Meta aside, does /vp/ like Dragon types?

Yeah. I love their designs, specially how they can go from cool to cute with ease.

Especially the ones that aren't obvious dragons on first glance but make sense once you find out what was the inspiration for design, like A. Exegcutor, Dragalgae, Altaria,

>>32073870

I wish they had made them balanced from the getgo so we wouldn't have had to wait this long to see more varied ones like >>32073989 listed. Other than that I think they're fine as a type, hardly as meta as they used to be.

File: 1484576729725.png (213KB, 621x398px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 621x398px

>>32073870
yes, yes i do
i like dragon types

>>32073870
I don't care about most of them. Lati@s, Dialga, Ampharos. I LOVE some of their design, but as Dragon-type, I don't like that they don't LOOK like Dragons. I would never look at them and see that's a dragon. At least with some, like Dragalge and Altaria, they make sense on some level and are acceptable. Pokemon like Noivern are also okay, because they have SOME Dragon-like characteristics. But Palkia or Giratina? That's bullshit.

Otherwise, they're Dragons. Everyone loves Dragons. There's nothing cooler than a Dragon.

>>32074505
Honestly I like dragon types because most of them aren't just "let's draw a dragon and add some features to it", meanwhile other types like fire types really suffer of "let's draw an animal and add the element they belond to as a color or part of the design".

>>32074509
Dragons have been a different thing in many different cultures for literally thousands of years. There's more than enough things to pick from. But a fucking Latias? What part of it is a Dragon? How the fuck does it deserve a Dragon typing?

>>32073989
Yo what's Exeggutor actually based on?

>>32074519
>>32074505

Probably because beat design for both Lati@s and Blaziken was flying jetchicken dragon:
http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/6/68/Latias_Blaziken.jpg

Or because GameFreak thought that Legendaries = Dragon or Psychic for few generations.

>>32074530
Dragon trees of Dracanea genus

>>32074474
>wyvern types

>>32074509

This. I think there's a lot of variety and a lot of stuff I really like from the type. But you have still got typical dragons like Salamence too.

>>32073870
Kind of mixed opinion. I like dragons, so I like Dragon-type. But for most part, the Dragon-type Pokemon has nothing to do with dragons. The Latis have been mentioned before, and like those, Guzzlord or Goomy. It really has nothing to do with dragons. I like dragons, but nothing of what I like about a dragon is present in Goomy's design. Absolutely nothing. Yet for some reason, it's a Dragon-type.

Design aside, I liked Dragon-type's theme. First, it was just a ridiculously strong and rare type, with there being only 4 Dragon-type Pokemon in total. Then, it became just rare in the sense rare Pokemon had this type, like Legendaries. By Generation V, though, I was getting sick of seeing all major Legendaries be Dragon-type, so I'm glad that stopped.

>>32074594
>4
?

>>32074594
Dunno, what GF was thinking, but in E.Europe there are legends about dragons that focus on "never satisfied devourer" side rather than "fire-breathing flying lizard".

>>32074609
Probably Kingdra

>>32074615
But they had a traits that they all shared consistent. That "devourer" is way too wide a concept. A train is a type of transportation vehicle, but that doesn't mean all types of transportation vehicles are trains. The same applies to dragons. Some dragons were "devourers", but that doesn't mean anything that is a "devourer" is a dragon.

>>32074609
Dragonite line and Kingdra.

>>32074635
>But they had a traits that they all shared consistent. That "devourer" is way too wide a concept.

Agree, but Guzzlord's design is not that different from the drawings of supposed dragons in books I read as a kid. Especially if you take out the little head on top.