XY What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokémon based on?

[Lvl 100 Bidoof]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

Honestly I think we have enough object pokemon. We have ice cream cones, magnets, gears and a ton of rocks.

I don't think we have nearly enough. Think of what they could do with something such as origami or a playing card. The problem is that we get things like a trash bag that people think is rediculous.

I agree with that. The reason I think we have enough is because we got a garbage bag and gears in the last set. However, I think an origami Pokemon would be awesome!

 

[Mitja]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

I don't think we have nearly enough. Think of what they could do with something such as origami or a playing card. The problem is that we get things like a trash bag that people think is rediculous.

I agree with that. The reason I think we have enough is because we got a garbage bag and gears in the last set.

But we got those as a homage to the sludge and the magnets from olden times, so some people need to get their nostalgia bias glasses removed. :^)

 

[Their Goominess]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

One idea I just thought of would be a cannon Pokemon. (I kno we've had cannons mixed with animals before, but this would be an actual cannon) It would learn all the bomb/cannon/beam moves, and maybe get it's own sig. move (one idea I had would be that it's like a bomb entry hazard that can only have one layer but deals 25% damage on entry, would affect all types equally)

 

[Mitja]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

Only if how hazards work is addressed somehow, because in its current state, adding even more that stack would be insane.
There is no efficient means of getting rid of them, bar a rare weak impractical move that can be blocked (lol) and they are way too easy to set up.

I think even adding a Dark type Rapid spin to most bulkier pokemon wouldn't be enough. I mean you have to switch to your spinner (leaving your opponent to set up what they want or prepare to counetr your spinner) and then successfully use the move just to get back to neutral, not to mention at least your spinner will get damaged by the hazard....

What's needed is either
-having hazards disappear after
---a number of turns
---a number of switch-ins
-making it so only 1 kind of hazards can be on the field
-make every hazard "absorbable" by one or more types of pokemon (like poison pokes get rid of toxic spikes)
or any combination of them

EDIT: sorry I realize I went totally off-topic here lol

A cannon pokemon sounds interesting. There is Octillery (and Blastoise and Magmortar..), but something that's actually a cannon, as in Steel-type, yes.
I imagine a similar design to Gigalith/Metagross, except with a cannon on the core o:

 

[Cinesra]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

Fruits and vegetables aren't inanimate objects though, they're living organisms. Otherwise all the grass types would count for this thread

I'm surprised there's no eggplant pokemon though. In Japan it's the stereotypical "gross vegetable" that children hate, hence why they appear in lots of older video games as "bad" pick-up items and as monsters in other manga and anime.

Exeggutor is literally an egg plant.

 

[Frezgle]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

Exeggutor is literally an egg plant.

I remember when I first realized this. Had to sit down and take a break from everything for a while.

 

[Bogleech]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

I agree with that. The reason I think we have enough is because we got a garbage bag and gears in the last set. However, I think an origami Pokemon would be awesome!

Why is there anything wrong with a garbage bag and gears? A bunch of hovering clockwork gears is a bizarre and crazy concept for a monster, and garbage creatures are always, always awesome everywhere they appear. I wanted a pokemon like Garbodor since the first generation; I'd say it's one of the most original and fun concepts ever in the series.

If I had to pick I'd actually give up all pokemon but Garbodor, forever.

 

[leecario]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

I agree with that. The reason I think we have enough is because we got a garbage bag and gears in the last set. However, I think an origami Pokemon would be awesome!

Why is there anything wrong with a garbage bag and gears? A bunch of hovering clockwork gears is a bizarre and crazy concept for a monster, and garbage creatures are always, always awesome everywhere they appear. I wanted a pokemon like Garbodor since the first generation; I'd say it's one of the most original and fun concepts ever in the series.

If I had to pick I'd actually give up all pokemon but Garbodor, forever.

Let's be honest here people, grimer and muk are the worst of the inanimate object pokemon, they're literally just piles of sludge. And people overlook that because it's in the precious first gen.

 

[Elite Stride]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

they're literally just piles of sludge. And people overlook that because it's in the precious first gen.

Garbador is literally just a pile of trash, and Vanilluxe is literally just a pile of Ice Cream, so is there really any difference? When I think of an ice cream cone as a Pokémon I think "stupid". When I think of a monster made of toxic sludge, it actually makes sense.

A bunch of hovering clockwork gears is a bizarre and crazy concept for a monster

This is what I like to see, not stuff based on ice cream and garbage. Although a garbage monster isn't THAT bad imo. I just don't want to start seeing Pokémon based off of burritos and fruit loops.

 

[Thief]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

This is what I like to see, not stuff based on ice cream and garbage. Although a garbage monster isn't THAT bad imo. I just don't want to start seeing Pokémon based off of burritos and fruit loops.

I agree; the ice cream cone can stay since we have no choice, but I DO NOT want to see food Pokémon. No matter how cute a strawberry Pokémon would be, I don't want it. I don't want it. I WILL HATE IT and then eat it.

 

[leecario]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

Garbador is literally just a pile of trash, and Vanilluxe is literally just a pile of Ice Cream, so is there really any difference? When I think of an ice cream cone as a Pokémon I think "stupid". When I think of a monster made of toxic sludge, it actually makes sense.

Well that's what i meant, there isn't all that much difference. they're both composed solely of waste. But i agree with vanilluxe being stupid.

 

[AdamLambert]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

Well, I know that originally the Hydreigon family's design was going to be based on a tank, hence the magenta tracks on them (specifically Zweilous and Hydreigon), but apparently it didn't work out. I'd really like to see a Pokémon with an actual tank inspiration.

 

[leecario]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

This is what I like to see, not stuff based on ice cream and garbage. Although a garbage monster isn't THAT bad imo. I just don't want to start seeing Pokémon based off of burritos and fruit loops.

i fail to see how no one in game has accidentally eaten their vanilluxe yet. DEFINITELY no more food pokemon.

 

[Flys Gone 2071]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

I don't know why people don't like about a Pokemon being based on an ice cream cone. I like Vannilite and I like the idea of Pokemon based on Ice cream cones (but I don't want an Ice cream with 2 heads that is). I believed that casteliacones were made of Vannilite at first. I don't see why people hate Pokemon being based on an ice cream.

 

[Elite Stride]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

Because the personification of a piece of food is stupid. It's just a ridiculous idea to make food into Pokémon because then you are basically talking, giving commands, making friends, and training with a food product. If Vanilluxe was real I would be eating it, not catching it in a Pokeball. It just gets to a point where it's weird.

At least animals respond to human speech and interact emotionally.

 

[J.D.]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

Only if how hazards work is addressed somehow, because in its current state, adding even more that stack would be insane.

What they really need to do is nerf Stealth Rocks; I mean, your Pokemon looses 50% health if its 4X weak to Rock-type? That's insane! Personally, I always thought cutting the damage for each level of Rock-type weakness in half, with 4X resistance equaling an immunity to Stealth Rocks was a good idea...

As for the topic, two of my favorite Fakemon families based on inanimate objects resemble a lightbulb and a volcano, respectively... and I always thought the idea of a Ghost/Steel clock to be cool...

Because the personification of a piece of food is stupid. It's just a ridiculous idea to make food into Pokémon because then you are basically talking, giving commands, making friends, and training with a food product. If Vanilluxe was real I would be eating it, not catching it in a Pokeball.

You'd be eating a flavorless block of living ice? Yeah, it's designed to resemble ice cream, but beyond that it's probably no different than Cryogonal or Glalie, and likely made of unappetizing ice... and haven't plenty of other Pokemon, like Farfetch'd, often been described as edible?

 

[Theviking06]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

Because the personification of a piece of food is stupid. It's just a ridiculous idea to make food into Pokémon because then you are basically talking, giving commands, making friends, and training with a food product. If Vanilluxe was real I would be eating it, not catching it in a Pokeball. The point is that it just gets to a point where it's weird.

At least animals respond to human speech and interact emotionally.

But this isnt a thread about what you hate about inanimate object pokemon. It is a thread about what other inanimate objects would you like to see.

I personally would like to see some car pokemon because I think it would be fun.

 

[Thief]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

Because the personification of a piece of food is stupid. It's just a ridiculous idea to make food into Pokémon because then you are basically talking, giving commands, making friends, and training with a food product. If Vanilluxe was real I would be eating it, not catching it in a Pokeball. The point is that it just gets to a point where it's weird.

At least animals respond to human speech and interact emotionally.

But this isnt a thread about what you hate about inanimate object pokemon. It is a thread about what other inanimate objects would you like to see.

I personally would like to see some car pokemon because I think it would be fun.

He was answering a question though. It's expected for a thread to sometimes branch off a bit from the subject if it goes into something that is still related to the main topic. Sorry, you correcting him was irritating.

I would love to see gemstone Pokemon. Like an amethyst Pokemon. Having a line of Pokemon not necessarily evolutions, but all based off of different gemstones.

 

[Elite Stride]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

But this isnt a thread about what you hate about inanimate object pokemon. It is a thread about what other inanimate objects would you like to see.

Actually, this thread encompasses discussion about inanimate Pokémon themselves. Otherwise, most of it would be spam. Not trying to pick on you or anything, but take your post for example. There's really not much that everyone can discuss just from you saying that you want a Pokémon based off of a car. So you have to talk it out. We happen to be talking out the concepts surrounding inanimate Pokémon based on food. Plus, I wasn't describing reasons for why I hate food Pokémon, I was offering up the implications/problems with having Pokémon like that.

Furthermore, the OP's second sentence clearly prompts discussion on the Pokémon themselves:

Or do you dislike object Pokemon?

And to correct your statement, I don't hate inanimate object based Pokémon- I actually love most of them. I just don't like the food idea.

 

[emmah]

RE: What are some inanimate objects that you want a Pokemon based on?

I would love to see gemstone Pokemon. Like an amethyst Pokemon. Having a line of Pokemon not necessarily evolutions, but all based off of different gemstones.

I really like that idea!!


Personally, i agree with the whole food thing - it just doesnt seem to fit in my opinion.

I'd like to see more pokemon like Cryogonal, i like that idea.
& i dont know HOW they would do it, but if they had a rainbow pokemon that would be kinda awesome.