• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

>>>> Closed Thread Container <<<<

Do you play with Nuzlocke rules?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 14 27.5%
  • No...

    Votes: 30 58.8%
  • What the hell is Nuzlocke?

    Votes: 7 13.7%

  • Total voters
    51
Status
Not open for further replies.

PsiOmega

An old soul
It could be just a coincidence. 'Cuz that's a weird looking 9...
 

Hidden Power

Well-Known Member
Because it's a matter of how many, as such you should factor in all Pokemon without cutting things off for no real purpose other then to exaggerate something. The other Pokemon are there, so they should be factor in.

I find that the one exaggerating things isn't me, but the ones who think 47/649 Pokemon, or 7.2% is a small proportion and hence argue that the number of legendary Pokemon isn't a lot. The practical side is that you won't find a Charmander, Charmeleon and Charizard in a single team unless that someone is doing it for novelty. The problem I have with legendaries is that I don't use them for my first runthrough in a new game, and when you're trying to build a team with a nice variety of types, that can be a problem, especially in Gen IV.

And I don't really understand the fascination with Pokemon of 'Legendary' status or why there should be more. Only the version mascots have any prominent storytelling roles. The only thing they contribute to post-game is the catching part, once per game. You can't breed a new one with a different nature if you want. You can't use some of them in the Battle Subway. Combat wise some of them are no better than pseudo-legendaries, which do not have any restrictions I've listed. Non-legendaries such as Lucario, Zoroark and Volcarona didn't need the legendary status to be have significant roles in the movies and/or games.
 

gliscor&yanmega

Well-Known Member
I find that the one exaggerating things isn't me, but the ones who think 47/649 Pokemon, or 7.2% is a small proportion and hence argue that the number of legendary Pokemon isn't a lot. The practical side is that you won't find a Charmander, Charmeleon and Charizard in a single team unless that someone is doing it for novelty. The problem I have with legendaries is that I don't use them for my first runthrough in a new game, and when you're trying to build a team with a nice variety of types, that can be a problem, especially in Gen IV.

And I don't really understand the fascination with Pokemon of 'Legendary' status or why there should be more. Only the version mascots have any prominent storytelling roles. The only thing they contribute to post-game is the catching part, once per game. You can't breed a new one with a different nature if you want. You can't use some of them in the Battle Subway. Combat wise some of them are no better than pseudo-legendaries, which do not have any restrictions I've listed. Non-legendaries such as Lucario, Zoroark and Volcarona didn't need the legendary status to be have significant roles in the movies and/or games.

I don't see what building a team has to do with the amount of Legendary Pokemon, there's still a ton of different Pokemon you can use that aren't Legendary.
 

Hidden Power

Well-Known Member
I don't see what building a team has to do with the amount of Legendary Pokemon, there's still a ton of different Pokemon you can use that aren't Legendary.

That's just me then, but I take it you understand my point of view for the 2nd paragraph? I've never seen the 'Legendary' status as a benefit. If say, Volcarona didn't have a pre-evolution, as was given 30 more stats to a total base stats of 580 just to be a legendary, what kind of difference would that make, in-game? Just a slightly stronger Pokemon with more restrictions to gameplay.
 

voicerocker

Platinum Master
It's not that there are too many legendaries it's that their are a lot of unneccessery legendaries.

If 1 Pokemon can be ruled unneccessary, ANY Pokemon could be ruled unneccessary.

Just as there are countless creatures in this world, there are just as many myths and legends filled with mysterious creatures: Bigfoot, Yeti, Loch Ness Monster, Chumpathingy lol....Not to mention completely fictional creatures like dragons and such. As long as each Pokemon's legend is unique, I see no problem with adding more.

I'm curious, which Legendary Pokemon do you think are just totally unneeded and why?
 

Missingno.Fan

Well-Known Member
I really thought that Gen IV had too many legendaries. I remember thinking that Heatran would of been better if it was just a normal stand alone.
 

xDWarrior

Well-Known Member
How is 47/649 "too many" and "common"?

No there isn't too many legendary, furthermore I don't exactly see how having too many legendary is a problem.

The fact that almost 50 Pokemon in 5 generation is legendary seems a bit much to me.
 

CliveKoopa

Well-Known Member
No, I don't think there are too many legendaries. Most of them are important to the mythology and history of the pokemon world and build more plot to the story.
 

xDWarrior

Well-Known Member
Hey it's possible I guess. I kinda doubt they did that, but we're not GF are we? haha
 

Marbi Z

Cin-Der-Race!
Your absolutely right! There are way too many legendaries! That's why things get so hecktic in the Pokemon world these days. And what really disappoints me is that all of the title screens after the original Red and Blue only showed the versions respected legendary... Now why couldn't Pokemon BW show the 2 Trainers and have different Pokemon appear like the original Red and Blue title screen? I mean if Pokemon BW was intended to be fresh start and introduce a whole new set of Pokemon and initally only feature them in the game then why couldn't the title screen feature some of them instead of just Reshiram or Zekrom? Come on Game Freak the Pokemon world does'nt REVOLVE around the Legendaries!
 

