PDA

View Full Version : [B/W] Game Freak needs to make Fire types!


MistahDude
May 17th, 2010, 07:46 PM
In the first generation they added a total of 12 fire types out of 151 pokemon.
In the second generation they added a total of 10 fire types out of 100 new pokemon.
In the third generation they added a total of 6 fire types out of 135 new pokemon.
In the fourth generation they added a total of 5 fire types out of 107 new pokemon.

Do you think Nintendo/Game Freak needs to change this!?

BleuVII
May 17th, 2010, 07:55 PM
I think that 12/151 is 8%, not .08%

Anyway, YES! More fire-types are needed.

X75flames
May 17th, 2010, 07:55 PM
Agreed. Also alot less ussless bug grass normal and flying.

Vrai
May 17th, 2010, 08:23 PM
Some types are rare, some types are not. Dragon, Ghost, and Ice happen to be rarer along with Fire, and things like Water and Grass are more common. Pokémon just plays out that way. n_n

Trainer Galza
May 17th, 2010, 10:45 PM
its kinda funny like in G3-4 they were so focused on fighting types and such.. I mean the whole type needed a tremendous amount of help, but it seemed like a bit of overkill..

Back on topic though, I don't mind having one or two new fire types.. as long as they're actually good. DP gave you Ponyta if you didn't have Chimchar already (who was really more fightery than fiery imho) .. and Ponyta isn't exactly the best fire type in the world. Never seem to have trouble finding a good grass or water type to use, but fire seems to be an issue.

Livewire
May 17th, 2010, 10:55 PM
it was pretty sad in D/P that unless you chose chimchar, you only could catch 1 fire type. :/

gen 5 needs more fire types obviously, and maybe a funky new dual type like heatran: fire/electric or fire/dragon, etc

pretty much anything new would be nice, except for a billion new bug/flying or water types

Niprop
May 17th, 2010, 11:03 PM
I think that's the only reason why Heatran is tolerated, as even though it has virtually no back-story as far as Legendary Pokémon go, it's a direly needed addition the the fire type line. Even though it's ugly and looks like something you'd find in a public bathroom, it's by far one of the best fire types in the game, trumping even Ho-oh (See Stealth Rock weakness) in certain ways.

There really should be more fire types, but what do they have to draw from, other then the obvious fire/dragon?

Zeph.
May 18th, 2010, 12:40 AM
I totally agree. D/P was a shambles, and Flint - the 'fire' Elite 4 member - was a joke.

Impo
May 18th, 2010, 01:15 AM
yeah, i was shocked,
Impo vs Flint
oh, hi flint, i heard you were fire type specialist.... i dont see it :\ :P

dead-man-walking
May 18th, 2010, 01:34 AM
There really should be more fire types, but what do they have to draw from, other then the obvious fire/dragon?
A Fire/Steel or Fire/Water Steam-Machine Pokemon would be awesome to see. A Burning Ghost (Fire/Ghost), a Firefly (Fire/Bug). Can't think of any more. As they basically just go back to classic dragons. : P

Rei Shingetsu
May 18th, 2010, 02:09 AM
Yeah we certainly need more Fires!
-Is always limited when it comes to choosing Fire types-
It's getting annoying U_U

cruzader019
May 18th, 2010, 02:20 AM
dead man is typiclly right..those will be the best options to take..i don't want legendaries to take the only multi types in the game..there are other multiTypes there but not as great as legendaries..fire seems to be a lil overgrown by other types..making useless types and repeating them over and over again..like bug/flying normal/flying blah blah blah..

A Pixy
May 18th, 2010, 03:37 AM
it was pretty sad in D/P that unless you chose chimchar, you only could catch 1 fire type. :/

Ponyta.

And yes, moar Fire-Types are need immediately.

Blue
May 18th, 2010, 03:56 AM
Yeah, I woudnt mind more Fire types actually.

JAK3
May 18th, 2010, 04:25 AM
I agree, that was a big dissapointment, but it is good to know that Hoenn had alot of them, but still, I agree, more fire types.

dead-man-walking
May 18th, 2010, 04:38 AM
One question: Can't they just make another PURE Fire Pokemon or a Fire/Rock Fossil? Seriously, that would be easier to think of.

