That's a good point, but if real-life organisms had Pokémon types, we would be complaining about the prevalence of Bug-types (while probably ignoring Grass-type prevalence) so might aswell
Honestly...If you're gonna end up making the project less and less like Pokémon, I guess I wouldn't mind the removal of Bug types all that much. I would be interested to see if you're gonna add any types that were previously not in Pokémon to compensate for these changes. Like a Light Type or something.
@@CoralReaper707 "Magic" type kind of falls under Psychic already though. (Magic Guard, Magic Bounce, Magic Room, etc.) Fairy seems more like the "Good" type to me given how it beats Dark types.
I would combine the water and ice type if you want to make room for a new type. They feel too similar especially for a science region where snow/ice dont really have a lot of unique ideas that can be made for different mons
I think the issue with not including a ice type substitute is you couldn't translate low temperature well. Yes, water and ice are very similar atomically. But Ice types in Pokémon don't just consist of Pokémon made of literal ice, but also Pokémon that live in cold climates. Although, they could get away with no including low temperature related designs to avoid the issue.
@@socialistrepublicofvietnam1500 I agree. Ice type would be better as a cold type instead of a frozen water type. The same could be said about fire, making it more of a heat type, but I don't think the latter would change much.
I like 15 types. It's the first odd composite that isn't a square. Though if you continue to rework the types, dark has a lot of overlap with fighting and ghost. Also, psychic, fairy, and ghost have a lot of overlap with each other. Those 5 could realistically be condensed into 2 or 3.
@@aspiringwayfarer off the top of my head, dark overlaps more with fighting. Like, most dark moves are just "fighting dirty" like payback, pursuit, and knock off. The only ghostly dark types I can think of are sableye and spiritomb, which are ghost type, and Darkrai, which really should be ghost.
@@Whoeverheis11 Dark and Fighting are unique enough to me, as they're more tactic-element based, and also; Dark is being plain tricksy and mischievous, while Fighting is, well, noble combating. Kind of like, good against bad again. Also makes sense as to how Fighting beats Dark.
@@Whoeverheis11 ehh, yes there is the fighting dirty element, but there's also a lot of creepy/evil creatures: murkrow, houndoom, basically all the gen 2 actually, absol, grimsnarl, and hydreigon come to mind.
@@tsawy6 Yes but those don't add any ghostly elements. Thematically, ghost is tied to the concept of death whereas dark is just the general concept of "evil" It's even called evil type in Japan. THE IMPORTANT THING is it doesn't need to exist if this isn't a pokemon game.
I've always liked the concept of a "nature" type, a type that encapsulates all aspects of forests and their flora and fauna, from rainforests to savannahs. It might not work for a more scientific region, and admittedly it does contrast with things like the classic Earth type a bit as well, but the reason I suggest this is it would fit Atelgo perfectly; Bugs, Trees, and Monkeys all fall into a "nature" or "forest" type quite nicely!
It might be good to know more about the game mechanics because mechanics can impact design even if that design is just what elements you have in the game. As an example if you do something like Temtem and have it be all dual battles, you could have your creatures have "Elements" and "Creature Types" with creature type having no direct rule usage but being purely a referable variable, in which case you could have Creature Types line up with morphology and then be referenced. So a move might do "This does 30 ranged water damage, however if your other monster is an insect or plant this poisons this creature and the target." This would increase build composition because it adds something other then element and stats to how your team is built. (In this case you would have plant as morphology and maybe "Nature" as element and you could have a plant that does not have the "Nature" element.) I am not suggesting that you use this mechanic, it is entirely an example of mechanical effect on design nothing else.
As much as I absolutely love the bug type, for your purposes, I think it'd be best to cut the type. Vikavolt, Dustox, Masquerain, etc would benefit from removing bug to replace with another
Thank you so much for the bug warning I have Entomophobia(fear of bugs)(and Arachnophobia) and when people randomly put images of bugs and spiders in videos without warning I have to quickly cover it up, but this just made me so happy that it had a warning
Honestly even though I'm very biased to keep bugs in, I definitely understand especially in wanting to separate yourself more from Pokémon. I however think bug has a lot of potential especially in regards to STEMA as a whole, Pokémon uses the bug type for a lot more then just insects and I think it could be a more interesting approach that instead of removing it entirely to rework it into more of an arthropod type. There is also the fact that while bugs coverage is pretty bad most of the time, its a really effective and easy to access counter to Psy and dark, and acts as one of the few walls to your Geo type. Beyond bug type I would love to see how you plan to tackle fairy type as in my opinion its pretty much equal to Dragon in terms of uniqueness to Pokémon and I feel you could definitely do something interesting by merging or adapting it into a magic/fantasy/light type.
The only issue i have with losing bug type would be losing out on “buggy” designs. Bug is my absolute favorite type by far, but it certainly has to do with the designs more than the raw typing itself.
Suggestions Incase you want a smaller type pool: my number idea is combining the dark and ghost but I wouldn't be surprised if you considered removing them both entirely since I don't know what you do for a stem based dark and ghost type my other suggestions is removing or replacing the fairy type with a light type or something similar or combine it with the psychic type for a esp type of some kind
It could be a Paranormal type, a concept made from a lack of data come to existence. This might be a STEM based universe, but there are always questions and conspiracy theories that come from a lack of understanding and reference.
For me, in a region entirely based on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Bug types are pretty important, as it represents a huge part of Biology. There are so many species of Insects, Arachnids and the like that can be put in Pokemon and some has very unique properties or behaviors that can be used as a reference for future Pokemon Designs. Take the orchid mantis for example. It mimics Orchid Flowers so they can hunt unsuspecting prey. So what did Pokemon do? They reversed it. Fomantis and Lurantis is a plant that mimics Mantises, not to hunt, but to defend themselves from Predators. There are so many to real life creatures that can be considered as bug types of that can be used as a reference here, so no I think you should keep bug types in.
Yeah. Dragons made sense to remove as they're often just boiled down into lizardy creatures but I think that bugs are pretty distinct especially as they come directly from a real world thing. Bugs are so different from other living things, what with their hard exoskeletons, weird metamorphic life cycles, and outnumbering all other living things 10-1 in both population and species, that they're deserving of their own type. If anything, we could just buff bug type. Some of these type matchups make no sense.
If you wanna keep Bug as a type without changing it in any way, Pokémon should have the egg groups/body shapes give secondary effects to each mon. Sort of like how Genderless isn't an elemental type, but it does effect conditions and abilities based on a Pokémon's gender. Or like how not every Flying mon can learn Fly and not every Water mon can learn Surf.
I really would prefer if you kept the bug type or something similar to it. A specifically underdog type is something I really find charming, and a type for little creepy crawlers is one I think is important!
BAZINGA! Jokes aside, I think it is entirely reasonable to 'abolish' the bug type. My thought process for Pokémon has always been that bug type represents all forms of insects and insectoid-like creatures/animals. That being said, Normal appears to represent mammals (at least majority of them) and birds, or even just 'animals' in general. Why do bugs get special treatment? Probably because of the roots for Pokémon's creation, in bug-catching IRL. Mystic Umbreon had an interesting video where he expanded on the Pokémon types, and to avoid making it overly complex and convoluted, he separated them into three distinct categories of types. IIRC, there were Body Types, Element Types and Style Types. Bird, Animal and 'Bug"/Insect would all fall under body type in this scenario. Your types, however, seem to to be downsizing (personally, I like this a lot and I also think its a good way to differentiate from Pokémon). So, in this sense, I say, why not have bug under Normal? Why not have "Normal" represent animals and other more "natural" creatures that we would expect to see in our real word. All the other types can represent fantastical or fictional additions. I didn't wake up today expecting to write an essay on Pokémon types, but here I am, the rest of this will just be my thoughts and ideas. Feel free to disregard, but if you've already read this far then I'll assume you're at least interested in hearing this. Personally, I completely agree with the first half of your type system (Normal, Pyro, Hydro, Dendro, Electro, Cryo, Aero & Geo - I'm assuming that's what there called apologies if I'm wrong) but the rest is where I think Pokémon has more of its own identity and honestly I've recently been struggling to see the reasons behind justifying these types to begin with (Psychic, Fighting, Dark, Ghost, Steel, Poison, Fairy - & Dragon which you've gotten rid of and I agree with that too) First of all, Fighting & Psychic - I think this comes down to personal preference, but when it comes to the attacks in Pokémon being "Physical" and "Special" … I honestly don't see why we can't just consider these to be "Martial" & "Mental" attacks, respectively. In which case (again, matter of opinion) I don't really see a reason to have either original typing. Secondly, I think most elements of ghost & psychic can be combined under what I like to call the "Mystic" type - that being anything otherworldly, even magical or unexplainable in nature. Thirdly, I can see why someone would want to keep the Dark type, but personally I only see that for the elemental reasons - shadow, darkness. In terms of "Evil" or whatnot, i think that's better left outside of the type reasoning. In a similar sense, Fairy type is kind of like the magic/light type of Pokémon and with magic under the "Mystic" type, I don't see why we can't just have a Light type, and yes i guess it is electromagnetism and bares a lot of similarity to an electric type, but i view electric as more of an energy type. In this sense, Fire, Electric & Light are kind of like three sides of an energy type. Second to last point! Steel & Poison. I can see why we would keep steel/Metal, although I always argue with myself why not put it under the geo type, I do see how distinct it can be and if we focus on it being more like rare-earth minerals than i find it easier to get behind. That being said, poison. Poison never made too much sense to me. Is it acid? Pollution? Venom? If its connected to animals then why not have it as a secondary effect? That is to say, snake-like Pokémon may have an ability where they can inflict the poisoned status condition after using biting moves. In which case, it doesn't seem like it should be a type on its own - unless it represents more than that - decay, corrosion, etc. My sentiments go like this - why not have a chemical type? I suppose everything is a chemical, and this might be better named under "Acid" type. But I really like the idea of having anything nuclear, corrosive, poisonous, venomous, or even decay of any kind fall under this kind of type. There is certainly room for improvement here but I do think it is interesting to consider. FINALLY, I like the COSMIC TYPE please add the COSMIC TYPE please and thank you - i think it can fit a really nice niche where none of the earthly elements can really affect it (and maybe its neutral in return?) but I've always like the idea of space and time being some ethereal, higher dimensional power. I would personally only reserve this type for the powerful legendary Pokémon like Arceus, Palkia, Dialga, Giratina. Maybe Eternatus and Mega Rayquaza (he lives in the ozone i give him a pass). TLDR; - abolish bug, group it under normal if you want to. - do we need fighting and psychic types? physical and special moves sound like "martial" and "mental" attacks to me. - a "mystic" type could represent ghost & psychic, and even elements of dark and/or fairy. - instead of Dark & Fairy why not Dark & Light as elemental types? - why have a poison type when you could have chemical/acid type? - consider a cosmic type 0.o Thank you for your time and if anyone read all of this I salute you!
