Speculation New Move/Model Animation

[BlackButterfree]

Those pale colors of every other model gotta go. Bring back the vivid colors the Gen III sprites gave us all!

They REALLY need to fix Flying-types in general. While some of them look alright, there are some that have weird flapping animations, some that have no business in the air at all (lookin' at you, Xatu), and some that just glide... and look really awkward. Tropius and Swellow are two notorious offenders of the last one. Also, Talonflame's wings clip through its body. It's kind of distracting.

Yes to the pale colors getting the boot, and yes to the Flying models getting an overhaul. While it was obvious that Xatu and Tropius could fly (otherwise why be FLYING type and have large wings) they're rarely seen doing so in any media. They're both almost always rooted to the ground. I wouldn't mind an alternate model for Sky Battles for flyers that don't usually seem to be in the sky and then have the regular, "Got my feet on the ground" type of model in other areas. I mean, don't their Amie models have them on the ground anyways? It's not that hard to do.

 

[Javier952]

Am I the only one okay with the color schemes? I actually think Lucario, Jigglypuff, and Scizor look better this gen but to each their own.

However, ditto on fixing the flying types issue.

 

[Norzan]

I was hoping they would use the Pokemon Amie 3D models of all the pokemon with flying animations (the ones that can fight in Sky Battles) in Singles Battles and such, but seeing that Salamence still has the stupid flying model in the Mega Salamence trailer it kills all hope for me.

 

[TayRanitar]

I hate how fish or water Pokemon just float in the air especially goldeen, I guess they can't all splash around like Magikarp and there isn't much to do with them. Wailord should have a bigger animation too, he's huge in Amie.

 

[CynthiaLover]

Well, it seems somewhat confirmed by Serebii that ORSA will combine the current models with more vibrant colors and such, more akin to the original Hoenn games. So I don't think we have to worry too much about muted colors anymore. Not sure about if they'll fix any of the models, like the ever infamous flying ones, but at least it seems that the color standard will be kicked up a notch or two. Don't take my word too seriously, though, as I could be wrong, but it seems that the dull color problem will be rectified in ORAS.

 

[Spikeheila]

I wish sky attack wasn't turned into this weird digital screen..wing..thingy, I don't even know what to call it. It looks flippin' awful though.
I know they don't want it to look like brave bird but there has to be some other way they could've made it look.

 

[Daleklugia]

A lot of fainting animations need to be changed. Rapidash (or was it ponyta?), along with many other quadruped pokemon look like they break their legs or something when they faint, and Aurorus looks like it breaks its neck or something. It actually scared me the first time I saw one faint. Pilowswine and Swinub's fainting animations are messed up too, sometimes they move and flail a bit when they faint, and sometimes they stay ABSOLUTELY STILL (not even idle motion, as if they're frozen).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Cyndaquil's line looks weird without its permanent fire "mane". Several models have permanent fire on them, why did they take Cyndaquil's?.



Ah, I wish Blastoise using its cannons to attack instead of the mouth. And Charizard using Wing Attack with its wings, not its tail.

 

[Team Gaara]

Cyndaquil's line looks weird without its permanent fire "mane". Several models have permanent fire on them, why did they take Cyndaquil's?.

Probably because Cyndaquil's fiery back isn't permanent.

 

[Cute Charm]

Personally I don't mind Cyndaquil line's lack of "permanent fire manes". Unlike the Charmander line where they denote the pokemon is alive, the Cyndaquil line's fire was just...fire quills used in self defense and shouldn't be lit at all times.

Fire texture needs work, but other than that I do like that design choice.

 

[homer.homs]

I was disappointed with Waterfall animation in the X/Y version. For me, it's not a waterfall, it's a fountain! BW and B2W2 is the most decent animation for Waterfall.

Also, the fire in Typhlosion's neck should remain permanent. Because without that fire, Typhlosion looks like a big mouse.

 

[Cute Charm]

I was disappointed with Waterfall animation in the X/Y version. For me, it's not a waterfall, it's a fountain! BW and B2W2 is the most decent animation for Waterfall.

I think the point of that animation was supposed to be something like...the pokemon summons a fountain of ground water and then lets it fall down on the opponent, hence waterfall.

Also, the fire in Typhlosion's neck should remain permanent. Because without that fire, Typhlosion looks like a big mouse.

But it's not permanent though. I mean think what you will but that's something they should keep since the fact that they can turn them off was never used in the main series games due to sprites.

 

[homer.homs]

I think the point of that animation was supposed to be something like...the pokemon summons a fountain of ground water and then lets it fall down on the opponent, hence waterfall.

Also, the fire in Typhlosion's neck should remain permanent. Because without that fire, Typhlosion looks like a big mouse.

But it's not permanent though. I mean think what you will but that's something they should keep since the fact that they can turn them off was never used in the main series games due to sprites.

View attachment 95970

Well, if you're going to check Waterfall's animation again, the water came from the ground and it didn't fall to the opponent. I don't understand what you're pointing at. Because if I'm going to look at it in every angle, I cannot convince myself that it is a waterfall. It keeps telling me that it is a fountain, just like what you said. Haha!

The only reason why suggested that the fire in Typhlosion's body should remain permanent is because it is cool to look at it, rather than to look more like a big mouse. No other reason. =)

 

[Neris]

I think the point of that animation was supposed to be something like...the pokemon summons a fountain of ground water and then lets it fall down on the opponent, hence waterfall.

Well, if you're going to check Waterfall's animation again, the water came from the ground and it didn't fall to the opponent. I don't understand what you're pointing at. Because if I'm going to look at it in every angle, I cannot convince myself that it is a waterfall. It keeps telling me that it is a fountain, just like what you said. Haha!

I think the move Waterfall has something more to do with the Pokemon climbing up a waterfall rather than a literal waterfall cascading down on them. You see if it were actual water falling it would be a special move (Surf) not a physical one. At least I think so. So it make sense that the Pokemon using the move would strike the opponent upwards like it would climb up a waterfall. And it wasn't necessary to have Waterfall when going down on one before.

 

[Silverwynde]

Can we give some of the non-Flying Pokemon a decent Fly animation? Please? Because my poor Golurk Riser feels like a total moron jumping in the air and belly-flopping on his opponent. It's undignified Game Freak, so fix it please?

 

[homer.homs]

I think the point of that animation was supposed to be something like...the pokemon summons a fountain of ground water and then lets it fall down on the opponent, hence waterfall.

Well, if you're going to check Waterfall's animation again, the water came from the ground and it didn't fall to the opponent. I don't understand what you're pointing at. Because if I'm going to look at it in every angle, I cannot convince myself that it is a waterfall. It keeps telling me that it is a fountain, just like what you said. Haha!

I think the move Waterfall has something more to do with the Pokemon climbing up a waterfall rather than a literal waterfall cascading down on them. You see if it were actual water falling it would be a special move (Surf) not a physical one. At least I think so. So it make sense that the Pokemon using the move would strike the opponent upwards like it would climb up a waterfall. And it wasn't necessary to have Waterfall when going down on one before.

If the user will move upwards, then the name should be Water Up(just kidding) or Fountain, and not Waterfall. Because literally, if you use Waterfall(not to mention the body type of water), the water should be falling, hence, the use of the word "FALL".

On the other hand, Surf is not a big volume of water falling, its a big volume of water rushing towards the opponent, and not "falling to the opponent(literally)."

 

[SUP3RN0VA]

I think the point of that animation was supposed to be something like...the pokemon summons a fountain of ground water and then lets it fall down on the opponent, hence waterfall.

Well, if you're going to check Waterfall's animation again, the water came from the ground and it didn't fall to the opponent. I don't understand what you're pointing at. Because if I'm going to look at it in every angle, I cannot convince myself that it is a waterfall. It keeps telling me that it is a fountain, just like what you said. Haha!

I think the move Waterfall has something more to do with the Pokemon climbing up a waterfall rather than a literal waterfall cascading down on them. You see if it were actual water falling it would be a special move (Surf) not a physical one. At least I think so. So it make sense that the Pokemon using the move would strike the opponent upwards like it would climb up a waterfall. And it wasn't necessary to have Waterfall when going down on one before.

If the user will move upwards, then the name should be Water Up(just kidding) or Fountain, and not Waterfall. Because literally, if you use Waterfall(not to mention the body type of water), the water should be falling, hence, the use of the word "FALL".

On the other hand, Surf is not a big volume of water falling, its a big volume of water rushing towards the opponent, and not "falling to the opponent(literally)."

The point of water fall is to allow you to climb up waterfalls, and the battle move portrays that. Otherwise you'd have a battle move that does a different thing to what it does outside of battle.

 

[homer.homs]

I think the point of that animation was supposed to be something like...the pokemon summons a fountain of ground water and then lets it fall down on the opponent, hence waterfall.

Well, if you're going to check Waterfall's animation again, the water came from the ground and it didn't fall to the opponent. I don't understand what you're pointing at. Because if I'm going to look at it in every angle, I cannot convince myself that it is a waterfall. It keeps telling me that it is a fountain, just like what you said. Haha!

I think the move Waterfall has something more to do with the Pokemon climbing up a waterfall rather than a literal waterfall cascading down on them. You see if it were actual water falling it would be a special move (Surf) not a physical one. At least I think so. So it make sense that the Pokemon using the move would strike the opponent upwards like it would climb up a waterfall. And it wasn't necessary to have Waterfall when going down on one before.

If the user will move upwards, then the name should be Water Up(just kidding) or Fountain, and not Waterfall. Because literally, if you use Waterfall(not to mention the body type of water), the water should be falling, hence, the use of the word "FALL".

On the other hand, Surf is not a big volume of water falling, its a big volume of water rushing towards the opponent, and not "falling to the opponent(literally)."

The point of water fall is to allow you to climb up waterfalls, and the battle move portrays that. Otherwise you'd have a battle move that does a different thing to what it does outside of battle.

Haha! This is getting longer. If that is your point, then why the water came from the ground and not above the opponent, if the intention of the move is to allow the poke to climb up in the waterfalls? Your statement contradicts the actual animation of the move. Also, the animation of this move in the past Gen portrays the actual waterfall(Gen V to be exact).

