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

I dislike X/normal and normal/X types

#1BigStud0746Posted 9/21/2013 3:03:37 PM
To me, normal is more a lack of an "elemental" type, and not an actual type. I put "elemental" in quotes because I realize that things like psychic, fighting, etc. or not elemental per se, but you get the point. I have nothing against pure normal type guys, but I feel like if something is going to be X/normal, it should just be X. Sure the /normal grants it an immunity to ghost, so it can be good in certain situations, but I still don't like it. This idea of normal being lack of an "elemental" type goes all the way back to the original trading card game, where normal was considered colorless. It doesn't make any sense for something to be a color and colorless at the same time.

Do other people agree with me here, or am I in the minority?
---
W2FC: 0176 1428 1649
#2Tasty_SoupPosted 9/21/2013 3:05:22 PM
I think normal is kind of a misnomer. Pokemon are so varied, who's to say what the "norm" for a pokemon is? That being said, I think the type works very well from a gameplay standpoint. It has weaknesses and immunities, the only problem with it being that (unless I am mistaken) normal type moves are not SE against any type.
---
3DS FC - 4828-4534-3725
#3Sloth9230Posted 9/21/2013 3:05:49 PM
I agree 100% that it makes no sense. You can't specialize in fire magic and be considered normal. However, I don't really care either way.
#4Immortal_Chaos7Posted 9/21/2013 3:06:26 PM
COMPLETELY agree. I made a topic about this same thing a while back. Someone gave me a decent reason to justify the existence of such typings but it still makes no sense to me.
---
Pokemon Diamond-Name:Jack / FC:0043-9308-0032
#5BigStud0746(Topic Creator)Posted 9/21/2013 3:06:36 PM
To be clear, I don't have a problem with how they play. I have a problem with the logic behind the choice to make them X/normal
---
W2FC: 0176 1428 1649
#6GolurkcanflyPosted 9/21/2013 3:08:07 PM
It is to show that a Pokemon isn't entirely committed to one type. Sawsbuck isn't completely plant-like.
---
Official Amnesiac Darkrai of the Pokemon X Board
#7Tasty_SoupPosted 9/21/2013 3:08:35 PM
BigStud0746 posted...
To be clear, I don't have a problem with how they play. I have a problem with the logic behind the choice to make them X/normal


You can think of it as a middle ground.

There are normal pokemon, there are fire pokemon. A normal/fire pokemon is a normal pokemon with strong fire-like attributes, and a fire/normal is a fire pokemon with normalized attributes.

Just playing devil's advocate, I pretty much agree with you.
---
3DS FC - 4828-4534-3725
#8ZTIger5Posted 9/21/2013 3:08:36 PM
I don't particularly mind Normal-type, just that it's largely considered the weakest and for good reason. It would be nice to have at least one SE.
---
Playing: Fire Emblem Awakening, Pokemon White 2, Bioshock Infinite
I believe in everlasting life in Heaven.
#9Immortal_Chaos7Posted 9/21/2013 3:12:58 PM
Golurkcanfly posted...
It is to show that a Pokemon isn't entirely committed to one type. Sawsbuck isn't completely plant-like.


In that case, what differentiates Pyroar from a pure fire type and makes Arcanine not just a normal creature that exudes fire?
---
Pokemon Diamond-Name:Jack / FC:0043-9308-0032
#10GolurkcanflyPosted 9/21/2013 3:14:35 PM
Immortal_Chaos7 posted...
Golurkcanfly posted...
It is to show that a Pokemon isn't entirely committed to one type. Sawsbuck isn't completely plant-like.


In that case, what differentiates Pyroar from a pure fire type and makes Arcanine not just a normal creature that exudes fire?


If Arcanine was a new Pokemon, it would be Normal/Fire. Game Freak has just decided that Normal-Type should be used more than just as the non-specific type.
---
Official Amnesiac Darkrai of the Pokemon X Board