Fairy Type

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Fairy Type

Post by Drazex on Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:21 am

What do you think about the Fairy-type? Do you like it? Do you dislike it? And, the ever-important question: Why?
avatar
Drazex

Posts : 126
Join date : 2014-04-30
Location : Japan (formerly USA)

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Brian
Region: Johto
Friend Code:

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by TBC on Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:44 am

I am quite annoyed that the forum did not tell me this post was here... >.> I had to find it by looking around and seeing a thread I don't recognize hahahaha.


Onto the question, I actually like the type quite a bit Very Happy I think it was a really good idea. However, I am not fond of the name. Fairy doesn't just seem right. I think a better one would have been light or something.

But I like the concept and I think it was a good idea for the PVP scene, too. I really like the Pokemon they changed over to Fairy from existing generations. And, well, Sylveon :3

_________________
:Currently Playing:
ESO!!! Xbox One
*Gamertag: Okiushi
*Guild: Fellowship of Shenanigans
Titanfall 2
Fallout 4
Shadows of Adam
avatar
TBC
Admin

Posts : 802
Join date : 2013-05-10
Age : 27
Location : Wisconsin

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Kain
Region: Kanto
Friend Code:

View user profile http://www.pokegen0.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by SidetracKing on Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:38 pm

I don't really like the type. Probably it's the name that really gets me. I know there are some pokemon who fit that description very well, but it doesn't seem to me to be a proper "type".

Maybe I would have the same problem with dragon and ghost if they weren't cool. I definitely have the same issue with "dark", but since they introduced the dark type they've expanded the moveset and the pokemon types enough where it seems to fit as it's own type.

On the whole, though, fairy, dragon, ghost and dark all fall under the category of types that maybe shouldn't be types, and I'm just the most strongly biased against fairy. That is to say, they make sense as pokemon types, but not so much as move types. I think I just miss the simpler days of normal type. Sigh...
avatar
SidetracKing

Posts : 13
Join date : 2015-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by Drazex on Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:57 am

Personally, I'm not a fan of the Fairy type, either.  

Ghost and dragon were both born from cool ideas at the outset of the game, and were meant to feel really unique (ghost) or be 'boss monsters' (dragon).  

I'm not a fan of introducing a type just to make something strong against another type, but for me, dark worked, because (1) it was part of the Gen II overhaul, which included the Steel type and Sp. Atk/Sp. Def as well; and (2) it had a really cool feel behind it.  Houndoom, Sneasel, Tyranitar...  You could really feel these were thuggish creatures that deserved to be "dark", at least imho.  Although it did balance Psychic and Ghost a bit, that seemed to be its inspiration, not its purpose.

But what about Fairy?  It seems to have been born of some desire for balance in PVP.  It doesn't feel imagined, to me, so much as constructed.  It is weak against poison and steel.  Why?  Because they are "under-used types" in PVP.  No logic (even bizarre psychic beats poison, logic, which still somehow "works", imagining mind-over-matter) to explain it, just completely meta.  It isn't affected by dragon moves because...  it was a popular attack move.  And its offense is similarly based on competitive play.

And further, the only pokemon that changed type with the introduction of Dark/Steel (magnemite/magneton) were rarely encountered both before and after the change, and so didn't feel too much like a retcon.  With Fairy, though, the majority of the fairy types (21/39, 25/39 counting mega evolutions) are older pokemon with a type change.  Suddenly, these pokemon have COMPLETELY different resistances, especially with Clefairy/Snubull now resistant to their previous weakness of fighting!

I'm a roleplayer.  Some things will change, like the addition of abilities, like the addition of a special/physical split within a single type, etc.  But I don't like things that exist primarily for metagame reasons.  They break my immersion.
avatar
Drazex

Posts : 126
Join date : 2014-04-30
Location : Japan (formerly USA)

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Brian
Region: Johto
Friend Code:

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by TBC on Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:19 am

Hmmm... Kind of negative ways to view it.. xD

I suppose, from a roleplayer's perspective I enjoyed it more. Pokemon that should have had some sort of different typing, like Granbull Gardevoir Jigglypuff and stuff finally have the treatment they should have had before. They stand out in the sense of how they did in just flavor text before.

I contend that the inclusion of the resistances and weaknesses was a little heavy-handed, but it was kind of necessary. Adding in a new type to serve the purpose of elucidating the magical properties of some of those Pokemon and not creating a bad imbalance would be difficult without making a clear purpose, like a defense against dragons.

