Psypoke :: View topic - We need a New Legendary.

Galar wrote:

I disagree.

I think Legendary Pokemon should either fit into one of these two categories: element/nature-related or somehow enigmatic.

All legendaries's types we've had so far belong to one of these, except for Regigigas, which is a Normal type. Arceus is also a Normal type, but that's reasonable considering it's ability.

Steel, Water, Fire, Electric, Ice, Rock, Ground, these types fit "legendary" Pokemon because they are natural elements. The association between these nature's components and legendary Pokemon is very straight; most legenday Pokemon control and can manipulate nature, themselves being part of the whole ecosystem's balance. This is a recurring theme in Pokemon.

Dragon, Psychic, Dark and Ghost types belong to the "somehow enigmatic" category. Dragons are legendary creatures in many cultures of our society, so it's only natural that many Legendaries are Dragon types. Psychic, Dark and Ghost are mysterious, abstract forces that exist but we can't quite explain. They are often related to benevolence, malignancy, spiritualism and many other figurative, psychological subjects. Many folkloric creatures posess somewhat supernatural, obscure powers, same goes for Legendaries of these types.

That's why Fighting types don't really fit the role of Legendaries in my opinion. But that's only me, heh.

Author:	AceTrainer [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: We need a New Legendary.
Galar wrote: I disagree. I think Legendary Pokemon should either fit into one of these two categories: element/nature-related or somehow enigmatic. All legendaries's types we've had so far belong to one of these, except for Regigigas, which is a Normal type. Arceus is also a Normal type, but that's reasonable considering it's ability. Steel, Water, Fire, Electric, Ice, Rock, Ground, these types fit "legendary" Pokemon because they are natural elements. The association between these nature's components and legendary Pokemon is very straight; most legenday Pokemon control and can manipulate nature, themselves being part of the whole ecosystem's balance. This is a recurring theme in Pokemon. Dragon, Psychic, Dark and Ghost types belong to the "somehow enigmatic" category. Dragons are legendary creatures in many cultures of our society, so it's only natural that many Legendaries are Dragon types. Psychic, Dark and Ghost are mysterious, abstract forces that exist but we can't quite explain. They are often related to benevolence, malignancy, spiritualism and many other figurative, psychological subjects. Many folkloric creatures posess somewhat supernatural, obscure powers, same goes for Legendaries of these types. That's why Fighting types don't really fit the role of Legendaries in my opinion. But that's only me, heh. You know how a fighting type could be legendary? How about a trio on the Body, Mind and Soul. Body, Mind and Soul Fighting, Psychic and Ghost Brawlord, Mindowager and Souliege. There's your fighting legendary.

Author:	Dark_Swampert [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: We need a New Legendary.
I really thought they went overboard with legendaries in Sinnoh not only did it have he most legendary pokemon it had the strongest with arceus. Besides that I really want a fighting legendary.

Author:	Slim Shady [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: We need a New Legendary.
Body, Mind and Soul's the best idea on this forums I've seen apart from the decision to ban AnimeFreak. So, Galar, is Flying type "elemental" or "enigmatic"? Articuno, Moltres, Zapdos and Ho-oh are elemental, but Lugia and Rayquaza are enigmatic. There goes your theory. Actually, I pretty much agree with what Galar said, except that what he said about the two different types of legendaries only applies to primary types. Flying is seen as a second type on 6 legendaries (7 if you count Skymin), there's no reason why Fighting, Bug and Poison can't be second types as well. For example, Regigigas fits the bill for being a fighting type. Its very physically strong, both offensively and defensively, and it looks like it could crush anything. Heatran was just as likely to be Fire/Bug as Fire/Steel, although it probably won't be #1 in OU coz it doesn't have as many resistances. So yeah, I agree with Galar, but it doesn't mean there won't be Fightings, Bugs and Poisons.

Author:	DarkTrainer13 [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 7:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: We need a New Legendary.
Slim Shady wrote: Body, Mind and Soul's the best idea on this forums I've seen apart from the decision to ban AnimeFreak. Yes, i think that the combination of Body, Mind, and Soul is a very good idea. Hope the Nintendo will make one in the future generations. And also, the decision to ban AnimeFreak was heck, made me LOL once. I knew that he will get that soon, but i think that he is a spoiled child.

