Boltbeam and your Glaceon article got me thinking and I wanted your opinion on a concept. So this Pokemon is based off of a Tardigrade, a miniscule creature that frequents snowy hotsprings. The typing is Bug/Ice, but there’s an interesting catch: Because of hotspring environment and the need to repel predators, it developed the ability to use fire type attacks. Not only that, but it’s ability is Flash Fire, giving it a way to boost those attacks without STAB and covers the x2 weakness. Thoughts?

Hmm.  Well, the idea is cool, but the thing is, I kinda think there’s already a tardigrade Pokémon.  I first learned about the little buggers earlier this year (anyone who isn’t familiar with them should look them up, because they are awesome) – and my first thought was

“Oh, so THAT’S what Reuniclus is!”

It makes sense when you realise that one of the trivial names for tardigrades is ‘water-bears’, which finally explains Reuniclus’ teddy bear-like appearance.  It’s why one of Reuniclus’ abilities is Overcoat, which grants immunity to all damage from weather effects, it’s why an important part of Solosis’ flavour is its incredible resilience to a wide variety of environmental conditions, and it’s why the damn things ARE SO IMPOSSIBLE TO KILL.

In short, although it’s not a bad idea, tardigrades have actually been done.  Not to say you couldn’t try coming at Bug/Ice + Fire powers from a slightly different angle, because that is also an interesting starting point…

I’m probably a generic question asker (seeing as my previous question asked of you is something you’ve been asked hundreds of times apparently :P). But anyways, since everyone is always like “OMG Generation I iz teh besttt, evryting elz sux!” is there any Pokemon (singular or plural) of the First Generation that you “deny the right to exist?” You don’t have to go into huge detail about it or whatever, but if you can think of a few I’d be interested to hear you opinion!

Hmm.  Which one were you…?

Oh, right; you were the one who asked what I thought of the 5th generation Pokémon, right?  Yeah, it’s not that lots of people have asked me about it, it’s that it was originally the whole purpose of this blog.  That’s why I started writing, and that’s what the whole of last year was about.

Anyway, this question.

This question is tricky, not so much because there are no first generation Pokémon that are badly designed – there are – but because, counterintuitive as it seems, I don’t think you can hold them to the same standard.  They were created in a very different context.  First of all, there was nothing to compare them to.  This is particularly important when you consider that one of the biggest problems I had with many fifth-generation Pokémon was “well, this is just [Pokémon X] with a new paint job and a haircut.”  There’s no way you can reasonably make that complaint about Red and Blue (well, not without attributing some mystical foresight to Game Freak).  Second, the designers themselves weren’t that experienced.  Game Freak was only founded in 1989; it wasn’t that old when Pokémon was first released and they’d only ever made one or two other games for Nintendo, which never achieved any great notoriety.  Black and White were released when Game Freak had been designing  Pokémon for over fifteen years, and I am sometimes startled at how little they appear to have learned in that time (not that they don’t still produce some good stuff – they do – but that was true of the first generation as well).  Third, no-one ever anticipated that Pokémon would become the global phenomenon it has.  There was no guarantee that Red and Green would even be released outside of Japan.  Even when the games were remade into the Red and Blue that we played, you can see how low standards were for fixing problems in the code.  Today, Pokémon games are guaranteed an international release, and Pokémon is the second most profitable video game franchise on the planet, behind Mario (which, incidentally, means a much bigger budget).

What I am by slow degrees trying to say here is that mistakes were made in Red and Blue, and I’m okay with that.  I’m not okay with the exact same mistakes being made, repeatedly and often quite insistently, in Black and White.  The phrasing “I deny this Pokémon’s right to exist” was deliberately over-the-top, and meant to convey that if I had been on the design team, I would have scrapped the Pokémon in question.  I would never use it of any Pokémon from an older iteration of the franchise, and in fact I probably wouldn’t use it of a fifth generation Pokémon either, if I redid all of those reviews now – we’ve got them, and we may as well work with them.

I remember you mentioning how you have big ideas for changing the Type system and wanted to hear your opinion on my idea for a new type mechanic. I have this idea into changing the big group of Types into Biological Type and Elemental Type. Bio types would be things like bug, dragon or ghost while element types would be the water, fire, poison, etc… each pokemon would have 1 of each, not 2 of one or the other. Pikachu for example would become a beast/electric or mammal/electric. Thoughts?

Tricky…

I think the difficulty is that a lot of Pokemon that already exist belong to two types that would fall under a single category in your system.  What happens to Shedinja?  It doesn’t make any sense for him to be not a Bug-type, or not a Ghost-type; the concept just doesn’t allow it.  Do you keep Grass an an elemental type, or use Plant as a biological one?  You’re in trouble with either Sawsbuck or Abomasnow.  Psychic causes similar problems.  And what about Pokémon that just plain don’t have any elemental powers, like Raticate?

