-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
It's 2019 and Pokemon still is creating moves that prevent Same Gender Pokemon from loving each other.
- Thread starter KillstealWolf
- Start date
Honestly, I don't mind much. I maybe very much heterosexual, so I might not be one to talk, since it doesn't affect me whatsoever... Just know that I very much support the LGBTQ community.
This still has never crossed my mind as problematic. Probably because Pokemon are like animals to me. And whilst I can't say I have done research on the topic, you don't hear much about anything but hetereosexuality in the animal kingdom. Pretty sure homosexuality etc exists there too and I would find examples if I looked it up, my point is just that it's not really a common public discussion to have, unlike LGBTQ with humans. So it never really struck me as odd.
In the way of Gameplay, I think it would totally throw off the balance of the game so there is that.
Though I wouldn't mind if they changed it if they found a way to balance it Gameplay-wise. But the thought of it being something that should be a thing also never crossed my mind before this...
This still has never crossed my mind as problematic. Probably because Pokemon are like animals to me. And whilst I can't say I have done research on the topic, you don't hear much about anything but hetereosexuality in the animal kingdom. Pretty sure homosexuality etc exists there too and I would find examples if I looked it up, my point is just that it's not really a common public discussion to have, unlike LGBTQ with humans. So it never really struck me as odd.
In the way of Gameplay, I think it would totally throw off the balance of the game so there is that.
Though I wouldn't mind if they changed it if they found a way to balance it Gameplay-wise. But the thought of it being something that should be a thing also never crossed my mind before this...
Quick question:
Since Pokémon are based off of animals in the animal kingdom, do we ever have same-gender animal attraction outside of the homo sapien species?
I'm assuming, according to OP, that you wanted to see Pokémon be infatuated by the same gender, but I don't know if there are real-world inspirations in nature where same gender non-human animals can be infatuated with each other.
Since Pokémon are based off of animals in the animal kingdom, do we ever have same-gender animal attraction outside of the homo sapien species?
I'm assuming, according to OP, that you wanted to see Pokémon be infatuated by the same gender, but I don't know if there are real-world inspirations in nature where same gender non-human animals can be infatuated with each other.
As a gay man I don't find this too bothersome, and I think we should start with actually getting gay HUMAN characters before we start branching off to Pokemon.
With that said, I think it would be neat if there was a rare chance that you'd get/breed a pokemon whose attract ability only works on same sex pokemon. It'd add some novelty, maybe some strategy and uniqueness. I also wouldn't mind if there was a 100% male or female pokemon that was specifically designed to attract same sex pokemon.
But I'd still rather get gay human characters first.
With that said, I think it would be neat if there was a rare chance that you'd get/breed a pokemon whose attract ability only works on same sex pokemon. It'd add some novelty, maybe some strategy and uniqueness. I also wouldn't mind if there was a 100% male or female pokemon that was specifically designed to attract same sex pokemon.
But I'd still rather get gay human characters first.
Creatures being same sex compatible while humans are being depicted completely hetero-normative is not the best look. Its not whataboutism to point out how much of a blunder of priorities that seems.
This is basically where I'm at. When Machamp can be male and female and still have male sex charateristics in either case, the whole thing kind goes out the window.
Pokemon's funny in that most of these creatures are really just (super dangerous) animals. I always felt like attract was meant to be like when a cat is in heat. In that case doesn't it kinda make sense that it's the opposite gender that's affected?
Where I think it's weird is that some Pokemon are supposed to be as - or even more - intelligent than people, yet they still become infatuated with a Pokemon of a completely different species.
Same. It'd be nice to have some LGBT repping among the human characters, but I'm perfectly fine with fictional cartoon creatures being heterosexual.
So the valid reason why they shouldn't have more LGBT representation is because they don't have LGBT representation yet?
I don't follow your logic. It has to start somewhere .
OP, didn't you post a version of this in 4chan. I swear i saw a topic with the same title there.
Because based on various scientific studies, homosexuality is not a normal phenomena or seen in the animal kingdom (barring Homo sapiens) on which the Pokemon are based on. There are some interpretation of such activity in rare cases but no conclusive evidence has come out yet , so they remain as interpretation only.
It's in the lore, but no gameplay mechanics or ability as such
Wow, this is a new high for ERA. We're complaining because there are no gay fictional monsters in a game made for ~10 year old kids?
I mean, I'm a straight white male so I'm really not invested in the LGBT community, but aren't there more important battles to fight than this? And it's a serious question. We're in a world where in some countries you risk being killed for being gay, in others like mine (Italy) gay marriage is still seen as kind of a weird whim. I'm all for fighting for equal rights for everyone on this planet, but I think this is taking it a bit too far honestly.
And this is without even considering the repercussions on the gameplay, which would make this move extremely broken if it affected both genders.
I mean, I'm a straight white male so I'm really not invested in the LGBT community, but aren't there more important battles to fight than this? And it's a serious question. We're in a world where in some countries you risk being killed for being gay, in others like mine (Italy) gay marriage is still seen as kind of a weird whim. I'm all for fighting for equal rights for everyone on this planet, but I think this is taking it a bit too far honestly.
And this is without even considering the repercussions on the gameplay, which would make this move extremely broken if it affected both genders.
What scientific studies? Lol not sure if you're been sarcastic.
Homossexual practices have been observed among various species of animals, it has been known for a while.
Would be supportive of more gay human characters, dont know if gay pokemon or pokemon sexuality is something that is important.
Im glad op knows what year it is at least.
Im glad op knows what year it is at least.
Read my last line , I already said there are some activity that we can interpret as homosexuality in animals , but like i said, they are human interpretation only , no conclusive evidence that they are bisexual or homosexual. There are many articles , even a article in Wikipedia on homosexuality in animals , just so you know that I am not speaking from my ass
Between this, gender locked customization options, and lack of black hairstyles (beyond motherfucking cornrows and afros), there are still some developments the Pokemon series needs to make.
I don't even understand why they'd limit that move to opposite genders only when Pikachu's isn't limited by invulnerability.
Man at all these comments talking about it's not important or a priority. Nobody would even think about it if Attract worked regardless of gender. This isn't something you even have to think about. It should just be.
I don't even understand why they'd limit that move to opposite genders only when Pikachu's isn't limited by invulnerability.
...Also, let me choose my starting hairstyle. My black ass doesn't have hair like that, biiiitch.
Man at all these comments talking about it's not important or a priority. Nobody would even think about it if Attract worked regardless of gender. This isn't something you even have to think about. It should just be.
OP
OP
Whaddya mean dips? I've responded to comments here, saying that there has been a transgender character in X and Y but a lot of people missed them because they were in the Battle Maison and it wasn't super obvious. As well as agreeing with the general consunses that clothes for customisation shouldn't be locked to trainers as well (This would also go with Hairstyles as well).
You started a thread to discuss a certain subject and then never addressed anyone when the vast majority of people said you were overreacting.
If the move affects all Pokémon, they will simply need to either nerf it and make it likely unusable... or just remove it altogether. It would be insanely overpowered.
It's just meant to be a move that can play situationally. If people are truly offended by this, then I guess remove it altogether.
It's just meant to be a move that can play situationally. If people are truly offended by this, then I guess remove it altogether.
I came in to post but you summed up what I was gonna say more succinctly.
OP
OP
I wouldn't call it a vast majority. Reading through it's a mixture people thinking I'm overreacting, people agreeing and some people wanting the moves to be removed altogether, do you want me to create a poll for those options?
As far as people saying this would be broken, what are those of you who feel that way basing it on?
Because as far as I see it Attract/Infatuation is just a worse Confused status:
-Both only have a 50% chance of stopping the opponent from attacking
-However, when Confused does proc in Pokémon games, it also makes the Pokémon do damage to itself. With infatuation, if it procs, you just don't attack that turn.
-Confused status can affect the vast majority of Pokémon. Infatuation only affects opposite gender.
-And indeed, despite these differences, there are 100% accurate confusion moves like Confuse Ray.
This, even if Infatuation could affect all Pokémon, it's still basically a worse Confused, due to being that same 50% of the opponent not attacking, only without the chance of doing damage to itself.
Not to mention this is all completely beside the point as the OP directly addresses that, with the entire point if G-Max moves in particular to be busted anyway, with stuff like Gigantamax Pikachu's G-Max move even being able to Paralyze Ground-type Pokémon, which obviously is not normally avke to be done, so it's really neither here nor there.
As for the "redundant" concerns, same thing. There are lots of redundant moves and inferior choices and stuff in Pokémon as it is. Like, who's going to run Ember when you have Flamethrower? Who's going to use Chimchar when you have Infernape? Kinda just how Pokémon goes.
And again in the particular case of Infatuation, Confused already makes it "redundant" using that logic... Except for how it obviously doesn't. People just pair and stack it with stuff like Paralysis and Confusion itself. That certainly wouldn't change at all. It has it's uses now and certainly that would remain the case with a change like this.
Not to mention that again it's beside the point since redundancy is kinda the name of the game until Pokémon and there are much bigger concerns than that if people are truly concerned with redundancy. Hell, you have items that are indeed 100% redundant and both just exist for lore reasons for the most part like say the Spooky Plate and Ghost Tag which are functionally identical for Pokémon not named Arceus. Just how it goes literally all the time in Pokémon, so that's entirely neither here nor there to me even if it were true.
Because as far as I see it Attract/Infatuation is just a worse Confused status:
-Both only have a 50% chance of stopping the opponent from attacking
-However, when Confused does proc in Pokémon games, it also makes the Pokémon do damage to itself. With infatuation, if it procs, you just don't attack that turn.
-Confused status can affect the vast majority of Pokémon. Infatuation only affects opposite gender.
-And indeed, despite these differences, there are 100% accurate confusion moves like Confuse Ray.
This, even if Infatuation could affect all Pokémon, it's still basically a worse Confused, due to being that same 50% of the opponent not attacking, only without the chance of doing damage to itself.
Not to mention this is all completely beside the point as the OP directly addresses that, with the entire point if G-Max moves in particular to be busted anyway, with stuff like Gigantamax Pikachu's G-Max move even being able to Paralyze Ground-type Pokémon, which obviously is not normally avke to be done, so it's really neither here nor there.
As for the "redundant" concerns, same thing. There are lots of redundant moves and inferior choices and stuff in Pokémon as it is. Like, who's going to run Ember when you have Flamethrower? Who's going to use Chimchar when you have Infernape? Kinda just how Pokémon goes.
And again in the particular case of Infatuation, Confused already makes it "redundant" using that logic... Except for how it obviously doesn't. People just pair and stack it with stuff like Paralysis and Confusion itself. That certainly wouldn't change at all. It has it's uses now and certainly that would remain the case with a change like this.
Not to mention that again it's beside the point since redundancy is kinda the name of the game until Pokémon and there are much bigger concerns than that if people are truly concerned with redundancy. Hell, you have items that are indeed 100% redundant and both just exist for lore reasons for the most part like say the Spooky Plate and Ghost Tag which are functionally identical for Pokémon not named Arceus. Just how it goes literally all the time in Pokémon, so that's entirely neither here nor there to me even if it were true.
Last edited:
The series doesn't talk or do anything with relationships so I'm not too bothered about my representation in this type of game, the problem with representation in this type of game/series(where everything is simplified and humans have basic characteristics) is that the gay character is always the effeminate guy, or the butch girl, because if everything is so simple that remains one of the only obvious ways to represent someone's sexuality if the game doesn't do anything with relationships. There's a reason people on here assume Sylvando is gay but not Eric. Sylvando is great don't get me wrong, but it is definitely a thing.
Maybe they could have a gay couple in one of those NPC homes you enter, and have a vague hint of the same sex couple in their dialogue, something like that. Or they could have the next professor be married to some gym leader or something. So there's still ways to do it in Pokemon.
But for example imagine designing a gay character for the Super Mario series, how is it going to be obvious without making him effeminate in a series where Mario and Peach barely show romantic affection or love. I've yet to see a solution to this or people even talking about this.. I only see an option if the main series becomes more story heavy like the RPG Mario games.
OP
OP
These a few things that are slightly incorrect here. Confusion only lasts for a limited number of turns whilst Infatuation lasts until either you switch out or the pokemon that casted it switches out or is KO'd. So in that part Infatuation is stronger. And as of Gen 7, Confusion only has a 33% to deal damage to yourself (It got nerfed between generations most likely because of Prankster Swagger from the Genies of Healthy Meta, just like Thunder Wave did).
That does show that if it becomes a dominant strat, they can rebalance accordingly as they have done so in the past.
Your talk about Redundant Items actually reminded me about the Destiny Knot held item though. Whilst it got re-worked to now carry over Parent IVs to the infant, it also makes it so that if you get Infatuated, the opponent get's infatuated as well. In Infatuation is too prevalent, Destiny Knot already acts as a counter to the move.
I don't think the Game Balance really should be the biggest factor think about for this issue though.
As a masc hetro who claims to support the LGBT community; I find this thread baffling. Shouldn't you all be getting gay married in San Francisco and leaving the rest of us alone? Why the need to make regular guys being dudes uncomfortable by questioning the miasma of underlying hetronormativity that pervades our society? Besides, this cartoonish representation of romantic interaction is a gameplay mechanic, and thus above reproach.
I'm fine with Attract still being just gender based, because they're animals and all.
However, a broken ass 'Mon with an ability that allows to bypass the gender requirement and nods to the existence of homossexual behaviour in nature would be great (and broken). Think of it like Corrosion, but with Attract.
However, a broken ass 'Mon with an ability that allows to bypass the gender requirement and nods to the existence of homossexual behaviour in nature would be great (and broken). Think of it like Corrosion, but with Attract.
I like this idea. Though I do agree that we should definitely start at humans first.
I honestly can't imagine Gamefreak bothering with something like this. They're known for making some of the most baffling decisions and choices. Especially with what's going on with this gen of games.
1) Infatuation would be busted if it affected all Pokemon.
2) They're animals, not people, they don't quite work the same as us.
2) They're animals, not people, they don't quite work the same as us.
I don't think any Pokemon are actually former humans. If you're talking about the occasional Pokedex entries like Yamask those come off more like folk tales made up about the Pokemon in the context of the Pokemon world not an actual fact. I feel like they would want to go into the people becoming Yamask when they die if that was a real thing.
And yeah some pokemon are more human-like than others but at the end of the day they're animals, the established Pokemon professors of the world don't even know where Pokemon eggs come from so I don't think this is really a thing Pokemon needs to do. Plus if we want to say Pokemon are basically like humans, that brings a lot of weird and bad implications to many things in the series.
Yeah, that's really all they would do. Just have a married couple that are the same sex.
In Gold and Silver, you interrupt Misty while she's on a date with a guy. You could do the same thing with any character and just have them be the same sex. You're right that it's probably not best to make a character a stereotype just to confirm they're gay. I earlier said I always saw Burgh as gay but I can see that's not really fair to assume. He's a bit eccentric but it could just be because he's an artist.