Hiroshi Sotomura
May 18th, 2010, 06:40 AM
This is why Platinum rocked. I mean sure, the Pokédex itself was at fault as it didn't introduce any new fire types, but… yeah, more Fire-type Pokémon in this generation. And a Grass type that can actually own.

DJ Surge-N
May 18th, 2010, 07:34 AM
I would like to see that, and even some more dark/ghost pokemon tbh. If they could incoporate both fire and ghost/dark that'd be ace in my opinion.

Timbjerr
May 18th, 2010, 10:19 AM
I wanna see a ghost/fire willowisp and perhaps a fire/dragon fire dragon. XD

A fire/grass would be an interesting typing, but I can't think of how it's work conceptually. D:

Sweet Smoochum
May 18th, 2010, 10:36 AM
I agree that more fire types should be added. Maybe they can add a flaming cow! I can then nickname it Beef. Or it could be fire/ground and I can name it Ground Beef. XD

If I choose the fire pig due to lack of good fire types that I haven't already used, I'm going to name it Porky or Ham. They should make some new fire types based on animals that people cook and eat. They already have the flaming chicken, flaming pig, flaming horse. Why not a fire type that resembles a cow? I like the idea of a fire/ghost type. Maybe the fiery cow can be a fire/ghost type Pokemon.

Timbjerr
May 18th, 2010, 11:12 AM
I agree that more fire types should be added. Maybe they can add a flaming cow! I can then nickname it Beef. Or it could be fire/ground and I can name it Ground Beef. XD

I always thought Camerupt looked more like a cow despite its name suggesting it as a camel...and it's ground-type. :P

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire
May 18th, 2010, 08:29 PM
We should have a fire rhino we have no rhino other than the Rhyhorn family so we could use a new one and it should be fire. We should also have a fire gorilla that is Fire/dark or fire/ground actually fits better. We could also use a fire/grass, we already have Water/grass so why not a plant that blooms when covered in magma... they really exist!

jon328
May 18th, 2010, 08:35 PM
i hated diamond and pearl for that reason exactly! NO FIRE TYPES at least i picked chimchar so i had a fire type, but if i picked the other two then i would only be able to catch ponyta... and i do NOT like ponyta >.>

Nick Man
May 18th, 2010, 08:41 PM
Actually it's 33 divided by 493 which is 0.0669 or 6.69%. So for every 100, like you said, there is 6 fire types.

More importantly, I agree. Their should be more fire types or pokemon with strange type combinations and unique designs.

Forever
May 18th, 2010, 11:56 PM
Yes, cause fire type is the best type. Pure cute fire types would be nice.

Thunderpunch
May 19th, 2010, 12:12 AM
Some types are rare, some types are not. Dragon, Ghost, and Ice happen to be rarer along with Fire, and things like Water and Grass are more common. Pokémon just plays out that way. n_n

I agree, I like rare things in general, and there shouldn't be a ton of something special like dragon or fire.

Archer
May 19th, 2010, 12:43 AM
In the first generation they added a total of 12 fire types out of 151 pokemon.
In the second generation they added a total of 10 fire types out of 100 new pokemon.
In the third generation they added a total of 6 fire types out of 135 new pokemon.
In the fourth generation they added a total of 5 fire types out of 107 new pokemon.

If you total those numbers you get 493 total pokemon with 33 total fire pokemon. That is a sad number. If you divide 493 by 33 you get a little under 15.

This means that so far the percentage for adding in a fire pokemon is a sad 15%. This means that for every 100 pokemon, there will be 6 fire pokemon. This is not a sure fact, since its only a rough estimated average but it is sad nonetheless.

Do you think Nintendo/Game Freak needs to change this!?
Um, if you want the percentage, it's (33/493)*100 = 6.7%

I think the issue here is that fire should be a common type, as it's a starter type. The OP is also right about the decline:

Gen I Percentage: 8%
Gen II Percentage: 10%
Gen III Percentage: 4.4%
Gen IV Percentage: 4.7%

Final Percentage: 6.7%

That said, I've just realised, that if each of the 17 types were to have an even amount, there would be (1/17)*100 = 5.9% dedicated to each. Sound like Fire types are so neglected now? I agree that they should be a more common type, though. Go, numbers. Play.

Thunderpunch
May 19th, 2010, 12:46 AM
Um, if you want the percentage, it's (33/493)*100 = 6.7%

I think the issue here is that fire should be a common type, as it's a starter type. The OP is also right about the decline:

Gen I Percentage: 8%
Gen II Percentage: 10%
Gen III Percentage: 4.4%
Gen IV Percentage: 4.7%

Final Percentage: 6.7%

That said, I've just realised, that if each of the 17 types were to have an even amount, there would be (1/17)*100 = 5.9% dedicated to each. Sound like Fire types are so neglected now? I agree that they should be a more common type, though. Go, numbers. Play.


Your math is right, but you should also remember that a high percentage, maybe over 50%, of pokemon have two types and not one. If 50% of pokemon are dual-typed, that would make each type (on average) 50% more prevalent than you suggested, in fact 8.85% instead of 5.9%, so that a 6.7% fire percentage would, in fact, be below average.

An-chan
May 19th, 2010, 01:10 AM
Now let's see. My favourite types are Electric, Ghost, and Ice. There are 28 Electric-types, 22 Ice-types, and a whopping 18 Ghost-types altogether. There are 25 Dark-types, 19 Dragon-types, 37 Rock-types, 26 Steel-types... Nope, Fire isn't even close to being as neglected as you make it out to be. Granted, Water-types (92), Grass-types (55), and Flying-types (65) are pretty abundant, but that's just mirroring the real-life situation. However, when you can name at least six types out of 17 that have less Pokémon than Fire, and a few that have about as much, then Fire-type isn't really all that neglected... It's average. Which is pretty natural for a powerful type like Fire.

Not that I oppose to adding new Fire-types. I just wanted to pop by to mention that no, it's not very neglected at all.

flight
May 19th, 2010, 02:11 AM
It would be appreciated if they were to add more Fire types, but to me it wouldn't necessarily matter as long as I get the appropriate pokemon needed to form a good team.

vibratingcat
May 19th, 2010, 02:29 AM
they better put in more fire type. and not just some bulky fire type. i want a fast one! if they put a rly awesome fire type pokemon thats catchable b4 the elite 4, than i will choose tsutaaja instead of pokabu.

dead-man-walking
May 19th, 2010, 02:41 AM
Now let's see. My favourite types are Electric, Ghost, and Ice. There are 28 Electric-types, 22 Ice-types, and a whopping 18 Ghost-types altogether. There are 25 Dark-types, 19 Dragon-types, 37 Rock-types, 26 Steel-types... Nope, Fire isn't even close to being as neglected as you make it out to be. Granted, Water-types (92), Grass-types (55), and Flying-types (65) are pretty abundant, but that's just mirroring the real-life situation. However, when you can name at least six types out of 17 that have less Pokémon than Fire, and a few that have about as much, then Fire-type isn't really all that neglected... It's average. Which is pretty natural for a powerful type like Fire.

Not that I oppose to adding new Fire-types. I just wanted to pop by to mention that no, it's not very neglected at all.
You forgot that four Fire-Types are Legendary. Also, Ghost, despite having less number than Fire, are easier to spot. The rarity of Fire and Ice Pokemon is because of their rare-to-see possibility.

loliwin
May 19th, 2010, 02:56 AM
It'd be nice to put some more fire pokemon, just not too much or well see about 100 fire pogeymanz! XD

kaiser32
May 19th, 2010, 03:02 AM
I'm all for this, because it's a true pain in the neck when you have to manage with the crappy fire types early on. It forces you into a wall (Use fire starter) I don't like it to be honest.

Kai Yamato
May 19th, 2010, 03:44 AM
Agreed. Also alot less ussless bug grass normal and flying.

And less water types. I swear if I see another useless fish, I'm gonna kill it with an electric type. >(

A Pixy
May 19th, 2010, 03:54 AM
And less water types. I swear if I see another useless fish, I'm gonna kill it with an electric type. >(

Yes, none of us ever want to see another Tentacool as long as we live.

Now let's see. My favourite types are Electric, Ghost, and Ice. There are 28 Electric-types, 22 Ice-types, and a whopping 18 Ghost-types altogether. There are 25 Dark-types, 19 Dragon-types, 37 Rock-types, 26 Steel-types... Nope, Fire isn't even close to being as neglected as you make it out to be. Granted, Water-types (92), Grass-types (55), and Flying-types (65) are pretty abundant, but that's just mirroring the real-life situation. However, when you can name at least six types out of 17 that have less Pokémon than Fire, and a few that have about as much, then Fire-type isn't really all that neglected... It's average. Which is pretty natural for a powerful type like Fire.

