XY The Two Legendary Pokémon

[Frezgle]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

Altaria's even more clearly a bird, and it's a Dragon-type. Though I agree it's overdone. I don't really want Dragon as much as...well, anything else. Though it does seem a little more likely than things like, say, Rock.
As for Abilities... Yeah, no Pressure. I was thinking maybe if they are indeed life/death, they could have new counterpart abilities: Xerneas restores a little bit of HP for everything in play each turn (like everyone having Leftovers), and Yveltal takes it away (like everyone having... uh... reverse Leftovers).

 

[Pokequaza]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

Xerneas is at least partially Water-type, and perhaps something else, I will give you my word.

What makes you so certain of that?
In terms of coloration I can see it, but given what we know about it and what its origins are, I'm not sure Water would be more fitting, than say Grass or Psychic.

Its blue colouration is just a coincidence.

I will present you: Eikþyrnir. A large hart or deer from Valhalla, located in Asgard. It is said to have horns shaped like braches, from which flows water to the world below and feeds all the major rivers. It fits perfectly with the concept of the blind eagle, another important creature from Asgard, the blue colouration of the eyes of Yveltal make it seem that the Pokémon is indeed blind. (This would also leave a third creature, the dragon named Níðhöggr, for a possible third installment in the series.)

I do not think they will make legendaries based on body parts, just the idea alone is odd. ''But ther is DNa eveRywhere, y not based on genetics for the concepts of Pikamon X and Y?'' Yes, the games do slightly hint towards a ''DNA-theme'', but I doubt this is what the legendaries are about. Not every single thing should therefore be based on DNA; Even though muscles and neurons have nothing to do DNA, well, except for the fact that you can find them both in an animal. It makes a lot more sense to take inspiration from mythology, as they always do.

edit: Poison does not represent death, it is venom, toxic, and poison. They will lead to death, but so do fire and electricity, if it had to be based on death, it would be Ghost, Dark is more evil than the actual concept of death. I think Ghost/Flying would fit Yveltal very well (just as Dark/Flying), it also has this dark eerie cloud around its neck.

edit2: Also, Levitate? Really? It flies, it does not hover. But then again, neither does Flygon, which I still do not understand.

 

[Frezgle]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

I do not think they will make legendaries based on body parts, just the idea alone is odd. ''But ther is DNa eveRywhere, y not based on genetics for the concepts of Pikamon X and Y?'' Yes, the games do slightly hint towards a ''DNA-theme'', but I doubt this is what the legendaries are about. Not every single thing should therefore be based on DNA; Even though muscles and neurons have nothing to do DNA, well, except for the fact that you can find them both in an animal. It makes a lot more sense to take inspiration from mythology, as they always do.

Or they could take inspiration from both things? There's evidence for both ideas, but there's no reason it has to be one or the other. There are many, many Pokemon that have their basis in two or more animals/ideas/mythologies.

 

[Pokequaza]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

I do not think they will make legendaries based on body parts, just the idea alone is odd. ''But ther is DNa eveRywhere, y not based on genetics for the concepts of Pikamon X and Y?'' Yes, the games do slightly hint towards a ''DNA-theme'', but I doubt this is what the legendaries are about. Not every single thing should therefore be based on DNA; Even though muscles and neurons have nothing to do DNA, well, except for the fact that you can find them both in an animal. It makes a lot more sense to take inspiration from mythology, as they always do.

Or they could take inspiration from both things? There's evidence for both ideas, but there's no reason it has to be one or the other. There are many, many Pokemon that have their basis in two or more animals/ideas/mythologies.

But there is no evidence for muscles and neurons? I might as well say Groundon is based on a muscle, Kyogre on a stomach, and Rayquaza on some intestines. Yveltal's shape is based on a Y, Xerneas' shape on an X.

 

[Frezgle]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

But there is no evidence for muscles and neurons? I might as well say Groundon is based on a muscle, Kyogre on a stomach, and Rayquaza on some intestines. Yveltal's shape is based on a Y, Xerneas' shape on an X.

Except Kyogre and Groudon don't resemble those things at all, and Xerneas/Yveltal do:

 

[Their Goominess]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

What makes you so certain of that?
In terms of coloration I can see it, but given what we know about it and what its origins are, I'm not sure Water would be more fitting, than say Grass or Psychic.

Its blue colouration is just a coincidence.

I will present you: Eikþyrnir. A large hart or deer from Valhalla, located in Asgard. It is said to have horns shaped like braches, from which flows water to the world below and feeds all the major rivers. It fits perfectly with the concept of the blind eagle, another important creature from Asgard, the blue colouration of the eyes of Yveltal make it seem that the Pokémon is indeed blind. (This would also leave a third creature, the dragon named Níðhöggr, for a possible third installment in the series.)

That is a very good reason, and I noticed there's a lot of rivers in the Kalos Region.
However, if Xerneas was to be Water type, wouldn't fountain-like features or spouts for water take priority on the design of its antlers as opposed to glowy parts? In terms of its design it doesn't have any features that would immediately imply Water type... And surely it would appear in a lake, or some body of water? In both the trailer and the XY boxart its portrayed in a forest. That alone would imply Grass more than Water.

 

[Pokequaza]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

Its blue colouration is just a coincidence.

I will present you: Eikþyrnir. A large hart or deer from Valhalla, located in Asgard. It is said to have horns shaped like braches, from which flows water to the world below and feeds all the major rivers. It fits perfectly with the concept of the blind eagle, another important creature from Asgard, the blue colouration of the eyes of Yveltal make it seem that the Pokémon is indeed blind. (This would also leave a third creature, the dragon named Níðhöggr, for a possible third installment in the series.)

That is a very good reason, and I noticed there's a lot of rivers in the Kalos Region.
However, if Xerneas was to be Water type, wouldn't fountain-like features or spouts for water take priority on the design of its antlers as opposed to glowy parts? In terms of its design it doesn't have any features that would immediately imply Water type... And surely it would appear in a lake, or some body of water? In both the trailer and the XY boxart its portrayed in a forest. That alone would imply Grass more than Water.

As far as the stories from mythology go; the creature itself is surrounded by trees, it eats from a tree called Lærad, from which I suppose it creates the water. It is never depicted as having actually water flowing from its antlers either, on the other hand however, we do not have many illustrations of Norse mythology left over. Water/Grass is what I suggested before, although the type combination reminds me too much of Ludicolo. I cannot imagine Xerneas having the same type as well, but perhaps that is just me. Do not forget that Yveltal was only portrayed flying around, it did not really reveal its type either; so I do not think the environment they live in, or rather were portrayed in, call tell us much about their types.

@frezgle;

You are just trying to match the pictures, if you search long enough, you will find one that somewhat resembles the thing you are looking for. A neuron is usually depicted as this: [ http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_smxZWUrrrlo/S8ioTXpNmpI/AAAAAAAAAAw/aoyzmzB_r-Y/s1600/neuron.JPG ]. And even this picture actually is far from what neurons actually look like, the axons are generally much longer. Also, neurons never have more than one axon, which the picture you posted does not seem to care about.

The same story for myosine, you only posted a small part of the structure, which contains many more lobes, is a lot longer, and it much more complex. Also, if I am not mistaken, that is myosin II, just one protein of the 18 recognised myosin structures. This, for example, is also a myosin protein: [ http://www.nature.com/nrm/journal/v11/n2/images/nrm2833-f4.jpg ]. Yveltal does not look like myosine, nor muscles.

 

[Flys Gone 2071]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

I don't get why people say it is based on Muscles and Neurons. I don't see them being based on them. I would say it is based more on Norse mythology before parts of the body.

 

[CyberCat5555]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

I don't get why people say it is based on Muscles and Neurons. I don't see them being based on them. I would say it is based more on Norse mythology before parts of the body.

How do you see Norse mythology as inspiration? I see everyone say that, but I just don't understand it. I mean, I know the myth has some deer that live in front of a tree and an eagle that flies over the tree, but I still don't see it. I watch the videos that try to explain it, but it doesn't convince me. I fully believe in the DNA theory, though, mostly because there is so much more info to support that theory than the Norse one. I mean, we even have official stuff to support the DNA claim, and nothing for the Norse one. If you want me to explain the reason for the DNA theory, I will.

 

[Flys Gone 2071]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

That is just what I think. I don't believe the DNA theory and much less the Muscles/Neurons thing. I believe that the names come from the coordinate grid other than genetics really.

 

[CyberCat5555]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

That is just what I think. I don't believe the DNA theory and much less the Muscles/Neurons thing. I believe that the names come from the coordinate grid other than genetics really.

Here is why I think the DNA is the main inspiration for Xerneas and Yveltal:
>Xerneas has light-up DNA helices in its antlers
>The diamonds on Yveltal's back represent the gaps in the DNA
>The games are called X and Y, referring to the chromosomes, and Xerneas and Yveltal reflect the shapes of an X and a Y in their design
>The biggest reason for the DNA theory is the Japanese logos, they have a glowing, rainbowy helix in their design
I can continue on why gen 6 is based off DNA, but that's off topic.

 

[Matty]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

Not really. Poison can represent death/destruction; chemicals, no antidotes and stuff like that.

No? Poison in pokémon is either about being naturally venomous or about pollution. Dark (or Evil in japan) embraces various concepts such as violence (Tyranitar), evil will (Spiritomb), shadows and darkness (Darkrai, Sableye), cheating/sneakyness (Liepard), demonic references (Houndoom), etc... everything bad basically... One of the best examples is Absol, which is Dark-type because it is associated with catastrophes (even though it is actually trying to warn people, poor one). So, if Yveltal is supposed to represent destruction and death, then the most fitting type for such theme is undoubtedly the Dark-type. Death actually has more to do with the Ghost-type but Dark-type also fits...

Also,

Besides, not every pokemon whose have evil-like traits should be dark-types. Like for example, Zubat and others can be evil and they are not even dark-types.

Oh, really? What should they be then? Fairy-type?!
And what are you talking about? Zubats are not evil... They just live in caves...

I have a question for you; why do you think all pokemon are good? Obviously that's not true, there are some bad pokemon such as Jessie's Frillish. Sheesh, you actually think they all are good? lulz.

And for the dark-type speculation; that's fine if you're hoping it will turn out to be a dark-type because it's somewhat evil. Personally, for me, I sure hope it isn't a dark-type because not every evil-like trait pokemon has to be a dark-type.

 

[Pokequaza]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

Here is why I think the DNA is the main inspiration for Xerneas and Yveltal:
>Xerneas has light-up DNA helices in its antlers
>The diamonds on Yveltal's back represent the gaps in the DNA
>The games are called X and Y, referring to the chromosomes, and Xerneas and Yveltal reflect the shapes of an X and a Y in their design
>The biggest reason for the DNA theory is the Japanese logos, they have a glowing, rainbowy helix in their design
I can continue on why gen 6 is based off DNA, but that's off topic.

DNA on its antlers? That is a little bit of a stretch. I can see what you mean though, but the antlers are different, it consists out of one horn with a luminescent horn weaving through the actual horn. DNA, however, is a helix. Those shapes on Yveltal resembling DNA is not an argument, I am sure you know that as well.

X and Y could also be based on dimensions, even though I am not a big fan of that idea either, I must admit it is better than the chromosomes theory. Personally I do not think they mean more than just the last three letters of the alphabet. The chromosomes theory would make sense if the games were called XX & XY, but just X & Y does not hold much ground for that argument.

The only that does support the idea of a DNA-theme are the logos, and the bracelets, but there is no literal connection with the legendaries. I think the DNA-theme will be involved in the games, but more in a breeding-mechanic of some sort, fusion perhaps? I do not know what GameFreak is up to these days.

I have a question for you; why do you think all pokemon are good? Obviously that's not true, there are some bad pokemon such as Jessie's Frillish. Sheesh, you actually think they all are good? lulz.

Anime =/= games.

 

[Mitja]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

I thought the 4 colored antlers were a reference to A C T G at first...but I think its more likely reference to the yggdrasil housing 4 stags with different colored gems, so its like all 4 stags in one.

 

[DorianBlack]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

I thought the 4 colored antlers were a reference to A C T G at first...but I think its more likely reference to the yggdrasil housing 4 stags with different colored gems, so its like all 4 stags in one.

Hell, why not both? There's been all this back and forth, with everyone supporting the theory they agree with and knocking all the others, but considering how often Pokémon designs come from the merging of several different ideas, why couldn't more than one be right?

 

[Pokequaza]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

I thought the 4 colored antlers were a reference to A C T G at first...but I think its more likely reference to the yggdrasil housing 4 stags with different colored gems, so its like all 4 stags in one.

Hell, why not both? There's been all this back and forth, with everyone supporting the theory they agree with and knocking all the others, but considering how often Pokémon designs come from the merging of several different ideas, why couldn't more than one be right?

Because then we would end up with a stag/deer/hart that is not only shaped like an X, inspired by either the four stags from Yggdrasil, or Eikþyrnir, the majectic river creating creature, but would also be a DNA housing mammal with its antlers perhaps referencing to nucleic acids, and who knows, it might be part of Santa Claus' reindeer gang as well.

GameFreak might not always make sense, but their inspirations are usually drawn from one source, sometimes two as well. They keep things simple.

 

[DorianBlack]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

Hell, why not both? There's been all this back and forth, with everyone supporting the theory they agree with and knocking all the others, but considering how often Pokémon designs come from the merging of several different ideas, why couldn't more than one be right?

Because then we would end up with a stag/deer/hart that is not only shaped like an X, inspired by either the four stags from Yggdrasil, or Eikþyrnir, the majectic river creating creature, but would also be a DNA housing mammal with its antlers perhaps referencing to nucleic acids, and who knows, it might be part of Santa Claus' reindeer gang as well.

GameFreak might not always make sense, but their inspirations are usually drawn from one source, sometimes two as well. They keep things simple.

But if none of the sources are at all incompatible, why couldn't they use as many as they want? Especially when there's a good case to be made that there are counterpart influences for each one in Yveltal. I remember talk of an eagle in Norse mythology, and its Y-shape is reminiscent of DNA in the midst of replication. We have far too little evidence for anything right now to rule out any possible source, so there's no reason for all the dismissal going on.

 

[Pokequaza]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

But if none of the sources are at all incompatible, why couldn't they use as many as they want? Especially when there's a good case to be made that there are counterpart influences for each one in Yveltal. I remember talk of an eagle in Norse mythology, and its Y-shape is reminiscent of DNA in the midst of replication. We have far too little evidence for anything right now to rule out any possible source, so there's no reason for all the dismissal going on.

I would suggest seeing a doctor if your DNA is Y-shaped during replication.

 

[CyberCat5555]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

But if none of the sources are at all incompatible, why couldn't they use as many as they want? Especially when there's a good case to be made that there are counterpart influences for each one in Yveltal. I remember talk of an eagle in Norse mythology, and its Y-shape is reminiscent of DNA in the midst of replication. We have far too little evidence for anything right now to rule out any possible source, so there's no reason for all the dismissal going on.

I would suggest seeing a doctor if your DNA is Y-shaped during replication.

DNA is Y-shaped during replication, the old DNA is split down the center then RNA comes along and matches each nucleotide with its corresponding nucleobase-

 

[Pokequaza]

RE: The Two Legendary Pokemon

I would suggest seeing a doctor if your DNA is Y-shaped during replication.

DNA is Y-shaped during replication, the old DNA is split down the center then RNA comes along and matches each nucleotide with its corresponding nucleobase-

How come nobody knows the actual biology behind these things? If your DNA were to split, as in the picture you posted, it would be irreversibly damaged. DNA does not replicate all at once, it happens in seperate parts. This image comes a lot closer to the actual deal:

Textbooks never bother to show you the whole picture. And no, it does not look like Yveltal.