Are fossil pokemon all part rock because everything was rocks 100 million years ago, or are they part rock because they underwent the fossilization process?
>>59340023>Are fossil pokemon all part rock because everything was rocks 100 million years ago, or are they part rock because they underwent the fossilization process?No,is just bad game design
>>59340023Common consensus is it's because of the fossilization, and the revival process being imperfect. The real answer is nobody except Gamefreak knows so this is fucking pointless to discuss.
>>59340023there's a dex entry for aerodactyl that says the mega is how it looked like in the past, so it was always a rock type. there's also an entry for aurorus that mentions one was found frozen in ice and it was the exact same, so it was also always a rock typeI don't think all pokemon back then were rock types, but just that the ones that were had a bigger chance of being fossilized
>>59340023Yeah, but recently they introduced a new possible interpretation for ancients creatures via the ancient paradoxes, the cover mon (Koraidon) is a Fighting/Dragon type, as well as Great Tusk and Slither Wing. You get the sense that the Fighting type is being used to represent a "wild spirit/cavemen spirit" of sorts. I wouldn't mind if they introduced new fossilmons with Fighting-type later, they could use the excuse that the process is more perfect now to introduce more dual-types for the older fossilmons in general (also could be an excuse to introduce regional forms of all the fossilmons like Omastar, Kabutops, Armaldo, Tyrantrum, etc).
>>59340023neither, the fossilization process selects for rock types because they're already made of rocks. the galar ones ironically kinda prove that other types can fossilize in the right conditions even though they get reassembled wrong in the end.
>>59340061while i agree on the core of your point i am gonna nitpick the aerodactyl thing a little; the pokédex says scientists theorize that's why the mega looks that way, it's meant to be ambiguous whether or not it's true. the pokédex has several instances of explicitly dubious sources like this, most acutely with paradox mons where half their dex entries are sourced from a cryptozoology tabloid and shouldn't be taken seriously. basculin has a similar one to aerodactyl that seems to be very pointed satire of the ever raging phylogenetic splitting vs lumping debate. it's important to keep in mind pokémon is a cheeky series, they do make jokes out of stuff like this.but anyway yeah aerodactyl was a rock type
>>59340108The dex entries literally right after the one saying it's a theory of some scientists outright confirm it
I always thought it was because rock types fossilize better, like you had Pokémon of many other types but only the rock ones have remains that survived to this day.
>>59340064ESL doesn't understand what paradox means.
>>59340122huh, how about that. guess i never got aerodactyl in USUM. at any rate, as of Z-A it's back to "some scholars claim" so i'm still taking it with some doubt.
>>59340136(you)
>>59340136Ancient paradoxes are basically "fossilmons but not really". They're different concepts yes but both are still about depicting ancient monsters.
>>59340155he's going to derail the thread shitting his pants about them being from alternate timelines, ignore him
>>59340160he's right though
fossilization clearly