I agree, cosmic type would be so cool to have. It makes no sense that no RPG in existence has ever implemented a space attribute. Also, metals may come from the Earth but it has vastly different properties from rocks and stones so I'd hate to see them grouped together for this reason.
Also, you would think that Pokémon has a few Pokémon that either come from space, or are vaguely cosmic (like Jirachi, Rayquaza, and Minior) and could be reworked as a Cosmic type. Even Gothitelle would be a space type because it feels like a Pokémon who would stare into space, as would Solrock and Lunatone being of unknown origin. A few other things could be made Cosmic type just so that Cosmic type is not shunted Psychic types and Rayquaza, like Bunnelby (for the moon rabbit myth), Clefairy line (for being described as associated with the moon), and other Pokémon that could have references to celestial objects, like the Teddiursa line.
@iantaakalla8180 I 100% agree with this. And Gothitelle makes perfect sense since the dex entries mention how they study the stars and have a psychic connection to the way planets and stars affect terrestrial life. And you can't forget Beeheeyem, Elgyem, Magnezone, Ultra Beasts, or Eternatus!
idk if you already have plans for the normal type, but perhaps you could consider going with more of like a "beast" or "animal" type and just have your arthropod based creatures fall under that type instead? and if you wanted to replace it with a new type, maybe you could add like an artificial type for manmade objects, to act as a counterpart to the natural animal type? also, Bazinga.
I apreciate you trying to simplify types. Removing all the organic types is one way to do it. Another way may be to rework the organic types in a more science based way ... Like a 'Beast type' which might combine Normal and Dragon and an 'Invertibrate' type, which may combine Bug, some Poison, and crustecean and octopus designs. I myself have thought about adding a 'Germinator' type / 'Germ' type, which would include bacteria, and fungi, and general blobby mons. Alternatley, you could do a 'Predator ' Type which would combine Dragon, Dark, some normals,and some bugs and a 'Prey'/'Critter' Type which would replace normal and some bugs. I think this would work for you because it reduces the number of types, and references ecological concepts. Predator would obviously be SE on prey. This would use type matchups to demonstrate ecology/ the biomass pyramid. Predator > Prey > Plant > Earth & Water Maybe Fighting type represents humans so it would be fighting > predator etc Alternately, call it 'Carnivore' and 'Herbivore' type. Herbivore would be SE on Plant of course.
This is interesting since there's types that refer to elemental power vs. physical traits. Dragon and Bug both refer to magical reptilian appearance/bug species while types like Fire and Ice refer to the elemental powers or environment the creature channels. Maybe thats a good way to categorize Pokemon style creatures, but if you're specifically focused on a real world science themed game, you could categorize creatures more scientifically by their biological traits. Then, elemental or magical traits could be a separate piece of info, but that could be too complicated. Like a Bug/Bird eco type with a Rock/Air elemental type would be too much. ...That's assuming you're doing some fun creatures that don't adhere to a single species category, a mono Bug eco type with Rock/Air could be less info to analyze matchups with, especially if the eco types don't contribute to the normal Pokemon battle calculations. Fun to think about how to change up stuff for your unique game
I entertain the idea of Monbogo for some moves creating orbs or "bubbles" to attack to reference bubble sort, which is probably the most well known "meme" sorting method. (Although it does have it's uses.)
Like I do like the Bug type, and I feel it fits better with your system aesthetic than something like Dragon or Fairy, I do think 16 sounds like a good number of types and I would be really interested in seeing what custom type you make
i like this honestly! as much as i love bug types cutting it is definitely more original for your independent project. plus, you could always pair it with the flying equivalent if it flies and you need a second typing!
I like the idea of a bug type, entomology is one of my favorite sciences after all. I wouldn't actually mind a few types that correspond to different branches of life (dendro does refference plants after all)
Personally, I would mix the dragon/bug type into a single "beast" type, which could capture both the strong and weak aspects of bug and dragon. It could also allow for better balancing, because of bug being so weak, and dragon being pretty strong, a mix could be a good average type. It's right in the middle, and could open up many new possibilities.
I personally would have kept the bug type- but make it an arthro or arthropod type- including crustaceans, bugs, arachnids and all relatives. As arthropods are the largest phylum of animals, I feel it’s hard pressed not to take advantage of the power the phylum has. It can even be perceived as an “elemental” type, as there’s a LOT that arthropods exclusively throw out- silk/ spider webs, honey, scales and powders from Lepidopterans (butterfly and moth), the power of a swarm, pheromones, exoskeleton, etc. By making it this new type, you can fix the problems of bug while still making it an underdog type- mainly by removing resistances that don’t make sense- like to fairy
I feel attacked as Bug is my favorite type. I do like having more explicit (insect/creepy crawly buggy thing) represented as a type. Pokemon's bug type incorporates lots of these unique design options: - having a proboscis - being able to produce silk/web - having natural armor with a carapace - having abilities related how hive minds or swarms - having gimiky side effects to avoid damage or scuttle around - etc... Plus, I love the bugs you made and just shared, and each seems like the bug type moves would fit them. ***I love the binary search tree reference. As a Software Engineer, I approve!
I mean, you can have cool designs and bug-related moves without a bug type. I'd say if there's a bug type then there needs to be a beast, bird and reptile type too, but N0r is removing the reptile type and re-theming the flying (bird) type so that wouldn't work
I think having a bug type in a science focused lens would be actually pretty neat! There's a lot of stuff that bugs do uniquely, for one: the firefly. Sure, you could go for a fire-flying, but it wouldn't catch the same vibe. There's also the fact that, if there was a plain spider, that thing should not be in the normal-type. I think it's more for an aesthetic and keeping things organized. Would vespiquen be pure flying? Psychic? That's the issue here! It's very case-by-case with what would replace it, and there's also the fact of grass type already encompassing both botanical and fungal aspects, so we shouldn't just lump it in with those. Dragon type was a type to represent pure power, but the designs didn't do a good job of portraying that aspect.
I really enjoy your tweaks to what is seeming to be both your own concept & an homage at the same time! Plus your art style is very memorable & pleasant.
I quite like the bug type, it's quite a distinctive one, as you can usually know a mon has it just by the design (which is something you can't say of the dragon typing). I'm not really attached to the underdog element pokemon associates with it, but can't deny that it could be good to have an easily distinguished "weak" category for challenge runs. On the other hand, a type that I think doesn't add much is the fairy type, not only it's a type that is almost only in pokemon, in matters of design a lot of times it's just "If pokemon pink Then fairy" with no extra thought put into it.
I think you should keep the Bug-type You mentioned no other creature-capture game has the Bug-type, so maybe if you want to stand out among them you can make a Bug type Also you should probably make a Light-type (not replacing the Charm type, but Fairy is also one of those types that typically gets cut like Bug, Ghost, and Dragon) because literally no alternative to Pokémon that I have seen does that and Light is one of the most obvious types For pre-existing types, you really need to separate the Ghost and Dark types They are very similar in their themes, their type match-ups are similar, a lot of things about them are similar You should probably separate them
I always felt the existence of Bug, Dragon, and Ghost as types was a nod to monster classifications in RPGs like D&D (Vermin, Dragon, and Undead). An idea I've had for an alternate take on Pokemon types that I've never fleshed out is to make the distinction between "creature" types like Bug/Dragon/Ghost/Fairy + new ones like Mineral (for the Pokemon that are literally composed of clay, rock, or metal) and Aberration (for oddballs like Swalot, Deoxys, Sigiylph, Guzzlord, etc.) versus "elemental" types that people traditionally think of when they think RPG elements. Creature types could also correspond to egg groups and the 2 classifications of types could even possibly justify going back to the old physical/special mechanics of the first 3 gens (since I know there are a few people out there who actually liked that).
