(01-18-2013, 04:28 AM)puggsoy Wrote: My biggest problem with names is, as I mentioned earlier, unnatural stuff like Mr. Mime. I suppose Trubbish also counts, the coincidence is huge. If humans (in the Pokemon world) named Pokemon, it'd be fine and make sense, but the fact that the Pokemon's name comes from what it's capable of saying just ticks me off.
But that's nothing to do with names specifically, so yah.

in the games pokemon don't really say their names, but that's arguable

more importantly though, many pokemon were created by human influence, even in the canon of the series
even if it's not stated directly, it doesn't defy believability that pokemon like mr. mime could have came into being by interaction with people
/overanalizing

Well, assuming the Pokemon in that world evolved naturally as the fauna of that world, humans would technically be Pokemon as well. So it makes sense that there might be more hominid Pokemon among them.

Mr. Mime is just an english name.

His japanese name is Barrierd.

I prefer Mr. Mime.

(01-18-2013, 04:50 AM)Kriven Wrote: Well, assuming the Pokemon in that world evolved naturally as the fauna of that world, humans would technically be Pokemon as well. So it makes sense that there might be more hominid Pokemon among them.

hehehe I like this point but that's like saying all the grass and trees in pokemon world are also pokemon, since they span every kingdom of life

in the comics they claimed that all pokemon were the same species, which makes zero sense
in real biology pokemon species would probably be divided into egg groups
several adaptations, like the tcg and anime, have shown non pokemon animals as well

the amount of diversity in humans in the series, and other differences, such as humans not being able to be caught in pokeballs seems to indicate that they are diffrent

(01-18-2013, 05:06 AM)Zac Wrote:

(01-18-2013, 04:50 AM)Kriven Wrote: Well, assuming the Pokemon in that world evolved naturally as the fauna of that world, humans would technically be Pokemon as well. So it makes sense that there might be more hominid Pokemon among them.

hehehe I like this point but that's like saying all the grass and trees in pokemon world are also pokemon

Not exactly. I think Kriven's point is that Pokemon are basically the equivalent of real-world animals, and since humans are animals here humans are Pokemon in that world. So trees wouldn't be Pokemon since they're not animals here. But yeah as you said there have been hints to real-world animals in the anime and such.
Either way I agree that humanoid Pokemon are pretty annoying, but only ones that are extremely similar to humans like Mr. Mime. Stuff like Chespin and Meinfoo are fine, I even like them, and to be honest without humanoid Pokemon there probably wouldn't be a fighting type.

As for your point about not saying their names in the games, that's true I guess. But a lot of other things are only true (or have only been proven) in the anime too like, as you mentioned, humans can't be captured in Pokeballs.

To be honest these two points all have to do with which you consider decisive, the games or the anime (or manga I guess).

(01-18-2013, 05:21 AM)puggsoy Wrote: Not exactly. I think Kriven's point is that Pokemon are basically the equivalent of real-world animals, and since humans are animals here humans are Pokemon in that world. So trees wouldn't be Pokemon since they're not animals here. But yeah as you said there have been hints to real-world animals in the anime and such.

but pokemon aren't just animals. they are plants, fungi, minerals and one isn't even a multi cell'd organism. some are composed of toxic waste. some arent even alive at all.

also in game they people can block pokeballs, so that's why I brought it up

(01-18-2013, 05:35 AM)Zac Wrote: but pokemon aren't just animals. they are plants, fungi, minerals and one isn't even a multi cell'd organism. some are composed of toxic waste. some arent even alive at all.

also in game they people can block pokeballs, so that's why I brought it up

What? They're all animals. Even the Pokemon with plant attributes are called Plant-like Pokemon.
There are single-celled animals, we call them amoebas.
Which Pokemon aren't alive? Even the golems are alive.

I think Zac means ones like Yamask, which are technically spirits of dead humans. I think most Ghost-type Pokemon probably aren't alive, but it's actually quite hard to define what is and what isn't alive. The word "alive" itself is defined by real-life biology, so we can't really use it to discuss Pokemon.

what makes them animals? sure they have traits of animals, personalities, but so do characters like yanmask, which are actual confirmed dead people
pokemon like vilplume (flower) and victreebell (fly catcher) are plants, and there pokemon classifications confirm that just as much as pikachu's classification makes it an animal(mouse)
also amoebas are protozoa not animals. just because they share some attributes doesn't just make them all animals. life isn't that simple. protozoa and animals are as related as animals and plants. that's even farther back then plants and fungi are related.

(01-18-2013, 06:24 AM)puggsoy Wrote: I think Zac means ones like Yamask, which are technically spirits of dead humans. I think most Ghost-type Pokemon probably aren't alive, but it's actually quite hard to define what is and what isn't alive. The word "alive" itself is defined by real-life biology, so we can't really use it to discuss Pokemon.

Well.... they were alive.

And actually, the fact that Yamask is a Pokemon actually created from humans adds an interesting dimension to the Human/Pokemon relationship.

---

(01-18-2013, 06:32 AM)Zac Wrote: what makes them animals? sure they have traits of animals, personalities, but so do characters like yanmask, which are actual confirmed dead people
pokemon like vilplume (flower) and victreebell (fly catcher) are plants, and there pokemon classifications confirm that just as much as pikachu's classification makes it an animal(mouse)
also amoebas are protozoa not animals. just because they share some attributes doesn't just make them all animals. life isn't that simple. protozoa and animals are as related as animals and plants. that's even farther back then plants and fungi are related.

Plants have eyes now?

http://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/ani...otozoa.htm

Quote:In general, the protozoans are unicellular animals...

animals have leaves now?

also if you'd go on with that quote
"In general, the protozoans are unicellular animals (although some have some plant or fungal features)"
they are still in different kingdoms of life, that's just a generalization of there behavior. which kinda shows that an entity can have traits of an animal without being an animal.
actually this kinda makes pokemon seem more like protozoans more then animals, since they also display traits of all other kingdoms of life

as a sidenote: I don't know if the golems would even be considered lifeforms, let alone animals, with the most common biological definition. they can't even reproduce, which is normally a deal breaker when trying to identify life forms.
viruses aren't typically considers life forms despite display some animal like behavior. I think that's comparable to at least some of the pokemon.

You can actual have a Yamask hatch from an egg. I don't think it's dead. Ghost type Pokemon are not ghosts no more than Fire types are fire. That's just the element that they are empowered with.

Some of the stuff you read in the Pokedex is pretty hokey if you ask me. But I don't know.

(01-18-2013, 06:48 AM)Zac Wrote: animals have leaves now?

also if you'd go on with that quote
"In general, the protozoans are unicellular animals (although some have some plant or fungal features)"
they are still in different kingdoms of life, that's just a generalization of there behavior. which kinda shows that an entity can have traits of an animal without being an animal.
actually this kinda makes pokemon seem more like protozoans more then animals, since they also display traits of all other kingdoms of life

as a sidenote: I don't know if the golems would even be considered lifeforms, let alone animals, with the most common biological definition. they can't even reproduce, which is normally a deal breaker when trying to identify life forms.
viruses aren't typically considers life forms despite display some animal like behavior. I think that's comparable to at least some of the pokemon.

It depends who you ask. A lot of scientists and experts consider Protozoans as a subkingdom of Animalia instead of its own kingdom. There really isn't anything set about it, same with viruses, actually. These issues are pretty frequently debated and no definite consensus has been reached.

Also, yeah, some animals grow leaves or leaf-like appendages irl. Some can even perform photosynthesis.

Edit: The Golems can't produce offspring with known Pokemon. They might only be able to mate with members of their own species, and canonically there are only one of each.

I know you guys are probably talking about the Legendary golem pokemon, but I'd like to bring Golett and Golurk into the equation, especially concerning your previous dialogues about man-made pokemon.

Golett's Pokedex entry is as follows:
Golett, the Automaton Pokémon. It is said that Golett was instructed to protect people and Pokémon by theancient civilization that created it.

So either Golett is a man-made Pokemon, or maybe created by aliens or by some sort of ancient race of civilized Pokemon. Assuming they were human creators, then its one of the few man-made pokemon.

Being man-made and a genderless animal brings up the question on what qualifies a pokemon as a pokemon. There are already a number of genderless, robot-like Pokemon, so its hard to limit the concept of a Pokemon to a living, breathing animal.

However, despite being genderless man-made and somehow otherworldly (being ghost type, probably due to some form of spiritual energy powering it), it is somehow able to breed and make eggs with a number of pokemon, including, but not limited to a snake made out of rocks (or steel), a ball that conducts electricity and looks like a Pokeball, a more modern artificial Pokemon, and a giant snowflake. Obviously the term "breeding" is used loosely, since in this universe the concept of Eggs seems pretty synonymous with the stork coming to deliver a baby.


What's the point in all this? Nothing really. What I'm trying to say is that despite all the complexity in the Pokemon universe, it's still just a game. It will have a few inconsistencies and flaws along the way, but frankly you can't overthink it, otherwise you'll just drive yourself crazy.

Yeah you're pretty much right. The thing is, nobody complains or has these sort of discussions about Mario because it's obviously ridiculous and doesn't try to make sense (walking mushrooms, a plumber that squishes stuff by jumping on it, floating bricks that produce coins when hit). Pokemon made a whole world of itself, that tries to be and is basically our world with the addition of Pokemon. And since (mostly) everything else makes sense (people have jobs, watch TV, etc), we feel that Pokemon are completely out of place since they make no sense if you think about it this deeply. Which I'm OK with because, as you said, it's a game (and anime and manga).

What I find so funny is that this entire discussion was sparked because of Chespin's design