imageRegister

Author Topic: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!  (Read 50250 times)

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #200 on: May 11, 2016, 12:03:14 AM »
Had?  Did you disown them for owning a bunch of Gen 2 Pokemon memorabilia?

I don't actually know what happened to a bunch of the older ones. Dad still has a few on his shelf at home, but a lot of them are newer. </serious>

Captain K

  • Ugly Old Man
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1210
  • Saving the world with curry and coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #201 on: May 11, 2016, 02:55:18 AM »
Regarding Sun and Moon starters, I actually like the owl.  Cat is meh, dog seal is horribad.

Jo'ou Ranbu

  • Social Justice Steampunk Literature Character
  • New Age Retro Fucking Hipster
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 12988
  • Ah'm tuff fer mah size!
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #202 on: May 11, 2016, 02:11:58 PM »
Dogseal looks like a 1930s Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer cartoon reject and yet I can't help but love it just because it's so jarring in execution. I'm already instantly in love with the owl. Firecat... yeah, execution is worse than the concept. The only one that truly captures the "OHMYGAWD SO CUUUUUUUUUUUTE" requirement for most starters is Rowlett, though. I just can't get over its 90º head-bobbing.
[01:08] <Soppy-ReturningToInaba> HEY
[01:08] <Soppy-ReturningToInaba> LAGGY
[01:08] <Soppy-ReturningToInaba> UVIET?!??!?!
[01:08] <Laggy> YA!!!!!!!!!1111111111
[01:08] <Soppy-ReturningToInaba> OMG!!!!
[01:08] <Chulianne> No wonder you're small.
[01:08] <TranceHime> cocks
[01:08] <Laggy> .....

Cotigo

  • Jerkface
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4176
  • Yoo-hoo, Mr. Tentacle Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #203 on: May 19, 2016, 03:40:18 AM »
http://deathbulge.com/comics/343

Literally all better than Gen 2

Grefter

  • Villain.
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 10386
  • True and Honest. Smarter. More aggressive.
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #204 on: May 19, 2016, 09:19:32 AM »
Is this becoming the thread where we only post the objective truth?  Because that looks like what Zenny is doing.

If that's the case


Fuk ur dik Zenny
NO MORE POKEMON - Meeplelard.
The king perfect of the DL is and always will be Excal. - Superaielman
Don't worry, just jam it in anyway. - SirAlex
Gravellers are like, G-Unit - Trancey.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #205 on: May 20, 2016, 06:49:58 PM »
Fuck my life. I'm only on GSC #55? Seriously?

Blargh.

Bellossom: So we're gonna hear me bitch about this a few times, but the additional evolutions in GSC are weird. For the most part(?) the overall designs are okay, but they take weird departures from their preceding forms. For example, Bellossom largely abandons the color scheme and overall shape of the Oddish line. The design, on the whole, is good though (the whole hula thing is good for a plant type) and the colors are nice, but I just wish it had more to do with it's previous evolutions. 4/5

Marill: Hey look. It's a horrible amalgamation of Pikachu and Jigglypuff. I'm just gonna say I hate this one more than it probably, technically deserves and move on. 2/5.

Azumarill: Seriously, just look at any part of its design. Why? 1/5

Sudowoodo: Okay, so I really like the concept of Sudowoodo, but the actual execution kinda sucks. It looks weirdly humanoid for being a tree mimic, and the idea of it being rock isn't really communicated at all. I'm not sure how I would have suggested designing this idea, but this is not it. 2/5

Politoed: Go read the Bellossom section again, because it's basically the same deal. The thing that really bugs me is the color. Why is it green instead of blue? And the pink cheek spots look dumb. I know some frogs have those, but these just look like unnecessary additions, alongside the antenna. 3/5.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 10:15:10 PM by AndrewRogue »

Grefter

  • Villain.
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 10386
  • True and Honest. Smarter. More aggressive.
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #206 on: May 20, 2016, 09:52:31 PM »
This one will be easy, you just do it in one post.

Gen 2 in its entirety - 0/10 fuck off forever

Then move on to Gen 3.


I like how Andy posts a pic of some frog thing without the name.  I can't remember what the fuck it is and it could even be about proving a point about Gen 2.


Also ur rong about Sudowoodo.  Well you are right about the Rock typing, but wrong about the design.  Sudowoodo is the greatest derpiest design.  Feet spread wide, now is its time to shine alrighty Sudowoodo you've got this. Brace yourself.  Strike a pose.   Now VOGUE!



Note how another mimic Pokemon copies Ditto's dumb vacant smile?  Motifs yo.

Also someone doing translation knew to call it Sudowoodo rather than Sudowood and that's money in the bank.
NO MORE POKEMON - Meeplelard.
The king perfect of the DL is and always will be Excal. - Superaielman
Don't worry, just jam it in anyway. - SirAlex
Gravellers are like, G-Unit - Trancey.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #207 on: July 08, 2016, 07:14:52 AM »
This still exists. Fuck me. I'm gonna do a bunch of these. Rapid fire reviews, go.

Hoppip: Honestly less dumb than I want it to be. It's different enough from Clefairy I can't criticize it for that. Like, sort of an interesting variant on that basic type by almost looking like a quadraped with a more elliptical body. Nice touch with the tail and ears being some extra detail. Great normal type thing. Then you get the leaves on the head. And, you know, it being Flying in addition to grass. Whatever. Would've been better as normal grass or something. 2/5.

Jesus I just wrote that much on Hoppip. Fuck my life.

Skiploom: Closer to what I would expect out of this typing. Better sells me on the plant, at least. I mean, it's a little thing, but it being green is kind of a plus. The flower looks a bit less goofy than the two leaves. Like Hoppip, I honestly like the bodyshape more than I should. 3/5.

Jumpluff: It is a fat Oddish with tiny leaves and cottonweeds. Jesus, this thing is ugly. Why did we need three evos to get to this? 1/5

Aipom: I mean, I guess this is fine? It splits its two colors pretty nicely, though the feet look a bit glued on. No actual hands aside from the tail hand is kinda clever. Little hair poof is important and ears have a bit of a unique shape that differentiates it from a lot of normal pokes. Face is simple, but more detailed than a lot of similar ideas. Is that sufficient for due diligence in actually discussing? Because I don't care about it. 2/5

Sunkern: This thing is among pokemon I'm least likely to forget. The tiger stripes are stupid. Really stupid, honestly. Fuck this thing 1/5.

: Sunflora: Does anyone care about this thing? 2/5

Yanma: Dragonflies look kinda weird to begin with. This thing... works, I guess? I dunno. I have no issues with it and should probably feel better about it, but eh? Goggle eyes are kinda neat and go with the speedster thing. Why does it have tail spikes? The propeller makes sense. I don't get the spikes. 3/5

Wooper: You know, this thing actually looks a lot better than I thought. It's disappointing as an axolotl, but as its own thing, I dunno. Unique body shape, the little spines work, the belly stripes, etc. I'll give it a mercy 4/5.

Quagsire: See above, really. Surprisingly better than expected. Moving away from the Satoshi art hurts it a bit, though. That back spines look a little stupid (for all that probably needed something to break its body up a bit). It being an actual biped sucks a bit too. Satoshi art makes it look more like it is just sitting back on its haunches. It does look like a newt of sorts, though. Honestly, the in-game art damage this one a lot, making it look more... blobby and less animal. Uuuusually I go mostly based on the Satoshi art, but when I need extra details and have to look at game art, I'm gonna use it too. 3/5

Espeon: Oh thank God, an eeveelution. Espy looks great. Nice, elegant shape. The split tail is a cool touch. Carbuncle gem is always neat and does imply the magic powers nicely. The ear tufts are good detail. I'll minor nitpick it being the "Sun" pokemon isn't conveyed well, but eh. Fuck it. This is Gen 2. I'm grading on a curve. 5/5

