move, and a higher level than the previous trainers, they should be themed about teaching the player how to deal with a certain mechanic, such as:
- Held items (like Flannery, or Tate & Liza in Emerald)
- Status conditions (like Kabu)
- Weather (like Raihan)
- Spread moves in which one of their Pokémon is immune to (like Tate & Liza in Emerald)
- Terrains
- Speed control
- Misdirection (e.g. Follow Me)
- Type coverage (like Ilima)

Gym Leaders are supposed to be tests for trainers, but most of the time it looks like they are only testing if you know the type chart.

Norman's gym in Emerald seemed to have this idea in mind, but with each trainer having only one mon, it didn't work.

(And the majority of gyms should be double battle oriented, as it's the official format)
Also works. Making an unique identity for each leader is good, you can even stack some of those concepts.

I don't quite agree with a couple examples because the game in-universe is not a tutorial, but certain things can be applied, especially on the held items, by using more of them.

While a Choice Band is relatively straight-forward, you could have Leaders like say, Piers giving his Toxtricity a Throat Spray to use with Overdrive and Boomburst. That introduces players to some of the most complex item usage instead of "give the ace a Sitrus and call it a day."
 
In regard to gen 1 pokemon being more lazily designed, I think that has more to do with the simplicity of their designs due to the scope of the franchise and available hardware at the time rather than laziness.
Now that I think about it, I do have to agree with the simplicity comment. I can point out some examples of lazy design, but now that I think about it Pokemon like Charizard are just simple due to the available technology, but you can't deny that Pokemon like Rapidash and Tauros seem pretty lazy (In my eyes at least).

Also, gen 5 specifically kind of tried to recapitulate gen 1, which resulted in lots of "parallel" pokemon (timburr line = machop line, throh & sawk = hitmonchah & hitmonlee, etc). Imo it's tbh kinda uninspired, but I understand their motives.
While I can see where you're coming from, did they not do this in almost every gen? While not the best example, they took so many of the more popular Pokemon from gen 1 (Notably Pikachu, Clefairy, and Golbat) and gave them new evolutions.
 

ScraftyIsTheBest

On to new Horizons!
is a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
A lot of pokemon are not lazily designed, even the Vanillite line and the Trubbish line
The Vanillite line is actually one of the most cleverly designed Pokemon out there when you really think about it. Yes, on the surface it looks like sentient ice cream, but there's a bit more to it than that. While they invoke the appearance of ice cream, their bodies, especially the "cone" parts, are actually ice, while Vanillish and Vanilluxe have appearances on their bottom halves resembling icicles as well as an ice cream cone at the same time, but they are also intended to look like stalactites in a cave. The "ice cream" is actually snow as well, and it's covering their body and underneath they are actually solid ice, which if you melted the snow off would make their raw faces more visible.

When you think about it, there's quite a lot going on, as they're also designed to simultaneously designed with snow and icicles integrated into their design while invoking the appearance of ice cream. It's even better when you learn that Casteliacones in Unova were modeled after Vanillite, which is great as it makes a Pokemon tie itself into a region's culture.

James Turner designed this line iirc, and he also designed some really great designs like Golurk, Vullaby and Mandibuzz (these two are incredibly cleverly designed imho), Centiskorch, Polteageist, and the Galarian Zigzagoon line, Obstagoon included.
 
Vullaby and Mandibuzz (these two are incredibly cleverly designed imho)
I have to agree, the Vullaby may not be my favorite, but I do agree that it is very well designed.

When you think about it, there's quite a lot going on, as they're also designed to simultaneously designed with snow and icicles integrated into their design while invoking the appearance of ice cream. It's even better when you learn that Casteliacones in Unova were modeled after Vanillite, which is great as it makes a Pokemon tie itself into a region's culture.
I myself had not noticed that, and it really is very interesting compared to something like Pidgeot.
 
