I would prefer an in between state of the two. The problem with the latest generations is that they go too far into the cartoony, plushy direction to the point they no longer look real, but pokemon have never been simple animals and shouldn't be treated as such either. So something in the middle would be nice so that they can look real and part of the world while at the same time highlighting the fact that these are supernatural creatures that have an intrinsic, close, and inseparable history and connection with the people of that world.
You are definitely touching upon a couple of topics here (which I guess shows how interconnected they all are.) I'll be talking a bit more about how they look in part 3 soon and I talked about how interconnect they could be in my World Map and Ecosystem episodes. Art does a lot of work to tie a lot of concepts together!
Yeah, I prefer the old, rough and wild designs as I feel they're more natural looking, as far as supernatural animals can be. I wish they struck a balance between cute and rough, and that the default for each pokemon was animalistic but that there are still cute, cartoony designs since I like both, but only when it's fitting. Pokemon like Zorua and Rockruff look should look less cartoony and according to the examples in your video but there should still be cute pokemon. Jigglypuff and Nidoking can still co exist, if you get my point. Sorry this comment turned out a bit rambly
I think they were at the best balance of this art style between animalistic and cute/cartoony right when they first started mixing things up, meaning the gen 3 games. There you can still see the original supernatural creature look in the pokemons with a little bit of experimentation here or there on the cute/cartoonish side, that greatly increased in gen 4 and by gen 5 it had already taken over the creative process.
As I biologist myself, I must say I love animalistic/realistic designs. Pokemon act, living, walk and have the proportions of animals. That's why I recommend you to look at the art of RJ Palmer.
I also prefer the naturalistic design. A thing you might think about in extension of it. The first generations' moves were mostly based on natural events as the groundwork inspiration. While stuff like Ice Beam and Fire Blast existed, think about grass type moved. Leaves exist in Razor Leaf, vines exist in Vine Whip, toxins exist in Stun Spore, nutrient absorption exists in Absorb, photosynthesis and the sun's energy in plants exist in Solar Beam. Differentiations exist of course, plus some word color; "Mega" Drain, "Razor" Leaf. But it's still understandable what a Pokémon *does* when doing an attack. A Rock Slide is a rock slide. An Earthquake is an earthquake. A Blizzard is a blizzard. A lot of animal behaviors and attacks were directly written into the attack names; thrashing, tail whipping, growling, stomping, biting, digging, hardening as you grow, and just growing, clamping down on something, pecking, shooting webs or strings. Some human behaviors and concepts were also included, karate chops, jump kicks, hypnotizing someone, moving things with your mind. A move named simply Punch or Kick was kinda dull, so they added Mega to it. You had a connection to what the Pokémon was doing most of the time. Now, of course... Later generations added new moves, and a lot of them have this naturalistic feel to them. But what is a Flare Blitz, exactly? Earth Power? Dazzling Gleam? A bunch of the newer moves follow this logic, somewhat like a Elemental Attack naming model, and I have less of a sense that you're fighting with critters, it feels ever so slightly more fantastical. Now, again, a bunch of the Gen 1 moves do that, and I haven't quantified it, but there is a shift in feel from the moves in Gen 1 to the moves in Gen 8, where the concentration of natural events, human behavior, and animal actions that have been Warcraftified or shonenified in a sense. Names like Stormstrike, Tranquility, good names for spells in Warcraft, but in Pokémon somewhat detached from the sense that you're collecting creatures of a natural environment with an icing of fantasy. And they feel more and more appropriate to the tone today. Some of this started reallt early, too. What is a Shadow Ball?
Yet another great insight! Indeed when coming up with moves at the start, a lot are going to be things like "double kick" and "ice beam", very straight forward in concept. Then when you have to come up with the thousandth or so, you start running out of straight forward concepts and go more fantastical. Same with creature look and design, "we want a horse, how can we not just do a repeat of the previous ones?" Well you adjust the those styles and designs to be just a little (to even a lot) more fantastical. Of course these both happen at the same time so it is just a natural evolution of the franchise that actually works together to create a different feel to the games in general.
When I see people doing retrospectives and analysis on Pokemon and its designs, It's very rare that I hear anyone talk about the actual artists who create the Pokemon and characters. I know people refer to Ken Sugimori and James Turner as they seen more often talked about in the public space, but I don't see a lot of people talk about the other artists like Atsuko Nishida, Megumi Mizutani, Saya Tsuruta, Yusuke Ohmura, and Hitoshi Ariga to name a few. Personally, I think it's interesting to know the number of artists who worked on each generation seeing as creating Pokemon is a collaborative process.
You know what? This is really fair. I regret not having the time to be able to give those people the attention they deserve. I mean, all the artists of every franchise deserves that recognition too, but this is the biggest franchise in the world and these people (and more) are to be celebrated for that!
While I absolutely love the olden style of Pokémon, I do understand why they did change it from ‘ wild and vicious animal ‘ to ‘ creatures that can be you friend ‘. Other than marketing I feel that the point all along was to make a franchise that would see you befriend and battle with creatures that can fit in your pocket, that was Junichi’s goal to begin with. This art style change is why I think some of the newer Pokémon like Corviknight, Dragapult and Gigalith just to name a few, were so popular. They look closer to the older style than the rest and I guess a lot of the older audience really miss that. I really enjoy your analysis of the newer Pokémon becoming more cartoony rather than biologist sketches, keep up the excellent work.
While I like the concepts and designs for many of the newer generations of pokémon, there was always something that just felt "off" to me. These types of videos have helped me understand! It's the art style! With the early generations, the artsyle made the creatures look more realistic, like a real (albeit fantasy) animal you could actually picture roaming around the wilderness; with the newer generations, while the art style is cute, they look closer to OCs or caricatures rather than actual living creatures that would inhabit this fictional world. While neither artstyle is wrong or bad, the problem arises when the two contrasting art styles are right there next to each other in the same game. I'd love a couple of games with cohesive art style in either direction; in one game they could take the older pokémon and convert them into the newer, cuter art style, while in the other game (the one I would be most excited for) they take all the newer pokémon and convert them into the older, more realistic art style with more appropriate detailing and proportions. I personally would find it super cool to see some of the newer pokémon (Sobble or Nickit, for example) in the more classic style, and vice versa.
I grew up playing Pokémon Black as my first game. And I love the newer art style more than the old one, but I do appreciate the older styles since I love studying about animals.
