Why the Designs of Generation 1 Were Superior

Axle the Beast

This is the first article to be published on Pokemon Dungeon, and what I’d like to talk about is the actual creature designs from the various Pokemon generations. As I’m sure you can glean from the title, I believe that Generation 1 (or Gen 1) is the best of all of them. Now surely if you’ve been on Pokemon sites or been in Pokemon discussions enough you’ll hear people praise the original 151 Pokemon the most, with opinions on the later generations being far more split.

This article isn’t strictly intended to convince people who feel differently, but also to lay out some objective reasoning as to why Gen 1 is the favorite, for the benefit of those who don’t understand that. Ideally, this article will be just as beneficial to those that prefer Gen 1 as to those who dislike it in explaining why it is the favorite.

I don’t think it’s something that can be explained away as nostalgia. It’s not a case of people simply liking the old generation because it’s the old generation and disliking what was added to it. The problem lies in specific design concepts that are pretty strictly applied to all of the Gen 1 Pokemon, and these concepts are gone from the later generations.

If you look over the list of all the Pokemon in Gen 1, you’ll see that there are a lot of very different Pokemon, all of which look different from one another. But if you look closely you’ll notice a core design theme consistent throughout nearly all of them: Most of them take after real biology.

In Gen 1 just about every Pokemon is actually based on a specific animal or combination of animals, with a degree of realism applied to the design. Take for example the Bulbasaur family, which resemble dinosaurs and toads (not to mention plants), or Caterpie, which legitimately looks like a caterpillar. Even the sometimes unusual Fighting-type Pokemon take after humans and other primates, and the same is true of many Rock types. The Pokemon that don’t take after real-world animals take after other things instead, like rocks or plants. This made all the designs more grounded and realistic, and in a way more humble. You weren’t dealing with totally whacky, insane creatures. You’re actually dealing with believable fictional creations.

Because this happens in natureOf course there are a handful of exceptions, of which Jigglypuff, Diglett and Tangela are excellent examples, but while these deviate from the real-world creature style, they do still possess familiar sharps and curves and design sensibilities as the rest of the Pokemon in Gen 1. With this at least in common, it was fine that a few deviated from the design style of the rest; some variety is good.

Later generations, starting with Gen 2 but continuing all the way up until Gen 5 (currently the most extreme example), have shunned this realism and gone for designs you’d see in some crazy anime. Strange creatures that are highly original, with wild and whacky traits. Not the humble designs of Gen 1.

It of course has to be acknowledged that this realistic approach isn’t necessarily a better approach. Certainly, it takes more skill to match realistic anatomy, but that doesn’t automatically mean the creature itself is better. Realistic and fantastic designs are two distinct styles that have their own advantages. I’ll even admit that I myself prefer Pokemon out of the later generations. I am a fan of fantastic styles and I enjoy some of the more interesting and unique designs, Gen 3 sporting most of my favorites.

But another thing here is the issue of consistency. Within Gen 5 there are so many Pokemon that don’t look like they even come from the same game as the Gen 1 designs. It’s a wild departure.


Hey look, Nintendo made a new collectible- oh, wait, that’s still Pokemon? Seriously?

It’s common practice within long-running series, and especially those with lots and lots of creatures, to have different artists design different creatures and/or characters. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing. At its best, it means that within the story you have appropriate diversity; lots of characters and creatures that show fitting difference from each other that reflects the real world’s diversity. At its worst you end up with clashing design sensibilities. This problem crops up the worst within the American comic book industry, where you have different writers come in and retcon the storyline many times over until all consistency and sanity is lost.

Obviously that’s primarily a writing issue, but the same problem applies to drawn art as well, because even with a beneficial diversity within your fictional world, you need to have a consistent running style. Unless you’re simply composing unaffiliated pieces of artwork, the product you make is a whole made out of many parts, and the key to good artwork is to make sure all the elements work smoothly in concert.

Why this has happened with Pokemon is unknown. Do the people designing Pokemon just not realize the consistent theme they had going and why the new Pokemon clash? Are they running out of ideas? Regardless, this is a real issue in the Pokemon franchise, and one that seems to be getting worse.

Of course some may prefer the new designs, and for them this direction that Nintendo’s taking is a happy one. But that issue of consistency will always be there, especially since there are always exceptions, even within Gen 5; Pokemon that do fit in with the original 151 from Gen 1.

Gen 2 and 3 have plenty of great PokemonThat’s a good thing too, though. Even within the new generations, there are Pokemon that still match up with the ones from Gen 1. Even in Gen 5. Hopefully Nintendo will catch wind of the problem. In Gen 3, I felt they returned back more to the realistic biology approach with most of their designs. There were more silly ones than in Gen 1, yeah, but they overall handled things better in my eyes than Gen 2 or any of the later generations. Gen 3 applied realism and fantasy in an appropriate balance, I felt, one that departed from Gen 1 somewhat but not enough to prevent things from not fitting. This is probably why Gen 3 contains many of my personal favorite Pokemon; they are a little wilder, but they have a realistic element to them and fit in better with Gen 1 for that reason. Though I will admit, Gen 2 comes closer to this than any post-Gen 3 Pokemon, and some of my preference to Gen 3 may be entirely personal and not objective. You’ll have to be the judge of it yourself.

Of course one thing you’re probably thinking as I keep talking about consistency is what about things staying the same in a bad way? No new ideas, the same thing over and over again? Well obviously when I say to keep a consistent design style I’m not suggesting to recycle the exact same designs. Even within a single style there are billions of possibilities. And even aside from that, Nintendo could have always implemented some fresher Pokemon, like it did as early as Gen 1 with the few stranger Pokemon it had, or like Gen 3 where the Pokemon were all a little wilder but most of the time kept the biology realistic. There are better ways they could have handled it no matter how you look at it.

Now of course, none of this is to say that Pokemon is bad. The game series is still fun and as I said, many of my personal favorites do actually come out of the later generations. I know I’m not alone in that, and I’m sure many of you are okay with the direction of the series. Still, these would be the primary reasons why, in my eyes, Generation 1 is regarded as the best generation. Not so much because it had outright superior designs, but because it established a style that it consistently followed, but that most of the rest of the series did not. This has given the other games the feeling of being broken off from Gen 1’s style, and whether or not that’s a bad thing, it does create that inconsistency and it does potentially reflect design flaws within the series. Generation 1 isn’t superior purely on its own, but became the superior example within the Pokemon franchise when the rest did not try to keep up a consistent feel.


Categorized under: Articles
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Share this post

171 Responses to “Why the Designs of Generation 1 Were Superior”

  1. WrethedShiro says:

    Wait, I’m so not understanding. You seem biased. First of all you claim Gen V is the most extreme for wacky designs yet it’s much more true to real things than Gen IV or III. The comparison picture you have there, you can clearly see there is a pig, a humanoid creature and a crocodile. From Gen I in that picture there is a weird plant lizard, a humanoid creature, and some strange muddy aardvark. Overall, a good article but you can tell you have a slightly bitter test for later generations.

    • Anonymous says:

      Um, there is a significant difference between that pig, humanoid, crocodile, and the real-life counterparts of all three. The point I was raising was not that Gen 1 somehow based itself directly off real life with real creatures, whereas the rest just made stuff up. There’s a difference between basing something off real life and using the rules given by real life. Gen 1 constructed its Pokemon with more believable designs and more realistic anatomy. Gen 5 on the other hand is pretty much blatantly cartoony most of the time.

      Either way, of course I’m biased. This is an opinion article written about a piece of entertainment. Whether my opinions are objective or not, they are still opinions, and opinions are biased. I actually am not that bitter about the later generations; I said within the article that I prefer Pokemon out of them. My beef is from a consistency and design standpoint.

    • Epic Ninfia says:

      its a tapir and its based ona yokai

  2. A_LINK_IN_TIME says:

    I agree, Axle.  Gen I forever! 

    • Isaiah Rude says:

      It’s funny how his favorite gen is 3. So, no. GEN 3 FOREVER! Plus, gen 3 had firered and leafgreen. Which are Gen 1 remakes. THE SAME THING BUT BETTER.

  3. Darkvaati99 says:

    My fav Gen is 4. Mainly because my first Real pokemon game was Platinum and my favorite pokemon is Infernape

  4. Darkvaati99 says:

    But Kanto is my favorite region

  5. awsomeMrlink says:

    Me and my friend think Gen 3 is the best, but of course gen 1 is the 2nd best.

    • Anonymous says:

      I think Gen 3 is my personal favorite, too. This article is more about the consistency problem than which I like as a favorite. Really tough, Gen 3 might actually be the perfect evolution from Gen 1… it changed all the right things and kept all the right things to work really well I thought.

