Ken Sugimori, best known as the character designer and art director of Pokémon, has been around since the inception of the franchise. In a translation provided by Siliconera recently, the talented artist discussed how Pokémon designs had to be memorable - with cool designs often failing to achieve this.
I often tell members in charge of design to “take away from designs that are too cool,” but that is probably a sentiment that is difficult to grasp. What’s cool and what’s not is all subjective in the end. To put it extremely, my job is to get something that would look cooler if it didn’t have this or that on it, then put it in on purpose. [laughs] Basically, if it looks too cool then it takes away from what makes it memorable for the players.
It simply ends at “that’s cool.” After all, as Pokémon that are being sent out to the world, we want them to always remain memorable; however, I feel that in order to do so you have to add a touch to it.
Sugimori believes it’s about finding the right balance - again making reference to designs that might look too cool. He’ll often find this balance by adding “something uncool” to a Pokémon that is too cool or might add a cheerful feature to a Pokémon with a more serious tone.
Look at Oshawott’s cheeks. It has three freckles, and if you take them away Oshawott becomes cuter. However, taking them away makes its face less memorable. Actually, a lot of people told me “I want you to get rid of the freckles,” but I strongly insisted “It is better to have them.” Going by my standards, this is the correct way to design Pokémon.
Are you a fan of Ken’s work? Would you prefer extremely cool or cute Pokémon? Tell us below.
[source siliconera.com]
Comments 34
Interesting approach. I’ve often heard that models (human ones) benefit from small “flaws” like moles for this exact same reason.
Nice design theory!
The simpler the designs, the more timeless they are. This is why Charizard and Dragonite are so iconic.
Everytime i heard "Pika !" voices, i know that's Pikachu.
Btw, LOL.... Girls just wanna have fun (Looking at Female Pikachus on the above).
Major character design philosophies here.
Keep it up Nintendo! 👍🏼
A little extra touch is always good, but I feel they overdid it with some Pokemon. I actually think the new ones are less memorable than the simpler older ones. 'That green catterpilllar' (Caterpie) is easier to remember than 'that little clown with flippers, a beaver tail and freckles'
I agree, and find that a dope design approach. However comma I would still like cool designs and please no more pikachu clones.
But can it run Crysis?
@Spectra So more details = messy Pokémon to you 😂 then I bet voltorb is your favorite Pokémon the most basic Pokémon ever
Full interview was linked by the source, so no need to post the interview here.
I think the majority of Pokemon are indeed pretty memorable. There are a few that I tend to forget, but they are the ones that are both very rare, and never used by any important trainers and also non-legendary.
Then erase Gen 3 from existence, from the lame starters (a Kung fu chicken? Really?) to the awful legendaries (Regi<instert element> lol) and hurry up and bring the much stronger gen 4 to Pokemon Go. I’d gladly exchange the endless Drowsees for those bloody Whismurs.
I tried to remove the freckles from Oshawott and it’s true that it looks kinda bland, it just seems wrong.
These "behind the scenes" thoughts are always a hoot to read.
This explains why newer Pokémon look so full of unnecessary details and messy. Heck, I have a hard time considering some of them Pokémon!
It’s really weird comparing a ‘mon from Gen I and one from Gen V or VI, they look from different series.
In general, I tend to believe that constantly adding stuff will at some point ruin the thing, but hey, he’s tge one in charge.
@Gibb It’s also in the source link at the bottom of the article to Siliconera
@Spectra Wow, I'm not trying to belittle your opinion I just find it funny that's all, in my opinion all generations have good and bad designs but you got to keep one thing in mind art styles evolve throughout times and the original designs are basic for a lot of reasons, as time goes basic designs are not attractive anymore and need more detail, I just think people are way too nostalgic especially genwunners with the originals and they never accept nothing new because to them it doesn't look the same, which too me it's not true, and all Pokémon at least to me still look basic and part of the series even the ultra beast don't look out of place but anyway sorry if I sounded offensive
@RadioHedgeFund Gen III is fine man. It gave us Gardevoir, Exploud, Castform, and the cuddly Spinda.
And thus Ultra Beasts were born.
He definitely has something great going on there. I pride myself on being able to recall all the Pokemon names up to this point (For obvious reasons, this is getting harder with time), but I usually find the earlier generations easier to recall. From Gen IV/V onward, I would argue that some of the designs aren't so simple.
For me, its mostly a judgment in context thing. I mean, I do think some designs are overdone. But it works for that particular Pokemon. For instance, I think Greninja is a bit over the top in design. But it works for that particular Pokemon and what it is. And I like it and think its memorable.
As for Gen 1 being memorable, I think we have to keep in mind that its the first and that plays a huge role in it. Cause I can certainly see some of these Pokemon being less than memorable if Gen 1 were a later generation instead. So it isn't so much an inherent greatness in design for some as its just the advantage of time and being the first.