Omg that new art style pidge was so darn cute I love it! I'm very firmly a new design fan tbh, I love the rounder look because I like cute things with my favourite Pokémon being Minccino and Cinccino from gen 5 with Zorua being a close second though not it's evolution
I was more in line of: wtf is this, get it off the screen! :D There's many cool new designs. As an example, i simply adore Rillaboom. It's just a big monkey with a drum. It kinda takes me back to DK64 tbh. Or Corvigknight and of course Whooloo (no clue how to spell these things, enevr played SwSh either). I wouldn't mind a bit more stronger lean on the old designs again to have not almost everything be a big fluffball but the designs are far from unattractive. I mean in a sense of visual clarity and pleasantness to look at, not in a sense of.. well.. the not so cool side of Pokémon fans. That being said, i'm pretty sure they actually do design some 'furry-bait' Mons each generation, just to catch these players as well. Guardevoir might have been a mistake, but Lopunny etc definitely weren't. My favorite Mon is Ramoth, it just looks majestic and oh so huggable at the same time. I generally have a soft spot for the more 'dangerous' looking ones like Despotar, Skelabra or Necrozma but also the small fluffy ones like Eevee, Whooloo etc.
I have no preference on which vibe the Pokémon designs are, in fact, I love both because they both highlight their differences in appealing manners. I would be happy to see the style change again if it ever does happen. Something that manages to differentiate from classic and modern designs
I love the cutesy round style. Dont mind the rougher style of gen 1 but prefer the newer style. BUT I would like the pokemon stance to be more wild, like the defence and attack stance in the quote.
Ok as much as I love the older rougher wild animal style I do have to admit that some amazing pokemon designs have come out in the more recent gens. I mean.....just look ar rowlet.....literally a baby owl....it perfect Dragapolt is damn cool too, rockruf is so cute as well and while the stats were garbage gogoat was a cool concept.
Thanks for the perspective, I’ve always thought about the generational style differences fans were talking about and this gave me a better grasp of the evolution of the poke style. I have to say though, the design philosophies seems to have changed and I see in more recently they’re leaning to the idea that most Pokémon designs should look like they can be your friend, therefore the more smoother, rounder, and even more cartoony look for each of them
i honestly prefer the most recent style, i love cartoony and soft things!! but even considering that, my favorite art style ever of pokemon is the Kalos one, that has a perfect balance of cartoon and sharp-like style and it's visually pleasing :) and the older style is not my favorite but i do love it for other reasons, mostly because it brings back nice memories and feels like the essence of pokemon at it's start, it is maybe iconic i'd say
love when a newer pokemon are changed to the gen 1 style they look more wild and natural world feeling. The newer ones just look to much like a plushies in woods. while the retro ones are like the animals of parallel universe with superpowers. It's glaring when the classic gen and the new gen Pokemon are in the same area. They look like belong in the same dimension like one is a Pokemon and the other is a Yo-kai watch spirit.
I've spent a lot of time making a tier list of every Pokémon design, plus some graphs and tables based on that, and the conclusion is that... I don't have a clear preference. My favorite gens are gen 1, 7, 8 and 4, so basically three different eras and design philosophies (7 and 8 being similar in that aspect). However I can say with certainty that I prefer cute, simple and rounder designs like Dragonite, Umbreon, Musharna or Steenee. And I'm not a big fan of humanoid Pokemon. But in the end, my experience with a game will have a huge impact on my appreciation of the designs. For example, my two least favorite gens in terms of designs (5 and 6) contain the games that I played the less, and the only parts of the anime that I didn't watch, while my favorite gen (1) is also my first one, the one that started my passion, the one I'm most familiar with. And my second favorite (gen 7) is the one that revived that passion... So do I like the designs because I like the games, or do I like the games because I like the designs? Probably a bit of both. In any case, I am impressed to see Game Freak come up with great designs generation after generation.
Honestly I really like both having a variety with more naturalist sharper designs with round designs would be perfect to me I enjoy variety with my mons
Main things I'd _hope for_ in a reboot would be to unify things like how gendered families work (Tauros and Miltank, the Nidoran lines, single species with vastly different movepools and stats based on their gender). The Nidorans in particular stand out as broken by Gen 2's addition of standardized mechanics for biological sex. I too prefer the older, rougher style. People used to complain even in Gen 2 that new Pokemon "look like Digimon" but with all the rounder shapes and _loss_ of detail in later designs, it's more like the opposite (at least for most Digimon). Or you could say they look like the Baby 1 and Baby 2 stages of Digimon with their roundness and lack of features, while even Legendaries never really pass fully from Rookie to Champion in terms of complexity. The new Pokemon look less like wildlife for their world, and more like toys - which given the franchise is primarily about selling spinoff products like the toys and the "main line games" are an afterthought they still only put a couple hundred people into annual development and release for, fits.
I think the newer design philosophies for Pokémon is far better than the weird mess that was the first two gens (I mean, since when a sparrow has so much jagged bits?), not only because they can push their designs further, but also because it is obvious that they know what they are doing now compared to the first two gens. Also, I love when people call a change in style "de-evolution", that's totally not a biased perspective X)
You did a good job of putting into words (and visuals) what I had previously felt but couldn't quite articulate. So many of the newer designs just look like stylized cartoon mascots with a bunch of arbitrary ornamentation and color schemes, as if they're running out of ideas and overloading us with more "stuff" compared to the simpler, less convoluted (and I would argue more iconic) designs of Pokemon like Onix, Gengar, Psyduck, and countless others.
I’ve always wondered but are Yugioh fans this obsessed with older card art. Like what they had is way more drastic a change. Like to go from Summoned Skull to Maldoche is wild
I don't personally know any Yugioh fans, but I would I think it would be fascinating to know about how they feel about the art over time. Especially from the point of view difference of older to newer fans.
I think that the best way to keep Pokemon design coherent is to First have them drawn in the early Game Boy art style and then give them a Sprite for every single game that has existed if they fit in well with the rest of them it should give the Pokemon a better shot
But Pokémon company knows that merchandise is their biggest business, it’s like 70% of their revenue, so it far to say they want their merchandise to be as appealing and cute as possible.
The way I've heard it described best I think, is a lot of the newer pokemon design, seem to be designed to be easy for children to draw Which is a good reason, I think. They both have their merits, I think a middle ground would he best
When I was a pup I used to steal my brother's game of pokemon Red, but honestly, the first pokemon game I actually played on my own was pokemon black 2, the 5th gen. It's the kind of designs and pokemon that I'm personally nostalgic for, but something that's kind of interesting, is that I love normal type pokemon. I love these fictional creatures, but my favorite have always been ones I see take a more realistic appearance. My 2 favorites have to be Eevee and Stoutland. I love how crazy and colorful they can get, but when you try to please the most amount of people, the designs can be... muddled and abstracted to a point where it can lack individuality. Normal types don't always have to be cute and round, and I love that.