As the definition said, "The user charges the foe at an awesome speed"(got this from DPPt), my understanding is that the user summon a large body of water above the opponent and make the user fall together with the water with awesome speed, hence, a waterfall. But in the animation of Waterfall in X/Y, the user came from the ground. I just do not understand why the poke came from the ground if the intention is for the poke to climb in the waterfall??

 

[Alola]

I think the point of that animation was supposed to be something like...the pokemon summons a fountain of ground water and then lets it fall down on the opponent, hence waterfall.

Well, if you're going to check Waterfall's animation again, the water came from the ground and it didn't fall to the opponent. I don't understand what you're pointing at. Because if I'm going to look at it in every angle, I cannot convince myself that it is a waterfall. It keeps telling me that it is a fountain, just like what you said. Haha!

I think the move Waterfall has something more to do with the Pokemon climbing up a waterfall rather than a literal waterfall cascading down on them. You see if it were actual water falling it would be a special move (Surf) not a physical one. At least I think so. So it make sense that the Pokemon using the move would strike the opponent upwards like it would climb up a waterfall. And it wasn't necessary to have Waterfall when going down on one before.

If the user will move upwards, then the name should be Water Up(just kidding) or Fountain, and not Waterfall. Because literally, if you use Waterfall(not to mention the body type of water), the water should be falling, hence, the use of the word "FALL".

On the other hand, Surf is not a big volume of water falling, its a big volume of water rushing towards the opponent, and not "falling to the opponent(literally)."

The point of water fall is to allow you to climb up waterfalls, and the battle move portrays that. Otherwise you'd have a battle move that does a different thing to what it does outside of battle.

Haha! This is getting longer. If that is your point, then why the water came from the ground and not above the opponent, if the intention of the move is to allow the poke to climb up in the waterfalls? Your statement contradicts the actual animation of the move. Also, the animation of this move in the past Gen portrays the actual waterfall(Gen V to be exact).

As the definition said, "The user charges the foe at an awesome speed"(got this from DPPt), my understanding is that the user summon a large body of water above the opponent and make the user fall together with the water with awesome speed, hence, a waterfall. But in the animation of Waterfall in X/Y, the user came from the ground. I just do not understand why the poke came from the ground if the intention is for the poke to climb in the waterfall??

When you climb a waterfall, you do just that. Climb it. From the bottom up. Just like the animation used when you use the move in the field. So clearly that's what GF was going for in terms of move animation. Thus you're kind of answering your own question.

However I agree. Waterfall has always been an odd move to animate.

 

[homer.homs]

I think the point of that animation was supposed to be something like...the pokemon summons a fountain of ground water and then lets it fall down on the opponent, hence waterfall.

Well, if you're going to check Waterfall's animation again, the water came from the ground and it didn't fall to the opponent. I don't understand what you're pointing at. Because if I'm going to look at it in every angle, I cannot convince myself that it is a waterfall. It keeps telling me that it is a fountain, just like what you said. Haha!

I think the move Waterfall has something more to do with the Pokemon climbing up a waterfall rather than a literal waterfall cascading down on them. You see if it were actual water falling it would be a special move (Surf) not a physical one. At least I think so. So it make sense that the Pokemon using the move would strike the opponent upwards like it would climb up a waterfall. And it wasn't necessary to have Waterfall when going down on one before.

If the user will move upwards, then the name should be Water Up(just kidding) or Fountain, and not Waterfall. Because literally, if you use Waterfall(not to mention the body type of water), the water should be falling, hence, the use of the word "FALL".

On the other hand, Surf is not a big volume of water falling, its a big volume of water rushing towards the opponent, and not "falling to the opponent(literally)."

The point of water fall is to allow you to climb up waterfalls, and the battle move portrays that. Otherwise you'd have a battle move that does a different thing to what it does outside of battle.

Haha! This is getting longer. If that is your point, then why the water came from the ground and not above the opponent, if the intention of the move is to allow the poke to climb up in the waterfalls? Your statement contradicts the actual animation of the move. Also, the animation of this move in the past Gen portrays the actual waterfall(Gen V to be exact).

As the definition said, "The user charges the foe at an awesome speed"(got this from DPPt), my understanding is that the user summon a large body of water above the opponent and make the user fall together with the water with awesome speed, hence, a waterfall. But in the animation of Waterfall in X/Y, the user came from the ground. I just do not understand why the poke came from the ground if the intention is for the poke to climb in the waterfall??

When you climb a waterfall, you do just that. Climb it. From the bottom up. Just like the animation used when you use the move in the field. So clearly that's what GF was going for in terms of move animation. Thus you're kind of answering your own question.

However I agree. Waterfall has always been an odd move to animate.

Well, for me, it doesn't make sense. It should not be called Waterfall if the intention is to climb a waterfall. It should be Water Fountain or similar terms. Anyway, I just noticed that in every generation(except for Gen 5), it all looks like water fountain to me.


This is a water fountain.


This is a waterfall

I'll now leave it to you which is much better animation and what animation matches the move Waterfall