RedSapphire

Are New Legendaries Any Less "Legendary?"

, 19th March 2012 at 12:25 AM (215 Views)

Something I see that gets brought up a lot when bashing newer games is the status of legendary Pokemon. "There's too many of them" and "they're not legendary any more because everyone has them" are the most common things I see.

I'd just like to give my two cents on this topic. Please note that I love all Pokemon equally and anything negative I say about any Pokemon is simply for the sake of the argument.

When people say that there's "like, 20 legendaries, so everyone has them," I feel they really don't realize what they're saying. In RGBY, you had Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres, and Mewtwo. The legendary birds had no backstory--they were simply stronger than the average Pokemon. They were also catchable before the story ended. So it's safe to assume that basically everyone who played the game caught those Pokemon. After you beat the game, what was there to do? Catch Mewtwo. That was it. And considering Mewtwo's popularity, why wouldn't dedicated players catch it? So it's also safe to assume that almost everyone who played the game caught Mewtwo.

Now let's jump to the present. Specifically, HGSS. BW have a lot of legendaries, but HGSS have more to catch in-game. After you beat the game, who can you catch? Assuming you've already caught Entei, Raikou, and your mascot during the story, now you have: Suicune, opposite mascot, Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres, Mewtwo, Latios/Latias...this same thing applies to DPP.

Everyone had Mewtwo. Not everyone has a Heatran. Or a Cresselia. Or a Virizion.

Even if you ignore the fact that now legendaries all have stories behind them, how can you say that "everyone has them" is a good argument against them, when everyone had Mewtwo? Having less legendaries in-game just makes them easier to get. Having more actually makes the challenge of obtaining them even greater, which totally destroys their argument.

So, that's pretty much my opinion on that. I don't think there should be any more than 15 legendaries introduced in a generation, but I also don't think that just because there are a lot introduced that they're all of a sudden worthless or any less "legendary."

Share
- Share this post on
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
- Technorati
- Twitter

Donyor and Shift Gear like this.

Categories: Uncategorized

Email Blog Entry

« More Quizzes Main Fixing Up The Flying Type »

Comments

Donyor - 19th March 2012 04:23 AM
Great Argument! I totally agree!
Spectrum Achromatic - 19th March 2012 08:26 AM
Agreed. There are way too many legendaries, some of them don't really belong in the "legendary" group...
TheMissingno. - 19th March 2012 10:00 AM
I've never heard of "everyone has them" to be an argument against legendaries. The only one I've heard is "there are too many of them," which is a valid argument. The higher the ratio of legendaries to normal pokemon, the less meaningful the title of "legendary" becomes.
~~Baron Brixius~~ - 19th March 2012 10:05 AM
Just an excuse to make some pokemon harder to catch and give them higher stats.
RedSapphire - 19th March 2012 02:17 PM
Originally Posted by Donyor

Great Argument! I totally agree!

Thanks :)
RedSapphire - 19th March 2012 02:20 PM
Originally Posted by TheMijzelno.

I've never heard of "everyone has them" to be an argument against legendaries. The only one I've heard is "there are too many of them," which is a valid argument. The higher the ratio of legendaries to normal pokemon, the less meaningful the title of "legendary" becomes.

Well, the title of legendary should apply to Pokemon with higher stats and an epic backstory to them, yes? So as long as we don't start getting more than 15 legendaries per gen, I don't see how even "there's too many" is a valid argument.
Also realize that the more legendaries are introduced, more and more become event Pokemon. Those don't even count for many people, because they aren't obtainable in-game (just like so many nostalgia-blinded fanboys don't include Mew in the "original 150" for some reason).

Less than 10% of all the Pokemon are legendaries. There really aren't that many.
TheMissingno. - 19th March 2012 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by RedSapphire

Well, the title of legendary should apply to Pokemon with higher stats and an epic backstory to them, yes?

As you said with the legendary birds, back story is not a prerequisite for legendary status. Legendary status is something that is basically declared by Game Freak. Generally legendary pokemon are difficult to catch, have above average base stats and are only catchable once in game, but not every legendary has to satisfy all of these conditions.

So as long as we don't start getting more than 15 legendaries per gen, I don't see how even "there's too many" is a valid argument.

That's a very arbitrary, subjective line to draw. Maybe to you there are not too many legendaries (me also, the more the better I say), but some people might think that 15 is way too many. Differing opinions are an unfortunate side effect of free will.

Also realize that the more legendaries are introduced, more and more become event Pokemon. Those don't even count for many people, because they aren't obtainable in-game (just like so many nostalgia-blinded fanboys don't include Mew in the "original 150" for some reason).

But they are wrong. Game Freak says they are legendary pokemon, so they are legendary pokemon no matter what nostalgia blinded fanboys think.

Less than 10% of all the Pokemon are legendaries. There really aren't that many.

10% of 649 is 64.9. Even truncating, that's 64 pokemon, which is enough to fill more than two PC boxes. Again, I say the more legendaries the better, but you have to admit that that is kind of a lot.
RedSapphire - 20th March 2012 11:23 PM
Originally Posted by TheMissingno.

As you said with the legendary birds, back story is not a prerequisite for legendary status. Legendary status is something that is basically declared by Game Freak. Generally legendary pokemon are difficult to catch, have above average base stats and are only catchable once in game, but not every legendary has to satisfy all of these conditions.

Oh yes, I know the birds don't go by this, but I'm saying that, as long as the Pokemon has the story and stats, why can't it be legendary? And if it has the story and stats, why is it any "less legendary?"

That's a very arbitrary, subjective line to draw. Maybe to you there are not too many legendaries (me also, the more the better I say), but some people might think that 15 is way too many. Differing opinions are an unfortunate side effect of free will.

That's why I said I personally feel 15 is a good line to draw. I know that many won't agree, but I'm just offering my opinion on that one.

But they are wrong. Game Freak says they are legendary pokemon, so they are legendary pokemon no matter what nostalgia blinded fanboys think.

I do know they're wrong, event legendaries are still legendaries, but what I mean by that they "don't count" is that they're not available in-game for capture. The fact that they're only given out by event means that they cannot add to the "diluting of the status of legendaries." I have not yet seen an argument that successfully accuses the event legendaries of this "dilution," and with good reason. They're more elusive than the fanboys' precious Mewtwo.

10% of 649 is 64.9. Even truncating, that's 64 pokemon, which is enough to fill more than two PC boxes. Again, I say the more legendaries the better, but you have to admit that that is kind of a lot.

It is a big number, certainly, but out of 649? I personally don't think that's too much, and again, as long as GF keeps the number of new legendaries similar each gen, I don't think it will ever get out of hand. At least that's my own opinion on the matter of the number of legendaries.