Maybe they could change art style for a single region, and explain it as: Pokémon adapted to look like this because of the place they live in. It's silly, but I really like when animated series do that. For example, in One piece, the crew reached Wano, a Japanese Yamato inspired country, and we knew they were approaching this place because the waves looked like they were paintings!
I prefer the detective pikachu artstyle! Love the realistic style and seeing as real world creatures. For the games I like either style. The creature design remains very good overall so the artstyle is fine either way.
Because views are generated by recommendations and recommendations are driven by the algorithm, not by quality. That and the intro took up a third of the video, which was a bit much.
while visually i prefer the old art style, i do have a strong appreciation for the new one as i have a soft spot for cutesy things, and because they're easier to draw (even if its in a completely different style, with the new designs its easier to see the basic shapes that form the pokemon and go from there. mewtwo is the pokemon i draw the most and my god it is not easy). there's certainly good arguments for both, and i dont think i can say definitively that either is objectively better than the other. it's a tough one for sure
Well,I do think the earlier designs reflect better the general idea of the earlier games, much more targeted at exploration and adventure. There must a be a tie connecting the sheer amount of hand-holding we get in the current games and the overall more “approachable” and amicable designs of today.
I'm not sure why you think Pokemon Go's appeal was due to only having Gen 1 at first and not, I don't know, the whole concept of Pokemon in the real world? Anyway, I prefer the more stylized/cartoony look. I think it does a better job at making Pokemon look like more than just wild animals with superpowers.
the "wild-looking" art style specifically traces back to rubber kaiju on Ultraman Series which were made to fit in with photorealistic environments. the shift could have come partly to differentiate Pokémon from Ultra Series as much as, frankly, I liked it better when they _did_ look like cartoonified Ultra Series kaiju
Honestly the old style just looks like there was more effort put into it. The newer style is more um, underwhelming? I mean some of the newer mons just don’t give me the same feeling that blastoise or jiggilypuff do. I’m not a huge gen one fan, (I’m a fan of gens 3 and 5 respectively) but I can’t deny that gen one had some solid designs.
jigglypuff is a very weird choice to highlight as having "more effort put into it" of all the gen 1 pokemon, jigglypuff might be the most similar to the modern style
Gens 2-4 had the perfect pocket of artstyle in the series. Gen 2 was rounder than gen 1 and 3 made more angles to make cooler designs. 4 just kinda continued the trend for both. That is what I consider the ideal for pokemon designs. But I honestly want a video on the character fashion and world design instead. It's something no one talks about cause they focus too much in the pokemon alone
I've talked a bit about world design before and will do little bits more here and there but fashion... that is a good topic! One I don't have any input on... but it is a very important aspect to world design when it comes to human culture! Which is a massive part of that world because it is the humans doing the catching! How do people design their buildings and towns in a world filled with magical monsters? Well I doubt it would look anything like what we actually see in the games. But it goes by invisibly to most players because Game Freak chose a style we are so comfortable with already. The Monster Hunter franchise is a fantastic example of really taking the human culture on a ride through a world with monsters!
@@RadioactiveMagicGames just to add on to that, a break in style from gen 3 to 4 is that gen 4 is when they started a very subtle but noticeable shift towards real world looking fashion. By gen 5 just about everyone is based on something you see IRL. In fact, the only time outside the anime we get to see what the pokemon world could be like on its own is not in a gamefreak game, but in the colosseum titles. Those and gen 2 are where I think we see what I consider "pokemon fashion". Outfits that would probably not exist if pokemon didn't. That and the technology of the world. I think if gamefreak stopped copy pasting the real world (legends arceus being a great example of breaking that habit), they could make games so unique and original they'd quell just about every hater
I feel nostalgia makes me prefer the older art style, but I think the newer style was necessary to reach a broader audience. Besides, most of my favorite pokemon are from Gen 4 and onwards.
This is almost definitely a bias due to my exposure and age, but I feel like Pokémon Black/White were the peak generation. In fact, it was after then that I realized that stopped keeping up for multiple reasons, art definitely being a big factor.
I don't like how a lot of the modern starters go from animal to anthro. When you compare the third stage with the first and second the often seem a bit contrived rather than a natural progression.
I liked the earlier art style as well. I have always said the new Pokémon look soft lol. My gen 1 pidgey wasn't strong, but he was mean mugging 24/7. He had fierceness. These new Pokémon are have kind eyes 😂😂
Likewise, I prefer the older style, the more animalistic one. In the same vein, I actually enjoy Pokémon who « just an animal » quite a lot, aha. There’s a reason why the first Pokémon I shiny hunted were regular Vulpix (Alolan Vulpix actually has more cartoonish proportions) and Pidgey!
I became a pokemon fan around the end of gen 4/ beginning of generation 5. I wasn't interested in the new generation as I found most of the pokemon designs unappealing and I didn't even bother buying those games. I was into collecting vintage pokemon merchandise and played through pearl and heart gold. So it's not the ideas the are what's dividing people, it's the new art style (not the water color). I think gen 3-4 was a good in between state. I can't even believe how radically different the designs are compared to gen 5, some of them like Eturnatus and Mausehold don't even look like pokemon to me. What happened 🤣
The older water color style looks... Fragile. Like I can just... Peel it off, ruin the artwork and choke on it's toxic paint. I don't feel comfy around it.
i know this goes both ways, but fans of the modern designs seem especially dismissive to people who like the older ones more - as if their favorites are *objectively* better, and it's just nostalgia goggles blinding the stupid old boomers to the Truth. what's really happening isn't artistic improvement, it's a completely different style with a completely different intent, and that's not inherently a bad thing! but some people will enjoy the change, and some won't
First time I've heard Bruxish being called cute, it looks like a busted drag queen to me. I think Wooloo is far too basic, its a regular looking sheep but all they added were grey braids on the side. Out of context I'd never think it was a pokemon. Same for seel, krabby, lilpup, rowlet as such. Maybe change their color palette and certain shapes of it. Pokemon should be based off various animals and objects, not look 99% like them lol.
Everyone keeps doing this Generalization. New Pokémon to Cutsey and Round….. It bad. Yet Conveniently Ignore Jigglypuff, Quilfish, Just a Bird, Just Sludge, Just another Bird And then proceed to act like Haxorus, Aegislash, Chandlure, Golisopod, Hydreigon, Corveknight Don’t exist. This whole Debate is a Massive Cap from Genwunners who entire Argument is Based in Bad faith and Ignoring facts.
I mean, this video explicitly doesn't use that simplified argument. Jigglypuff isn't rounded and cute in the same way Rockruff is - they have very different design ethics. Modern gen evolved Pokemon are somewhat spikier and for angular, but that 1. Isn't different from early gen's and 2. They are still angular in a cell-shaded, smooth way.
No one conveniently ignores jigglypuff. It was designed like that specifically to stand out from the rest as "cute". You're own argument is one of bad faith and ignoring things. It's undeniable that the art style has become more simplified and cutesy over time. If you like it fine, you do do. Personally I find there are too many now that I'd have thought were neopets had I not known better.
Yeah, the original aesthetic of Pokemon is peak. There's just no beating that 90's edge mixed with the vibrant water coloring. I mean... it only became a global phenomenon after all. Monsters not toys! I like that.
The problem is the new pokemon look so diferent that they don’t fit with the older ones, especially when they aare based ln the same animal, like totodile and fuecoco, the look like 2 characters from 2 completely diference franshises, which shouldn’t be the case, if they want to go full round and cute style then they should better redesign the old ones to fit this new path they are taking
I believe modern Pokémon designs are, in average, better, because there's more effort into making them more than just animals with an element. Something not mutually exclusive from the art style used. Every time I see one of these "modern mon in old art style" I always feel the artist didn't translate properly what the mon should be and, honestly, they look ugly to me! In general, I feel the modern art style is much more flexible, capable of having plushie babies, feral animals and beings that challenge what an animal even is (UBs sure, but just look at gen 4 cover legendaries. WTH are they even supposed to be?!).
I don't have any problem with pokemon designs and art style from gen 1 to 7 (except some bizarreness in gen 5). The only gen that killed this for me was gen 8 (with an exclusive exception for Dragapult, which design is totally dope). I love pokemon but I think there was something about the dex cut and the new design being shoved down our throats that I didn't like at all. And one last thing: dinamax/gigantamax? seriously?
Kaijus are famous in Japan and Gigantamax / Dynamax canonized things from the first anime such as the giant Jigglypuff, Gengar and Alakazam, The Giant Tentacruel and Giant Dragonite. Meanwhile Terastal is just justified because it references Crystal Onix
@@bodgmasterxionobst3r983 well, they're not canon at all, because dynamax/gigantamax are events that only occur in the galar region, making no f sense for it happening in kanto. Terastal is just lame, though
@@bodgmasterxionobst3r983 I also don't like gen 9 design choices, meaning I don't like any pokémon design from gen 8 on. I just wish we get some Legends games in the future with nice graphics and cool story, because my hopes are put on this new series
Never been a huge pokemon fan. I've felt the shift from pocket monster to pocket toys in style & design from around gen 5 and onwards made me really disinterested in the series as I grew up. I played the d&br remakes and the 3D models and animations of pokemon do not represent their original designs at all. I don't care much for the art style anymore. My main gripe is just how much the pokemon games can be massive financial success despite being lazy and mediocre products. Legends of Arceus looks like it came out half baked.
@@stripeback2024 Whit furies- no Whit Pokémon that look like furry OC’s it just kinda bugs me that they don’t feel like an animal and more like Pokémon fursomas. There are exceptions like lucariio who is really humanoid,but still feels like an animal. But stuff like cindarace or miowscarada look like individual characters to me
@@stripeback2024 also I was a bit more salty back when I wrote this. Some modern Pokémon are preatty cool like coalosal or brambleghast. Plus I would be a hypocrite, since a lot of my characters I design, while not furry per se, mix animal and human features.
The rat stley be cam difrent as thing in its carnoot veoins cam befor the videogames wer maied so the rat fo the in mage pokemon first startdid uot for the og tcg game and maga that then led to moveysis and tye ainme tyen the videogames wer maied after all that had set the way some fo the rat for pokemon wood look at that time long befor 1998 thas wet set the pokemon rat at first but as the videomages be can alot more popyouler the ones make the pokemon art at the time cam to realyliez that thay had to up data the vidoegames and the pokemon in them but as satedid wen pokemon the videomage cam uot on mageboy the the gameboyaddevsis and then color folwd by mageboy sp mosth fo thos pokemon games at the time wer aball to play on thos sitdumesis but wen thay maied the ds for a littel bit ther thay holld.on make more games fo pokemon tel thay had away to put them on the ds at that time and over time the ds was wet led to the 3ds in witch ones anaig thay had to remake mages to fit on the 3ds and then. Work in to makeing the pokemon go mage to holld over thos how may or may not hav had a switch at the time or a sitdume to paly a pokemon game on as some did not hav a wii to play the pokemon games for the wii on so thay maied pokemon go for this how wer on the go and playing pokemon on handlesis and had not yet had a way to play a pokemon game on molb but over time thay releesd pokemon go and thas y wen pokemon go first cam uot i had a lot fo thos playing it and some stell to day stell play on pikemon go at times as won pokemon go help some tel thay can finsh up ther more 3d pokemon games thas y mosth switch pokemon games hav a 3d look to them but as for hav thay had time to keep up with thos how play pokemon in mage thay stell hav a bit fo a hard time geting this wen mages maied and having a nuces 3d look all arund to them for thos hiw play them but stell thay go and do wet thay can to make good pokemon mages
I would prefer an in between state of the two. The problem with the latest generations is that they go too far into the cartoony, plushy direction to the point they no longer look real, but pokemon have never been simple animals and shouldn't be treated as such either. So something in the middle would be nice so that they can look real and part of the world while at the same time highlighting the fact that these are supernatural creatures that have an intrinsic, close, and inseparable history and connection with the people of that world.
You are definitely touching upon a couple of topics here (which I guess shows how interconnected they all are.) I'll be talking a bit more about how they look in part 3 soon and I talked about how interconnect they could be in my World Map and Ecosystem episodes. Art does a lot of work to tie a lot of concepts together!
I 100% agree with you
Something like the BW/XY artstyle, maybe?
Yeah, I prefer the old, rough and wild designs as I feel they're more natural looking, as far as supernatural animals can be. I wish they struck a balance between cute and rough, and that the default for each pokemon was animalistic but that there are still cute, cartoony designs since I like both, but only when it's fitting. Pokemon like Zorua and Rockruff look should look less cartoony and according to the examples in your video but there should still be cute pokemon. Jigglypuff and Nidoking can still co exist, if you get my point. Sorry this comment turned out a bit rambly
I think they were at the best balance of this art style between animalistic and cute/cartoony right when they first started mixing things up, meaning the gen 3 games. There you can still see the original supernatural creature look in the pokemons with a little bit of experimentation here or there on the cute/cartoonish side, that greatly increased in gen 4 and by gen 5 it had already taken over the creative process.
The art style has changed so much that so many of them look closer to neopets or digimon than what pokemon originally looked like.
