View Single Post
Old September 6th, 2013 (11:37 AM).
pokemasta92's Avatar
3rd Gen. Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bolingbrook, IL, USA
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Naughty
Posts: 323
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 don't use "uber" Pokémon, I don't calculate stat values, I don't use cheating devices, I don't breed my way to perfection, and I don't care about natures. I catch my Pokemon the way they are, and treat them like individuals instead of brainless drones. If you use this philosophy, copy & paste this into your signature.
Reply With Quote