Do you think Gen 4 or Gen 5 is marking the ultimate decline of Pokemon?

My point is that even the first and second gen have their fair share of crappy looking pokemon Shinobishyguy

Never said they didn't.

Plausability? When the first Pokemon in the Pokedex is a green dinousar.........thing, with a gigantic bulb on it's back, I don't think you have any right to be demanding plausible Pokemon. In fact, since they are imaginary, they are inherently inplausible.

789shadow

Ever heard of suspension of disbelief? If something is simply implausible or impossible to believe within its own context, it tests and can even break the suspension of disbelief. Something being made up does not mean that it is inherently implausible. Pokemon has fallen into that, as far as I'm concerned.

Bulbasaur is just fine.

Primeape vs Infernape.

Go on. I dare you to say that the 1st generation boxing fur ball with a pig nose, that according to it's name, was supposed to be an ape, is more plausible than the 4th generation fire ape.

Icare0

Um...what exactly are you trying to prove? So it has a weird nose...what's your point? That's one incredibly small detail that's barely relevant to the whole of the creature.

Primeape is an ape. It's known for its rage and using its fists as weapons, something that certain species of real apes do; nothing too strange. That's a whole lot more plausible than an ape that can vomit fire.

"Do you think Gen 4 or Gen 5 is marking the ultimate decline of Pokemon?"

LOL, no. With sales remaining strong, and new kids reaching the gaming age each year and usually going to Pokemon, the franchise is obviously not declining.

Um...what exactly are you trying to prove? So it has a weird nose...what's your point? That's one incredibly small detail that's barely relevant to the whole of the creature.

VGobbsesser

I'm not talking only about his nose, I'm talking about the entire concept. He is a BOXING FUR BALL! How can that be an ape? What exactly in that shoud resemble an ape? Show images of the two to a 5 year-old boy and ask which one is the ape. I've done this, actually,and when I said to the kid that both were supposed to be apes, he said it was silly. SILLY. A 5 years old boy calling something SILLY.

My point being "All generations have "bad pokemon", or "implausible pokemon" or whatever you want to call it. Nostalgia differentiates them".

Primeape is an ape. It's known for its rage and using its fists as weapons, something that certain species of real apes do; nothing too strange. That's a whole lot more plausible than an ape that can vomit fire.

VGobbsesser

Then, you're not talking about something being plausible, but being realistic. In the same sense, dragons doesn't exist, hamsters doesn't control lightning, and turtles doesn't have water cannons sprouting fom theirs backs, but look at Charizard, Pikachu and Blastoise. Don't even let me get started with Geodude, Electrode and Diglett

If you begin to question the entire idea of flame breathing beings, then the whole franchise is a bad concept and isn't plausible, not only the 3rd and 4th generations.

I'm not talking only about his nose, I'm talking about the entire concept. He is a BOXING FUR BALL! How can that be an ape? What exactly in that shoud resemble an ape? Show images of the two to a 5 year-old boy and ask which one is the ape. I've done this, actually,and when I said to the kid that both were supposed to be apes, he said it was silly. SILLY. A 5 years old boy calling something SILLY.

My point being "All generations have "bad pokemon", or "implausible pokemon" or whatever you want to call it. Nostalgia differentiates them".

Then, you're not talking about something being plausible, but being realistic. In the same sense, dragons doesn't exist, hamsters doesn't control lightning, and turtles doesn't have water cannons sprouting fom theirs backs, but look at Charizard, Pikachu and Blastoise. Don't even let me get started with Geodude, Electrode and Diglett

If you begin to question the entire idea of flame breathing beings, then the whole franchise is a bad concept and isn't plausible, not only the 3rd and 4th generations.

Icare0

All I have discussed is plausibility. Primeape is an exaggerated take on a real ape; a caricature. It takes the basic traits of a real animal and exaggerates it to create something foreign, but also something grounded a bit. Your example is flawed; I could easily do the same thing, cherry pick and/or limit my test group, and mention only what helps back up my own case.

My Primeape example is based a lot on realism, but that's only because that's the Pokemon you mentioned in your own post. Not all Pokemon are based purely on realism. Charmander is plausible, in a sense, because most people already know the idea of what a dragon is, and while most people do consider it fantasy, it is a fantasy many people are willing to suspend their disbelief for.

Other Pokemon may not be based on myth or on realism, but their entire concept may not be too strange and exaggerated to be considered implausible within its own context. And when comparing the application of certain basic ideas of older Pokemon to application of the same idea to newer Pokemon, there is a gap between plausibility. Realism is not what I am discussing.

And finally, I have already acknowledged that every generation has its own share of weaker Pokemon. My main concern with modern generations is that the mix between "good" and "bad" Pokemon is more in favor of the latter.

