Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Charizard
I never understood the appeal behind Charizard. I mean, what's so great about it? It's a Kanto starter, so? Blastoise/Venusaur don't get nearly as much attention as the 'zard
Comments
Also, I totally OHKO it with Thunderbolt.
It's the only Pokemon that's a traditional Western dragon, ergo, awesome.
Well, that is very shallow.
Eh, it's your opinion, so I can't really do anything about it. I still find it shallow, though.
I don't think there are particularly deep reasons for liking particular Pokemon. Most of the time, it boils down to "I like X because it resembles Y", or "I like X because it has these awesome stats/moves".
Salamence?
Isn't really much like a traditional dragon, seeing as it's low to the ground.
At least Salamence is quadripedal.
Salamence is quite derpy, though. Charizard looks like business, and for those of us who grew up with Gen 1, had one of the highest combinations of speed and attack. Without stuff like Stealth Rock to keep it in check, Charizard was one of the go-to asskickers who could brutalise anything short of legendaries. I remember having a Pokemon battle back in the day, one-on-one, against a friend's Blastoise. My Charizard was level 65, his Pokemon 70.
I won.
Granted, I did it by spamming Fire Spin back when that move prevented enemy Pokemon from taking a turn, but still. Charizard is hardcore.
as good a reason as any
Druddigon looks too much like a thistle to be taken seriously.
Druddigon has too many things going against him to be taken seriously, never mind all the sharp edges.
With he way those legs are positioned on Salamence, it looks kinda like a turtle. And the belly detail looks like a lower shell of a turtle. Well, that's how I see it, at least.
And I, personally, can't imagine a pokefied version of the traditional Western dragon posted above. Thin limbs on non-mammalian quadrupeds don't translate as well to pokemon, in my opinion.
Charizard has a more organic look to it, too. Salamence's segmented blue, maroon and white give it a synthetic feel, which isn't helped by the fact that its wings look at though they're single piece blades rather than functional wings. Then you've got Salamence's face fins, which give its face a star-like shape from the front. Not particularly awe-inspiring.
Salamence just isn't a great design for an organic dragon -- but then again, I've been displeased with a lot of Pokemon designs for a while now, as they stray further into the abstract, especially when they have to repeat concepts in new ways.
They repeated concepts for 5th gen because they wanted a game where you could get a complete experience just with that generation's pokemon, before the National dex became available. I dunno, I really like 5th gen, and I don't just say that because it's tied with 1st gen for most OU pokemon (13 each; 2nd and 4th have 9, and 3rd has a measly 6).
>Judging games by only contingent tiers.
V Ah. Hard to tell.
Not at all. I was just taking a jab at myself for my overall preference for competitive play.
It was basically this for me.
Repeating concepts isn't what bothers me. It's just that the repeat versions look kind of bizarre and synthetic compared to their Gen 1 counterparts. Not that Gen 1 didn't or doesn't have some design hilarity (Jiggypuff is high as fuck) but, for some Pokemon, it seems like they went "Okay, this time we'll do that concept as an android mecha" which I think detracts from the whole "wildlife deathmatch" premise of Pokemon.
Except wasn't the pokemon that's basically a living pokeball, and the one that's a metal ball-bearing with horseshoe magnets on it (and evolves into three of those stuck together) first-gen pokemon? They've had weird, unexplained "non-living" pokemon forever.
^^ Salamence has the distinction of being a questionable design based on an awesome concept, though.
^ True, but those were obviously non-living Pokemon meant to look like technology. I feel as though some of the inorganic feel of latter generations wasn't entirely intended, or was a poor move if it was. I'm no blind adherent of Gen 1, but it certainly had the advantage of only needing 151 concepts for Pokemon and that meant that almost every Pokemon got a decent design. But the more games they push out, the more questionable some of the designs become.
If nothing else, a metal ball-bearing with magnets is a lot less... predictable than a dragon in a game about monsters.
I honestly don't get how how newer Pokemon look "synthetic", more stylized yes since the art style has been getting more stylized since 3rd gen. Bizarre however, I still don't agree with, but if anything I'd like if things were MORE bizarre.
^Also this. Overabundance of Dragons aside, Gamefreak could be a lot more cliche than they are.
It's Nintendo, dude. They haven't had a truly original thought in their heads since they hit goddamn gold with the Gameboy. Inevitably, all of their series are going to devolve into republishing the same thing every year with a new paint job. The only people I can think of who do it better are the guys who make all those damnable sports games.
Really, I suppose all the game companies do it, but Nintendo seems to be the only one that doesn't bother trying to hide it. It's simply "you will suck our copy-pasted Mario dick every year, and you will LIKE IT!", and by god they do. Hence why the Wii is the most popular system around and every handheld that isn't Nintendo gets pwned the moment it releases.
"It's simply "you will suck our copy-pasted Mario dick every year, and you will LIKE IT!""
Elaborate. Even Super Mario Galaxy 1 and Super Mario Galaxy 2 are different in style even if superficially similar.
Fucking rose tinted glasses
Also, you sound like you hate Nintendo for some reason
I haven't gotten to personally play SMG, but as I understand it SMG 1 was a decent way of adding some freshness to the series even if it was basically the same, but then they just copy-pasted it with SMG 2 and ruined it.
Literally the only two really interesting ideas I've personally seen done with Mario after the first few games were Super Mario Sunshine and Paper Mario.
I don't really like any of the big gaming companies (or large companies in general), but Nintendo embodies, at least to me, the attitude in the entertainment industry (and the gaming industry especially) that "once you've gotten fans with a good idea, you can tack a gimmick on to it every year and resell it and they'll buy it anyway because lol dumb old fans," which irritates the hell out of me.
I mean, I'll give Pokemon some credit, it doesn't necessarily need to change to work, and the addition of new pokemon from game to game is fairly substantial in its own right, but that's all because it's a game designed to simply be repainted and resold every year. If anything, Pokemon is the perfection of their usual MO, because it's managed to totally skip the idea that sequels should stand on their own merit, from a gameplay and/or story perspective.