VeggiePopper
Doc Octillery FTW
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 4,481
- Reaction score
- 1
You're very contradictory, ya'know? You say IslandWalker made an epic post and that he's right in the fact that we cannot decide whats a legendary and then you say "Legendaries still follow a rule". It is not the rule you described, however. It is the rule that Game Freak decides what is and what is not a Legendary. Game Freak could have decided to make Breedable and evolvable Legendaries. You're rule wouldn't support it but in that case, your rule contradicts the Game Freak rule. And since the GF rule is absolute, that means your rule would be false.
Now, that was a hypothetical situation but it may not be so hypothetical, given Ulgamoth. Ulgamoth could be the new revision of the Legendaries page (and Legendaries *cough* rule) but he may not be revealed as one yet. Sure, he lacks the legendary theme but that could be just an oversight (or an intentional thing to start this debate) on their part.
But he may be a Legendary. Nothing anyone has said has disproved it. There are no "rules" for Legendaries besides the GF rule. That was IslandWalker's entire point.
(typed on phone. Damn that took forever!)
1. Nope, I didn't contradict myself. I meant that we're not Game Freak to predict what they'll do or decide for them (to quote myself: "that only goes to Game Freak"), but there's still one general rule. What's up to GF is how and when will they bend -not break- it ("and rules are bended from time to time"). See? I was not being conttradictory, just had a wide perspective. You seem to have missunderstood my point as "there are rules but there are no rules" (which indeed would have been lamely contradictory) when it actually was "there are rules that can be bended exceptionally".
2. Island Waker's post was epic because it expalined very well how people -on both sides- try to predict things assuming they can read GF's minds and fail so badly, which applies not only on this topic, but on every other prediction/speculation thread. Didn't you read? His post was epic because of its philosophy, not because of his particular side on this discussion, so I still can praise him and not agree with him. Plus, he actually just said that he neither said it was a Legendary.
3. Yep, my rule analysis (not "my rule" per sé as you adressed it) would, and eventually will be broken and disproved when GF has no other option but to break it when everything's been done, but until then, the rule still (which means NOW, that is, Gen V, which includes Urgamoth) stands and it stands as "one rule per Pokémon, one rule one single time". And I repeat, that's not my rule, thats GF's rule, as that how they been doing it, I just pointed it out and analysed it.
4. You just said it: it lacks the Legendary theme (I assume you meant the Legendary treatment and characteristics. If you meant "legendary music theme", then I withdraw this point), so what would the point be in classify it as one? Just for the lulz? It's like calling a 4'10'' man 'tall' who of course wouldn't be tall, but say "He can be tall because the rule can be broken", or saying a bald man is long-haired: "He has no hair, but if he had, it would be long so let's just call him long-haired".
4.1. In the latter case, he could potentially be long-haired if he did let it grow long, but until he does it, he's still bald, not long-haired. The same goes for Urgamoth: since it doesn't meet the minimal Legendary criteria (that is, at least one Legendary-exclusive trait, for the ones you've all been mentioning also apply to rare and presudo-legendary Pokémon), the only way it could be a Legendary is when GF oficially announces that (thus it would be this Gen's Phione), but until then, it's not Legendary. You said it yourself: it may be, but isn't, until confirmed.
And LOL, I hate typing from phones too.
EDIT:
The only problem with this is that if legendaries were breedable, evolved, etc., etc., what would separate them from normal pokemon? GF's word? What's the point of having a separate category for a certain group of pokemon, if that group no longer possesses the traits that distinguished them from everything else? Now, I'm not going to completely bash the idea of Ulgamoth being a legendary, but I do think it would negate the concept of "legendary" as a grouping.
Actually, that was my point from the beginning. What would be special in Legendary Pokémon if they have nothing special anymore? (self-quoting me again: "if it was indeed a Legendary, then there would be nothing to differenciate Legends and non-Legends anymore thus completely killing the purpose of Legends, what would the purpose of it being a Legendary be if it has nothing to distinguish itself as a Legendary?")
Last edited: