Quoted By:
>people still think because an artist has managed to vaguely recreate the "Pokemon style" that it means the art has any credibility. Too many of these artists fail to actually look at the most recent examples of what the actual Pokemon renders look like and just go with a blend of what they believe pokemon art SHOULD look like
Pic related, the biggest giveaway in these fakes is the lack of consistent "light" areas that contrast with the shadows, they are present in the snake to a degree but aren't consistent in the bear and especially not the armadillo that should have them on the outer top right rim of the head and potentially on the bamboo stock themselves. The colours are also too saturated, the armadillo again is the biggest giveaway, that main green colour should be saturated pretty harshly. Pic related, I made some of my own adjustments.
Hawlucha leak had far too much work put into it to be a fake, would require the creation of an actual 3D model that perfectly imitated the style placed into the picture flawlessly. There were a few other fakes around that time that managed to do it pretty well from what I remember, like the little ferret thing that looked like a spring or something along those lines.
Gen 7 starter leaks were harder to tell, but the fact that they were big expression/character concept sheets rather than the "clean render" was extremely convincing, there is a different level of skill from just creating a fakemon like the ones above and actually creating a good concept sheet like that, once again there have been a few examples of people doing it well, like the monkey grass starter that had the glowing eyes in the cave or some shit
I've been on /vp/ a long time, I saw the initial Gen 5 starter leaks (and believed them), I'm also an artist who knows my way around creating fakemon to a certain degree. These are good attempts, but ultimately they're too clean and too manufactured to look like Pokemon
