This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

If you're against the Fairy-type but have no problem with the Dragon-type

#71KillerMechanoidPosted 4/26/2013 11:47:39 PM(edited)
EpsteinBarr posted...
"...fairies are for little girls (no offense to the ones that are, but you shouldn't even be here then)."

Counter-argument:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFairFolk
#72Gamer09ePosted 4/27/2013 12:33:33 AM
ThatPersonGuy posted...
xyzlactic posted...
ThatPersonGuy posted...
I also have to point out the fact that the majority of people claiming that Sylveon is Fairy Type are basing that off of the fact that she/he/it is pink. There is nothing else that directly suggests Fairy.

*facepalm*


Wow ignorant troll post confirmed. It has fairy is some of its names. Jezz



First off, use troll in the right context. Second, Sylveon's name can also point to Flying.

I'll admit Ninfa's a gray area I can't argue with, but Sylveon could go ether way. Also, Nimph is a bit on a stretch from Ninfa. Not that it's impossible, but it isn't a guarentee.


Sylveon doesn't directly relate to a Flying type not at first anyways , many people were indirectly saying that because "sylv" relates to certain types of Fairies among them being Fairies that control the air, that it could mean sylveon would be a flying type but now that "fairy type" might actually be an official type its makes more sense for it to a Fairy type.
---
Elektra for UMvC 3 and Pac man for SSBWIIU
#73The_Undying_84Posted 4/27/2013 12:57:46 AM
Somehow I agree with literally every reason used against Fairy type. Even those that completely contradict each other. That's how stupid Fairy type is. It is by far the worst Pokemon idea I've ever heard, and I think we all know there are some terrible ideas about Pokemon out there.
---
PSN: TheUndying84
#74The Eternal EvilPosted 4/27/2013 2:58:51 AM
The biggest pitfall of the arguement against the idea of a fairy type (it could just as easily be called light) is that the arguements against it don't rely on practical reasons against it. Much akin to arguements against showing ev's and iv's or making legendary pokemon breedable.

You simply have no legitimate reason for these things not to be there.

Now that said there is equally no legitimate reason to want a fairy type to exist other then it changes things up and adds something new to think about for building a team. However it still has more substance to it then, we don't like it. As far as a reason goes.

I don't like grass or poison types. I don't think they ever should have been added to the game. Is that a reason for it to not exist?

You are disparaging what would be an "optional" piece of the game on the grounds that you don't like it.

Do you like the PWT? How about the Battle Subway?

I miss my Battle Tower. I miss the Battle Frontier. I miss the tournament style where I had to use rented out pokemon to battle with.

Does that mean what we have now shouldn't exist because I don't like it, or I think the new idea is simply stupid?

We have a game. With what will be over 700 choices of team members with a maximum of 6 per team you make. With hundreds of attacks to choose from total, with some pokemon capable of knowing over a hundred attacks. With each pokemon having up to 3 abilities that change what they can or can not do sometimes fundamentally. Some even have alternative forms that equally change what they can or can not do. We can then have them hold items which can just as fundamentally change what that pokemon can do for us. We then have the capacity to allow them to specialize in certain stats through breeding and training methods to allow them to do specific things.

In a game where you could literally have a billion options with only 50 pokemon as to what you end up doing, you're going to disparage yet another level of potential customization, not because it couldn't do good things imagine if fairy type attacks for example got a stab bonuson all poison and grass pokemon for example because these two types are as close to nature as a fairy is for instance. A new type, any type has the ability to be good for the game regardless of its name.

To disparage it simply for its name when it can do a great deal is simply put not a good reason.
---
One Trainer to rule them all, One Trainer to find them,
One Trainer to catch them all and in the Pokeball bind them. Legend of Legacy.
#75MidnightCrewPosted 4/27/2013 3:17:26 AM
xyzlactic posted...
Seriously for the ignorant people who called fairies girly or wimpy please to ready more about faries.

Dragons are overrated and overdone. When I think of a fairy I either think of something cute, benevolent or something evil or a trickster. Fairy has a huge range of creatures.

Dragons are usually all the same thing. Destructive creature that tend to be rebellious. Yawn boring

Faries on the other hand are much more interesting and always different


:I

Maybe you should look at older depictions of dragons in art. You are just as guilty of ignorance as the people dismissing fairies.

Yes, Nintendo hasn't and probably won't make dragons like those. Because dragons like what we get are popular. But it's silly to pretend that Fairy would be any different. Yes, there ARE fairy legends and stories with bloodthirsty creatures, but that doesn't mean we're going to get anything but tinkerbell looking creatures. Because that's what's popular.
---
Official Scrafty Of The Black And White Clan, Official Misdreavus of The BW 2 Boards. Official Lorelei of the BW 2 Boards.
#76Silent_Snake666Posted 4/27/2013 3:22:25 AM
It's not going to happen.
---
3DS friend code: 4940-5765-6493 PSN - Craig_Lennon "We're not tools of the government or anyone else!" - Gray Fox
#77TyranidomegaPosted 4/27/2013 3:42:09 AM
The Eternal Evil posted...
The biggest pitfall of the arguement against the idea of a fairy type (it could just as easily be called light) is that the arguements against it don't rely on practical reasons against it. Much akin to arguements against showing ev's and iv's or making legendary pokemon breedable.

You simply have no legitimate reason for these things not to be there.

Now that said there is equally no legitimate reason to want a fairy type to exist other then it changes things up and adds something new to think about for building a team. However it still has more substance to it then, we don't like it. As far as a reason goes.

I don't like grass or poison types. I don't think they ever should have been added to the game. Is that a reason for it to not exist?

You are disparaging what would be an "optional" piece of the game on the grounds that you don't like it.

Do you like the PWT? How about the Battle Subway?

I miss my Battle Tower. I miss the Battle Frontier. I miss the tournament style where I had to use rented out pokemon to battle with.

Does that mean what we have now shouldn't exist because I don't like it, or I think the new idea is simply stupid?

We have a game. With what will be over 700 choices of team members with a maximum of 6 per team you make. With hundreds of attacks to choose from total, with some pokemon capable of knowing over a hundred attacks. With each pokemon having up to 3 abilities that change what they can or can not do sometimes fundamentally. Some even have alternative forms that equally change what they can or can not do. We can then have them hold items which can just as fundamentally change what that pokemon can do for us. We then have the capacity to allow them to specialize in certain stats through breeding and training methods to allow them to do specific things.

In a game where you could literally have a billion options with only 50 pokemon as to what you end up doing, you're going to disparage yet another level of potential customization, not because it couldn't do good things imagine if fairy type attacks for example got a stab bonuson all poison and grass pokemon for example because these two types are as close to nature as a fairy is for instance. A new type, any type has the ability to be good for the game regardless of its name.

To disparage it simply for its name when it can do a great deal is simply put not a good reason.


This post won King of The Hill.
---
Official hot fudge sundae of the IDF
Official Hydreigon of the Pokemon B/W 2 Boards.
#78Grammar_manPosted 4/27/2013 6:53:38 AM
RingsOfUranus posted...
Unfortunately the general knowledge and typical understanding of faeries is a tiny humanoid creature that spreads good will and pixie dust, lives in Care Bear village and dances on flower petals. Not evil murderous tricksters. Tinkerbell is a prime example of a Faerie as far as pop culture and COMMON knowledge are concerned and at the end of the day, people forget the crowd that likes Tinkerbell is the same age group these games are primarily targeting. I severely doubt the "Fairy type" will be the malicious tricksters of actual lore and will resemble much more the Tinkerbell faerie, because that is what most people gather when they think of a faerie. It's even spelled "Fairy" in the game (If Pokexperto is correct, of course) which is the common, non mystical spelling. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how they COULD portray a faerie, I think we all know how they will.


Tinkerbell IS a malicious, outright murderous trickster. Even in her toned down versions.
#79EdwardoMario16Posted 4/30/2013 8:42:42 AM
Fairy is too stupid and lame. Just a bunch of cutesy wing creatures. Even though they are massive jerks in mythology and fiction.

Grass is too stupid. It's just a bunch of plants. Even though plants are deadly in real life.

Ghost is too stupid. It's just a bunch of shapely blobs. Even though Ghosts are very bad in mythology.

Fire is too stupid. It's just fire. Even though it's very dangerous in real life.

Water is too stupid. It's just water. Even though it's very dangerous in real life.

Pokemon took stuff like 'Bug' and 'Fighting' and made it work. Anyone dissing on 'Fairy', thank god you're not designing the games. You have no imagination or creativity whatsoever.
---
This is the worst bird yet.
White 2 FC: 3483 0523 8765
#80Strain42Posted 4/30/2013 8:56:06 AM
Rad_Dudesman posted...
Then you are a hypocrite.


Not true.

If Fairy had been there from the start, and the rumors right now were about them adding a brand new Dragon type, we would be having the same argument.

It's not a matter of what the type is, it's the very concept of having new types.

And to all the people who are going "Well the type chart needs rebalanced, and a new type could do that, and blah blah derpa derp"

For one, you have no way of knowing that a new type would rebalance the chart. Even if they did make a Fairy type what if it only resisted itself and was only super effective against Dark types.

To those who say they want a new type to help balance the chart, if GameFreak wanted to rebalance the chart, they could easily do so WITHOUT adding a new type. A single new type isn't going to magically change every problem with type balance.
---
Don't forget to check out my MegaTen themed webcomics at http://www.drunkduck.com/user/Strain42/ (Currently Updating: Persona 4TW Add-On M-F)