Not that I oppose to adding new Fire-types. I just wanted to pop by to mention that no, it's not very neglected at all.

You have a good point. Maybe there should just be more types of those Pokemon in general. Not just Fire, but Steel and Ghost and all the ones you just pointed out.

Guy
May 19th, 2010, 06:31 AM
And less water types. I swear if I see another useless fish, I'm gonna kill it with an electric type. >(
Yes, please. ;_;

A lot of the Water type Pokémon we have now are quite good. I can't say anything bad about them to a large degree. However, there is just too many of them, and they've become a lot more common in water and outside of water. :\ I think this generation should spend a little less time focusing on this type, and build up on others.

Such types I'd like to see an increase in other than Fire, would be Dark (which seems likely considering the game titles), Steel, Ghost, Ice, and Ground.

The number of Fire types itself maybe be larger than other types as mentioned by dead-man-walking, however they are less common to encounter. That said, most of those numbers fit into an evolutionary sequence. Already 9 of those counted are from starters alone. So, I'd still like to see some more Fire types along with the other various types who seem to be a bit neglected.

myrrh25
May 19th, 2010, 06:51 AM
This means that so far the percentage for adding in a fire pokemon is a sad 15%. This means that for every 100 pokemon, there will be 6 fire pokemon.


Maths fail. 15% of 100 pokemon is 15, not 6.

Garland
May 19th, 2010, 07:02 AM
FIRE RACISM! LYNCH GAME FREAK!!!!

PkMnTrainer Yellow
May 19th, 2010, 07:11 AM
I'd like to see more fire types. x3 Even though I've never chosen the fire starter since Gen 1 and 2.

Crysta Blade
May 19th, 2010, 08:19 AM
As much as I like Water types, I'd want to see more Fire types. On top of that, we could also use more Electric types.

ilikeluigi
May 20th, 2010, 10:50 AM
I think there are too much fire types. I want more Dark, Ghost, and Dragon types.

.EJ
May 20th, 2010, 11:14 AM
Don't complain about so many water types guys; about 71% of the Earth's surface is water. Naturally, it would make sense that water types are common and abundant since the pokemon world is based on our world.

Although I have to agree that fire types need to be expanded. I despised ponyta because that was my only other option aside from Chimchar.

Ataraxia
May 20th, 2010, 11:18 AM
There really should be more fire types, but what do they have to draw from, other then the obvious fire/dragon?

Well, maybe instead of constantly making pokemon based on animals or mythology, maybe they could ACTUALLY MAKE A POKEMON AND NOT AN ANIMAL!?!?!?!!!!

:/

Weber
May 20th, 2010, 01:36 PM
i would like to see less zubat's, tentacool's and useless starting pokemon like pidgey rip offs and such, need more bidoofs though, best hm slave ever.

Sammuthegreat
May 20th, 2010, 01:59 PM
There may be 6 types that have fewer Pokemon than Fire-type, but consider that 12 of the 33 Fire-types are starter Pokemon, and 4 are Legendary. That means 16 one-per-game Fire-types, leaving a grand total of 17 that you can actually catch in the wild or own more than once each without breeding.

This is the list of those 17 Pokemon:

Growlithe, Arcanine, Ponyta, Rapidash, Slugma, Magcargo, Numel, Camerupt, Magby, Magmar, Magmortar, Houndour, Houndoom, Flareon, Vulpix, Ninetales, Torkoal.

That's a total of 9 evolutionary lines of Fire-type Pokemon, including dual-types. So basically, 9 different kinds of Fire Pokemon that can be owned more than once. I'm pretty sure that counts as neglected!

Volroc
May 20th, 2010, 02:40 PM
YES!!!!! we need more fire types!
im a fire type trainer, but theres no good fire types except beginners (minus chimchar)
magby-magmar was great, but magmortar is just hideous.
houndoom, is pathetic
i hate horses
torkoal was excellent, except for his lack of speed :(
we need better fire types, and no more fire/fighting thats the most lame combo ever, it adds more weaknesses then it gets rid of.

pokemongarnet
May 20th, 2010, 03:08 PM
They do need to make more fire types alot more and less water types.

