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

[Thief]

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

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)?

You're still not getting it. Read Elite's posts, because he explains it better than myself.

1. In the end, it's the design we don't like. Not the fact that it's edible or not. I never said "Hey, I hate that Pokémon because I can EAT IT."
2. As Elite said "Humans eat everything." Also, there's even a vague circle of life established within the Pokémon world; Heatmor and Durant.
3. We choose to eat animals. Other than that, they are living creatures with their own lives. Ice Cream is a man-made, inorganic treat that was made purely to be consumed by humans. It completely makes sense to create a monster based off of an organic creature/plant/organism.

I just don't get how you're trying to relate Ice Cream to a cow.

 

[J.D.]

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

I just don't get how you're trying to relate Ice Cream to a cow.

If your problem with the Pokemon's design is that it looks edible, why do not have a problem with Pokemon that are clearly edible?

 

[leecario]

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

I just don't get how you're trying to relate Ice Cream to a cow.

If your problem with the Pokemon's design is that it looks edible, why do not have a problem with Pokemon that are clearly edible?

How often do you eat whole whole live animals? I've never asked for beef and been presented with an entire cow on a plate

 

[Thief]

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

I just don't get how you're trying to relate Ice Cream to a cow.

If your problem with the Pokemon's design is that it looks edible, why do not have a problem with Pokemon that are clearly edible?

So the real question is: What Pokémon would you eat?

Just on the side, you must be trollin'.

 

[J.D.]

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

If your problem with the Pokemon's design is that it looks edible, why do not have a problem with Pokemon that are clearly edible?

How often do you eat whole whole live animals? I've never asked for beef and been presented with an entire cow on a plate

Beef is still cow, which in the Pokemon world could translate to Miltank or Tauros... could you really train one of those, knowing you once probably ate a member of their kind?

If your problem with the Pokemon's design is that it looks edible, why do not have a problem with Pokemon that are clearly edible?

So the real question is: What Pokémon would you eat?

Just on the side, you must be trollin'.

I wouldn't eat Pokemon, but that doesn't change the fact that some are said to be edible, like Farfetch'd...

Also, not trolling... just... really confused... which for me is quite normal, I'm afraid ...

 

[Thief]

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

So the real question is: What Pokémon would you eat?

Just on the side, you must be trollin'.

I wouldn't eat Pokemon, but that doesn't change the fact that some are said to be edible, like Farfetch'd...

Also, not trolling... just... really confused... which for me is quite normal, I'm afraid ...

I don't think I can explain it any better than I already did.

On top of that, numerous people have also tried to explain it as well.

What exactly do you not get?
Think about Ice cream and think about a bird. What's the obvious difference

 

[J.D.]

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

I wouldn't eat Pokemon, but that doesn't change the fact that some are said to be edible, like Farfetch'd...

Also, not trolling... just... really confused... which for me is quite normal, I'm afraid ...

I don't think I can explain it any better than I already did.

On top of that, numerous people have also tried to explain it as well.

What exactly do you not get?
Think about Ice cream and think about a bird. What's the obvious difference

In the real world one is living and the other isn't, but in the Pokemon world that isn't the case?

 

[Thief]

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

I don't think I can explain it any better than I already did.

On top of that, numerous people have also tried to explain it as well.

What exactly do you not get?
Think about Ice cream and think about a bird. What's the obvious difference

In the real world one is living and the other isn't, but in the Pokemon world that isn't the case?

No. Ok, the whole discussion begun because some of us didn't like Pokémon being based off of food. That only applies to design. We're only talking about design.

You're thinking too far into it.

Ice cream and other processed foods are completely different from foods that came from an organic source.

Dang, we are so off topic. I'm sorry.

 

[GoobieDoob]

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

We already have Bronzor, though. Bronzor is a mirror. Also Cryogonal seems to be partially based on a mirror.

