Like do you think they have a quota that says: - This number of Pokemon based of real animals - This number of Pokemon based of inanimate objects - This number of Pokemon based of religious and cultural beings etc.
What do you think? Is there an observable pattern with regards to the designs of Pokemon through the generations?
Every generation there always seems to be a lot of complaining about the designs of the Pokemon. That they are getting uglier, less creative and that it appears that 'Gamefreak is running out of ideas'. The biggest thing people tend to cite is the fact that so many Pokemon are based off of inanimate objects. Others remind people that object based Pokemon have been a staple since the first gen.
Pokemon may not be based off of an animal, including real, extinct, mythological or humanoid. Humans are in the primate family, and thus count as animals, so this includes Pokemon like Machop and Jynx. Ghastly and Frosglass count as animals because they are based off of mythological creatures (ghosts and the Japanese Snow Woman, respectively)
Pokemon may not be based off any organic inanimate object. Because plants are inanimate, I have chosen to take any plant based Pokemon out of the calculation as well. If I had to take out Pineco because it's a pine cone, I'd have to also take out Oddish, Bellossom, etc. I've also discounted Pokemon like Swelot and Gulpin because even though they are based off of the stomach, organs count as organic inanimate objects.
Pokemon must have a 100% clear origin. Unless I could 100% confirm a Pokemon as based off of an object it was not counted. For example, I have no idea what Wobuffet is based off of...but I don't know what Dunsparce is supposed to be either.