Umbreon: Also a rad design. I feel the eevees deserve some real credit for, despite having a reasonable amount of distinction between individual bodies, being pretty identifiable as part of the same line. I wish I could figure out the difference between why I think some geometric ornamentation looks good (Umbreon) and others look like shit (Serviper). Probably just amount of variation and how much its piled on? The rings are just wonderful little extras on Umby that basically define it. The fact that it uses both circles and bands is important (Umby would look worse with just one or the other). Also, it is a nice shade of yellow on black. Red eyes add just a bit more color without look out of place. 5/5

Murkrow: The witch motif is weird. I mean, it's well realized, I guess (though the crown is a bit odd). The tail feathers are particularly nice with the broom thing. 4/5, I guess?

Slowking: I... uh? It is too late to deal with this. The fact that it still has the angry eyes on the back of the shell is nice touch. The frill is stupid. 3/5.

Misfreavus: Hey, a ghost that looks like a ghost. Missy D is rad as shit and another of Gen 2's high points. Great, great colors, excellent design without being too complex. I guess my only complaint is she looks a little too short, being mostly head and all. 5/5

Unown: Honestly, I like Unown. They look sufficiently alien and creature while still managing to do the letter thing effectively. I mean, they aren't the best thing ever, but honestly, I think they are kinda cool. Also, Gen 2, grading on a curve, etc. 4/5

Wobbuffet: I don't even understand. (Edit: Before anyone says it, yes, sex toy is nowhere near pokemon's worst design). 2/5
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 07:19:00 AM by AndrewRogue »

Grefter

  • Villain.
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 10386
  • True and Honest. Smarter. More aggressive.
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #208 on: July 08, 2016, 08:44:05 AM »
I don't understand why this post wasn't "Fuck all this garbage" with a pile of pictures until Wooper. Holy shit.  This isn't even my usual Gen 2 is garbage and you should skip it post, buuuut that garbage fire of a run is literally the reason for it.  Holy shit there isn't a good thing among them.

Wooper :Before anyone says it, yes, sex toy is nowhere near Pokemon's worst deaogn.
NO MORE POKEMON - Meeplelard.
The king perfect of the DL is and always will be Excal. - Superaielman
Don't worry, just jam it in anyway. - SirAlex
Gravellers are like, G-Unit - Trancey.

DjinnAndTonic

  • Genie and Potion with Alcoholic Undertones
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6942
  • "When you wish upon a bar~"
    • View Profile
    • RPGDL Wiki
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #209 on: July 08, 2016, 11:46:09 AM »
Yay! Eeveelutions! Yay Wooper!

...wow everything else is really awful. Well, Misdreavus is acceptable at least.

I forgot Wobuffet was a Gen 2 mon. Was he just as brokenly good in Gen 2 as he was in Gen 4? I don't remember hearing about him much until Gen 4 competitive started being a thing.

Captain K

  • Ugly Old Man
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1210
  • Saving the world with curry and coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #210 on: July 08, 2016, 12:11:58 PM »
Wobb became broken when abilities were introduced in Gen 3.

Dark Holy Elf

  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 8161
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #211 on: July 08, 2016, 01:50:24 PM »
Wobb is broken because of Shadow Tag, which prevents opponents from switching away. It was actually totally useless before then (competitive-wise). His whole counter game was useless, as the opponent had unlimited time to switch to the pokemon most suited to buff up and sweep (or at worst, could switch until Wobb ran out of PP).

Largely agree with the comments this week, aside from not seeing the appeal of Wooper. I even like Jumpluff as a pokemon, but it's certainly not for design reasons (and yeah its final evo is a definite downgrade).

Erwin Schrödinger will kill you like a cat in a box.
Maybe.