Vrai
May 20th, 2010, 03:17 PM
Well, maybe instead of constantly making pokemon based on animals or mythology, maybe they could ACTUALLY MAKE A POKEMON AND NOT AN ANIMAL!?!?!?!!!!

:/

Do you mind explaining what you want them to make a Pokemon off of? XD

Every single Pokemon has a base idea; most have origins of mythology or animals. Ergo, your statement is clearly ignorant.

PalkiaSpace
May 20th, 2010, 03:45 PM
I don't think they're neglected, but as much as natural fire doesn't appear often in nature. I was surprised Sinnoh didn't have more fire-types, seeing as it had a volcano. Hopefully Isshu will offer more Flam3r5 to choose from. XD

Kenaku
May 20th, 2010, 04:13 PM
I loves me some fire. I want to be able to do a fire mono type run in White/Black. All unique fires, unique to the region. Six new families!

flight
May 20th, 2010, 05:01 PM
Yes, please. ;_;

A lot of the Water type Pokémon we have now are quite good. I can't say anything bad about them to a large degree. However, there is just too many of them, and they've become a lot more common in water and outside of water. :\ I think this generation should spend a little less time focusing on this type, and build up on others..

Yes, less "annoying" water types. Tentacool is awesome and all, but it becomes a hassle when you see it every five seconds. D: I think it'd be better if they scraped tentacool from the fifth gen annoying water-type and just added some new fifth gen pokemon for surf encounters, something that people could at least tolerate.

Esper
May 20th, 2010, 05:33 PM
Be careful what you wish for.

Here's a scenario: Gen V is overrun with fire types. There are Fire/Poison types and Fire/Dragon types and every other combination everyone wants. They're everywhere. At the same time there is a shortage of Water types. Everyone starts wishing they had picked Mijumaru.

TB Pro
May 20th, 2010, 05:49 PM
Some types are rare, some types are not. Dragon, Ghost, and Ice happen to be rarer along with Fire, and things like Water and Grass are more common. Pokémon just plays out that way. n_n
Dude what are you talking about? Fire types are epic, thus they need to make more. Hopefully they add some interesting type-combos in Gen V. Fire/Ice. Yey.

Vrai
May 20th, 2010, 07:01 PM
Dude what are you talking about? Fire types are epic, thus they need to make more. Hopefully they add some interesting type-combos in Gen V. Fire/Ice. Yey.

I'd rather see Fire/Ghost, kthxbai.

Swift!
May 20th, 2010, 08:41 PM
The Fire-type is one of my all time favourite types, so I'd love to see a lot more of them added in Gen 5. They need to not have so many Water-types, seriously it's getting out of hand. I know that it makes sense considering most of the world is made up of water, but still...

TB Pro
May 20th, 2010, 08:42 PM
I'd rather see Fire/Ghost, kthxbai.
Onono, Fire/Steel sir. yes.

Swift!
May 20th, 2010, 08:57 PM
Onono, Fire/Steel sir. yes.

Heatran.

Still, a non-legendary Fire/Steel-type would be awesome. :D

Astinus
May 20th, 2010, 11:13 PM
Don't complain about so many water types guys; about 71% of the Earth's surface is water. Naturally, it would make sense that water types are common and abundant since the pokemon world is based on our world.
I like this. That's exactly what I was thinking while reading this topic. Of course there are more water-types because water's more abundant in the world, and there are more species to base Pokemon on. Like all those various kinds of fish and mythological creatures.

That said, Fire has always been my favorite type, and I would like more choices when it comes to decided which Fire-type I'll raise for my team. Creativity would be needed to think of something new. For example, the Fire/Ghost could maybe be a whisp of smoke or something like that.

invix345
May 22nd, 2010, 04:24 PM
i would like to see a fire /bug type of fire flying type pokemon.

Mortalis
May 22nd, 2010, 04:29 PM
Oh god yes. Fire Pokemon are so amazing !
We need moar ! RAAWRGH [/mental spasm]

Aureol
May 22nd, 2010, 04:56 PM
We do need more. While other types are rarer, most Fire-types aren't all that useful, and there aren't that many to begin with. With multitypes, the only non-starter, non-legendarys are Magcargo, Numel/Camerupt and Houndour/Houndoom. Continuing on, only one non-starter family has three stages (Magby/Magmar/Magmortar). The rest of pure-Fires were available since Kanto, other than Torkoal.

