• @RadicalEagle
    link
    106 months ago

    Honestly I don’t even think gen 1 Pokémon are anymore creative than the others. I was still a kid when the concept was new so they felt fresh, but pretty much every Pokémon I can think of is based on an existing archetype of some sort. Plant/Animal, inanimate object brought to life, spirits, dinosaurs, etc. Then you sprinkle on some regional flavor and there you go, you got a Pokémon.

    “Identity” isn’t something that belongs to the object, it’s something that is assigned to the object by an observer.

    • Ephera
      link
      fedilink
      36 months ago

      This is why, in retrospective, I’ve really fallen out of love with Pokémon. I could have spent that time learning about real-world animals and plants, since it’s so arguable, whether Pokémon are even cooler to begin with.

      • @RadicalEagle
        link
        26 months ago

        I still love Pokémon, I just try not to let my nostalgia for the old games get in the way of enjoying the new ones. I try to judge everything on its own merit.

        But yeah I agree, really animals are way more complex and interesting than anything you’d find in a game.

      • @RadicalEagle
        link
        86 months ago

        Magnemite is named after a magnet and Voltorb is an electric orb.

        Tauros and Porygon are just one letter away from Taurus and polygon.

        Ekans is snake backwards.

        I’m open to having my mind changed, but I’m going to need more lol

    • @Mango
      link
      -36 months ago

      If you can’t see it, you can’t see it. I can’t point it out to you.