As I biologist myself, I must say I love animalistic/realistic designs. Pokemon act, living, walk and have the proportions of animals. That's why I recommend you to look at the art of RJ Palmer.
That art is SO GOOD!
I also prefer the naturalistic design. A thing you might think about in extension of it. The first generations' moves were mostly based on natural events as the groundwork inspiration. While stuff like Ice Beam and Fire Blast existed, think about grass type moved. Leaves exist in Razor Leaf, vines exist in Vine Whip, toxins exist in Stun Spore, nutrient absorption exists in Absorb, photosynthesis and the sun's energy in plants exist in Solar Beam. Differentiations exist of course, plus some word color; "Mega" Drain, "Razor" Leaf. But it's still understandable what a Pokémon *does* when doing an attack. A Rock Slide is a rock slide. An Earthquake is an earthquake. A Blizzard is a blizzard. A lot of animal behaviors and attacks were directly written into the attack names; thrashing, tail whipping, growling, stomping, biting, digging, hardening as you grow, and just growing, clamping down on something, pecking, shooting webs or strings. Some human behaviors and concepts were also included, karate chops, jump kicks, hypnotizing someone, moving things with your mind. A move named simply Punch or Kick was kinda dull, so they added Mega to it. You had a connection to what the Pokémon was doing most of the time.
Now, of course... Later generations added new moves, and a lot of them have this naturalistic feel to them. But what is a Flare Blitz, exactly? Earth Power? Dazzling Gleam? A bunch of the newer moves follow this logic, somewhat like a Elemental Attack naming model, and I have less of a sense that you're fighting with critters, it feels ever so slightly more fantastical. Now, again, a bunch of the Gen 1 moves do that, and I haven't quantified it, but there is a shift in feel from the moves in Gen 1 to the moves in Gen 8, where the concentration of natural events, human behavior, and animal actions that have been Warcraftified or shonenified in a sense. Names like Stormstrike, Tranquility, good names for spells in Warcraft, but in Pokémon somewhat detached from the sense that you're collecting creatures of a natural environment with an icing of fantasy. And they feel more and more appropriate to the tone today. Some of this started reallt early, too. What is a Shadow Ball?
Yet another great insight! Indeed when coming up with moves at the start, a lot are going to be things like "double kick" and "ice beam", very straight forward in concept. Then when you have to come up with the thousandth or so, you start running out of straight forward concepts and go more fantastical.
Same with creature look and design, "we want a horse, how can we not just do a repeat of the previous ones?" Well you adjust the those styles and designs to be just a little (to even a lot) more fantastical.
Of course these both happen at the same time so it is just a natural evolution of the franchise that actually works together to create a different feel to the games in general.
When I see people doing retrospectives and analysis on Pokemon and its designs, It's very rare that I hear anyone talk about the actual artists who create the Pokemon and characters. I know people refer to Ken Sugimori and James Turner as they seen more often talked about in the public space, but I don't see a lot of people talk about the other artists like Atsuko Nishida, Megumi Mizutani, Saya Tsuruta, Yusuke Ohmura, and Hitoshi Ariga to name a few.
Personally, I think it's interesting to know the number of artists who worked on each generation seeing as creating Pokemon is a collaborative process.
You know what? This is really fair. I regret not having the time to be able to give those people the attention they deserve. I mean, all the artists of every franchise deserves that recognition too, but this is the biggest franchise in the world and these people (and more) are to be celebrated for that!
While I absolutely love the olden style of Pokémon, I do understand why they did change it from ‘ wild and vicious animal ‘ to ‘ creatures that can be you friend ‘. Other than marketing I feel that the point all along was to make a franchise that would see you befriend and battle with creatures that can fit in your pocket, that was Junichi’s goal to begin with. This art style change is why I think some of the newer Pokémon like Corviknight, Dragapult and Gigalith just to name a few, were so popular. They look closer to the older style than the rest and I guess a lot of the older audience really miss that. I really enjoy your analysis of the newer Pokémon becoming more cartoony rather than biologist sketches, keep up the excellent work.
While I like the concepts and designs for many of the newer generations of pokémon, there was always something that just felt "off" to me. These types of videos have helped me understand! It's the art style! With the early generations, the artsyle made the creatures look more realistic, like a real (albeit fantasy) animal you could actually picture roaming around the wilderness; with the newer generations, while the art style is cute, they look closer to OCs or caricatures rather than actual living creatures that would inhabit this fictional world. While neither artstyle is wrong or bad, the problem arises when the two contrasting art styles are right there next to each other in the same game.
I'd love a couple of games with cohesive art style in either direction; in one game they could take the older pokémon and convert them into the newer, cuter art style, while in the other game (the one I would be most excited for) they take all the newer pokémon and convert them into the older, more realistic art style with more appropriate detailing and proportions. I personally would find it super cool to see some of the newer pokémon (Sobble or Nickit, for example) in the more classic style, and vice versa.
I grew up playing Pokémon Black as my first game. And I love the newer art style more than the old one, but I do appreciate the older styles since I love studying about animals.
Omg that new art style pidge was so darn cute I love it! I'm very firmly a new design fan tbh, I love the rounder look because I like cute things with my favourite Pokémon being Minccino and Cinccino from gen 5 with Zorua being a close second though not it's evolution
I was more in line of: wtf is this, get it off the screen! :D
There's many cool new designs. As an example, i simply adore Rillaboom. It's just a big monkey with a drum. It kinda takes me back to DK64 tbh. Or Corvigknight and of course Whooloo (no clue how to spell these things, enevr played SwSh either). I wouldn't mind a bit more stronger lean on the old designs again to have not almost everything be a big fluffball but the designs are far from unattractive. I mean in a sense of visual clarity and pleasantness to look at, not in a sense of.. well.. the not so cool side of Pokémon fans. That being said, i'm pretty sure they actually do design some 'furry-bait' Mons each generation, just to catch these players as well. Guardevoir might have been a mistake, but Lopunny etc definitely weren't.
My favorite Mon is Ramoth, it just looks majestic and oh so huggable at the same time. I generally have a soft spot for the more 'dangerous' looking ones like Despotar, Skelabra or Necrozma but also the small fluffy ones like Eevee, Whooloo etc.
I have no preference on which vibe the Pokémon designs are, in fact, I love both because they both highlight their differences in appealing manners. I would be happy to see the style change again if it ever does happen. Something that manages to differentiate from classic and modern designs
I think both designs are good for different pokemon.
I love the cutesy round style. Dont mind the rougher style of gen 1 but prefer the newer style.
BUT I would like the pokemon stance to be more wild, like the defence and attack stance in the quote.
