There were leaks about a Fairy-type a while ago from a source that predicted a whole bunch of things and is highly likely to be accurate; they said that Fairy is super effective against Dragon and Dark, immune to Dragon, weak to Steel and Poison, and not very effective against Fire.
Well, that's kind of disappointing if it's true.
Immunity to Dragon just screams "another type that only exists to balance out an overpowered type," just like Dark was. At least both of the weaknesses make sense this time around, though.
why is it bad! what makes a "good" type! I mean, "fire"? "dark"? both ice and water? why are other types great? I mean, maybe you want things to feel more like elements or constituents?? but uhhhhh dragon is at least more interesting than "a natural phenomenon"... what do you want!!
Dark is not something I consider a good type. Neither is Dragon. Fairy is a bad type for a mixture of the same reasons why Dragon and Dark are bad types... it's way too narrow of a type (based on a specific mythical critter that doesn't have very many "elemental rock-paper-scissors" defining features, just like Dragon), it seemingly exists only to counter the power of an already-existing type (just like Dark), and it feels like it was something tacked on at the last second (like both Dark and Dragon.)
"Why have both ice and water?" is just silly. I typed out a whole response on why, but then realized it was a waste of time and deleted it, so this is all you get on that subject.
The vaguely-defined concept of "Dragon" is "more interesting" than hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning, volcanoes, and earthquakes? Maybe in the same way that a Giant type or a Goblin type or an Elf type (or a Fairy type, for that matter!) would be "interesting."
I wouldn't call any of those type possibilities "interesting"... more like "unnecessary" and "why is this a type?", maybe even a little bit "boring" or "stupid." The idea of giving a mythical creature its own type even though the creatures themselves are so varied that they don't have a really well-defined set of features to base a type around just bothers me. Every scaly/furry monster (with or without wings or even legs, living on land or in water, in all kinds of climates) and its mother has been called a dragon at some point in history. Dragons are so varied and have so few defining features that apply across all (or at least most) of them that Dragon as a type doesn't work very well.
Like I said before, though, Fairy is not the "worst case scenario" of what a new type could be. There's a ton of worse types they could've added (Light for example, or any number of other horrible fan-made types that have popped up over the years.) Fairy might at least turn out to be a better type than Dragon (the tacked-on-at-the-last-minute type) or Dark (the poorly-defined "only exists to counter Psychic" type.) At least the mythological concept of fairies
does have one "Pokémon-like" weakness that's pretty consistent (vulnerability to iron = Steel weakness), and Poison weakness makes sense too (Fairies as a mythical creature concept often associated with nature, which tends to suffer from an abundance of pollution, which several Poison-types are associated with.) Though if the "immunity to Dragon" rumor ends up being true, it will seem dangerously close to Dark on the "type only exists to counter an overpowered type from past games" thing.
Also, questions do not end with a string of exclamation marks, no matter how loud you're screaming them at strangers over the Internet.
In the trailer that shows Pokémon-amie, Pikachu is saying its name rather than doing its cry from the games. But is that just for the trailer or will it be in the actual games?
Oh crap, how did I not notice that?? Guess I must have had my volume set pretty low, or off, when I watched that trailer... seriously hoping that they're not going all anime-voices on us for the actual games, that would be one of the worst changes they could possibly make.
(Seriously Nintendo, I'll forgive you for Fairy type in a heartbeat if you just keep the anime Pokémon voices out of the games.)
EDIT: Watching the trailer again... it seems to only be used for Pikachu, while the rest are still normal. Okay, that's not
too bad, then. Not much different from what Yellow did anyway. I can tolerate that if they limit it to JUST Pikachu, but if the anime voices start showing up for others (or the regular game cries get replaced entirely) then that'll be the point where I have to say "no more Pokémon games for me." (Wow... never thought I'd be saying that, even as a hypothetical "if they do this" possibility...)
Fortunately, the anime's voices rearing their ugly heads in my games and the whole Fairy mess are pretty much the only things from the trailers so far that I've had any real problem with. Along with the really ugly trainer graphics outside of battle, but that's nothing new (I've hated the humans' out-of-battle sprites ever since D/P.) Sky battles seem kind of unnecessary but okay, Pokémon-Amie has a name so cheesy that it would kill a roomful of lactose-intolerant people but the idea itself isn't bad (and it'd be nice if the "happiness" evolutions depended more on stuff like this than just winning battles and using items a lot like before), Pokémon hordes and riding Pokémon are both pretty great ideas, and none of the new Pokémon really stand out to me as bad ideas so far, aside from the usual "they must be running out of good English names" issue with some of them (though it's kind of troubling that it seems like they're throwing Normal as a second type out there so freely now, considering that Normal/_____ has only been for birds and a few other special cases before.)
