When can the Pokédex be taken seriously?

[The Outrage]

We all know the Pokedex has a lot of nonsensical entries, some people decide to take what is said with a grain of salt, others hold the stance that everything is bullshit, while others still only take in what fits into their Pokemon world view. I've seen users cal BS on the Pokedex then use its entries to justify their theories.

So when can a Pokedex be taken seriously?

When the Pokedex gives ridiculous numbers

Personally, any time the Pokedex puts up real numbers in their entry such as claiming that Machamp "can launch a flurry of 1,000 punches in just two seconds" we have to take that with a grain of salt and realize that the game developers just decided to put in a cool number and didn't think that its fans would be obsessive enough to check on their numbers. However, you cannot discount the fact that the Pokemon can probably punch really fast. That's basically the issue with a lot of Pokemon sizes, and more prominently, their weight. But let's all not forget that these are also probably the average size of an adult representative (or representative of the age of the majority in the case of evolutions that progress like aging) of that species so that we don't have people wondering how a one tonne Snorlax fit into an egg. Honestly, I am baffled by those statements especially after learning Game Freak's excus reason for bad graphics in the early games is that they wanted the fans to use their imagination.

When the Pokedex gives an over-exaggeration

Using Machamp as an example again, the Pokedex says that "one arm alone can move mountains". Again, that is probably just Game Freak's attempt at following the rule of cool, but fans need to learn what a damn hyperbole is. Just because a person says they are so hungry they can eat a horse does not mean they actually can.


hy·per·bo·le
   /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Show Spelled[hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
–noun Rhetoric .
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

When the Pokedex claims something happened in mythology or that legends state that...

It's exactly what it says on the tin so I don't know why people argue about whether Arceus is a god, because it is in Sinnoh myth. BTW, Bronzong is also seen as a god of harvest to ancient people in Sinnoh.

Now of course, considering that when it comes to the big name legendary Pokemon, Game freak usually takes the approach that all myths are true, if a dex entry says that a llama created the universe, chances are its true.

It of course, also helps that people don't misinterpret the Pokedex and assume that just because they believe in a monotheistic all-powerful all-knowing capital "G" god, that it is the same for a fictional deity that isn't even based off of that God.

When the Pokedex does not state that it comes from mythology or legend but sound like it does

The example used this time is Banette, where it apparently came to life when "a cursed energy permeated the stuffing of a discarded and forgotten plush doll, giving it new life..."

Really, when it sounds like an urban myth or superstition, especially with Ghost Pokemon who absolutely love these kinds of entries, it is probably what you think, an urban myth.

Perhaps there is truth in what is said and a Shuppet may have possessed a doll before evolution but it does not mean it is true, nor does it mean its a lie. Ranger Jack Walker brings up a good point with Parasect. In these events where you are wondering if it can be taken seriously, take a look on what it is based on. Chances are, if it is based on superstition or urban legends, then that may be what the entry is giving you, an urban legend. In the case of Parasect, it is based on truth, so its dex entry isn't lying.

 

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I usually ignore the information given when it descibes their capabilities. Like you said, Machamp's entries contain over exaggeration as do Pidgeot, Hitmonchan, etc.

Something that describes the Pokemon and the environment can be taken seriously. Like the Parasect's entry stating the Mushroom taking over its body, though creepy, is believabe.

Concerning Myths, some seem ridiculous, like Regigigas towing the continents with ropes. Regigigas shaping the continents is believabe but the 'towing the continents' part is probably just a representation of its strength.

 

[The Outrage]

I usually ignore the information given when it descibes their capabilities. Like you said, Machamp's entries contain over exaggeration as do Pidgeot, Hitmonchan, etc.

Something that describes the Pokemon and the environment can be taken seriously. Like the Parasect's entry stating the Mushroom taking over its body, though creepy, is believabe.

Which also has basis in truth.

I guess if you really are confused, go and look at what the Pokemon is based off of. Is it's dex entries also based on urban legends and superstition like most ghost Pokemon? If so then perhaps the entries are based on that as well.

Concerning Myths, some seem ridiculous, like Regigigas towing the continents with ropes. Regigigas shaping the continents is believabe but the 'towing the continents' part is probably just a representation of its strength.