Totally fair! A legit preference.
These are my absolute favorite topics on Pokémon, wish I were recommended more of these videos
Ok as much as I love the older rougher wild animal style I do have to admit that some amazing pokemon designs have come out in the more recent gens.
I mean.....just look ar rowlet.....literally a baby owl....it perfect
Dragapolt is damn cool too, rockruf is so cute as well and while the stats were garbage gogoat was a cool concept.
Thanks for the perspective, I’ve always thought about the generational style differences fans were talking about and this gave me a better grasp of the evolution of the poke style. I have to say though, the design philosophies seems to have changed and I see in more recently they’re leaning to the idea that most Pokémon designs should look like they can be your friend, therefore the more smoother, rounder, and even more cartoony look for each of them
Absolutely! I agree.
i honestly prefer the most recent style, i love cartoony and soft things!! but even considering that, my favorite art style ever of pokemon is the Kalos one, that has a perfect balance of cartoon and sharp-like style and it's visually pleasing :)
and the older style is not my favorite but i do love it for other reasons, mostly because it brings back nice memories and feels like the essence of pokemon at it's start, it is maybe iconic i'd say
love when a newer pokemon are changed to the gen 1 style they look more wild and natural world feeling. The newer ones just look to much like a plushies in woods. while the retro ones are like the animals of parallel universe with superpowers. It's glaring when the classic gen and the new gen Pokemon are in the same area. They look like belong in the same dimension like one is a Pokemon and the other is a Yo-kai watch spirit.
I like having a mix of these designs
Makes every pokemon feel more distinctive
I've spent a lot of time making a tier list of every Pokémon design, plus some graphs and tables based on that, and the conclusion is that... I don't have a clear preference. My favorite gens are gen 1, 7, 8 and 4, so basically three different eras and design philosophies (7 and 8 being similar in that aspect). However I can say with certainty that I prefer cute, simple and rounder designs like Dragonite, Umbreon, Musharna or Steenee. And I'm not a big fan of humanoid Pokemon.
But in the end, my experience with a game will have a huge impact on my appreciation of the designs. For example, my two least favorite gens in terms of designs (5 and 6) contain the games that I played the less, and the only parts of the anime that I didn't watch, while my favorite gen (1) is also my first one, the one that started my passion, the one I'm most familiar with. And my second favorite (gen 7) is the one that revived that passion... So do I like the designs because I like the games, or do I like the games because I like the designs? Probably a bit of both. In any case, I am impressed to see Game Freak come up with great designs generation after generation.
Oh, I believe the algorithm is going to bless you
You were right, I don't know how you called it so early, but you did!
Honestly I really like both having a variety with more naturalist sharper designs with round designs would be perfect to me
I enjoy variety with my mons
Main things I'd _hope for_ in a reboot would be to unify things like how gendered families work (Tauros and Miltank, the Nidoran lines, single species with vastly different movepools and stats based on their gender). The Nidorans in particular stand out as broken by Gen 2's addition of standardized mechanics for biological sex.
I too prefer the older, rougher style. People used to complain even in Gen 2 that new Pokemon "look like Digimon" but with all the rounder shapes and _loss_ of detail in later designs, it's more like the opposite (at least for most Digimon). Or you could say they look like the Baby 1 and Baby 2 stages of Digimon with their roundness and lack of features, while even Legendaries never really pass fully from Rookie to Champion in terms of complexity. The new Pokemon look less like wildlife for their world, and more like toys - which given the franchise is primarily about selling spinoff products like the toys and the "main line games" are an afterthought they still only put a couple hundred people into annual development and release for, fits.
I think it depends on pokemon. Some example pokemon looked better when drawn with older style and some looked better with newer style.
I think the newer design philosophies for Pokémon is far better than the weird mess that was the first two gens (I mean, since when a sparrow has so much jagged bits?), not only because they can push their designs further, but also because it is obvious that they know what they are doing now compared to the first two gens. Also, I love when people call a change in style "de-evolution", that's totally not a biased perspective X)
cant wait to see your channel grow huge soon 👌🏼love your effort and style of explaining
Thank you so much!! I certainly hope so! Haha
I think that the new designs work better with 3D models which will be what they’re primarily found in from now on
amazing videos! feel so lucky to have found your channel
12:48 Yooo Articuno is also my favorite. A major inspiration into my online persona.
This is an excellent video, really good stuff 👍
You did a good job of putting into words (and visuals) what I had previously felt but couldn't quite articulate. So many of the newer designs just look like stylized cartoon mascots with a bunch of arbitrary ornamentation and color schemes, as if they're running out of ideas and overloading us with more "stuff" compared to the simpler, less convoluted (and I would argue more iconic) designs of Pokemon like Onix, Gengar, Psyduck, and countless others.
I’ve always wondered but are Yugioh fans this obsessed with older card art. Like what they had is way more drastic a change. Like to go from Summoned Skull to Maldoche is wild
I don't personally know any Yugioh fans, but I would I think it would be fascinating to know about how they feel about the art over time. Especially from the point of view difference of older to newer fans.
10:29 - Pokémon Yellow Sprites is Beautiful
I think that the best way to keep Pokemon design coherent is to First have them drawn in the early Game Boy art style and then give them a Sprite for every single game that has existed if they fit in well with the rest of them it should give the Pokemon a better shot
But Pokémon company knows that merchandise is their biggest business, it’s like 70% of their revenue, so it far to say they want their merchandise to be as appealing and cute as possible.
The way I've heard it described best I think, is a lot of the newer pokemon design, seem to be designed to be easy for children to draw
Which is a good reason, I think.
They both have their merits, I think a middle ground would he best
This is a fantastic observation, thank you!
I prefer the older style, I agree with everything you said. great video!
I prefer the old style and even try to use that as inspiration for my own monsters in games I make
When I was a pup I used to steal my brother's game of pokemon Red, but honestly, the first pokemon game I actually played on my own was pokemon black 2, the 5th gen. It's the kind of designs and pokemon that I'm personally nostalgic for, but something that's kind of interesting, is that I love normal type pokemon. I love these fictional creatures, but my favorite have always been ones I see take a more realistic appearance. My 2 favorites have to be Eevee and Stoutland. I love how crazy and colorful they can get, but when you try to please the most amount of people, the designs can be... muddled and abstracted to a point where it can lack individuality. Normal types don't always have to be cute and round, and I love that.
Maybe they could change art style for a single region, and explain it as: Pokémon adapted to look like this because of the place they live in.
It's silly, but I really like when animated series do that. For example, in One piece, the crew reached Wano, a Japanese Yamato inspired country, and we knew they were approaching this place because the waves looked like they were paintings!