I mean an actual line(s) that you can look at and say 'mirror'. Before I Bulbapedia'd it, I thought Bronzor was a plate or something.
And its not like we can have different Pokemon with similar basis (see: all the Fire canines).
They could have different frames as a thing similar to gender differences, but not actually have genders. (eg. you have a 50% chance of finding a circular one, and a 50% chance of finding a rectangular one)
And I never really saw Cryogonal as a mirror, just a rubbish ugly snowflake.

A tree Pokemon would be nice too. It could even branch off into different evolutions:
-basic one has purpley smokey stuffs coming out of it, pure Grass
-use a Fire Stone and you get a Grass/Fire burning tree, with purple flames.
-Use a Dusk Stone and you get a Grass/Ghost haunted tree, with purple smoke forming a creepy face.

Also, the same typings but on different Pokemon
-jack o'lantern, seems like a good candidate for either: a) a pumpkin with a huge flame coming out of its head, or b) a possesed pumpkin which looks like a classic halloween pumpkin

If I recall, at the start of the game our character is looking into a mirror (yes we get to choose skin and hair color, and yes Gogoat has a pre-evolved form). What if the mirror was a Ghost/Psychic Pokémon that constantly we run into throughout our journey ... XD!
- - - - - - - - - -
As for inanimate objects for Pokémon, I still can't believe some of these haven't been made.
. Book
. Pencil (Smeargle of Gen6)
. Speaker(s)
. Teapot
. Cake
. Shoe(s)
. Telephone
. Banana (XD, but would make a killer Grass/Normal Pokémon)
. Pool Floaty (Maybe like Buizel, but kind of not animal-istic)
. Coffee & Cup (Mmm ...)

 

[AdamLambert]

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

In the real world one is living and the other isn't, but in the Pokemon world that isn't the case?

No. Ok, the whole discussion begun because some of us didn't like Pokémon being based off of food. That only applies to design. We're only talking about design.

You're thinking too far into it.

Ice cream and other processed foods are completely different from foods that came from an organic source.

Dang, we are so off topic. I'm sorry.

Nope, you're fine. Everyone is still on topic. You guys are debating about inanimate object-based Pokémon that you dislike. I specifically put that in my original post. Good job guys for making this a nice little discussion.

I have no problem with food Pokémon. I love Cherubi, Vanilluxe, and Exeggutor. Especially the latter.

 

[leecario]

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

I have no problem with food Pokémon. I love Cherubi, Vanilluxe, and Exeggutor. Especially the latter.

Exeggcute always freaked me out because one of them was cracked and had yolk showing. But exeggutor fixed that and i actually quite like it, it was in my e4 team in FR

 

[Thief]

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

No. Ok, the whole discussion begun because some of us didn't like Pokémon being based off of food. That only applies to design. We're only talking about design.

You're thinking too far into it.

Ice cream and other processed foods are completely different from foods that came from an organic source.

Dang, we are so off topic. I'm sorry.

Nope, you're fine. Everyone is still on topic. You guys are debating about inanimate object-based Pokémon that you dislike. I specifically put that in my original post. Good job guys for making this a nice little discussion.

I have no problem with food Pokémon. I love Cherubi, Vanilluxe, and Exeggutor. Especially the latter.

But see with Cherubi and Exeggutor I think they're both more plant than food. If that makes sense, but I get you.

 

[Bogleech]

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

Oh god you people can be freaking ridiculous sometimes.

I cannot believe anybody is bothered by the fact that a pokemon just happens to look like ice cream instead of another redundant, pandering anthro fox or cartoon dinosaur.

All pokemon are innately childish, ridiculous, absurd, impossible things. That is their entire appeal. No matter how hard you may want to deny it, you are attracted to pokemon primarily because of its absurdity and childishness. You are fans of a franchise where electric rats and flaming chickens are collected in vending machine eggs. An ice monster that accidentally resembles an ice cream cone is not, in any way, a stupider or less believable concept than any fire-breathing dragon, steel plated bird or a giant, intelligent insect with eye beams. Some of you are just stuck in an incredibly narrow, uptight, stuffy ideal of what's allowed to be considered "cool."

