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

Remember the days when Pokemon were animals?

#81alatreon789Posted 7/6/2013 1:47:21 AM(edited)
Toasty_Kabal posted...
alatreon789 posted...
Toasty_Kabal posted...
alatreon789 posted...
Dragons are not scientifically recognized as an animal (or to even have existed) , therefore they are not animals.


Firebreathing dogs are not scientifically recognized as an animal (or to even have existed) , therefore they are not animals.


As weird as that sound you are correct. If something has not been recognized by the scientific community then it can not be scientifically classified as a animal.


So no pokemon are based on animals, they are based concepts resembling animals.


No, their concepts are based on animals. For example: vulpix is based off a regular fox. If they were based off of concepts resembling animals then vulpix would be based on a fire breathing fox.
---
This signature will not change until the rebirth of Nintendo Power. PSN: Interitum48
Started: 9:56 PM 12/18/2012
#82Toasty_KabalPosted 7/6/2013 2:03:51 AM
alatreon789 posted...
Toasty_Kabal posted...
alatreon789 posted...
Toasty_Kabal posted...
alatreon789 posted...
Dragons are not scientifically recognized as an animal (or to even have existed) , therefore they are not animals.


Firebreathing dogs are not scientifically recognized as an animal (or to even have existed) , therefore they are not animals.


As weird as that sound you are correct. If something has not been recognized by the scientific community then it can not be scientifically classified as a animal.


So no pokemon are based on animals, they are based concepts resembling animals.


No, their concepts are based on animals. For example: vulpix is based off a regular fox. If they were based off of concepts resembling animals then vulpix would be based on a fire breathing fox.
---
This signature will not change until the rebirth of Nintendo Power. PSN: Interitum48
Started: 9:56 PM 12/18/2012


No, Vulipix is based on the Japanese legend of muliti-tailed foxes with control over fire, illusions, and the like, which in turn is based on the actual animal fox.

You can't have it both ways. If the thing it's based on is based on an animal is good enough to say it's based on an animal then you must also allow that for dragons, as the mythical creatures that dragons are based on are based on animals themselves.

And in another light all pokemon are based on animals. Magnemite and geodude are both living, macro scaled creatures that have at least one animal-like eye and can eat. Sounds like they based on animals in addition to whatever else they're based on.
---
PSN: TheLoneCthulhu
#83alatreon789Posted 7/6/2013 2:12:15 AM
The mythology fox is based off of a regular fox not a fire breathing fox which means vulpix origin is still based off a fox and not a fire breathing fox. From you logic nick nacks with googly eyes are animals, along with plants because they have features similar to animals such as growing.
---
This signature will not change until the rebirth of Nintendo Power. PSN: Interitum48
Started: 9:56 PM 12/18/2012
#84JarickoPosted 7/6/2013 2:40:23 AM
Really pokemon logic has always been questionable. Now is not the time to start criticize the designs.

Lets look at Exeggcute shall we. Its a group of eggs, so technically its more then one pokemon, the worst example of it, its not like magneton where its 3 magnemites stuck together, they are all separate, they can even leave one another, they are not trapped together. And here is the thing that always causes my mind to explode... Eggs that evolve into a freakin coconut tree... WHAT?! What did i miss? why could they not be seeds? They are eggs...
---
2766-8059-8176 Friend Code. Feel free to add me, Inbox me if you do though.