Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Pokémon Discussions > Pokémon General

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

Pokémon General Theories, experiences and other discussions regarding the Pokémon franchise that can't be covered in any of the other boards.



View Poll Results: Should Legendary be considered a type?
Yes 4 19.05%
No 17 80.95%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old September 22nd, 2013 (06:09 PM).
Shrew's Avatar
Shrew
is a shrew
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Sandgem Town
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Lonely
Personally, I dislike that they're releasing so many legendaries. However, legendary still has a meaning: pokemon that are hard to come across and typically having high stats. Yes, there are more of them, but they're still relatively more difficult to acquire than something you can find an infinite number of in a route.

"Back in the day", being legendary didn't mean all that much anyways. The legendary birds (60% of all legendaries back in Gen 1) had BSTs lower than Dragonite. They had no backstory at this point either (until the anime's 2nd movie and GSC gave them some.)

Legendary a type? No...
__________________
3DS FC: 4914-3495-9756 (IGN: Shrew)
Catch me on the Battle Server: Shrew, Shrewly
Here's my tradelist!
Reply With Quote
  #27    
Old September 26th, 2013 (12:57 PM).
Xerneas_X's Avatar
Xerneas_X
Raven
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: California
Gender: Female
Nature: Lonely
considering they are now showing Ledendary pokemon within the new cartoon series, not very secretive, hard to find, and no big deal to everyone. i would say no.
__________________
My Friend Code: 3325-2732-4817 - In-Game Name: Raven
My Shop: [Pending Re-Grand Opening]
My Trade Review: Raven's Trade Review

As of Feb 20th: 1500 Wins/264 losses, 85% Win Rate.
As of Feb 25th (2nd Playthrough): 150 Wins/0 losses, Undefeated, Challengers Beware!
Reply With Quote
  #28    
Old September 28th, 2013 (03:19 PM).
Andrew Shard's Avatar
Andrew Shard
Shards of Fury
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Portugal
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Legendary pokemon meant a lot to me back to the I, II and III series of pokemon. Palkia and Dialga just showed up from nowhere to me although I still liked them as legendary. I just think that there are TOO MANY legendary pokemon now.
The sinhon trio was a bit late due to the long story that pokemon had already. The creation of the pokemon world should've been revealed sooner. Arceus lost it's GOD thing because there were a lot of legendaries back to the other regions.

As for BW series... I don't think ANY of those pokemon should be legendary... Zekrom and Reshiram designs are horrible but kyurem still takes it. Victini?... pathetic... melloetta? the same... the three musketeers? don't understand the legendary thing... a tauros, a scither and other pokemon would've done the same... the three cloud things... not much to say...
I recognize that Unova was a good generation for kids who startet playing pokemon... but it was just pathethic in the majority of aspects... even the story didn't made sense...
However this is my opinion...

Now... I'm really pumped up for XY - Xerneas and Yvetal... those look like legendaries to me! really great designs. Hope the story doesn't let me down...
Reply With Quote
  #29    
Old September 29th, 2013 (01:19 PM).
Eevee's Avatar
Eevee
╰( ´・ω・)つ━☆゚.* ・。゚
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Age: 20
Gender: Female
Nature: Jolly
Send a message via Skype™ to Eevee
I don't see why legendary Pokemon should be a "type." It just doesn't make any sense. What would it be weak to? Strong against? It just doesn't fit, in my eyes.

However, I do agree that there are waaaay too many legendary Pokemon so the thrill of them being "legendary" has worn off. Which is a shame because when I was younger, a legendary Pokemon was the most exciting thing in the world to face. But nowadays it's too easy to get them. either by hacking or trading online.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #30    
Old September 29th, 2013 (03:11 PM).
Nolafus's Avatar
Nolafus
Here to stay
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lost in thought... again
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
I'll go with the group and say that there are way too many legendaries.

I still think, however, it means something. There's still only one of each per game, and incredibly difficult to catch. The only thing I could see of legendary pokemon not being so legendary is if you could breed them. I don't think that's going to happen. Since I'm a competitive battler, I'll include a sentence on that. Competitively is doesn't mean a thing. There are tons of legendaries in the NU (never used) tier, and they still never see any action.
__________________
Moderator of Fan Fiction & Writing
PairPC sister
Reply With Quote
  #31    
Old September 29th, 2013 (04:22 PM).
CoffeeDrink's Avatar
CoffeeDrink
GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Lootin' Your Poké's
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Hm, koff~

In some cases, it still holds value. In others, not so much. There is a large amount of Mewtwos and others on the GTS, so I believe it diminishes their overall value some. However, some I think aren't even supposed to be. Arceus. I don't like the Pokemon that created all the Pokemon/universe. I think Mewtwo is still the best because he was a science project that succeeded at the highest levels, koffi~
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 06:52 AM.