Proposal: Pokémon breaks science

Honestly this is a great forum lol

Um anyway, this is a mini-series of mini-articles in which I select a Pokémon and rant about why it breaks science. My first target will likely be Blastoise and its lack of recoil from its pew pew cannons. These will just be like 2-3 paragraph things.

This sounds like a good concept. There are multitudes of odd pokemon descriptions that don't make sense. one that sticks out that I think a youtube was commenting on was Pidgeot's pokedex entry stating it flies at twice the speed of sound. He was going through random pokedex entries which made no sense.

Seems fine to me. Would you examine single Pokemon only, or multiple in the species if more than one has a questionable pokedex entry? How will you write it as well - factually or from a viewpoint of a fictional character?

Decidueye said:

Honestly this is a great forum lol

Um anyway, this is a mini-series of mini-articles in which I select a Pokémon and rant about why it breaks science. My first target will likely be Blastoise and its lack of recoil from its pew pew cannons. These will just be like 2-3 paragraph things.

Click to expand...

But why? We've all seen similar posts on the internet, do we really need further confirmation of the lack of physics within the Pokemon world?

Edit: Blastoise's "lack of recoil" is a bad topic to write about if you were to do this. Something else would be better

To be honest, I don't see the point of this being an article.

The reason why I'm opposed to this as an article or article series is because it would have little to no value as an article. Sure, it might be fun sometimes to look into the science behind Pokémon, but will you truly be able to form an objective article? You're going to be taking elements from a fictional fantasy world and then ranting about why they don't comply to the physics of our world. That doesn't sound very useful at all and it's just nitpicking on what someone else wrote with the intent of it being impossible in the physical world. Whoever wrote the PokéDex descriptions purposely made them so that they would be near impossible in our world while also sounding scientific. Most people who have been introduced to Pokémon acknowledge that it's something made up, so there's not much point reinforcing that. Maybe you're trying to make this article more comedic than anything, which I can understand. However, I don't think that this kind of stuff is very funny.

If you really want to compare science/logic between our world and the Pokémon World, the only thing that I feel would be possible is trying to explain how the type interactions work. The type interactions are based off how different elements of our world interact with each other. Fire loses to water because in most cases, water would douse the fire, and so on. This is not the same as comparing PokéDex entries to science in our real life. Unlike the entries, the type interactions were meant to be logical, although some of them are obscure (Psychic > Poison).

If you still want to go with trying to break down Blastoise, etc., then I think a video might be better suited for it. It would be much easier to rant in a video, where people can listen to you speak, than in text.

Just wanna mention quickly that Blastoise probably isn't a great example because it doesn't consistently show the lack of recoil - in Smash Bros Melee and possibly the original Smash Bros, its Hydro Pump attack causes recoil.

I agree with the above in that contrasting science in a fictional vs real world probably won't work very well, though, and think that type matchups would be a much more interesting and realistic thing to discuss.

Hello, I am a newbie around this part of the forum who feels like they have the right to express an opinion. Anyway, moving on.

I agree with the other three posters above me. Honestly, this feels like a very "no duh" and "so what" kind of topic. It's pretty obvious that Pokemon doesn't really follow the principles of science to the t. I don't really feel there is much to gain in an article if the goal of it is to rant about it. This broad topic seems more suited for a presentation or a video.

If you are still interested in approaching the article with the hopes to analyze something about real world science and its representation in the Pokemon series, then maybe try a different angle? Like mentioned above, you can talk about how type interactions work and their real life applications or you could go for a specific area or aspect in real world science that Pokemon breaks/does not usually follow. (Like typical Pokemon evolution being similar to metamorphosis than actual evolution and then you can turn it around with Gen 7 Alolan Forms. On that note, you can even use evolution traditionally seen in Pokemon games vs. Darwin's evolution as a hook to talk about Gen 7's Alolan Forms.)