2nd Gen Ice/Water, Electric, Fire

[Redstar]

Anyone have a theory as to why Articuno is Ice and Suicune broke that tradition by being Water?

 

[Kokuo]

The only reason I can come up with is that the creators didn't want 2 Ice legendaries, so they made Suicune water.

 

[processr]

Because there was never any sort of trend to break, perhaps? There had been one generation of games, so you can hardly call that a trend. Suicune is affiliated with water, and so it is of the Water-type. The only pattern is that of the Legendary Trio; it's nothing to do with their respective types.

 

[iTzKaizer]

What "tradition" are you talking about? There was only one generation at that moment so there were not traditions. They made Suicune a water type because they wanted.

 

[Cham]

There wasn't really much of a trend being only the second generation. It is in the name too, I suppose, as Sui means water in Japanese.

 

[Redstar]

There WAS a tradition. Just because it was only the first generation doesn't mean rules and traditions weren't set into place, which were blatantly disregarded for the third and fourth generations.

I have to tell you, I never knew Suicune was Water type. I only just found out he was the day I posted this thread, and ever since G/S came out I assumed he was Ice, even when playing it. In fact, Suicune looks like an Ice type and has Ice type moves. Everything about him is Ice-based.

 

[JeTz]

As Cham mentioned. Sui was water in Japanese.

Whereby in Chinese/Cantonese China/Hong Kong Sui was aswell named as water.

Maybe it was the reason that Suicune was water type(imo)

 

[Redstar]

Name has nothing to do with it. They could have easily named Articuno "Aquacuno" and established a trio involving one Water type, and set the pattern from then on. The Pokemon are designed first, and the naming comes later... Honestly, Suicine appears he could go both ways as far as type.

Instead they went with Ice in the second generation, and completely through the elemental trio pattern out the window generation three on. Really, Rock, Ice, Steel? Robots!? Then they stuff a second trio into the SAME game, and repeat that idiocy with the fourth game. Wtf is wrong with them?

 

[JeTz]

As Raikou the Rai refers to the Electric in Chinese/Cantonese as well.

Well, maybe it doesn't related with the name.. Sigh

 

[ItzMike]

Name has nothing to do with it. They could have easily named Articuno "Aquacuno" and established a trio involving one Water type, and set the pattern from then on. The Pokemon are designed first, and the naming comes later... Honestly, Suicine appears he could go both ways as far as type.

Instead they went with Ice in the second generation, and completely through the elemental trio pattern out the window generation three on. Really, Rock, Ice, Steel? Robots!? Then they stuff a second trio into the SAME game, and repeat that idiocy with the fourth game. Wtf is wrong with them?

Ok. you seem to be asking for peoples theory's but then when they provide one you angrily bash them,

I've got an answer for you.

BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE IT.

And as multiple people have pointed out. THE NAMES.

There was no tradition, Did they say there was. i don't think so

 

[Redstar]

Ok. you seem to be asking for peoples theory's but then when they provide one you angrily bash them,

I've got an answer for you.

BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE IT.

And as multiple people have pointed out. THE NAMES.

There was no tradition, Did they say there was. i don't think so

No one has offered a single theory. They've just said "there was no tradition" and left it at that. I'm looking for real rationale as to why the threw the tradition out the window.

 

[processr]

There WAS a tradition. Just because it was only the first generation doesn't mean rules and traditions weren't set into place, which were blatantly disregarded for the third and fourth generations.

That's like saying that there was a tradition for the 25th Pokémon listed in a regional Pokédex to be an Electric-type. Sure, Pikachu was #25 in the Kanto 'Dex, but in Johto it was Metapod, in Hoenn it was Taillow and in Sinnoh it was Budew.

To be a tradition it has to have been followed at least once, if not twice. A tradition would be the Grass-Fire-Water triangle of starter Pokémon, or the inclusion of Pikachu, Magikarp, Machop etc. in every regional Pokédex thus far.

 

[Redstar]

That's like saying that there was a tradition for the 25th Pokémon listed in a regional Pokédex to be an Electric-type. Sure, Pikachu was #25 in the Kanto 'Dex, but in Johto it was Metapod, in Hoenn it was Taillow and in Sinnoh it was Budew.

To be a tradition it has to have been followed at least once, if not twice. A tradition would be the Grass-Fire-Water triangle of starter Pokémon, or the inclusion of Pikachu, Magikarp, Machop etc. in every regional Pokédex thus far.

That obviously isn't a tradition. But the mere act of setting up a game with a legendary trio, and a super-rare imp-like Pokemon, suggests a tradition has been built up. They created a tradition and ignored it all at once.

 

[BHwolfgang]

I've never heard of such a tradition. It's possible or even most likely that the creators wanted a water Legendary Pokémon, and they thought that Suicune would be a perfect match for it?

 

[Apathetic_Yen]

So basically what you are saying is that every single legendary trio should have been ice/fire/electric then? Did you know that most of the legendaries are based off of some sort of mythology, hm? Perhaps that's the tradition they're setting up here.

Also, do you really have to bash verybody's theories? You say that no one had any but there were some, as you can see.

Because there was never any sort of trend to break, perhaps? There had been one generation of games, so you can hardly call that a trend. Suicune is affiliated with water, and so it is of the Water-type. The only pattern is that of the Legendary Trio; it's nothing to do with their respective types.

Oh, well there's one.

The only reason I can come up with is that the creators didn't want 2 Ice legendaries, so they made Suicune water.

And another.

There wasn't really much of a trend being only the second generation. It is in the name too, I suppose, as Sui means water in Japanese.

And another.

What "tradition" are you talking about? There was only one generation at that moment so there were not traditions. They made Suicune a water type because they wanted.

And another.

As Cham mentioned. Sui was water in Japanese.

Whereby in Chinese/Cantonese China/Hong Kong Sui was aswell named as water.

Maybe it was the reason that Suicune was water type(imo)

And another.

As Raikou the Rai refers to the Electric in Chinese/Cantonese as well.

Well, maybe it doesn't related with the name.. Sigh

And another.

Ok. you seem to be asking for peoples theory's but then when they provide one you angrily bash them,

I've got an answer for you.

BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE IT.

And as multiple people have pointed out. THE NAMES.

There was no tradition, Did they say there was. i don't think so

And another.

I've never heard of such a tradition. It's possible or even most likely that the creators wanted a water Legendary Pokémon, and they thought that Suicune would be a perfect match for it?

Well whaddaya know, there's eight theories right there! Now, lets find out what dictates what exactly a theory is:

Theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

-Credits go to dictionary.com-

Oh wow, I think all the above posts fit in at least one of these here categories. And you know what, I haven't seen any theories from you at all! You seem so certain about what you think that it can't possibly fall under any of these categories. It's almost like arguing wiht a kid; everything you say is right and everybody else is wrong. You criticise every other person's thought on your question, provided it doesn't agree with you at all, which none have so far.

Tell me, what are you looking for, someone else's opinion or someone who agrees with you, because so far that's the impression I'm getting from your responses.

 

[~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~]

Because they felt like it and Suicune doesn't even look like an Ice type POkemon


:t354:TG

 

[BHwolfgang]

So basically what you are saying is that every single legendary trio should have been ice/fire/electric then? Did you know that most of the legendaries are based off of some sort of mythology, hm? Perhaps that's the tradition they're setting up here.

However, his theory is to say that there is supposed to be a chain of a ice/fire/electric trio, not a theory that most Legendary Pokémons are based off mythology.

Also, do you really have to bash verybody's theories? You say that no one had any but there were some, as you can see.

Hmm? Those eight quotes that you quote doesn't seem to bash his/her theory, as to saying that they never heard of it or believe that there is one.

Well whaddaya know, there's eight theories right there! Now, lets find out what dictates what exactly a theory is:

Theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

You should also acknowledge definition #1 and #2.

-Credits go to dictionary.com-

Oh wow, I think all the above posts fit in at least one of these here categories. And you know what, I haven't seen any theories from you at all! You seem so certain about what you think that it can't possibly fall under any of these categories. It's almost like arguing wiht a kid; everything you say is right and everybody else is wrong. You criticise every other person's thought on your question, provided it doesn't agree with you at all, which none have so far.

Um, so… we can't state our own views and have to agree with his/hers?

Tell me, what are you looking for, someone else's opinion or someone who agrees with you, because so far that's the impression I'm getting from your responses.

I also would like to say that everyone here is stating his/her opinion. If that's your impression, then so be it, but I would like to put my two cents into your 'opinion and views'.

 

[Apathetic_Yen]

However, his theory is to say that there is supposed to be a chain of a ice/fire/electric trio, not a theory that most Legendary Pokémons are based off mythology.

Hmm? Those eight quotes that you quote doesn't seem to bash his/her theory, as to saying that they never heard of it or believe that there is one.

You should also acknowledge definition #1 and #2.

-Credits go to dictionary.com-

Um, so… we can't state our own views and have to agree with his/hers?

I also would like to say that everyone here is stating his/her opinion. If that's your impression, then so be it, but I would like to put my two cents into your 'opinion and views'.

Dude, what the heck are talking about? I'm talking to Redstar

 

[Redstar]

So basically what you are saying is that every single legendary trio should have been ice/fire/electric then? Did you know that most of the legendaries are based off of some sort of mythology, hm? Perhaps that's the tradition they're setting up here.

Also, do you really have to bash verybody's theories? You say that no one had any but there were some, as you can see.



Oh, well there's one.



And another.



And another.



And another.



And another.



And another.



And another.



Well whaddaya know, there's eight theories right there! Now, lets find out what dictates what exactly a theory is:

Theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

-Credits go to dictionary.com-

Oh wow, I think all the above posts fit in at least one of these here categories. And you know what, I haven't seen any theories from you at all! You seem so certain about what you think that it can't possibly fall under any of these categories. It's almost like arguing wiht a kid; everything you say is right and everybody else is wrong. You criticise every other person's thought on your question, provided it doesn't agree with you at all, which none have so far.

Tell me, what are you looking for, someone else's opinion or someone who agrees with you, because so far that's the impression I'm getting from your responses.

I actually responded to each of those reasons and explained why they aren't valid.

 

[Apathetic_Yen]

I actually responded to each of those reasons and explained why they aren't valid.

And why so is that? Your reasons for these people's lack of validity aren't at all...justafiable. You asked for theories and they gave them to you, that was your original question, not 'Give me a response that I think is legit.'

So I ask you again, what is it you're looking for from everybody? Obviously it isn't a person's own idea so what is it?