I think theres a difference between simple and lazy. Some designs can be simple and still be creative and interessing (trubbish and vanillite lines). Some concepts are better done simplisticaly, and not everything needs to be a complex cool design to be a good one.

On the other hand, you have designs that are simple because they have nothing going on with them. Rapidash is a unicorn on fire because they wanted to do an unicorn on fire. They weren't trying to make a creative design or anything, they just wanted a fire horse.

I think thats what differenciates the old pokémon designs to the new and simple ones. Gen 1 and gen 2 have a lot of simple designs with nothing really going on, just a generic animal x elemental power or generic kaiju number 32. While this isn't a wrong design approach, it is very shallow compared to newer gens, and has some pretty boring results sometimes (e.g rattata, ponyta)
 
Now the real question is: What design could we consider "lazy" if it overlaps so much with simple designs?
I think this is kinda subjective, but I'd say seismitoad is a lazy design, or at least a lazy concept. We already have the politoad line of water frogs, plus quagsire and swampert are relatively similar in concept being water/ground amphibian-like pokemon. By the time seismitoad rolled out, the concept was already supersaturated, and his design imo is quite subpar and lazy. He doesn't look interesting or fill a design niche that any of the other aforementioned pokemon don't cover. Sure his design is frog + speakers/warts which you can argue is unique enough, but I just think it's a lazy design. Another is the klinglang line, which is just various gears strapped together with eyes. Like what is the inspiration? There's barely any changes between evolutions either. Magnemite and megneton are similar in concept but they work because there's more to their design that just a magnet with eyes. Plusle and minun are also pretty lazy, even as far as pikaclones go. They do have the double battle gimmick, but I just don't see their design being enough of a departure from skinny pikachu with a +/- theme. I think when it comes down to it, a "lazy" design is pretty subjective. Imo most gen 1 and gen 2 designs get a free pass since the franchise was just starting out and didn't have a strong sense of direction.

I don't know if it's an unpopular opinion, but I think simple designs are better than complex designs (with the best designs being in-between the two). This is definitely noticeable with legendaries throughout the generations.
 
I think this is kinda subjective, but I'd say seismitoad is a lazy design, or at least a lazy concept.
Don't insult my baby like this bro. It uses the glands of amphibians to form a sound speaker shape. It's ground not only because it's based on earth frogs, but because it causes seismic activity with its own vibrations (from the sound speakers, so it all comes back). It's a simple but effective design. Plus he's cute :')

Now the real question is: What design could we consider "lazy" if it overlaps so much with simple designs?
It is subjective for the most part, but I think if a pokémon is Just a generic animal with nothing else going on for it (not even trying to reference the fauna and/or culture of the region), you're probably landing too close on "simple because it's lazy" territory in my opinion. Something like rattata or pidgey: There isn't anything really going on with these lines other than "rat" and "bird".

In fact, rattata and alolan rattata are the perfect examples for "simple because it's lazy" vs "simple but effective": Kantonian rattata/raticate is a rat.

Alolan rattata/raticate is a rat based on an invasive species that is also partially inspired by stereotypical criminal gangs, having a direct link with the detective Javan mongoose (imported as a form of pest control for rats in Hawaii) yumgoos/gumshoos. Despite not being that different from the kantonian forms, and still being pretty simple by themselves, they bring out way more interesting concepts to the table and are much more inspired.
 
Last edited:
We already have the politoad line of water frogs, plus quagsire and swampert are relatively similar in concept being water/ground amphibian-like pokemon. By the time seismitoad rolled out, the concept was already supersaturated, and his design imo is quite subpar and lazy. He doesn't look interesting or fill a design niche that any of the other aforementioned pokemon don't cover.
But now look at BW and B2W2's Pokedex. Neither game has any of those Pokemon, and having 2 water/ground Pokemon doesn't mean that the next will be a complete rip-off of them. I personally like the idea of a poisonous frog, which I don't think has been used past Seismitoad (correct me if I'm wrong) and what type could they use for that? Looking at the obvious types, there is grass, water, and poison. While I do think water/poison would have been smarter, it still works out for it to be water/ground I guess.
Edit: Thanks Lemingue for telling me why ground typing works well.

