Page 3 of 6

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:37 pm UTC
by Xanthir
Dude, dude, dude. We're talking about Pokemon here. We're talking about giant rock snakes, electric mice, and a monster who's only purpose is to make you really ick thinking about it kissing you. Yes, metaphor is reality.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:55 pm UTC
by Jebobek
I was thinking about this, and starter Pokemon would totally be Lickatongue, and I would not let it back into the pokeball even if it would want to go back in at some point.

If it likes you, it'll lick you, which unfortunately paralyzes you. If it doesn't like you, it'll lick you, which paralyzes you. It basically just licks everyone. It would be the most awkward starter pokemon ever.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:44 pm UTC
by Gelsamel
Someone mentioned ToS Battles?

Could you imagine a pokemon battle using this battle system?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F5Ed3utN-o (spoilers of Tales of Vesperia)

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:48 pm UTC
by Xanthir
NMcCoy wrote:I've vaguely contemplated a tongue-in-cheek "darker and edgier" take on the Pokemon universe, where Professor Oak is one of the rare individuals (along with a secret cabal - the people who were behind the organization of the Pokemon League) who understands the inner workings of the Pokemon World - specifically, that certain idealistic ten-year-olds are granted the ability to bend the laws of probability and physics, provided that they remain unaware of this fact. Thus, they can capture and control raw universe-shaping forces of nature through the Power of Friendship. Oak's role is to mentor these children, make sure they develop the proper skills to help keep the region's ecology, criminal elements, and living natural disasters in check, and choose a successor once the current kid becomes too old and loses his supernatural talents.

...It's safe to admit I've been contemplating writing Pokemon fanfiction here, right?
Right?

It's cool, we wont' judge. (Also, I'd like to read it.)

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:50 pm UTC
by Aikanaro
What about the fact that there are still adults who train pokemon, and who are usually the grand champions therof? Though I guess you could label them as idiot-savants or something....

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:11 pm UTC
by NMcCoy
Xanthir wrote:It's cool, we wont' judge. (Also, I'd like to read it.)

An in-character "prologue" of sorts for the setting I wrote one time when I couldn't sleep.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:07 pm UTC
by Jebobek
Whats a moniker?

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:48 pm UTC
by Neuman
I think a Moniker is one of those lousy new Pokemon.

In my day Pokemon had good names.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:30 pm UTC
by NMcCoy
Jebobek wrote:Whats a moniker?

moniker

Neuman wrote:I think a Moniker is one of those lousy new Pokemon.

In my day Pokemon had good names.
Admittedly, 4th gen's a bit lacking in this regard, but seriously - "Slowbro"? "Drowzee"? "Mankey", dude! Nostalgia and familiarity may have made these acceptable now, but consider the fact that you were thirteen years younger when these names were around.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 pm UTC
by Jorpho
NMcCoy wrote:but consider the fact that you were thirteen years younger when these names were around.
Good $deity, has it been that long!?

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:39 pm UTC
by Jebobek
Funny how it worked out by the way. By the time the game went mainstream I felt weird playing it; I felt too old. As time wore on I realized this and now don't care what people think about it. If I'm having fun then dammit its my free time; I'm gonna have fun!

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:06 pm UTC
by Mo0man
Mankey is fucking awesome, you've got no idea what you're talking about
Dugtrio and Magneton are shite though. Really? Just putting three of them together works? Really?

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:00 pm UTC
by Pa-Patch
Dude, nobody rags on Dugtrio.
Also, isn't Weezing one of those, too?

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:19 pm UTC
by Indon
Smiling Hobo wrote:3. Who the fuck cares about breaking and entering in Pokemon-World?

So, yeah...if somebody just walked in my front door and started talking with me, I'd kick them in the balls and call the police. But apparently nobody really gives a shit about that in this land of fairies and happiness--they're too busy jerking off to their Pokemon collections. Seriously, you can just walk into some random person's house in this game, walk up to them, and start having a nice little conversation. Nevermind that you're a total stranger and may well be a knife-wielding thug.

And even if I were a knife-wielding thug and proceeded to dismember an entire family and tack their vital organs to the walls, it's not like anything would happen, since there aren't any police in said town anyway. Hell, why don't I burn the entire village? Nobody works at the fire station because they turned it into a Pokemart Deluxe last year!

Might I point out that a family of four can readily have twenty-four slathering killing machines ready to Body Slam you to death?

And when Body Slam paralyzes a human, they don't get better.

You say, "Well, the psycho has pokemon, too!" but he only has six of them. You need numbers to make a credible threat in the Pokemon world, such as with Team Rocket.

Smiling Hobo wrote:5. Ten-year old kids can travel the world alone in Pokémon-World!

Nevermind that my player character is still a pre-pubescent boy who lives with his Mommy and has a SNES in his room--he's ready to pack up and start traversing the world on his own now. Nevermind the fact that there are vicious creatures waiting to maul him in every patch of grass he enters, or that there may well be rapists, kidnappers, con-artists, and murders waiting to exploit him--he'll work it out himself.

I bet his mom is a fucking whore who just wanted to get her illegitimate child out of her life so she could bang that man-slut Pepipollo without having to worry about how loud her moans are.


The Pokemon world seems loosely modeled after Japan.

This explains everything.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:46 pm UTC
by Xanthir
NMcCoy wrote:
Xanthir wrote:It's cool, we wont' judge. (Also, I'd like to read it.)

An in-character "prologue" of sorts for the setting I wrote one time when I couldn't sleep.

I'm happy with this.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:02 pm UTC
by Timequake
One thing I don't get: how are there plant-type pokemon? In the real world some animals mimic plants, but I don't thing we have anything (on the scale of a pokemon at least) that actually functions as both a plant and an animal. What kind of cells do they have? Are they just highly differentiated plant-like protist colonies?

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:48 am UTC
by Maseiken
I think the only way Pokémon can be explained is by an entirely different class of cell.
There are, of course, plants in the Poké-world that are no Pokémon, and there are animals that are not Pokémon, but only once species, Human.

Therefore, their Biological classifications must be radically different, and somewhat easier to define.

There are still three kingdoms, The Animal, the Plant and the Fungi. Plant and Fungi remain unchanged (I base this on the fact that there are grass, flowers, trees, mushrooms, etc. Presumably people still get fungal rashes...


On the other hand, you have the Animals, which is now split into two radically different cell categories. First you have the Human category, what we would call animal, except that in the Pokéworld, the only occurence of this category would be in humans (I assume that Mico-organisms are also Pokémon, I think this is a fair assumption). The second category is that of Poké-cells, themselves Pokémon of a sort I suppose, however, they can all be kept in the same pokéball because Pokécells are defined by their collective naturem much like Animals cells, but to a far greater degree.

For example, Humans have muscle tissue, these cells is defined by their greater context, Outside of a limb, they stand little chance, but in the context of a muscle, they thrive due to the collective nature of the human body.

Similarly, a Pikachu might have it's electric gland (Or muscle, or nerve cluster; however it generates and directs current) Individually, these cells make little sense, and, indeed, the idea of a cell generating electricity at that level is a little perplexing. BUT, in the context of being IN a Pikachu, they take on the electric nature of said Pokémon. Similarly, cells inside a Pidgey might be imbued with the nature of "Flight", those inside a Geodude imbued with Rock, (Perhaps producing a hardened exoskeleton upon the death of epidermal cells? Much like Coral) and, indeed, an Oddish has cells that take on the nature of plant, by virtue of their being inside and "Oddish", this process may, indeed, involve their taking on many of the properties of Plant-cells, much like an... What's that crab that has mushrooms? Anyway, his cells might take on the properties of Fungal life-forms, or perhaps the nature of his cells produces an environment unnaturally suited towards the production of a certain fungal species.


This, of course, produces an interesting situation, in which predator-pokémon must naturally arise. Certainly, Pokémon imbued with the "Flight" characteristic, (whether or not they are in fact capable of flight) will be unnaturally skilled at the hunting of those imbued with "Bug" characteristics, perhaps due to instincts produced in the brain via activity of the Flight-oriented cells, no doubt these behaivoural patterns are writ into their DNA, as part of the "Flight" characteristic. The creation of Mewtwo is due to research into the makeup of Mew's DNA, so we know that much of their Pokénature comes from this. What worries me is the lack of mutation in Pokéspecies. Pretty much every Pikachu is going to look like pretty much every other Pikachu, and most pairaings of a male and female pokémon will produce an already-present species. It must be assumed that the Poké-system is static, Poké-eggs are not the result of bonding chromosomes but due to a kind of Cloning, passing on the innate nature of the cells via their DNA into the egg, which then produces another of a known species. Once Oak has documented all the Pokémon, that's it, there won't be any more. It seems odd, then, That Pokémon would have such strengths against other types of pokémon without having evolved (For lack of a better term) them.

The cloning process taking place in the egg probably involves sex, or I honestly can't say how the eggs come about, but I say again that it is the Nature of the cells, within their DNA that Bonds, as far as can be told, Pokémon have no sexual cells, perhaps no reproductive cells, Reproduction could be as simple as kissing depending on the DNA-Bonding process, all that's really necessary is an exchange of fluids.Perhaps any exchange can produce a child, but it is simply extremly unlikely. This would explain why the egg-creation process requires a great deal of time to be spent between two pokémon, outside of their balls. A viable process could be a copious exchange of saliva, sustained at regular intervals over an extended period, any one of the males' cells is one of it's "Sperm" and any of the females an egg, but any two can bond and form an embryo, presumably, multiple bondings are required or eggs would appear quite often, and generally in great numbers, as it is, they are quite rare (Incidentally, implying that Pokémon are quite long-lived, as a whole...). So, a transfer of fluids in either direction, presumably only one actually produces an egg or, again, you'd turn up and find two eggs, which never happens. So either the male transfers fluids (Most likely saliva) into the female, or vice versa
(Male->Female seems more likely) the latter stores the combined fluids (Possibly by swallowing them, thus ensuring a hearty surrounding of the mother's cells and incidentally, helping to explain the Mother's Type-dominance, remember that one bonding is required for an embryo, many are required for an egg, the mothers cells would also form this egg and would outnumber the father's considerably, so, in an embryonic fluid comprised mostly of the mother's cells, and surrounded by a hardend shell, possibly formed by reactive embryonic cells. An egg is produced by the mother, entirely undetectable, and is promptly vomited up while no-one is looking, thus explaining why no-one ever sees them lain, only coming across them later, the Pokémon is a little embarassed at upchucking in front of humans. For the life of me, the only thing I can't understand is why the belt of a Pokémon trainer provides a better gestation locale than just sitting around with the mother or father. If anyone can explan this I'd love to know. Incidentally, apologies to Furries, but this also handily explains why Pokémon have no sexual organs.



*Takes a moment*
*Realises he has spent about half an hour writing about how Pokémon have sex and give birth*
*Takes stock of life*
*goes back to playing Pokémon...*

... WELL, I'M UP TO COMMANDER CYRUS!!

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:40 am UTC
by Phen
I think you've spent just a liiittle too much time thinking about this.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:20 pm UTC
by Maseiken
I seriously just thought of all of that as I was writing it. I hadn't considered the logistics until that point, but once I got into it, I really couldn't stop, honestly, that's the best method I can think of for the Pokésystem to sustain itself. I have to admit, the idea of swapping Pokésex with Poké-extremly sloppy make-outs was amusing on some level, a level I'm unwilling to explore any further than to produce such theories as the one you see here.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:14 am UTC
by wst
Phen wrote:I think you've spent just a liiittle too much time thinking about this.
I think he's been on the pokemon slash again.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:43 am UTC
by Maseiken
Meteorswarm wrote:
Realistically, you've only seen a very small number of pokemon in the show. It's unrealistic to expect to see "mutations." When you go to the zoo, do you ask "why aren't there any mutated animals?" No, you don't, because (1) disfiguring mutations, i.e. extra arms, the kind you usually notice and are presumably looking for are rare, and usually eliminated quickly because they kill the animal or render it unfit and (2) Most mutations are neutral, don't do anything much, and affect internal, metabolic or other minor aspects of the pokemon. Hell, they could represent the natural stat variation among pokemon.

I say evolution still happens, but on a time scale similar to evolution here. Almost all species have not substantially changed in the last 50,000 years.

Fair point, but the Pokémon you do see have characteristics that make little sense.

Magikarp. Even if it's only the Pupal form of Gyrados, it makes little evolutionary sense, There shouldn't be any Magikarp surviving, they'd've been wiped out by predators long ago, and yet, they're the most numerical Water-pokémon in the game!

I'm willing to accept that Pokémon may evolve in both senses, but there's unanswered questions there...

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:58 am UTC
by Sir_Elderberry
Earth fish aren't sea monsters either. They do alright.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:37 am UTC
by Mo0man
Except earth fish deal with other earth fish, not other sea monsters.

Perhaps magicarp work on a similar system as some species do: though masses of reproduction. If I recall correctly, from the show there was an episode explaining the reproductive rates of Magicarp. While the person doing the was a salesman trying to unload his fairly useless pokemon, there may be some merit to it. Look at sea turtles. They lay masses of eggs, and the baby sea turtles need to migrate very far on their own. and yet, they're doing pretty well for themselves. or, they were until humans got into it and started screwing up the migratory cycles

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:04 am UTC
by lorenith
Maseiken wrote:

Magikarp. Even if it's only the Pupal form of Gyrados, it makes little evolutionary sense, There shouldn't be any Magikarp surviving, they'd've been wiped out by predators long ago, and yet, they're the most numerical Water-pokémon in the game!


I've got masses and masses of mosquito hawks that disagree with you.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:59 am UTC
by Maseiken
I'm willing to accept that Magikarp may reproduce at unusually high rates. I'm uncertain as to the mating habits of Fish pokémon but since they seem perfectly capable of surviving out-of-water for extended periods and entirely capable of mating with Land-dwelling Pokémon, I see no reason why it should be different... Just a little odd that they should reproduce on land at such high rates on land despite being water-dwelling Pokémon. Still, I won't pretend to understand it completly, maybe Magikarp are simply in endless supply.


One thing that occurred to me is that some Pokémon must surely mate for life, namely, those that require a higher level of friendliness before evolving, logically, a connection with another being that goes deep enough will trigger an as-yet unknown stage of life, causing the Pokémon to mature into one more capable of sustaining and protecting a family. Budew->Roselia is a fairly good example of this. Evolutionary stones are tricky, but it's allowable that some portion of the cell might be sensitive to a certain frequency or type of radiation that they give off, once again triggering change on a cellular level. Why this would be the case I can't imagine. But it explains why Happiny needs to hold an Oval stone rather than simply "Use" it. Rather than immediatly undergoing transformation, the radiation must be absorbed over an extended period, to allow the altered cells to outnumber the unaltered.

I can't explain trade evolutions. Simple as that.

EDIT:Ok, this is very creepy, but it looks like Magikarp are the rapists of the Pokéworld....
Bear with me. To sustain such an extreme level of reproduction, Magikarps couldn't possibly live as mated pairs, they'd have to be pretty cavalier with their mates to produce as many Magikarps as are in the game.
This is why they have Splash.

Splash is not a move in which water nearby water or dirt is ineffectually flung at the opponent. It's a Magikarp trying to impregnate a wild Pokémon. All that's required is an exchange of bodily fluids, so they fling it at whatever comes their way. Most of the time this is other Magikarp of course, females, specifically, and it's very long odds that they should come across a female pokémon,hit their target (The opponents' mouth) and chance an impregnation, but if you do it enough, it's bound to work eventually. Magikarps are the cuckoos of the Pokéworld. Possibly their DNA allows an override of the Mother's type-distinction, even, producing a Magikarp regardless.

I can't believe I'm writing this, but it actually makes sense...

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:54 am UTC
by 4=5
The word that was translated as splash actually more means "twitch" it's just that in the first games magi-carp was the only one who had it so they called it splash.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:00 am UTC
by Maseiken
huh... Well, my hypothesis stands for the English games... That's good enough for me...

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:23 am UTC
by GhostWolfe
Highly prolific breeding would explain why magicarp are extremelly common, but you hardly ever see the evolved form. They breed like crazy, but barely any actually live long enough to evolve.

/angell

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:14 am UTC
by lorenith
GhostWolfe wrote:Highly prolific breeding would explain why magicarp are extremelly common, but you hardly ever see the evolved form. They breed like crazy, but barely any actually live long enough to evolve.

/angell


This whole conversation is making me think of the asian carp Problem in parts of America.

Where you literally cannot drive a boat through certain areas without worrying about a giant carp jumping out of the water and pwning you. There's so many carp, well it's pretty amazing what it looks like when they run a current through the water...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ChwJiKKBdA&NR=1

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:05 am UTC
by Ann_on_a_mouse
I've seen my share of problems with this, too. Honestly the new "Pokemon Dungeon" series makes the whole thing seem vastly immoral. Anyway, here's what I've seen that hasn't been discussed.
1) I started with charmander. I'm in Vermilion forest. Charmander, use ember on that tree, I'll be back in ten minutes.
2) I found Brock. He just used "earthquake." He's in the middle of a town using a move that could potentially level half the continent!
3) Why is there a fisherman who thinks he can beat me with magicarp? It's, quite literally, a fish out of water. Go back to your fishing hole.
4) My rival's turtle just "evolved." It has guns now. Guns...on it's back? Charmander, stick a banana in the gun barrels!
5) Porygon. I have no idea what this thing is. Am I fighting with a computer program? Porygon, 010001011011001! (I have no idea what that means)
6) Team rocket is supposed to be evil. Why are they even dealing with me? I'm a little kid, just have your pokemon kill me. What? You feel bad about killing people? You're not a gang, you're not even bullies beating up kids for lunch money!
7) Hey, look, a graveller. This looks cool, I'll try to catch it. It just used "explosion." How the hell am I still alive? A giant rock monster blew up less than six feet away from me.
8) I can only have six pokemon? Screw that, I have a giant pack that can hold a bike. If somebody disagrees, I'll just throw a geodude at their head.
9) Why do I need a bike? Why am I not riding around on my pokemon?
-Palkia can control space. Why do I still have to walk? The damn thing even looks like a portal gun.
10) The pokemon don't respect me, I guess I need a new badge. What the hell is in these things? I don't change that much from before fighting a gym leader to after. Why don't I just make my own badge out of tin foil?
11) Ooh, I just caught an Ariados. What does the pokedex say about it? (direct quote from game) "It attaches silk to its prey and sets it free. Later, it tracks the silk to the prey and its friends." Why are humans still here? We should have been killed by these badass ninja spiders by now.
12) How are humans still here? (previously covered, but still) There are pokemon that seem willing to kill just about anything without a thought. Somehow a little kid can keep them from killing him though.
13) Farfetch'd is endangered because people ate it. Really? There's something like 400 pokemon and every human on the planet collectively wants the duck? Why? According to the game (can't remember which) it tastes good when served alongside that stalk it's holding. It garnishes itself!
14) Koffing is a giant sentient gas cloud? How is there only one pokemon professor in each game with stuff like this begging to be explained?
15) My bird pokemon has to "learn" how to fly! Screw that, if that thing doesn't start flying, I'm getting out my pikachu and electrocuting it.
16) Pikachu used thunder against a steelix. It missed. The bolt of electricity missed the giant lightning rod?
17) Why can abra only teleport to pokemon centers? Why can I only fly to places I've already been? Why can't I ride on the back of my giant badass pokemon?

Okay, I think that's all I have for now.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:01 am UTC
by GhostWolfe
Ann_on_a_mouse wrote:13) Farfetch'd is endangered because people ate it. Really? There's something like 400 pokemon and every human on the planet collectively wants the duck? Why? According to the game (can't remember which) it tastes good when served alongside that stalk it's holding. It garnishes itself!

Tell that to the dodo. Oh you can't, oops :P

Personally, I don't particularly like leeks.

/angell

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:47 am UTC
by Ann_on_a_mouse
GhostWolfe wrote:
Ann_on_a_mouse wrote:13) Farfetch'd is endangered because people ate it. Really? There's something like 400 pokemon and every human on the planet collectively wants the duck? Why? According to the game (can't remember which) it tastes good when served alongside that stalk it's holding. It garnishes itself!

Tell that to the dodo. Oh you can't, oops :P

Personally, I don't particularly like leeks.

/angell
I can only assume that's some kind of poke-leek. As we already saw, you can't have any mundane things in pokemon.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:12 am UTC
by Maseiken
And as I pointed out, (At great length) you can. The Poké-status is inherent in a body's cells, and uniform. Non-hilariously anthropomorphised plants don't cut it. Farfetch'd carries a leek, a simple, ordinary leek. That people would use this as an excuse to hunt it to others' exclusion is a little flimsy.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:29 pm UTC
by Pizzashark
SecondTalon wrote:I guess my point is.. I can accept that the Necro Hills have gobs of skeletons and zombies on them as they are imbued with the energy of the deadworlds, causing those who die there to rise again and go forth with a hatred of life, yet unable to travel very far from the Necro Hills and the source of the dark energy that powers them.... I can accept ancient dragons seeking far away caves as their home, to slumber the centuries away on their giant horde of ancient treasure... I cannot accept that the Hill Giants around the town of Waypointia (where you hang between levels 10-15, more than likely) who have enslaved the Hill Gobbos wouldn't overrun and enslave the Forest Gobbos around the town of Startia (where you hang between levels 1-10) because, frankly, there's no natural barrier between the two, unless you count the centipedes between the two (which are tough but beatable for a level 8 party, but easy to escape in case your level 3 party wanders too far south)

And yet, that kind of crap happens all the time.

As far as Bidoofs being everywhere... they look like poofy groundhogs to me. Makes sense that a low-end herbivore would be more or less everywhere.


I always had more issues with the fact that you've got RPGs where you can ascend to literally god-like heights (example: Throne of Bhaal, where you were in your upper 30s by the end) and yet still apparently have to obey the rules. You could be strong enough to obliterate an entire army without a scratch (see: Oasis encounter on the way to Amkethran), yet apparently you have to listen to the guards, who you could very likely one-shot by that point?

Wouldn't any sane guard just kinda try to be several miles away from you if you decided to stop listening to the rules?

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:12 pm UTC
by Ann_on_a_mouse
Maseiken wrote:And as I pointed out, (At great length) you can. The Poké-status is inherent in a body's cells, and uniform. Non-hilariously anthropomorphised plants don't cut it. Farfetch'd carries a leek, a simple, ordinary leek. That people would use this as an excuse to hunt it to others' exclusion is a little flimsy.
There's little, if any, evidence of non pokemon species in the games though. I can accept that the trees aren't specifically pokemon, but I would think that they're different from trees here. I can't answer for people's preference towards self-garnishing duck. The game says that this is the reason, but farfetch'd could just taste better on its own too.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:35 pm UTC
by Jebobek
Leek or no leek, there is no way to prove or disprove that farfetch'd does not taste immensely greater than other pokemon. You unfortunately have to go with what Pokemon lore gives you.

One could argue that meat is meat (end everything tastes like chicken anyways) but who knows: farfetch'd, who seems to be flightless most of the time, may live a more sedentary lifestyle. As a result, there is more fat in the meat which makes it more delectable.

I for one believe that the society in that region was caught up in a delicacy fad back in the day. As hunting elephants for their ivory simply because it looks nice is a real-world problem, so would be hunting farfetch'd down to near extinction simply because its what all the hip gentlefolk eat. As the farfetch'd become more rare, they become more and more of a delicacy, and that cycle spirals down to what we have now: a freggin hard pokemon to find/eat.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:39 pm UTC
by Indon
I would make a comment on the evolutionary dubiousness of being genetically extremely tasty, but this is a world with entire species which explode as a self-defense mechanism.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:00 pm UTC
by Yuri2356
Indon wrote:I would make a comment on the evolutionary dubiousness of being genetically extremely tasty, but this is a world with entire species which explode as a self-defense mechanism.

You know this species is on the verge of extinction, right?

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:12 am UTC
by Maseiken
Ann_on_a_mouse wrote:
Maseiken wrote:And as I pointed out, (At great length) you can. The Poké-status is inherent in a body's cells, and uniform. Non-hilariously anthropomorphised plants don't cut it. Farfetch'd carries a leek, a simple, ordinary leek. That people would use this as an excuse to hunt it to others' exclusion is a little flimsy.
There's little, if any, evidence of non pokemon species in the games though. I can accept that the trees aren't specifically pokemon, but I would think that they're different from trees here. I can't answer for people's preference towards self-garnishing duck. The game says that this is the reason, but farfetch'd could just taste better on its own too.

So, are you saying the leek is inherent to the Far'fetch'd? I suppose, technically, they would hatch carrying one.

Re: The Logical and Ethical Shortcomings of the Pokémon Games...

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:40 am UTC
by Ann_on_a_mouse
Maseiken wrote:
Ann_on_a_mouse wrote:
Maseiken wrote:And as I pointed out, (At great length) you can. The Poké-status is inherent in a body's cells, and uniform. Non-hilariously anthropomorphised plants don't cut it. Farfetch'd carries a leek, a simple, ordinary leek. That people would use this as an excuse to hunt it to others' exclusion is a little flimsy.
There's little, if any, evidence of non pokemon species in the games though. I can accept that the trees aren't specifically pokemon, but I would think that they're different from trees here. I can't answer for people's preference towards self-garnishing duck. The game says that this is the reason, but farfetch'd could just taste better on its own too.

So, are you saying the leek is inherent to the Far'fetch'd? I suppose, technically, they would hatch carrying one.
That's actually another thing that the games have problems with. From what I can find on the wiki,(yes, they have one) there are pokedex entries that say they have to obtain the leeks. You are right about them hatching with their leeks. There's probably a way for these to both be right, but I can't think what that is.