Fenrir

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2397
  • Social Justice Archer
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #212 on: July 08, 2016, 02:12:49 PM »
I like Sunkern. It looks like a disembodied head crying with mascara running down all over its face, smiling like a crazy person

Captain K

  • Ugly Old Man
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1210
  • Saving the world with curry and coffee
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #213 on: July 09, 2016, 12:03:43 AM »

Fenrir

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2397
  • Social Justice Archer
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #214 on: July 09, 2016, 12:45:12 AM »
Perfect

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #215 on: July 09, 2016, 05:02:57 AM »
Girafarig: This... is honestly a design I should consider worse than I do. I guess the core idea is kinda neat (body split and color shift). The back spines are stupid, though, as are that really weird nose. Can give or take the antennae. I think it'd be better if the tail wasn't quite as derp looking. 3/5

Pineco: Yeah, I like him. It is simple, but it works in kinda that same way Kakuna does. Where it gets weird is him being a bagworm instead of a, you know, pinecone. Gen 2, curve, etc 4/5

Forretress: And he turns into a rock. Yeah, I dunno. Going from something quite so naturey to something that's rocky and has cannons is weird to me. I just feel it loses the character Pineco had. 2/5

Dunsparce: Yeah, fuck this thing. It's pretty stupid looking. I mean, it isn't the worst looking Pokemon in the game or anything. The face is pretty neat and the coloration is pleasant, but... like, what's with the wings? And the drill tail? This had potential to be a workable pokemon but eh. 2/5

Gligar: Ah, good ol' purple. It's a scorpion bat. I dunno. He looks fine. Doesn't inspire me. Why is his tongue sticking out? 3/5

Steelix: Decently rad. I don't like the headshape or the serious underbite, though. Onix did a better job of representing the rock snake in the head. Also, no clue what's up with the iron bars. Not bad or anything, just unsure of what they are. 3/5

Snubbull: I don't like bulldogs in real life. Why would I like a pink biped one with stupid gemoetric shapes on it, glued on feet, or a dress? 1/5

Granbull: Wow. I totally forgot what this thing looked like. It is... uh... better than Snubbull? The -way- overexaggerated jaw does look a bit better. Ironically, though, the body is too boring. Like some fur tufts or texturing would help. Also, why is thing a biped? 2/5

Qwilfish: I love Qwilfish, but can't possibly justify it. The lips are stupid looking and the little paddle tail glued onto a ball is doofy. He's a 2/5, but has a special place in my heart.

Scizor: I would not guess he evolved from Scyther, honestly. I mean, the body similarities are technically there, but everything else is so different. That said... he's honestly pretty decently and probably better composed overall than Scyther. I dunno, I want to find something to complain about, but I really can't. The little heels and his dumb bug thorax, I guess? 4/5

Shuckle: Lookit this adorable fucker. 5/5

Heracross: I just realized he has no mouth. That's just the base of his horn. Bleh. Decent design, but I wish he weren't a biped. 3/5

Sneasel: Edgelord as fuck. Yeah. He's pretty good. Monkey weasel thing. The claws come out of the limbs pretty well. The one ear feather thing is a bit odd, but, like the tail feathers, breaks up the body nicely. The gems are weird, though. Necessary to break up the color, but weird. I think the GSC sprite is the best representation of Sneasel, though. Still, file this one under pokemon that really look like pokemon. 4/5

Teddiursa: Meh. It's a teddibear with a moon on its head. Like, uninspiring and uninteresting, but not bad. Just boring. 2/5

Urasing: See above, basically. The biker jacket shoulder flare is a nice touch, I guess? The body ring is... a thing. 3/5

Slugma: Yep. Slug made of lava.The fire eyebrows and... face things are okay, as are the freaky eyes, but all in all I am left feeling cool. 3/5

Magcargo: Same thing with a slight stupider face and a rocky shell that's on fire. It works. 3/5

Swinub: Lookit this adorable fucker. 5/5

Piloswine: Eh. He works. His height is a bit goofy. I've probably like him more if he was a bit shorter. 4/5

Corsola: I mean, the color is good for a coral pokemon and I like the way it transitions from white to pink. The branches look good but... eh. They are glued onto an oval with a two dot and line face. Whatevs. 2/5

