Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Pokemon had some dark stuff in it anyway. All the cubone stuff, for one.
That was something I never understood. There are no ghosts except for that one marowak.
1. Wouldn't it make sense for that marowak to also be ghost-type?
2. Does this mean that dead Pokémon normally pass on very quickly?
3. Then what are actual ghost-type mons?
Wait, Marowak wasn't the only ghost.
I'm pretty sure that after you get the scope or whatever, you can use it on wile ghosts and the would be Gastly's.
Bulbapedia: "
In Generation I and FireRed and LeafGreen, before getting a Silph Scope, several unidentified ghosts (in reality Gastly, Haunter and Cubone) appear in the Pokémon Tower. Another stronger ghost is revealed to be a mother Marowak, which haunts the tower as a result of her death at the hands of Team Rocket.
The identity of the ghosts can be revealed with an item called the Silph Scope; without the device, battling the ghosts is impossible."
A better question is why the heck are there ghost cubones? Did the ghost mom have ghost babies?
But why is that marowak still in marowak form? Why can it be hit with normal attacks? etc.
That's a slip up by the team it seems.
Why don't we see ghost jigglypuffs or ghost spearows or ghost electabuzzes?
Were those specific Pokemon, or just random ones?
It would be a cool mechanic actually.
Maybe your Pokemon have their regular HP, but then a big counter of total HP ever. If it hits 0, your Pokemon becomes Ghost time.
Fire/Ghost Charizard.
Note that these are impressionable kids taking down Dex entries. They're probably going to mistake local legends for truth.
I actually thought that they were the psychic echoes of dead psychic Pokemon when I was a kid.
It's kind of remarkable how many people can accept a dinosaur absorbing sunlight into the bulb growing into its back and shooting it out in a beam that can cause real damage to people, or ghosts entering into people's heads and eating their dreams to heal themselves, but not Pidgeot flying at Mach 2.
Probably the "swims like a fish" principle, along with the fact that audiences tend to accept the impossible before they accept the improbable. Pidgeot is presented as a mundane bird, so it seems highly unlikely that it would be able to reach speeds of Mach 2 or thereabouts. But if you were to apply that speed to, say, Articuno, it would be more willingly accepted because Articuno is a mythical beast. It's already an impossible creature, whereas Pidgeot is an artistic take on regular birds (more or less).
I'm not really throwing my lot in with either side here, mind. But I can understand how people would be slow to accept that what appears to "just" be a bird would be subject to limitations a ghost or psychic being may not be.
Then let's use a more impossible example: People can accept that an earthquake does not cause property damage, and that a living boulder can cause them by stomping on the ground a bit, or that a slug made of lava can shoot lava at other Pokemon without killing them, but they can't accept Magcargo being as hot as the sun without burning everything around it to a crisp.
We can accept magic and superpowers as long as we don't start applying math to it. Because then they have real numbers to compare it to the real world and things all get weird.
Probably more like... people can easily rationalize stuff that happens during gameplay because it's a video game and they're used to stuff in video games not making much sense for the purpose of more fun gameplay, but when something impossible or implausible is just presented as part of the setting then it feels unnatural.
No, I get that.
But it seems really arbitrary to say "My snail is made out of lava. He can shoot fire out of his mouth, summon rocks out of nowhere and cause a rock slide, and shoot plumes of lava out in the middle of a blizzard. But there is no way his body temperature is as hot as the sun, that's obviously a local superstition."
And if Geodude can cause earthquakes, there would be no mountains in their vicinity! But there is!
You know how? The Pokemon world very likely does not work off the same laws and principles as our world does, if it works off of any at all.
Sigh...I'm so sick of that excuse Eel.
No where, in any Pokemon game, has it ever said that the children are the ones writing the entries.
How else are the entries supposed to be made? If they were there in the first place and needed to be "unlocked" gradually in-universe (like in the actual gameplay), then what was the purpose of Professor Oak giving you the 'dexes in the first place?
I don't think you get me. While there is probably some real truth in the 'dex entries, there's also probably some superstition in it too.
I think that expains it all, honestly.
Note "to find and record data". Upon capturing a Pokemon, the vast majority of data probably comes from observing the Pokemon act. However, data is also pulled from outside sources. Take Regice's entry, for example:
There was no way the Pokedex could have automatically determined that on its own. It can be argued that the 'dex scanned Regice and said "Hey, that ice is from the Ice Age!", but the sentence is phrased to imply that the Pokedex pulled it from a paper. Thus, it is not insane to assume that the Pokedex pulls its data from sources other than the trainer's first-hand experience.
It's true that a lot of impossible stuff happens in Pokemon (such as Regice being a living hunk of 100,000 year-old ice in the first place), but it's silly to think that the Pokedex is infallible too. One 'dex system can only record so accurately, and it's likely that not everything in the 'dex is going to be based on cold logic.
There is also no way that a twelve-year-old carrying a Pokedex around would be capable of being multiple researchers carrying out extensive studies.
I am not saying that the Pokedex scans Pokemon and adds their data immediately. I am, however, saying that it is extremely unlikely that a Professor dedicated to studying Pokemon would accept a child's data based on a couple of things they heard over at that village back there.
The way that sentence is phrased implies that people are actually studying and analyzing the data that is sent back when trainers encounter new Pokemon.
Who says that the 'dex is taking its info from the protagonist?
The 'dex could have taken its info from an inaccurate source, such as whatever passes for Wikipedia in the Pokemon universe.
That sure as hell implies that that's what's happening.
I think what we can deduce from all this is that Pokemon as a whole doesn't make sense. Probably based on shenanigans logic.
Yes. I am, however, thoroughly sick of people bringing up the 'The Pokedex is written by kids they probably just stick in whatever lol' thing.
Uh, what's happening? That was rather vague.
I even changed my stance to reflect that you had convinced me halfway.
My point is that the 'dex is probably not infallible.
It sure as hell implies that the Pokedex is actively recording data on the Pokemon the player encounters and captures.
And considering as to how it would be remarkably fucking stupid for the Pokedex to record information on Pokemon and then not to it, it is a much smaller jump in logic to assume that the information is sent back to either the Professor of the region or other researchers than it is to assume that the information in the Pokedex is based on unreliable information not backed by the people who actually learn about Pokemon for a living.
It is very probably not infallible; even real-world biology is not infallible.
It is not, however, so infallible as to use completely unreliable information; because that would be even stupider.
Nova has said pretty much all the stuff I wanted to.
It makes perfect sense, though.
Ultimately how one thinks the Pokedexes are written is a matter of headcanon, though. So it's really not something worth arguing about.