Ew! It's a girl.
View Single Post
September 11th, 2013, 12:12 PM
X does Y WITH AUTHORITY!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Stuck in Generation 3 :(
When I was younger, I don't think I cared about genders too much... It helped that most Pokemon I caught were male (which I thought made sense due to the Pokemon designs), so I think I was briefly indifferent...
However, I shifted from that mindset very, very quickly. XD The first Pokemon that I can recall in which I wanted a specific gender was Sableye, because it just seemed female to me. Nowadays, as I am
particular regarding the attributes of my Pokemon (Ability, Nature, adequate or flawless Stats, Location Caught, Gender, etc.), gender is yet another thing that I focus on.
I think gender is the only attribute where I
breed for it competitively, but more aesthetically (as the only real competitive uses of gender involve Attract/Red Thread~Destiny Knot/infatuation and the Rivalry Ability, which seem to be infrequent when compared to the myriad of moves and abilities available... You can hardly predict what a foe's Pokemon's genders will be, although most gender ratios seem to lean towards male Pokemon being more dominant/widespread). This makes it all the more annoying when breeding...it's hard enough to breed competitively; gender seems like it should be the easiest thing to breed for considering there are technically just two options excluding genderless Pokemon, but non-"50% Male & 50% Female" gender ratios add their own spin on things.
Most Pokemon seem male to me, although there are some that I firmly think are female. As a result, I catch/breed Pokemon and intend to have their gender match whatever gender I think the Pokemon design aligns with... I haven't thought about it much, but I think I would actually be willing to forgo a competitively-sound Pokemon that has the wrong gender. XD
Genderless Pokemon are a mixed bag for me...on one hand, the gender can't really "contradict" the design, so I don't have to worry about this factor when breeding as it'll always be the same (and I can just 'imagine' the icon of the preferred gender next to the Pokemon's name). On the other hand, it sucks when a genderless Pokemon seems like it should have a defined gender but doesn't (i.e., Groudon being male, Articuno being female). I feel that there ARE Pokemon that literally look genderless and/or androgynous, though (Lugia, Ho-Oh, Staryu, etc.), although the anime depictions tend to sway my thinking a lot (this mostly applies to Lugia...it looks genderless to me, but the
Pokemon The Movie 2000: The Power of One
movie gave it a masculine voice, so nowadays it slightly seems more masculine to me) .
I refuse to waste a name character slot on the "♂/♀" icon for genderless Pokemon because the battle text (and other places where a Pokemon's name is used) just looks stupid when the Pokemon is sent out for battle with its gender as 'part' of its name (i.e., "Go! Blaziken/Blazer!" can be used when I have a male Blaziken with the ♂ symbol properly displaying in the "HP box", yet I have to endure witnessing "Go! Metagross
!" if I wanted a 'male' Metagross). Nidoran is a special case because the gender icon has been used as part of its name from the beginning (unless you nickname it?) rather than being indicated separately by the
gender icons (oddly enough, I wouldn't mind seeing un-nicknamed Nidoran♂ as "Nidoran♂♂" in the "HP Box", with the second '♂' being properly colored blue).
One of my biggest fears with Shiny Pokemon is that the gender will be the only attribute that I dislike (for instance, I'd dislike a shiny female Machoke with flawless stats, Adamant Nature, and a good Ability, simply because Machoke should be
IMO). In this case, I'd still keep the Shiny Pokemon (because I mean, c'mon, it's a freaking SHINY!
easier to reset for than Shiny Pokemon any day), although I probably will always be thinking "I wish it were male..." whenever I look at its properties/attributes.
provides me with an interesting ordeal, as if you're PRNG-ing for Shiny Pokemon, certain frames during certain methods will only yield specific Shininess/gender combinations dependent on your Secret ID and the gender ratio of the Pokemon you encountered IIRC (i.e., Frame X0000 might be a frame that ALWAYS gives you a shiny female Golbat). I'd still probably be bugged by the 'wrong' genders, but since I typically don't use Shiny Pokemon as my main battling Pokemon for a particular Pokemon species,
Shininess supersedes "preferred gender" for me
As for nicknames, most of my Pokemon's nicknames are gender-neutral, so the nickname doesn't matter much. Usually, the Pokemon design factors into the nickname anyway, so this is not largely an issue for me.
For utility Pokemon (i.e., Pokemon used for a specific HM), I usually don't care about the gender, but usually the gender matches whatever I would've preferred anyway. As for "scapegoat Pokemon"/Pokemon being traded away so I can receive another Pokemon (i.e., catching a random Seedot in
to trade it away for a newly-received-from-Professor-Birch Mudkip from another person's
save file), this is the one scenario where I don't care about gender AT ALL.
Originally Posted by
Hahaha how is that going for you? It would take forever to hatch them what with the 90:10 male to female ratio. How many eggs did you have to hatch to get 7 females???
Wow, um, that's unsettling to hear. XD Most of the Eeveelutions (save Umbreon) look like females to me (WTF? That scarf-ish fur thing clearly makes Eevee looks feminine, Game Freak! T_T), so that's gonna be a lot of breeding for me... Sigh...I hate it when gender ratios work against me like that (as opposed to most starter Pokemon - the majority of them look male to me, so I
the 87.5%Male/12.5% Female ratio in that case). It seems that gender ratios are in place to make it harder to breed for specific Pokemon species (like starters) and Hidden Abilities (since those are determined by Females), but when Ditto is available, the restriction via gender ratio seems pointless.