Remoraid: You know, I'd honestly like Remoraid if it's body shape weren't so stupid. Like, why is it basically two balls? Still, the fins are cool, the little lines are cool. Color is really bland for a pokemon, though. 3/5

Octillery: I don't want to talk about Octillery. 1/5
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 01:10:07 AM by AndrewRogue »

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #216 on: July 11, 2016, 01:10:48 AM »
Made some small rating changes as I take one more look at certain pokes. Forretress, Teddiursa, and Octillery can all go one point down. I'm being too merciful.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #217 on: July 11, 2016, 04:08:55 AM »
Okay, let's finish this. Gen 2 makes me unhappy.

Delibird: Random Santa pokemon is stupid. Unfortunately, the face and chest are kinda neat bird designs. Nice, fluffy, feathery. The rest of it is stupid, though. I'm torn. 2/5

Mantine: Body is fine, if generic as hell. Underside coloring works, back sports are dumb, loose flowing tail fits oddly well. That face, though. The attached Remoraid in early sprites would be cute if Remoraid was not totally improperly built to be a Remora. And it's own pokemon. EDIT: Also I should hold the flying type against it more, but I really can't describe how badly Lugia is distorting my view of everything right now. 2/5

Skarmory: You know, I never realized how stupid Skarmory looks. Like, Steel bird is a cool concept, but they really kinda... went too metal. What is that stupid tail? What is with the ridiculous bowling pin body and tiny legs? Why a shark fin hat? Why TEETH? The wings are kinda neat, though. 1/5

Houndour: Pretty cool concept actually. Hellhound! The skeletal motif is pretty rad too. The ankle bands aren't too great, though. But hey, props for not being full edgelord red and black. 4/5

Houndoom: Blah. I mean, I realize we did the skill with Cubone, but seriously, if they'd just amped up the skeleton over a dog thing, it would've been super sick. As is... eh. None of the additions, beyond the horns, really do it for me. And the Satan tail is too much. 2/5

Kingdra: I like the concept, but the actual application is just... underwhelming. Needed more leafy seadragon weirdness. Needed less random brick patterning. And I think I complained about this for Seadra (am too lazy to confirm), but having a... mouth? really messes with the facial design. 2/5

Phanphy: Dumb colors. The body shape isn't bad for being a tiny, alien elephant. The little orange pads don't work well, though. The lead-in to Donphan could be better presented. 2/5

Donphan: You know, I like this thing better than expected. The tread design could be a bit less overtly tire and the ears being airplane horizontal is weird. The tusks being separate from the mouth and angled like that bothers me, too. Still. It works. 3/5

Porygon2: What did I say about Porygon? I assume it applies here. 3/5

Stantler: What. The. Fuck. What is the jowl face? What is the ball tail? What are those stupid as shit horns? Should've just taken the Urasing route with this. 1/5

Smeargle: I... really don't want to finish Gen 2 anymore. Colors are okay, I guess? I don't actually hate Smeargle, oddly, but I just don't know what to do with it. 2/5

Tyrogue: This is terrible. What is even going on here? Why can't its colors at least match its evos? 1/5

Hitmontop: So stupid it literally killed my internet connection. 1/5

Smoochum: It's better than Jinx? For values of better. 1/5

Elekid: Almost everything here is stupid. Chest lightning bolt, round body, stubby dumb legs, LITERAL PLUG ON HEAD. Fuck this entire generation because of Elekid. 1/5

Magby: It's better than Magmar? For values of better. 1/5

I... am going to go pick up Ashley, rethink my life, and then finish this fucking generation.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 07:08:22 AM by AndrewRogue »

Hunter Sopko

  • Heavily in Debt
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4556
  • Hai, Kazuma-desu
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #218 on: July 11, 2016, 04:15:48 AM »
Delibird: Random Santa pokemon is stupid. Unfortunately, the face and chest are kinda neat bird designs. Nice, fluffy, feathery. The rest of it is stupid, though. I'm torn. 2/5

