ITT: Pokemon who look much better in 3D than they did in sprites
>>56968012I disagree here, it looked better in Gen 5. The model looks too "smooth" in comparison.
>>56968012all of them
>>56968017>The model looks too "smooth" in comparisonyeah that tends to happen when the pokemon isn't made up of distorted poorly tweened pixels
>>56968012Can't think of many desu, the lack of dynamic poses/idle animations and washed out colours leave a lot to be desired.
>>56968020In this case it doesn't work for it, Druddigon is supposed to be some jagged, rough looking dragon that lives in a cave. I mean it even has rough skin. The 3d model looks like it just put on some cocoa butter.
you start OP
>>56968012
>>56968034>Druddigon is supposed to be some jagged, rough looking dragonThat's not what the design looks like.
I don't understand how they fucked up every single sprite until gen 5 and then perfected the 3D model on their first try
>>56968053If you feel that way then I don't know what to tell you man. It's definitely not supposed to be a silky smooth reptile that's for sure.
>>56968061he's baiting you anon, just move on and contribute to the thread instead
>>56968061>If you feel that wayIt has nothing to do with how I feel. That's literally not what the design looks like. If (You) want to invent a fanfic as a coping mechanism for the objectively bad sprites, go ahead.
>>56968047Ok thenstarting with this obvious one
>>56968050I literally can't unsee Chespin as a character from Happy Tree Friends.
>>56968067Fair game, I couldn't think of anything but looking some up now I'd say probably Ho-oh, most of the sprites makes it look like it snapped its neck.
>>56968059that's the first one that came to my mind
>>56968117Man if it was less washed out it'd be perfect
>>56968125looks worse
the animated model gets its concept across a lot better than the sprite
>>56968125
>SV didn't bother to fix the washed out colorslame
>>56968160You can't fix something that isn't broken.
>>56968017>>56968012I think that Druddigon just needed to be shown bigger, which is what it's 3D model did in XY-SwSh. That's why it seems better than it was in BW, where his size looked much smaller or average compare to other pokemon.
>>56968152That's way more washed out than I remember lol.Why did they do this? Something to do with the 3ds's screen?
>>56968277My guess is that they were trying to match the official artwork.
>>56968012Thread over before it began
>>56968277They literally have notes to make all the colors washed out in the design documents, and they didn't really change their mind much in SS either, so I'm not sure what the fuck they're on about. It could also be that the GBA and DS screen needed those brighter colors as well (especially the former).
>>56968117Colosseum did it much better
>>56968012how so?
>>56968465looks worse
>>56968012None of the pokemon pre-Gen 6All of the pokemon post-Gen 6done.
>>56968626>All of the pokemon post-Gen 6they look like shit, not because of the models, but because of their designs
>>56968097what the hell was up with that cringe shit? when i started my first year in highschool everyone wouldn't shut the fuck up about it. then in a few weeks it was never mentioned again
>>56968050posting mons that never had official ingame battle sprites doesn't really belong in this thread as there's no pre-3d comparison to be made
>>56968221I think it's the pose and angle of view that made Druddigon's sprite look badEven the official artworks looks bad for the same reason, despite having better colors than the sprite
when is the thread going to start?
>>56968817That was the joke anon
>>56968012The sprites leave room for imagination. The models don't. That's the simple and clean of it. People imagine the Pokemon as they are in the movies, very detailed and expressive. Those models are mobile-tier
>I-I can just pretend the bad looking thing actually doesn't look badevery time
>>56971537I wouldn't have to imagine the sprites were detailed and expressive if the sprites were actually good.
>>56968012Still one of the worst designs.
>>56971545>>56971551least obvious samefag
I found a Dragonite at the last second but didn't have any safari balls, a dude came up to me 5 seconds later and we started talking, he didn't get shit and he was trying to catch the same Dragonite and I cucked him
>>56968074>>56968095>the ability and the dex entries are fanfics now>>56968112Sure, but the feathers always looked like plastic in 3D until SV.>>56968144>I need to be spooned concepts because I'm blind>>56968191>>56968129>>56968594see>>56968152
>>56971733>the ability and the dex entries are fanfics nowWe're not talking about the ability and dex entries. We're talking about the design.