Originally Posted by
Oh yeah. I got a problem with those, if pokemon look male but are female, then it bugs me. I mean c'mon you gotta admit this would freak you out if you saw it.
Originally Posted by
But despite my personal tastes, I don't waste a usable Pokemon. While I wouldn't hesitate to release a box full of Magikarp; I would feel bad doing so with a box full of a less common, and/or annoying, Pokemon like Spinda.
I especially feel responsible for finding good homes for all of them if I catch too many for my needs while grinding for shiny Pokemon. I once spent a week trading off a box full chaff Pokemon that I didn't want cluttering up my storage on the GTS. I was surprised they were valued at all, but the GTS is a worldwide place and somebody wanted them.
I ended up with essentially a box of Bidoof which I feel better about releasing into the wild than I did the other Pokemon.
Originally Posted by
I completely understand that there are a male and female version of most Pokémon regardless of how they look because that's just how living things work. I also understand how in the Pokémon world some Pokémon are genderless because of their unique appearance or origin. What I don't understand is when there's a Pokémon that has each sex being a different Pokémon, yet one can be both sexes. For example, Ralts evolves into Kirlia, and then finally into Gardevoir. If it's male and is exposed to the Dawn Stone, it evolves into Gallade. Now Gallade is clearly the male version of a fully evolved Ralts and can only be male. Gardevoir however is clearly the female version, yet it can be male as well! I just find that a bit silly. I think it's neat that some Pokémon actually have different Pokémon to represent the sex, but it should be done more realistically. A male Kirlia should just automatically evolve into Gallade without a stone and a female into Gardevoir, which should not have a male counterpart because there already is one. Just a thought.
I agree with how male Kirlia (LOL, it's so weird how, IMO, Ralts looks masculine, Kirlia looks feminine, and then it goes right back to being masculine if you make it become a Gallade) should automatically evolve into Gallade without the need of a stone... Game Freak is probably trying to provide an explanation for while male Gardevoir exist (as Gallade was introduced in Generation 4, while Ralts, Kirlia, and Gardevoir all debuted in Generation 3) - Dawn Stones simply weren't 'widespread' in Hoenn. I'd much prefer it if all male Gardevoir were just automatically converted to Gallade when you migrate them from Generation 3; then we wouldn't need all of this "Dawn Stone" nonsense (the concept works well for other Pokemon, just not for the Ralts line) for Kirlia. The gender distribution for the Ralts line just looks weird now...male Gallade (logically), female Gardevoir (logically),
I really wish the Ralts line was either postponed to Generation 4 like Shellos/Gastrodon were, or Gallade was thought of earlier when Generation 3 was being made... You done goofed a bit there, Gen 3. :/
In any case, "wrong-gendered" foes (like female Machamp or male Milotic) are interesting to fight against, as they add a bit of variety. (i.e, MY Milotic will be female, so it'll be a sight to see it taking down male Milotic). It's so weird that such a little attribute in a
game has me thinking about it so much. XD
For male-looking Pokemon, I catch males of that species. For female-looking Pokemon, I catch females of that species. For genderless Pokemon, I 'imagine' whatever gender icon applies next to the Pokemon's name. "Wrong-gender" Shiny Pokemon bug me, but I'd rather have the Shiny status since it's harder to generate. Utility Pokemon tend to have their genders match the Pokemon design. I don't care about the genders of "scapegoat Pokemon" at all. I'm probably going to cry when I begin breeding for female Eeveelutions...
All Gardevoir should be female; male Kirlia should evolve into Gallade without the need for a Dawn Stone (similarly, all Froslass should be female without the need for a stone. Glalie actually works as either gender for me, though I perceive it more as a male because, Froslass).
1. The "trend" with NPCs having mono-gender-Pokemon to match their own gender (like Wallace, who is male, battling with all male Pokemon) bugs me mainly when it involves "contradictory Pokemon" (i.e., Wallace has a male Milotic, though Milotic looks more like a female in my opinion).
2. The Battle Factory (at least Hoenn's) can be quite surprising when it assigns gender ratios to Pokemon. There have been times I've had a team full of male-looking female Pokemon, female-looking male Pokemon, and mixtures of the sort. Oh, and female Tyranitar tend to kick butt for some reason. XD (Tyranitar looks male to me, but I keep on thinking of them as female due to that rampaging one from the Johto-centric era of the
3. The thing where Pokemon "evolve into the opposite gender" (male-looking Ralts to female-looking Kirlia) bugs me to no end. @_@ And then there's the Marill line, where
For the record, Azurill and Marill look male to me, though Azumarill seems androgynous.
4. Oh, and thank goodness none of the gender-locked ratios (like all Chansey being female) haven't been "wrong" yet (i.e., a Pokemon that LOOKS male IMO but is always coded to be female...that will be the day). >.<
Will be on PokeCommunity
Visit the Crowning Remix of Awesome
View Public Profile
Send a private message to fenyx4
Find all posts by fenyx4
Find threads started by fenyx4
Ignore Posts by fenyx4