It's downright saddening how much modern fanboys and fangirls can hate on whimsy because they want to shoehorn everything behind some arbitrary line of what makes "sense." Who cares?

I hope Sixth gen finally gives us a fire/water pokemon and it's a crock pot full of chicken noodle soup with sunglasses and a skateboard named ChiknDudle just to shut people up about how ice-cream-shaped ice-monsters ruined everything forever.

Now that I've said it I really do want that as a pokemon that would be awesome.

Garbodor is just a pile of garbage

And why the hell do people keep saying this?

Here is a pile of garbage:

Here is Garbodor:

You wouldn't even know Garbodor was made of trash if you weren't told. It's a bulky biped, roughly resembling some sort of stone or clay golem, with an underlying metal skeleton, a face like a shark's and it wears its prevolution's "skin" like a mask. There is no mistaking Garbodor for any other drawing of garbage or any other monster made of garbage. It's completely unique, thoughtfully designed and unmistakable at even a glance.

 

[J.D.]

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

You wouldn't even know Garbodor was made of trash if you weren't told. It's a bulky biped with an underlying metal skeleton, a face like a shark's and it wears its prevolution's "skin" like a mask. There is no mistaking Garbodor for any other drawing of garbage or any other monster made of garbage. It's completely unique, thoughtfully designed and unmistakable at even a glance.

Ah Garbodor... I actually like him, despite the fact that he looks like a pile of rotting... erm, vomit? Yeah, I'll go with that. Personally, I think he needs to evolve into an "incinerator" Pokemon, and become a Poison/Fire type

 

[Thief]

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

Oh god you people can be freaking ridiculous sometimes.

I cannot believe anybody is bothered by the fact that a pokemon just happens to look like ice cream instead of another redundant, pandering anthro fox or cartoon dinosaur.

All pokemon are innately childish, ridiculous, absurd, impossible things. That is their entire appeal. No matter how hard you may want to deny it, you are attracted to pokemon primarily because of its absurdity and childishness. You are fans of a franchise where electric rats and flaming chickens are collected in vending machine eggs. An ice monster that accidentally resembles an ice cream cone is not, in any way, a stupider or less believable concept than any fire-breathing dragon, steel plated bird or a giant, intelligent insect with eye beams. Some of you are just stuck in an incredibly narrow, uptight, stuffy ideal of what's allowed to be considered "cool."

Garbodor is just a pile of garbage

And why the hell do people keep saying this?

Here is a pile of garbage:

Here is Garbodor:

You wouldn't even know Garbodor was made of trash if you weren't told. It's a bulky biped with an underlying metal skeleton, a face like a shark's and it wears its prevolution's "skin" like a mask. There is no mistaking Garbodor for any other drawing of garbage or any other monster made of garbage. It's completely unique, thoughtfully designed and unmistakable at even a glance.

I think Vanillux is adorable. I just wouldn't prefer more food based Pokémon.

I am not attracted to Pokémon for it's "absurdity and childishness." I grew up with it from Red/Blue and Pinball. It gives a feeling of Nostalgia and comfort.

I never said that Vanillux was stupid, dumb, pointless, irrelevant. I just don't like a Pokémon based off of an unnatural food product. Does it make sense? Sure it does, Vanillux is totally a B-Movie rate monster and that's cool.

Do I think it's cool? Yeah it is. Again, I just don't like it as a Pokémon. That's my opinion.

I am not stuck in anything narrow, uptight, or stuffy. Half the time I was trying to explain what I even meant in the first place anyways.

No need to seem pissed off about it.

Also, I would be able to tell he was made out of trash.

 

[Bogleech]

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

I'm not ranting about just you, though, all over the fandom, ever since Black and White came out, people never quit with the whole "lol ice cream they're out of ideas how can that be a pokemon" thing.