>>56971854The ability and the dex entries reference how the design should look in this case, which is butchered by the 3D.
>>56971733>Sure, but the feathers always looked like plasticYes, because that what its design looks like.
>>56971864The design references how the design should look in this case, which is more accurate by the 3D.
>>56971733>>I need to be spooned conceptsThis is literally the entire point of designs, so yes.
>>569718673D model looks more plastic than this>>56971873yes, design is design, nice observation. Why did they remove the roughness the design was supposed to have?>>56971876Sure, but why do you need to be animated at all times doing something In a never-ending cartoonish way for you to get that it's a certain concept? It's the design's job, after all.>>56971887>polygon furno
>>56968012Ferroseed. It had one of the most striking models in XY to me ironically because it had so little animation. Seeing it come into battle, stick in the ground and remain perfectly still except for when it blinks was hilarious.>>56968465I like the colors but standing on its hind legs and twiddling its fingers like that looks silly.
>>56971914>3D model looks more plastic than thisnope
>>56971914>Why did they remove the roughness the designThey didn't remove anything. The 3D model is more accurate to the design
>>56971914>Sure, but why do you need to be animated at all timesIt isn't. Play the games.
>>56971960>nopeYep. Just look at how light reflects.>>56971973>They didn't remove anythingYes they did. The design is supposed to be rough but they made it look like smooth plastic.>>56971975>muh side gameI meant in battle if you wanna be pedantic. The concept you think it has doesn't make sense for it to constantly do in battle.
>>569680122D>3D
>>56968012Rotom in great in 3D
>>56971887Doesn't look good in either 2D or 3D
Waiting for the thread to start...
>>56971953Ferroseed's walking a inimation in Sword and Shield is great too
>>56968012The Nidos
>>56971545>>56971551>exactly one minute apartyou gotta try harder than that
>>56972508>>56972673>3Dshill is ESLwow so surprising....
>>56972754First anon here, I obviously just typo'd you stupid ass bitch
>>56972013>Yepnope>Just look at how light reflectsit reflects the same as the artwork
>>56972013>The design is supposed to be roughNo it isn't>>56968074
>>56968012still a shit design but the fact that it actually uses its swords instead of just flopping around perpetually helps a lot.
>>569680123D>2D
>>56972013>I meant in battleWhy do you need to ignore the other animations and pretend they don't count? Because it ruins your argument?
>>56972712NoThey're a rare instance of a pokemon actually looking worse in 3D for reasons not related to pose or colorsJust like Gyarados, Nidoking is waaay to manlet in 3D
>>56972765Sure>>56972909>nopeYep, just look at how light reflects>it reflects the sameNope, the artwork is way more glossy implying scales. The models reflect in a more matte way that makes it seem like fucking play doh>>56972928>No it isn'tYes it is, it canonically has rough skin>>56973054Why do you need to ignore other animationsI'm not ignoring them. I posed a criticism: If Archeops' concept it a bird that sucks at flight at its point in evolution, why does it constantly try to do so indefinitely in ANY situation? Should this be in shirt bursts? My answer to my own question was that it was made for people like (You) who can't tell what a design is without having it fucking perform for you perpetually and therefore an unrealistic way. It shouldn't be an idle animation that loops, but rather a burst, one-time thing.
>>56973670>YepNope>the artwork is way more glossyNo it isn't
>>56973670>it canonically has rough skinIt canonically has a design that looks more like the model.
>>56968144I mean, not really since it's not meant to be able to fly for long periods of time. In fact it's dex entry says it runs better than it flies.
i'm a gen 5 apologist but the battle sprite tweening looked like hot ass and i'm sick of pretending it didn't. OP is correct, throwing my hat in the ring with one of my faves
>>56968465The Stadium through Battle Revolution Pokemon games are over-animated. In retrospect it feels like they're trying too hard to sell the fact its "Pokemon in 3D". That Swampert look like they're jumped-up on Coffee moving every possible part of its body to show that it's a 3D model lol.
>>56968144It also just looks straight up cleaner in 3D. I think the black inlines in the sprites made a lot of the mons look worse than their 3d models.