I wouldn't consider Regigigasa big named legendary.

i dont read it that often but once in a while i will!

And that has to do anything with this thread how?

 

[gaara-naruto_fan]

i dont read it that often but once in a while i will!

 

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I've already read those articles. I gave Parasect as an example because that article immediately came to mind on reading your post.

 

[gaara-naruto_fan]

i agree ranger jack walker

 

[Yotsuba]

I looked in on this a second ago, then came back and noticed you included my Jupetta observation. *lol*

But as for what I believe...I think you pretty much nailed it on the head. With the exception of the legendaries, most weird stories probably aren't true, though I do think they may occasionally use the legendary aspect to get away with SOME falsehoods. Either that or use it as an excuse to add things that weren't originally there.

Latias is never mentioned as being able to transform into a human (the entry only says she can refract light to make herself invisible), but the anime added it anyways.

 

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Concerning numbers, Game Freak probably wrote the entries to appeal to the target audience, ie, kids. Take Combusken for example. They will see its Pokédex entry and read that it can kicks at the rate of 10 kicks per second. They'll go, "Oh cool!" and not care about it again.

 

[The Outrage]

I looked in on this a second ago, then came back and noticed you included my Jupetta observation. *lol*

But as for what I believe...I think you pretty much nailed it on the head. With the exception of the legendaries, most weird stories probably aren't true, though I do think they may occasionally use the legendary aspect to get away with SOME falsehoods. Either that or use it as an excuse to add things that weren't originally there.

Latias is never mentioned as being able to transform into a human (the entry only says she can refract light to make herself invisible), but the anime added it anyways.

Yeah, on your point with the other thread about Arceus and its a thousand arms, while the games do seem to go with the "all myths are true" approach with it, humans weren't around at the creation of the universe and obviously added details considering that people are such unreliable story tellers (perhaps just metaphors for the Unown? But that's another topic all together, which i did create awhile back) As such, even non-legendary Pokemon like Spiritomb may have had stories tacked onto them. Yeah, they're Pokemon stuck onto rocks, but how fun would that be? Let's spice it up by saying its a compilation of 108 souls! The story that it terrorized people in the past may be true, but how embarrassing would it be if people just had their city destroyed by any old Pokemon? Why not say that it was a Pokemon created by 108 human souls!

Concerning numbers, Game Freak probably wrote the entries to appeal to the target audience, ie, kids. Take Combusken for example. They will see its Pokédex entry and read that it can kicks at the rate of 10 kicks per second. They'll go, "Oh cool!" and not care about it again.

Basically, hence my original point that they didn't expect us to check the numbers. While a Combusken probably can't kick that fast, it is a fast kicker.

 

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I wouldn't consider Regigigasa big named legendary.

Yeah maybe not. But its still big enough for people to be supposedly be so afraid of it that they sealed it at the bottom of a temple and seal the keys in another region entirely with an overly complicated method of realising the keys.

 

[The Outrage]

Yeah maybe not. But its still big enough for people to be supposedly be so afraid of it that they sealed it at the bottom of a temple and seal the keys in another region entirely with an overly complicated method of realising the keys.

Yeah, that is obviously true, but I don't think they feared it because it can pull continents. It was probably feared for its power though.

 

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I don't know, its a little confusing.

Some entries desribe the pokemon's environment and the way it behaves. Like Sceptile basking in the sun and raising plants. Entries like these are obviously true.

 

[Sith Droideka]

So your problem is that the Pokédex is taken too seriously or that the Pokédex is overanalyzed? It's not really obvious. Plus, you have to admit that most of those numbers are hyperboles of hyperboles.

 

[The Outrage]

So your problem is that the Pokédex is taken too seriously or that the Pokédex is overanalyzed? It's not really obvious. Plus, you have to admit that most of those numbers are hyperboles of hyperboles.

Redundantly redundant much?

