Pokemon Black & White, aka Gen 5. Coming to Japan in Fall 2010.

[Fuzzberry]

It might still get a second type. Don't give up hope. I find it interesting that these guys are listed as evil in their descriptions. Perhaps this guy is the anti-lucario? As bad as Lucario is good?

I find this interesting, too. It's almost like they're emphasizing that it's supposed to be "evil?" And yes, I know that the dark-type is the evil-type in Japanese. I just find it kind of strange to openly call a Pokemon evil after the whole "Pokemon aren't evil, their trainers are" statements.

Also- There have been a couple complaints about the mascara/makeup thing. Does anyone else see a small resemblance to the Joker's makeup? The dark eyes and the red tips at the ends of its lips, that is. If anything, that emphasizes to me the "evilness" that the design seems to be pushing.

I mean, really, why else would they put makeup on a sinister creature?

 

[Lou Cypher]

To everyone complaining about bad design and wanting the AMAZING OMG EPIC designs of Gen 1 back...

Yes, truly Gen 1 was a pinaccle in Monster Design.

 

[lordkira]

I find this interesting, too. It's almost like they're emphasizing that it's supposed to be "evil?" And yes, I know that the dark-type is the evil-type in Japanese. I just find it kind of strange to openly call a Pokemon evil after the whole "Pokemon aren't evil, their trainers are" statements.

Also- There have been a couple complaints about the mascara/makeup thing. Does anyone else see a small resemblance to the Joker's makeup? The dark eyes and the red tips at the ends of its lips, that is. If anything, that emphasizes to me the "evilness" that the design seems to be pushing.

I mean, really, why else would they put makeup on a sinister creature?

they did a similar thing with a lot of the dark types...such as weavile and tyranitar (esp weavile i guess lol) as both in the wild are also pretty aggressive and they are portrayed as sinister pokemons

 

[blasphemy1]

To everyone complaining about bad design and wanting the AMAZING OMG EPIC designs of Gen 1 back...

Yes, truly Gen 1 was a pinaccle in Monster Design.

Too true. Those aren't terrible, but let's face it, Pokemon designs aren't the greatest things, but that doesn't matter.

I also noticed that in the different scans, the mascara is emphasized in one, while less in the other. The one with less emphasis has green eyes, with a green "scrunchie." The one with more mascara has blue eyes, with a blue scrunchie. I hope that means gender differences.

 

[Acritter]

To everyone complaining about bad design and wanting the AMAZING OMG EPIC designs of Gen 1 back...

Yes, truly Gen 1 was a pinaccle in Monster Design.

There are bad designs in every gen. And I actually found Gastly and Voltorb to be quite interesting: a little cloud of malevolent smog with a core, and a strange thing that has evolved to look like a Pokeball. No excuse for Diglett though, moles should never look like that (Zubat as well, why couldn't they make a teeny effort for realism instead of purple ball on wings?).

The parts I loved of the first gen design were the fairly realistic creatures given uber powers. Examples: a water-spewing turtle, a plant-infused lizard, and a salamander on fire. Some of the 1st-gens were pushing it, but they all had SOME real-world connection. Let's jump ahead to gen 4: we have this steel-fighting THING that bears slight resemblance to a jackal-, but has stripes and spikes so it looks like something out of Digimon. We have a mono-electric Pokemon that appears to be the only of its kind in all Mammalia. We have Bidoof, the most annoying thing ever created. That's a big leap downhill.

 

[cantab]

The character used in the pre-evo's name is a "Ro" (ロ), not a "Ru" (ル), so why would it be Zorua rather than Zoroa?

I don't know why everyone's quibbling over the details of the name anyway. It'll probably be different in English - personally I think everyone one of the Japanese transliterations given suck.

To everyone complaining about bad design and wanting the AMAZING OMG EPIC designs of Gen 1 back...

Yes, truly Gen 1 was a pinaccle in Monster Design.

The problem is that the early generations took all the good simple designs like these. Which has left later generations torn between being too complex (the Dragon Trio skate the line on that IMHO) and too similar (Butterfree and Beautifly say).

 

[jumpluff]

First gen largely focused on realism with slight fantasy. This is even evident in the anime's focus on Pokémon's relevance to the real world. As the seasons and gens have gone by, Pokémon has been increasingly fantastic (in the sense of fantasy not just excellent :P), so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised. Zorua is cuteish and I'll probably pick up a plush for the fun of it. Personally, yes, I preferred the simple designs, but as I said I can't fathom why anyone wasn't expecting this. Early fanart even depicted Zoroark like this :P

 

[thelaytonmobile]

Does anyone think Zoroark's face looks like a ferret's? All pointy and stuff. Also, I lol at my own guess of something to do with Toxicroak. Lol.

