Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more? - Page 3

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 91
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

  1. #31
    Surprise! winstein's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    4,196
    Blog Entries
    173

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grass Type Trainer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by winstein View Post
    Still, Fire/Fighting is low-priority on my wanted (and explored) type combinations (Grass/Water is my highest).

    Thanks for reading.
    I understand what you are saying there, but what I meant here is "Wanted and explored", not "Wanted and unexplored". Meaning, a reused type combination. That's because I felt we need more diversity in Water/Grass-types, due to the diversity of aquatic plants.

    Thanks for reading.
    Last edited by winstein; 7th December 2012 at 11:01 PM.
    Grass Type Warrior and Owain like this.
    “A single soul can uphold a standard far above the low threshold by which the world measures itself.”

    Latest Review: Dark-type Award Ceremony
    Bonus articles: Mega Evolution Candidates (Part 7) -- Generation 6 Pokémon (07/12/2013)

  2. #32
    Face of mercy? NOPE Yato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Anywhere
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    435

    Follow Yato on Tumblr

    Default

    No more of them. Not even as starters, not even as wilds. It's getting tiresome ;_;

    And as for the starters having typings that might ruin the balance? We don't really need them to have second typings. The Johto Starters were all pure mono-typed and they were fine on their own (except for Meganium).

  3. #33
    Formerly GTT Grass Type Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Middle of nowhere
    Posts
    2,264
    Blog Entries
    80

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    Quote Originally Posted by winstein View Post

    I understand what you are saying there, but what I meant here is "Wanted and explored", not "Wanted and unexplored". Meaning, a reused type combination. That's because I felt we need more diversity in Water/Grass-types, due to the diversity of aquatic plants.

    Thanks for reading.
    hahaha. Yeah, I figured that's what you might have meant. I was just teasing you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Blueberry View Post
    No more of them. Not even as starters, not even as wilds. It's getting tiresome ;_;

    And as for the starters having typings that might ruin the balance? We don't really need them to have second typings. The Johto Starters were all pure mono-typed and they were fine on their own (except for Meganium).
    But...but... I like Meganium. She's my favorite Johto Starter. :(
    winstein likes this.
    SoulSilver FC: 1334-2716-6164
    Platinum FC: 1591-7683-8872

  4. #34
    Face of mercy? NOPE Yato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Anywhere
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    435

    Follow Yato on Tumblr

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    @Grass Type Trainer; Design-wise, I really like Meganium as well. But her move-pool was small when she had so much potential.

    Anyways, we don't really need secondary-typings to worry about advantages and disadvantages as mono-types work just fine given the right stats and move-pool.

  5. #35
    Formerly GTT Grass Type Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Middle of nowhere
    Posts
    2,264
    Blog Entries
    80

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    @Dark Blueberry; Meganium's movepool could definitely be a lot better, but I don't think she's that bad. Outclassed is the word I would use for her, not bad.

    But that's off-topic. Speaking of monotypes, I honestly thought Emboar would have been better as a pure Fire type. Honestly, I don't even see the Fighting type part in its design, I mostly just accept that it's there because Game Freak tells me so.

    I mean sure, he could look like a sumo wrestler, I guess, but he could also just look like a pig, who aren't exactly known for being anorexic.

    I honestly think that the Unova Starters should have been the second set of monotyped Starters in the series.

    Regardless, I want the Gen VI Fire Starter to be mono-Fire. I know it's not a popular opinion, but hey, we have three mono-Grass and three mono-Water types with only one mon-Fire type. Isn't mono-Fire supposed to be the default type? Then why are there more Fire/Fighting than there are mono Fire Starters?
    SoulSilver FC: 1334-2716-6164
    Platinum FC: 1591-7683-8872

  6. #36
    From Leyend to Myth Infinity Mk-II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    In the wind
    Posts
    1,383
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    You know, it'd be pretty funny if they made a Fire/Fighting starter... on its first stage only, that on its first evolution lost the Fighting typing.

    But that's silly. Though there is plenty of room for concept creativity with type changes within the same evolutionary line.
    And dual-typed first stage starters are something I'd like to see again too. Even Turtwig wasn't part Ground.


    As for the Unova starters, I think Samurott is more of a Fighting type... The only previous part water is Poliwrath, and only in a single stage.


    Anyways, for Fire/Fighting pokémon... It's just a combination they have now explored the most they could. Just by coincidence the same way so many big legendaries are dragons: There's nothing wrong with the pokémon themselves, but they have missed out on much more potential variety.
    If anything, I agree that a Fighting/Fire, for a single other pokémon, would be fine. Maybe a Fighting type that evolves in different dual types or something.

    Though to be REALLY honest, Gen V got me tired of Fighting types as a whole.

    [/overexposition]

  7. #37
    Registered User Articwolf10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Bramwell, West Virginia
    Posts
    2,205
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinity Mk-II View Post
    You know, it'd be pretty funny if they made a Fire/Fighting starter... on its first stage only, that on its first evolution lost the Fighting typing.

