So you're saying Pokemon like Makuhita, Zigzagoon and Swellow were actually good? You're weird. Gen 4 had more decent ones than Gen 3 by far, and taking into account nostalgia, had a comparable amount to the first 151 or the hundred after that.
But still. I could probably count the good Gen 3 designs on my hands (using the decimal system, I mean. Don't be sneaky and claim I could count 1024 if only I did it in binary).
edited 27th Nov '09 3:16:37 AM by Sabbo
Dare I say it.
INT is knowing a tomato is a fruit. WIS is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. CHA is convincing people that it does.Uhh. Considering that Zigzagoon is one of my favourites? Yes.
edited 27th Nov '09 3:25:10 AM by PippingFool
I'm having to learn to pay the priceOi, easy there, guys. Totally uncalled for, that was. Oh, I agree. Sharpedo. A Shark-torpedo. And it just looks laughable.
◊ Although, oddly, the TGC version looked more imposing.
◊ CGI, I guess.
edited 27th Nov '09 3:31:06 AM by catch_the_sun
My troper wall's now my troper page, yay! Come to IJBMBreloom is passable. Flygon is slightly worse (although at least with this I can see why people could like it).
EDIT: Oh, and my comment about age was just to say that whoever finds Gen 3 to be the best set is looking through the nostalgia goggles of someone who got into Pokemon ~5 years after me.
edited 27th Nov '09 3:32:17 AM by Sabbo
And I bet you're only around 15 years old, too.
Close, but no Cigar. (16)
Besides, raccoons are my favorite animals and I like Zigzgaoon's design, I'm sorry I don't find the completely awesome and original Voltorb to be very original but I happen to find a Pokemon outside the 1st-2nd generation to be interesting.
I thought Sharpedo went after young kids.
You're thinking of Hypno.
edited 27th Nov '09 3:33:07 AM by PippingFool
I'm having to learn to pay the priceNow to be fair, Every generation has it's Brilliant designs, it's not-so-good designs and the ones in between.
What those Pokemon are is a Your Mileage May Vary thing yourself.
I'm having to learn to pay the price-*waves hand*
Every generation had its strong designs and its weak ones- and I say that as someone who was too old for this stuff when it first came out, so I'm not sure that nostalgia can really be blamed here :/
Combine that with Your Mileage May Vary, and you have a recipe for lots and lots of arguing. Although I still think that Meganium is rather silly looking.
For the record, after a quick flip through Slowflake's rants on the various generations, Gen III and IV are tied for the number of kind of stupid-looking 'mons- and both also have a respectable number of completely awesome looking ones as well. The first two generations don't seem to have quite as many dumb-looking mons, but they also don't have as many awesome ones, so I guess it balances out.
edited 27th Nov '09 3:46:17 AM by TeChameleon
What those shirts are COOL! Plus the Cubone one is awesome.
Yeah Pokemon designs are a YMMV thing in itself, but saying and Entire Generation is bad for having designs that you don't like is a little silly. Even though I started my Pokemon collection with Red, I like Emerald more.
I prefer the Silly Suarapod with the Flower around it's neck to the overhyped, overrated, generic red Dragon which was typed with Flying instead due to DRAGON RAGE being the only Dragon move in Gen 1.
edited 27th Nov '09 3:48:13 AM by PippingFool
I'm having to learn to pay the priceTorchic's line, except Torchic, is bad. Torchic is passable.
The Poochyena and Zigzagoon lines are bad.
The Wurmple lines are uncreative, but passable.
Ludicolo is bad.
The Taillow line is unoriginal; I may as well use Spearow or Pidgey.
I can't stand Wingull's line.
Ralts' line is good. Among my favorite pokemon, design-wise.
Surskit's line is bad. This, among many others, shows Gen 3's poor tendency to make evolutions look nothing like their previous form/s.
Makuhita's line is bland.
EDIT: Still listing more...
edited 27th Nov '09 3:53:08 AM by Sabbo

I know it sounds a bit like Slowpoke, but:Has the Sugimori artwork been updated for HG/SS?Oh, it has.
edited 27th Nov '09 1:42:15 AM by Kinkajou
INT is knowing a tomato is a fruit. WIS is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. CHA is convincing people that it does.