Funny this video came to my recommended feed. I have 9 "types" (I call them attributes) in my project and 8 of them are weak to two others (a direct opposite and a complement) while resisting themselves except for the 9th one, which only resists itself and is neutral to/against everything else. So I have this attribute that encompasses animals/beasts, plants and insects. For the most part it would be equivalent to Pokemon's bug/grass/ground so I honestly have no idea how to name it since my naming convention describes a monster's general qualities. For example, an electric monster would be Voltaic, a light/magical monster would be Radiant and so on.
Honestly was thinking about how to consolidate types, and Bug and Grass could just be lumped together into an “Eco” type or “Nature” type. Kinda like Green in Magic the Gathering.
Scizor is fuming rn Jokes aside, I’d say it’s better to rework the bug type than to remove it entirely. If you were Differentiate it from grass more, and _not bully it into the fricken ground,_ i think the bug type could bring it’s own unique pros/cons to the table. If you do get rid of the bug type, I’d like to see what type fills in its spot! Preferably something that needs the fairy & steel types a bit (although fairy did lose its immunity, it still is only weak to poison and steel, which both aren’t very offensive types)
I think bug type can make 2 Big changes with it 1 if You attack some types with bug attacks that the first hit is weak then no more (Best option fairy and poison) this inspired in the fact of bugs adaptability and evolution, we can Say the attack "evolves" midway battles 2 making the Bug type a better defender, resisting fairy poison and psiquic should help a loot (maybe even having the 1 attack normal damage 2 and later no)
1 seems more like an ability than a type, very specific. 2 doesn’t really give a reason as to why it should resist Fairy, in terms of logical reasoning. (Although I do agree with resisting things it’s SE against, like psychic) Personally I say bring back gen 1s interaction with poison; both weak to _and SE against_ eachother, as well as have it be neutral against fairy (not resist it) and against ghost (never understood that relation anyways). A less specific type mechanic I’ve seen suggested here and there is to make bug immune to the confusion “status”, so you could also add that if you wanted
i feel like bug is a staple, i wish there were more bugs or bug types in mongames i mean its truly the inspiration for the genre as beetle fights and bug catching are where the whole idea is born from. its up to you in the end but my arguement for is that its part of the concept that birthed the genre as a whole and deserves more rep
Unrelated, but you kinda sound kinda similar to these other TH-camrs I watch, one is a Doom nerd, and the other is a Minecraft nerd. And now, I have a Pokémon nerd to watch. Nice.
I think in the creation of Pokémon some types where more like monster categories, like how in RPGs monsters are divided into dragons, chimeras, fairies, walking plants, the undead and so on. This idea was later applied on Egg groups where their naming convention are based on the "type" of creature they look like.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the Fighting type and whether you're keeping it as is can't wait to see what your type chart ends up looking like
I really appreciate the heads up about certain images being shown! i watched one of the videos that showed needles before starting the STEMA playlist, and it was really nice to not be surprised with it, while still getting to enjoy the actual design itself. And similar with the bug images, like, i can look at them, but i do prefer not to, and being offered the choice beforehand is... Well, i'd say it's one of my favorite parts of these videos, but that would be *massively* underselling literally everything else about the videos!
I think the Soapple line could be charm/water. It makes sense because, you know, soap, and also really hits the aesthetic for me. And/or the ability Bubblecoat should work with both rain and when hit by water type moves.
I think the Bug type deserves love, instead of removing it maybe the Best option is buff the type, having better pokemons in it's list, or even having changes like plz less types resist it (like almost there more types resisting bug than existing) and more in a science base Game where the bugs and insects are so common, they can go from biology to parasitology and even bacteria and so on, the experiments with radiation and a loot of things, just imagine a fly bug inspired in the search of DNA in the friut flys. And more so showing one topic of the Bug type that should be the adaptability, maybe making the Bug attack weak to some types the first hit then normal hit (for example fairy or poison)
you can create bug type abilities instead, like "Arachne form" giving web based attacks more base power or "legwork" giving grasshopper creatures more power in kicking moves.
I feel like if you're gonna drop bug, dragon, and modify rock/ground you've gotta go all the way and completely rework the typing system. drop everything except for the basic elements (fire, water, plants, mineral, electric, etc.) and add new ones. Maybe they could be STEM themed, with types like Physics or Chemical? (sorry if these sound bad, not much of a STEM guy but you get the gist.) maybe go all into the "inherent aspects" like you talked about with all levitating creatures avoiding ground moves, and have some "types" that are just classifications instead, like instead of there being a bug type, all bug themed creatures are for example immune to confusion/psychic attacks (due to their lack of an inner ear/"simple minds") no obligation, just brainstorming cause it's fun.
Personally, weird take maybe- but I think, especially for a STEM-based project, there's a certain level of flavor that a Bug-Type would bring. Now, I don't think one-to-one importing 'Bug' is the best move, but the aesthetics, social structures, and bizarre abilities of the arthropod world have a certain flavor and value to me. I think it'd be an interesting idea to try, with your own original setting, create something fundamental to 'Buglike' creatures that makes them special diegetically. Some kind of fundamental attribute exclusive to lil' crawloids and such.
The bug types are so itty bitty though 🥺look at the little goober 🥺 please don't smash it with a boot 🥺 On a serious note, the custom type sounds really interesting, maybe some sort of "replacement" type or something similar to it
I have been watching several of your videos and really felt the need to give some input as I really like your approach to design and content delivery. I have some ideas you might want to consider. (I was actually shocked when I saw the first evolution stage, and thought you already where going for this kind of concept.) Programming. I am talking about the implementation of algorithms. The actual writing of Code. Not the logic or rules (as you call it) behind it. An interesting theme to explore is how when you start programming you start learning basic symbols and grammar. And the more you get familiar with the language you build up confidence and start to develop an ability to express yourself and coding style becomes way more important. The journey goes from logic to expressive power, also showing a convergence between calculation and creativity. There is also programming for the sole purpose of creative expression (Which I initially thought "Monbogo" enbodies) . But where this could set itself apart from your other design is in the treatment of layers of abstraction. From low-level to high-level. For me there is this philosophical struggle wether code is written for the machine (low-level) or for human beings to express complex thoughts (high-level). Maybe this can serve as a starting point to explore the notion of language and code as a whole? Going further down this road you could also show how binary, evolved to assembly, then to compiled code all the way to interpreted code all the way to nieche DSLs like Regex or SQL which are not programming language themselves but in their ruleset and grammar encode computational functions. If you really wanna have a challenge look into the concept of Category Theory for a pokemon evolution line based on the idea of categorical composition. Monoid -> Functor -> Monad. It won't get more abstract than this ^^ I second the removal of Bug, as it is just a creature type for the same reason as with the Dragon type. They always felt redundand and not in line with the remaining more material/elemental based types of pokemon. Even tho I will not deny that the focus on exactly these aspects have brought forward some very cool designs. In my past world-building crafting I considered replacing or expanding the bug type to a fauna kind of type as a compliment to the more plant based "grass" type, together representing the main biological types. Maybe that could also work in your case. Same goes with Psychic and Fighting, which for me should be switched into "Spiritual" and "Body", like in psychological vs physiological problems. Going one step further, by combining it with Ghost you could make a trio of "Body - Mind - Spirit". I honestly felt that ghost should be merged with dark aswell anyways, similar to how you merged ground and rock into geo. Sorry, a lot of rambling, maybe you find a spark of inspiration in this mess. Rooting your design process in scientific research and abstracting it into appealing designs really resonates with me. Keep up the good work!
i do think a bug type would be interesting if used in a scientific way, and perhaps with another class of animals as a contrast, but i can see it changing dramatically to maybe include any insect with a hard shell. i could see water being split into possibly hydro and aquatic, as in a difference between actual water and fish. and i could see fairy, ghost, dark, and psychic being reworked heavily to be brand new types (probably one based around force, maybe one for quantum/theory related stuff, etc.). really it comes down to what types can be connected to a field of study, and that is something that bug type certainly can be connected to!
Please keep the bug type!! They’ve contributed so much to science as a whole!! Bugs are constantly used as test organisms, and we even use the Fruit Fly as a model organism for humans!! I get that it’s a STEAM region and not just science, but it still plays a part! Plus, you have yet to introduce a model organism fakemon. …okay you could just use a Zebrafish bUT STILL-
In the Pokémon TCG, it doesn't even have a bug type. It just groups them with the grass type. Maybe just include them with your equivalent to the grass type and call it "Nature type" or something to that effect? As much as I love the bug type, it's obviously up to you and how you want to make your game.
Arthropods would be bug-like enough a class giving bugs interesting abilities would make them more interesting bugs are like a death freshener, they get rid of what makes death bad for the environment, and yet, they also cause many deaths themselves. but they also give life by being food, providing food, protecting life from death. they are a force of life and death, a force of nature, and both hardy and delicate. they are many things, and there are many of them. there are more bug-like creatures in both variety and quantity, than any other animal.