I wish Garbodor was much more obviously made of trash, myself. It's still my favorite pokemon, but I'd have preferred if some of those pink and blue hunks were recognizable things like a banana peel, fish bone, maybe even a busted pokeball. I guess that might be a little too detailed for a pokemon, and the chunks are intentionally vague for a reason, letting it be made up of anything imaginable.

 

[Elite Stride]

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

Bogleech your entire post tells me that you either did not read, or did not fully understand the deeper meaning behind the debate, so there's not much more that I can say here. Plus, Garbador's name kind of gives away what it is. It's really not that hard to deduce. I don't even want to enter a discussion of whether it is or isn't garbage for obvious reasons.

Btw, try to not to be so harsh on other people's opinions, because they are no less valuable or correct than yours are.

For the record I don't have any issues with Garbador.

 

[Theviking06]

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

I think a car/tank/vehicle type Poke of some kind would be fun. I know they are going the GoGoat way of traveling on pokemon but I think an actual vehicle type would be more...I dunno intuitive? I like riding horses as much as the next person but if Im going to go long distances over land and I dont live in the 18th century I am going to hop in a car.

But then there is the tank type, and I can see kinda where they were going with say Zwelious but I want to see something look more like an Ahbrams or a Panzer and not another dragon.

 

[shitzon]

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

I don't get the hate on those little ice cream cones... If you say "It's all about design", you should know that design isn't only the look of something. The design of the Vanillite is really clever. They aren't just ice cream with a face on it, design wise they are living ice more so. They have even little cute arms ^-^ Living steel doesn't seem to be a problem, or living plush, or what ever... But living ice? And another one wrote that you can't give commands to it and befriend it etc... I have to say, I never did those things to my mower, but I like Rotom. There are more examples, but I just wanted to point out that I don't get your points xD But, well, everyone can have their own opinion and so on, so it's fine. ^^ I'd really love to see more food based Pokémon =)
(And for the one who said Exeggutor is a plant... After the logic used before by the "We dislike food-mon"-fraction, Exeggutor are just eggs, because they look just like eggs. They are also designed as plant seeds, but this seemingly doesn't matter for some people here o.o")

I just thought about how you met Voltorb and Foongus lines. They look like items and you encounter them when you want to get them... I'd like if that would be expanded. Like, a PC Pokémon and when you want to store your team, it attacks xD Or an item you use often throughout the story and at some time it just awakens xD Maybe an umbrella XD Wouldn't know the ingame use, but would like the concept ^^ Or a mirror, like someone said before.
Maybe a pair of dice Pokémon? It would call out for a new move with six different possible effects, just like role a dice xD
I'd also like card Pokémon... I'm unsure about how many of them should exist. Someone already mentioned a TCG card Pokémon, but I thought more off classical cards in four colors or even Tarot cards (but that wouldn't be very Pokémon-ish and just too much ^^).
Maybe a complicated machine... Don't know a specific one. Klingklang was good in that direction ^^ Maybe that you don't see this much of the "bowels" xD''
A comb would be funny, maybe an evolution to a fork or something xD
And money. We need money xD Coins and banknotes ^^
And more toys, of course, like a jack-in-the-box or a humming top.
Even if that isn't really "inanimate", I'd also like more fruits ^^V

Many ideas in here are really good and some are things everyone thinks off if it comes to inanimate monsters. Everyone likes jack'o'lanterns and would like a Pokémon, but it isn't exactly... original ^^ But GF certainly would do a twist with the design so it isn't boring or unoriginal ^^

 

[Bogleech]

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

There are limitless twists you can give Jack O' Lanterns.

It'd be especially cool if they made one with randomized eyes, noses and mouths so no two have the same "carved" face. Maybe they'd have blade arms, and actually carve their pumpkin-heads themselves.

It's really not that hard to deduce. I don't even want to enter a discussion of whether it is or isn't garbage for obvious reasons.

I wasn't debating that at all, just saying it doesn't "just" look like a bunch of trash and nothing else.