Those of you playing Pokémon Rumble World might have bought the “Leafy Balloon,” a vehicle which transports you to a grass-focused area of the game. To emphasise the theme of the area, the game shows you three Pokémon… except one of them isn’t a grass type.
The furthest Pokémon on the right, Flabebe, is a psychic type. It never evolves into a grass type, although I can certainly see why it would be confusing — it’s a Pokémon that kind of looks like a flower. That’s pretty much grass type, right?
All nitpicky joking aside, it does say it’s simply a place where a lot of grass-types appear. That leaves room for Pokémon like Flambebe. Cynically, though, I can’t help but wonder if someone got confused along the way thanks to the Pokémon’s looks. Considering there are over over 700 Pokémon now, it wouldn’t be too difficult to get them all jumbled.
Comments
22 responses to “Proof There Are Too Many Pokémon”
*sigh*
If you’re going to nitpick about types, maybe getting the type right would help (fairy, not psychic)
Edit: I also acknowledge that the author probably fixed the mistakes pretty fast on the original US article, but thanks to the wonders of the US -> AU pipeline we only get the original post and not the updates.
I was going to mention this, and you had it right, it is a flower, it would likely be found where grass pokemon live, similar to dratini, a dragon type that would be found where water pokemon live
Yeah, from memory you had to surf in the safari zone to find dratini a few generations back. Logical locations rather than stringent typing.
Gen 1
also “Flambebe”
this article is a trainwreck
Never played Pokemon. Is it OK? I always considered it to be a rock/paper/scissors-tamagotchi-collectathon with mild story elements. Am I off-base?
You’ve basically nailed it. There’s a mild dash of metroidvania in there as well.
Metroidvania? In my Pokemon? where?
What appealed to me back when I first started playing is that it’s a fairly basic JRPG, but at any time you can ditch your party and catch different ones. It was revolutionary in 1996…
I recently bought a 3DS and finally got around to playing Pokemon X and this is a common problem I had – I could no longer reliably guess the types of Pokemon just by looking at them.
Headline: “Proof”
Article: *baseless conjecutre that even admits how baseless it is*
Come on Patricia. You’re better than this.
Most (if not all) of Kotaku US isn’t better than this.
This is pretty much their standard now – ill informed information/opinion with a clickbait to semi click bait headline with content masquerading as irrefutable fact.
The site is technically a blog about anything, so they don’t need writing standards or best practices!
It’s true. Kotaku US is also a blog that I have increasingly avoided because they don’t have writing standards!
The Aus specific content is usually decent and why I only bother with the .au version of the site now.
Definitely agree with what you’re saying there. Is there a way that I can just view Aussie content?
Actually, most (99%) of the time she really isn’t. I tend to avoid articles attributed to her though sometimes I don’t take any notice. This is one such occasion.
She really isn’t. It’s rare that I see a writer consistently make rubbish articles but she has a knack for it. Usually full of spoilers (even when they say no spoilers) or just rehashes of other peoples work or even just a slightly different version of her own previous articles. I’m glad we have good writers on Kotaku AU
Hello mediawatch, its time to scour kotaku articles to count the genuine articles from the clickbait
Yep – raise the bar, this is just fishing with clickbait for some plasticbags full of garbage.
Ignoring the whole type vs element type, you could almost be correct.
I’m one of those guys that ended pokemon around after the johto league.
I don’t even recognise pokemon anymore, so many random looking creatures and types it’s crazy lol