In the news

The beauty of the original Pokemon is that many were inspired by real animals and well-known mythological creatures, with names that made sense, for example Rattata is a rat-like creature, Ekans is snake spelt backwards and looks like a snake, Haunter is a ghost pokemon and looks like a ghost, Koffing is the manifestation of the concept of pollution. This makes them easy to relate to, especially to children, because they recognise the origins of the creatures from real life and therefore the game becomes more real to them. Within the framework of pokemon bearing close resemblance to real animals, slowly the more fantastical pokemon such as Jigglypuff and Abra can be introduced into the environment incrementally, which enhances the magic of the Pokemon world, but the idea of still being in a somewhat plausible real world has to always be underpinned by simple and recognisable creatures with visual characteristics clearly defining their type.

My problem with the new sets is that there is barely any connection with the real world either in appearance or name. There are some, but the ratio is skewed far in favour of totally weird random creatures with no obvious type and no easy way to remember them. In my opinion this undermines the game's ethos in portraying a reality where Pokemon are just everyday creatures.

So there.

Well argued. You rule.