
Game Freak Director and Pokémon series developer Junichi Masuda has been speaking about the design process in creating Pokémon, and how this has changed over the years since the games' inception.
Pokémon has always been praised for its wide variety of designs, taking things as simple as plants, eggs or even sludge and transforming them into a unique creature. After 802 Pokémon created you would imagine ideas are running short, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Game Informer sat down with the director / producer / composer Junichi Masuda to discuss the look of a Pokémon, turned down ideas and how evolution can still prove tricky after all these years.
Mr Masuda begins with where pitches for new Pokémon can come from:
The graphic designers are obviously going to be the ones finalizing the look, but it’s not just the graphic designers who come up with ideas or draw the Pokémon,Sometimes a battle designer might want to feature a specific move in the game, which requires a specific creature. A story writer might want to execute a narrative beat that requires a new monster. Alternatively, it might be as simple as a graphic designer wanting to explore an animal that it has not yet inspired a Pokémon yet. These ideas come from a lot of different places, the gameplay, the visuals, the story, and in the end those ideas just get centralized and designed.
He then goes onto comparing Pokémon to every day living creatures:
One thing we always really pay attention to is treating them like living creatures so you have to try and imagine where it would live in the environment and why it looks the way it does, what would it eat? For example, When designing Pokémon, and not just from a graphic design perspective, there must be a reason for why it looks the way it does and you have to think about why it might live in the Pokémon world.
Before being asked if any designs are turned down:
Once you’re in the middle of creating it and someone were to say, ‘No!, that’s not a Pokémon,’ and the design process gets killed? That doesn’t really happen that much. Usually, instead, maybe the person who is directing the game might say it won’t work in its current form, but maybe if you did this and adding ideas onto it might make it work better.” For this reason, ideas for new Pokémon rarely get thrown away.
Even after 20 years of development Game Freak can still find evolution difficult, as Mr Masuda explains:
One thing that happens a lot – well, not a lot – but happens sometimes, is that you start out with a cat, and when it evolves one easy idea is to say, ‘Okay, now there’s more heads’
Masuda then said the following, going to a whiteboard behind him to illustrate his point:
We always want to make sure we think, ‘Why does that happen?’ And when it evolves why does it have three heads? So that’s just something we’re always trying to think of – what’s the reason for what changes and how it looks?
After hastily drawing a three-headed cat used to illustrate his point, Mr Masuda laughs saying:
Even if I said I really wanted to make this, I would probably get shot down.
The interview is a great insight into how Game Freak operates, and possibly what we can expect from the future of Pokémon since nothing is out of reach. This will be even more interesting to revert back to once the Pokémon game for Nintendo Switch is released.
What do you think of Mr Masuda's comments on Pokémon design?
[source gameinformer.com]
Comments 60
Yeah, no, sure, that explains the ice cream cone, Pokédex and trash bag Pokémon...
Wait, never mind.
"Once you’re in the middle of creating it and someone were to say, ‘No!, that’s not a Pokémon,’ and the design process gets killed? That doesn’t really happen that much. [...] For this reason, ideas for new Pokémon rarely get thrown away."
"For example, When designing Pokémon, and not just from a graphic design perspective, there must be a reason for why it looks the way it does and you have to think about why it might live in the Pokémon world"
Explain that 5k IQ Alakazam to me please. I adore mainline Pokémon games, but the lore man... Gotta love it.
Making evolutions is hard? What happened with Voltorb to Electrode then?
So much hate here, these guys obviously have been doing something right as the games still sell like hotcakes.
So going from 2 cool four-legged cats to an ugly bipedal wrestler still makes no sense using their own process.
@Kalmaro Well, I'm not hating on the games. Or the mechanics. Or the art direction. Or the soundtrack.
Just the design of several Pokémon that truly make no sense and for me don't match the philosophy Masuda describes here.
@Kalmaro No hate at all, but it's extremely hard to explain how a being with an IQ of 5.000 does what its trainer wants. I mean any trainer with one of these in his team could just let his Pokémon decide on the battle strategy. Or life decisions.
I'm hoping Hawlucha evolves on the next one
I think people seem to forget that for whatever few pokemon they hate, there's normally a lot more they like. Besides, even the weird pokemon that many dislike actually have smart ideas behind them, and yes, this applies to the "ice cream pokemon" (wich isn't an ice cream) or simple designs like voltorb or muk. By the way, a simple design is not the equivalent of something bad.
It's nice they have a greninja and hawlucha in the picture. In my opinion both are amongst the best designs in the series. Gen 6 and 7 were really good in that regard.
@Gibb Trainer used 'Consult Alakazam'. Alakazam responded, "Seriously!? He's on like 20HP! If you'd gone for Psychic I'd easily have..." - Garchomp used Earthquake. Alakazam fainted. Player whited out.
Pokemon designs....such a topic for intense discussion, lol. I personally feel they've gotten, overall, a lot better and make a bit more sense
By the way, can we point out that Vanillite and Trubbish aren't literally ice cream cones or trash bags, respectively
@raygboyd333 i really hope they give us a 3rd evo of koffing-wheezing (call it "choking" while you're at it please) in gen8.
@Gibb Well, there's a difference between intelligence and wisdom, so there's that. Plus, even super intellectuals have emotions
@Maxz lol
@Kalmaro Yeah, you're definitely right. Although if I had an Alakazam, dang would I get rich.
Also, did I just spot a fellow D&D enthusiast?
They should hire me to design the bloody things xD
@Gibb DnD 4lyfe
Though I'm currently very interested in pathfinder.
@Kalmaro Pathfinder is great, but very rules heavy. Check out 5th edition d&d if you haven't, most fun i've gotten out of a tabletop-rpg in my 17 years of gaming.
@Gibb he'd be so OP! but I'd definitely use em'
3-headed cat Pokémon confirmed to not be in the series.
The evolution of Pokemon designs? I appreciate the pun, and also the fact that it's one of the only times we'll see the word "evolution" used properly when discussing things Pokemon related. As a whole, it's pretty easy to see that art styles for monster designs have changed throughout the years, which kind of gives each generation or so it's own look.
@Akropolon Every generation has had a few poorly designed Pokémon. Generation I is guilty of this, too, with piles of sludge, balls, magnets and atrocities like Mr. Mime. Anybody who thinks that the first generation of Pokémon are all cleverly-designed is just looking at them through nostalgia-tinted glasses.
@thesilverbrick Totally agree. I mean the Geodude line makes less than no sense. It goes from having two arms, to two legs and four arms, to two legs and two arms. Why did it lose the arms, or even gain legs in the first place?
Having said that, I think this...
"Once you’re in the middle of creating it and someone were to say, ‘No!, that’s not a Pokémon,’ and the design process gets killed? That doesn’t really happen that much."
...does nothing to improve designs. If they were a little more selective and critical, I think there would be a general consensus that the designs were better. I honestly think too many of the later generations were just over complitcated. The best designs are always the simpler ones. This is especially true of Legendaries. You think how simple something like lugia or even Ho-Oh is compared to 'mons like Palkia and Dialga, with all that extra crap covering their bodies, makes them look more like digimon. Every gen has its own gems and stinkers, and at least for my taste anyway, the simpler ones always seem nicer to me.
@roy130390 I agree with the first part of the comment, and especially with this: "By the way, a simple design is not the equivalent of something bad."
Though I thinl most people in here (myself included) are conplaining about the more elaborate, newer designs. I'm not a genwunner by any means (my first Pokémon game was Sapphire), but I tend to dislike a lot of the newer designs, especially those for Legendary Pokémon from Gen IV onward.
I mean, there are soooo many Pokémon, especially in the latest generations, that are (in my opinion) overly complicated, so much so that they almost don't resemble Pokémon to me. Take Charizard (which os not even a base form) and Lunala or Necrozma for example, and you'll get what I mean.
@Jacob1092 "f they were a little more selective and critical, I think there would be a general consensus that the designs were better. I honestly think too many of the later generations were just over complitcated. The best designs are always the simpler ones. This is especially true of Legendaries. You think how simple something like lugia or even Ho-Oh is compared to 'mons like Palkia and Dialga, with all that extra crap covering their bodies, makes them look more like digimon. Every gen has its own gems and stinkers, and at least for my taste anyway, the simpler ones always seem nicer to me."
This. So much this.
I can't wait to see what they've been working on for the Switch version. I didn't get Sun or Moon because the only one I can honestly say I like is Litten (come at me).My favorite gen is 5th (come at me again) there are so many Pokemon I like from those games. I do hope they keep the ride Pokemon though instead of HMs, that's one change I liked from SM.
@clvr Great minds, dude. They should be consulting on designs with us, clearly
I just have to mention my biggest frustration about two Pokémon they made... Luvdisc and Alomomola. They are SO similar and would have made a perfect evolution together yet they are their own separate “no evolution” Pokémon?!!!?!!!! Just my opinion though.
@Akropolon Every gen has a few oddballs. The fact you chose to crap on Gen V when Gen I has just as many "questionable" designs doesn't reflect well.
