Does LEGENDARY still mean something? Page 2

Started by Paige Berlitz September 12th, 2013 3:52 PM
  • 1969 views
  • 30 replies
  • Public Poll

Should Legendary be considered a type?

Xerneas_X

Raven

Female
California
Seen November 28th, 2021
Posted April 14th, 2014
447 posts
9.8 Years
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!

Andrew Shard

Shards of Fury

Male
Portugal
Seen October 28th, 2014
Posted September 29th, 2013
19 posts
9.6 Years
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...

Eevee

╰( ´・ω・)つ━☆゚.* ・。゚

Age 28
Female
Canada
Seen July 7th, 2016
Posted July 4th, 2014
678 posts
9.6 Years
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.


Nolafus

Aspiring something

Age 27
Male
Lost in thought... again
Seen March 3rd, 2018
Posted March 11th, 2017
5,722 posts
10.9 Years
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.
PairPC sister

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD

Male
Lootin' Your Poké's
Seen December 4th, 2016
Posted December 4th, 2016
1,250 posts
9.7 Years
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~