Fire/Fighting Pokemon. Should there be more? - Page 4

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 91
Like Tree12Likes

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

  1. #46
    The Original Sylveon The Guardian Sylveon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Snowbelle City
    Posts
    716
    Blog Entries
    22

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

    I think at the moment no we had our fair share of Fire/Fighting Types but I do know this it should never be used on a Fire Starters Evolutionary line again.

    Team Eeveelution All The Way!!!

  2. #47
    Nyx
    Nyx is offline
    What does the Vulpix say? Nyx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    BMGf
    Posts
    696

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

    No please. Blaziken was awesome, Infernape was ok, Emboar sucks. They should stop here and do something new.

  3. #48
    Double Trouble. Shayminlover123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Twinleaf town
    Posts
    41

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

    Maybe,but if they are going to put more in I hope they wont be in the next starter pokemon (we already had 3 in a row)

  4. #49
    Feet/toes Hedface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    122
    Blog Entries
    10
    Add Hedface on Facebook
    Visit Hedface's Youtube Channel

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

    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?
    This has already been said, but I do think that has discouraged a lot of players from using the Fire starters. Without variance, we're just playing the same 'Mon over and over. For devoted Fire lovers, it really takes some of the spice out of a game that, inherently, is the same game over and over (I love Pokemon, but it has stayed so formulaic that we are essentially buying the same game with slightly new flavors every time.)
    As it has been said in this thread before, I would also love a starter that is Fire/Steel or Fire/Rock. I think there is a lot of potential in that typing that hasn't been explored.

    Jumping on the Fenne-Bandwagon

  5. #50
    flap flap hyperspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Gender
    Genderless
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    74

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

    For at least the next generation, I wouldn't want to see another firefighter (it's fun to call them that), not even if it isn't a starter. They shoot fire and punch things and that's cool, but they're getting old.

    I don't think this has been mentioned before here - part of the reason Fire starters are given a secondary Fighting type might be to help them defend against Rock-types, which are often in the first Gym - I think GF made Chimchar evolve a bit early at level 14 just because taking on Roark's gym might be difficult with a pure Fire-type. There are four other type combinations that help in fending off Rock-types, but two are stupid and clash with the other starter types and two have nasty double weaknesses. Tepig didn't have such an excuse though, and in all three games with Rock as the first gym there are Pokemon catchable right before the first gym which can easily defeat Rock-types.

    Fortunately I don't think we're going to see another Fire/Fighting starter after GF made three in a row. I'm actually hoping for a pure Fire-type next time, because Typhlosion looks quite lonely there...

  6. #51
    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 troltik View Post
    For at least the next generation, I wouldn't want to see another firefighter (it's fun to call them that), not even if it isn't a starter. They shoot fire and punch things and that's cool, but they're getting old.

    I don't think this has been mentioned before here - part of the reason Fire starters are given a secondary Fighting type might be to help them defend against Rock-types, which are often in the first Gym - I think GF made Chimchar evolve a bit early at level 14 just because taking on Roark's gym might be difficult with a pure Fire-type. The three other type combinations that help with fending off Rock-types either don't make sense and clash with the other starters or have nasty weaknesses. Tepig didn't have such an excuse though, and in all three games there are Pokemon catchable right before the first gym which can easily defeat Rock-types.

    Fortunately I don't think we're going to see another Fire/Fighting starter after GF made three in a row. I'm actually hoping for a pure Fire-type next time, because Typhlosion looks quite lonely there...
    To be fair, Charmander had to deal with a Rock type Gym Leader (followed by a Water type Gym Leader to boot) and didn't get a Fighting sub-type. In FrLg, Game Freak gave it Metal Claw to deal with Brock. I don't see why they couldn't have done something similar to the others.

    And yes, I'm crossing my fingers for a mono-Fire type next generation too. unpopular opinion.
    SoulSilver FC: 1334-2716-6164
    Platinum FC: 1591-7683-8872

  7. #52
    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?

    Fire/Fighting is too overused but a quadruped Fire/Fighting Pokemon could be awesome. Pure Fire-type do really sucks for a new starter, as does with pure-Grass-type (I think Servine and Serperior should be part Poison-type because this is common on snakes). Dewott and Samurott look more like Fighting-types but Water/Fighting-type in Generation V has been took over by the legendary Keldeo instead of starter Oshawott evo-line. I would like to see more unevolved dual-type starters, as we have only Bulbasaur so far since Generation I.

  8. #53
    Moderator Hidden Mew's Avatar Forum Head
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Somewhere dreaming forever
    Posts
    4,222

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

    I wouldn't mind maybe some wild Fire/Fighting type Pokemon, but I definitely would prefer anything over another Fire/Fighting starter. Even a pure Fire type would be welcomed, even though we already have one. I liked the combination with Blaziken and Infernape, even though twice was kind of weird, but three times with Emboar was way too much. Emboar has been more useful than I thought it would be, but it still wasn't worth it to see that combination used yet again for a starter.

  9. #54
    Registered User Typhlosionisafirebadger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Johto
    Posts
    396

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

    I really want to obtain one of the Gen 3/Gen 4 games sometime soon or get a Blaziken and Infernape from someone in the Trading Station here cause they look AWESOME

    Typhlosion is still my favorite fire type though, hands down

  10. #55
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by troltik View Post
    There are four other type combinations that help in fending off Rock-types, but two are stupid and clash with the other starter types and two have nasty double weaknesses.
    If Rock types are a problem...
    I dunno, Fire/Ground Water/Rock Grass/Steel sound like they make a nice trio.

    We had Marshtomp as Water/Ground for a 4x weakness to other starter, and Torterra with Grass/Ground for neutrality to another starter type. I think Fire/Ground would be very appropiate.

    But if disadvantage is a problem, there's always Fire/Steel which also seems good enough. With again, precedent on Empoleon's Water/Steel.

    [/overexposition]

  11. #56
    Zeb
    Zeb is offline
    making a splash Zeb's Avatar Deputy Head Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    England
    Posts
    7,813
    Blog Entries
    138

    Follow Zeb on Tumblr

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

    I don't have anything against the typing, I'd just like to see the Fire starter go down a different route because it's gotten pretty stale for the final starter at this point.
    Zeb: 0361-6364-1279 | Thunderbolts and Lightningrods!

  12. #57
    Registered User Magikarp3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5

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

    Personally, I like water types and I'll stick with those. I am strong against fire types XD plus fighting i find no value in a team

  13. #58
    Registered User HitomiSmita's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Transgender
    Location
    Land of Nod
    Posts
    140
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    No because Fire/Fighting has been overdone to death and Game Freak should give the combination a break for a generation or 2

  14. #59
    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?

    I think Normal/Flying is more overused than Fire/Fighting combinations. It's also the only type combination I don't want to see (Flying-types have never seen as pure type until Tornadus introduced as pure Flying-type. He's also the first which have Flying-type as his primary type). Fire/Fighting types are overused only for starters (Emboar may be based off sumo wrestler or Macho Libre, but he's bipedal instead of quadruped) but never used for others (including legendaries). So a quadruped Fire/Fighting-type could look nice. If Fire/Fighting starters continue appear in Gen VI, I would like to see Water starter with his secondary type being super effective to Fighting types, such as Flying or Psychic.

  15. #60
    Face of mercy? NOPE Yato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Anywhere
    Posts
    6,667
    Blog Entries
    435

    Follow Yato on Tumblr

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

    We're probably all going to flip if dear Fennekin turns out to be yet another Fire/Fighting. There shouldn't be any more of them.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •