- 4,569
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Seen May 28, 2019
![[PokeCommunity.com] New Type Confirmed: Fairy! [PokeCommunity.com] New Type Confirmed: Fairy!](https://abload.de/img/jiggly4wqt8.png)
Whole comic.
Holy hyperbole batman! This post is a great example on how some take a video game franchise TOO seriouesly.I really can't take this seriously because fairies kill dragons and now I'm thinking of Pokémon being some magical story world full of dragons and princes and wonderland creatures and ogres. Aka, Shrek: The Game.
Seriously though, I don't feel like having Fairy as a type makes very much sense. The others so far are okay; all based off real, general things with plenty of space for imagination (minus Dragon - but Dragon is badass anyway. Although honestly I always felt there to be a big lack of variation between Dragon types as it was) but this just feels so... restricting to me. What even qualifies as a fairy? When I think "fairy" I think something like Tinkerbell; a human form with wings and a magic wand. Either that or Navi from the LoZ games; in any case, something bright and flying with sparkles and fairy dust and other stuff like that. I really don't get why they felt they needed to bring a new type in, and honestly given some of the confirmed Fairy Pokémon (Gardevoir, Sylveon, Marill?) it feels like they're just chucking the type at... well, anything they can. I don't see what exactly makes these guys 'fairies' - mainly given that they're trying to build a type here off something which doesn't actually exist. I had the same issue with Dragons; they were cool but the actual typing made zero sense due to the lack of dragons in the real world. I never understood the logic behind dragons being weak to... well... dragons.
And regarding dragons - I'm glad that I'm not the only person who feels that the whole point of this type is to check Dragon-types. Which, honestly, wasn't worth a whole new type imo (and especially not when the fairy being strong against dragon thing makes no sense in the first place). They could've just introduced some better Ice-types, some sort of anti-Dragon items or moves or etc, but nahhh. They had to go screw everything up by throwing a whole new type which, as I keep saying, is in itself not possible to categorise due to it not existing in the first place.
...tl;dr I don't like it. I feel it's a really messy type due to the fact that it's impossible to say, with any solid reasoning, what a fairy is or what its advantages and disadvantages are and they could have done the same job by being more inventive in other areas.
Your first mistake is wanting to apply realism to a game about catching monsters and putting them in your pocket so they can dogfight later. This is the same series where the reason Bug type is stronger than Dark is because it's all a reference to Kamen riders. Is Kamen Rider real? Of course not. Unless you believe in Power Rangers.
Trying to be logical will get you no where. Balance is first and always was. Typing doesn't have to make any sense. Why the hell is Haxorus, a Dinosaur, a Dragon type? Actually why is there a Dinosaur in the game? They're extinct! Oh, well they're badass so it doesn't matter! And why is Rhydon a Rock type? Last I checked Rhinoceroses are actually made of flesh, not rock. And the list goes on.
This is a GOOD decision GF made. I welcome a new type, especially if it nerfs Dragons, regardless if it's called "Fairy". (Lots of decisions here aren't any better either. Light? Magic? Divine? lol) You wanted Pokemon to be manly or something? Get out of here. Honestly if the reason why fairies are stronger than dragons is because of fairy tales then that's a pretty nice and cute little detail, and is completely in line with what Pokemon is.
Besides, fairies always existed in the series.
Last edited: