Pokémon X and Y Discussion

[Tortferngatr]

Originally Posted by Fat Nyara

Fairy-type... doesn't sound bad.

...Holy crap, that actually might work as a legit type.

[shockwave527]

HEY GUIS

IF DEY MADE A LIGHT TYPE, THEY'DE HAVE TO MAKE ANOTHER ONE SO THAT IT'D STILL FIT FOR IF THEY WERE BEFORE THE PHYS/SPEC SPLIT SO ALL EEVEELUTIONS COULD BE SPECIAL BEFORE DA SPLIT

...

---

(Two flying-types with one rock throw.)

Also, word to the unwise: That was a joke on both light typers and people who think the typings before gen 4 and special or physical matters for eeveelutions.

...

---

EDIT:
I am not denying the possibility of a light type. This was just a joke.

[kupo555]

I'm a little surprised at how utterly dismissive and aggressive people are when even contemplating the possibility of a new type.

While there's certainly very little evidence (really, everything is complete conjecture at this point and people should just be less pissy in general), given what we *do* have, speculating a new type is fairly understandable. For the first time, we have what seems to be a single eeveelution being introduced (this, too, is speculation--but they're certainly making Ninfia the center of the promotion for this eevee short). Not only that, but it's type is already proving nearly impossible to place, which puts it starkly at odds with the pattern of other eeveelutions. They're all almost immediately identifiable (I could see pausing for a second thought on Glaceon or Espeon, but they're still pretty damn easy to place), and GF is specifically hiding its type. A brand spankin' new eevee evolution does sort of present the perfect opportunity to introduce a new type.

And some of the arguments against the "light" type specifically are baffling in their logical circumlocution. "Dark" isn't "dark" in Japan, but "evil." So what? "Light" could still fit the bill perfectly. In a semiotic sense, "light" is an archetypical representation of "goodness" or "purity." Any of those words (or divine, or celestial, and on and on) could all be interchangeable and work perfectly well at suggesting a new and fairly cohesive and clear type--certainly as conceptually clear as "bug" or "dragon" or "steel" or "poison" or, yes, "dark." I mean, it makes sense what constitutes a bug or dragon or steel pokemon, but in terms of moves it makes no sense, and GF mostly wings it (X-Scissor is bug type! Flash Cannon is Steel!)

Most of these types aren't interpreted in a single way, either. Dark types are suggestive, yes, of darkness or shadows--Umbreon, for instance--but also sometimes suggestive of the "evilness" or at the very least the impishness suggested by the Japanese name for the type--your Weaviles or Hydreigons or Zoroarks. Poison has been interpreted as venom--Toxicroak/Arbok, but also as various forms of pollution. People are being way too literal in trying to debunk the possibility of a "light" type.

It's also strange to say they won't do it just because Dark already has a logical foil in fighting. The whole chivalry/honor thing makes sense to oppose "dark" or "evil," but so would a pure/light/divine type, just as it makes sense why fire and water have the relationship they do, and why fire and rock have the relationship they do. Because any type that exists, in practical terms, has no single foil. In practical terms, each type has a specific interaction with 16 other types. And while the relationship between Dark and Fighting can be pretty easily explained/interpreted, anybody who honestly thinks that on a thematic/conceptual level that Dark or Evil (either way you want to refer to or think about it) doesn't have a more direct and clearly implied opposite than "fighting" is stretching credibility. And the idea that Japanese culture isn't as preoccupied with dark/light-evil/good schema doesn't do much to convince me. That may very well be true, and they may see things with greater complexity and ambiguity, but these are still ultra-basic, pretty much universally recognized and understood narrative and mythic motifs.

Also, saying that Steel and Dark types were added for specific reasons, and those reasons don't exist to justify a new type now is just weak reasoning. They *did* use Dark and Steel to help nerf Psychic, sure. But they could have done that a lot more easily by just tinkering with the type chart. Sort of like how, you know, Ice suddenly (and sadly, though logically) gained another type resistant to it between Gen I and Gen II--fire. Not to mention, again, those two new types also unavoidably interacted with every other type in the game and changed things for those types. If they were added just to nerf Psychic, well, there's many much easier solutions GF could have implemented. How about they did it partly because it was--this may be crazy--fun and interesting? And it's been a long-ass time since we've had a new type. I'd, for one, welcome it. It just switches things up and adds a new layer of complexity and opens up things aesthetically for more varied pokemon designs.

And the idea that the type chart is balanced now is also pretty easily debunked. The rarity of certain types in certain tiers is evidence of that. Everybody knows Ice typing and bug typing generally suck, for instance. Sure, Ice is an offensive necessity, so I suppose in that sense you could try to argue there's a balance, but the point of pokemon should really be to be able to battle and win with the pokemon you love, so for me, that defines balance as making as many pokemon as possible from all types as competitively viable as possible. Obviously, it's impossible to completely balance things, but the great disparity in type allocation among the tiers is pretty damning evidence to indicate that things could be *more* balanced.

ANYWAY, with that huge ass rant over, I'll go ahead and just say, lol, that I don't even think Ninfia is going to be a new type (though I don't doubt the possibility). I'm guessing, like most, either flying, or normal (the normal type would be enough of an outlier to perhaps justify it being a lone new eevee evolution this generation).

[labarith]

Originally Posted by Fat Garagara

Sooo if you saw an empty suit of armour start walking, you wouldn't think ghost? Only if it started flying.

It's a pokemon. A pokemon suit of armor is steel type.

A pokemon FLOATING suit of armor is ghost/Steel with levitate.

Originally Posted by Fat kupo555

I'm a little surprised at how utterly dismissive and aggressive people are when even contemplating the possibility of a new type.

You shouldn't be. The #1 reason against new types would be that unless they don't get a HP, like Normal, new types would require redoing HP-calculations. They wouldn't do this lightly, as it would make G3-5 pokemon moved over "different". Thus, they might just decide not to let you import old pokemon.

Meaning that G6 would start anew, and all of your existing pokemon would be worthless. THAT, sir, is unfun. It's one thing to make me wait until I beat the game before I can get my old pokemon; it's quite another to say "Haha, start fresh! All so we could introduce light type!"

#2, there just aren't any good types to do. Holy/Light to combat Dark is a rather weak concept. We could all name fictional types... but so many existing pokemon would be those types it wouldn't be funny. Yes, they could do like Steel and retcon some previous generation guys into that type... but it's all pretty annoying as is.

If you've played a CCG, you know how easy it is to jump the shark. Magic the Gathering now jumps the shark every 2 blocks; Yugioh jumps the shark every new concept. So many possible new types would represent a jumping of the shark, a long-term loss for a short-term gain of something "new".

G5, I think, did it pretty right. New set of pokemon for a new region. Hidden Abilities to make all other pokemon better. New moves, TMs, and Egg Moves.

I think alternating G2/3/4 and G5 style generations ("improve/mix old/new" then "all new" and back) would be good for the franchise. The "all new" generations give you an exciting, coherent "generation pokedex" to do battles in (think Kanto-cup tourney), while the improve/mix old/new lets you focus on giving new evolutions to existing guys to build their band, and improve their competitiveness.

If we're lucky, whoever is dumb enough to try and add a new type will make it a "normal"-esque atypical type that doesn't require radically editing the type chart, changing HP, and the like.

Long story short: Most people are resist a new type because it's a bad idea, and a bad omen. If you think it's not, go ahead and say so. But I suspect everything you say will be like telling me how necessary Tribal was, or how cool Ritual monsters were, or how fair "sunburst" is for battle beasts.

[SmashBrosBrawl]

Originally Posted by Fat kupo555

I'm a little surprised at how utterly dismissive and aggressive people are when even contemplating the possibility of a new type.

While there's certainly very little evidence (really, everything is complete conjecture at this point and people should just be less pissy in general), given what we *do* have, speculating a new type is fairly understandable. For the first time, we have what seems to be a single eeveelution being introduced (this, too, is speculation--but they're certainly making Ninfia the center of the promotion for this eevee short). Not only that, but it's type is already proving nearly impossible to place, which puts it starkly at odds with the pattern of other eeveelutions. They're all almost immediately identifiable (I could see pausing for a second thought on Glaceon or Espeon, but they're still pretty damn easy to place), and GF is specifically hiding its type. A brand spankin' new eevee evolution does sort of present the perfect opportunity to introduce a new type.

And some of the arguments against the "light" type specifically are baffling in their logical circumlocution. "Dark" isn't "dark" in Japan, but "evil." So what? "Light" could still fit the bill perfectly. In a semiotic sense, "light" is an archetypical representation of "goodness" or "purity." Any of those words (or divine, or celestial, and on and on) could all be interchangeable and work perfectly well at suggesting a new and fairly cohesive and clear type--certainly as conceptually clear as "bug" or "dragon" or "steel" or "poison" or, yes, "dark." I mean, it makes sense what constitutes a bug or dragon or steel pokemon, but in terms of moves it makes no sense, and GF mostly wings it (X-Scissor is bug type! Flash Cannon is Steel!)

Most of these types aren't interpreted in a single way, either. Dark types are suggestive, yes, of darkness or shadows--Umbreon, for instance--but also sometimes suggestive of the "evilness" or at the very least the impishness suggested by the Japanese name for the type--your Weaviles or Hydreigons or Zoroarks. Poison has been interpreted as venom--Toxicroak/Arbok, but also as various forms of pollution. People are being way too literal in trying to debunk the possibility of a "light" type.

It's also strange to say they won't do it just because Dark already has a logical foil in fighting. The whole chivalry/honor thing makes sense to oppose "dark" or "evil," but so would a pure/light/divine type, just as it makes sense why fire and water have the relationship they do, and why fire and rock have the relationship they do. Because any type that exists, in practical terms, has no single foil. In practical terms, each type has a specific interaction with 16 other types. And while the relationship between Dark and Fighting can be pretty easily explained/interpreted, anybody who honestly thinks that on a thematic/conceptual level that Dark or Evil (either way you want to refer to or think about it) doesn't have a more direct and clearly implied opposite than "fighting" is stretching credibility. And the idea that Japanese culture isn't as preoccupied with dark/light-evil/good schema doesn't do much to convince me. That may very well be true, and they may see things with greater complexity and ambiguity, but these are still ultra-basic, pretty much universally recognized and understood narrative and mythic motifs.

Also, saying that Steel and Dark types were added for specific reasons, and those reasons don't exist to justify a new type now is just weak reasoning. They *did* use Dark and Steel to help nerf Psychic, sure. But they could have done that a lot more easily by just tinkering with the type chart. Sort of like how, you know, Ice suddenly (and sadly, though logically) gained another type resistant to it between Gen I and Gen II--fire. Not to mention, again, those types unavoidably also interacted with every other type in the game. If they were added just to nerf Psychic, well, there's many much easier solutions GF could have implemented. How about they did it partly because it was--this may be crazy--fun and interesting? And it's been a long-ass time since we've had a new type. I'd, for one, welcome it. It just switches things up and adds a new layer of complexity and opens up things aesthetically for more varied pokemon designs.

And the idea that the type chart is balanced now is also pretty easily debunked. The rarity of certain types in certain tiers is evidence of that. Everybody knows Ice typing and bug typing generally suck, for instance. Sure, Ice is an offensive necessity, so I suppose in that sense you could try to argue there's a balance, but the point of pokemon should really be to be able to battle and win with the pokemon you love, so for me, that defines balance as making as many pokemon as possible from all types as competitively viable as possible. Obviously, it's impossible to completely balance things, but the great disparity in type allocation among the tiers is pretty damning evidence to indicate that things could be *more* balanced.

ANYWAY, with that huge ass rant over, I'll go ahead and just say, lol, that I don't even think Ninfia is going to be a new type (though I don't doubt the possibility). I'm guessing, like most, either flying, or normal (the normal type would be enough of an outlier to perhaps justify it being a lone new eevee evolution this generation).

OFF: kupo.
ON: No one is being aggressive and its not about being opposed to a new type, its about being opposed to a ''light type'' which has been done to death. And yes the type chart is pretty balanced, if the pokemon sucks its something else entirely.

[Subject 18]

I havent looked at this thread in over a month. Can someone explain this Ninifia thing is all about?