For the odd steel and poison match-up, I just thought it was an interesting flair to it and did something different. Plus, they retcon a lot.  Jasmine is a big indicator of that. And Mega Evolutions. The part about it changing them and causing a rift like that is a good point, but Gen 6 kinda draws a curtain to everything else. Between X/Y and OR/AS, you can cover all the gens pretty much for getting Pokemon.

I definitely give you the name and stuff, though. It should have been somethnig else. Hell, even 'magic' would have given more reason behind it lol.
avatar
TBC
Admin

Posts : 802
Join date : 2013-05-10
Age : 27
Location : Wisconsin

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Kain
Region: Kanto
Friend Code:

View user profile http://www.pokegen0.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by Drazex on Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:05 am

From a roleplayer's perspective, I don't like illogical things, and I don't like retcons. If retcons serve to improve logic (like making Koffing immune to earthquake, lol) I'll accept them fairly readily, but having to change "in-character knowledge" annoys me. Magnemite becoming steel also annoyed me, but as a pokemon I rarely used anyway, it didn't matter in the long run.

Personally, I like the idea of a "light" type to balance the Dark type. Maybe make it super effective against Dark and Ghost (holy radiance), dragon (heroic victory) and maybe poison (driving away the poisonous vermin); not very effective against Grass (photosynthesis), Fire (makes light), Steel (cold metal cares not for faith); and not affecting other light types.

For defense, make it weak against Steel and Fighting (an impartial blade), and poison (the vulnerability of the noble); strong against dark, ghost, and psychic (protected from the wiles of the impure powers); and of course immune to other light attacks (as the just are not hurt by the purging light).

It's not so different, and can even justify many of the balance things put in for the PvP angle of pokemon, but has so much flavor, imho. Further, I wouldn't change so many pokemon. Togepi (line), Clefairy (line), Gardevoir (single), and Altaria (Single) would be good choices, imho. 8 pokemon instead of 21-25. Sylveon and Dancie would still be viable as-is, and you could even make Goodra a dragon/light dual.
avatar
Drazex

Posts : 126
Join date : 2014-04-30
Location : Japan (formerly USA)

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Brian
Region: Johto
Friend Code:

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by TBC on Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:26 pm

@Drazex wrote:From a roleplayer's perspective, I don't like illogical things, and I don't like retcons.  If retcons serve to improve logic (like making Koffing immune to earthquake, lol) I'll accept them fairly readily, but having to change "in-character knowledge" annoys me.  Magnemite becoming steel also annoyed me, but as a pokemon I rarely used anyway, it didn't matter in the long run.
I can see that. I guess it doesn't bother me as much because I just jump into the world and think "okay, this is how it should have been from the start", like how Steel/Dark not being new, but being around as seen in HG/SS.

The way I see it is that those things are mechanical stuff. Like yeah, Jigglypuff has different resistences now. But if you accept the premise that it should have been that way, then the mechanical side of the game elements just falls into place. Like how old technology is retconned into newer stuff in remakes. Like FR/LG having new tech but still it is supposed to be the same game in terms of storyline as Red/Blue.

@Drazex wrote:Personally, I like the idea of a "light" type to balance the Dark type. 
I completely agree. Light would have been a much better choice, and it would still work with Jigglypuff and whatnot as well. Fairies are pretty much 'light' things.
avatar
TBC
Admin

Posts : 802
Join date : 2013-05-10
Age : 27
Location : Wisconsin

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Kain
Region: Kanto
Friend Code:

View user profile http://www.pokegen0.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by Drazex on Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:10 am

@TBC wrote:The way I see it is that those things are mechanical stuff. Like yeah, Jigglypuff has different resistences now. But if you accept the premise that it should have been that way...
Yah, and that's the problem. I can't just accept that premise. "magnemite is suddenly resistant to normal types" annoyed me a little, but didn't come up much, and wasn't very important before, anyway. "Jigglypuff is now resistant to its previous only weakness, is suddenly good against dark, fighting, and dragon" is too big a shift, and after 5 generations of games, is overwriting too much precedent, imho.