PsiOmega

An old soul
So this is something that's been on my mind forever, in the 1st gen of pokemon we had 5 legendaries: Mew, Mewtwo, Zapdos, Articuno, and Moltres, these were all great pokemon that looked good, had great characteristics and a good backstory behind them, now that we're into 5th gen it's like we're getting bombarded with WAY too many legendaries now. Don't get me wrong i like the designs for the most part but lets just stop and think about the legendaries in gen 5.


Zekrom
Reshiram
Kyurem
Landorus
Tornadus
Thundurus
Virizion
Cobalion
Terrakion
Virizion
Victini


not counting Meoletta, Genesect, and Keldeo when they're introduced later on in the year, that's FOURTEEN! Surely they could of brought back legendaries from previous generations to play a part, it seems like legendaries are losing the novelty they once had. Thoughts would be appreciated.

-Merle

Thirteen. You said Virizion twice.

I'm sure this has been said before, but I like the balance of legendaries in R/S/E. Two roaming ones, the main trio, the sub-trio, and two event-exclusive legendaries.
 

gamer_legend

Well-Known Member
I don't see anything wrong with lots of legendaries, since none of them have been a symbol for the same thing.

I'd normally agree but quite a few of them don't live up to the standards. E.G: Heatran it's really hot...apparently...seriously that's why it's a legendary. The Kami trio who like screwing with the weather...least we haven't got another pair who can...oh no.
 

DMerle

Guess who's back
Thirteen. You said Virizion twice.

I'm sure this has been said before, but I like the balance of legendaries in R/S/E. Two roaming ones, the main trio, the sub-trio, and two event-exclusive legendaries.

My bad, i've fixed that now. My point is that legendaries have lost the novelty they once had, i remember in Pokemon Yellow, getting a legendary was SUCH a big deal. The three birds were really difficult to locate, and catch. Mewtwo was like the ultimate quest and having a mew was a huge bragging right, nowadays it seems before you've even beaten the game you've got like 3/4 legendaries already. It also seems everytime they make one it complicates things more and more i'll never believe there's any point for Giratina or Arceus and that they just confused things further.
 

voicerocker

Platinum Master
The fact that almost 50 Pokemon in 5 generation is legendary seems a bit much to me.

47 compared to 649 is too many? That averages out to 9.2 Legends per generation, with Game Freak having introduced an average of 129.8 Pokemon in 5 Gens. So for nearly every 130 Pokemon, 9 are Legendary.

Your absolutely right! There are way too many legendaries! That's why things get so hecktic in the Pokemon world these days. And what really disappoints me is that all of the title screens after the original Red and Blue only showed the versions respected legendary... Now why couldn't Pokemon BW show the 2 Trainers and have different Pokemon appear like the original Red and Blue title screen? I mean if Pokemon BW was intended to be fresh start and introduce a whole new set of Pokemon and initally only feature them in the game then why couldn't the title screen feature some of them instead of just Reshiram or Zekrom? Come on Game Freak the Pokemon world does'nt REVOLVE around the Legendaries!

Show, showing a bunch of random common Pokemon is better than showing a version exclusive, important-to-the-storyline, Legendary Pokemon on the title screen?

And actually, the Pokemon World DOES revolve around the Legendaries, as they are very important to the history and culture of each region and some played a part in creating those regions.
 

CliveKoopa

Well-Known Member
47 compared to 649 is too many? That averages out to 9.2 Legends per generation, with Game Freak having introduced an average of 129.8 Pokemon in 5 Gens. So for nearly every 130 Pokemon, 9 are Legendary.



Show, showing a bunch of random common Pokemon is better than showing a version exclusive, important-to-the-storyline, Legendary Pokemon on the title screen?

And actually, the Pokemon World DOES revolve around the Legendaries, as they are very important to the history and culture of each region and some played a part in creating those regions.

Indeed that's true. Not just those regions either but the whole world. Arceus created everything, not just Sinnoh.
 

DMerle

Guess who's back
Indeed that's true. Not just those regions either but the whole world. Arceus created everything, not just Sinnoh.

Arceus must be the worst idea ever, at that point i think they were just tryna outdo every previous pokemon, i get that you wanna up the stakes but a pokemon that created the universe?
 
Last edited:

voicerocker

Platinum Master
Arceus must be the worst idea ever, at that point i think they were just tryna outdo every previous pokemon, i get that you wanna up the stakes but a pokemon that created the universe?

How is that a horrible idea? In a world filled with mysterious creatures that have unique powers, why does it not make sense that there could be 1 possibly ultimate Pokemon?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top