Yeah, Fire-type is pretty neglected, if you ask me.

Mortalis
May 22nd, 2010, 05:16 PM
We do need more. While other types are rarer, most Fire-types aren't all that useful, and there aren't that many to begin with. With multitypes, the only non-starter, non-legendarys are Magcargo, Numel/Camerupt and Houndour/Houndoom. Continuing on, only one non-starter family has three stages (Magby/Magmar/Magmortar). The rest of pure-Fires were available since Kanto, other than Torkoal.

Yeah, Fire-type is pretty neglected, if you ask me.

That made me think even more. Wow, you're right; fire types are neglected ... ! Game Freak / Satoshi, please make more fire types.

Angelroid
May 22nd, 2010, 09:30 PM
The games do need more Fire types, That is for sure.

vietazn654
May 23rd, 2010, 09:32 AM
I agree. But how about Ghost and Dark types. =\ not alot of them either... Ghost Pokemon only have 18.

Cyberglass
May 23rd, 2010, 09:35 AM
But only 15 fire types are neither starters nor legendaries.

Ayselipera
May 23rd, 2010, 09:56 AM
Yes I agree. I haven't been pleased with the fire types since generation III when Blaziken was the only one I found to be decent. I think it's rather sad too since when I was first introduced into Pokemon I immediately fell in love with the fire types. They were my absolute favorite and I remember I used to play Yellow and GSC with a whole army of fire Pokemon and nothing else. Now with the lack of good fire types and fire Pokemon in general I've moved on and pretty much pushed fire Pokemon out of my top five favorites. ;_;

Bluerang1
May 23rd, 2010, 10:07 AM
I don't like Fire Types. Too over-rated. I do however, want NO NEW Water Types in this Generation. On topic, I'd liek at least 5 new unique Fire Type Families and may 2 unevolvable ones :)

Benjamin510
May 23rd, 2010, 10:45 AM
I like this. That's exactly what I was thinking while reading this topic. Of course there are more water-types because water's more abundant in the world, and there are more species to base Pokemon on. Like all those various kinds of fish and mythological creatures.

That said, Fire has always been my favorite type, and I would like more choices when it comes to decided which Fire-type I'll raise for my team. Creativity would be needed to think of something new. For example, the Fire/Ghost could maybe be a whisp of smoke or something like that.

Me too. It Just makes sense

560cool.
May 23rd, 2010, 11:59 AM
Fire types and Dark types.
GO Team Magma !

Haza
May 23rd, 2010, 05:32 PM
Really. I hated how there were barely any fire types introduced in the last region... and other than Magmortar, I can't think of a non Starter/Legendary Pokemon. (Someone refresh my memory) I hope we get at least 3 separate families with Fire typing, and one being Fire/Poison.

PiPVoda
May 23rd, 2010, 05:56 PM
I don't like Fire Types. Too over-rated. I do however, want NO NEW Water Types in this Generation. On topic, I'd liek at least 5 new unique Fire Type Families and may 2 unevolvable ones :)
Agreed, well with more water types cuz I just love 'em so much :D. 5 new unique fire type families would be nice, but probably won't happen. I say we should get 2 new fire type families, and 2 new unevolvable ones, and maybe a pre-evo or evo for Torkoal. Other than that why not make some old fire starters attainable in the game? Like you would have to catch them in a specific location at a certain time of day and have a certain amount of time to run into one (just so the starters aren't too easily obtainable), or maybe you're given one.

Toshiro.
May 24th, 2010, 11:17 AM
Adding more fire types would be great, fire types are one of my favorite types. I hope they add more in this new gen.

ichuesther
May 24th, 2010, 03:37 PM
Definitely need more Fire types. And good ones, too.
I love fire type pokemon and the only ones I really think are worth using are
Charizard(+previous evolutions), Typhlosion, Magcargo.

Sacr3d Fire
May 24th, 2010, 04:19 PM
I totaly agree with you im doing the mono-type pokemon challenge with fire type and i had my first fire pokemon after the third badge (except the starter)So we need MORE FIRE TYPE POKÉMON.They are just awsome.<3

Azzurra
May 24th, 2010, 10:49 PM
I honestly would encourage the creation of any fire types. They're really lacking as of yet.