@clvr @Jacob1092 Most Gen 1 and 2 Pokemon look simplistic and bland; it wasn't really until Gen 3 that they found an aesthetic and ran with it.
What are the most popular Pokemon? Outside of the ones clung to be genwunners, you've got Lucario, Zekrom, Greninja, Decidueye, etc.; every single one of them stands out and, while clearly taking inspiration from real creatures, manages to have details that make it look like far more than a simple recolor.
And lol Digimon; get back to me when Pokemon starts having angels with barely covered breasts, mechs made of revolvers, and furrybait wearing actual clothing.
Simple answer, what is a Pokemon?, or well, what is Pocket MONSTERS?; What is a creature?
For this, for me, I don't have any complain for Pokemon desings, and, add more, they MAKE that work, I don't have why complain for some that I don't make in first place; if don't like something, simple, ignore and don't buy, very simple.
@gloom That was definitely a missed opportunity.
"...is that you start out with a cat, and when it evolves one easy idea is to say, ‘Okay, now there’s more heads"
Three-headed Mega Persian, confirmed.
@raygboyd333
You can have that, but much like Ralts, the evolution will be split between male and female. Expect Hawliita, because Lolita wrestling.
@CrazedCavalier I suppose it comes down to what you prefer. I like simple. You mention Lucario, but in my head, straight away, I'd prefer it if it didn't have those silly spikes on its paws and coming out of its chest. Greninja, lose the elbow and knee pads, he's hardly riding a bike. Stuff like that is what I'm talking about. But to each their own I guess
To your point about digimon, don't get me wrong, I liked digimon and Digimon World for the PS1 remains one of my favourite games of all time. S'just not Pokémon! I can quite comfortably make the opposite point there where I prefer it when the later stage digimon are better off when they're these meched out super behemoths
@clvr I've seen more attacks against the likes of muk or voltorb than against more complicated designs, which people tend to favor. Honestly I'm fine with both, and while I prefer more simple designs like you, I still see Lunala and Necrozma pokemon-like, despite having more ellaborate designs. When I see the Necrozma I think of pokemon like the Regis, who seem more machine-like than the average pokemon.
If people complain about legendary pokemon from generation IV onward all I can say is that Yveltal or Xerneas are pretty much equal design-wise with the dogs from the second generation or Rayquaza and that it makes sense that pokemon like Palkia and Arceus have so distinctive designs, considering that those pokemon aren't even from the planet (that applies from Necrozma and the other ultra beasts who aren't even from the same dimension). Still, I keep seeing each one of them as valid and I think they fit. That's just my opinion though.
@CrazedCavalier well, I'm not saying Gen I Pokémon are flawless, as there are some cringey ones (like Jynx or Mr. Mime, both of which coincidentally happen to be more detailed and less "simplistic" than many others), I'm just saying I prefer simpler creatures without all of those useless bells and whistles that make them look like they were from another game series. That's not to say "more complicated = worse", as something like Geodude exemplifies: it's very simple, almost basic, but it's also ugly.
One thing I loathe about some newer designs is they're so far away from Pokémon standards you can't even tell what type it's gonna be just by looking at it. Of course not ALL Pokémon work (or should work) like that, but then again, take a look at Palkia and tell me what reminds you of a dragon or a water creature about his design.
It's just I'm tired of calling Pokémon things I personally don't recognize as such, that's all. At least they had enough common sense not to call the Ultra Beasts Pokémon, as those are some really non-Pokémon-looking creatures lol
TL;DR: i personally tend to dislike overly complicated designs, but that doesn't automatically make simpler ones better.
All in all, it'a matter of taste.
@roy130390 obviously I respect your opinion, I'm not saying those designs should be done away with.
It's just I feel the series has been losing more and more consistency in its designs with each new Gen.
My point is more that, than "oh look how stupid that Pokémon looks"; if I wanted to do that, I could be picking heinous designs from each and every Gen, from Jynx to that...uhm...sand castle...thingy...I don't know how it's called lol
@clvr I think Palkia, at the very least, looks dragon like. I mean, if I didn't know its types, I would have assumed dragon. It has a very Godzilla like shape to it
But I do understand your point about overstated versus more simplistic designs and the difference in taste. I remember after Gen 3 was revealed being a little taken aback by the direction some Pokemon were going in. It was why Gen 3 for the longest was my least favorite. I got over it in later gens and when the R/S remakes were released, I found myself enjoying the game much more than I did originally.
