View Single Post
Old June 4th, 2013 (9:29 AM).
ナギ's Avatar
ナギ ナギ is offline
P r e p a r e .
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UTC+2
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by CourageHound View Post
Anyway, i agree on the fact that most normal types are based on real life animals. But ya know alot of pokemon in the "Field"/"Ground" egg group are predominantly based off real life animals. Another pokemon that could be normal type that's another type(that's also based off an animal) is Mightyena. When you look at it, there seems to be little that could be atributed to its pure dark typing besides it coloration. Now say if you take its shiny form(which is brown) and substituted that for its primary coloration, then there really wouldnt be much sense in it being a dark type.

Another animal like pokemon with barely any alteration from its natural animal is Arbok. It looks like your average giant snake. But its poison type because it has that special quality of having venom. This indicates that normal types might require no more than a general/simple design or origin. I can imagine how challenging it could be to turn animals into pokemon though while keeping a certain theme or tone in your designs.
i'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with what i said now
but yeah, i agree with what you're saying. nearly all Pokémon are somehow based on animals in the first place, but i think NORMALtype is the only one who just doesn't need to undergo any 'typification' - mostly colouration. Mightyena is indeed labeled as a DARKtype for its black and grey colours, but honestly as far as i'm concerned even in its normal form it could've been NORMAL/DARKtyped, like Liepard.
as for Arbok, i'm less inclined to agree because its POISONtype-ification is its colour IMO. i've never seen a purple cobra... but i see what you're saying.

Originally Posted by crimsonskarmory View Post
One Pokémon that comes to mind that I think should be a normal type is Stunky and its evolution. Like I said normal types are usually based on real life animals and Stunky is based on a skunk. To me a Poison and Normal type more suits it.
Stunky could've been a NORMALtype yes, but i do think Skuntank definitely has that evil characteristic to it that makes it a DARKtype. Stunky is still slightly more on the cute side i suppose, closer to the actual animal that couldve made it a NORMALtype.
but i guess somewhere that Stunky naughtiness could still amount to a DARKtype... or maybe a complete type change was too much of a change for the developers. i don't think i've ever seen a Pokémon actually change types over evolution, they always just get added or removed, no?
-- i don't need promises.