Author Topic: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew vs Pokemon - DAILY UPDATES!  (Read 50015 times)

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #250 on: July 12, 2016, 11:03:40 PM »
I predict you will like some trashy fire Pokemon that isn't even that good looking and there will be something that you list off a bunch of reasons that it is trashy and then give it a 3/5.

Well, shit. Nailed it.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #251 on: July 14, 2016, 08:05:42 PM »
Treecko: Bleh. Not off to a good start, here. I like lizards. Lizards often have pretty rad shapes. Treecko... does not. Setting aside the standard "bipedal animal" complaint I like to bandy about, Treecko is just obnoxious lumpy. The way overexaggerated eye structure, the fact that it has a bulbous nose rather than a shout, the tail structure... The coloration is nice (though that extra line on the stomach is pointless). Also, despite my complaint, there is a neat and nice plant element to the tail (ala Bulbasaur), but it also doesn't integrate that well. 2/5

Grovyle: What is with evos and being a shade or two different in color? That said, I like the darker tone here. The biped thing also works a bit better here because we're looking more raptory. We also get a bit more plant which, while glued on, the extra additions and the predatory look... actually works. The tail thing is a bit weird though. I realize it is basically the unfurled leaves, but they lose so much size and density in the transition that it ends up looking really lacking. I'm torn, but the tail thing really upsets me. 3/5

Sceptile: Sigh. Okay. First, why the fuck does the number of fingers/toes (and overall shape of them) change so drastically at during every evolution stage on this line? It's irritating. What even are those yellow bulbs on its back? Why do the eye crests that vanishes come back? Why'd we get rid of so much of the nice red and turn it into a weird jaw thing and a dumb band? What is that stupid V-line across thee chest? Tail is kinda cool, but really downplayed on a biped... particularly one that basically had no tail last evo. Oh, and we lose the extra foliage that was making it look leafy on the rest of its body. 1/5 EDIT: I also want to say, tree tail would look way better on a quadraped. Just saying.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 12:05:14 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 #252 on: July 14, 2016, 10:52:03 PM »
I think I would probs give Grovyle a 4.  It is a pretty straight riff on a feathered Velociraptor which is kinda sweet.

I can also answer all you questions about the weird line on Sceptiles neck and everything that is going on above it.

Clearly it grows an entirely new head over the top of its old one, so the line is where you separate old flesh from new younger stuff.  That explains the completely different shapes.

Those yellow orbs?  Those used to be its eyes before the Sceptiling happened and that young Pokemon dies and can no longer see becoming something different.

Also you should talked way more shit for the weird wrist blade things.  They are the same green as its body and not a darker shade like all the other leafy outcroppings so all I can assume is that this is part of its body.
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.

Magetastica

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #253 on: July 14, 2016, 11:14:28 PM »
Going to second the motion that Grovyle deserves a 4. Smug feathered Velociraptor is pretty sweet.

Also, are we not going to mention that Sceptile suddenly loses the very obvious toes that the previous evos have in favour of weird-ass toenail-claws? Or the fact the tail is literally the size of its body? Because having a Christmas Tree for a tail is kinda unwieldy for a creature that's supposed to be all about the speed. (Seriously. Tree-for-tail does nothing except say that this is a slow creature with lots of power, which... it isn't. It's a fast creature with decent power.)

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 #254 on: July 14, 2016, 11:47:16 PM »
The entire line is 1-2 points too low (Grovyle is great) probably due to Andy's brainwashing by porcine communist farm-owner propaganda, but I do agree with the trajectory, Sceptile is a pretty big fall-off.

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

Cotigo

  • Jerkface
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4176
  • Yoo-hoo, Mr. Tentacle Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #255 on: July 14, 2016, 11:53:52 PM »
septile needs a fedora cuz his eyes r sayin m'lady

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #256 on: July 15, 2016, 12:03:41 AM »
Re: Grovyle score. I was torn, but the lack of a true tail really just makes it look weird to me.

Re: Sceptile armblades. Yeah, I was annoyed by the end and just sorta lumped them into the losing the foliage part. They're stupid.

Re: Fedora. Yeah.

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 #257 on: July 15, 2016, 01:55:48 AM »
Yeah definitely spot on with the Fedora.
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 #258 on: July 15, 2016, 04:17:18 AM »
Torchic: Pretty cute. Looks pretty distinctly like a chick. Not a lot going on here, but the neck ruffles are a nice touch. No wings at all is kinda weird, but whatever. Very small body so hard to notice. The head crest/flame... eh? I don't like it that much, but it suffices. Another one kinda sitting on the borderline. Eh. I don't think it is exciting me quite enough. 3/5

Combusken: Well that happened. Suddenly limbs and stuff. The neck ruffle taking over is a bit weird, but its functional and flares out in the right places. Getting massive arms with claws is unusual, but more defined feet/legs are fine. The crest looks better here (likely due to headsize comparison). The beak is weird as fuck, though. The hell happened there? I thought I hated this one, but, honestly, it's actually a pretty smooth evolution. That beak, though. 3/5

Blaziken: I... kinda don't know what happened here. We were on track for a smooth evolution, then this. There are... things here I like. Like I sorta like the face and crest, and the overall body shape work okay. Flares on good places. The red and yellow still look good, and the claws are fine. But... what's with the hair/wings/vest? And how did we get here? And why the crotch ruffle of all things to break up the overall blandness from torso to... shins, I guess? And why are the hair wings a different color? Also obligatory "seriously why the massive color change?" 2/5
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 04:20:00 AM by AndrewRogue »

jsh357

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 346
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #259 on: July 15, 2016, 04:44:56 AM »
I'm with you on this one. Blaziken's popularity continues to elude me. One of the dorkiest looking Pokemon ever...

Cotigo

  • Jerkface
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4176
  • Yoo-hoo, Mr. Tentacle Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #260 on: July 15, 2016, 05:08:37 AM »
Combusken higher than Fire Captain Falcon. Andy do you even have eyes

To clarify both are garbage but Combusken should be a 1.

Magetastica

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #261 on: July 15, 2016, 05:09:19 AM »
My only complaint with this is that Combusken is definitely not better than Blaziken. They are both dumb and deserve 2/5. Unless you're awarding it points for accurately portraying the Torchic line's awkward teenage years?

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 #262 on: July 15, 2016, 06:15:41 AM »
I'm quite surprised at how much y'all seem to dislike the Torchic line, I always thought it was pretty solid throughout. Memorable and distinct certainly (Torchic less so on the distinct part, but it works and is cute). Certainly as far as fire starters go I thought it was a major improvement on the Cyndaquil line.

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

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 #263 on: July 15, 2016, 07:01:21 AM »
Blaziken hype is mostly just for the Taekwondo Gi look I think.

Crotch ruffle is 4 u  tho bbe
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.

Cotigo

  • Jerkface
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4176
  • Yoo-hoo, Mr. Tentacle Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #264 on: July 15, 2016, 07:04:29 AM »
I predict you will like some trashy fire Pokemon that isn't even that good looking and there will be something that you list off a bunch of reasons that it is trashy and then give it a 3/5.

Well, shit. Nailed it.
Combusken: Well that happened. Suddenly limbs and stuff. The neck ruffle taking over is a bit weird, but its functional and flares out in the right places. Getting massive arms with claws is unusual, but more defined feet/legs are fine. The crest looks better here (likely due to headsize comparison). The beak is weird as fuck, though. The hell happened there? I thought I hated this one, but, honestly, it's actually a pretty smooth evolution. That beak, though. 3/5

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #265 on: July 15, 2016, 07:41:21 AM »
Mudkip: I liek Mudkips more than I thought. The body is actually pretty great. Very puppy-like, with a pleasant two-tone blue. The paddle tail also looks pretty awesome. The head is there I have problems. A perfectly round head is pretty disappointing. The crest is pretty great and parallels the tail nicely. The axolotl side things are also a bit disappointing. They look a bit better than Wooper's, IMO, though. I really want to rate Mudkip higher, but that head is so blah. 2/5

Marshtomp: Can we get Sugimori a marker that lasts for more than one drawing at a time? Anyhow. I like the crest and tailfins. I like the arms and legs. I don't like us going biper again. Face is still stupid. Changing to a single cheek spike with a much larger cheek pad is also awful. God, all these starters are on awkward borderlines. 2/5

Swampert: So uh... back to one tail? And with two headcrests instead? Back to quadrapedish, which is nice, though. This is more the headshape and face I wanted on Mudkip. The headcrests and tail looks pretty good. The cheek stuff is back to decent (and looks better with an oval base). Not sure what's with the... armor plates, though? It needed something in those areas, but those weren't them. Best final evo of this generation by a mile, but I'm not sure I have in my heart to give it better than 3/5.

I may readjust some of these scores since a lot of them are sitting on borders.

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 #266 on: July 15, 2016, 01:24:45 PM »


Two fins on its arse, one on its head.



Two fince on its face, one on its arse.

Its arse became its face.
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 #267 on: July 25, 2016, 08:14:25 PM »
Poochyena: I'm kinda torn on Poochyena. Love the tail ruff texture, but, unfortunately, it makes the color shift on the face, chest, and feet look weird. I'd love this design if it could have sold the furriness better. Also those back teeth. And honestly, the mouth shape in general is weird. But still, I really love that tail ruff and you can't go too bad with an actual dog design in general. 3/5

Mightyena: You know. I honestly wrote that previous line completely seriously, because my mental picture of Mightyena does not at all match the real design. Why does he have a carpet on his back? Why does it come off his neck in a way that makes him look bald? Why does his tail form an upside down L? Just... really disappointing. 2/5

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 #268 on: November 01, 2016, 06:53:34 AM »
Zigzagoon:  Fucking sucks, looks like a pinecone. How does it move around? 1/5

Linoone: Evolves into a completely different kind of creature that has less claws.  Also fucking sucks, but doesn't look like a pinecone. Has legs that work even less than Zigzagoon.  Any other picture of Linoone is better.  Also it took looking at other pics to realise it is an Air Bender.  1/5
« Last Edit: November 01, 2016, 07:06:17 AM by Grefter »
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 #269 on: November 01, 2016, 07:30:50 AM »
Well, when a kind soul jump starts something like this, how can I not at least add a few more.

Though I shamelessly score Zigzagoon at 2/5 myself, despite those stupid as shit pigeon toed feet. Seriously, what the hell IS up with that? I like the zig-zag mouth.

Wurmple: You are kind of a rad, spikey worm. Like, you look like a fantastic, prickley caterpillar. A less stupid Weedle, really. Wait. I gave Weedle a 3/5? Seriously? Past Andrew is fucking stupid. Well with that stupid butt-face, I'm certainly not giving Wurmple a better score than 3/5. But seriously past Andrew? What is your deal? Fuck, I have to deal with you and all the shit that's coming up? 3/5 I guess.

Silcoon: I don't understand why you are a ball. With spikes. and red eyes. 1/5.

Beautifly: You're a worse Butterfree. The wings are nicely colored, but the ugly black and white body really detracts from them. A butterfly is like, mostly awesome wings. Why does this shitty teddybear body take up so much space? You have stupid blob hands and feet and your black nose is glued on. 1/5

Cascoon: I don't understand why you are a ball. With spikes. and red eyes. 1/5.

Dustox: I want to like you. I really do. Those wings are cool. But so much else about you is stupid and ugly. Why are your eyes screaming drama masks? Why are your antenna so phallic? And I guess the same goes for your creepy bug feet and blimp body. Also derp lines everywhere. And the smiley face. Why the smiley face? Any why does your ass explode? Sigh. 1/5.

Lotad: It's an oddish variant, but it's kinda cute. The concept just sorta works. Though I never noticed... why do you have 6 feet? That's really weird. Also, the yellow bill really messes with the color scheme. 3/5

Lombre: 1/5

Ludicolo: 1/5

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #270 on: November 02, 2016, 09:01:33 AM »
Seedot: I'd respect this fucker more if he didn't have feet. Plus those feet look stupid. Why do they have that line? Did I score Pineco in a way that makes it possible to give Seedot a meh score without hating it too much? I did? Great. 2/5

Nuzleaf: Well. I mean. He's better than Lombre? But seriously what the fuck is wrong with these two lines? We go from sort of an okay opening to a bipedal... what exactly? I mean, I guess you can credit the parallelism? But it is paralleling stupid things. I was gonna sort of let this thing escape without bitching that much more (I was even gonna skip the thigh segments), but two things jumped out at me. One, what are the stupid lines on the head? Two, why the fuck does this thing have nipples? On, and since I said I should do it more... where the hell is the Dark typing on this thing? 1/5

Shiftry: What. The. Fuck. Just... why? There is so much wrong here. Why did it give up its hands? Why does it have a Jay Leno chin instead of a body? Why does it have the crazy sandal feet? About the only redeeming feature this pokemon has is the white fluff stuff. 1/5


Cotigo

  • Jerkface
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4176
  • Yoo-hoo, Mr. Tentacle Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #271 on: November 02, 2016, 09:11:06 AM »
A less stupid Weedle

Quote
that stupid butt-face

Quote
Seriously? Past Andrew is fucking stupid.

....

seriously past Andrew? What is your deal?

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #272 on: November 02, 2016, 06:29:04 PM »
Hey, it looks pretty good, butt-face aside. Good body can do some work for a bad face.

AndrewRogue

  • Infinite
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3079
  • Sadness
    • View Profile
Re: An Aesthetic Discussion Spanning 17 Years - Andrew versus Pokemon
« Reply #273 on: September 05, 2017, 05:43:15 AM »
Where was I?

...oh.

...oh.

No wonder I stopped for nearly a year. Fuck me.

Taillow: Nothing too fancy. It is an okay bird. I was gonna ding its stupid face, but the sprites look decent enough for me to forgive it. The colors are nice, but I wish it had some Pidgey-esque texturing or something more interesting than the tail split or wing tips. 3/5

Swellow: Uh... basically a better looking Taillow. The head still looks worse in the official art then anywhere else (too flat), but everything else is fine. Nice sharp build for a predatory bird, the coloration is even better with the fancier red, and the head feathers are pretty great. Tail is distinct too. I dunno, the more I look, the more I like this bird. 4/5

Wingull: This bird, on the other hand... mmmmm. Have I gone soft? I want to hate this thing, but looking at it, it does kind of achieve "cute" decently. A lot like clefairy from way back when, it is how relatively simplified the design is. The beak is the biggest problem I think, not really looking like it fits with the otherwise kinda cute and compact body vs the long wings. And the color scheme is pleasant and stands out. 3/5

Pelipper: This on the other hand. Pelicans look stupid to begin with, this doesn't help. The anchor shape on the body is sorta neat, but the body/mouth split is honestly kinda grotesque. The little glued on feet are stupid and it'd probably be better to lose them. Those wing fingers are worse than Lugia's. And I have no idea what's going with your fucking eye, mate. 1/5

Ralts: Ralts is great and a lot of what human shape Pokemon to be. It suggests the idea of a humanoid without falling deep into the uncanny valley like Hitmonchan does. I'm kinda hard pressed to focus in on what I like about Ralts. The colors are, again, nice (I might be failing to remember things, but is there more white in this generation?), and the looks good together. The bowl cut hair looks a bit doofy, but otherwise the body has a really nice flow (thin to wide, with the circle head being conveniently disrupted by the hair) and is simple enough to just be super cute. It really suggest a child wearing clothes too big for it (that it will eventually grow into) without getting too close. 5/5

Kirilia: Hello awkward teen years. You are here, looking awkward. So, again, it at least does the looking humanoid without looking too human thing, but I really dislike a lot of the design. Primarily the body, which trades a really nice, smooth flow for the super poofed out skirt into comically narrow legs. Also like half the sprites have its butt sticking out, which is weird. I go back and forth on the head. The twin-tail idea (with the shards standing in for bows or something) is neat and the "beak" helps create a nice, unique shape, but the way it all falls again messes with the nice smooth flow Ralts had. Looking close, I hate it less than I thought I did, but eh... 3/5

Gardevoir: A pretty logical endpoint for Ralts, really. Really... *sigh* Shut up Grefter, Zenny, Sopko, whoever else... the curves on Gardevoir are super nice and carry through the entire body, giving it a really elegant look that again captures the idea while looking rather fae-like. The stronger white/green blending is a nice touch. The pointy ears help break up the round head stuff and go well with the beak and swooped hair. About the biggest complaint is the red pick thing which ends up in a weird place given the previous two evolutions. I like the final placement, but it is odd to go from head to chest like that. 5/5

Surskit: I wish I could like you more. You're cute and a cool idea, but when I really look at you, I'm hard-pressed to actually justify liking you. The blue and yellow is ugly together, IMO (fuck your complementary color BS) and the stem is just... goofy. The extra lines make it look like a dumb hairdo. I kinda suspect I'd have liked it better if it just had a round top. I also think the little marks under its eyes would be a bit nicer if they were less pronounced. Blah. 3/5

Masquerain: The first pokemon this topic has really hurt in my view. I actually used to like Masquerain a lot, but when I look close... ugh. Ugh, ugh, ugh. So the front of the design IS cool with the fake eye wings and a very clean, clear evolution from Surskit (colors aside). The single eyelashes are a big weird, but otherwise everything continues nicely. Then I realzed it has some weird tiny body with wings behind all that (I originally thought the wings were attached to the main body) and it just sort of ruins it for me. Like, it just looks so awkward and gross. The reference sheet with the "body" below it and using the little wings as legs looks okay, but ultimately I think the extra torso with horizontal flight is just eeeergh. Still, there is a lot of cool here. 2/5
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 03:08:17 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 #274 on: September 05, 2017, 03:06:12 PM »

TFW you are Grefter and you don't have to make the joke


TFW you are Sopko and no one can tell if you are being sarcastic any more or that is your speaking voice.


TFW you are Zenny and you are kind of high and look like you are barely held together existentially.


TFW you are Andy thinking about the next three images in the post.
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.