I don't know if it's an unpopular opinion, but I think simple designs are better than complex designs (with the best designs being in-between the two). This is definitely noticeable with legendaries throughout the generations.
This I can definitely agree with, but when do we draw the line for complicated? I have no idea what we could define as complicated, as it is very easy to view things as very complicated, but then look later and see it as very simple.
 
But now look at BW and B2W2's Pokedex. Neither game has any of those Pokemon, and having 2 water/ground Pokemon doesn't mean that the next will be a complete rip-off of them. I personally like the idea of a poisonous frog, which I don't think has been used past Seismitoad (correct me if I'm wrong) and what type could they use for that? Looking at the obvious types, there is grass, water, and poison. While I do think water/poison would have been smarter, it still works out for it to be water/ground I guess.
Edit: Thanks Lemingue for telling me why ground typing works well.
The lack of similar pokemon in the BW pokedex and the fact that the very specific take of a stereo-frog hadn't been done before are valid, but I think it's lazy from the perspective of "we already have a bunch of frogs, how about something new that hasn't been done at all before". That can be said about a bunch of different designs throughout the series, I just picked seismitoad because it's the first that came to mind. I see every new frog or turtle as one less novel and more creative pokemon (we've got the poliwhirl line, quagsire line, swampert line, toxicroak line, seismitoad line, greninja line all contributing to the frog/amphibian count, yet no dolphin pokemon rip). I think it's lazy and I doubt my mind will change. Doesn't mean it is a lazy design, this is just my opinion lol.

Also, toxicroak is a poisonous frog pokemon that has been done before.

This I can definitely agree with, but when do we draw the line for complicated? I have no idea what we could define as complicated, as it is very easy to view things as very complicated, but then look later and see it as very simple.
Yeah, I agree this is all hard to quantify too. Pokemon such as dialga, palkia, and eternatus are what I would qualify as too complex.
 
This I can definitely agree with, but when do we draw the line for complicated? I have no idea what we could define as complicated, as it is very easy to view things as very complicated, but then look later and see it as very simple.
I think something is too complex when its complexity isn't part of the "point" the design is trying to give you. Eternatus is an easy pick to call "too complicated", but I think it actually works very well for its lore: a skeletal virus from another world that crashed into the pokémon world and immediately changed the region with widespread dynamax phenomenons. When you look at it, you immediately know that not only this is not a normal pokémon, but an immediate danger. It will cause chaos when it's freed, by its own volition or not. It looks sickly, bizarre, and threatening.

Contrast it to deoxys, another alien pokémon, but whose presence is much smaller: it isn't going to cause any kind of destruction by itself, and the only time it has been dangerous was when it was riding on an asteroid, and it probably didn't know where it was heading anyway, since it seemed to be dormant the whole time. It is just a bit weird compared to other pokémon but still feels pokémon enough.

Now take something like dialga and palkia: Time-space etc, we all know what they're about. But does the complexity of their designs reflect something from their inspirations, theme, or anything similar? Or are they just complex because they wanted the legendaries to look cool? Is there anything their designs achieve because of the complexity that couldn't be achieved for a more simple, streamlined, and focused design? Those are questions I ask when thinking in terms of complex pokémon designs.
 
Also, toxicroak is a poisonous frog pokemon that has been done before.
First of all, thank you! Second of all, I have to agree with Lemingue on the fact that we have to base the complication off of if it needs to be complicated -
I think something is too complex when its complexity isn't part of the "point" the design is trying to give you.
I think that is an amazing way of describing it, because looking at many of the legendaries/mythicals, with (I think) a good example being Hoopa. It looks very complicated but has a reason for that, one being the Djinn? inspiration, and the rings based off of Sonic opening portals through them to get to places. Complicated, yes, but has it's reasons.
 