 

[M BLADE]

To everyone complaining about bad design and wanting the AMAZING OMG EPIC designs of Gen 1 back...

Yes, truly Gen 1 was a pinaccle in Monster Design.

Gen 2 was the best design wise. I mean, Lanturn and Meganium...


About the new poke: We can't forget that it will learn those gen 5 moves and that we don't know those moves.
And if they decide to put a Megahorn-like Dark move? And if they add the fighting type and give it Close Combat? And Sucker Punch? Pretty much Heracross with a priority move...


Flareon won't get Flare Blitz. Nintendo is likely to create another fire move that fire pokes could use(a 80/90 BP move or something like that). Same for Entei.
Same for Weavile(if it gets moves that are strong as Infernape STAB moves?).

And if Nintendo does something "stupid" like giving Aggron Wood Hammer or a 150 BP Steel move and Dragon Dance?
Or Extremespeed to Ursaring?
Or Rock Head to Rampardos? Or Solid Rock to Regirock?

Damn...

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Personally, I like it with the exception of the red claws and the red mascara. If the mascara is only for the female version of the sprite, then I would be happy with its final aesthetic.

Mono-Dark is a nice type. If this guy gets SD/NP + nice attacking moves, everything's fine. Dark/Fighting would add CC as STAB-Move, but it looks like it gets CC anyways. SD, Crunch/Sucker Punch / Pursuit, CC, Ice/Thunder/Fire Fang / Signature Move / 5th Gen Move / whatever with a nice Atk-Stat and Speed -> almost perfect =D

Mono-Dark isn't a bad typing, but it's not exciting or really threatening either.

 

[Blackhawk11]

It's almost like they're emphasizing that it's supposed to be "evil?"

I don't know if you're talking about the 5th gen or simply the Dark-type, but i was wondering this: Why would the 'mascot' of the 5th gen be a pokemon who is 'evil.' It may have some implications about the mood of the game. Perhaps the evil team has already taken over and mischief and stealing are common acts in the 5th gen society. This game could be a stark contrast from the previous ones in that it's more of a gloomy period.

Of course, I doubt Nintendo would want a Pokemon game with such a mood. (Unless Pokemon XD was like that, I never played it). It seems like it would be hard to make a Pokemon game where the bad guys already have their way. Pokemon has always been about foiling the bad guys' plan. It would be interesting though, you would have to play through and every so often protect trainers/pokemon from the bad team, leading up to a victory over the evil boss, causing him to flee the region, giving authority to the champion or someone.

The main legendaries could be imbodiments of good and evil. The bad team could be seeking to harness the power of the 'evil' pokemon in one game, and seeking to rid the land of the 'good' one in the other.

 

[Artix]

To everyone complaining about bad design and wanting the AMAZING OMG EPIC designs of Gen 1 back...

Yes, truly Gen 1 was a pinaccle in Monster Design.

Excuse me, but those are kinda great.

They're simple. They don't have OHLOL stripes and spikes and whatnot. Pokemon was never about human-like monsters, it was about animal-like monsters. Which is why they shouldn't talk.

Those three above are simple, which is great, particularly because they're the first form, which should be simpler in design, to look weak.

If I added spikes out of diglett's head, gave him animu eyes and added a billion colors and arms and wings to it, you'd probably consider it "good design". You're absolutely wrong.

Also, it's not just about design. It's about how sleek and clean they look.
About the classic Pokemon artstyle, which is what I personally want.

 

[Aminar]

I'm still hoping for a Poke-thief option. Ways to steal your opponents Pokemon would be awesome. I like the idea of a poke-mafia feel where corruption rules.

I really like this idea. It won't happen so I need to not hope for it.

 

[deluge]

I have nothing to do with digimon so I don't get this 'looks like digimon' complaint and never will.
If it's a matter of being anthropomorphic, we've always had those (MrMime, Jynx, Hitmons, Alakazam, MewTwo were all first gen).
I am beginning to find this 'digimon' complaint irritating especially since people just seem to be repeating what they've heard when they need to bitch.
If there is something particular you don't like about they design say it, then at least there would be some actual content rather than reptition of a tired cliche.
Everyone who proclaims a pokemon looks like digimon seems to believe they're saying something profound that needs to be heard.
It's not.

Personally, I like the design.
It seems to take cues from both the kitsune and the werewolf.
There will still be Pokemon that look just like domestic animals or paperclips or whatever oddball things some people like.
The designs take inspiration from everything from creatures, both ancient and mythological, to washing machines, pokeballs and video game 3D meshes.
I don't see any particular trend, except that they preferentially showcase the more unusual/mythical designs in movies.