Where can I find those gen 1 sugimori versions of Grookey and Yamper?
Only on this video! I commissioned them from Jay Tan. She does all the art for my videos whenever I need something I can't get anywhere else :)
@@RadioactiveMagicGames wow wow wow. Well, she understood the assignment!!!
Great video, keep up the good work!
I prefer the detective pikachu artstyle! Love the realistic style and seeing as real world creatures.
For the games I like either style. The creature design remains very good overall so the artstyle is fine either way.
this looks like a high quality video, why only 88 views and no comments?
Because views are generated by recommendations and recommendations are driven by the algorithm, not by quality.
That and the intro took up a third of the video, which was a bit much.
That's the second comment about the intro being too long, noted for future! Will do better!
@@Lucifronz damn bro i had no idea you get views from youtube recommending it
@@Lucifronz I clearly had no idea about how youtube works
@@Lucifronz you are so very extremely good at explaining youtube
while visually i prefer the old art style, i do have a strong appreciation for the new one as i have a soft spot for cutesy things, and because they're easier to draw (even if its in a completely different style, with the new designs its easier to see the basic shapes that form the pokemon and go from there. mewtwo is the pokemon i draw the most and my god it is not easy). there's certainly good arguments for both, and i dont think i can say definitively that either is objectively better than the other. it's a tough one for sure
Well,I do think the earlier designs reflect better the general idea of the earlier games, much more targeted at exploration and adventure.
There must a be a tie connecting the sheer amount of hand-holding we get in the current games and the overall more “approachable” and amicable designs of today.
I miss the scruffy, highly detailed art style.
I'm not sure why you think Pokemon Go's appeal was due to only having Gen 1 at first and not, I don't know, the whole concept of Pokemon in the real world?
Anyway, I prefer the more stylized/cartoony look. I think it does a better job at making Pokemon look like more than just wild animals with superpowers.
the "wild-looking" art style specifically traces back to rubber kaiju on Ultraman Series which were made to fit in with photorealistic environments. the shift could have come partly to differentiate Pokémon from Ultra Series
as much as, frankly, I liked it better when they _did_ look like cartoonified Ultra Series kaiju
Genwunners are good?
genwunners are fake fans
Honestly the old style just looks like there was more effort put into it. The newer style is more um, underwhelming? I mean some of the newer mons just don’t give me the same feeling that blastoise or jiggilypuff do. I’m not a huge gen one fan, (I’m a fan of gens 3 and 5 respectively) but I can’t deny that gen one had some solid designs.
jigglypuff is a very weird choice to highlight as having "more effort put into it"
of all the gen 1 pokemon, jigglypuff might be the most similar to the modern style
It’s just that with todays technology the animations should be much better
Gens 2-4 had the perfect pocket of artstyle in the series. Gen 2 was rounder than gen 1 and 3 made more angles to make cooler designs. 4 just kinda continued the trend for both. That is what I consider the ideal for pokemon designs.
But I honestly want a video on the character fashion and world design instead. It's something no one talks about cause they focus too much in the pokemon alone
I've talked a bit about world design before and will do little bits more here and there but fashion... that is a good topic! One I don't have any input on... but it is a very important aspect to world design when it comes to human culture! Which is a massive part of that world because it is the humans doing the catching!
How do people design their buildings and towns in a world filled with magical monsters? Well I doubt it would look anything like what we actually see in the games. But it goes by invisibly to most players because Game Freak chose a style we are so comfortable with already.
The Monster Hunter franchise is a fantastic example of really taking the human culture on a ride through a world with monsters!
@@RadioactiveMagicGames just to add on to that, a break in style from gen 3 to 4 is that gen 4 is when they started a very subtle but noticeable shift towards real world looking fashion. By gen 5 just about everyone is based on something you see IRL.
In fact, the only time outside the anime we get to see what the pokemon world could be like on its own is not in a gamefreak game, but in the colosseum titles. Those and gen 2 are where I think we see what I consider "pokemon fashion". Outfits that would probably not exist if pokemon didn't. That and the technology of the world.
I think if gamefreak stopped copy pasting the real world (legends arceus being a great example of breaking that habit), they could make games so unique and original they'd quell just about every hater
I feel nostalgia makes me prefer the older art style, but I think the newer style was necessary to reach a broader audience. Besides, most of my favorite pokemon are from Gen 4 and onwards.
This is almost definitely a bias due to my exposure and age, but I feel like Pokémon Black/White were the peak generation. In fact, it was after then that I realized that stopped keeping up for multiple reasons, art definitely being a big factor.
8:53 omg that gen 1 style Zaura is the cutest thing ever...........
Ah there is my preference ......
Still great though
It’s not art style yall. ITS A DIFFERENT FUCKING POKÉMON. These aren’t animals that really exist. They ARE art styles
A good Pokemon design is a design that can be scaled back to at least Generation 3
I really don't like the phrasing of that third video, "devolving"? It's just different, not worse.
I don't like how a lot of the modern starters go from animal to anthro. When you compare the third stage with the first and second the often seem a bit contrived rather than a natural progression.
I liked the earlier art style as well. I have always said the new Pokémon look soft lol. My gen 1 pidgey wasn't strong, but he was mean mugging 24/7. He had fierceness. These new Pokémon are have kind eyes 😂😂
12:51 ok, this is a bit too rough…
Great vid, you've got a sub from me
Likewise, I prefer the older style, the more animalistic one. In the same vein, I actually enjoy Pokémon who « just an animal » quite a lot, aha. There’s a reason why the first Pokémon I shiny hunted were regular Vulpix (Alolan Vulpix actually has more cartoonish proportions) and Pidgey!
I became a pokemon fan around the end of gen 4/ beginning of generation 5. I wasn't interested in the new generation as I found most of the pokemon designs unappealing and I didn't even bother buying those games. I was into collecting vintage pokemon merchandise and played through pearl and heart gold. So it's not the ideas the are what's dividing people, it's the new art style (not the water color). I think gen 3-4 was a good in between state. I can't even believe how radically different the designs are compared to gen 5, some of them like Eturnatus and Mausehold don't even look like pokemon to me. What happened 🤣
The older water color style looks... Fragile. Like I can just... Peel it off, ruin the artwork and choke on it's toxic paint. I don't feel comfy around it.
i know this goes both ways, but fans of the modern designs seem especially dismissive to people who like the older ones more - as if their favorites are *objectively* better, and it's just nostalgia goggles blinding the stupid old boomers to the Truth. what's really happening isn't artistic improvement, it's a completely different style with a completely different intent, and that's not inherently a bad thing! but some people will enjoy the change, and some won't
First time I've heard Bruxish being called cute, it looks like a busted drag queen to me.