You suck. Fuck you.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #219 on: July 11, 2016, 07:04:28 AM »
Miltank: It's a cartoony cow. I mean, it works. The ol' overused pink is back. I dunno. Like, I kinda find the overall build... cute? Gota pretty good face. Though that tail is stupid as shit. Why is it an off-color rat tail with a ball? Falls into that dumb "Why are you a biped?" thing, though. And I'm really tired of that. Also the teats are weirding me out after staring at them too long. 2/5

Blissey: I... guess it's better than Chansey? Maybe? The flares are nice, though the hair things are kinda stupid? Eh. I gave Chasey a 3? I guess I can give this thing that. 3/5

Raikou: *sigh* So, body looks great. Then everything goes terribly wrong. I mean, I could probably deal with one or two of the other accessories, but all of them? Seriously, the whole face thing there is... just a mess. I get the cloud mustache thing, but what's the ice blue nose plate? Or the steel helmet? The wind/cloud mane could work, I guess, but it constrasts so heavily with everything else. And seriously, the fuck is that tail? Oh, and of course, moving to the sprite reveals the most ridiculous butt fur outside a pomeranian. Fuck this thing. 1/5

Entei: God I hate this set of legendaries. Take the Raikou review and repeat it here again. There are some good ideas. The smoke mane is rad. But what the fuck are those wings? An explosion? Why are they grey? And why'd you steal the Hound- line's ankle rings. And what the FUCK is happening on your face? Like, I think the red/yellow is supposed to be fire, but I really don't understand the position, or the faceplate. Like, is that a volcano and the yellow is an eruption? Also the fact that the smoke mane is above the body and not also a tail kinda upsets me. Ugh. I -think- I hate it less than Raikou, but whatever. 1/5

Suicune: The non-stupid member of this trio. Setting aside that it really shouldn't be water. Those ribbons being its... tail are kinda weird, but whatever. The diamond patterning could be better recognized, but the coloration is pleasant, with the crest and mane standing out but not conflicting. The crest is a bit weirdly shaped (Pokken does a better job with it by making it look crystalized) but the shape fits that thematic thing of being icy. Like I said, these designs work fine when you don't pile on ALL the stuff, and Suicune avoids that. Also a proper snout. 3/5

Larvitar: He's fine, I guess. His tail is a bit stupid and I think the ab diamond and black diamonds are a bit excessive together? This guy is also in that category of "Wait, what is your type?" Meh. I'm not feeling generous. 2/5

Pupitar: Not an exciting cocoon. Also totally different color from anything involved, no carried over features/designs, no clear typing. Pity 2/5

Tyranitar: He's fine. I've never really cared about him. The general body is okay, though the probably could have fone for more spikes/layering over the dumb black triangles. Exposed belly is also kinda weird (segmentation sucks too) and it is arbirtarily a different color. The tail tip is stupid too. Why is it blooming into a segmented bit? Rock I can kinda see. Dark not so much. Head is pretty cool though. I like the flow of the spikes. Meh. On the whole I like the top half of Tyranitar a lot better than the bottom half. 2/5

Lugia: Am I almost done? Look, I don't even get what's going on here. Why does it have hand wings? And I know I'm getting hung up on this, but for some reason this typing stupidity is jumping out at me. Why is Lugia Flying/Psychic? What does any of this have to do with being the Guardian of the Seas? Or a Diving Pokemon? I'm done. I quit. Fuck Gen 2. Fuck Lugia's back quills. 1/5

Ho-oh: Nice colors. Not a big fan of the head crest, but phoenix motif, sure. 4/5

Celebi: Grass fairy thing. It works. The little bits of blue are a nice accent. The pants are kinda stupid but I'm too annoyed about Lugia to care. 3/5

Gen 2 average rating is 2.58, compared to 3.09 for Gen 1
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 07:21:42 AM by AndrewRogue »

DjinnAndTonic

  • Genie and Potion with Alcoholic Undertones
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6942
  • "When you wish upon a bar~"
    • View Profile
    • RPGDL Wiki
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #220 on: July 11, 2016, 10:45:06 AM »
Your assessment of Lugia and Suicune are just wrong, but otherwise, I agree with your ratings and your overall hatred of 90% of Gen 2.

But seriously, if you're going to give Lugia a 1/5, I want more than just two lines complaining about his wings.

Grefter

  • Villain.
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 10386
  • True and Honest. Smarter. More aggressive.
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #221 on: July 11, 2016, 01:43:19 PM »
What the fuck is going on with Lugia's face?  Why does it have coloration and spikes growths coming out of it?  Why does it have another one on the back of its head?  Why does it have teeth and not a beak?

It has stegosaurus plates and spike on its tail.  It has bipedal legs.  I could give you more than 2 lines about those wings holy fuck that suit is the pits/

What the fuck does any of that have to do with Sea, flying or Psychic?  100% with Andy on this, fuck Lugia's design.
Also goddammit Andrew you gave some of this trash 4s and just now you start giving out the right scores.

I would eve dock points from Ho-Oh just for being a shit Moltres.

Gen 2 is the Gobots of Pokemon.
NO MORE POKEMON - Meeplelard.
The king perfect of the DL is and always will be Excal. - Superaielman
Don't worry, just jam it in anyway. - SirAlex
Gravellers are like, G-Unit - Trancey.

DjinnAndTonic

  • Genie and Potion with Alcoholic Undertones
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6942
  • "When you wish upon a bar~"
    • View Profile
    • RPGDL Wiki
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #222 on: July 11, 2016, 02:31:49 PM »
Lugia is awesome. It has that simple design aesthetic you keep harping on, too. Literally only 3 colors, all of which evoke both a cloudy sky and foamy sea color scheme. It has a pretty sleek design because it's a dinosaur-thing that dwells in the sea, but it flies, so it has wings too. The combination of which kinda of feels like what we got with Lugia's design. The fact that it's a unique design that doesn't look exactly like a real-world animal, but still borrows mostly from natural organic designs really feels Lugia is exactly what you've been asking for in all of the other reviews. I'm not getting the Lugia hate at all. I mean, I guess I can kinda see being offput by the uncanny-valley hands on the ends of the wings, but honestly I think that kind of helps Lugia to stand out from the more bog-standard monster designs you see in a lot of these monster-collection games/series.

The Psychic typing thing is a fair point, but I think in Gen 2 they were just like "Cool legendaries are psychic types because they are".

Dark Holy Elf

  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 8161
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #223 on: July 11, 2016, 02:58:24 PM »
I'm pretty much down with hate for Lugia's design, sorry. Like Jumpluff I think it's another pokemon whom I first encountered as a gameplay entity so I have some fondness for because it's cool gameplaywise, but has a pretty lame design. tbh most ubers have weak designs and it'll get worse from gen 4 on. They try to be too otherworldly in order to convey power and it totally doesn't work for me.

On the other hand literally scoring the Swinub line above Suicune is pretty crazy. Suicune is pretty much what I want a legendary to look like. (Houndoor line also really underrated, but I can at least understand some of the criticisms there more, there are some goofy elements to it which I hadn't really noticed until Andy pointed them out.)

Erwin Schrödinger will kill you like a cat in a box.
Maybe.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #224 on: July 11, 2016, 05:59:48 PM »
The problem is that Lugia's design just feels incoherent, especially when one considers the mythos behind it. The colors really don't evoke the sea and storms for me (and that third purple does not help with that - further made weird by the fact that it is mostly found on glue-on spines). The hand things -technically- don't cause me that much trouble, until I remember they're supposed to be wings, at which point I really have trouble reconciling them. The head is fine, though the eye flares are unusual.

"Sleek" is an interesting descriptor for you to use, because, used another way... well. Lugia is kind of the opposite of sleek. This looks like some weird, lumbering amphibian or land animal that'd suck at both swimming -and- flying.