Pokemon Pokemon evolutions that got it all wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hyperion64

Aspiring Trainer
Member
Do you think there are any pokemon that took an evolutionary course they shouldn't have? I have a few:

1.armaldo. Giving anorith (based on a 500-odd million year old animal) limbs and a mouth (which no animal ever had until about 200 million years later) is pretty much equivalent to giving shellder wings.

2.machamp. I really like machoke's feral vibe. It made it look really menacing.

3.daburan. Giving a nucleus-based pokemon a body is even worse than what happened with armaldo. I think each yuniran form should be based on stage of mitosis with rankurusu being two separate beings (like weezing).

What do you think?
 
Gear. Definitely Gear. The first evolution wasn't bad. The second evolution however was just...wth. They should've just kept it at Gear and Gigear, if they were just going to add two little spinning gear/spokes and call it an evolution.

Then there's Chillarmy.
Mamepato: "Sup, Chi-Chi? I'm digging that new blanket you're sporting!"
Chillanchino: "LOL. WHAT? This is no blanket, silly. I evolved!"
Mamepato: "...what? You call that evolving?? Lemme guess, you just picked up that blanket and declared that you are a new species of Pokemon? BRB, IMMA GO PICK UP A TREE BRANCH AND CALL MYSELF A FARFETCH'D EVOLUTION."

/rant.
It's just the little things, I suppose. I'm not overly mad about them or anything, I just though I'd add some humor in with my little complaints.
 
Vibrava and Daikenki. Seriously, they bear no resemblance to their pre-evos whatsoever.
Oh, yeah, and we can't forget Lopunny, the most superfluous evolution of them all. (Well, maybe that is Tangrowth or Magmortar instead...)
 
Gear evos aren't very creative in fact... they all look like they're the same pokémon... I'm still getting used to it...

Also, remoraid evolving into octillery is another beyond my understanding... lol
 
DNA said:
Vibrava and Daikenki. Seriously, they bear no resemblance to their pre-evos whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Venomoth, Exeggutor, Hypno, Dragonite etc. exhibit this trend as well. It's nothing new, nor is it something only seen in one or two cases.
 
DNA said:
Vibrava and Daikenki. Seriously, they bear no resemblance to their pre-evos whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Actually, Trapinch and family are based on the antlion species; like any other insect, they go through a metamorphosis. What begins as a beetle-looking larva actually grows to look much like a dragonfly in it's adult stages. Gamefreak did a great job "Pokémon-izing" the antlion.

I myself am not a fan of a few of the Gen 4 Pokémon who are evolutions of prior Pokémon. Magmortar in particular -- it's body is too smooth, I guess you could say. The body shape wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't so smooth, but the way it is just makes it look very egg-like. Electivire got it right, Magmortar didn't. I'm also not really a fan of Lickilicky, based on similar reasoning as the above. It wouldn't surprise me if they were designed by same same person, and if that same person simples drew circles/ovals and added details in order to make them. From an evolutionary standpoint, why evolve into forms that would seem to hinder movement?
 
^That really wouldn't surprise me either-Magmortar would look good if it wasn't such a beach ball.

Chaobu.

Piglets do not stand up. Or use karate.

Seriously, Nintendo needs to research pigs, and actually see what they look like.

Other than that, Miruhoggu-I love Minezumi, but when Miruhoggu was revealed I was like.... what?
 
@CMP: I am very well aware of that, but at the same time there are no vestiges of anything Trapinch-based in Vibrava. There could have been at least one thing to tie them together...? Alas, there was not.

Venomoth, Exeggutor, Hypno, Dragonite etc. exhibit this trend as well.
Click to expand...
Venomoth is still an insect (I could say Kakuna was another one by your criteria), Exeggutor is still a plant, Hypno is still a stalker, and Dragonite's still a dragon. Don't know where you're going with this.
 
I suppose, DNA, but there's not much to necessarily tie adult antlions to larval antlions. Insect-based Pokémon don't always have vestiges of their previous evolutions.
 
I can see your point there. I just find it so surprising that Nintendo would make an evolution that has no apparent ties to its pre-evo whatsoever. It made it a devil of a time trying to figure out how to get Flygon. I didn't know until I looked in a guidebook (because you never see a Vibrava owned by anybody in RSE).

Oh well, guess it's just one of those things.
 
^
Venomoth is still an insect (I could say Kakuna was another one by your criteria), Exeggutor is still a plant, Hypno is still a stalker, and Dragonite's still a dragon. Don't know where you're going with this.
Click to expand...

And guess what? Trapinch is an insect and and Vibrava is still an insect. CMP is right, there's nothing wrong in that evolution. And there's nothing wrong with the evolutions XieRH listed too. Except maybe, Dragonite. Dragonair is a more serpentine dragon while Dragonite looks more like an European Dragon.

@paddy185: Your argument is just fail... Electric mice don't exist either... Crocs don't stand up too...
 
paddy185 said:
Piglets do not stand up. Or use karate.
Seriously, Nintendo needs to research pigs, and actually see what they look like.
Click to expand...

So, it's fine for Game Freak to create birds that fight, but not pigs?
WHY IS THIS? You see, I thought- we could just live in a world, where you know. Pigs and birds could live in harmony and at the same time bust a few chops.
 
WHY IS THIS? You see, I thought- we could just live in a world, where you know. Pigs and birds could live in harmony and at the same time bust a few chops.
Click to expand...
Alas we cannot, for the kung-fu chicken and the kung-fu monkey will forever be at odds with one another. That is all.
 
They're evolutions. Do we look like cavemen. HECK NO (i am only speaking for myself). Theyre supposed to take on a new form. I dont mind them not looking like they're previous forms.
 
I was asking if you thought pokemon should have had different evolutions, not whether or not the evolutions should look different.
 
How about Magneton? Is it okay just to stick three Pokémon together and call it an evolution? I don't think so.
 
The thing is, Magneton actually turned out not too bad. The only time I can't stand Magneton is in Colosseum/XD, because then it's just three little Magnemite's just floating there, and not actually attached to one another. However, this whole idea didn't work out so well for Gear.

v2dex082.gif
MagnetonPokemon.png
462Magnezone.png


So we have Magemite, one single magnet Pokemon. Following that, three Magnemites become attached together to become Magneton. After that, they change completely into a whole new look, Magnezone. It still keeps the essence of Magnemite/Magneton, but it is a unique evolution. I think the designs were pulled off pretty well.

giaru.png
Sugi_600.png
Sugi_601.png


Now, we have Gear. A pretty interesting Pokemon. Next, one of the Gears remains the same while the other's face becomes a bigger gear, with the smaller, former gear acting as its "nose". Catch my drift so far? I think it was pretty creative and well done. However, then we get to Gigigear. I'm not so crazy about this guy. It looks as if they added a small red gear and a spoke just for the fun of it. By that point, it's just boring and looks as if no effort was put into this design to make it unique from the previous one. Meh. /rant.

Also, does anyone else think that it would be better if Hihidaruma's evolutionary line included "Daruma mode" Hihidaruma between Darumakka and Hihidaruma? It looks more like a pre-evo to Hihidaruma rather than an alternate form, but that's just my opinion. Just look at the guy! Make him red and he'd be a perfect fit between the two, imo.

coldmonkey.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top