I don't see what my problem with the Pokedex has to do with the actual topic at hand "When can the Pokedex be taken seriously?" It's not like that question is hidden, its in the title. The subsequent post has me explaining when I think it can be taken seriously. I don't know, but this is a forum meant for discussion so yeah >_>

I'm pretty sure the last sentence of the first paragraph kind of explains what my problem is. "I've seen users cal BS on the Pokedex then use its entries to justify their theories." If that was too much of a hidden message, its the fact that users only take the Pokedex seriously when it suits their theories and call BS when it doesn't, hence the following question "So when can a Pokedex be taken seriously?" Really, that entire two-sentence paragraph outlined what the problem was:

An inconsistency with how literal people treat the Pokedex.

 

[thetifftiff]

Well you have to consider how the pokedex is supposedly created in game cannon. You catch a pokemon in a ball and suddenly the dex knows these things about it. The regional professor always says he needs your help completing it and implies you are putting that information in. So the question is, how much can you trust a ten year old's information in something he just met?

 

[Geodude]

Concerning Myths, some seem ridiculous, like Regigigas towing the continents with ropes. Regigigas shaping the continents is believabe but the 'towing the continents' part is probably just a representation of its strength.

Not to mention the strength of the ropes.

 

[Shizuka]

Coz if they made pokedex too scientific, it would bore the kids.


Bottom line, pokedex gives exaggerated & myth infos. That explains why Ash Ketchum is getting dumber..

 

[The Outrage]

Saying something can release a flurry of 1000 punches in two second or a slightly more realistic number isn't going to make a kid's head hurt because if they didn't care about it, they wouldn't think about it.

It's not like its a scientific journal, its more of a fun facts thing which really wouldn't bore them. We know why the Pokedex do it, this isn't what the thread is about. It's about when people can take it seriously.

 

[Bikini Miltank]

When anything is prefaced by "According to legend..." or "It is said that..." then it's time to deploy large grains of salt. This is one of the issues I have with Arceus. The 'dex doesn't talk about its abilities at all, just about how people used to worship it as a god. Now, this is arguably understandable from an in-game perspective: if Arceus is an incredibly rare species, then perhaps the only data the 'dex has on it is from myth. This doesn't explain the legions of fans taking said myths at face value when they are explicitly stated to be myths, but I guess that's fandom for you.

 

[The Outrage]

When anything is prefaced by "According to legend..." or "It is said that..." then it's time to deploy large grains of salt. This is one of the issues I have with Arceus. The 'dex doesn't talk about its abilities at all, just about how people used to worship it as a god. Now, this is arguably understandable from an in-game perspective: if Arceus is an incredibly rare species, then perhaps the only data the 'dex has on it is from myth. This doesn't explain the legions of fans taking said myths at face value when they are explicitly stated to be myths, but I guess that's fandom for you.

Except the Sinjoh ruins event, but besides that, its no reason you can't call something like Arceus, Dialga or Palkia or even the lake trios as gods, because, after all, they were gods in Sinnoh mythology.

You wouldn't disagree in saying that Zeus was a god in Greek mythology or that Vishnu is a god in the Hindu religion, so why deny that Arceus is a god in Sinnoh mythology? Like I mentioned in my first post, even Bronzong was revered as a god of harvest by some ancient people of Sinnoh (though the terminology was more obvious in a Japanese translation of the dex entries).

Now, if people are arguing that it is the creation god of the entire Pokemon world, that you can argue, but considering that Game Freak's stance is that "all myths are true" when it comes to these guys, its not like its not a valid arguing point. Now mistaking it as an all-powerful god, that is something that isn't hinted at.

Of course, that's not to say that what you are saying isn't actually a canon belief in the Pokemon world since Cynthia says this in the Celestic ruins:

"...Dialga's Roar of Time...Palkia's Spacial Rend...To the people back then, those Pokémon really must have appeared to rule over time and space. Seeing them must have shaken the people to their very core. This painting represents those feelings of awe, wonder, and everything else. It passed that memory to countless people, eventually becoming a myth...That's what I believe as a researcher of myths. I think I let myself get carried away and talked for far too long. I'm sorry, and thank you. Let's meet again."

Of course, unlike what you said, there's nothing to believe that there is even a modern-day religion that still worship Arceus, so as far as it goes as a god, its on the level of Zeus and other gods of ancient religions.