Aesthetics vs. functionality?

[DCM]

Which is more important to you as a trainer? and why?

for me its Functionality. if i cant use the pokemon in some way, i don't catch hit. its a waste of a pokeball, I dont need something "cute"

 

[Our Wasted Years]

for me its Functionality. if i cant use the pokemon in some way, i don't catch hit. its a waste of a pokeball, I dont need something "cute"

That's actually the same reason for me. Any other time I catch a Pokemon is if I feel like it or if I need it for something else like a trade fodder.

 

[Reyairia]

Both, fortunately the pokemon I find cute or cool looking are the ones that are also very powerful. e.g. tyranitar, charizard, etc.

 

[Florizarre]

Primarily aesthetics, though I do give weight to functionality. When building in-game teams I mostly look for Pokemon who's appearances bounce off each other nicely. For example, I've seen people use Qwilfish and Skarmory in their teams together- to me, this just doesn't "feel" right, a small, unimposing puffer fish being paired with an intimidating, powerful bird that has frickin' wings of steel. It's subjective, but if Pokemon don't look right together to me, I'll pick different ones. I do catch Pokemon and never use them just for the sake of having them, because I think they look good.

That being said, I also make sure there's some functionality to my teams- I like to make sure I have someone who knows Fly, for example, or Surf, and who isn't a token HM slave.

 

[Tsuness]

A bit of both, but I learn towards functionality. If I'm gonna have to stare at it's back for hours, it might as well look decent enough. But mostly if I'm going to use it, I want it to be useful. As for catching, I usually only catch what I need as well.

Granted I think Crobat is one of the coolest looking pokemon I have, and Ampharos is ugly as sin... but meh, I use both.

 

[Ivysaur]

Of course functionality, but that's not to say I don't care how the Pokemon looks like. If I hate a Pokemon's design enough, I won't use it on my team no matter how good it is. Likewise, even if a Pokemon is terrible in battle, I'll use it if I really like its design.

Of course, the only exception to this is with competitive battling, where you pretty much have to use the best Pokemon available to you if you want to win (although I don't partake in competitive battling anymore).

 

[PlatinumDude]

To me, it's both. If it looks good and works well, I'll take it. Otherwise, I'll leave it.

 

[espy-momo]

Both! I have a powerhouse team, and a team of my favorite cuties

 

[arcanine99]

Aesthetics? bwahahaahahaahahahaa it's definitely all functionality for me

 

[Falconwing]

aesthetics somewhat. If it looks like crap, I don't want it to represent me. It's not my taste. I don't care how good people say Rhyperior is. I hate the design.

Now, if it is also unusable, like my Typhlosion somewhat is, it doesn't make the cut either.

 

[RainbowMoondust]

In SS, I ended up with all my pokemon being the color blue. I think that the two should be weighed somewhat equally. I'm not about to use a pokemon I hate just because it's strong. Nor am I going to use the weak Pachirisu just because it's cute.

 

[Noivern]

Functionality is very important for me, but I can't ignore aesthetics too. Of course, when I catch a Pokemon, it's going to be useful for something, or it'll be going to the PC forever, unless I need to evolve it to get another Pokedex data. Then again, sometimes I choose Pokemon based on their appearance. If it's too unappealing or awkward, its has a low chance of being in my main party.

 

[PDL]

I try to strike a balance between the two, but I lean towards aesthetics more. If I wanted to train for power purely it would probably make the game too easy for me.

Besides, I like the idea of inventing a trainer character with a certain team during a playthrough. I'm thinking about starting a Sapphire game where all the Pokémon are either Water or Bug types (With Masquerain being her signature Pokémon).

 

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I usually catch Pokemon that look awesome but can function well in battles too. I will NEVER use a Pokemon that looks ugly even it is considered one the best Pokemon in the game.

 

[siburke939]

i only use gimmick teams that i make myself (for PBR doubles so nothing serious) so it's definitely more about looks for me - i do try to pick the best pokemon to go in them teams & attempt to give them EV's & movesets that will win a few battles but i enjoy gimmick teams more

my current gimmicky teams:

water absorbers
poliwrath / lapras / vaporeon / politoed / quagsire / mantine
(easy to counter but a pain if you're not prepared)

future black team
snorlax / houndoom / seviper / claydol / honchkrow / dusknoir
(trick room team with houndoom as a suicide lead)

future white team
zangoose / absol / pachirisu / togekiss / gallade / froslass
(used before & it works - either zangoose or absol need to be switched though - maybe gardevoir will work better)

 

[Brent]

Combination of both for me. I like the look to be appealing as well as strong if using competitively. Outside that though I will train anything I like, and for sure will use anything I like on my in-game team (like Furret, that I love).

 

[Mijzelffan]

Aesthetics. Everything's good in-game anyway.

 

[Azure Butterfly]

Looks are more important - if it's a terrible design, I'll leave it. Fortunately, most Pokemon aren't so terribly designed that I'll refuse to use them, and those that are usually have substitutes that do the job better anyway.

Rhyphailure.

 

[Poison Master]

I take what ever I get if i haven't already caught it or unless its shiny. i dont have time to waste on saying stuff like "Oh, that Pikachu is just so CUTE!" It's a waste of breath.

 

[Lazyboy0337]

I perfer Aesthetics because I like to think "how can I use this pokemon successfully?"

Mono Lickilicky team FTW