I think that is an amazing way of describing it, because looking at many of the legendaries/mythicals, with (I think) a good example being Hoopa. It looks very complicated but has a reason for that, one being the Djinn?
We already have an English term for Djinn. It's Genie
So use Genie
And honestly on the topic of complex/simple, I'm liking Gen 2 less lately. Compared to 1, it seemed to cater to the new anime kid crowd WAY too much with baby mons and simpler designs. When it did more cool designs (Tyranitar and Skarm) it was good, but the gen was honestly oversaturated to cater to a newfound audience (especially in the betas)
And honestly that brings another point. Are you designing specifically to cater a crowd? (Gen 2 was kid anime crowd, 5 was Gen wunners for a good batch). Cuz I'd honestly say that's a bigger problem overall. And noticeably for starters, it's spreading (we'll design them to be more humanoid to cater to familiarity)
The other thing, what type of complexity?
Color/pattern complexity, shape complexity, lore complexity, or even game archetype? We don't have one answer typically
And also, going hyper contemporary to appeal to cute is lame to me. I can't like Vanillite cuz of that in comparison to Trubbish (which is funny, cuz Tribbish is a cat technically as recently revealed)
Similarly, hyper edgy isn't always cool. Otherwise we have 4chan Clover tier mockeries
Granted, this is all my opinion
 
Last edited:
We already have an English term for Djinn. It's Genie
So use Genie
The correct term is جن‎ which is Arabic and pronounced "jin" or "djinn"*. Since most English-speaking people can't type/write that way, in English settings it is usually spelled out as either "Jinn", "Djinn", or "Genie". "Genie" is inaccurate, being a French term for a different spirit that has been applied to djinn, but is commonly used enough** that fixing that isn't going to happen. Use the term you want, but if you decide to be pedantic about which term other people use, Genie is the worst option of the 3 available.

(I am not an expert and I refuse to bother the people I know who speak Arabic over this, if an Arabic-speaker wants to correct me please feel free)

*don't ask me to do proper pronunciation indicators, I don't know them and I'm too tired to look them up. It's basically like the drink gin, but with a sound before it and a slightly off n.
**Dammit Disney
 
I really don't like merchandise bait pokémon. They feel less like living creatures and more like someone trying to hit every single point to make a high-selling plushie or action figure. It's why I don't like most mega forms, and why I really don't like yamper and wooloo. They just feel like someone looked at the galar dex and said "we don't have enough cute pokémon for merch, either make something cuter or create a cute pokémon".
 
I have been thinking for a while what Pokemon needs to do to keep a large portion of fans happy.

And I'm wondering, if it wouldn't be better that Game Freak were to stop making traditional Pokemon Generations, but try to deliver on stuff like the upcoming Legends Arceus and build on it.
Like, do we need a new region, 50+ new Pokemon and regional forms, a random new mechanic that breaks the game and go through the same repetitve steps over and over again? Get Pokedex, pick 1 of 3 starters, beat (friendly) "rival", beat gyms, beat "evil" team, encounter box legendary in a boring cutscene, maybe catch box legendary and beat Pokemon league.
I mean having a fix fomular isn't bad. I mean Super Mario games are fun, right? (Unless you talk about the "New" Super Mario Bros games IMO)

For me new Pokemon alone aren't enough and not necessary needed. At least not in that large amount. Especially with the insane amount of legendaries we have these days, instead of giving more focus on the old ones like they do with Arceus.

Since they cut Pokemon anyways, that makes it more so important.

As for traditional games, instead of polishing them, maybe they should just let the price reflect what people are getting and make up with quantity. Adding all the Pokemon alone will make people tolerate playing the same stuff over and over again.
 