[Narutendo3]

kupo555, that was fucking beautiful... :'o

[SmashBrosBrawl]

Originally Posted by Fat BlackRussian

I havent looked at this thread in over a month. Can someone explain this Ninifia thing is all about?

Its the new eeveelution.

[kupo555]

Originally Posted by Fat SmashBrosBrawl

OFF: kupo.
ON: No one is being aggressive and its not about being opposed to a new type, its about being opposed to a ''light type'' which has been done to death. And yes the type chart is pretty balanced, if the pokemon sucks its something else entirely.

As if "water" and "fire" as core elements haven't been done to death? Lol, I don't even know what that phrase means in relation to pokemon. It draws much of its inspiration from cultural myths/legendary creatures, and it's meant to be simplified for kids. Something as universal as "good" and "bad" may be "done to death," but it fits the pokemon modus operandi perfectly. And the idea that if the pokemon sucks, it's something else is not true, or again, you'd almost CERTAINLY see better distribution of types (dragon perhaps not withstanding, as they freaking love making them pseudo-legendaries with monstrous BSTs).

[Nyara]

Originally Posted by Fat BlackRussian

I havent looked at this thread in over a month. Can someone explain this Ninifia thing is all about?

http://bulbanews.bulbagarden.net/wik...ed_in_CoroCoro

This. All the other stuff is speculation.

[SmashBrosBrawl]

Originally Posted by Fat kupo555

As if "water" and "fire" as core elements haven't been done to death? Lol, I don't even know what that phrase means in relation to pokemon. It draws much of its inspiration from cultural myths/legendary creatures, and it's meant to be simplified for kids. Something as universal as "good" and "bad" may be "done to death," but it fits the pokemon modus operandi perfectly. And the idea that if the pokemon sucks, it's something else is not true, or again, you'd almost CERTAINLY see better distribution of types (dragon perhaps not withstanding, as the freaking love making them pseudo-legendaries with monstrous BSTs).

Light based moves and abilities have been done to death. Theres no point in making a light type.

[Dark Fallen Angel]

Originally Posted by Fat Wishy

Edit2: The problem with "Fairy" type is that we already have two Fairy species lineages (Cleffa-line and Snubbull-line), AND an egg group. If Clefairy isn't Fairy type nothing can be Fairy type.

I disagree with this, because "if Charizard isn't Dragon type nothing can be Dragon type".

[Belbazoar]

Originally Posted by Fat labarith

It's a pokemon. A pokemon suit of armor is steel type.

A pokemon FLOATING suit of armor is ghost/Steel with levitate.

So Sableye is just Dark then?

[Narutendo3]

Originally Posted by Fat SmashBrosBrawl

And yes the type chart is pretty balanced, if the pokemon sucks its something else entirely.

Please explain to me then why a pokemon such as Lapras, who has a pretty damn good move pool and stat spread is nu?

And do you think light can't happen because there are currently moves, abilities, etc that are light-related? That just means that there are already things to become light type. We can get more fitting special steel moves for example, and they won't have to start from scratch with light moves. Bite changed. Magnemite changed. What's the problem?

[SmashBrosBrawl]

Fairies cant be a type. A lot of pokemons are based on fairies already. If they wanna make a new type it needs to be something completely new. Unfornately theres nothing else to add.

[SmashBrosBrawl]

Originally Posted by Fat Narutendo3

Please explain to me then why a pokemon such as Lapras, who has a pretty damn good move pool and stat spread is nu?

And do you think light can't happen because there are currently moves, abilities, etc that are light-related? That just means that there are already things to become light type. We can get more fitting special steel moves for example, and they won't have to start from scratch with light moves. Bite changed. Magnemite changed. What's the problem?

Cause no one uses it. And that is a change from gen 1 to gen 2 instead of gen 1 to gen 6.
Edit: Sorry for double-post.

[kupo555]

Magnemite and Magneton didn't stop them from making steel. They just retconned that. Again, I'm not saying I even think there will be a new type (I'd lean towards probably not just because they haven't shown any interest in doing so in a long time), but the idea that just because certain types of moves or species names, etc. already exist probably doesn't mean much. Again, I feel like that's being a bit too literal and hard-line for a series that clearly isn't either of those things (I mean, they added baby pokemon to species of pokemon that you could already hatch from an egg, and just worked their way around that--if they do that, I feel like they could do anything, lol).

