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

[AdamLambert]

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.

I've always wanted a diamond/gem Pokémon with the type Rock/Ice. Plus it's a unique typing, and I feel a diamond is GF's perfect opportunity to utilize that type combination.

 

[Thief]

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

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.

I've always wanted a diamond/gem Pokémon with the type Rock/Ice. Plus it's a unique typing, and I feel a diamond is GF's perfect opportunity to utilize that type combination.

Well Cryogonal aside, I feel like gemstone pokemon would be amazing. Besides Cryogonal is more ice, like literally he looks like a snowflake. Anyways, I'm relating this to the gemstone beast in Yu-gi-oh where there were different creatures based off of the gemstone. I'd love that so much; GF do it now.

 

[Mitja]

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.

Vanilluxe isnt food. Its a mineral-based organism that resembles ice cream when its covered with snow (which it mostly produces itself).

Miltank is more food than the Vanillite line.

I really fail to see what your problem is with this.

 

[Thief]

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

Vanilluxe isnt food. Its a mineral-based organism that resembles ice cream when its covered with snow (which it mostly produces itself).

I don't know where you read that from and It's not that I'm doubting your authenticity, but that sounds like Nintendo's way of justifying their own creation.

I don't understand your argument because whether or not it is actually edible, it's an ice cream cone.

 

[AdamLambert]

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

Vanilluxe isnt food. Its a mineral-based organism that resembles ice cream when its covered with snow (which it mostly produces itself).

I don't know where you read that from and It's not that I'm doubting your authenticity, but that sounds like Nintendo's way of justifying their own creation.

I don't understand your argument because whether or not it is actually edible, it's an ice cream cone.

Technically, Mitja is correct. The Vanilluxe line are technically icicle-like creatures with snow covering the top. It just so 'happens' that they end up looking like ice cream. Furthermore, their species names indicate this as well, as they are not the 'Ice Cream' Pokémon, but instead have 'snowy' species names. Clearly their design was inspired by ice cream, and anyone who argues with that is dim. I'm just pointing out that if you were to eat one of them, they would taste like ice and snow

 

[leecario]

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

Technically, Mitja is correct. The Vanilluxe line are technically icicle-like creatures with snow covering the top. It just so 'happens' that they end up looking like ice cream. Furthermore, their species names indicate this as well, as they are not the 'Ice Cream' Pokémon, but instead have 'snowy' species names. Clearly their design was inspired by ice cream, and anyone who argues with that is dim. I'm just pointing out that if you were to eat one of them, they would taste like ice and snow

I know people that like eating ice/snow. I don't really get it, it seems weird to me but it happens

 

[Thief]

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

I don't know where you read that from and It's not that I'm doubting your authenticity, but that sounds like Nintendo's way of justifying their own creation.

I don't understand your argument because whether or not it is actually edible, it's an ice cream cone.

Technically, Mitja is correct. The Vanilluxe line are technically icicle-like creatures with snow covering the top. It just so 'happens' that they end up looking like ice cream. Furthermore, their species names indicate this as well, as they are not the 'Ice Cream' Pokémon, but instead have 'snowy' species names. Clearly their design was inspired by ice cream, and anyone who argues with that is dim. I'm just pointing out that if you were to eat one of them, they would taste like ice and snow

True that. I'll have to buy some snow cone syrup.

Anyways I just thought about how Rotom could get a Gameboy form and you could play minigames with your rotom. That would be dope.

 

[Mitja]

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

LOL. Obviously Im not saying its not based on the form of an ice cream cone. Nonetheless, its not actual ice cream, its a pokemon that looks like one. Same goes for any other pokemon that resembles/is based on whatever isnt cool to random people for no apparent reason.

I call this phenomenom reverse mimicry (as those are pokemon who resemble things that didnt exist as long as them, and instead of helping them hide, it draws attention to them), and its been part of the franchise from the sole beginning. Voltorb is based on a pokeball...an item made by humans, yet no one has ever complaiend about that in the past 10+ years.

Thief, correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt you think its "predecessor" (floating icy food-resebling monster), Glalie, is an edible japanese riceball called onighiri and an "unjustified" design too, right?

 

[Their Goominess]

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

One idea I just thought of would be a flamethrower Pokemon. I can see it being a part of a different anima ala Genesect, but my favorite idea is that a small humanoid creature (basically just a head with legs and some arms coming out of the flamethrower and holding a tube) would have the flamethrower on its back.

The same could be used for a hose Pokemon... new duo idea!
-Fire/Dark flamethrowermon which is generally mischevious by nature likes fire and likes setting things alight
-Water/Fighting hosepipemon which put out all fires that are potentially harmful
-hosepipemon and flamethrowermon have a rivalry ala Zangoose/Seviper, except hosepipemon has the clear advantage over flamethrowermon

 

[Thief]

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

I call this phenomenom reverse mimicry (as those are pokemon who resemble things that didnt exist as long as them, and instead of helping them hide, it draws attention to them), and its been part of the franchise from the sole beginning. Voltorb is based on a pokeball...an item made by humans, yet no one has ever complaiend about that in the past 10+ years.

I never said I had a problem with inanimate object Pokémon, so all of that seems irrelevant. Unless that somehow relates to why I dislike the idea of food Pokémon.

Thief, correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt you think its "predecessor" (floating icy food-resebling monster), Glalie, is an edible japanese riceball called onighiri and an "unjustified" design too, right?

Glalie vaguely resembles onighiri. Also with a face and horns and icy skin, it makes it less relatable to a ball of grain.

So your right I don't think of him as that, because he's not blatantly a riceball. We're talking about a Pokémon that resembles an Ice Cream cone and based on design, there's not much other interpretation you can take from that.
Glalie's design doesn't have to be justified, it's design doesn't directly relate to food. It looks like a monster.

 

[Elite Stride]

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

Whether you can actually eat it or not is irrelevant. It's a fantasy game, it's not real, so it doesn't matter what it is 'technically' made of. All we as players are concerned about is what it looks like. For all intents and purposes, it is an ice cream cone, and you are interacting with the ice cream cone.

Are you not picking up on the fact that the gripe is with Pokémon designs being based on what we eat? You're kind of missing the point entirely.

 

[AdamLambert]

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

Elite Stride, if that post is directed toward me, then yes, I do understand that the problem, at least the problem you have, is with the design looking like food. I personally enjoy the fact that I can annihilate your Tropius with ice cream In my earlier post, I just wanted to point out what it 'technically' was, at least according to GF. But yes, it is clearly designed to look like ice cream. I personally don't see the problem with it, but I completely respect your opinion.

 

[J.D.]

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

Whether you can actually eat it or not is irrelevant. It's a fantasy game, it's not real, so it doesn't matter what it is 'technically' made of. All we as players are concerned about is what it looks like. For all intents and purposes, it is an ice cream cone, and you are interacting with the ice cream cone.

Are you not picking up on the fact that the gripe is with Pokémon designs being based on what we eat? You're kind of missing the point entirely.

Dude, we human eat cows and chickens and pigs and sheep and ducks and fish and crustaceans, and yet there are plenty of Pokemon based on all of those things (and as I pointed out before, plenty of insinuation that some of those Pokemon are used as food)... I fail to see how an ice cream cone Pokemon clearly made of solid, inedible ice is any worse...

 

[Thief]

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

Whether you can actually eat it or not is irrelevant. It's a fantasy game, it's not real, so it doesn't matter what it is 'technically' made of. All we as players are concerned about is what it looks like. For all intents and purposes, it is an ice cream cone, and you are interacting with the ice cream cone.

Are you not picking up on the fact that the gripe is with Pokémon designs being based on what we eat? You're kind of missing the point entirely.

Dude, we human eat cows and chickens and pigs and sheep and ducks, and yet there are plenty of Pokemon based on all of those things (and as I pointed out before, plenty of insinuation that some Pokemon are used as food)... I fail to see how an ice cream cone Pokemon clearly made of solid, inedible ice is any worse...

I honestly don't know where you are going with that argument....

You're just taking the food thing way to in depth.

Cows, chickens, pigs, sheep, ducks... They're animals.

It's called the circle of life. Ice cream ... haha.... pfthaha... isn't apart of that.

 

[Elite Stride]

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

Dude, we human eat cows and chickens and pigs and sheep and ducks and fish and crustaceans, and yet there are plenty of Pokemon based on all of those things (and as I pointed out before, plenty of insinuation that some of those Pokemon are used as food)... I fail to see how an ice cream cone Pokemon clearly made of solid, inedible ice is any worse...

Although I understand what you're trying to get across, animals are first and foremost animals. Comparing them to something like ice cream is comparing apples to oranges. Humans eat everything, lol. That doesn't mean the first thing we think about when we think of say, a lizard, is "OMg f00D!! Lets eat it!!".

On a side note, ice is edible....but as I mentioned earlier, we're not concerned with what it's actually made of because it's not real.

 

[J.D.]

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

Dude, we human eat cows and chickens and pigs and sheep and ducks, and yet there are plenty of Pokemon based on all of those things (and as I pointed out before, plenty of insinuation that some Pokemon are used as food)... I fail to see how an ice cream cone Pokemon clearly made of solid, inedible ice is any worse...

I honestly don't know where you are going with that argument....

You're just taking the food thing way to in depth.

Cows, chickens, pigs, sheep, ducks... They're animals.

That are used for food... how can you complain about one Pokemon looking vaguely edible, though clearly not edible (pure, solid ice), and yet ignore the fact that there are Pokemon that are based on completely edible things, and are technically completely edible themselves (made of meat)?

 

[DrEspeon]

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

Whether you can actually eat it or not is irrelevant. It's a fantasy game, it's not real, so it doesn't matter what it is 'technically' made of. All we as players are concerned about is what it looks like. For all intents and purposes, it is an ice cream cone, and you are interacting with the ice cream cone.

Are you not picking up on the fact that the gripe is with Pokémon designs being based on what we eat? You're kind of missing the point entirely.

Dude, we human eat cows and chickens and pigs and sheep and ducks and fish and crustaceans, and yet there are plenty of Pokemon based on all of those things (and as I pointed out before, plenty of insinuation that some of those Pokemon are used as food)... I fail to see how an ice cream cone Pokemon clearly made of solid, inedible ice is any worse...

An ice cream cone is not and is very far from a living thing. It went through many different states to become that ice cream. A cow or chicken or other livestock is or was alive. It didn't go through to many states before becoming a meal. Though I must say, I am actually amused by Vanilluxe's design.

 

[AdamLambert]

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

However, we do have to remember that Pokémon are NOT animals. Whether it is cat-like, such as Persian, or Ice cream-like, such as Vanilluxe, they're all Pokémon.

 

[Drokas]

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.

Well, aren't Pokémon supposed to exist in a Parallel Universe (or something like that)? Hence all the changes in the laws of physics and such.

What if ice-creams were based on the Vanillite line instead? =P
It's a different world so why not interpret it in a different way? haha xD

 

[DrEspeon]

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

However, we do have to remember that Pokémon are NOT animals. Whether it is cat-like, such as Persian, or Ice cream-like, such as Vanilluxe, they're all Pokémon.

True, but people find it hard to believe that something looking like an ice cream cone could conjure a storm or make icicles fall or create an avalanche.