All I have discussed is plausibility. Primeape is an exaggerated take on a real ape; a caricature. It takes the basic traits of a real animal and exaggerates it to create something foreign, but also something grounded a bit. Your example is flawed; I could easily do the same thing, cherry pick and/or limit my test group, and mention only what helps back up my own case.

My Primeape example is based a lot on realism, but that's only because that's the Pokemon you mentioned in your own post. Not all Pokemon are based purely on realism. Charmander is plausible, in a sense, because most people already know the idea of what a dragon is, and while most people do consider it fantasy, it is a fantasy many people are willing to suspend their disbelief for.

Other Pokemon may not be based on myth or on realism, but their entire concept may not be too strange and exaggerated to be considered implausible within its own context. And when comparing the application of certain basic ideas of older Pokemon to application of the same idea to newer Pokemon, there is a gap between plausibility. Realism is not what I am discussing.

And finally, I have already acknowledged that every generation has its own share of weaker Pokemon. My main concern with modern generations is that the mix between "good" and "bad" Pokemon is more in favor of the latter.

VGobbsesser

Ah, ok. Now i've understood what you meant. Your point is that implausible pokekemon existed before, but now they're much more bizarre.

Well, since this is highly subjective, i stop here.

[QUOTE="VGobbsesser"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

Oh, sounds like you are disappointed they don't look exactly like real animals. :roll:

As if all Pokemon designs ever don't fit this.

Icare0

I'm not asking for them to look realistic; all I want is plausibility. Compare any older Pokemon with newer Pokemon, and there's a dramatic difference in styIe.

Primeape vs Infernape.

Go on. I dare you to say that the 1st generation boxing fur ball with a pig nose, that according to it's name, was supposed to be an ape, is more plausible than the 4th generation fire ape.

Primape was my favorite pokemon for a long time.......lets change the subject away from the primapes, they got me interested in pokemon...

No I dissagree.

Gen I: Good

Gen II: The game was at it's Peak

Gen III: Was terrible (I didn't like the region It was good for what it added like EVs, IVs, Natures)

Gen IV: Gained some ground back from Gen III

Gen V: I hope will be like Gen II in quality.

To me the generations (as far as the main games go, I haven't cared about anything else since the first generation) have been consistently good. Third generation was the worst, in my opinion. It was still very good and worth playing, it just felt like a HUGE step backwards from Gold, Silver, and Crystal.

Although I don't expect to ever see them top G/S/C, the games are still very fun. Fourth generation was actually a step back up from the third. Really wish I could play the G/S remakes. Leave it to my horrible luck with technology to have my DS break before they come out.

Im really not getting all of this hate on the 3rd gen. People say it wasnt good. Maybe not in comparison to first and second gen, but i think it was still pretty cool. And i really liked the Dive HM. I dont get it.

My first games were Pokémon Red and Yellow, but I think that nostalgia is in the reason why people say Generation I is the best. My favorite generation is the third one, but it might change to the fifth looking at all of these amazing new features. Looks like Pokémon is really making a fresh start .

Im really not getting all of this hate on the 3rd gen. People say it wasnt good. Maybe not in comparison to first and second gen, but i think it was still pretty cool. And i really liked the Dive HM. I dont get it.

Noskillkill

i agree with the nostalgia. That way, they tend to ignore the worse ones in the old ones because they are just another part of pokemon to them. But, with each new generation, people pay more attention and scrutinize them.

Personally, i saw luxray and its 3 stage group as decently designed. Its semi realistic, original enough and i could totally see it as a pokemon from any generation. On the other hand, something like nosepass or whatever the hell that ugly rock thing just doesnt fit. I understand geodude and onix were living rocks, but it was a simple concept. The design of some of the newer pokemon are trying to be too hard to be original, which isnt really surprising with up to 400- 500 pokemon or so now. The thing that bothers me more than the new designs are pre-evolutions, because it serves no purpose then to be "cute". I'd take more designs and the possibility of a good one then a prevolution.

the thing about the older pokemon is that they were somewhat believable. most of them were animals that we could see doing some of this stuff. The other had some kind of fantasy twist to inanimate objects (or vegetation). The newer ones have some pretty good ones as well, but being released in 100 pokemon waves, the bad ones stand out too much while the good ones are just accepted and forgotten about when talking about which generation sucks.

imo, people seem to judge the newer generations based on the bad ones and not the good ones. The thing was the older pokemon were in general more simplistic. The newer ones are more flashy or "cute" having like 6 ears or weird balls hanging all over their bodies because if they werent, they'd pretty much be too similar to the original cast. Im sure the people who designed pokemon originally didnt think they'd be making so much.