But yah, that's just why I personally don't like it. I don't have a 3DS anyway, so it doesn't matter a whole lot.
avatar
Drazex

Posts : 126
Join date : 2014-04-30
Location : Japan (formerly USA)

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Brian
Region: Johto
Friend Code:

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by TBC on Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:25 am

I guess. There's just so many other changes and stuff, if I was bothered by one the rest would be annoying as well. Like megas being a thing in the RSE world when they weren't, the added tech from R/B to FR/LG --- G/S to HG/SS, Steel and Dark types being newly discovered then suddenly accepted as normal, only the first 150 Pokemon being in Kanto and then in FR/LG a whole slew more being added etc.

I just find it more enjoyable to jump in and go with it because it's a new adventure and it like fulfills that "what if there was more" thought that comes with a lot of games.

Like I always wonder what else they could do with worlds, characters etc. Seeing this stuff kinda gives an answer to that in a way Very Happy

But yeah, it would be jarring to have like a Jigglypuff or Granbull you've had from Gen 2-3 and moved up to Gen 6 and you've trained it certain ways and thought of its defenses and stuff one way and BAM it changes lol.
avatar
TBC
Admin

Posts : 802
Join date : 2013-05-10
Age : 27
Location : Wisconsin

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Kain
Region: Kanto
Friend Code:

View user profile http://www.pokegen0.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by Fou on Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:23 pm

I like the idea of a fairy type for cutesy pokemon like Jigglypuff and Clefairy, but I don't like how they did the match ups. I just can't imagine a Jigglypuff's attack being super effective against a Dragonite. What's it going to do? Get swallowed and then puff up into a balloon to suffocate the Dragon?

Now, a Light type I could see being good against dragons as a "hero versus evil dragon" RPG trope. Yet, I can't see the ones that fall under Fairy type fitting into this version of Light type. In other words, I would've been happy if there were two new types instead.
avatar
Fou

Posts : 113
Join date : 2013-05-19

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Fou
Region: Kanto
Friend Code:

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by TBC on Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:38 pm

@Fou wrote:Now, a Light type I could see being good against dragons as a "hero versus evil dragon" RPG trope. Yet, I can't see the ones that fall under Fairy type fitting into this version of Light type.  In other words, I would've been happy if there were two new types instead.
I've seen some discussion videos on these. Light type wouldn't work out. Dark type isn't Dark, either. in Japan, it translates into 'Evil'.

This video, while in rant form and is a bit cringe-y on that front by calling out 'genwunners', Speqtor goes into really good detail about Fairy types, and why it is super effective against dragons. I highly suggest watching it.
avatar
TBC
Admin

Posts : 802
Join date : 2013-05-10
Age : 27
Location : Wisconsin

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Kain
Region: Kanto
Friend Code:

View user profile http://www.pokegen0.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by Boynsy on Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:23 am

To me, much like most of the things in the games, the fairy type is good but could have been better. Personally, I don't much like the idea of a 'light' type to counteract dark, mainly due to the connotations of each word in my head - 'dark' to me meaning evil more than physical darkness, whereas 'light' just makes me think of a glowing lightbulb and therefore doesn't really make sense as a type, rather like the idea of a 'sound' type. As a result, I prefer the name fairy over light.

I do think too many pokemon were retconned when they didn't need to be - and the games don't really handle this very well either. There's something about telling me that this type is newly discovered, but then giving it to old pokemon that just feels off. If a couple of pokemon had been retyped, and this was quietly brushed under the carpet then maybe I would accept it, but it does feel odd to me.

The strengths and weaknesses are somewhat arbitrary, but for good reason - with the metagame becoming increasingly important, balance is key. Fairies were needed to keep things fresh, and to be honest there could be arguments made for almost every type alignment - I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to argue that fairy should actually be strong against poison, rather than weak.

All in all, I like the fairy type but am not particularly a fan of the old fairy pokemon.

As an aside though, I do think now that there are many common counters to dragon pokemon, there should be some dragons available early in the game, rather than pretty much saying dragon type is synonymous with strong pokemon.

