Pokemon Pokemon Type Effectiveness - An Analysis
- Thread starter Snowing
- Start date
Zenith said:
And what is Charizard? A lizard? I don't wanna insist on this again cause I already did it sometime ago with other members; just wanted to point that out...
And Flygon is based on an adult ant-lion mixed with dragon traits (although I admit that I thought it was simply a dragon when I saw it in R/S)... Again, this is already too much off-topic, so I'll stop...
If you think it's unfair that a draconic Pokemon like Charizard doesn't get to be Dragon-type, Godzilla would like to have a word with you.
Since we are on the dragon topic... why are dragons weak to dragons? In the perspective of the VG, shouldn't that mean Reshiram and Zekrom would be weak to each other? Instead, they were incapable to defeat each other. Maybe something to do with the high intelligence has to do with it... but they could (couldn't?) also outsmart each other that way as well. Hm...
Ekklesia said:
With Reshiram and Zekrom, I think of it this way: They are the oppisite of each other, yet they come from the same being (Kyurem) and therefor most likely to some extent, share the same thoughts, but Reshiram carries it's strategies out differently than Zekrom and vice versa; basicly what I'm trying to say is that they know what will happen when one of them uses a move, but they don't know how the move will be carried out, thus equalling each other's strenghs and weaknesses.
That's because they were foolish, and their signature moves are each resisted by the other (Dragon-type resists both Fire and Electric). I'm not exactly sure why Dragon and Ghost are weak to themselves. Well, I can kinda see Ghost - to see yourself actually getting harmed, by one of your own no less, is a bit of a surprise. As for Dragon? I have a rough idea (battling to prove superiority), but I'm going to have to smooth it out more.
I don't get where you get the idea something has to be magical to be a dragon. Since when are dragons magical in the first place? >_<
I think you're getting magical confused with mythical, which dragons actually are.
Flygon is based off an antlion, something that is often confused with a dragonfly and thus the typing as it draws inspiration from both. Kingdra is a sea dragon, I don't really get why you're arguing this case. Druddigon, like most dragons (Salamence and Dragonite), resemble european dragons with their looks. Altaria is based off a Peng which are told to have chinese dragon parts. Get it? Good.
Charizard isn't a Dragon-type because a) it was released as a starter, thus it picked up the Fire-type to even out with the other starters, b) it would have made things too easy for the charizard player in RBY. Game Freak just never changed it despite how it closely resembles one, and the fact that it should have been one is evidenced in Pokemon Ranger. Basically, Game Freak didn't want to make Charizard outclass the other starters in its days. I guess they also wanted to keep the Dragon-type exclusive to the Dragonite family.
What I'm getting at here is that there's a word called "balance".
Also, this thread isn't to argue why this and that Pokemon are this and that type, it's to argue why type X is effective on type Y. Get back on topic.
I think you're getting magical confused with mythical, which dragons actually are.
Flygon is based off an antlion, something that is often confused with a dragonfly and thus the typing as it draws inspiration from both. Kingdra is a sea dragon, I don't really get why you're arguing this case. Druddigon, like most dragons (Salamence and Dragonite), resemble european dragons with their looks. Altaria is based off a Peng which are told to have chinese dragon parts. Get it? Good.
Charizard isn't a Dragon-type because a) it was released as a starter, thus it picked up the Fire-type to even out with the other starters, b) it would have made things too easy for the charizard player in RBY. Game Freak just never changed it despite how it closely resembles one, and the fact that it should have been one is evidenced in Pokemon Ranger. Basically, Game Freak didn't want to make Charizard outclass the other starters in its days. I guess they also wanted to keep the Dragon-type exclusive to the Dragonite family.
What I'm getting at here is that there's a word called "balance".
Also, this thread isn't to argue why this and that Pokemon are this and that type, it's to argue why type X is effective on type Y. Get back on topic.
Lucky Fire said:
???
Your post makes no sense to me... Kingdra is based on a sea dragon, which is... a fish. Flygon has a lot of European dragon in it but its line is mostly based on the ant-lion which is an insect (the Flygon line is actually in the bug egg group, they're not even in the Dragon egg group). Charizard is really based on a dragon (an European dragon to be precise) and if you don't think so, you should google european dragon images. You can make a test with anybody that's not into Pokémon. Ask them what Charizard looks like and I bet everyone will say "dragon". Even in pokémon Ranger, you have to fight 4 elemental dragons (based on the classical elements) which are Salamence, Flygon, Kingdra and... Charizard.
Next, how are Flygon and Kingdra magical?? They have their own element just like Charizard, and the only thing remotely magical in Pokémon are Psychic-types and maybe Legendary Pokémon... Dragon Pokémon aren't magical at all, they control elements just like other regular Pokémon... And I'm talking about Charizard but this serves for any pokémon that should be Dragon-type (ex: Gyarados)
I know I said I wouldn't insist but for me, it's like, I'm explaining this as logical as possible but nobody gets it. Almost as, I'm saying 1+1=2 but you think I'm saying 1+1=3...
Edit: TDL ninja'd me... Still, the objective of my post is to point that Charizard should be a dragon because it is based on such thing, not that they have to change its type. I understand why they didn't do it like TDL said...
Actually, 1+1=5, since it's already been proven that 1 = 2, and 2+2=5 (but only for extremely high values of 2). You think I'm lying? I'm not.
Charizard isn't Dragon-type because of the starter bit and the Dragonite bit, and Gyarados isn't Dragon (rather, Flying) because it jumped up a waterfall (which could allude to Flying) and if it were Dragon-type instead, it would have no weakness.
That doesn't mean they aren't dragons, though. The Dragonite bit is the main reason that Charizard and Gyarados aren't in that type; Game Freak wanted to make it very clear that Dragon-types are supposed to be special and mythical, and thus, it was only given to one evolutionary line. (This trend continued somewhat in Generation 2; the only Pokemon to get the type was Kingdra, and their whole line as a species is classified as 'Dragon'.)
Now please, no more Dragon discussions. You're making my Chao very sad.
If you're fast with your attacks like Hitmonchan, then they'd be no problem. Birds need some time to take off. I think the principle is closer to how fighters are on the ground and can't easily reach Flying types whereas most other types have some form of projectile and thus Pokémon who fly aren't always safe from attacks. As for why Normal has as easy a time as most other types hitting Flying-types, I don't know. Projectiles coming from animals, at least in the real world, are not normal. (Not that they don't exist--check out the pistol shrimp and, for a plant variety, the white mulberry--just that they're not normal.)
Deus: Nightmare Autarch said:
I HOPE you're talking about Sonic the Hedgehog
!Anyway, it really all makes a lot of sense when you think about it: Grass absorbs water, fire douses (sp?) water and fire emmolates grass. Water conducts Electricity, so electric beats water, and uhm, I guess Electricity travels fastest in the air? Or, I think air conducts electricity too! So that makes sense. Ground being effective against poison, though, that's something to think about... Maybe because during an earthquake, the ground traps poisonous substances within itself, and its locked in isolation!
Those are some of my theories.