Why aren't all pokemon equally competitively viable? Why

>>26264536
Pokémon wasn't originally designed to be a competitive game series. The whole point of Pokémon is that, like in the real world, some creatures are far stronger than others. If every Pokémon was equally strong, it would ruin the immersion.

Pokemon are designed for in-game purposes. Early game bugs are supposed to be quick boosts that are just as quickly replaced. Pseudos are supposed to be endgame bosses as well as rewards for your perseverance. Farfetch'd is a joke Pokemon. And so on.

did you just forget how RPG progression works?

why should a Pokemon you can get near the start of the game be as good as something you can use at the end of the game?

>>26264536
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w

>in nature, all animals are equally strong, there are no animals at the top of the food chain
The original series isn't a fighting game. Go back to Pokken.

>>26264657
>extra credits

stop right there friend

File: really now.jpg (22KB, 240x237px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 240x237px

>>26264732
I didn't know there was a problem with this one specific web show that almost never gets referenced on 4chan at all in any sort of positive or negative light and has an episode that neatly explains away OP's question.

I don't mean to seem like a child who hasn't mastered the ability to feed itself, but would you mind explaining what the problem is with this single web series?

File: gotta catch em all-1.jpg (64KB, 369x620px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 369x620px

>>26264536
I don't know and Pokémon is not a competitive game.

It's about collecting supernatural creatures known as Pokémon.

File: 1405022205279.jpg (173KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 600x600px

>>26264536
>"Everything HAS to be competitvely viable!"
>"There aren't supposed to be any pokemon that can be used for other types of fun!"