4 ms·

> a great many of Pokemon's earliest monster designs seemed to take... "incredible inspiration" from a variety of Dragon Quest enemies And animals, real and my

> a great many of Pokemon's earliest monster designs seemed to take... "incredible inspiration" from a variety of Dragon Quest enemies And animals, real and mythological. We have: An ordinary dragon, but with its tail on fire: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Charizard https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Charizard A turtle, but blue: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Squirtle https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Squirtle A caterpillar: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Caterpie https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Caterpie A chubby moth: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Butterfree https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Butterfree A wasp, but with drills for hands: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Beedrill https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Beedrill A bird: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Pidgey https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Pidgey A purple rat (copying Milka's color scheme): https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rattata https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rattata A bigger bird: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Fearow https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Fearow A snake: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ekans https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ekans A cobra: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Arbok https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Arbok An armadillo: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Sandshrew https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Sandshrew The nine-tailed fox from Japanese mythology: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ninetales https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ninetales The child version of the same: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Vulpix https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Vulpix A bat: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Zubat https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Zubat Another moth: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Venomoth https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Venomoth An earthworm, but with a face: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Diglett https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Diglett Just a persian cat: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Persian https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Persian Pitcher plant, but with a face: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Victreebel https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Victreebel A pony, but on fire: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ponyta https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ponyta A horse, but on fire: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rapidash https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rapidash A seal: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Seel https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Seel Another seal: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Dewgong https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Dewgong A crab: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Krabby https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Krabby Another crab: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Kingler https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Kingler Flag of Monaco, but a sphere: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Voltorb https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Voltorb Flag of Poland, but a sphere: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Electrode https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Electrode Eggs: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Exeggcute https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Exeggcute Rhinoceros, but armored: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rhyhorn https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rhyhorn A seahorse: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Horsea https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Horsea A koi fish: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Goldeen https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Goldeen A bull, but with three tails: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Tauros https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Tauros Literally just a fish: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Magikarp https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Magikarp I could keep going, but I think the point is made. The list at https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Generation_I_Pok%C3%A9mon https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Generation_I_Pok%C3%... has an "Origins" section for each Pokemon, and almost always it is something from the natural kingdom or mythology. If everything that could be argued "takes inspiration from" Pokemon is banned from use by anyone other than the Pokemon company, then we've effectively handed them ownership over the entire animal kingdom and human mythology.

ShamelessC 3y ago
> I could keep going, but I think the point is made. You should have stopped sooner. There's zero point being made here. Not one made in good faith at least.
- wddkcs 3y ago
  The point is there's practical real world inspiration for nearly all Pokemon, invalidating the criticism. The fact that it's exhaustive doesn't make it bad faith.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I think the "but everything is inspired" is bad faith in and of itself and doesn't capture why pokemon's art direction is so iconic (even if its naming can be a bit too on the nose... Seel).
    - wddkcs 3y ago
      If you want to go that far, acting like Pokemon did more than take animals and slightly twist them is bad faith. They're iconic designs because the Pokemon games were ground breaking for their time, not because they were truly original or innovative. That doesn't entitle them to own 'monsters based on real life creatures' in perpetuity.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        >acting like Pokemon did more than take animals and slightly twist them is bad faith. That is highly undervaluing the vision and talent of the art director. Ken Sugimori wasn't just some fresh intern out of college who took pictures of animals and drew anime eyes on them. And that's why his designs are considered iconic decades later. Its no different from Akira Toriyama or Hayato Miyazaki. Japanese animation tends to have a simplistic but very disctinct style, and it's why they tend to stand the test of time. The test of time in ways that people try to dismiss them outright as "well I can do it". But few others do. >That doesn't entitle them to own 'monsters based on real life creatures' in perpetuity. no one is saying this (except journalists who want to make clickbait. The title is the worst thing about this post so I won't entertain the idea of "oh, TPC is going to sue!"). But if anyone is really curious on why these are all called "pokemon knockoffs", you need to understand the qualities that make pokemon so distinct. Not copy some designs and change it up. You are free to do that, but you can't complain about people critisizing your art as generic and uninspired if you do not in fact understand what you're doing with that style. That's the equivalent of saying "well this sort is less efficient, let's change it to quicksort" in some 20 year old legacy code base and wonder why suddenly everything slows down or breaks. You don't truly understand the art style you study, which means attempts to derive from the style will create uncanny effects.

ShamelessC 3y ago

> I could keep going, but I think the point is made. You should have stopped sooner. There's zero point being made here. Not one made in good faith at least.

wddkcs 3y ago
The point is there's practical real world inspiration for nearly all Pokemon, invalidating the criticism. The fact that it's exhaustive doesn't make it bad faith.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  I think the "but everything is inspired" is bad faith in and of itself and doesn't capture why pokemon's art direction is so iconic (even if its naming can be a bit too on the nose... Seel).
  - wddkcs 3y ago
    If you want to go that far, acting like Pokemon did more than take animals and slightly twist them is bad faith. They're iconic designs because the Pokemon games were ground breaking for their time, not because they were truly original or innovative. That doesn't entitle them to own 'monsters based on real life creatures' in perpetuity.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >acting like Pokemon did more than take animals and slightly twist them is bad faith. That is highly undervaluing the vision and talent of the art director. Ken Sugimori wasn't just some fresh intern out of college who took pictures of animals and drew anime eyes on them. And that's why his designs are considered iconic decades later. Its no different from Akira Toriyama or Hayato Miyazaki. Japanese animation tends to have a simplistic but very disctinct style, and it's why they tend to stand the test of time. The test of time in ways that people try to dismiss them outright as "well I can do it". But few others do. >That doesn't entitle them to own 'monsters based on real life creatures' in perpetuity. no one is saying this (except journalists who want to make clickbait. The title is the worst thing about this post so I won't entertain the idea of "oh, TPC is going to sue!"). But if anyone is really curious on why these are all called "pokemon knockoffs", you need to understand the qualities that make pokemon so distinct. Not copy some designs and change it up. You are free to do that, but you can't complain about people critisizing your art as generic and uninspired if you do not in fact understand what you're doing with that style. That's the equivalent of saying "well this sort is less efficient, let's change it to quicksort" in some 20 year old legacy code base and wonder why suddenly everything slows down or breaks. You don't truly understand the art style you study, which means attempts to derive from the style will create uncanny effects.