Warning: This post goes through detailed examination and analysis of faking and is quite lengthy as a result, so if you visit this thread solely to enjoy the works of TheFlyingPidove, I suggest you skip to the next post. 
Good development indefinitely involves staying as true to the core game as possible. Treading over those lines is like being untrue to the game itself. You're taking the very roots of the game and changing them as though they mean nothing. How could you even begin to justify that? Staying true to the game is an absolute must.
I'm going to explore the development of TFP's Feint attack, contrast it against the canon and determine whether or not it crosses these "lines". Feint is as follows: [R][C][C] Feint 100; Move an Energy attached to the Defending Pokémon to 1 of your opponent's Benched Pokémon.
Now, what is Feint in the games? It is, as described in XYORAS, "An attack that hits a target using Protect or Detect. This also lifts the effects of those moves." The Japanese name's literal translation is also Feint, so that makes things easier. Now, at this stage, it doesn't seem like TFP's attack and the canon match at all. But let's dive a little deeper. According to Oxford Dictionary, a feint is a "deceptive or pretended blow, thrust or other movement". I'm not sure about you, but I can see small links sparking already.
Next, we'll look at what the Anime, the TCG, the manga and the visual game effects (all of which are canon) paint the attack "Feint" as. First off, I'll check out what Feint was in the Anime episode "Smells Like Team Spirit!" (DP052). In this episode, Corey's Heracross flies from behind Dawn's Buizel's Aqua Jet with a glowing horn (Feint), which strikes Paul's Elekid and dissipates the green shield that was around it. Heracross then flicks Elekid up into the air like a typical Heracross attack. Notice the emphasis on the dissipation of the shield. Heracross somehow removed the energy (!) of the shield. Looking back at TFP's Feint attack, this is exactly what the attack does - it removes the Energy from the Defending Pokemon! If you want to look at the Science-y part of things, all Energy must go somewhere, so in TFP's attack, it is transferred to the Bench.
But we're not done yet - there's still more canon to shift through. In the Pokemon Adventures manga, a Gallade uses Feint. It seems to be doing some Double Team shenanigans to confuse the Pokemon and attack from a different angle, presumably because the Pokemon can't Protect on all sides at once. Now, it is possible that the confusion could cause energy to be lost, but that's grasping straws, so I'm not going to bother. In the TCG, Feint is typically accompanied with the effect of "This attack's damage isn't affected by Resistance." Now, why does this attack not affect Resistance? Either because it sneaks around a Pokemon's defenses like the manga suggests, or it removes the energy the Pokemon would've used to resist the attack. The animations in the game is simply a fist coming out of nowhere, which really just implies it is a damaging, physical attack.
So what can we conclude? I think that, through what I have analysed, Feint is an attack that bypasses the shielding Protect/Detect status by either lowering a Pokemon's defenses or removes the Energy of the shield. This is consistent with the effect TFP made. Furthermore, I'd say that the effect TFP has made is a great spin off the standard effect, and that he has thought about how the attack would play out in real life. It is certainly not treading of the line, certainly is not changing game canon as if it means nothing and is certainly not "not true" to the canon. Instead, I applaud TFP for their thought out attack! My only point of critique would be simply that because Feint is an already established effect in the TCG, it should probably be renamed as "Feint ____" to better distinguish between the two.
As for creativity, the entire notion reflected, when I suggested to be more creative (by reflecting realism in the names of your attacks and abilities) was for the soul purpose of creativity. Pokémon are plants, animals, and other animate-inanimate objects. They have special natures, physical features, and other attributes which are the soul roots of such potential. Reflecting those unique features in the arrangement of your designs is what's going to make your design interesting and creative. It's true to the concept, it reflects the realism of what the Pokémon would be capable of by the nature of its existence. When you do something that's transparent, it doesn't reflect any distinct attributes of that Pokémon what-so-ever, what you've got there is poor development. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't connect with the Pokémon in any special way.
I do agree with the parts of your comment here relating to emphasis of the unique elements of each Pokemon, but I certainly do not think TFP is denying creativity. As I explained in my analysis above, TFP made a very creative spin-off on a boring, plain canon attack, which is a big something to begin with. Let's look at the recent
Sigilyph. I personally lit up when reading the Laser Cage effect, as it immediately gave my imagination a new way to spin Sigilyph. That's creativity. How about this
M Alakazam-EX, where emphasis on the Mega's unique features is important. I am not disappointed. TFP has placed emphasis on Alakazam's spoons, as well as it's increase in Psychic power. Who knows what would happen if Mega Alakazam's spoons collide? Well, hey, TFP has provide a creative effect that gives me an answer. Furthermore, the attack is
very flavourful, which is arguably more important than creative effects in card faking. And, once again, TFP does not disappointed me by putting yet
another Pokemon into new light.
Now, I'm not saying everyone must always make the most perfect cards. Sure, the elemental monkeys were not TFP's best works. The Stadium Dance type of shenanigan has been used on the monkeys before (see NXD). But hey, what does that matter? I like the idea of the elemental monkeys dancing in each Stadium - it brings a fun image into my mind. Furthermore, Stadium Dance has much nicer flavour than what was on the NXD monkeys (Stadium Burn? You have to be kidding me >.>). And if you don't agree with that due to personal preference, it is still completely fine for an artist to take some breaks in extensive designing!
Your later comment did get me thinking about the Feint on Blaziken. My original thoughts were "Feint on Blaziken? Eh, sure, wynaut". Sure, it didn't really emphasize anything too great about Blaziken. ...But that's just on first glance. If you remember the dictionary definition of Feint - where it talks about a deceptive blow. Perhaps TFP, as the artist, is communicating
his opinion on Blaziken. Perhaps
he sees Blaziken is this sneakier, powerful Pokemon. Once again, a nice twist. Even if you don't think Feint was the best choice, TFP still highlighted the combustion element that atypically defines a Blaziken.
That was another long analysis, so I'll sum it up here. TFP certainly does not defy the particular characteristics of each Pokemon as shown. Furthermore, he provides a spin off the atypical perception of the Pokemon and sprinkles some fun flavour to top of it! This what an advanced faker does.
The TCG does this themselves sometimes, I would hate to think that's what makes you think it's okay, because it's a mistake on their part just the same. Cards they print like that are examples poor developments. They make no sense, having noting in-specific to do with the Pokémon, and that's not interesting or fun at all. It's confusing and very uncomfortable. Why would you do that? It has no relativity to the original design. That relativity is the soul essence of the game—is it not? And in the TCG, you have the unlimited potential to even expand upon those unique features and abilities in ways the video game is limited to in their production space. There's absolutely no excuse to slack up on that. And I can't imagine how you can even begin to justify that.
I do hope you've seen the recent BREAKPoint set, because I'll be referring to it in these few paragraphs. First off, notice something like the BKP Durant. It's a great example of the emphasis of the Pokemon's features. Arcanine, although seemingly boring, spins Arcanine from a terrorising maddog to a cuddly partner (something Pokemon is generally big on, especially in the Anime) with the attack "Flop". The Camerupt, although generic, emphasis the erupting
and the unpredictable nature of the Pokemon. Even the effectless Seedot, although disappointing, still manages to highlight it's atypical Ram nature, which is a characteristic that I certainly would assign to the Pokemon. I could stay here
all day explaining the thought behind cards, and the elements of creativity, flavour and canon the card has.
Besides, I don't even know why you're comparing the official TCG worsts to TFP's cards. I wouldn't mind firing some of the designers at PCL and hiring TFP, because I can assure you I will certainly not be bored with his great designs (and I've already explained how they're contrary to what you're saying).
You have a Carnivine, that's a Venus Fly Trap Pokémon. It has the unique features of a Venus Fly Trap. It's a plant that uses alluring scents and sticky goo to trap prey. Reflecting those unique features in your attacks and abilities is what creativity is all about. And that relativity—is the essence of realism. Realism here is about staying true to the original thing—while retaining the potential to even expand upon those realistic features to your unlimited imagination.
Surely you're not saying that TFP's
Carnivine does not reflect the Pokemon's unique features! Look at Restriction. It is relating to a Venus Fly Trap restricting it's prey so they cannot escape while playing off the running gag of Carnivine restricting poor James of Team Rocket. Toxic Wrap flavourly emphasizes the Pokemon's large hand-things, which I think is great in itself, while the attack effect, once again, reminds me that Carnivine will never let its prey escape. Sure, flavour can be improved, but this Carnavine of TFP's is an
advanced design.
You might be misinterpreting what I've been saying as negative, but it's purely positive critique. I'm trying to help someone improve the quality of their work. You can't hold anything back in the process of that. I've been very polite. I'm not insulting anyone. I'm simply relying the imperfections that are most obvious to me, and then explaining why they are considered by me to be imperfections. I'm not making any empty statements here. If I was, I might understand your confusion. But it seems that you're just misinterpreting things and trying to make statements out to be negative, simply because they are controversial (and reflect corrections).
Look, I'm going to be
really up front with you, since I am now cranky that you've made me waste two hours of my afternoon writing up this post so you can realise that TFP is a much better faker than you are making him out to be. Quite simply, your critique is negative. You point out the
negative aspects of the cards and rarely the positives. Go back and read your post - your first three and your last two paragraphs
immediately state that the cards are bad. Your Sunny Day comment does this too. Notice how your Work Up comment is more passive, giving a suggestion. Everyone, myself and you included, need to remember that comments are
your opinion and you could have easily overlooked something.
Now, I can accept that you think you are being or are trying to be polite. However, let me assure you that this is not how it comes across to myself, the CW staff and the rest of the community. As I said above, you point out the negatives over the positives in most cases. Secondly, you use
very strong words and phrase such as "underwhelming", "too far from the real concept to be considerable", "veering", "so much more", "exactly bad", and the like. These are pessimistic and a more likely to bring the artist down rather than build them up.
Please forgive me for any misunderstanding, but discussion is what a forum is all about. Please try not to be so overly sensitive. I'm not trying to put anyone down here, I'm just trying to help. I have an immense measure of experience with TCG development, and I aim to help others by sharing my collective intelligence with them.
Like in the above paragraph, I'm cranky and thus am going to be point blank. This and the above paragraph is very cocky. You seem to be extremely confident in your own abilities of TCG faking, but such confidence makes you and your posting appear arrogant to the eyes of others. In fact, you have dismissed a Super Moderator (Ice Arceus) as "overly sensitive" who has been giving feedback on creative pieces for
years on PB alone. I am certain that Ice Arceus knows what he is talking about.
I ask that you take a step back for a little. Have a bit more of an open mind when going into critiquing creative pieces - there may be more to a piece than meets the eye. It sounds like you have a self-determined a criteria for faking, which although is great, but remember this criteria is your opinion. I personally think that you have feedback that provokes worthwhile thought, but this feedback
must be presented in a way so that the designer/artist will
want to improve rather than
want to stop faking.
If you wish to continue this discussion, please take it to a PM Conversation with myself, as to not decimate TFP's thread.
