I'm just gonna be honest, the more of these designs I see the less I see the validity in picking on Pokemon.
Devimon, angemon, angewomon.
...Metal___mon, cornyideamon, ithrowpoopmon, ect. There's also no sense whatsoever of a functioning ecology in the digimon series. Meh...
I'm not saying pokemon's better about it, but you can't bash one for being ridiculous and then not look at the stance you've taken.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
I'm just gonna be honest, the more of these designs I see the less I see the validity in picking on Pokemon. There's also no sense whatsoever of a functioning ecology in the digimon series. Meh...I'm not saying pokemon's better about it, but you can't bash one for being ridiculous and then not look at the stance you've taken.
Most of the designs you've been presented with are largely powerful Digimon that serve as bad guys or good guys. So think of them as legendary.
And the Digital world doesn't really need sense to it. It's the digital world. It's more or less a wonderland just more grounded with the Digimon acting like real people rather than creatures that can only say one word. 🙂
And no, we're defending the superior show. Or at least I am. Pokemon is a much more grounded world, largely due to the Pokedex info and other things about Pokemon like diet and habitat and yada yada.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Moo how do you justify there being a Pokemon that is pretty much just a smiling cherry? mmmThat is what Aura meant by "lazy," I believe.
With several things.
The fact that there are Digimon that are nothing more than round balls or round balls with little appendages. Therefore, no series is perfect. How's that for laziness?
Pokemon can be based on anything, and nothing in particular.
It's a Grass type, loads of Grass types suck.
And maybe I just don't know what it was based on. There's a lot of shit that I hadn't guessed at for the inspirations of Pokemon, and lots of stuff I just plain didn't know.
And to answer your question about value, dirt.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngelEven the "legendaries" from digimon are often. "wut". You have Puppetmon, who could be a believable badguy, nevermind being made of superwood... Next to a shiney metal ape who's ridiculously cheesy. Next to metalseadramon, who, I admit I would have liked if he had a nose which didn't resemble a cross between a canon and a badly stretched orifice. mmm But .. I dunno. Then you have just random digimon everywhere doing things for no reason. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their existance.
Most of the designs you've been presented with are largely powerful Digimon that serve as bad guys or good guys. So think of them as legendary.And the Digital world doesn't really need sense to it. It's the digital world. It's more or less a wonderland just more grounded with the Digimon acting like real people rather than creatures that can only say one word. 🙂
And no, we're defending the superior show. Or at least I am. Pokemon is a much more grounded world, largely due to the Pokedex info and other things about Pokemon like diet and habitat and yada yada.
Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
With several things.The fact that there are Digimon that are nothing more than round balls or round balls with little appendages. Therefore, no series is perfect. How's that for laziness?
Pokemon can be based on anything, and nothing in particular.
It's a Grass type, loads of Grass types suck.
And maybe I just don't know what it was based on. There's a lot of shit that I hadn't guessed at for the inspirations of Pokemon, and lots of stuff I just plain didn't know.
And to answer your question about value, dirt.
Most Digimon that are round and tiny are due to them literally being babies. They grow up into weird creatures for various reasons. They don't go from being a ball to being a bigger ball. Ain't that right Electrode?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Digimon was definitely a far superior show to Pokemon.But is Pokemon really about the show?
That's because there isn't.
No. It's entirely about the games and whoring out as much as it can. We are talking about a product of nintendo after all.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Even the "legendaries" from digimon are often. "wut". You have Puppetmon, who could be a believable badguy, nevermind being made of superwood... Next to a shiney metal ape who's ridiculously cheesy. Next to metalseadramon, who, I admit I would have liked if he had a nose which didn't resemble a cross between a canon and a badly stretched orifice. mmm But .. I dunno. Then you have just random digimon everywhere doing things for no reason. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to their existance.
I actually kind of liked Megagreymon or metalgreymon or whatever generic prefix they stuck on Greymon for that form, but the statement Digimon > Pokemon
-Is a matter of preference.
-Depends on more than one medium, only one of which is being argued for in favour of Digimon. Shall we bring up the games?
-Ignores that Digimon in an effort to be more "serious" invoked several anime cliches that make me angry. :C Perhaps evne codified them.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Most Digimon that are round and tiny are due to them literally being babies. They grow up into weird creatures for various reasons. They don't go from being a ball to being a bigger ball. Ain't that right Electrode?
Yes, let's use the one example that fits your point so that we might prove it.
Do tell though. I'm curious what the reason and method for growing flesh into metal bodies with cannons is.