@UmbreonsPapa I didn't experience Gen III the way you did as it was my starting point, but yeah, in hindsight it kinda paved the way for designs to come, especially regarding Legendary Pokémon. In my mind I tend to flock Gen III, IV and V "main" Legendaries together, as I think they share some similarities in their designs, such as the lines crossing their bodies and the general "complicatedness" (not even a word lol).
lol @ people arguing over the designs of hundreds of creatures in a children's game
They're all so varied, can we not just accept there are ones we like and ones we dislike?
@thesilverbrick Well, Voltorb looks like a Pokeball. Pokeballs are also the same item picture for lootable containers out in the field in the Pokemon games; treasure chests basicallly. So, Voltorb and Electrode are essentially the original mimics of the Pokemon universe. I would in fact say that is clever design.
The creators must be proud of it too, since they felt the need to replicate the idea of a mimic with Foongus and Amoongus in Pokemon in Black and White, where they specifically didn't want to reuse old Pokemon.
@FriedSquid ...Seriously? Everyone here is having a pretty reasonable and civil discussion about their preferences and opinions on what makes a good design and you wanna reduce it to "lol it's a kid's game"? Lame dude. Of course we can accept that not everyone has the same feelings about it but if you can't see the value in a healthy exchange of ideas then the entire point of any conversation must have completely evaded you.
I like and dislike Pokemon designs out of each generation. I feel like Game Freak's designs fell a bit during Gen 5 due to the sheer glut of Pokemon, but there were some designs in that gen that I liked, too. I acknowledge that everyone has different preferences; some Pokemon designs that I dislike others will like, and vice-versa.
All in all, everyone has their own opinion.
Turn more ideas down.
Spotted the troll. Do not feed.
@Gibb even the greatest scientists have bosses.
@H1B1Esquire I'll take it!
@clvr Palkia is a big, reptilian creature. Dragon type is a safe bet. Its water typing is often discussed, with the most common explanation being water = pearls, since it's the mascot of Pearl.
You can't say that 'mons have gotten away from what Pokemon are supposed to look like when there was no rule to begin with-- the earliest gens are all over the place. They just threw the sprites in and called it a day, maybe producing artwork later.
People complain about Trubbish and Vanilluxe? I'm still wondering how Rayquaza isn't a Digimon.
I never found crazy looking legendaries (not like i have a gripe with any of them anyway) a problem, since they see so little use in standard vgc gameplay. I also dislike using them in the campaign (they always go straight to the box where they remain until they get transferred to the bank), since they make the relatively easy story battles even easier.
Legendaries and mythics should look crazy and powerful, so they stand out.
I think what people truely have a hard time understanding is what exactly makes a pokemon "a pokemon". This particularly rose some huge debates with hoopa-unbound being more "yu-gi-oh" without any real description of what made it more belonging to yu-gi-oh over pokemon.
I don't get why people hate on poorly designed mons, there's over 800, not all of them will be good designs just like how other monster collection games (be it cards, yokai, whatever) have lame designs. Somebody will like it or like it because its hated and ironic. I can understand people complaining about an underwhelming generation in details or their pokemon, but not hating on GF on specific pokemon.
Regardless, I find GF's methods of designing pokemon great, at least they don't just go on google and make what ever fanmon they see.
@CrazedCavalier Citation needed on that last part, or were you exaggerating?
@FriedSquid We can, but some people get more heated than others, it's inevitable.
Someone needs to explain Necrozma and charjabug
@Jacob1092 You must have misunderstood my comment, though I could have worded it better
I'm talking about the people who still trash certain Pokemon designs and whole generations based on their own preference. too many people hate designs that are, in the end, just designed to appeal to children so I don't see why some take these designs so seriously. Maybe it's just due to sheer size of the fanbase but I don't see the Yokai Watch or Digimon fanbase constantly arguing about which designs are better.
It's fine to have a discussion on this stuff, and you've been civil, but others here have been rude imo (I'm not gonna name names)
I've gotten back into drawing Fakemon recently. It's actually encouraging to know even Game Freak struggle with designing evolutions sometimes.
I just created one:
It's called "Ham-sandwich-mon"
And it evolves into 3-headed ham-sandwich-mon.
Lore? What does it eat? It eats mayonnaise and dijon mustard and comes for the country of Delicatessen.
So clearly it makes sense and belongs in the game with that ice cream dude.
@Akropolon Just saying, Grimer, Geodude, and Voltorb exist. Inanimate objects have always been part of Pokemon.
I think what they meant is that they treat these Pokemon as living creatures, not that they're necessarily based off living creatures to begin with. So whether they're a lion or a magnet, they've still got to function as part of the Pokemon worlds ecosystem.
It's a fantasy ecosystem but it's still an ecosystem.
Or sometimes Pokemon are just piles of garbage..... literally.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...