The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Previous Generations (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=200)
-   -   2nd Gen Ice/Water, Electric, Fire (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=178540)

Redstar May 12th, 2009 1:49 AM

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

Kokuo May 14th, 2009 3:10 PM

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

processr May 14th, 2009 3:13 PM

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 May 14th, 2009 5:50 PM

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 May 14th, 2009 6:17 PM

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 May 14th, 2009 10:36 PM

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 May 14th, 2009 11:01 PM

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 May 15th, 2009 12:42 AM

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 May 15th, 2009 1:25 AM

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

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

ItzMike May 15th, 2009 2:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redstar (Post 4643191)
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 May 15th, 2009 2:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItzMike (Post 4643290)
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 May 15th, 2009 2:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redstar (Post 4643059)
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 May 15th, 2009 2:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribulations (Post 4643295)
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 May 24th, 2009 11:15 AM

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 May 24th, 2009 6:08 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribulations (Post 4642159)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kokuo (Post 4642154)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cham (Post 4642610)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iTzKaizer (Post 4642543)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeTz (Post 4643101)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeTz (Post 4643219)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItzMike (Post 4643290)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BHwolfgang (Post 4671282)
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~*!*~ May 25th, 2009 7:23 AM

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


:t354:TG

BHwolfgang May 25th, 2009 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apathetic_Yen (Post 4673051)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apathetic_Yen (Post 4673051)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apathetic_Yen (Post 4673051)
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-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apathetic_Yen (Post 4673051)
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apathetic_Yen (Post 4673051)
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 May 25th, 2009 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BHwolfgang (Post 4675918)
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 May 26th, 2009 1:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apathetic_Yen (Post 4673051)
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 May 26th, 2009 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redstar (Post 4678586)
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?

templekeeper May 26th, 2009 12:56 PM

It wasn't a hailstorm that stoped the fire on the Bronze Tower; it was rain. Thus, Suicune is a Water type. Remember, the lightning, fire, and rain at the Burned Tower? That's where Suicune, Raikou, and Entei came from. There's actually a reason behind their typing.

Redstar May 26th, 2009 2:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by templekeeper (Post 4680467)
It wasn't a hailstorm that stoped the fire on the Bronze Tower; it was rain. Thus, Suicune is a Water type. Remember, the lightning, fire, and rain at the Burned Tower? That's where Suicune, Raikou, and Entei came from. There's actually a reason behind their typing.

Use your brains. Pokemon, and the world they reside in, aren't real. You can't use their backstory, or their names as excuses because real people, real designers, decided to make Suicune Water, not Ice.

Why? They could have easily made him Ice. I want real theories as to why they did this... And don't give me the same lines. They aren't valid. Gamefreak could have easily changed one word of the backstory, like you said it could have been a hailstorm rather than rain. Or they could have altered his name to reflect an Ice typing.

Apathetic_Yen May 26th, 2009 2:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redstar (Post 4680792)
Use your brains. Pokemon, and the world they reside in, aren't real. You can't use their backstory, or their names as excuses because real people, real designers, decided to make Suicune Water, not Ice.

Why? They could have easily made him Ice. I want real theories as to why they did this... And don't give me the same lines. They aren't valid. Gamefreak could have easily changed one word of the backstory, like you said it could have been a hailstorm rather than rain. Or they could have altered his name to reflect an Ice typing.

Um, yeah, maybe for the purpose of tieing in with the story that they wanted to create. I don't know, just a THEORY.

So uh, why do you continue to come off as a douchebag?
"Use your brains"

Really now. Why do you continue to bash on everybody else's opinion on the matter. I mean, you still haven't answered my question-oh wait! I know now! You just want to know what everybody else thinks so you can tell them that they are full of crap! No? So why then are you asking for people's theories and just telling them "no you're wrong."

Redstar May 26th, 2009 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apathetic_Yen (Post 4680886)
Um, yeah, maybe for the purpose of tieing in with the story that they wanted to create. I don't know, just a THEORY.

So uh, why do you continue to come off as a douchebag?
"Use your brains"

Really now. Why do you continue to bash on everybody else's opinion on the matter. I mean, you still haven't answered my question-oh wait! I know now! You just want to know what everybody else thinks so you can tell them that they are full of crap! No? So why then are you asking for people's theories and just telling them "no you're wrong."

I've already explained several times why the explanations every one has told are not theories. You're coming off as a douchebag, when I'm just irritated that no one reads my rebuttals and offers something worth taking note of.

Apathetic_Yen May 26th, 2009 3:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redstar (Post 4680913)
I've already explained several times why the explanations every one has told are not theories. You're coming off as a douchebag, when I'm just irritated that no one reads my rebuttals and offers something worth taking note of.

No, that's what you think are not theories. Did you notice the fact that alot of other people got a little bit upset that you've been attacking evrrybody else's thoughts on the matter? Every time someone offers something, same freaking response from you.

And dude, you never explained legitimate crap about why everyone's explanations aren't theories. You've just said "that's not a theory." I even gave you the definition of a theory.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:58 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.