I mean, if you are reworking types. You can consider adding types. It may sound weird but being a science project, having a gravity type would be really cool, and I guess something along the lines of a nuclear type is also something else I would try to do but it may overlap with electric and poison too much. I will miss bug type, but I understand why you would want them out of your game.
I a lover of bugs, I agree with this, like a insect is weak to fire like any other regular animal if you think about it, The problem I see is that bug is just too ordinary to realy deal with things like a slug hotter than the sun
I think it could be renamed its my favorite type and I think that removing it limits the realness some designs can get by including it. You also get a lot more normal or single types getting rid of it as well.
Since your making this project separated from Pokemon (which is really cool btw) Im fine with the changes of removing Dragon and Bug and fusing Ground and Rock into Geo. But I must say I am curious if you are planning on adding new types to fill those being removed or just keep those left. Edit: I saw you are doing that, but it would be cool to see types to fill both missing types and not just Bug.
I think in order to keep the spirit of the bugs alive, keeping them with the gimmick of evolving at low levels will help players form a mental connection between bug-like mons and non-bugs. The first one you showed off evolved at 32 and I was like 👀
I wanted to try out a Pokemon Tabletop for a TTRPG one-shot with friends, but I wasn't quite sold on the systems on offer. I wanted something simple that was easy to pick up and play in a few minutes, with reduced number crunching and rules know-how required. In that endeavour, I quickly came to the conclusion that there were too many types and that some of them had nonsensical strengths and weaknesses that I could never quite accept. So I made some changes. And then some additions. Then some subtractions. And suddenly a bunch of types were gone, either outright deleted or assimilated into other types, using the TCG as a handy reference. Then I rebalanced the types to accomodate these changes. Also repurposed Egg-groups into phenotypical Groups, which would inform available Movesets, Abilities and potential weaknesses. And finally reworked the stats so they could be translated into a simple set of dice. And at this point I realised I probably didn't want to play a Pokemon system at all, I wanted to make it my own, but Pokemon was a handy base. Which is to say I like watching these videos, because I'm on a similar journey. And I find these videos very inspirational and informative! But I'll still run that Pokemon TTRPG one-shot once I've playtested the system enough and know it works well, haha.
I like the idea of removing bug type, but if breeding or some equivalent in egg groups (splicing, tutoring, or classifications etc) are present that can be fun to preserve identity, as something lower power but more gimmicky utility, management, support, or diversity.
The thing is, the bug archetype represents something very natural in a sense unlike the grass/nature type. It's something that makes a world feel more organic without needing to be too fictitious or tied to pure elemental energy
So if you are getting rid of the rock, dragon and now bug types. You should get rid of the normal, pyhcic, fighting, poison, flying, fairy, and dark types. All you should do is add types instead of getting rid of types... BAZINGA😄
warning: cute dog images! i find it dumb since it allows for the idea that all bugs are icky i understand phobias but we all should learn to love life regardless of "grossness"
Loomian Legacy still utilizes the Bug type, with some of them being the stereotypical weaker Loomians like Cynamoth and Florant, and some of them being very strong, like Harvesect and Deludrix. We even have a bug-like, mammal-like Loomian called Buzzolen.
bazinga but in all seriousness, I think outright removing the bug type isn't quite the best idea, personally I think it would be best to redefine it, and call it something more appropriate like the "Insect" type, ans insects play a key role in the environment and are very unique organisms in their own right that have biological abilities that others don't
Man, i just wanna say that you made me like a monkey base mon design in a couple of minuets whereas Gamefreak couldn't do so in a quarter century. I really think those two are cool, and as much as I like the bug type, I feel if they were anything other than mono normal(or some sort of data type if you add it) it wouldn't feel right. Keep up the great work.
Pokemon itself I feel should have had a fungus/mushroom/mold type distinct from grass. It could be mutually super effective against bug since most arthropod have chitin in them.
I figure bug types and grass types can probably be combines into a "nature" type or like forest type or something. Also, idea... should you keep Ice types? Like cold water??? You can do what you did with the rock and ground type. Some moves have the Ice/Cold property and react differently.
To me, I’ve always seen bug as analogous for invertebrate.More specifically, carapacian (mostly) land-based ones. Plus in canon it could possibly imply that drapion develops a spine upon evolution due to it dropping the bug type
I remember you making Soapple and Sapopper have a signature move called Emulsion, 70 power special fairy type move that’s super effective on poison type and removes poison typing, yet you didn’t mention it here, do they still have that move or no?
I saw in one of the other projects you mentioned that they had a digital type. Considering how many of you designs are based on technological aspects of science, I think it might be beneficial to maybe add a tech type or something along those lines. Then again, do whatever you want. Your project, your rules.
I think something important to note is that, besides being Pokemon's resident Anti-Magic type (...ignoring that Fairy resists it--it fits too well with Steel and Poison's shared "harsh/gritty reality" theme for things Fairy is weak to for that decision to make sense anyway), it also tries to encapsulate how *having an exoskeleton* affects combat. More easily flammable, bypassed by piercing (Flying, Rock), largely resistant to bludgeoning (Fighting, Ground), etc. If your magic types don't need a counter, and you're not tying phylum/order/etc. to type in the way that early Flying tried to, the only thing left for it is a background allusion to the food web with Grass > Bug > Flying.
He should keep the bug type but make it more like a chaotic type like a computer bug for his stemmons so if theirs a quirky stem mon it'll be a bug type
I think Ice should be super effective to Bug and Bug should be super effectively against Fairy. I like Bug Type moves and Bug Type designs but they refuse to make much of a good competive Bug. There is such a wide range of bugs species in the world that they are a good foundation to build a idea off of.
Everyday we get closer to the PTCG Type chart (minus Dragon, but I never really liked the move of moving dragons out of Colorless anyway, and for reasons I'm also not a fan of PTCG groups Rock/Ground into Fighting instead of its own separate type, sooooooooooooooooo)
I have a shiny beedrill in let's go Eevee which I force fed so many weedle candies that it won't let me give it any more. That said beedrill is ridiculously powerful and can sweep the elite four and champion. I absolutely love my murderous bee and I won't let anyone talk bad about it.
Wondering what your thoughts on the ice type are. If we're removing redundant types I think it could be on the chopping block after the ones you've already gone over. I know you already have some ice types in your region so it isn't going anywhere but still.
Furthermore, as time has gone on, Ice typing is a nerf, dooms a Pokémon to be a sweeper or perish (or with slightly better bulk a set up sweeper or a wallbreaker as normal Kyurem proves), and also is basically there for other set up sweepers. Basically, Ice type in Pokémon is a combo of an archetype and a coverage move. You can remove Ice without having it affect much especially if you make some water moves freeze and relegate wintry phenomenon to Water moves.
I'm working on my own game too and I made Bug and Dragon monster families which still matter in the battle system but making them actual elements causes issues.
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
Remove bug type, so that you can add an unrestrained number of bugs without needing to worry about type prevalence
That's a good point!
That's a good point, but if real-life organisms had Pokémon types, we would be complaining about the prevalence of Bug-types (while probably ignoring Grass-type prevalence) so might aswell
@@socialistrepublicofvietnam1500 91% of all organisms are grass type
Or you could just call Bethesda an inspiration and just throw in all the bugs you like! They're *features.*
It would be funny if there were “Feature-types” that were like bug Pokémon but have glitchy behavior for that pun alone
Honestly...If you're gonna end up making the project less and less like Pokémon, I guess I wouldn't mind the removal of Bug types all that much. I would be interested to see if you're gonna add any types that were previously not in Pokémon to compensate for these changes. Like a Light Type or something.
isn't fairy already a sort of light type?
@@hopepope6573 I mean, I guess.. I've always seen fairy as like a "magic" type.
@@CoralReaper707 "Magic" type kind of falls under Psychic already though. (Magic Guard, Magic Bounce, Magic Room, etc.) Fairy seems more like the "Good" type to me given how it beats Dark types.
A "Cosmic" type would be cool to see for any creature that has these space-like elements to them.
@@glazeddoughnutgod4352 yeah a space type wold be cool I think.
Since so many of your types end in -o, you might as well go the full way and call the fairy or charm type Mytho or Ficto, then call normal type Bio.
Maybe Normal type could be Koino
Has n0Rtist explained why a "Fairy"-like type is in a STEM game in the first place? No hate, I'm just wondering if there's a reason behind it.
@@NickWrightDataYT i think he did so in the dragon video yeah
@@theREALsilviautismI checked he didn't explained but said he will in the future
If he kept bug type it could have been called arthro
I would combine the water and ice type if you want to make room for a new type. They feel too similar especially for a science region where snow/ice dont really have a lot of unique ideas that can be made for different mons
It could be called just water!... because ice is solid water and water is liquid water...
I think the issue with not including a ice type substitute is you couldn't translate low temperature well. Yes, water and ice are very similar atomically. But Ice types in Pokémon don't just consist of Pokémon made of literal ice, but also Pokémon that live in cold climates. Although, they could get away with no including low temperature related designs to avoid the issue.
Water is already Hydro but Ice should transform into a Cold-type instead (Maybe name is Cryo)
@@socialistrepublicofvietnam1500
I agree. Ice type would be better as a cold type instead of a frozen water type. The same could be said about fire, making it more of a heat type, but I don't think the latter would change much.
@@myownmeadow1320 given the fact that Skermal and Capsol are both pyro type, I bet pyro is already more related to heat than fire.
I like 15 types. It's the first odd composite that isn't a square. Though if you continue to rework the types, dark has a lot of overlap with fighting and ghost. Also, psychic, fairy, and ghost have a lot of overlap with each other. Those 5 could realistically be condensed into 2 or 3.
Yes!! I second this, ghost and dark really need to be reworked. They overlap wayyyy too much.
@@aspiringwayfarer off the top of my head, dark overlaps more with fighting. Like, most dark moves are just "fighting dirty" like payback, pursuit, and knock off. The only ghostly dark types I can think of are sableye and spiritomb, which are ghost type, and Darkrai, which really should be ghost.
@@Whoeverheis11 Dark and Fighting are unique enough to me, as they're more tactic-element based, and also;
Dark is being plain tricksy and mischievous, while Fighting is, well, noble combating.
Kind of like, good against bad again. Also makes sense as to how Fighting beats Dark.
@@Whoeverheis11 ehh, yes there is the fighting dirty element, but there's also a lot of creepy/evil creatures: murkrow, houndoom, basically all the gen 2 actually, absol, grimsnarl, and hydreigon come to mind.
@@tsawy6 Yes but those don't add any ghostly elements. Thematically, ghost is tied to the concept of death whereas dark is just the general concept of "evil" It's even called evil type in Japan. THE IMPORTANT THING is it doesn't need to exist if this isn't a pokemon game.
I've always liked the concept of a "nature" type, a type that encapsulates all aspects of forests and their flora and fauna, from rainforests to savannahs. It might not work for a more scientific region, and admittedly it does contrast with things like the classic Earth type a bit as well, but the reason I suggest this is it would fit Atelgo perfectly; Bugs, Trees, and Monkeys all fall into a "nature" or "forest" type quite nicely!
While i think a nature type would be an interesting concept, I think the bug type and grass type should stay separate
organic type
@@inertiaking1 melon brOther
In some sense I think this would include Fairy also
It might be good to know more about the game mechanics because mechanics can impact design even if that design is just what elements you have in the game.
As an example if you do something like Temtem and have it be all dual battles, you could have your creatures have "Elements" and "Creature Types" with creature type having no direct rule usage but being purely a referable variable, in which case you could have Creature Types line up with morphology and then be referenced. So a move might do "This does 30 ranged water damage, however if your other monster is an insect or plant this poisons this creature and the target." This would increase build composition because it adds something other then element and stats to how your team is built. (In this case you would have plant as morphology and maybe "Nature" as element and you could have a plant that does not have the "Nature" element.)
I am not suggesting that you use this mechanic, it is entirely an example of mechanical effect on design nothing else.
As much as I absolutely love the bug type, for your purposes, I think it'd be best to cut the type. Vikavolt, Dustox, Masquerain, etc would benefit from removing bug to replace with another
Thank you so much for the bug warning
I have Entomophobia(fear of bugs)(and Arachnophobia) and when people randomly put images of bugs and spiders in videos without warning I have to quickly cover it up, but this just made me so happy that it had a warning
@@SolidRebeI that’s foul 💀
🐛
@@SolidRebeI 💀
🦋🐛🐜🐝🐞🦗🕷️🦂🦟🦠
@@ZimVerse Last one is bacteria! also emojis do not scare me, they look much more simple
Honestly even though I'm very biased to keep bugs in, I definitely understand especially in wanting to separate yourself more from Pokémon. I however think bug has a lot of potential especially in regards to STEMA as a whole, Pokémon uses the bug type for a lot more then just insects and I think it could be a more interesting approach that instead of removing it entirely to rework it into more of an arthropod type. There is also the fact that while bugs coverage is pretty bad most of the time, its a really effective and easy to access counter to Psy and dark, and acts as one of the few walls to your Geo type. Beyond bug type I would love to see how you plan to tackle fairy type as in my opinion its pretty much equal to Dragon in terms of uniqueness to Pokémon and I feel you could definitely do something interesting by merging or adapting it into a magic/fantasy/light type.
The only issue i have with losing bug type would be losing out on “buggy” designs. Bug is my absolute favorite type by far, but it certainly has to do with the designs more than the raw typing itself.
Suggestions Incase you want a smaller type pool: my number idea is combining the dark and ghost but I wouldn't be surprised if you considered removing them both entirely since I don't know what you do for a stem based dark and ghost type my other suggestions is removing or replacing the fairy type with a light type or something similar or combine it with the psychic type for a esp type of some kind
i think you could demonstrate some interesting concepts with a magic type honestly, to cover that same sort of ground
It could be a Paranormal type, a concept made from a lack of data come to existence. This might be a STEM based universe, but there are always questions and conspiracy theories that come from a lack of understanding and reference.
@@synckar6380 mon ideas: p = np, tachyons, quasiparticles (tho lowkey exist), a bias evolutionary line, undocumented species
For me, in a region entirely based on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Bug types are pretty important, as it represents a huge part of Biology. There are so many species of Insects, Arachnids and the like that can be put in Pokemon and some has very unique properties or behaviors that can be used as a reference for future Pokemon Designs. Take the orchid mantis for example. It mimics Orchid Flowers so they can hunt unsuspecting prey. So what did Pokemon do? They reversed it. Fomantis and Lurantis is a plant that mimics Mantises, not to hunt, but to defend themselves from Predators. There are so many to real life creatures that can be considered as bug types of that can be used as a reference here, so no I think you should keep bug types in.
Yeah. Dragons made sense to remove as they're often just boiled down into lizardy creatures but I think that bugs are pretty distinct especially as they come directly from a real world thing. Bugs are so different from other living things, what with their hard exoskeletons, weird metamorphic life cycles, and outnumbering all other living things 10-1 in both population and species, that they're deserving of their own type. If anything, we could just buff bug type. Some of these type matchups make no sense.
Boneless type
If you wanna keep Bug as a type without changing it in any way, Pokémon should have the egg groups/body shapes give secondary effects to each mon. Sort of like how Genderless isn't an elemental type, but it does effect conditions and abilities based on a Pokémon's gender. Or like how not every Flying mon can learn Fly and not every Water mon can learn Surf.
“STEM” region without the type of animal that makes up the vast majority of species on earth is certainly a choice*
*a stupid choice
I really would prefer if you kept the bug type or something similar to it. A specifically underdog type is something I really find charming, and a type for little creepy crawlers is one I think is important!
And some bug types get compensation for their typing, like lokix getting tinted lens
@@Cigmacica Or the fact that many bug types get a super awesome move in quiver dance!
Bug is literally my favorite type
i just like little weird things
BAZINGA!
Jokes aside, I think it is entirely reasonable to 'abolish' the bug type. My thought process for Pokémon has always been that bug type represents all forms of insects and insectoid-like creatures/animals. That being said, Normal appears to represent mammals (at least majority of them) and birds, or even just 'animals' in general. Why do bugs get special treatment? Probably because of the roots for Pokémon's creation, in bug-catching IRL.
Mystic Umbreon had an interesting video where he expanded on the Pokémon types, and to avoid making it overly complex and convoluted, he separated them into three distinct categories of types. IIRC, there were Body Types, Element Types and Style Types. Bird, Animal and 'Bug"/Insect would all fall under body type in this scenario.
Your types, however, seem to to be downsizing (personally, I like this a lot and I also think its a good way to differentiate from Pokémon). So, in this sense, I say, why not have bug under Normal? Why not have "Normal" represent animals and other more "natural" creatures that we would expect to see in our real word. All the other types can represent fantastical or fictional additions.
I didn't wake up today expecting to write an essay on Pokémon types, but here I am, the rest of this will just be my thoughts and ideas. Feel free to disregard, but if you've already read this far then I'll assume you're at least interested in hearing this.
Personally, I completely agree with the first half of your type system (Normal, Pyro, Hydro, Dendro, Electro, Cryo, Aero & Geo - I'm assuming that's what there called apologies if I'm wrong) but the rest is where I think Pokémon has more of its own identity and honestly I've recently been struggling to see the reasons behind justifying these types to begin with (Psychic, Fighting, Dark, Ghost, Steel, Poison, Fairy - & Dragon which you've gotten rid of and I agree with that too)
First of all, Fighting & Psychic - I think this comes down to personal preference, but when it comes to the attacks in Pokémon being "Physical" and "Special" … I honestly don't see why we can't just consider these to be "Martial" & "Mental" attacks, respectively. In which case (again, matter of opinion) I don't really see a reason to have either original typing.
Secondly, I think most elements of ghost & psychic can be combined under what I like to call the "Mystic" type - that being anything otherworldly, even magical or unexplainable in nature.
Thirdly, I can see why someone would want to keep the Dark type, but personally I only see that for the elemental reasons - shadow, darkness. In terms of "Evil" or whatnot, i think that's better left outside of the type reasoning. In a similar sense, Fairy type is kind of like the magic/light type of Pokémon and with magic under the "Mystic" type, I don't see why we can't just have a Light type, and yes i guess it is electromagnetism and bares a lot of similarity to an electric type, but i view electric as more of an energy type. In this sense, Fire, Electric & Light are kind of like three sides of an energy type.
Second to last point! Steel & Poison. I can see why we would keep steel/Metal, although I always argue with myself why not put it under the geo type, I do see how distinct it can be and if we focus on it being more like rare-earth minerals than i find it easier to get behind. That being said, poison. Poison never made too much sense to me. Is it acid? Pollution? Venom? If its connected to animals then why not have it as a secondary effect? That is to say, snake-like Pokémon may have an ability where they can inflict the poisoned status condition after using biting moves. In which case, it doesn't seem like it should be a type on its own - unless it represents more than that - decay, corrosion, etc. My sentiments go like this - why not have a chemical type? I suppose everything is a chemical, and this might be better named under "Acid" type. But I really like the idea of having anything nuclear, corrosive, poisonous, venomous, or even decay of any kind fall under this kind of type. There is certainly room for improvement here but I do think it is interesting to consider.
FINALLY, I like the COSMIC TYPE please add the COSMIC TYPE please and thank you - i think it can fit a really nice niche where none of the earthly elements can really affect it (and maybe its neutral in return?) but I've always like the idea of space and time being some ethereal, higher dimensional power. I would personally only reserve this type for the powerful legendary Pokémon like Arceus, Palkia, Dialga, Giratina. Maybe Eternatus and Mega Rayquaza (he lives in the ozone i give him a pass).
TLDR;
- abolish bug, group it under normal if you want to.
- do we need fighting and psychic types? physical and special moves sound like "martial" and "mental" attacks to me.
- a "mystic" type could represent ghost & psychic, and even elements of dark and/or fairy.
- instead of Dark & Fairy why not Dark & Light as elemental types?
- why have a poison type when you could have chemical/acid type?
- consider a cosmic type 0.o
Thank you for your time and if anyone read all of this I salute you!
I agree, cosmic type would be so cool to have. It makes no sense that no RPG in existence has ever implemented a space attribute. Also, metals may come from the Earth but it has vastly different properties from rocks and stones so I'd hate to see them grouped together for this reason.
Also, you would think that Pokémon has a few Pokémon that either come from space, or are vaguely cosmic (like Jirachi, Rayquaza, and Minior) and could be reworked as a Cosmic type. Even Gothitelle would be a space type because it feels like a Pokémon who would stare into space, as would Solrock and Lunatone being of unknown origin.
A few other things could be made Cosmic type just so that Cosmic type is not shunted Psychic types and Rayquaza, like Bunnelby (for the moon rabbit myth), Clefairy line (for being described as associated with the moon), and other Pokémon that could have references to celestial objects, like the Teddiursa line.
@iantaakalla8180 I 100% agree with this. And Gothitelle makes perfect sense since the dex entries mention how they study the stars and have a psychic connection to the way planets and stars affect terrestrial life. And you can't forget Beeheeyem, Elgyem, Magnezone, Ultra Beasts, or Eternatus!
They're*
idk if you already have plans for the normal type, but perhaps you could consider going with more of like a "beast" or "animal" type and just have your arthropod based creatures fall under that type instead? and if you wanted to replace it with a new type, maybe you could add like an artificial type for manmade objects, to act as a counterpart to the natural animal type?
also, Bazinga.
I apreciate you trying to simplify types. Removing all the organic types is one way to do it. Another way may be to rework the organic types in a more science based way ... Like a 'Beast type' which might combine Normal and Dragon and an 'Invertibrate' type, which may combine Bug, some Poison, and crustecean and octopus designs. I myself have thought about adding a 'Germinator' type / 'Germ' type, which would include bacteria, and fungi, and general blobby mons. Alternatley, you could do a 'Predator ' Type which would combine Dragon, Dark, some normals,and some bugs and a 'Prey'/'Critter' Type which would replace normal and some bugs. I think this would work for you because it reduces the number of types, and references ecological concepts. Predator would obviously be SE on prey.
This would use type matchups to demonstrate ecology/ the biomass pyramid.
Predator > Prey > Plant > Earth & Water
Maybe Fighting type represents humans so it would be fighting > predator etc
Alternately, call it 'Carnivore' and 'Herbivore' type. Herbivore would be SE on Plant of course.
This is interesting since there's types that refer to elemental power vs. physical traits. Dragon and Bug both refer to magical reptilian appearance/bug species while types like Fire and Ice refer to the elemental powers or environment the creature channels.
Maybe thats a good way to categorize Pokemon style creatures, but if you're specifically focused on a real world science themed game, you could categorize creatures more scientifically by their biological traits.
Then, elemental or magical traits could be a separate piece of info, but that could be too complicated.
Like a Bug/Bird eco type with a Rock/Air elemental type would be too much.
...That's assuming you're doing some fun creatures that don't adhere to a single species category, a mono Bug eco type with Rock/Air could be less info to analyze matchups with, especially if the eco types don't contribute to the normal Pokemon battle calculations.
Fun to think about how to change up stuff for your unique game
I entertain the idea of Monbogo for some moves creating orbs or "bubbles" to attack to reference bubble sort, which is probably the most well known "meme" sorting method. (Although it does have it's uses.)
Like I do like the Bug type, and I feel it fits better with your system aesthetic than something like Dragon or Fairy, I do think 16 sounds like a good number of types and I would be really interested in seeing what custom type you make
i like this honestly! as much as i love bug types cutting it is definitely more original for your independent project. plus, you could always pair it with the flying equivalent if it flies and you need a second typing!
I like the idea of a bug type, entomology is one of my favorite sciences after all. I wouldn't actually mind a few types that correspond to different branches of life (dendro does refference plants after all)
Personally, I would mix the dragon/bug type into a single "beast" type, which could capture both the strong and weak aspects of bug and dragon. It could also allow for better balancing, because of bug being so weak, and dragon being pretty strong, a mix could be a good average type. It's right in the middle, and could open up many new possibilities.
I personally would have kept the bug type- but make it an arthro or arthropod type- including crustaceans, bugs, arachnids and all relatives. As arthropods are the largest phylum of animals, I feel it’s hard pressed not to take advantage of the power the phylum has. It can even be perceived as an “elemental” type, as there’s a LOT that arthropods exclusively throw out- silk/ spider webs, honey, scales and powders from Lepidopterans (butterfly and moth), the power of a swarm, pheromones, exoskeleton, etc. By making it this new type, you can fix the problems of bug while still making it an underdog type- mainly by removing resistances that don’t make sense- like to fairy
I feel attacked as Bug is my favorite type. I do like having more explicit (insect/creepy crawly buggy thing) represented as a type. Pokemon's bug type incorporates lots of these unique design options:
- having a proboscis
- being able to produce silk/web
- having natural armor with a carapace
- having abilities related how hive minds or swarms
- having gimiky side effects to avoid damage or scuttle around
- etc...
Plus, I love the bugs you made and just shared, and each seems like the bug type moves would fit them.
***I love the binary search tree reference. As a Software Engineer, I approve!
I mean, you can have cool designs and bug-related moves without a bug type. I'd say if there's a bug type then there needs to be a beast, bird and reptile type too, but N0r is removing the reptile type and re-theming the flying (bird) type so that wouldn't work
I really like Monbogo's design, it's very appealing and cuddly. I would love a ragdoll kind of plush of that design tbh :D
I think having a bug type in a science focused lens would be actually pretty neat! There's a lot of stuff that bugs do uniquely, for one: the firefly. Sure, you could go for a fire-flying, but it wouldn't catch the same vibe. There's also the fact that, if there was a plain spider, that thing should not be in the normal-type. I think it's more for an aesthetic and keeping things organized. Would vespiquen be pure flying? Psychic? That's the issue here! It's very case-by-case with what would replace it, and there's also the fact of grass type already encompassing both botanical and fungal aspects, so we shouldn't just lump it in with those. Dragon type was a type to represent pure power, but the designs didn't do a good job of portraying that aspect.
I really enjoy your tweaks to what is seeming to be both your own concept & an homage at the same time! Plus your art style is very memorable & pleasant.
I quite like the bug type, it's quite a distinctive one, as you can usually know a mon has it just by the design (which is something you can't say of the dragon typing).
I'm not really attached to the underdog element pokemon associates with it, but can't deny that it could be good to have an easily distinguished "weak" category for challenge runs.
On the other hand, a type that I think doesn't add much is the fairy type, not only it's a type that is almost only in pokemon, in matters of design a lot of times it's just "If pokemon pink Then fairy" with no extra thought put into it.
I think you should keep the Bug-type
You mentioned no other creature-capture game has the Bug-type, so maybe if you want to stand out among them you can make a Bug type
Also you should probably make a Light-type (not replacing the Charm type, but Fairy is also one of those types that typically gets cut like Bug, Ghost, and Dragon) because literally no alternative to Pokémon that I have seen does that and Light is one of the most obvious types
For pre-existing types, you really need to separate the Ghost and Dark types
They are very similar in their themes, their type match-ups are similar, a lot of things about them are similar
You should probably separate them
I always felt the existence of Bug, Dragon, and Ghost as types was a nod to monster classifications in RPGs like D&D (Vermin, Dragon, and Undead). An idea I've had for an alternate take on Pokemon types that I've never fleshed out is to make the distinction between "creature" types like Bug/Dragon/Ghost/Fairy + new ones like Mineral (for the Pokemon that are literally composed of clay, rock, or metal) and Aberration (for oddballs like Swalot, Deoxys, Sigiylph, Guzzlord, etc.) versus "elemental" types that people traditionally think of when they think RPG elements. Creature types could also correspond to egg groups and the 2 classifications of types could even possibly justify going back to the old physical/special mechanics of the first 3 gens (since I know there are a few people out there who actually liked that).
Funny this video came to my recommended feed.
I have 9 "types" (I call them attributes) in my project and 8 of them are weak to two others (a direct opposite and a complement) while resisting themselves except for the 9th one, which only resists itself and is neutral to/against everything else. So I have this attribute that encompasses animals/beasts, plants and insects. For the most part it would be equivalent to Pokemon's bug/grass/ground so I honestly have no idea how to name it since my naming convention describes a monster's general qualities.
For example, an electric monster would be Voltaic, a light/magical monster would be Radiant and so on.
Love the videos, would love to see a compendium video of all the stuff. Also a piezoelectric effect design would be interesting to see in your style
Honestly was thinking about how to consolidate types, and Bug and Grass could just be lumped together into an “Eco” type or “Nature” type. Kinda like Green in Magic the Gathering.
Scizor is fuming rn
Jokes aside, I’d say it’s better to rework the bug type than to remove it entirely. If you were Differentiate it from grass more, and _not bully it into the fricken ground,_ i think the bug type could bring it’s own unique pros/cons to the table.
If you do get rid of the bug type, I’d like to see what type fills in its spot! Preferably something that needs the fairy & steel types a bit (although fairy did lose its immunity, it still is only weak to poison and steel, which both aren’t very offensive types)
I think bug type can make 2 Big changes with it
1 if You attack some types with bug attacks that the first hit is weak then no more (Best option fairy and poison) this inspired in the fact of bugs adaptability and evolution, we can Say the attack "evolves" midway battles
2 making the Bug type a better defender, resisting fairy poison and psiquic should help a loot (maybe even having the 1 attack normal damage 2 and later no)
1 seems more like an ability than a type, very specific. 2 doesn’t really give a reason as to why it should resist Fairy, in terms of logical reasoning. (Although I do agree with resisting things it’s SE against, like psychic)
Personally I say bring back gen 1s interaction with poison; both weak to _and SE against_ eachother, as well as have it be neutral against fairy (not resist it) and against ghost (never understood that relation anyways).
A less specific type mechanic I’ve seen suggested here and there is to make bug immune to the confusion “status”, so you could also add that if you wanted
i feel like bug is a staple, i wish there were more bugs or bug types in mongames i mean its truly the inspiration for the genre as beetle fights and bug catching are where the whole idea is born from. its up to you in the end but my arguement for is that its part of the concept that birthed the genre as a whole and deserves more rep
Unrelated, but you kinda sound kinda similar to these other TH-camrs I watch, one is a Doom nerd, and the other is a Minecraft nerd. And now, I have a Pokémon nerd to watch. Nice.
I think in the creation of Pokémon some types where more like monster categories, like how in RPGs monsters are divided into dragons, chimeras, fairies, walking plants, the undead and so on. This idea was later applied on Egg groups where their naming convention are based on the "type" of creature they look like.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the Fighting type and whether you're keeping it as is
can't wait to see what your type chart ends up looking like
I really appreciate the heads up about certain images being shown! i watched one of the videos that showed needles before starting the STEMA playlist, and it was really nice to not be surprised with it, while still getting to enjoy the actual design itself. And similar with the bug images, like, i can look at them, but i do prefer not to, and being offered the choice beforehand is... Well, i'd say it's one of my favorite parts of these videos, but that would be *massively* underselling literally everything else about the videos!
I think the Soapple line could be charm/water. It makes sense because, you know, soap, and also really hits the aesthetic for me.
And/or the ability Bubblecoat should work with both rain and when hit by water type moves.
I think the Bug type deserves love, instead of removing it maybe the Best option is buff the type, having better pokemons in it's list, or even having changes like plz less types resist it (like almost there more types resisting bug than existing) and more in a science base Game where the bugs and insects are so common, they can go from biology to parasitology and even bacteria and so on, the experiments with radiation and a loot of things, just imagine a fly bug inspired in the search of DNA in the friut flys.
And more so showing one topic of the Bug type that should be the adaptability, maybe making the Bug attack weak to some types the first hit then normal hit (for example fairy or poison)
I would be in support of removing bug but you didn't have to murder my precious baby Surskit
YOOO I LOVE ATELGO!!
Peak creachure design in my book! And heck, all of these clearly have so much love put into them. Love seeing your work!
you can create bug type abilities instead, like "Arachne form" giving web based attacks more base power or "legwork" giving grasshopper creatures more power in kicking moves.
I feel like if you're gonna drop bug, dragon, and modify rock/ground you've gotta go all the way and completely rework the typing system. drop everything except for the basic elements (fire, water, plants, mineral, electric, etc.) and add new ones. Maybe they could be STEM themed, with types like Physics or Chemical? (sorry if these sound bad, not much of a STEM guy but you get the gist.)
maybe go all into the "inherent aspects" like you talked about with all levitating creatures avoiding ground moves, and have some "types" that are just classifications instead, like instead of there being a bug type, all bug themed creatures are for example immune to confusion/psychic attacks (due to their lack of an inner ear/"simple minds")
no obligation, just brainstorming cause it's fun.
I think bug makes sense to not have if you are just going for elements, but I think bug is really good to represent types of creatures
Personally, weird take maybe- but I think, especially for a STEM-based project, there's a certain level of flavor that a Bug-Type would bring. Now, I don't think one-to-one importing 'Bug' is the best move, but the aesthetics, social structures, and bizarre abilities of the arthropod world have a certain flavor and value to me.
I think it'd be an interesting idea to try, with your own original setting, create something fundamental to 'Buglike' creatures that makes them special diegetically. Some kind of fundamental attribute exclusive to lil' crawloids and such.
your ideas are kinda crazy, but I like listening to them! hope u are gonna make more of those videos
If you remove bug type, don't forget about including invertebrate creatures!
I like the idea of sacrificing the big type for a more unique and original STEM related type
The bug types are so itty bitty though 🥺look at the little goober 🥺 please don't smash it with a boot 🥺
On a serious note, the custom type sounds really interesting, maybe some sort of "replacement" type or something similar to it
I have been watching several of your videos and really felt the need to give some input as I really like your approach to design and content delivery.
I have some ideas you might want to consider.
(I was actually shocked when I saw the first evolution stage, and thought you already where going for this kind of concept.)
Programming. I am talking about the implementation of algorithms. The actual writing of Code. Not the logic or rules (as you call it) behind it. An interesting theme to explore is how when you start programming you start learning basic symbols and grammar. And the more you get familiar with the language you build up confidence and start to develop an ability to express yourself and coding style becomes way more important. The journey goes from logic to expressive power, also showing a convergence between calculation and creativity. There is also programming for the sole purpose of creative expression (Which I initially thought "Monbogo" enbodies) . But where this could set itself apart from your other design is in the treatment of layers of abstraction. From low-level to high-level. For me there is this philosophical struggle wether code is written for the machine (low-level) or for human beings to express complex thoughts (high-level). Maybe this can serve as a starting point to explore the notion of language and code as a whole? Going further down this road you could also show how binary, evolved to assembly, then to compiled code all the way to interpreted code all the way to nieche DSLs like Regex or SQL which are not programming language themselves but in their ruleset and grammar encode computational functions. If you really wanna have a challenge look into the concept of Category Theory for a pokemon evolution line based on the idea of categorical composition. Monoid -> Functor -> Monad. It won't get more abstract than this ^^
I second the removal of Bug, as it is just a creature type for the same reason as with the Dragon type. They always felt redundand and not in line with the remaining more material/elemental based types of pokemon. Even tho I will not deny that the focus on exactly these aspects have brought forward some very cool designs. In my past world-building crafting I considered replacing or expanding the bug type to a fauna kind of type as a compliment to the more plant based "grass" type, together representing the main biological types. Maybe that could also work in your case.
Same goes with Psychic and Fighting, which for me should be switched into "Spiritual" and "Body", like in psychological vs physiological problems. Going one step further, by combining it with Ghost you could make a trio of "Body - Mind - Spirit". I honestly felt that ghost should be merged with dark aswell anyways, similar to how you merged ground and rock into geo.
Sorry, a lot of rambling, maybe you find a spark of inspiration in this mess. Rooting your design process in scientific research and abstracting it into appealing designs really resonates with me. Keep up the good work!
I like the idea of a chitin type, tho idk how far it’d reach; just bugs and crustaceans? Or fungi and turtles / other exoskeleton creatures as well
i do think a bug type would be interesting if used in a scientific way, and perhaps with another class of animals as a contrast, but i can see it changing dramatically to maybe include any insect with a hard shell. i could see water being split into possibly hydro and aquatic, as in a difference between actual water and fish. and i could see fairy, ghost, dark, and psychic being reworked heavily to be brand new types (probably one based around force, maybe one for quantum/theory related stuff, etc.). really it comes down to what types can be connected to a field of study, and that is something that bug type certainly can be connected to!
Please keep the bug type!! They’ve contributed so much to science as a whole!! Bugs are constantly used as test organisms, and we even use the Fruit Fly as a model organism for humans!! I get that it’s a STEAM region and not just science, but it still plays a part! Plus, you have yet to introduce a model organism fakemon.
…okay you could just use a Zebrafish bUT STILL-
In the Pokémon TCG, it doesn't even have a bug type. It just groups them with the grass type. Maybe just include them with your equivalent to the grass type and call it "Nature type" or something to that effect? As much as I love the bug type, it's obviously up to you and how you want to make your game.
I think that's a cool idea!
This makes me consider a Chitin type, that covers creatures with exoskeletons and maybe even prominent horns/claws.
Arthropods would be bug-like enough a class
giving bugs interesting abilities would make them more interesting
bugs are like a death freshener, they get rid of what makes death bad for the environment, and yet, they also cause many deaths themselves. but they also give life by being food, providing food, protecting life from death. they are a force of life and death, a force of nature, and both hardy and delicate. they are many things, and there are many of them. there are more bug-like creatures in both variety and quantity, than any other animal.
I mean, if you are reworking types. You can consider adding types. It may sound weird but being a science project, having a gravity type would be really cool, and I guess something along the lines of a nuclear type is also something else I would try to do but it may overlap with electric and poison too much.
I will miss bug type, but I understand why you would want them out of your game.
So excited for comp sci ideas! Wanna see more
I really love bug types they often make amazing designs
I a lover of bugs, I agree with this, like a insect is weak to fire like any other regular animal if you think about it, The problem I see is that bug is just too ordinary to realy deal with things like a slug hotter than the sun
4:59 Buzz-inga (Sincerely the bug type)
Oooh so that's where the weird bubbly spit in the grass near my childhood home came from!
I think it could be renamed its my favorite type and I think that removing it limits the realness some designs can get by including it. You also get a lot more normal or single types getting rid of it as well.
Since your making this project separated from Pokemon (which is really cool btw) Im fine with the changes of removing Dragon and Bug and fusing Ground and Rock into Geo. But I must say I am curious if you are planning on adding new types to fill those being removed or just keep those left.
Edit: I saw you are doing that, but it would be cool to see types to fill both missing types and not just Bug.
I think removing the bug type is a great idea! Looking forward to what that new type is! Also...
Bazinga.
Why Does It Say Monbogo Has " I 0% Change To Evolve In Every Level Up " In Atelgo Page At 7:15
I want a pre evolution to Monbogo based on Miracle Sort, a sort that checks, waits... and checks again to see if a random bit got Flipped or something
Honestly, I think the type that is less necessary would be the fairy type due to the removal of dragons the fairy type lost meaning
I think in order to keep the spirit of the bugs alive, keeping them with the gimmick of evolving at low levels will help players form a mental connection between bug-like mons and non-bugs. The first one you showed off evolved at 32 and I was like 👀
I wanted to try out a Pokemon Tabletop for a TTRPG one-shot with friends, but I wasn't quite sold on the systems on offer. I wanted something simple that was easy to pick up and play in a few minutes, with reduced number crunching and rules know-how required.
In that endeavour, I quickly came to the conclusion that there were too many types and that some of them had nonsensical strengths and weaknesses that I could never quite accept. So I made some changes. And then some additions. Then some subtractions. And suddenly a bunch of types were gone, either outright deleted or assimilated into other types, using the TCG as a handy reference.
Then I rebalanced the types to accomodate these changes. Also repurposed Egg-groups into phenotypical Groups, which would inform available Movesets, Abilities and potential weaknesses. And finally reworked the stats so they could be translated into a simple set of dice. And at this point I realised I probably didn't want to play a Pokemon system at all, I wanted to make it my own, but Pokemon was a handy base.
Which is to say I like watching these videos, because I'm on a similar journey. And I find these videos very inspirational and informative! But I'll still run that Pokemon TTRPG one-shot once I've playtested the system enough and know it works well, haha.
I like the idea of removing bug type, but if breeding or some equivalent in egg groups (splicing, tutoring, or classifications etc) are present that can be fun to preserve identity, as something lower power but more gimmicky utility, management, support, or diversity.
The thumbnails for type removal have been on point!
The thing is, the bug archetype represents something very natural in a sense unlike the grass/nature type. It's something that makes a world feel more organic without needing to be too fictitious or tied to pure elemental energy
So if you are getting rid of the rock, dragon and now bug types. You should get rid of the normal, pyhcic, fighting, poison, flying, fairy, and dark types. All you should do is add types instead of getting rid of types... BAZINGA😄
fascinating to go into snark impression on the term bug but not going into snark impression on how they didnt translated it correct as "insect"-type
I really like the bug image warning more people should have that.
warning: cute dog images!
i find it dumb since it allows for the idea that all bugs are icky
i understand phobias but we all should learn to love life regardless of "grossness"
Loomian Legacy still utilizes the Bug type, with some of them being the stereotypical weaker Loomians like Cynamoth and Florant, and some of them being very strong, like Harvesect and Deludrix. We even have a bug-like, mammal-like Loomian called Buzzolen.
Bazinga, but I’m glad that these very “specific” types are being removed or reworked into something more stem based
bazinga
but in all seriousness, I think outright removing the bug type isn't quite the best idea, personally I think it would be best to redefine it, and call it something more appropriate like the "Insect" type, ans insects play a key role in the environment and are very unique organisms in their own right that have biological abilities that others don't
As a Bug type fan, I just wished Bug types were more...viable? I just feel they get the short end of the stick really :/
Man, i just wanna say that you made me like a monkey base mon design in a couple of minuets whereas Gamefreak couldn't do so in a quarter century. I really think those two are cool, and as much as I like the bug type, I feel if they were anything other than mono normal(or some sort of data type if you add it) it wouldn't feel right. Keep up the great work.
i love compupa so much its such a good name and design
add bug back and call it error so you can keep the computer bug motief and still make some "accident" themed pokemon
Pokemon itself I feel should have had a fungus/mushroom/mold type distinct from grass. It could be mutually super effective against bug since most arthropod have chitin in them.
I figure bug types and grass types can probably be combines into a "nature" type or like forest type or something.
Also, idea... should you keep Ice types? Like cold water??? You can do what you did with the rock and ground type. Some moves have the Ice/Cold property and react differently.
To me, I’ve always seen bug as analogous for invertebrate.More specifically, carapacian (mostly) land-based ones. Plus in canon it could possibly imply that drapion develops a spine upon evolution due to it dropping the bug type
I highly appreciated the bug image warning
I remember you making Soapple and Sapopper have a signature move called Emulsion, 70 power special fairy type move that’s super effective on poison type and removes poison typing, yet you didn’t mention it here, do they still have that move or no?
I saw in one of the other projects you mentioned that they had a digital type. Considering how many of you designs are based on technological aspects of science, I think it might be beneficial to maybe add a tech type or something along those lines. Then again, do whatever you want. Your project, your rules.
I think something important to note is that, besides being Pokemon's resident Anti-Magic type (...ignoring that Fairy resists it--it fits too well with Steel and Poison's shared "harsh/gritty reality" theme for things Fairy is weak to for that decision to make sense anyway), it also tries to encapsulate how *having an exoskeleton* affects combat. More easily flammable, bypassed by piercing (Flying, Rock), largely resistant to bludgeoning (Fighting, Ground), etc. If your magic types don't need a counter, and you're not tying phylum/order/etc. to type in the way that early Flying tried to, the only thing left for it is a background allusion to the food web with Grass > Bug > Flying.
What If you change grass/ dendro type to a Forest Type? Then you can include flowers, plants in general, trees, bugs, woods.......
He should keep the bug type but make it more like a chaotic type like a computer bug for his stemmons so if theirs a quirky stem mon it'll be a bug type
Here's an idea.. to me poison and dark has the same kind of vibe.. so maybe merge those?
Thank you for adding surskit as a base
I think Ice should be super effective to Bug and Bug should be super effectively against Fairy. I like Bug Type moves and Bug Type designs but they refuse to make much of a good competive Bug. There is such a wide range of bugs species in the world that they are a good foundation to build a idea off of.
Everyday we get closer to the PTCG Type chart
(minus Dragon, but I never really liked the move of moving dragons out of Colorless anyway, and for reasons I'm also not a fan of PTCG groups Rock/Ground into Fighting instead of its own separate type, sooooooooooooooooo)
I have a shiny beedrill in let's go Eevee which I force fed so many weedle candies that it won't let me give it any more. That said beedrill is ridiculously powerful and can sweep the elite four and champion. I absolutely love my murderous bee and I won't let anyone talk bad about it.
Wondering what your thoughts on the ice type are. If we're removing redundant types I think it could be on the chopping block after the ones you've already gone over. I know you already have some ice types in your region so it isn't going anywhere but still.
Furthermore, as time has gone on, Ice typing is a nerf, dooms a Pokémon to be a sweeper or perish (or with slightly better bulk a set up sweeper or a wallbreaker as normal Kyurem proves), and also is basically there for other set up sweepers. Basically, Ice type in Pokémon is a combo of an archetype and a coverage move. You can remove Ice without having it affect much especially if you make some water moves freeze and relegate wintry phenomenon to Water moves.
I'm working on my own game too and I made Bug and Dragon monster families which still matter in the battle system but making them actual elements causes issues.