[Wishy]

Originally Posted by Fat Dark Fallen Angel

I disagree with this, because "if Charizard isn't Dragon type nothing can be Dragon type".

The difference is Charizard has been Fire/Flying since the existence of Dragon, so I will let that slide.

Clefairy and it's family are "Fairy Pokemon". It's their species name in the Pokedex. Having a Fairy type would be confusing. Unless GF wants to retcon the typing of Cleffa/Clefairy/Clefable & Snubbull/Granbull (again, all of them are Fairy Pokemon), and change the name of the Fairy egg group.

I'm just saying having Fairy type now would not make sense when that term has been applied to different things (species, egg group) before. It would require some retconning and potential ass pulls, but I would prefer Fairy type over the dreadful ~Light~.

[Dark Fallen Angel]

Originally Posted by Fat SmashBrosBrawl

Fairies cant be a type. A lot of pokemons are based on fairies already. If they wanna make a new type it needs to be something completely new. Unfornately theres nothing else to add.

I disagree with this. Magnemite was not a Steel-type, yet they made the Steel-type and changed Magnemite's typing. Why they wouldn't change the typing from old Pokémon?

EDIT: Ninja'd

[SmashBrosBrawl]

Originally Posted by Fat Dark Fallen Angel

I disagree with this. Magnemite was not a Steel-type, yet they made the Steel-type and changed Magnemite's typing. Why they wouldn't change the typing from old Pokémon?

As i said that was a change from 1 gen to another, no one cared, pokemon was still in its beginnings, the typing chart was bullshit. Retconning lol clefairy which has been pretty estabilished for 5 entire generations as a normal type makes absolutely sense. Imagine changing celebi to a grass/fairy. Those kind of stuff will just confuse people for absolutely no reason.

[Narutendo3]

Originally Posted by Fat SmashBrosBrawl

Cause no one uses it. And that is a change from gen 1 to gen 2 instead of gen 1 to gen 6.
Edit: Sorry for double-post.

And why do you think nobody uses it? It's ideal for so many strategies if it just wasn't cursed with the ice type. On a rare occasion, a pokemon can actually make it passed that (like Mamoswine). But usually ice-type is a death sentence. It's too god-awful defensively. And who cares about when it became bad?

[Vabolo]

Oh come on guys, Ninfia is obviously Magical Girl-type.

[SmashBrosBrawl]

Originally Posted by Fat Narutendo3

And why do you think nobody uses it? It's ideal for so many strategies if it just wasn't cursed with the ice type. On a rare occasion, a pokemon can actually make it passed that (like Mamoswine). But usually ice-type is a death sentence. It's too god-awful defensively. And who cares about when it became bad?

Ice is bad cause its bad. Adding a new type wont change anything about it. It will still be bad. Unless the new type dominates the metagame and ice is the only type capable of countering it!

[Narutendo3]

Originally Posted by Fat SmashBrosBrawl

Ice is bad cause its bad. Adding a new type wont change anything about it. It will still be bad. Unless the new type dominates the metagame and ice is the only type capable of countering it!

That's like saying psychic was good because it was good, and adding a new type wouldn't change that. Any new matchup can be extremely decisive.

Originally Posted by Fat Vabolo

Oh come on guys, Ninfia is obviously Magical Girl-type.

lol Honestly, that's what it looks the most like.

[Ryanide]

What if it's like the Regigigas of the Eevee line?

A super-powerful (ha ha) normal type with some kind of gimmick, that's supposed to be the 'leader' of all the other eevees?

I don't think it's too far-fetched for it to be based off some new type either. Why would they attempt to hide it's typing? Gamefreak obviously knows that this Eeveelution isn't like the others, and obviously they intend to get some speculation stirring by leaving it's typing secret. I just feel like there's more significance behind it's typing not being revealed. I like the idea of a 'divine' type, personally. That would also give Gamefreak a chance to pull some bs with a 'true arceus' forme.