[Asks: Asks: Asks: Asks:] asks:

How do you feel about the lack of single type Flying pokemon? I’ve always felt it was odd that there is only one pure Flying type.

I tend to think Game Freak’s notion of what the Flying type actually is has changed quite a bit since generation I, perhaps to the extent that no one has ever quite known what it’s supposed to be.  All the generation I Flying-type attacks are bird-themed – Wing Attack, Drill Peck, Sky Attack (in Japanese, Goddo Bādo, a transliteration of the English “God Bird”) – which makes sense, since we have reason to suspect, on the basis of MissingNo and other bits of stray game data from Red and Blue, that it was originally called the “Bird type.” This, of course, is why Flying is strong against Bug.  Gust was a Normal-type attack originally, and Whirlwind still is.

Continue reading “[Asks: Asks: Asks: Asks:] asks:”

Anonymous asks:

I think they should de-nerf Hyper Beam (and all its variations like Giga Impact and the starter types’ “ultimate moves”) back to Gen I mechanics where it doesn’t need to recharge if it knocks out an opposing Pokémon. What do you think?

Not sure.  I don’t think I’d be opposed to that for Hyper Beam and maybe Giga Impact specifically – Hyper Beam gets used on just about everything in generation I, to the extent that you could maybe argue it’s oppressive, but that’s partly because so many Pokémon just don’t have anything better to do in generation I (there are no really good Fighting, Rock or Ghost attacks, no Bug or Poison ones that are even decent, and basically no Dragon attacks at all), which is no longer the case.  I don’t think allowing everyone to have a good Normal-type special attack is going to break all that much; Normal attacks are terrible anyway.  Even Rock Wrecker is probably fine; Rhyperior’s probably too slow to abuse it.  However, I am extremely antsy about giving, say, Blast Burn with these mechanics to Infernape and Blaziken, or Hydro Cannon to Greninja (for that matter, Roar of Time might be worth a raised eyebrow, but hey, if we care about balancing Dialga, the ship has sailed on that one).  That might be asking for trouble.

Anonymous asks:

Now that you’ve seen all the Alolan forms, I’ve a thought to share: the types they gave to the Alolan forms are all types that have either 0 or 1 representative among Gen I Pokémon. Think about it: Persian, Raticate, & Muk got Dark while Ninetales got Fairy (neither repped in Gen I), Sandslash & Dugtrio got Steel (only Magneton), Exeggutor got Dragon (only Dragonite), & Marowak got Ghost (only Gengar). The exceptions are Raichu (but Pikachu’s popular) & Golem, for which I got nothing. Thoughts?

There actually are Fairy-types in generation I: Jigglypuff, Clefairy and Mr. Mime (if Magneton counts, so do they).  I don’t think this says anything interesting, other than maybe that Game Freak likes type diversity.  Could be they want to give the first generation a bit more of the types that were introduced later.

Incidentally,

I saw this on Pokémemes today, under the title “Technology Lent to More Design.”

The artist may have been trying to make a point, but I’m not entirely sure what it was.  Purely because it was on Pokémemes, I initially assumed it was an attempt to prove the superiority of either the first or the fourth generation as compared to the other, but if so it’s not clear which one the artist favours, so I’ve decided that this is unlikely.

As the picture illustrates, the newer designs are generally more detailed; the older ones are more likely to have large plain areas of block colour without ornamentation or patterning (broadly speaking – you might get the opposite impression by comparing, say, Jynx and Abomasnow).  Personally, this is something I like about the newer designs – I think, on balance, that I prefer the original Garchomp to this redesign, but I feel there’s a lot to be said for this Charizard (though I don’t like the way the flame’s been done; it looks more like a bristly tail than fire, which fits when you see that style of flame on, say, Emboar or Typhlosion, but not on Charizard).  I think the thing to take away from this, though, is that they both work.  There’s more than one way to interpret a design concept, and some people are going to like one way of doing it, and some people another.

What do you think?

– Do you like your Pokémon clean and simple, or detailed and elaborate?
– What are the advantages and disadvantages of these two extremes?
– Has the artist still managed to capture ‘Garchomp’ with this different aesthetic?
– How about Charizard?
– And what the hell is the title “Technology Lent to More Design” supposed to mean, anyway?