Well, when I was younger I never thought of this, but since my favorite pokémon is Charizard, I started to look at it and what did I "notice"?
It is a dual Fire/Flying type Pokémon. Now, it would make sense if it was a bird like Moltres or Ho-oh, but what is Charizard?? A DRAGON... Charizard is a Dragon that is not a Dragon type!! Charizard is more Dragon than some true Dragon-type pokémon like Garchomp and Altaria!
Shouldn't it actually be a Fire/Dragon type pokémon?
I'm really really mad they didn't make Charizard a fire/dragon. It would be cooler (Sorry if I sound weird)
No. He's clearly a Walrus.
I see what you did there, but in my oppinion, he does look like he could be a flying type. Most Dragons are (usually) not upright, but in Pokemon, it could go either way, but a Fire/Dragon type in Red/Blue would've been pretty overpowered for a Starter.
No it hasn't to be a Dragon, Gyarados isn't either (and many others). And it would be too overpowered for a starter. About the Flying part, Flying doesn't mean it must be a bird, flying means it has the ability to fly. Charizard has so it makes total sense to me.
^I know flying isn't just for birds, but Beedrill, for example, is a Bug/Poison but could aldo be a Bug/Flying because it can fly too. So, if Charizard was a Fire/Dragon, it wouldn't mean that it can't fly...
About the overpowered part, it may be true but there wasn't any Dragon attack in Gen.1 besides Dragon Rage which does fixed damage and even if it was a Fire/Dragon it would still have 3 weaknesses like it has now...
Because Pokémon only have 2 types (which is good enough), so decisions have to be made. Logic doesn't really tend to apply to Pokémon anyway, so why bother now? There are way more inconsistencies within the games, this one has to be the least dramatic.
By the way, there were only 3 dragons at the time, it was meant as an exclusive type for the Dratini-evolution line alone. As mentioned previously, a lot of Pokémon could've gotten the Dragon type, but they opted to keep it exclusive. There were no dragon type attacks (which do actual damage) in generation one anyway.
Yeah, logic was something of an afterthought when it came to the RBY games (they got a bit better in DPP I suppose). Dragon was most likely intended to be Dragonite exclusive, as it could have easily been fit on Gyarados too.
(09-29-2009 07:23 AM)Metalizard Wrote: [ -> ]^I know flying isn't just for birds, but Beedrill, for example, is a Bug/Poison but could aldo be a Bug/Flying because it can fly too. So, if Charizard was a Fire/Dragon, it wouldn't mean that it can't fly...
ah Beedrill... a nice example. First reason why it is Bug/Poison, because Weedle and Kakuna were too. Second reason, because if they made him Bug/Flying, it would loose its Poison type (STAB) and they had to do a type switch, something Nintendo doesn't really like (me neither). Like HeavenlySpoon said, there are only 2 types, so choices have to be made.
(09-29-2009 08:22 AM)bacon Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, logic was something of an afterthought when it came to the RBY games (they got a bit better in DPP I suppose). Dragon was most likely intended to be Dragonite exclusive, as it could have easily been fit on Gyarados too.
There is actually proof of Dragon-type being tacked on at the last minute in the game's coding. This also explains why only one evolutionary line and attack for Dragons existed in generation 1.
(09-29-2009 11:09 AM)Pokequaza Wrote: [ -> ]ah Beedrill... a nice example. First reason why it is Bug/Poison, because Weedle and Kakuna were too. Second reason, because if they made him Bug/Flying, it would loose its Poison type (STAB) and they had to do a type switch, something Nintendo doesn't really like (me neither). Like HeavenlySpoon said, there are only 2 types, so choices have to be made.
it was just an example lol. If you don't like the beedrill example, take dustox as an example (cascoon isn't bug/poison)...
If you think about it, dragons can fly, and breath fire, so fire/flyiing is the characteristics of a dragon. Charizard is supposed to be a reptile, but his types match what a dragon would be.
Just because if Charizard were made into Fire/Dragon its first and second stages wouldn't have to be dragon to. Look at the other starter pokemon. *Coughs* Blaziken, Torterra, Infernape, and Empoleon*coughs* All four of their first and second stages didn't have their two types.
(09-29-2009 04:55 PM)Juliacoolo Wrote: [ -> ]If you think about it, dragons can fly, and breath fire, so fire/flyiing is the characteristics of a dragon. Charizard is supposed to be a reptile, but his types match what a dragon would be.
but then, the dragon type wouldn't be needed but it exists... the curious thing is that there are various type combinations between dragon and other types but there isn't any Fire/Dragon pokémon even though Dragons (at least European dragons) are known to spit fire like you just said - and I think Charizard should be that Fire/Dragon pokémon but that's just me...
lugia, god of the sea, yet is not water type
I definately see where coming from infact I occasionaly mistake charzard for a dragon type. But I think have Charzard being a Fire/Dragon would make him super strong and unfair.
(09-29-2009 02:39 PM)Metalizard Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2009 11:09 AM)Pokequaza Wrote: [ -> ]ah Beedrill... a nice example. First reason why it is Bug/Poison, because Weedle and Kakuna were too. Second reason, because if they made him Bug/Flying, it would loose its Poison type (STAB) and they had to do a type switch, something Nintendo doesn't really like (me neither). Like HeavenlySpoon said, there are only 2 types, so choices have to be made.
it was just an example lol. If you don't like the beedrill example, take dustox as an example (cascoon isn't bug/poison)...
For Dustox it's the same. If it was Bug/Flying there wouldn't be much difference between it and Beautifly, with Bug/Poison there is. And since there already existed a flying Bug/Poison (Beedrill) it was easy to make another.
(09-29-2009 05:25 PM)Tyrant Tyranitar Wrote: [ -> ]Just because if Charizard were made into Fire/Dragon its first and second stages wouldn't have to be dragon to. Look at the other starter pokemon. *Coughs* Blaziken, Torterra, Infernape, and Empoleon*coughs* All four of their first and second stages didn't have their two types.
True but a Dragon type as second type is... weird for the 1st gen. It was also Dratini only (there is speculated Gyarados would otherwise be a Dragon type too). And since Dragon Rage was the only Dragon attack it made it very hard to deal with Dragons. And of course, giving this to Charizard would make the already popular Pokemon even more popular. And I don't think they want to create a difference in strenght and popularity among the starters.
(09-29-2009 05:56 PM)Alakapimp Wrote: [ -> ]lugia, god of the sea, yet is not water type
But Charizard hasn't a specific role as ''God of the Dragons'' if it did then it wouldn't make any sense and you were right. Oh and btw, Lugia is the ''Guardian of the seas''