Boynsy

Posts : 33
Join date : 2016-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by TBC on Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:39 pm

I totally agree with not wanting a Light type. You're on spot with the meaning of the Dark type. In Japanese, it actually translates to Evil. So, yeah, Light really would be malapropos. Sound type might be good in theory, but it falls short in practice. There are so few Pokemon to take advantage of the typing, and adding that much more convoluted connections between typings and the balance for so little gain wouldn't be good.
@Boynsy wrote:I do think too many pokemon were retconned when they didn't need to be - and the games don't really handle this very well either. There's something about telling me that this type is newly discovered, but then giving it to old pokemon that just feels off.
This is where I would disagree. Firstly, remember when Gold/Silver came out and Steel and Dark came out?
Here is Jasmine's dialogue from the original Gold/Silver.
OG Jasmine wrote:Thank you for your help at the Lighthouse... But this is different. Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm Jasmine, a Gym Leader. I use the steel-type. ...Do you know about the steel-type? It's a type that was only recently discovered. ...Um... May I begin?
And in Heart Gold/Soul Silver, the same dialogue box.
New Jasmine wrote:Thank you for your help at the Lighthouse... But this is different. Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm Jasmine, a Gym Leader. I use the...clang! Steel type! ...Do you know about the Steel type? They are very hard, cold, sharp, and really strong! Um... I'm not lying.
As you can see, there's one clear difference. Pokemon has retconned things from the very beginning and set the precedence for doing so quite long ago. Especially with the new universe theories and evidence. I don't think it was bad that they retconned stuff, and I thought the Pokemon they changed were awesome. Heck, multiple Pokemon they changed were from the fairy egg group and stuff.

The strengths and weakness are arbitrary, though. in a good way. It depends on how the Pokemon people interpret what the Fairy type is and how it works. I like the idea of it being strong against Poison. It's like the purity and magic of Fairies resists impurities and poisons. Both on the 'moralistic' side of the folklore and from a magical standpoint. Every mage gets Poisona lol.

It would be interesting to have dragons so early. I feel it would be difficult to balance until more Fairy Pokemon are added, or more Fairy moves are given. I guess with Sun/Moon it would be a possibility. However, on that note, I did get a dragon early on. Right on Melemele Island I got a Deino through the QR code scans. I know that isn't particularly like available in the base game, but it was a chance and I got it and QR codes aren't too hard to use.

If I decide to use the Fairy Type in Gen 0, I may adjust to make a dragon available earlier on or something. That would be interesting. I wonder how the fans would react if I made Gen 0 have the Fairy type.
avatar
TBC
Admin

Posts : 802
Join date : 2013-05-10
Age : 27
Location : Wisconsin

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Kain
Region: Kanto
Friend Code:

View user profile http://www.pokegen0.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by Boynsy on Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:50 am

@TBC wrote:I totally agree with not wanting a Light type. You're on spot with the meaning of the Dark type. In Japanese, it actually translates to Evil. So, yeah, Light really would be malapropos.  Sound type might be good in theory, but it falls short in practice. There are so few Pokemon to take advantage of the typing, and adding that much more convoluted connections between typings and the balance for so little gain wouldn't be good.
@Boynsy wrote:I do think too many pokemon were retconned when they didn't need to be - and the games don't really handle this very well either. There's something about telling me that this type is newly discovered, but then giving it to old pokemon that just feels off.
This is where I would disagree. Firstly, remember when Gold/Silver came out and Steel and Dark came out?
Here is Jasmine's dialogue from the original Gold/Silver.
OG Jasmine wrote:Thank you for your help at the Lighthouse... But this is different. Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm Jasmine, a Gym Leader. I use the steel-type. ...Do you know about the steel-type? It's a type that was only recently discovered. ...Um... May I begin?
And in Heart Gold/Soul Silver, the same dialogue box.
New Jasmine wrote:Thank you for your help at the Lighthouse... But this is different. Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm Jasmine, a Gym Leader. I use the...clang! Steel type! ...Do you know about the Steel type? They are very hard, cold, sharp, and really strong! Um... I'm not lying.
As you can see, there's one clear difference.  Pokemon has retconned things from the very beginning and set the precedence for doing so quite long ago. Especially with the new universe theories and evidence. I don't think it was bad that they retconned stuff, and I thought the Pokemon they changed were awesome. Heck, multiple Pokemon they changed were from the fairy egg group and stuff.

The strengths and weakness are arbitrary, though. in a good way. It depends on how the Pokemon people interpret what the Fairy type is and how it works. I like the idea of it being strong against Poison. It's like the purity and magic of Fairies resists impurities and poisons. Both on the 'moralistic' side of the folklore and from a magical standpoint. Every mage gets Poisona lol.

It would be interesting to have dragons so early.  I feel it would be difficult to balance until more Fairy Pokemon are added, or more Fairy moves are given. I guess with Sun/Moon it would be a possibility. However, on that note, I did get a dragon early on. Right on Melemele Island I got a Deino through the QR code scans. I know that isn't particularly like available in the base game, but it was a chance and I got it and QR codes aren't too hard to use.