    But that's silly. Though there is plenty of room for concept creativity with type changes within the same evolutionary line.
    And dual-typed first stage starters are something I'd like to see again too. Even Turtwig wasn't part Ground.


    As for the Unova starters, I think Samurott is more of a Fighting type... The only previous part water is Poliwrath, and only in a single stage.


    Anyways, for Fire/Fighting pokémon... It's just a combination they have now explored the most they could. Just by coincidence the same way so many big legendaries are dragons: There's nothing wrong with the pokémon themselves, but they have missed out on much more potential variety.
    If anything, I agree that a Fighting/Fire, for a single other pokémon, would be fine. Maybe a Fighting type that evolves in different dual types or something.

    Though to be REALLY honest, Gen V got me tired of Fighting types as a whole.
    Keledo is crying right now :(... but yeah ENOUGH WITH THE FUCKING FIRE/FIGHTING TYPES!!! honestly great competitive type yes but good god 3 in a row is insane
    Black: 4727-9836-9051
    White: 3396-7767-9032
    Platinum: 0003-5833-1618
    Soul Silver: 3138-3094-2458

  8. #38
    Winged man prefers night Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Rage City
    Posts
    1,213
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    No.

    Me verás volar por la ciudad de la furia...
    - Pokémon games are like boobs; designed for children, but more enjoyed by adults. (Someone on twitter)

  9. #39
    Registered User chella182's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    75

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    I don't mind the combination, but no more in the starters please. Can't be bothered with that any more.

  10. #40
    Formerly GTT Grass Type Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Middle of nowhere
    Posts
    2,264
    Blog Entries
    80

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    Here's another question for you guys. Charizard, Typhlosion and Blaziken are some of the most popular Starters of all time. Infernape and Emboar...not so much.

    Do you think the steady decline of the Fire Starter's formerly inherent popularity is due mostly to the reuse of the Fire/Fighting type combo, or are there any other factors involved? If so, which?
    SoulSilver FC: 1334-2716-6164
    Platinum FC: 1591-7683-8872

  11. #41
    Magical Girl Shiny Celebi's Avatar Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Genderless
    Posts
    22,017
    Blog Entries
    199
    Follow Shiny Celebi On Twitter
    Follow Shiny Celebi on Tumblr

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    I definately think Fire/Fighting being the repeated typing for starters contributed to it. People are just tired of seeing Fighting as the second type for the Fire type starters. I know many people were dissapointed when Emboar was revealed to be Fire/Fighting. Charizard and Typlosion were Fire/Flying and pure Fire respectively and when Blaziken came about, Fire/Fighting was a new type combo. In fact, all of the Fire/Fighting Pokemon have only ever been starter Pokemon, I do think that has a lot if not all to do with how unpopular they are now. If Game Freak were to use a different type with Fire next generation, I think the Fire type starter may become popular again.

  12. #42
    is back for 2014 S.S. Shadow Minun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Cheaters anywhere
    Posts
    872
    Blog Entries
    18
    Follow S.S. Shadow Minun On Twitter Add S.S. Shadow Minun on Facebook
    Visit S.S. Shadow Minun's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    Yes, but I need more Fire/Fighting-type Pokemon, not just starters. A quadruped Fire/Fighting-type Pokemon could be cool, as most of this type combination are bipedal.

  13. #43
    My Sword Hand Twitches! Owain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Gender
    Genderless
    Location
    Kalos
    Posts
    3,024
    Blog Entries
    67

    Follow Owain on Tumblr

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grass Type Trainer View Post
    Here's another question for you guys. Charizard, Typhlosion and Blaziken are some of the most popular Starters of all time. Infernape and Emboar...not so much.

    Do you think the steady decline of the Fire Starter's formerly inherent popularity is due mostly to the reuse of the Fire/Fighting type combo, or are there any other factors involved? If so, which?
    Infernape was pretty popular last time I checked, never knew it wasn't...

  14. #44
    Call me Yusuke Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,461
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    There shouldn't have been more than one generation of Fire-Fighting starters in the first place. If it was only Combusken and Blaziken, then I'd say maybe as a non-starter, but since that is not how Game Freak has... designed... the fire starters for the past two generations, I must say that if I ever see a new Fire-Fighting, especially a starter, within two generations, I will go to Game Freak in Japan and yell at the top of my lungs.

    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." -George S. Patton
    Arceus is a false god. Only science knows the true answer.

  15. #45
    Registered User ExMedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Gender
    Genderless
    Location
    'STRAYA
    Posts
    16

    Default Re: Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more?

    I don't mind duo-type starters - hell, Mudkip is my favourite starter since it gains the ground type after it's first evolution.

    But really, 3 Fire/Fighting starters in a row? Come on.

    One of the things I have found that has made me pick grass or water starters is the fact that the designs of the pokemon themselves are beginning to be a bit lacking. In R/S/E, I could pick any one of the starters and be pleased with the choice. I liked all of them. But Gen IV? I had to pick the one I hated the least. I mean, this is only personally for me, but it just seems like something is off about them. Perhaps they lack the simplicity in the design that the previous generations had.

    I dunno. Please though, no more Fire/Fighting starters. Keep 'em monotype or try something else.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •