Object based pokemon

[Squirtkipfan01]

I commonly see people dunk on pokemon based on objects, mainly starting with gen 5 onward. "Oh this is just a garbage bag!" "How lazy its just a ice cream cone" "wow really, a key ring". What do you think of object pokemon as a concept? I am personally fine with them in a goofy design way. I also get annoyed that people only complain about newer object pokemon, but not a word about geodude a literal rock.

 

[Rock_Salazar]

I've always had a problem with object pokemon like voltorb and electrode only because they come off as lazy. They're not bad, but I wish they had more interesting designs. Also the same reason why I have never used the geodude line up because it is just a rock. At least Gigalith looks more like a cool mountain than Golem, hence why Gigalith is better than Golem in my eyes.

 

[ReKoil]

To me it's a mixed bag, like everything Pokemon =P
I can't really say I love or hate them in general. There's ones I like, there's ones I dislike, and I've never tallied which of those piles is bigger. Guess I'll have to take a stroll through the National Dex.

Well personally there's more that I like than that I dislike.

Some examples for each category, for me, spread out across the gens:

Dislike:
Exeggcute, Voltorb/Electrode in gen 1.
Probopass in gen 4.
Klink line in gen 5.
Varoom/Revavroom in gen 9

Like:
Magnemite/Magneton in gen 1.
Bronzor/Bronzong in gen 4.
Chandelure line in gen 5.
Gimmighoul in gen 9

Object mons both bad and good have been around since the very first generation to me.

 

[Rock_Salazar]

Like:
Magnemite/Magneton in gen 1.
Bronzor/Bronzong in gen 4.
Chandelure line in gen 5.
Gimmighoul in gen 9

Chandelure is one of my favorites from gen 5. Makes perfect sense for a ghost pokemon as well. Bronzong is underrated as well, but I haven't used that pokemon as much as I have wanted to.

 

[Nah]

Object based Pokemon aren't something I dislike. A lot of the hate seems to come from the weird idea that Pokemon are "supposed to be based off of animals", yet there have been object and non-object Pokemon since the very beginning, and so at this point a Pokemon is literally just any non-human living being. Then there's how people are like "object Pokemon are such lazy and unoriginal designs" and it's like, ah yes, Seel is such an inspired and creative design.

We're literally at about a thousand of the things at the moment, I doubt it's easy to make new ones that are going to be liked by everyone, and they don't have to be either

 

[Corveone]

I mostly dislike uninspired designs, nothing against object Pokémon specifically. (The only Pokémon that has an excuse for its lazy design is Ditto, because it makes sense with its concept)

Some object Pokémon are lazy, like Vanilluxe being basically two Vanillish, or Klingklang being Klang with a ring around it. But I like others such as the Litwick, Drifloon and Bronzor lines.

But uninspired designs isn't something exclusive of object Pokémon. I also dislike things like Dugtrio, the Tandemaus line, Luvdisc, Dudunsparce, and many Pika-clones for this reason.

Object-based designs actually seem to work pretty well with some types, particularly Ghost, and maybe Psychic as well.

 

[Rock_Salazar]

Some object Pokémon are lazy, like Vanilluxe being basically two Vanillish, or Klingklang being Klang with a ring around it. But I like others such as the Litwick, Drifloon and Bronzor lines...

Object-based designs actually seem to work pretty well with some types, particularly Ghost, and maybe Psychic as well.

This. Another ghost type that comes to mind is Dhelmise and to me it is perfect for a possessed anchor. I'm also glad you mentioned drifloon, a balloon that is possessed makes for a cute design.

 

[Devalue]

Depends on the Pokemon. Feels okay with ones like Polteageist and Rotom. Possesses the object. Shows the Pokemon itself outside those objects sometimes. Accepts Pokemon like Klefki because of it changing itself to be like a keyring.

Tends to be more critical of Pokemon that are the object with little alteration. Points to Vanillite as one like this. May be less fond of animal-based Pokemon guilty of this too, like Stantler. Feels too much like "just a deer".

Winds up being a case-by-base judgment, even so. Admits to it not being a fair and consistent judgment. Views Maractus pretty favorably, despite just being a cactus. Dislikes Garbodor for its inspiration. Still appreciates the attempt at making something creature-like. Gives Finizen a pass despite being a simple dolphin. Does not mind Aegislash.

 

[Harmonie]

There aren't too many object Pokemon I like, but it's not a complaint from me about them being lazy or anything, it's just that the designs typically don't appeal to me. Just a personal preference thing.

My favorite is Litwick. It's adorable. If we consider Unown an object Pokemon, I also love it. (I think it's fair to, they are hieroglyphs come to life which is such an awesome concept IMO)

 

[Sweet Serenity]

People need to understand that Pokémon aren't animals. Thus, they can be based on anything. Pokémon based on objects have been a thing since the very first generation. I don't care what a Pokémon is based on. If it has good moves, stats, and Abilities, then I would consider adding it to my team. Besides, regional forms are lazier than any object Pokémon, period.

 

[Sheep]

I like them. Some are lazier than others but it's generally something I look past if I like the Pokémon anyway. Such as Magneton. Litwick is also adorable and done well. ❤️

 

[PageEmp]

Did they ever say that it was a formal rule for every pokemon to be based off an animal? Did they ever say that they can't make mons out of random items? I think it's safe to say it's a no for both questions, because inanimate object mons have literally existed since the begining of the franchise, and the start of the series had things like a rock with arms, a pile of sludge with a face, and so on.