      • RaltsFTW says:

        not just the pokemon, but the gen 3 games are the greatest since gen1, i know for a fact nothing’s beaten them since. every gen has its own feel, for me, 2 is nostalgic, 4 introduced me to pokemon, 5 is knid of awkward, and 3 is just awsome, i can play emerald over and over and never get bored. the way each game feels as you play is really hard to describe

      • Epic Ninfia says:

        gen 1 had the same style of thought just Gameboy restrictions

    • Pengoony says:

      As great as Gen 1 was Gen 3 will always be my favorite and my childhood since I grew up during Gen 3 :)

  6. Shuck says:

    I did not like generation V’s names so much.  They couldve done better than “Conkledurr”

    • RaltsFTW says:

      when it comes to evolution chains, the names in GEn 5 change very little with each evolution. i miss the randomness of getting an octopus from a fish. it kept things freash and you never expected it. the evoltuion processes, with the exceptions of karrablast and shelmet, are pretty boring as well.

  7. RaltsFTW says:

    Gen 3 is my favorite because Ralts is still my all time favorite pokemon (Gothita almost replaced it at first sight) and made me fall in love with pokemon. even though my first games were gen 4, Emerald is still my fav.

  8. Ckthekaiser says:

    Pretty weak article. You claim to take an objective look at all the generations, but you still put the 1st gen on a pedestal are refuse to be critical and consistant. “The point I was raising was not that Gen 1 somehow based itself directly off real life with real creatures, whereas the rest just made stuff up.” Answer this: 

    – What kind of animals are a Jigglypuff, Gengar, Golem, Lickytung, Nidoking, Clefable, Alakazam, Slowbro, Magneton, Dodrido, Muk, Voltorb, Chansey, Magamr, Electabuzz, Snorlax, Mewtwo, and Exeggutor? 

    – And what kinds of animals are Snivy, Tepig, Oshawott, Lilipup, Patrat, the elemental monkeys, Pidove, Zebstrika, Drilbur, Seismatoad, Basculin, Sandile, Tirtouga, Archen, Swanna, Deerling, Emolga, Foongus, Frillish, Joltik, Eelektross, Stunfisk, Boffaulant, Braivary, Mandibuzz, Heatmor, Durant, and Volcarona? 

    Your thesis lacks consistency for it to be logical and objective. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Axle already commented on how some of them aren’t quite based exactly like animals, using Jigglypuff, Tangela and Diglett as the examples. However, Gengar is a ghost. Golem is a boulder. Magneton is a bunch of magnets and bolts. Voltorb is an organic Poke Ball. Exeggutor is a Palm Tree. Some of those aren’t easy to place as to what they are based on, but all the same, Axle did mention it. Obviously you didn’t read it very thoroughly.

    • Shuck says:

      yes, some of them are related to real things, but the difference is that they seem more cartoonized.  The colors are much less subtle, and, what the author of this article said, they seem like their from some freaky anime.

    • Anonymous says:

      You’re ignoring many statements where I covered what you’re addressing, and also taking statements too literally. I never claimed that Gen 1 Pokemon were better because they were based purely off an animal or idea and that the other Generations didn’t do this. I said it was based on realistic ideas of biology, among other things, where with Gen 5, as Shuck put it, they are cartoonized. They are based on an animal, sure, but they don’t follow the rules of that animal, or of any animal. They do not look like something that could occur in nature, or could even be derived from it.

      The only lack of consistency comes from taking things too literally.

      “You claim to take an objective look at all the generations, but you
      still put the 1st gen on a pedestal are refuse to be critical and
      consistant.”

      Just because I favor Gen 1 doesn’t mean it isn’t objective, and objective at no point means that it isn’t still a personal opinion. That’s exactly what it is. If you disagree, that’s fine. My conclusion =/= your conclusion.

    • Anonymous says:

      You’re ignoring many statements where I covered what you’re addressing, and also taking statements too literally. I never claimed that Gen 1 Pokemon were better because they were based purely off an animal or idea and that the other Generations didn’t do this. I said it was based on realistic ideas of biology, among other things, where with Gen 5, as Shuck put it, they are cartoonized. They are based on an animal, sure, but they don’t follow the rules of that animal, or of any animal. They do not look like something that could occur in nature, or could even be derived from it.

      The only lack of consistency comes from taking things too literally.

      “You claim to take an objective look at all the generations, but you
      still put the 1st gen on a pedestal are refuse to be critical and
      consistant.”

      Just because I favor Gen 1 doesn’t mean it isn’t objective, and objective at no point means that it isn’t still a personal opinion. That’s exactly what it is. If you disagree, that’s fine. My conclusion =/= your conclusion.