Pokemon Pokemon Types that NEED to be added

A Light type would be cool. The only thing it would be effective is against Dark and Ghost, which would add an extra weakness to those dual types. Spiritomb would be 4x weak against it hahaha. I'm personally all for but not many people would be...

It wouldn't be that messed up... I mean... Magnemite used to be normal against fire and now he's weak against it... rock and ice had to get an extra weakness, so Dark and Ghost pokemon getting another weakness wouldn't make things that any more complicated. A light type would only be weak against Dark types and normal against everything else, no resistances.

Y'know what would be a cool a Dark/Psychic typing... 4x weakness to Bug though.
 
I think if it was done they wll probably try it as a marketing gimmick and nothing more. (bring on the crystal onix!!!! Sorry cartoon reference to pokemon from waaaay back in the day)

Overall, the game is balanced, much like magic the gathering.
 
We only need an extra type when the game becomes unbalanced. Like it was Gen I, where Psychic-types generally had awesome movesets and type-advantages. So voila, Steel- and Dark-types were added. The game's pretty balanced now, we honestly don't need any of the types anyone's mentioned. They'd probably do more harm than good.
 
Darks were used to counter psychic dominance at Gen I, as everyone said. Given type matchups, anything else is not needed.

Personally, I find the concept of Dark to begin with is just dumb. Pokémon warranted itself as a unique RPG and now everyone is screaming for a goddamn light type because they added Dark, which symbolizes pretty much nothing. But no, just because people find the "great" eternal conflict of light and dark to be awesome, they want that just as badly as getting Pheonix Wright into Marvel Vs Capcom 3 [/side rant]. Several Pokémon and moves that are labeled dark types can be debated to be something completely different. It honestly makes no sense.
 
magic is just psychic, isn't it?

for the tcg to include all the types, they should just make it the number of cards for a deck could be 100 or something.
 
For the TCG cards, there shouldn't be more than the usual types, except for maybe promos. It would just confuse the game more than I already find it. :p
 
Zyflair said:
Darks were used to counter psychic dominance at Gen I, as everyone said. Given type matchups, anything else is not needed.

Personally, I find the concept of Dark to begin with is just dumb. Pokémon warranted itself as a unique RPG and now everyone is screaming for a Goshdarn light type because they added Dark, which symbolizes pretty much nothing. But no, just because people find the "great" eternal conflict of light and dark to be awesome, they want that just as badly as getting Pheonix Wright into Marvel Vs Capcom 3 [/side rant]. Several Pokémon and moves that are labeled dark types can be debated to be something completely different. It honestly makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Actually, thats not what the dark type is based off of. Dark types are pokemon that are particularily mischevous and resort to dirty tricks. They arent evil, they just smbolize pokemon that are simply naughty. Pokemon like weavile and scrafty arent evil, just naturally not nice and prone to steal and other bad habits
 
/me activates Level 3 X-factor and rages:

frostwind said:
Actually, thats not what the dark type is based off of. Dark types are pokemon that are particularily mischevous and resort to dirty tricks. They arent evil, they just smbolize pokemon that are simply naughty. Pokemon like weavile and scrafty arent evil, just naturally not nice and prone to steal and other bad habits
Click to expand...
That's a behavior! It's not an element or physical characteristic! Regardless of how you put it, Dark always looks like the most absurd type out there! Now if Light was suggested, it would follow to many that it should be super effective against Dark, which would be downright contradictory to your statements and make things even more confusing!
 
^^ Is fighting an element? Is normal an element? But, what I think needs to be added is dual types in the tcg again. Those were awesome, even if most of them were dark.
 
Fighting and normal are physical characteristics. Normal represents simple flesh, fighting shows an organized form of attack.
 
Zyflair said:
Fighting and normal are physical characteristics. Normal represents simple flesh, fighting shows an organized form of attack.
Click to expand...
Dark shows a nature. Some dark pokemon can be associated with shadow as well
 
AllInAPackage said:
^Adding to this, Darkrai isn't evil, it just has dark aspects to it, like causing nightmares.
Click to expand...
Mystery Dungeon 2 and EoS would like to disagree with you.

However, I think that Dark could have been a better designed type, or even a whole different type with the same Weaknesses and Resistances.
 
Dark types are mostly mischevous and sneaky (Purrloin, Sneasel), but some dark types are monstrous and evil (Tyranitar in pokedex) others are associated with darkness and the night (Umbreon, Darkrai), and a few are just misunderstood as being evil (Absol, Darkrai) -- though Darkrai is evil in PMD.
 
Its basically a collection of pokemon that in some way or another are dirty fighters. Their oposite is fighting type, look it up in bulbapedia.
Its already been said that normal and fighting arent elements in regular western terms. Even then, normal types are just a collection of pokemon that seem to be abnormal like snorlax and kecleon.
I think dark types are fine as is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top