See, the problem with that line of thinking is that "Pokemon with less obvious origins" often equates to "Pokemon with no obvious origins" or "Pokemon whose origins are far too murky to be certain of". And I'm not going to write articles declaring that Pokemon are based on this or that if I'm not sure of it.
I'll also stand by my argument that origins don't have to be obscure in order to be interesting. One of my favourite columns to write was the
Poochyena one, for example. While it's interesting to learn about things you've never heard of before, isn't it also interesting to learn new things about stuff you thought you already knew about?
Bookmarks