Anyway, I think the makeup might have to do with the notion of an illusionist (think Roserade and MrMime).
I am suspecting the ability relates to the illusionist theme as well, though 'ability' with respect to movie and game don't have to correspond.
However, it would be absolutely ridiculous if it got a free (no HP penalty) subsitute (illusion) on switching meaning that it could always come in for free (modulo hazards) provided it had more than 1/4 HP left.
But that would be kind of unfair...lol

Looking forward to more info!

 

[franky]

Diff position:

 

[Deleted User 44841]

Yup, if that's a Gen V pokemon, i hope the evolution doesn't have any extra brilliant moves i want, coz i'll catch the base form, but never evolve the por thing.

Although is it just me or do they both look kinda feminine?(sorry if i offend anyone).I just think the evo at least should be a gender specific. I know it's meanta be a fox, but Ninetales looks better.

 

[Tys]

To me it looks much more like Ninetales than that weird Digimon thing, but whatever. I think the new pokemon are pretty cool. Also, it's just someone's opinion how they think it looks... its not like you can defend that it's ugly.

 

[deluge]

A picture is worth a thousand words, so in exchange for your post I'll provide a picture.

Who does he look more like?
Exactly. Also, it's not just about anthropomorphy. There's humanshape Pokemon, but this is just an unholy, weird hybrid. It's what furries fap to.
It's a beast with human-like properties. [Eyes, ponytail] It's.Weird.

And aside from being weird and non-Pokemon-ish in that sense, it just looks bad as whole. Too much unecessary stuff, weird bodybuild, it's a piece of crap that looks fanmade.
And the coloring is just plain wrong, like a kindergartener painted all over it.

That digimon looks a hell of a lot more like Kadabra (human-like bipedal fox with simlar head shape, colour scheme, and tail) from Gen 1 than the revealed Gen 5 Pokemon.
Listen, I'm not saying that people should like the design; I wouldn't be that arrogant.
I just find 'looks like digimon' a boring unoriginal go-to complaint that carries very little meaning.
You have not even explained why is it bad to look like digimon yet somehow 'looks like digimon' should be enough to justify ranting.

"I don't like it" or "it looks awful" doesn't bother me.
"Looks like digimon" says about as much as "looks like a washing machine".
So what?

 

[Jomei]

Okay that's it, I'd like to see someone defend that bastard at this point.
It.Looks.AWFUL

The bugger on the left is kinda cute though, too bad for the legs.

No one needs to defend it. Vigorously debating over subjective aesthetic taste is the ultimate in pointless.

 

[Lusit]

lol @ whining over aesthetics of the 'mascot pokemon'.

(Unless Pokemon XD was like that, I never played it).

Pokemon XD was rather lighthearted. Colosseum was gloomy to a point but really wasn't that bad. There were things in it that wouldn't be put into the handheld games such as the Under and depictions of slums, etc. I'm looking way too far into it, though.

Tl;dr: Colosseum is srs

 

[Jibaku]

*deletes stuff*
Uhm stop

 

[Demoness]

Thank you Jibaku. although he'll most likely come back to whine again unless you banned him.

 

[Intro1827]

One funny thing about this argument is how apparently Pokémon were supposed to look "simple". Well, duh. Pokémon first appeared on a Game Boy. No Pokémon could have 2 different colors in the same sprite. Let the designers have some fun now that they can

 

[Artix]

*deletes stuff*
Uhm stop

Okay. Let's go back to where we were before then.

Hey guys, new Pokemon announced. I think it looks terrible. I won't elaborate on why, because then we might potentially actually discuss indepth stuff.
I'll just leave it at that...

Oh wait, actually, let me make some predictions about it in competitive play, even though I only know his type.

I THINK he will be a fast, hard hitter. Like Lucario was. And with a pseudo-signature attack. Like Lucario had. Also he'll evolve by happiness by night. Opposite of Lucario.

In fact, I think he's kind of a recycled, discarded idea for Lucario. But let's not get into that, that might spark a discussion.

One funny thing about this argument is how apparently Pokémon were supposed to look "simple". Well, duh. Pokémon first appeared on a Game Boy. No Pokémon could have 2 different colors in the same sprite. Let the designers have some fun now that they can

Actually, we were talking about the sugimori art, which is much different from the sprites. And they don't have to be exactly "simple" - just sleek and not dumb looking.
Look to the point. Here, allow me to provide an example:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...punctuation/7071-Extra-Punctuation-Darksiders
[Yes, there's other video games besides Pokemon]

 

[Califer]

I'm surprised I haven't seen anything about this yet, but the scan says that it has a new evolution method. So it most likely won't evolve by happiness at night (Umbreon)