While there are some inanimate object mons that I'm not fond of because they are just simply bland objects that battle and not much else, that is a very small amount and practically almost every inanimate object mon in the series has some interesting gimmick tied to it's basis.

So why exactly do people complain about these types of pokemon? So far, I have found only one legit reason to this, that being how it just doesn't make sense to find random living objects in the outdoors. And that reason is easily debunked by how this is the same universe where you can fit a gazillion items and even a whole bike into a bag, small birds or even flightless birds can carry grown people for flight, you can catch actual deities into balls, and so on so forth. Tl;dr, the pokemon world is supposedly a fantastical universe, so if the stuff I mentioned above is normal, then some living objects with faces randomly appearing in the grass should also be fine.

I remember an old post across another site by someone with an outlandish username, I think sounded like 'leaf beret' or something weird like that. This was a super old, possibly a decade old post and I think it was him ranting about how inanimate object mons were… useless in battle. Not even regarding design, but I did then check some of that trol's other posts, and could tell that he really was against inanimate objects just for being non animals, which is completely ridiculous.

Seriously, end this nonsense. They never said it was a rule that everything had to be a living thing and sometimes I feel like we should get a generation where half of the new guys are inanimate objects with faces just to see all the salty reactions. But seriously… I suggest this because no matter what, there's tons of cool ideas and concepts that can be made from objects, so no matter what, there's probably gonna be many inanimate object pokemon in future generations.

Edit: If anyone says another "we like what we like and can voice it" comment then well… I'm sorry. I do not mean this post in a harmful way. I didn't intend to disrespect opinions and if it looked I did at any point then I apologize. (That does not apply to the troll I had mentioned earlier. Assuming something is unusable just because you don't like the genre of mons… no.)

The main point of this is that, there are many cool ideas for inanimate object mons that could be done, so it'll be inevitable that there would be a lot of them in the future, so I just want to point it out.

 

[Alex_Among_Foxes]

While I'm not 100% fond of the idea that they can just slap a pair of googly eyes onto a fridge and call it a Pokemon, I do like that object Pokemon exist. If it could only ever just be animals, the Dex would start to look even more repetitive than it already does. So having more things to draw inspiration from is welcome to me. Plus, after scrolling through the full Dex again, it really didn't seem to me that there was an abundance of object-mon.

 

[Palamon]

I find the hate towards inanimate objects very annoying. Pokemon have never just been based on animals since the very beginning. And, that's how it'll always be. Object Pokemon are hardly even that common.

 

[Sweet Serenity]

People that complain about Pokémon based heavily on inanimate objects or non-living things in general do so under the impression that they lack creativity and make little sense in an environmental setting. Regarding the lack of creativity, one can argue that a person simply looking around the house or building he or she is in, finding an object in the room, drawing it with a face, and calling it a Pokémon is not a big creative endeavor. For instance, I highly doubt much creativity was involved when creating Pokémon such as Klefki or the Vanillite lines. I'm willing to bet the developers obtained the idea from simply noticing their car keys and eating an ice cream cone. As for making little sense in an environmental setting, Pokémon based on items made by humans are unlikely to be convincing as living things. We tend to associate living things, including those in fantasy fiction, with creatures that we have knowledge of in real life based on evolution. If the Pokémon based on a non-living thing defies evolution, people are simply more likely to believe that its existence as living thing is silly. For instance, people are simply more likely to believe that the Vanillite is out of place in the environment as a living thing because ice cream is a human invention and no living thing resembles them.

By the way, as an aside, I know you mentioned something about being able to fit the bike in the bag. I was always under the impression that items were placed into balls similar to Pokémon in the games. In fact, I remember NPCs referring to items lying around as "item balls" in, I believe, the first-generation games. This could explain how several items, including the Bicycle, can fit into a trainer bag.

 

[Nah]

Something I'll throw into the conversation is that some of the object-based Pokemon are likely inspired by the belief in Japanese folklore that objects can under certain circumstances become animate and alive. I probably don't have all this exactly right, but supposedly items that have been used for 100+ years gain a soul, strong emotional attachment to an item or intense emotions at the time of death of a nearby persona can animate and/or change an object, spirits may choose to inhabit specific items, stuff like that.

Doesn't necessarily apply to all non-animalistic Pokemon though (Grimer for example doesn't really fit this).

 

[Corveone]

Pokémon was never just animals and objects. It was fauna, flora, humanoids, insects, objects, ghosts/spirits, lab experiments, mythical creatures, aliens, and some that might be a combination between two or more of these.

I personally have nothing against object-based Pokémon, in fact I widely prefer them over humanoids, and Ghost -my favorite type- also has some object-based designs that I really like.

I don't remember seeing people claiming hate towards object Pokémon. The criticism I've seen seems to be aimed more towards lazy or too simple designs, which can be attributable to some object Pokémon like the Voltorb or Klink lines, but not all of them are like that, and it's not an exclusive trait of this particular kind of Pokémon either.

 

[Devalue]

Moderator note: Merged two threads together. Posts about this mainly to provide context for anyone just joining.