@HobbitGamer True, missed it. Also the link you mentioned (found at the bottom of Liam's text) is indeed the full original interview, whereas I only linked to another source quoting the original.
@jswhitfield8 I am actually scared of that Pokémon, he literally suffocated you with his tubes and shoots a deadly oder than devours you... And he was brought to live by all the trash that New Yor... I mean Castelia City brings. Trashy design but interesting design, so I don't get all the bad rep they get. The ice cream Pokémon is a little more on the bad side.
Designs are great, but I like the backstory to many Pokémon and thats what make them memorable, if the design isn't "simple" or whatever.
He's been there since the first generation. He knows his stuff. He has said his favorite Pokémon is Gengar due to its simplicity. He also likes Venusaur but doesn't like to draw it because the design is quite complex. To be fair, Venusaur is just as complex as many of the newer designs while the later generations have just as many simpler designs as well. The overdesigned Pokémon people mostly talk about are all legendaries.
They also had to keep the Game Boy limitations in mind when they designed the earlier Pokémon. They couldn't use too many colors or have something like Alolan Exeggutor because it wouldn't have fit on the screen. They probably wanted Exeggutor to have a long neck way back then since it's based on a palm tree and the Jungle TCG set's booster box has an Exeggutor which is really similar to its Alolan form.
My take why the first, maybe three, gens were so much memorable: not that they were simpler or had a better story behind them. It’s that the first generations already had everything that can resemble a reasonable living creature. Now it’s just hard to make up a monster that is different from previous but still something that COULD be from this world.
Too much is too much. He should stop making different creatures and instead take the best 400 and flesh them out more. Where they come from etc.
@Late actually it's interesting to think about this.
During gen 1 they had monochrome graphics, it literally did not matter what colors or patterns they used for the designs because they only had white, black and two shades in between. With this limited palette you have a lot open for interpretation, so they made up for it with spikes, patterns, shadows, tentacles, fire, smoke, etc. Lots of fun design elements.
With gen 2 they had to simplify the color palettes of their old and new designs, because they no longer had that liberty of interpretation. Green is green, blue is blue, and you have to choose only two colors. This changed their approach to new pokemon that gen.
It's interesting to see how their early limitations influenced their original designs.
@aesz I couldn't agree more.
@Kriven The Philosophy was probably just as true in Gen 1. Hence why something like Venusaur has a bunch of warts all over its body when it would look cooler without.
I mean, when you've designed 800 monsters, you're going to have to overdesign some of them just to differentiate them. This can result in some stupid-looking critters. But he's right in principle. Making things look ultra-cool can make them worse.
You.want an example that's not a Pokemon? Look at Superman's costume. People have been trying to get rid of his "briefs" since the Eighties and update his costume to look cooler. It never works. He looks way too generic when you take away the stupid briefs, and he doesn't look like Superman when you take away the classic costume. Superman's costume is goofy as hell. But that's how you know he's Superman.
I've actually thought that about Oshawott as well, but when you edit the images to take away the freckles, it does take away from the implicit character contained in the image.
@molliolli182 I kinda thought the same as generations went on. But there's actually quite a handful of Pokèmon that are based on real creatures (real and those from folklore) and I get the sense with millions of more animals and folklore to draw from, we still haven't even scratched the surface of what kind of Pokèmon they can come up with. Certainly, they'll need to seriously consider stopping at some point. I know some think 800+ is too much. I think its fine. But I can't possibly fathom they reaching in the multiple thousands.
@Spectra Water starters have been on the decline ever since Mudkip. Personally I liked the water ones because they looked stocky and brutish, something taken away with later entries (though one could argue that varying it up and making Fire or Grass starters take the "defensive brute role" freshens it up).
That said I believe Samurott could be improved dramatically if it was presented as bipedal, like its previous forms.
@UmbreonsPapa We still don't have a waterbear Pokemon, do we? And they hardly even scratched the dinosaurs! Though one could commend them for not going for easy route of dinosaurs for prehistoric Pokemon.
That would be an idea, make a Lost World Pokemon entry, where there's nothing but prehistoric Pokemon! No Zubats or Mantykes, but Omanytes aplenty.
@UmbreonsPapa I think they should add just a handful with every gen. Just the best ones. Maybe like 20-50 new pokemon in each new generation, then we would have the benefits of cool new creatures without the bloat of 800+ species I surely can’t name.
I always wondered, for example, why do we need so many different bug pokemon. And those variants of dogs. Have more stuff from folklore (as you mentioned) and mythology but make them as regular pokemon, not something like a legendary.
Well, his recent work hasn't matched his classic designs for the most part imo.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...