1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Legendary Pokemon: Running dry?

Discussion in 'Pokémon Chat' started by Seth43, Aug 8, 2007.

  1. From Mew to Entei to Deoxys to Arceus, Legendary Pokemon have varied. But are they TOO varied? Pokemon wouldn't be the same without new legendaries. Is Pokemon coming to an end because of lack of good ideas? It's an all-out debate. I'm open to any ideas.

    If you think that Legendaries are hindering Pokemon, Add a Thumbs up to your message.

    If you think not, put a thumbs down.

    If saying something else, put a grin face.

    I won't tell you where I got that, but there's more to this Chistian's thoughts:

    Whew! that person isn't open-minded.

    Anyway, what do you think?
  2. _>)

    So that's like... 18 out of 36 unless I miscounted, in other words, half.
  3. Doctor Oak

    Staff Member Overlord

    If you're going to post a flame-baity argument against christian fundamentalists, have the common sense to include a source. Supply one, or receive a warning.
  5. Maybe part of it...

    but theres so much in pokemon that makes you think, like IVs and EVs and smart breeding...and wifi.....

    and About the ledgendaries

    I think that all those dragon pokemon is because theres like no dragon pokemon in the non-ledgendary group. 1st gen=Dragonite 2nd Gen=i dont think there were any 3rd=Salamice 4th = Garchomp...

    Tell me if im wrong...
  6. Sorry, Doc. It was a friend, Oliver Pine, a bright man, but not open-minded.

    Anyway, Rotom IS considered Legendary, as it is one-of-a-kind. I know you might think Spiritomb is, but you can find Odd Keystones underground.

    Well, we've got positives, any negatives? Not asking to change anyones mind, but... debates are multiple-sided. I won't take a side until I hear both sides.

    [quote author=Orangen link=topic=2622.msg32054#msg32054 date=1186622371]
    In my opinion, either change the types (c'mon, make a poison legendary!), make them more challenging to get (more runners would be nice), limit the numbers, or kick them out.

    Orangen is right... lack of Poison Legendaries is strange. However, Versus Books voted Poison the weakest type O_o.
  7. >_> Oops. Unmarked.

    And yes, one of the things I dislike about legendaries is the huge number with low type variences, although Arceus's whole plate-type-change is kind of cool... If more of them could do cool stuff like that I might like them more.

    Rotom's the weakest legendary apart from Phione, both of which I think are nice for a change. Despite the fact that there are a couple other electric and water legendaries, at least Rotom has a unique type.

    Poison's not the greatest type, but I don't think it's the worst in the game. o_O The point is it was one of the few types I could think of that they haven't used on a legendary yet. Fighting either I think...
  8. Yoshimitsu

    Former Moderator

    Rotom is not a legendary. It's a wannabe legendary.
    If you're basing it off the argument that "There's only one of them", then in FR/LG/R/B/Y, Snorlax is a Legendary. In G/S/C, Sudowoodo and Snorlax are both legendaries.

    Oh, and don't say "There are two Snorlaxes in R/B/Y!" because there's still a limited number of them.
  9. Backing up that statement, you can technically get as many Rotom in one game without trading as you want - they're breedable. Real legendaries, on the other hand, are specifically one-per-cart.
  10. Don't forget Eevee. You could only get one Eevee in RBY. Can you get more Eevees in other generations? I forget.

    Also, Hitmonlee, Hitmonchan, Kabuto/Kabutops, Omanyte/Omastar, and Aerodactyl, if I'm not mistaken.
  11. :( Okay, so Rotom isn't, but by the way, 28 Unown types make a lot of legendaries ^^ so more than half of the legends are Pstchic or Flying.
  12. Unown isn't Legendary. My definition, again: If you can get more than one per game without trading, it is not legendary. Hence, Unown is most certainly not legendary.
  13. *cough*Ahem.Got to agree with you there.


    For mine i wanted to point out the lack of steel legendarys.
    5 out of 36?Bull.We need a couple things on our list of legendary wants:
    -A poison legendary
    -a pure steel legendary
    -Another ice,this time pure >_>
  14. Registeel is pure steel and Regice is pure ice :p

    I think legendaries should be pure or have type combinations you don't see in non-legendaries. Dark/fighting, poison/psychic, ice/ bug, etc. Things that would just be interesting to see what the crap they'd look like.
  15. ...By the same vein, there's only one ground-type legendary period, and Drought is just lame.
  16. I go by the data. Pokemon the movie 2000: So powerful, they summoned [glow=white,2,300]ENTEI[/glow]. Then again, they only know one move at first. Oh, and by the way:

    [move][glow=yellow,2,300]Debating if certain Pokemon are Legendaries is OFF-TOPIC.[/glow][/move]

    And this has been one-sided on the real topic. Let's get back on track.
  17. And I go by the games, where Unown is just a collectible. Are you going to argue that Pikachu is legendary because it's insanely powerful? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Unown just creating illusions? I don't think it was the real Entei.