If I decide to use the Fairy Type in Gen 0, I may adjust to make a dragon available earlier on or something. That would be interesting. I wonder how the fans would react if I made Gen 0 have the Fairy type.

I don't know why I never replied to this... must have forgotten Razz

I don't think I explained my thoughts on the retconning very well - my standards on the matter are slightly "doubled" in some respects but they make sense to me. What I'm trying to say is that I could play an old Pokemon game and come up against a Jigglypuff, karate chop it and have it be super effective. Then I hop on to XY, and come up against the very same species, use the same move and it resists it. I don't have an issue with the introduction of the Fairy type, but telling me it is newly discovered should preclude it from being applied to old Pokes, to my mind.

On the other hand, I feel slightly less strongly about this with regards to steel and dark, because only one species and one move were retyped, and it happened so early in the series and was so dearly necessary for balance reasons too.

I also think that Jasmine's dialogue was changed because steel wasn't so much a new type by the time of HGSS, as sequels to FRLG.

Thinking about the idea of having early game dragons, I do think that would be pretty cool - maybe a dragonfly Pokemon? It could be reasonably weak and evolve at around level 25 or 30 into a mid strength, bigger dragonfly or something. It wouldn't mean that you can run through the game because it wouldn't be any stronger than anything else available, and maybe could be balanced through making the TMs it can learn only available later in the game too (flamethrower or something)... But that's something for another thread.

Boynsy

Posts : 33
Join date : 2016-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by TBC on Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:01 pm

@Boynsy wrote:What I'm trying to say is that I could play an old Pokemon game and come up against a Jigglypuff, karate chop it and have it be super effective. Then I hop on to XY, and come up against the very same species, use the same move and it resists it. I don't have an issue with the introduction of the Fairy type, but telling me it is newly discovered should preclude it from being applied to old Pokes, to my mind.
Right. I understand where you're coming from there. However, I would then like to bring up how Pokemon is a series of multiple universes. When I play an older game, I know I'm going into it with different expectations on mechanics. For instance, if I play Red and Blue, Ghost type has different strengths and weaknesses, like with Jigglypuff in that example. Also, Psychic is primo top notch in Gen 1 lol.

Or if I play Gen 6, I know the poison debuff is a joke. It just boils down to expectations and stuff. I feel that since they have a history of retconning things and have owned up to the multi universe nature of the series, it doesn't really bother me. But I understand where you're coming from. Though, like Clefairy. Hahaha. I dunno, I like the changes on a personal level, too. I always felt it was odd Jigglypuff was just a normal type.

@Boynsy wrote:I also think that Jasmine's dialogue was changed because steel wasn't so much a new type by the time of HGSS, as sequels to FRLG.
I disagree. In Gen 2, since they didn't expect Pokemon in general to be very big (Satoshi Tajiri was denied making Pokemon multiple times before it went through), they made the typing of Dark and Steel to be "newly discovered". When they made the remakes, like in FRLG even, the typing existed. In FRLG you have Dark/Steel. So, since they retconned those types in, they obviously weren't newly discovered. So, when they made HG/SS, they took out that dialogue. The same is with Fairy. If they made a re-re-make of Gen 1 and included Fairy, they would retcon that out to not be newly discovered.

@Boynsy wrote:Thinking about the idea of having early game dragons, I do think that would be pretty cool - maybe a dragonfly Pokemon? It could be reasonably weak and evolve at around level 25 or 30 into a mid strength, bigger dragonfly or something. It wouldn't mean that you can run through the game because it wouldn't be any stronger than anything else available, and maybe could be balanced through making the TMs it can learn only available later in the game too (flamethrower or something)... But that's something for another thread.
The brand new Pokemon are reserved for very story-specific things, since I want this to be lore friendly. So I'd have to find a dargon that would work. But, yes, that's a conversation for another day :p

_________________
:Currently Playing:
ESO!!! Xbox One
*Gamertag: Okiushi
*Guild: Fellowship of Shenanigans
Titanfall 2
Fallout 4
Shadows of Adam
avatar
TBC
Admin

Posts : 802
Join date : 2013-05-10
Age : 27
Location : Wisconsin

Trainer Card
Trainer Name:: Kain
Region: Kanto
Friend Code:

View user profile http://www.pokegen0.wordpress.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fairy Type

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum