which pokemon has worst designs gen 1 or gen 5?

which gen has the worst designs?

  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
When ppl say Gen 5 has bad designs they just look at 3 pokemon out of the 150+ there are, and one of them is Garbodor which isn't even a bad design. Ugly? Maybe. But bad design? No.

I think Gen 1 has the worst ones out of the two but not because they are bad, they are actually pretty solid, especially for a first batch of creatures. I just think they are really simple, which is not even a bad thing (two of my favorite pokemon might actually be some of the simplest designs this franchise has done in general) and stuff like whatever the shit Lickitung is, Poliwrath, Jynx or Dragonite (yes, I said it) might not have aged in the best way.
 
Neither. Simple =/= bad. Yes, we got Pokemon like Voltorb and Seel in Gen I. But, for every few bad designs, we had plenty of good ones. Gen V, as well. People use Gen V to say, "there's an ICE CREAM AND GARBAGE POKEMON!" as the only examples of "bad gen v designs".

Every generation in Pokemon has their fair share of Pokemon that don't "look nice", but I am someone who doesn't care. Never did. People just whine about gen five designs being bad because it was a bandwagon at the time, let's be real.
 
I'd recommend you just look at the mons yourself and decide for yourself tbh.
People's tastes differ a lot from person to person. For example I would call Garbodor a bad design. Someone above likes it and doesn't consider it a bad design. To each their own.
I wouldn't recommend listening to whatever is popular.

Personally I'd say:
-Both have many bland mons.
-Both have good mons.
-Both have bad mons.

I I count them all and compare them, then to me gen 1 has less bad mons as well as less bland mons than gen 5, so to me gen 5 would be worse. But that's just me.
 
It's pretty much subjective, because tastes are subjective. I voted gen 5 because I really don't like gen 5 designs. I actually don't like gen 5 style overall. When the games came out I couldn't stand most of the pokemon. Now it's the same, but there are some pokemon i like more, like Sammurott (that i still don't like). Then, the question is about "bad" designs, which takes the discussion to another level, because in order to find a proper and objective answer, we would have to define bad. Bad could mean "rushed" or "done with no care" in this case and since I have no critic eye for this stuff, I don't really know what to say. But the question refers to the "designs you liked less", so my answer is without any doubt gen 5. I didn't like like 90% of them.
 
I don't particularly love Gen V's Pokémon designs, but it's completely subjective. There's no rule or standard that a Pokémon needs to meet in order to be the "best designed". Just good use of core artistic principles. Good color choice, form, shapes, emphasis, balance... and that doesn't even factor in that a Pokémon would also need to be harmonic in its typing, its move set, and then the region it appears in. Even Pokémon that have fantastic designs can fail miserably at their one job (sorry Flareon... ilu but..).

Determining a good design means taking everything in its full context. And everyone is going to have different elements that appeal to them. Appreciate the Pokémon you do like! :)
 
It's hard to pinpoint this question for a certain generation, because every single generation has extreme highs and lows. I can't think of any generation in which I actively dislike because they all tend to balance out.

Within the fandom I've noticed it's very easy to cherry pick bad designs and use it as a way to shame the generation. Gen 5 gets this treatment more than others.
 
You can't have worse designs than these 😀:

Spoiler:


So, objectively, Gen 1 had the worst designs. Many of them were just awfully drawn period, and required a redesign to look as we know them nowadays.

Then it depends on what people consider a worse or better design and why. "Bad" can sometimes mean "ugly", which isn't allways a good argument because some Pokémon are actually supposed to look ugly, so if Muk or Garbodor look like a pile of trash, it's because that's their point. It could also mean lazy or uninspired design, it could mean that it's a weird mess that you can't even tell what the heck it's supposed to be, or it could be that its design looks like a rip-off of a previously existing mon.

For me, Gen 1 has Dugtrio, Magneton, Dodrio, Electrode, Hypno, Hitmonlee, Jynx and Mr. Mime.
Gen 5 has the monkey trio, Palpitoad, the Vanillite and Kling lines, Stunfisk, forces of nature, Reshiram, Zekrom, and the Kyurem fusions.

So I'd say Gen 5, but not by much. Those I've listed are Pokémon designs I dislike for different reasons. The double/triple head Pokémon are allways easy picks for bad design for me.
 
Voted Generation 1 for worse designs. Remembers being disappointed by Generation 5. Chose several Pokemon with unfavorable evolutions during that playthrough (Seismitoad, Liepard, Scrafty). Colored that opinion then. Made it worse by noticing parallels to Generation 1 (Tauros/Bouffalant, Woobat/Zubat, Tympole/Poliwag, Archeops/Aerodactyl, Throh/Sawk duo and Hitmonchan/Hitmonlee duo).

Looked back at Generation 1 before. Realized how boring or strange some were. Names Pokemon like Diglett, Psyduck, Oddish, Grimer, Magneton, Lickitung, Hypno, Mr Mime, and Jynx. Simply recalls the favorites more readily: Starmie, eeveelutions, Blastoise, and so on.

Warmed up to some designs with time as well. Likes Crustle a lot more than back then, for example. Wonders how much exposure matters. Shoved a lot of Generation 5 Pokemon aside. (Seems like it, true or not. Perhaps because of higher evolution levels?) Created fewer positive experiences with them.
 
Cubeth said:
When ppl say Gen 5 has bad designs they just look at 3 pokemon out of the 150+ there are, and one of them is Garbodor which isn't even a bad design. Ugly? Maybe. But bad design? No.

I think Gen 1 has the worst ones out of the two but not because they are bad, they are actually pretty solid, especially for a first batch of creatures. I just think they are really simple, which is not even a bad thing (two of my favorite pokemon might actually be some of the simplest designs this franchise has done in general) and stuff like whatever the shit Lickitung is, Poliwrath, Jynx or Dragonite (yes, I said it) might not have aged in the best way.
Click to expand...

True.
 
Going to vote gen 1 but I honestly want to say none. There are designs from both I really love and wouldn't be able to vote one way or the other, especially when 'worst designs' is so subjective.

Like Cubeth said, gen 1 is only slightly worse to me because the designs are simpler and not that they're bad. I still adore the likes of Raichu, Arcanine, Clefable, Flareon, and a lot more tbh. But in my personal preference Unova's designs were a little more unique/interesting - so it'll get my vote.
 
ReKoil said:
I'd recommend you just look at the mons yourself and decide for yourself tbh.
People's tastes differ a lot from person to person. For example I would call Garbodor a bad design. Someone above likes it and doesn't consider it a bad design. To each their own.
I wouldn't recommend listening to whatever is popular.

Personally I'd say:
-Both have many bland mons.
-Both have good mons.
-Both have bad mons.

I I count them all and compare them, then to me gen 1 has less bad mons as well as less bland mons than gen 5, so to me gen 5 would be worse. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gen 5 has some amazing designs, the trash pokemon and icecream pokemon fit the city astetic and of course there would be at least a few mushroom pokemon out there, gen 1 pokemon have their charm and I wouldn't even say they're the worst designed pokemon gen, which in my opinion is gen 7 and even then not even that is bad! its just bland at times with pokemon that just look like animals, so all designs deserve reccognition and i would never say there is a worse pokemon gen design since they're all great
 
Personally, answering which Pokémon generation had the worst designs is difficult for me because I don't believe that many Pokémon have bad designs. Both generations 1 and 5 had great designs, as well as lackluster designs. However, I never cared too much about a Pokémon's design anyway. Instead, I care more about a Pokémon's stats, learnset, and special abilities because they determine how good a Pokémon is overall. While some fans might claim that the simple designs of generation 1 are bad, I disagree. Even the Pokémon with simple designs were charming and iconic in their own way, such as Electrode's smirk, or Ditto's poker face. Many Pokémon fans claim that generation 5 had terrible designs, but I disagree with that as well. What some fans call bad designs, such as Pokémon based on ice cream or garbage, I call unique designs because they're different to the typical Pokémon, which are mostly based on animals. Who said that Pokémon had to be based on animals all the time? I believe basing them on other things sets them apart as unique creatures.
 
Difficult to say, honestly. What makes a lot of the Generation I Pokemon so memorable - asides from their being the first generation, and I don't personally think nostalgia should be factored into comparisons of quality - is their simplicity, which a lot of people seem to equate to them being bad. But you're far more likely to remember a simple design than you are a complicated one, as it has more eye-catching features. A lot of the most memorable video game protagonists are very simple designs, with one or two memorable aspects of their design that keeps them fresh in people's minds.

Gen V, like every other Gen, has a few Pokemon that fit into this category, and plenty that don't. As it was intended to be a soft reboot of sorts for the franchise in the sense that it was a more standalone gen, it shares some common themes with Gen I's designs...but to be fair, those designs weren't very good anyway. Both the Machop line and Timburr line are absolute garbage. Both the Geodude line and the Roggenrola line are great. In terms of starters and Legedaries Gen I wins by a country mile - I mean seriously, just look at Oshawott and those awful Swords of Justice - but Gen V has plenty of great designs.

So like all things, it depends on your personal preference. Gen V has too many ugly fighting types for my taste and I didn't really enjoy the games very much, so for me Gen I is better. But I can appreciate the merits of some of Gen V's designs, just as I think that they could have done better with some of the Gen I Pokemon.
 
I don't mind either. There are more Pokémon designs I like in Gen I, but that might be my nostalgia working. Gen V has some cool designs like Garbodor or Swoobat, but it also has a huge number of humanoid designs that I'm not fan of. On the other hand, I like my favourites from Gen V more than my favourites from Gen I.
 
I never really understood the idea that Gen V Pokémon are "overdesigned" or "less simple" than Gen I Pokémon.

Outside of like a dozen exceptions, Gen V Pokemon are generally composed of simple shapes and lines that by and large need little to no perspective work or graphical expertise to draw.

That's most likely by design, I've seen a post in social media recently talking about how Phineas & Ferb had the design choices they did and a big part of it was making simple silhouettes that were easier to be reproduced by younger fans - thus letting them engage more with the work with less frustration. It absolutely wouldn't surprise me if that was considered by the design teams going forward.

When people think of Gen I being simple they remember the Voltorbs and Magnemites, but there are a lot of towering accessories like plants or leaves or cannons or pokey-bits and slashes, and there are some weird muscly Pokemon that end up actually making them more technically challenging to draw.

Even Diglett and Dugtrio which people think is a "simple" design has a dirt patch with a tricky texture to get right.

My point being is that they're not really comparable because they most likely have different design choices. If I had to say one was "worse", it'd be Gen I because it's less accessible to their target audience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top