>>56968012All of them, make a better thread next time
>>56972950>>56972957least obvious yawnfag
>>56974554>No and NoYes and YesThe artwork reflects glossily, implying scales. The models reflect matte, making it seem extremely cheap and like play doh instead. They butchered the Mon's image.>>56974651Source?
>>56975955>Source?>>56968074
>>56975961>>Source?>Points to a post proving my point about ruining his skin.Concession accepted.
>>56975965Go ahead and explain precisely how the model ruined his skin.
>2 days have passed>the thread still hasn't startedwhy?
>>56977255The artwork reflects glossily, implying scales. The models reflect matte, making it seem extremely cheap and like play doh instead. They butchered the mon's image.
>>56977413>The artwork reflects glossilyno it doesn't
>>56975267>all of them
>>56977565Yes it does. Look at where the light reflects.
>>56977621nothing about how the light reflects is more accurate on the sprite
>>56977629The sprite actually looks jagged so it's accurate. The light reflection in the model ruins the mon. Sprites don't exactly interact with light.
>>56977604To be fair, there's no saving that thing.
>>56977672No, the 3D model is clearly very botched. Open your eyes.
>>56977682It isnt go to bed.
>>56977694Nigga you're blind. They got the entire fucking snout wrong. Look how different they look in the pic I posted.
>>56977682It's just a shit design.
>>56977744The 3D model straight up looks like a different Pokémon. It's not about the design itself. It's how big the difference is between the anatomy in 2D vs 3D.
>>56977604the model looks better
>>56977763Terrible opinion, but you're entitled to have it I guess.
>>56977763Correct opinion, but you're entitled to have it I guess.
>>56977774Opinions can't be "correct".
>>56977786yes they can
>>56977665>The sprite actually looks jagged so it's accurate>>56968074 isn't jagged, so it's less accurate
>>56977774parroting is yada yada you get the idea
>>56978714But we know it’s supposed to have rough skin so it’s accurate. Meanwhile the model has inaccurate skin. Nice try.
>>56979428>But we know it’s supposed to have rough skinIt having rough skin isn't relevant to how accurate it is to the design.
>>56975146what are you on about ? tat spite looks great
>>56979641it does actually, it clearly looks smooth in the 3d model
>>56979948>it clearly looks smoothyes, just like >>56968074
>>56981285Nope, the artwork is way more glossy implying scales. The models reflect in a more matte way that makes it seem like fucking play doh
>Wanting realism on Pokemon modelsCringe. Pokemon is supposed to look like anime. People like you are why SV looks so bad.
>>56981760To be fair, the reason SV looks bad is because of the lack of artstyle.
>>56981908No you retard, that's not how it works.
>>56981911Elaborate.
>>56981760Enjoy your ugly play-dooh models
>>56973670Sharks have rough skin and they don't look like PSX models. Why exactly are you so fucking retarded?
>>56975115Why is the face so boring? Is it supposed to represent a bird looking up?
>>56981936Yeah but they don't reflect light indicative of a smooth fucking surface. It only seems like that underwater. It would therefore glisten to indicate that type of texture.
>>56977794Thats the reverse of what OP askedCofagrigus' face became too small in the model
>>56981917It absolutely has an artstyle. The more realistic rendering style is a 100% deliberate choice, and it's not like it goes full realism, it's still very stylized. It's just a bad artstyle.
>>56981960Sure, I'll concede it's a bad art style instead of no artstyle. I just wouldn't say having textures is the reason exactly.
>>56968097Maybe that's why I like it so muchInteresting comparison.
>>56981967Oh no, absolutely not. It's mostly a lighting problem. Although some of the textures are also just executed poorly, but mostly for cloth on the human characters rather than the Pokémon.
>>56968465It looks oddly endearing. I already liked Swampert, but now I like it a lot more
>>56981985Lighting can fall under artstyle decisions in many cases.
>>56981994Yeah I know, that's what I'm saying.
>>56982003Oh, my bad. I thought you meant "absolutely not" to me saying the artstyle was bad.
>>56982013Oh, no, that was referring to>I just wouldn't say having textures is the reason exactly.
>>56982020Got it, thank you for clarifying.
