If they had to cut 1 type aside from Fairy, which one should it be?

applinear · October 4

Ok, let’s say that a Pokémon type randomly disappears overnight. Which type could we all do without, and which ones do we need for the future and current entries of Pokémon? (This excludes Fairy-type, just to make a more interesting discussion)

I would say Normal due to the amount of Pokémon that could be classified under different types. Rattata/Poison, Furret/Ground, Arceus/Psychic- these would all be more interesting types for these Pokémon. The only argument I would make against Normal being removed is the unique interaction with Ghost, which makes Normal-types more unique.

As for a type that must stay, I say Bug. Alongside being a unique types with many advantages and flaws, the entire series is based on the creator catching bugs as a kid. Therefore, I believe it must stay.

What do you think?

Hades0918 · October 4

I agree with normal, but I think we can't go without Dragon. There are many rare and legendaries that are under this type that I can't see a replacement for.

clasingla · October 4

we can cut flying type i mean we only have three pure flying type pokemon (tornadus rookidee and corvisquire) and i think we need to keep water

TheNinjaBear777 · October 4

definitely grass type

TheJeffers · October 5

I don't think normal's problem is its design. Being immune to ghost adds flavour to ghosts as well as mechanical utility to normal, and I think there needs to be a type where strengths and weaknesses virtually do not factor into the equation. It fills a useful niché.

Normal simply has a PR problem. In a world full of creatures with wondrous designs and abilities, it represents the more mundane. Household pets, pests and wildlife one might find in a city park. Compared with every other type it looks boring. And yet, without the baseline of these "basic" Pokémon, how would we recognise the exciting ones? Every Pokémon design can't be the most exciting.

Rather than getting rid of certain types, I might suggest combining them, perhaps in a similar way the TCG represents all 18 types with just 8-ish.

For example, I think ice could easily be combined with water. Ice is just frozen water after all. Ice has always been a bit of a lame duck, hampered by its many weaknesses, which is a shame as a number of my favourite Pokémon designs are ice types.

Honestly though, I think Game Freak is more likely to add another type than remove one. Adding a new type is a quick and easy way to add novelty to new Pokémon while revitalising old ones that gain either the type themselves or become strong to it. It is something even the most casual, uninvested player can easily understand, where removing a type might be seen as reducing the game content rather than an attempt to refine it.

Candy0_o · October 5

Ice since there's the least amount of ice types

UnovanZorua · October 5

Ice Types could be Water types and it would still make sense.

Lonestar85 · October 5

If I was to cut a type, I'd cut Dark. The only reason they added Dark was to address the lack of effective counter towards Psychic types in Generation 1. My issue with Dark is that Psychic already had two counters in Bug and Ghost. The issue wasn't that Psychic had too few counters but that the counters were poorly executed in Generation 1 due to really poor movepools and ineffective moves. If Bug and Ghost weren't so bad, Psychic wouldn't have dominated in the manner in which it did and there wouldn't have been a need to add the Dark type in the first place.

I mean the only reason Fairy got added in Gen 6 was because Dragon was dominating in Gen 5.