Besides, the egg group system already provides something like this.  It doesn’t play into strategy at all, but why should it need to?  Why should a Pokémon’s strengths and weaknesses be different depending on whether it’s a mammal or a reptile?

I think that the biggest objection, though, is that it says “no” in advance to a lot of possible designs for no real reason.  Why can’t we have a Pokémon with both ice and electrical powers?  Why can’t we have a Pokémon that’s a fusion of a mammal and a bird (gryphons, anyone?)?  What reason is there to deny designers that option?

I mean Aztecs, Mayans, and inca.

Again, this isn’t actually an idea.  It’s a starting point, and as a starting point there’s nothing wrong with it, but it could be done well or badly.  At this point all I can do is shrug and say “sure, those are interesting cultures, although I don’t know much about them myself.”

To put it another way, if you start from a design brief of “a Pokémon based on ancient Egypt,” one person might come up with Lucario and another might come up with Cofagrigus (as it happens, both of those are Pokémon I think are very well designed).  I have absolutely no clue what you have in mind or how well it would work.  If you’re asking “do I want more Pokémon based on ancient cultures?” then sure, I love those.

In my view I think a pokemon based off the early Americas religion would be awesome as well as something based off the mongals. Do you think it would work at all.

Xatu, anyone?

You’re going to need to be a lot more specific here.  As starting points, there’s nothing wrong with them, but either could be done extremely well or exceptionally badly – what exactly is the idea?  Also, “Early Americas” is very general – are we talking Great Plains?  Mexico?  Andes?  Amazon Basin?

I read the question you answered about making your own legendaries and it made me wonder what non-legendary pokemon you would make if you could make 1 evolutionary line. For me I’d either go with a line of Dolphin pokemon using sonar or a Capybara line that’s Water/Ground and has Sap Sipper as their name means “leaf eater”. What kind of pokemon would you make?

Someone actually asked me this a couple of weeks ago.

http://pokemaniacal.tumblr.com/post/35556857166/if-the-creature-design-department-at-pokemon-studios

The result was a Pokémon I’m tentatively calling Scribis.

http://pokemaniacal.tumblr.com/post/35617975056/ibises

It’s a stand-alone Pokémon, but I suppose it could do with a junior form – something that just scratches doodles in the sand with its beak without really knowing what they mean, and can see into the spirit world but can’t communicate with or understand other spirits.  Maybe the evolution could even be tied to the Unown, since they were supposed to be connected with Scribis in the first place – he evolves once they’ve taught him how to use their script.  That’d need a name… Scribblet?  Eh; that sounds kinda dumb…

As for yours – the dolphins could work, but they’d need something to distinguish them from all the other Pokémon with sonar (e.g. Golbat) or sonic powers (e.g. Exploud).  Not sure I see the point of the capybara except as an excuse to produce a powerful type combination.

What do you think it would be like to live inside a pokeball. And if gamefreak were to call you right now tell you that you get to design the next set of legendary pokemon what would you design and would you say yes.

Hmm.

Good question.

I am convinced that Pokémon remain self-aware while in Pokéballs, since they seem to be able to leave them of their own accord, and they can hear attack commands issued to them before they leave the balls.  On the other hand, they lose their physical bodies and exist as some form of energy.  I imagine it’s a lot like dreaming; your mind feels like it’s filled with fog, and you’re aware something about your situation is very odd, but you’re not really bothered all that much by it.  You might be vaguely aware of the real world, and it’s relatively easy for an outside stimulus to snap you out of it.  A more expensive Pokéball may help make this state more pleasant, or more appropriate to a particular kind of Pokémon (being in a Lure Ball is like dreaming of swimming, for instance).

Now, if Game Freak wanted me to do their work for them… well, how much would they pay me? 😉  Seriously, though – that would be a lot of fun, but I don’t think legendary Pokémon are something that should necessarily be designed in isolation.  I believe they should be created with close reference to the story the game is supposed to be telling, and I don’t have any such story to work from at the moment.  I do have a series of entries planned for the near future that may give you a better answer to this, though…

I saw someone make a comment on one of your posts that sparked my interest. What exactly do you think a “type” is. In reference to pokemon AND moves (i mean like, why is flash cannon steel?)

…damnit; I was hoping no-one would ask that.

Okay.  So.  What the hell is a type, anyway?  This is… tricky.  Let’s look at a couple of Flying-types to illustrate some of the problems here.  Dodrio is a Flying Pokémon because he has birdlike physiology, even though he can’t actually fly, while Drifblim is a Flying Pokémon because he can fly, despite having nothing in common with Dodrio, physiologically speaking.  They share the properties we associate with the Flying type, though – weaknesses to cold and electrical damage, for example.  What this suggests is that types are actually just a set of categories created and defined by humans, and used to describe the sets of strengths and vulnerabilities Pokémon possess in battle.  That is, Dodrio and Drifblim are both considered Flying-types because they have those common strengths and vulnerabilities – even though they have them for completely different reasons.  What’s a little awkward about this is that the system is so perfect.  With few exceptions – namely, those Pokémon with abilities like Levitate and Thick Fat that alter their defensive capabilities with respect to specific elements – the strengths and weaknesses of all the Pokémon that are known to exist fit perfectly into the type system.  It is possible, for instance, to make complicated predictive statements like “any Pokémon that resists both Lava Plume and Dragon Rush will cease to resit one or both of them after exposed to either Gastro Acid or Worry Seed.”  With our privileged out-of-universe knowledge, we can predict with quite a high degree of confidence that a statement like this will always be true, even though there may be many Pokémon in the universe that we don’t know about yet.  What this suggests is that type is (or describes) real properties which can be objectively measured, and which are common to all Pokémon of a given type.

So which is it?

I think we can probably agree that a shared type does not necessarily imply shared ancestry – that is, there is no ‘common ancestor’ of all Dark Pokémon, for instance; Absol and Mandibuzz are more closely related to other Pokémon in the Field and Flying egg groups, respectively, than they are to each other.  Eevee, I think, has to be the clincher to this, since she demonstrates conclusively that there can be a Fire Pokémon (Flareon) who is much more closely related to a Water Pokémon (Vaporeon) than to any other Fire-type.  It follows, therefore, that any traits which members of a single type have in common are the result of convergent evolution (like bats, birds and butterflies, they have physiological traits or abilities that are outwardly similar and serve common purposes, but actually function differently at their most basic level).  This is less true for some types than for others – for instance, Bug, Dragon, Flying and Grass all map quite closely onto corresponding egg groups, so one imagines that for many of them, their shared traits actually do indicate shared ancestry, but these types are exceptions (as is proven by the outliers within those types, like Flygon, who is a Dragon Pokémon, but is a member of the Bug egg group and not the Dragon egg group).  This seems to provide more support to the idea that ‘type’ is actually a human idea used purely to describe the way a Pokémon fights.

I am rather inclined, at this point, to suggest that type is a human construct that doesn’t necessarily have any impact on the way Pokémon live their lives in the wild but is a useful way of simplifying the complex web of interactions between various powers and abilities that make one Pokémon more effective against another but less effective against a third.  That still leaves us with the question of why Dodrio and Drifblim share so many apparent tactical strengths and vulnerabilities when they seem to have nothing in common, and for that I have only the unconvincing answer of “coincidence.”  In the case of the more supernatural elements, like Psychic and Ghost, you could easily argue that two Pokémon from the same type have independently evolved to draw power from a common source, and that the nature of these sources inherently renders attacks and protections drawing upon one of them more or less effective against those that draw upon another.  This works as a general explanation to the extent that all Pokémon are in some sense magical (I think you would be hard-pressed to find one that has no access to any supernatural powers at all) however it seems awfully like simply giving up on the question, and it is besides much less convincing for the more mundane types, especially Normal, which is defined mainly by its lack of any unifying characteristics.  At present, though, I’m afraid I’m unable to give any fuller answer.

I imagine there are quite a few unique typings Game Freak have yet to try. Which one would you most like to see adapted into a pokemon (personally, I’m angling for a Fire/Grass.)

I’m going to answer this going on what would be thematically interesting, since in my opinion the best possible type combinations from a strategic perspective exist already (Dragon/Fire offensively and Steel/Psychic with Levitate defensively).

I have many favourites.  I think the one I’m most hoping for is Water/Fire, just because I think there are a lot of clever things that could be done with it.  The combination of elements is interesting, because normally we’re used to thinking of their relationship as “water douses fire,” but then again, combining water and fire gives you steam, something new and powerful.

Normal/Ghost would be interesting for something that, thematically, exists between life and death, maybe stressing the idea that ‘death is part of life.’

Bug/Dragon would be either crazy awesome or incredibly stupid.  Sometimes these things are too close to call.

Ghost/Steel would be a b#$t#rd to kill because you just know it would get Levitate, but it could potentially go interesting places by shoving together the spiritual nature of the Ghost element and the technology associated with the Steel element (something Steel/Psychic hasn’t really explored, for whatever reason).

I think Bug/Water deserves an honourable mention because, yes, there is Surskit, but come on (I sort of find myself wishing Masquerain had just kept his original typing, because sticking the poor thing with Bug/Flying is just  a tragic waste of a design that was actually quite fun).  Dragon/Ice, too, might be fun to look at outside of a legendary context.

A correspondent of mine has hinted that he may be starting an art blog dedicated to exploring these unused type combinations in months to come; I’ll be sure to plug that if it happens.