Cyrus is an overhyped villain whose goals don't make any sense. He's little different from Lysandre apart from having a sad childhood...which explains his desire to destroy the world and everyone else in it, including his own team how? I mean, not saying people's bad childhoods don't influence their outlook on life, but we don't actually get to see how Cyrus connects the dots and HOW his childhood informs his goals. It's not like with Guzma whose failure to accomplish the trials and parental abuse caused him to try and lash out at society (all the while giving other underdogs a home), or N whose hatred for Poke Balls and Pokemon battling comes from his childhood exposure to abused Pokemon engineered by Ghetsis. We don't see the actual connection between his goals and his upbringing and neither is it even known to you until you talk to some random NPC.

Silver and Blue are also overrated as rivals though not necessarily bad at all. Silver being abusive to his Pokemon and to other people IMO doesn't get resolved properly enough or even really explained in the proper plot, you needed remakes and FR/LG to tell you that Silver had issues with Giovanni - we aren't even told of their relationship until FR/LG and even then it's more implied than stated outright. You might even miss his redemption arc entirely if you don't rematch him at the E4 (even the Kanto fight happens with a Golbat IIRC). I also think Pokemon threw away a really fun chance at having you team up with your enemy against Team Rocket, your mutual enemy - you both fight them but only separately, never together.

Blue is somehow even less believable and MORE of a jerk IMO - he mocks your Pokemon being dead in the Pokemon Tower and says ''I can at least make them faint!''. Utter douchebag. He also prefers to challenge you RIGHT BEFORE YOU FIGHT GIOVANNI instead of either trying to back you up against the Rockets or even stop you from endangering yourself by beating you, and then leaves for the Pokemon League outright instead of at least trying to get other people to help liberate Silph Co. Even his GSC/HGSS conduct is off - he refers to Red as ''that meddling Red'', implying that he still has a grudge against the guy for beating him. It's one thing to be sore YOU lost, but being sore at your former friend for defeating you? Not cool.

Hau is underrated as a rival. Seeing this kid who only wants to have fun finally start taking things seriously (but still be happy and friendly) after failing to protect Lillie (IIRC) is great development and seeing him support Hala against the UBs as well as fight you in the final battle of USUM is actually pretty great IMO and he has a dope theme song. I think Pokemon has overplayed the idea that losing is okay and having a rival affirm that winning is still better is a good idea - in the real world, if you don't persevere to improve yourself and try to actually win in things - be it education or health or a career or a relationship - you're gonna struggle a lot. Winning all the time isn't necessary but you gotta win some times. People should know that life isn't gonna be easy or fun 100% of the time and they'll need to be serious at times if they wanna progress or not regress in life.

Every generation is good in a sense, there's no such thing as a bad generation. I just realized this the other night while enjoying DPP's beautiful soundtrack the other night, it made me a little emotional lol (reminded me of being a kid again) in spite of openly disliking Sinnoh (okay, more its characters - the region's pretty dope) and finding the games overrated as mentioned before. Even Gen 8 and Gen 1 have their charm for sure.
 