I think Wooloo is far too basic, its a regular looking sheep but all they added were grey braids on the side. Out of context I'd never think it was a pokemon. Same for seel, krabby, lilpup, rowlet as such. Maybe change their color palette and certain shapes of it. Pokemon should be based off various animals and objects, not look 99% like them lol.
Everyone keeps doing this Generalization.
New Pokémon to Cutsey and Round….. It bad.
Yet Conveniently Ignore Jigglypuff, Quilfish, Just a Bird, Just Sludge, Just another Bird
And then proceed to act like Haxorus, Aegislash, Chandlure, Golisopod, Hydreigon, Corveknight Don’t exist.
This whole Debate is a Massive Cap from Genwunners who entire Argument is Based in Bad faith and Ignoring facts.
I mean, this video explicitly doesn't use that simplified argument. Jigglypuff isn't rounded and cute in the same way Rockruff is - they have very different design ethics.
Modern gen evolved Pokemon are somewhat spikier and for angular, but that 1. Isn't different from early gen's and 2. They are still angular in a cell-shaded, smooth way.
No one conveniently ignores jigglypuff. It was designed like that specifically to stand out from the rest as "cute".
You're own argument is one of bad faith and ignoring things. It's undeniable that the art style has become more simplified and cutesy over time. If you like it fine, you do do. Personally I find there are too many now that I'd have thought were neopets had I not known better.
Yeah, the original aesthetic of Pokemon is peak. There's just no beating that 90's edge mixed with the vibrant water coloring. I mean... it only became a global phenomenon after all.
Monsters not toys! I like that.
These videos are so good how do you only have 170 subs?Everyone subscribe!!!!!!
The problem is the new pokemon look so diferent that they don’t fit with the older ones, especially when they aare based ln the same animal, like totodile and fuecoco, the look like 2 characters from 2 completely diference franshises, which shouldn’t be the case, if they want to go full round and cute style then they should better redesign the old ones to fit this new path they are taking
I believe modern Pokémon designs are, in average, better, because there's more effort into making them more than just animals with an element.
Something not mutually exclusive from the art style used.
Every time I see one of these "modern mon in old art style" I always feel the artist didn't translate properly what the mon should be and, honestly, they look ugly to me!
In general, I feel the modern art style is much more flexible, capable of having plushie babies, feral animals and beings that challenge what an animal even is (UBs sure, but just look at gen 4 cover legendaries. WTH are they even supposed to be?!).
I don't have any problem with pokemon designs and art style from gen 1 to 7 (except some bizarreness in gen 5). The only gen that killed this for me was gen 8 (with an exclusive exception for Dragapult, which design is totally dope). I love pokemon but I think there was something about the dex cut and the new design being shoved down our throats that I didn't like at all.
And one last thing: dinamax/gigantamax? seriously?
Kaijus are famous in Japan and Gigantamax / Dynamax canonized things from the first anime such as the giant Jigglypuff, Gengar and Alakazam, The Giant Tentacruel and Giant Dragonite.
Meanwhile Terastal is just justified because it references Crystal Onix
Terastal is way worse
@@bodgmasterxionobst3r983 well, they're not canon at all, because dynamax/gigantamax are events that only occur in the galar region, making no f sense for it happening in kanto.
Terastal is just lame, though
@@bodgmasterxionobst3r983 I also don't like gen 9 design choices, meaning I don't like any pokémon design from gen 8 on. I just wish we get some Legends games in the future with nice graphics and cool story, because my hopes are put on this new series
Never been a huge pokemon fan. I've felt the shift from pocket monster to pocket toys in style & design from around gen 5 and onwards made me really disinterested in the series as I grew up. I played the d&br remakes and the 3D models and animations of pokemon do not represent their original designs at all.
I don't care much for the art style anymore. My main gripe is just how much the pokemon games can be massive financial success despite being lazy and mediocre products. Legends of Arceus looks like it came out half baked.
The old ones are hand drawn and painted, the new ones take less skill and are dull. Traditional always looks better over digital.
I don’t like most Modern designs. There to cartonny and often look more like some look more like furrys than pokemon.
You got a problem with furries?
@@stripeback2024
Whit furies- no
Whit Pokémon that look like furry OC’s it just kinda bugs me that they don’t feel like an animal and more like Pokémon fursomas. There are exceptions like lucariio who is really humanoid,but still feels like an animal. But stuff like cindarace or miowscarada look like individual characters to me
@@stripeback2024 also I was a bit more salty back when I wrote this. Some modern Pokémon are preatty cool like coalosal or brambleghast.
Plus I would be a hypocrite, since a lot of my characters I design, while not furry per se, mix animal and human features.
And thas y the rat us tge qay it is at the mo this has ben omage hav nices day
The rat stley be cam difrent as thing in its carnoot veoins cam befor the videogames wer maied so the rat fo the in mage pokemon first startdid uot for the og tcg game and maga that then led to moveysis and tye ainme tyen the videogames wer maied after all that had set the way some fo the rat for pokemon wood look at that time long befor 1998 thas wet set the pokemon rat at first but as the videomages be can alot more popyouler the ones make the pokemon art at the time cam to realyliez that thay had to up data the vidoegames and the pokemon in them but as satedid wen pokemon the videomage cam uot on mageboy the the gameboyaddevsis and then color folwd by mageboy sp mosth fo thos pokemon games at the time wer aball to play on thos sitdumesis but wen thay maied the ds for a littel bit ther thay holld.on make more games fo pokemon tel thay had away to put them on the ds at that time and over time the ds was wet led to the 3ds in witch ones anaig thay had to remake mages to fit on the 3ds and then. Work in to makeing the pokemon go mage to holld over thos how may or may not hav had a switch at the time or a sitdume to paly a pokemon game on as some did not hav a wii to play the pokemon games for the wii on so thay maied pokemon go for this how wer on the go and playing pokemon on handlesis and had not yet had a way to play a pokemon game on molb but over time thay releesd pokemon go and thas y wen pokemon go first cam uot i had a lot fo thos playing it and some stell to day stell play on pikemon go at times as won pokemon go help some tel thay can finsh up ther more 3d pokemon games thas y mosth switch pokemon games hav a 3d look to them but as for hav thay had time to keep up with thos how play pokemon in mage thay stell hav a bit fo a hard time geting this wen mages maied and having a nuces 3d look all arund to them for thos hiw play them but stell thay go and do wet thay can to make good pokemon mages
An intro of 5 minutes. God, no.
Algorithm is incoming this popped up in my feed🫢and awesome video!