ForumsThe TavernPokemon with weapons!?

34 6809
kellynmcfinch
offline
kellynmcfinch
132 posts
Nomad

a most common Idea for pokemon is add weapons.
Well I did thought of that in my ideas. but isn't it kind of weird to add weapons to pokemon? such as adding an M4 or an RPD, axes, staves etc.

  • 34 Replies
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,340 posts
Farmer

i have to ask........ why?

it will totally ruin everything. it will ruin their individuality and the reason they even have special ablilies.

just for a laugh... id give charmander a flame thrower

soccerdude2
offline
soccerdude2
1,673 posts
Shepherd

Some pokemon do have weapons. Blastoise had a cannon on its back, Pikachu has a pretty nice club and lightning summoner with its tail.

Now real weapons like M4 would just be useless. Keep those in CoD and Battlefield.

spikeabc
offline
spikeabc
1,666 posts
Jester

bluerabbit, charmander is a fully funtioning dragon. that means he can fire breath, and wouldnt need a flamethrower. now my signature move:
facepalm

anyways, giving COD weapons to pokemon is the dumbest thing i have ever heard of.

no offense, hopefully none taken.

--judgment

soccerdude2
offline
soccerdude2
1,673 posts
Shepherd

Actually I doubt charmander would have much fire breath, he's actually a salamander.

And I won't be mean about it like you.

ellock
offline
ellock
385 posts
Blacksmith

That is BLASPHEMY! In all realness though, I do not think it is a good idea. It would ruin the cute little creatures running around and attacking each other (amazing it is not animal abuse though).

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,808 posts
Jester

a most common Idea for pokemon is add weapons.


Whoa whoa whoa wait...WHAT?! When did this become a "common idea"?!

And they should not be given weapons...they have enough fire-power as it is..why would they even need them? It'd be like giving fire to a man who has an industrial sized heater.
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,340 posts
Farmer

bluerabbit, charmander is a fully funtioning dragon. that means he can fire breath, and wouldnt need a flamethrower. now my signature move:
facepalm


and i said:

[/b]just for a laugh...[b]id give charmander a flame thrower


so... face palm was ineffective and i react with a double facepalm
Skulltivator
offline
Skulltivator
630 posts
Nomad

A lot of Pokemon don't even have arms. How do you expect them to hold guns?

skydragon720
offline
skydragon720
343 posts
Nomad

A lot of Pokemon don't even have arms. How do you expect them to hold guns?

Their souls fool!!!!!!!!!!!! JK. this would be pretty cool, though. =[)

AatosLiukkonen
offline
AatosLiukkonen
66 posts
Nomad

Seeing as some Pokemon can destroy entire cities without much effort, what would be the point exactly?

Skeleton_Pilot
offline
Skeleton_Pilot
1,361 posts
Blacksmith

The game wouldn't be very interesting if the Pokemon had weapons... it wouldn't really matter what Pokemon you had or what Pokemon you were up against if all they did was shoot the other Pokemon. =P

You could pair a Wobbuffet up against an Entei, and if the Wobbuffet was quicker on the draw, the Entei would be gone before the battle even started! Now where would the fun be in that?

GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,595 posts
Herald

Call of Duty: Pokemon

AatosLiukkonen
offline
AatosLiukkonen
66 posts
Nomad

You could pair a Wobbuffet up against an Entei, and if the Wobbuffet was quicker on the draw, the Entei would be gone before the battle even started! Now where would the fun be in that?


Bellsprout with a RPG vs. Rayquazza?
kellynmcfinch
offline
kellynmcfinch
132 posts
Nomad

here is good/bad benefits about pokemon wielding weapons.

good benefits

1. It will be more attractive for older, aggressive, bloodthirsty kids.
T rated games are pretty much best for older kids

2. I guess they could be more smarter.

3. It will make battles epic. especially in pokemon conquest.

bad benefits:

1. Their natural cuteness would be ruined.

2. They could even be MONSTROUS or DESTRUCTIVE and destroy the humans and towns.

3. They may already have natural weapons.

I don't know which benefit I would go with.

Ernie15
offline
Ernie15
13,344 posts
Bard

1. It will be more attractive for older, aggressive, bloodthirsty kids.


Right. Because every other game ever made with guns and violence just isn't good enough for kids these days. That's why nobody ever buys any of the CoD, Halo, Battlefield or Medal of Honor games. There's just absolutely no audience out there anywhere for those games.

2. I guess they could be more smarter.


Of course. Because the only thing smarter than a small fictitious animal that can only say its own name is a small fictitious animal that can only say its own name wielding an AK-47.

3. It will make battles epic. especially in pokemon conquest.


Pokemon battles are so boring and ordinary these days. You know what would make them interesting and original? Guns. Instead of killing your opponent in a unique way based on your individual powers, why not shoot them to death? Now that's something that's surely never been done before.
Showing 1-15 of 34