Last edited:
Cyrus is an overhyped villain whose goals don't make any sense. He's little different from Lysandre apart from having a sad childhood...which explains his desire to destroy the world and everyone else in it, including his own team how? I mean, not saying people's bad childhoods don't influence their outlook on life, but we don't actually get to see how Cyrus connects the dots and HOW his childhood informs his goals. It's not like with Guzma whose failure to accomplish the trials and parental abuse caused him to try and lash out at society (all the while giving other underdogs a home), or N whose hatred for Poke Balls and Pokemon battling comes from his childhood exposure to abused Pokemon engineered by Ghetsis. We don't see the actual connection between his goals and his upbringing and neither is it even known to you until you talk to some random NPC.
Everyone agrees that Cyrus's goal doesn't make much sense, but the reason he is super hyped as a villain is because of the fact that he's very cold and emotionless to his own grunts, and the fact that in Platinum and the anime he states that he wishes to create a universe solely for himself, not for Team Galactic. He and Ghetsis are probably the most irredeemable people series, though Cyrus does reform in Adventures. And Platinum did explain that despite being a good student, he did not live up to his parent's expectations and found robots more enjoyable as companions. You are supposed to put it together that he believes that robots are more effective than humans due to lacking emotions that would otherwise interfere with duty.
Hau is underrated as a rival. Seeing this kid who only wants to have fun finally start taking things seriously (but still be happy and friendly) after failing to protect Lillie (IIRC) is great development and seeing him support Hala against the UBs as well as fight you in the final battle of USUM is actually pretty great IMO and he has a dope theme song. I think Pokemon has overplayed the idea that losing is okay and having a rival affirm that winning is still better is a good idea - in the real world, if you don't persevere to improve yourself and try to actually win in things - be it education or health or a career or a relationship - you're gonna struggle a lot. Winning all the time isn't necessary but you gotta win some times. People should know that life isn't gonna be easy or fun 100% of the time and they'll need to be serious at times if they wanna progress or not regress in life.
While USM ruined Lillie, Gladion, Lusamine, Anabel, Looker, Nebby and the Ultra Beasts, you are right they did give Hau a much needed an arc and he's definitely better compared to vanilla SM. I just don't think it was worth butchering other characters.
Silver being abusive to his Pokemon and to other people IMO doesn't get resolved properly enough or even really explained in the proper plot, you needed remakes and FR/LG to tell you that Silver had issues with Giovanni - we aren't even told of their relationship until FR/LG and even then it's more implied than stated outright. You might even miss his redemption arc entirely if you don't rematch him at the E4 (even the Kanto fight happens with a Golbat IIRC). I also think Pokemon threw away a really fun chance at having you team up with your enemy against Team Rocket, your mutual enemy - you both fight them but only separately, never together.
I like Silver and the fact he does change does fit along with HGSS's theme of trusting Pokemon, I agree that a lot of it does happen off screen, and I understand why some people don't like it though. My only real complaint with Silver's backstory is that while HGSS does confirm that he is Giovanni's son, you need an event Celebi to see it, which is currently discontinued.

I suppose while were talking on unpopular opinions on characters, I never understood why people called the Gen 4 evolutions ugly or how they "ruined" the Pokemon. I really like most of them, with Mismagius, Togekiss, Leafeon, Magmortar, Honchkrow, Froslass and Lickylicky being some of my favorites. I don't see how adding cross-evolutions ruined the Pokemon, if anything it made the likes of Yanma, Piloswine, Togetic, and Roselia actually good in battles. The only one I'd really call ugly is Probopass; and while I have heard people call Lickylicky ugly, I disagree. I think its very cute, especially its Platinum sprite, it looks so happy! It reminds me of a puppy who just wants to lick you, though I'm not a dog person in real life, I'm a cat person.

I'm guessing those negative reviews is probably why we didn't get any cross gens with the exception of Sylveon until Gen 8, which is sad, because I've always thought Pokemon like Swoobat, Chatot, Noivern, Lumineon, Skrelp, and Clauncher could use a new evolution. I'm also not a fan of how they handled it in Gen 8. I don't like how they are tied to the regional variant instead of the base form, because the base form of Farfetch'd and Corsola still suck despite their Regional forms getting an evolution.
 

Coronis

Impressively round
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
While USM ruined Lillie, Gladion, Lusamine, Anabel, Looker, Nebby and the Ultra Beasts, you are right they did give Hau a much needed an arc and he's definitely better compared to vanilla SM. I just don't think it was worth butchering other characters.
Unpopular opinion: I liked both the SM and USUM stories and Gen 7 is probs my 3rd favourite generation.
 
I don't see how adding cross-evolutions ruined the Pokemon, if anything it made the likes of Yanma, Piloswine, Togetic, and Roselia actually good in battles.
This. Severely underrated point.

A mon you like got a cross-gen evo you don't like?

Good news then, that changes absolutely nothing about the pre-evo and now you can use an Eviolite to make it bulkier!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 3)

Top