Author:	Galar [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: We need a New Legendary.
AnimeFreak_98 wrote: Good point, but isnt bug kinda a natural element too? And maybe Poison too, but honestly i could care less about a fighting legendary. I've never really thought of the Bug type as a natural element, but more like a ramifictation of the Grass type that exists for no real reason aside from "japanese children like to collect bugs, so let's create a Bug type!". To me, the category "Bug" is more suitable as a breeding group than an actual type, because it always seemed to me like an animal classification other than a pokemon/attack type category. Same goes for Dragon types, but they're in a different level. And Poison... I don't really have a solid opinion on this type. It's like Dark and Grass put together and gone wrong. It's more like an area distribution, but also not exactly... I'm not quite sure where to put it. AceTrainer wrote: You know how a fighting type could be legendary? How about a trio on the Body, Mind and Soul. Body, Mind and Soul Fighting, Psychic and Ghost Brawlord, Mindowager and Souliege. There's your fighting legendary. That's actually a pretty good idea! Still, it's just that Figthing doesn't sound legendary-ish at all to me, heh. The Fighting type in this case would only be made "Legendary" to accompany the other two and balance/close the trio, to go with the whole "body, mind and soul" idea. The type itself has pretty much no "legendary" aspects to be of use: it has little (or nothing) to offer in its concept to be able to generate "legendary" material/base for ideas. That means no close/obvious relation to what I consider to be "legendary". Slim Shady wrote: So, Galar, is Flying type "elemental" or "enigmatic"? Articuno, Moltres, Zapdos and Ho-oh are elemental, but Lugia and Rayquaza are enigmatic. There goes your theory. I've always seen the Flying type as the "Air" element of the Pokemon world. So it's elemental to me. In my point of view, it doesn't really matter if it's a secondary or primary type, as long as it falls under one of the two categories. That means if a Legendary Pokemon is a dual-type at least one of its types needs to be either "elemental" or "enigmatic", there's no need for both of its types to be. It's just that Fighting, Bug, Poison and Normal don't really have any kind of "legendary-ish" characteristic. Bugs are bugs, Normal is... well, normal, as the name implies, and Fighting... there isn't anything really special about it that's, like, "stuff of legend", or whatever. And my opinion on Poison is, unfortunately, basically "i dunno lol", because I truly don't. Even if you can come up with a great idea for a Fighting legendary, it will only be a Figthing type because of its design and visual appearance, or another secondary reason. The Type itself has no association with ancient myths, nature, or anything you can use for a "legend". Like, there's no reason why a Fighting type should be a legendary (unlike the other types I mentioned before), besides "oh, it looks strong and it's a warrior thing, so let's make it part Fighting". If anything it will be the Legendary's second type, and it would still be for the sole reason of in-game balance, general design or something like that. Of course, there's Arceus, which is a Normal type and a Legendary. They'll have to come up with a very good reason/brilliant idea to make a pure Fighting legendary. But it still won't change my opinion on why the Fighting type can't produce legendaries on its own. At least, I don't think so, haha. Uh... I guess the more I try to explain the more confusing it gets. Sorry!

Psypoke http://www.psypokes.com/forums/

We need a New Legendary. http://www.psypokes.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27193	Page 2 of 2

Author:	Slim Shady [ Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: We need a New Legendary.
FALCON PAWNCH!!!!! ROUNDHOUSE KICK!!!!! maybe its just those two, but fighting type feels VERY legendary to me

Author:	GofD [ Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:51 am ]
Post subject:	Re: We need a New Legendary.
A fighting legendary sounds very interesting. The back story for this legendary, however would be difficult to make, I would think. We already have a pokemon that pulled the contenents. Maybe the pokemon of war? Then it would be Fighting dark? Of course there would have to be a pokemon of peace. maybe a psychic? (Just joking) A flying type for the pokemon of peace sounds good. Id still like to see at least one legendary for each type.

Author:	souleater101 [ Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: We need a New Legendary.
Well wouldn't we all.

Author:	DarkTrainer13 [ Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: We need a New Legendary.
I thought the Fighting-type legendary has already been discussed in this thread. But yes, if you think about the back story, it would be hard.

Page 2 of 2	All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/