Rockets Lapras
May 25th, 2010, 01:46 AM
I like the way they have the game balanced as of right now. I could see them adding a few extra fires, but I wouldn't want that percentage to raise dramatically.

Peeky Chew
May 25th, 2010, 09:12 AM
Was there even one that wasn't a starter, baby, new evo or legendary in gen 4?
There needs to be a lot more in the 5th gen.

luigimario94
May 25th, 2010, 09:30 AM
Am I the only one who would like a Fire and Dark type?

fenyx4
May 25th, 2010, 11:58 AM
Yeah! Fire-type rule! :D :t257:

But we really do need a bit more of them. I understand that "70% of the Earth is water" argument for the excessive abundance of Water-type, but... incorporating the Big Bang theory, everything sprouted from a mixture of fire, light, gases, elements, and epicness... So really, Fire-types are getting majorly underrepresented, I say! ;)

Here are two Fire-type concepts I posted in another thread that I'd like to see (and I think the second one was even created to represent Pokemon White Version as a Fire-type legendary of the sun...)


PYROAK (Fire/Grass)
http://cap.smogon.com/web/art/dex/pyroak_dex.jpg

AMARESS (Fire/Psychic)
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/1808/pkmnblackwhitefakemonam.png


CREDITS:

Pyroak - Create-A-Pokemon Project at Smogon
http://www.smogon.com/cap/pokemon/pyroak


Amaress - Black/White Fakemon contest entry designed by SolarAbusoru (http://www.pokecommunity.com/member.php?u=174256)

Tanner.
May 25th, 2010, 02:02 PM
Seventy percent of the earths surface is water, but beneath all of that is nothing but molten iron, nickel and other metals. 99%+ of the earths mass is composed of really hot metal stuff. Fire especially got shafted last time. Did we really need a fire/fighting starter two generations in a row? Hopefully some nice fire types will rise about.

PiPVoda
May 25th, 2010, 05:17 PM
Seventy percent of the earths surface is water, but beneath all of that is nothing but molten iron, nickel and other metals. 99%+ of the earths mass is composed of really hot metal stuff. Fire especially got shafted last time. Did we really need a fire/fighting starter two generations in a row? Hopefully some nice fire types will rise about.

A fire/fighting starter would be 3 gens in a row since blaziken is fire/fighting too. I honestly think that Pokabu should be a pyrokenetic (fire/psychic). That would be cool! I can't imagine it actually having fire spout out of its body anywhere so that will work.

I can understand how not having many fire types is annoying, but at the same time remember they're strong pokemon (usually) thus they remain in fewer numbers. I'd like a few new families and maybe an evo of an old fire pkmn in b&w but I don't expect there to be too many new fire types. It just won't happen.

Cyberglass
May 25th, 2010, 06:37 PM
Am I the only one who would like a Fire and Dark type?

Well, there's already Houndour and Houndoom, but it is a logical type combination for Fire. Personally I would rather see some more exotic combos, like Fire/Grass, Fire/Water, or Fire/Dragon.

GoldvsRed
May 26th, 2010, 10:39 AM
I just want more creative Fire-Types... Not one's that are just "[insert animal here], but ON FIRE!". You can't get pretty creative with them... A Fire/Water-Type could be a steam engine, and a Fire/Grass-Type could be a giant jalapeño (Halapyro?)!

luigimario94
July 5th, 2010, 06:08 AM
Well, there's already Houndour and Houndoom, but it is a logical type combination for Fire. Personally I would rather see some more exotic combos, like Fire/Grass, Fire/Water, or Fire/Dragon.

I hate them, though. I mean like a cool looking Fire/Dark type like a lizard or a Ghost and Fire type that is made of flame.

JasonX3333
July 5th, 2010, 06:18 AM
I like how everyone complains about pre-evos see them then say "aw so cute time to grind!" You guys wont use em to level 100 the second you get it try to evolve it.

@topic

Yes there needs to be more types maybe fire/dark or something just no more fire fighting please.

Cherrim
July 5th, 2010, 06:22 AM
This is a thread revival. u_u; Any new posts can probably just go in the more general "What Pokémon would you like to see?" thread.