    Also, it's not that bad as far as off-topic goes if that's where the conversation naturally led. But getting back on the original topic, no, there's not a lot of variety in the legends. I think DP did a lot to rectify that with our first Normal legendaries, plus Ghost/Dragon and Dark legendaries. Hopefully this means there'll be even more imaginative ones in the next game, but I think they'll be hard-pressed to make them more epic than the God of Pokemon, the space ruler, and the time ruler.
  18. Indeed. I have an Arceus, and it does a good job towards thinking they won't run out, AND that they will. Anybody think that Legendaries are NOT causing a running out of Pokemon games? We DO need a second side.
  19. I don't think so. Like I said, they could make as many as they want, it's more a question of how many and how good they'll be. To be fair, 2nd gen legendaries were pretty meh to me, and a lot of the 3rd gen ones were too. 4th gen has mostly awesome ones, with Giratina being one of the most awesome things ever. As long as people are buying the games and watching the show (and they very much are), there will be no end to Pokemon. Good designs? Maybe. Pokemon? No :p
  20. Indeed. Oh, I'm making a poll, be sure to participate.

    Anyway, It' weird how Legendaries have changes to compensate for all this stuff. Mew was cuddly, but look at Dialga. It's so... robo-like. I do not know what I meant, but it's something similar.
  21. Oops.Forgot about them.But we still need a poison legend.And a better water legend.Kyogre is nice,manaphy too,but other than that,meh.A pure bug legend would be good too.
  22. o_O Forgot about bug-type. So there's that, poison, and fighting that they haven't done, anything else...?

    Also, since they have a breedable (sorta) legendary in Manaphy/Phione, they could have an evolution one, but it would have to be really hard to do... Like a poison/dark that you have to have frustrated at you evolve at night only with a certain item and in a certain route/cave/etc...
  23. while having only been healed with bitter herbs
  24. o_0

    I'm warning you for spam.
  25. i havent seen a pure ghost-legend?? the only ghost i can remember as legendary is giratina, and thats mixed with dragon. thats cinda' dumb setup! but shadow force makes it up :)

    so i would actually bet on, that they are either making a pure poison or ghost/fighting next.
    pure poison: not many pure poison poké's, so a legend would fix it
    ghost/fight: interesting mixup, that matches snover/abomasnow in weird combo :p but it could give an awesome pokémon-typepool!!! a fighting attack, that gives some pokémons a hard time, and the ghost part takes the normal/fighting point. and the fighting part can take down normal's, whitch would be a problem for a regular ghost O_o
    #25 Asrial, Aug 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2014
  26. I wonder... Does a Legendary need a mythological creature or deity as a base? One might think the only thing keeping Legendaries from having certain type combinations is that there is no real-world legend to accommodate it.
  27. The definition of 'legendary' was already being spread thin by Gen 2, seeing as in the games not only do you find and confront them (Kinda ruins the whole aura of being a 'legend') you can actually capture them and store them in boxes and use them in battle.

    To me, I feel that the reason behind so many legendaries in Gen IV was to take up a lot of lacking space (107 pokes rather than 150) and this also the only reason I can see for making a rather useless pokemon like Shaymin legendary. (Although the thought of Nintendo endorsing a Hedgehog-typed character in one of their games sure put a smile on my face)

    I'm sure they're already planning on a Gen V, but I don't know what pokemon they intend on putting on the boxes. (let alone what they'll call the versions) The only things I can see that would be stronger than the Pokemon God would be a/the human God and pokemon which have total contol over light and dark. (Although Darkrai kinda fills in that space) And even then, what character would they introduce on the special edition?

    All I can say is, The Pokemon Company seriously needs to reduce the amount of 'legendaries' they bring into their games, otherwise they'll find their franchise will end early.

    P.S How on Earth can you capture the rulers of time, space and the creator of all pokemon in man-made machines?
  28. The amount they put into a game should be reduced. That and to stop making a dang phychic type legendary in every generation.

    The only factor that has been a real problem is the constant whoring out of psychic types being the mystic and all so powerful of the poke universe. They should exspand and look at other types that deserve to be legendary.
  29. I don't mind the amount of legendaries, but at least make them like-able. Things like Ho-oh and Mewtwo I respect, they are cool. 3rd and 4th gen legendaries weren't the best. I liked a few concepts, I thought Girahtina would be awesome, but no. If they made them not as godly (Time, space, and existence are pretty ridiculous), and made some better types (Pure electric, pure flying, ???? type, or odd combos like fire/grass and poison/electric). I hope in gen V the legendaries improve, they haven't been that great to me, and making 10 a game doesn't help, I would be fine with less, like in gold and silver. Also though something nice would be to not make a trio, that is getting old. It could always be tetra, or no trio at all.
  30. I agree with both of those quotes - perhaps they could make a group of 5 legendaries 0_o
    The more legendaries the better - but, what I don't agree with is legendaries that are only supposed to be able to get through event, but instead, you can just cheat to get them - I'd rather just have legendary pokemon not through event rather than have people who cheat get them before anyone else.
  31. There aren't too many legendaries - just given too powerful roles. Like was said before, including the creators of the universe is a bit much. If you ask me, they should have included them - but made them uncatchable and you can only catch a glimpse of them. Would have flavoured up the storyline a bit. There are loads of legends and legendary creatures out there to base new creatures on, so why ruin the novelty by making them so powerful storyline wise? I mean, wouldn't Arceus be able to just erase its opponents?
  32. I agree that there are too much legendaries, and they also become less interesting. I would like it if there were only 3 legenderies, for example sopmething like: Groundon (ruby exclusive), Kyogre (sapphrie exclusive) and Rayquaza (both games). But maybe that's just me =3
  33. StellarWind Elsydeon

    StellarWind Elsydeon Armblades Ascendant
    Staff Member Administrator

    Ahh, you see, that's the interesting point that a lot of people seem to be forgetting.

    Just because mythology claims something did something does not necessarily mean it did. They may have had a part to play in it, but then again, it may have only been a story created by impressionable silly humans who found themselves awed by the sheer power of these creatures. Stories that have passed on through generations and became more and more ridiculously grandiose until they far surpass the truth.

    So no, Arceus would not be able to 'erase' its opponents, because the only thing it really created was a fine headache and more money for Nintendo. Dialga and Palkia may have the ability to warp time and space, but no one complained about time paradoxes when it was just Celebi involved, right? But yeah, Celebi did not have myths about it being single-handedly responsible to the flow of time.

    ... Amusingly enough the myth re: Arceus, Dialga and Palkia is a localized phenomenon of Sinnoh - and is disputed (or even entirely unheard of) in other regions. The creation myth is of the SINNOH REGION, not the UNIVERSE - just like the Groudon/Kaiorga thing refers to the supposed shaping of the Hoenn Region.

    But anyway, BACK ON TOPIC.

    Yes, there ARE way too many legendaries and they are beginning to get needlessly epic. But yeah, well. Nintendo stick with what works, I guess.
  34. Maybe in the next game, all the new Pokemon will be Legendaries!
  35. StellarWind Elsydeon

    StellarWind Elsydeon Armblades Ascendant
    Staff Member Administrator

    And naturally, as a result of that, they'll exist only in your imagination.

    ... This comment was so pointless it hurts.
  36. I think they just ought to stop putting in event-only legendaries. What does it lead to? Hacking. What does hacking do? Mess up your Nintendo, or whatever system you're using. And all because people can't go to an event. I mean, I think the Manaphy thing was OK, you can get Manaphy through Ranger, too. But what about, say, Arceus? If you want Arceus, you've gotta hack. At least now, you have to.
    Plus, there are too many legendaries. Let's see, how many were added in D/P alone?

    14 legendaries. That's really not necessary, is it?
    That's exactly why there's too many.
  37. I agree with Mudskipper. There are way too many legendaries in just one game. In the other ones, a max of I think five were in the games. But 14 is just ridiculous and I thought Heatran wasn't a legendary because there are male and female types.
  38. Technically, Phione isn't a legendary. It's a wannabee. You can get millions of them if you have a Manaphy. But adding 13 Legendaries and two posing legendaries(Phione, Rotom) in 1 game is a little much. Unless the next game tells how Sinnoh was made with all these Pokemon.

    Heatran is a legendary, it's only one of the few with an actual gender. The others are the Twins.

    Back to the point, there are too many legendaries in one game. It ruins the fun of the game to a degree.
  39. I've heard tell of Nintendo setting up a service that will allow you to download DS demos and stuff using your Wii. If you can do that, maybe you could get Event Legendaries through it as well. Granted, you'd probably be spending an extra 250 bucks for the Legendaries if that's the only reason you're getting a Wii...
  40. I dont want anymore legendaries BUT I will condridict myself here; I would really love to seee a fire/dragon with levitate combo legendary or normal, whats up with dragon anyway it should b considred fire cuz the attacks always look like fire... but yea fire/dragon with levitate would kick butt

Share This Page