Starter Speculation/Discussion Thread [Read First Post]

[Shraeder]

We already have everything from Corocoro this month. They most likely will not reveal the evolutions of the starters until at least the September or October issue, or they will get leaked like some of the 5th gen ones did. We won't have any Corocoro until mid February.

How come on the main site it says "the first of CoroCoro scans"?

[GenosectArceus]

Next three gens will be Grass/Fighting then next three gens will be Water/Fighting.

Place your bets, place your bets.

In all seriousness though, I can't really see the Psychic in Fennekin really.

I think the next three gens will be Water/Fighting then Three gens grass/fighting, if we're going in the Grass-Fire-Water cycle.

Along with the predicitions of Fennekin being Psychic I don't see how that those slits on his forehead could evolve into a third eye. To me those are just wrinkles to show determination or willingness to fight.

[willda]

On an unrelated note, wouldn't it be cool if we had another game where we could get all three starters, like Yellow? I probably don't see it happening, though...

It would be a perfect excuse to get the other two with hidden abilities

[Demon Kitsune Yoko Kurama]

I never even noticed it like that. ._. I just thought it was hairs. :/

[SapphireBlueEyes7799]

Well, that would be cool though. Even though the slita are sideways, the secons evo would have a slightly opened 3rd eye, and then the final evo have it's 3rd eye fully exposed. Of course, it doesn't blink though. Most 3rd eyes don't.

[willda]

I hope the third eye is present if he becomes fire psychic then people wont scream "ninetails/zoroark clone"

[Shneak]

How come on the main site it says "the first of CoroCoro scans"?

Serebii hasn't updated, so clearly there isn't anything else to be revealed.

[Shraeder]

Serebii hasn't updated, so clearly there isn't anything else to be revealed.

Or no other scans came in yet...

[Tickle Me Cooper]

Let's get this out of the way; your "points" are invalid because not only are they poor speculations drawn from shallowly observed evidence, but they do not even interconnect. They are each back-up arguments for potential failed arguments.

So you named several Pokemon with a shared color scheme; you didn't name which parts of their color scheme were blotted with with color which is actually significant. To further deconstruct your points; Chinchou and Lanturn are reflections of angler fish; fish in reality which glow in the dark. We call this bioluminescence which shares similarities with electricity in terms of appearance and aura. Shinx's line possess yellow in potions all over its body, not solely its eyes (which are never entered into these equations) and they aren't even the same dynamic color scheme as Froakie. Neither is the Eelektross line. Your continued fallacy is that you ignore the fact that a Pokemon's eye color doesn't solely reflects its typing. Fire Pokemon do not always possess red or orange eyes. Electric Pokemon do not consistently possess yellow eyes. Water Pokemon are not stocked with blue eyes... this can go on forever as the eye color of Froakie is your sole basis for this assumption that this connected color scheme in relation to other Pokemon is some sort of decisive pattern relative to the argument that it can actually be considered of Electric background. This is ridiculous. This entire focal point is based on, let everyone know - that it is legitimate to speculate Froakie is potentially electric because it has yellow eyes. Yellow and blue are clearly always an electric combination

You didn't compare Altaria to another Nintendo creation. Firstly, Froakie belongs to Gamefreak, not Nintendo. And before you start, no, that isn't splitting hairs, what you said was, in the first instance, fallaicous. Your second "sound" reasoning supporting the theory that Froakie was of electric background was on the basis that it shared similarities with the Nintendo creations in Windwaker - the storm-based frogs atop clouds. Froakie does not surround itself with cloud, nor does it sit, levitating atop one. This would imply that it is not similarly based, but that they share convenient similarities that give way to this desperate speculation. Your perspective as to why you provided a point and what it's purpose was is not in line with why I think you provide a point and what is its purpose. No, a Pokemon does not need to be sitting on a cloud for it to be a cloud; I never suggested that. I suggested that it is less likely based on this being because it shares no reflection of its position or powers. As well, I absolutely do not believe that there is a greater chance the tuft around Froakie is a cloud formation shaped like a powdered wig (which isn't even located ON his head? Wow, Ken Sugimori just missed a big Benjamin Franklin comparison there...no wonder only you have this opinion) when it's more likely a clever use of a frog's natural environment (bubbles or foam) to represent a sack similar to a dorobou.

Your many more valid points are so much so that that they don't even need to connect with each other! It's astounding that your arguments are so intelligent and well deduced that Froakie's electric background is understood because of its reflection of a Wind Waker deity.. oh wait... that doesn't work necessarily so it also looks like Ben Franklin... Right. Wait... that's a cloud representing its storm-based divine background... oh or is it a parasitic powdered wig for some reason attached to a baby Pokemon's neck and back? This all makes a boatload of sense.

I already deconstructed your powdered wig assessment. The two "circles" that are his nostrils are much more likely the "knot" tied with the dorobou. This connects with the sack of foam, the knotted nose area, perhaps even the thief gloves. All of my theories interweave. Yours are independent and aimless in explanation. Chanting "My arguments are the best!" without any content and some expectation that I will, for any reason, accept that without check is absurd. So keep chanting your points and I will keep tearing them apart, so to speak. I do not find your points perfectly valid as they are founded on false premises and poor abilities to relate styles to real-life comparisons.

It's like I'm speaking with a wall. An actual wall. I can't even say that "you hear what you want to hear" because it's like you cannot string one coherent point with another. Each of my points (other then the Ben Franklin argument, which I CLEARLY stated was a separate theory from my own that I myself wasn't as sold on as my own theory) were made to support one central argument, and have successfully done so. All of your "arguments" against me are attacks on points I never said, or points that were argued in prior posts you've missed out on. You're literally arguing with your own mistaken imagination.

Haha. Incorrect. The eye color of Froakie is NOT the sole basis for my assumption. You seem to have misread somewhere on this assuredly confusing road of yours that my speculation was, as you said, that Froakie is potentially electric because of it's yellow eyes. Not true. I think that Froakie is potentially electric because of it's ENTIRE COLOR SCHEME. So what if it just so happened to be his EYES that were yellow? That doesn't make it any less of a common electric type coloring scheme. You've made it seem like I've had some crazy theory that eye color alone indicated type when in reality, I never even closely implied that. I've ALSO never said that color scheme (let alone eye color) is ALWAYS a SURE FIRE indication of typing, so your argument saying -

"Your continued fallacy is that you ignore the fact that a Pokemon's eye color doesn't solely reflects its typing. Fire Pokemon do not always possess red or orange eyes. Electric Pokemon do not consistently possess yellow eyes. Water Pokemon are not stocked with blue eyes..."

- is ALSO based on nothing.

That absolutely IS spitting hairs. Gamefreak is a company that works SOLEY for Nintendo. It has NINTENDO employees working for it. NOT fallacious. Even so, you make it seem as though I believe that just because these are two Nintendo characters, my argument is somehow more valid. Also not true. Froakie being a young frog with a cloud on its back and the Zelda characters being Frogs sitting on clouds was where I drew my comparison. Those ARE strong similarities. Frog. With cloud. How often do you see THAT? If the art directors for Wind Waker decided to put the clouds on THEIR backs instead, it wouldn't make them any less of storm deities, now would it? Having the cloud Thundurus was sitting on sure didn't make HIM and less of one. And of COURSE it doesn't look all powerful or of high position. It's a BASIC starter. I doubt that those frogs or Thundurus or ANY legendary Pokemon would have features that would explicitly foreshadow their coming power had THEY all had a base, immature form to start off with. None of the previous starters have. No OTHER base form Pokemon, ultimately based on Legends have either.

Again, Ben Franklin. NOT my theory. It's still VALID, but don't go on mixing it with my own. I never said the cloud was to be shaped like a powdered wig. You're mixing TWO SEPARATE THEORIES TOGETHER. Cloud part of DEITY theory. Wig part of BEN theory. And who cares if it isn't explicitly on Froakie's head. The fact that many people looked at the frog and thought "Oh gee, that Pokemon sure looks a lot like Ben Franklin." means that artistically, Sugimori DID do his job, no matter WHERE the parts art physically. And again, I'm NOT the only one with this opinion. It isn't even my original opinion! I just read MANY people citing the similarity, saw that their theory came to the same conclusion as mine type-wise while still making sence, and added it on to my post as an alternate and competely SEPARATE theory to my own.

Those are SEPARATE THEORIES FROM EACH OTHER! One of them not even being my own! Something I'VE ALREADY SAID. Why should I even argue with you? Someone who waltzes in the middle of an argument with no clue of the points already stated or what was said from the opposing side and expects to be taken seriously? Ha! You're a joke! ONE theory on a frog deity. An entire DIFFERENT one on Ben Franklin. Yet ANOTHER "argument" with absolutely no correct basis. Congratulations. You're disproving a point I never made. Of course what your saying isn't making any sense to you.

You've deconstructed nothing. All you've done is argue against your own imagination by using your own theory as evidence. "That Benjamin Franklin Frog Storm Deity's powdered cloud wig can't be true because my opinion that it's actually supposed to look like robbers bag made of bubble or foam is probably more likely so your opinion I've made up for you can't be true because mine contradicts it" is NOT a real argument. And all of my theories DO interweave. And all of the Ben Franklin theories, separate from my own, ALSO interweave, again, independently from my own. And I never chanted that my argument was best. I said mine was just as good as yours, yet I obviously believe mine over yours. And again, my arguments have all the context and content in the world. Just because you're one of the few who isn't seeing that doesn't mean that all of the many others who HAVE accepted my point and DO agree with me are suddenly now incorrect. You've torn absolutely nothing apart but your own argument. Against yourself.

Honestly, I'm done with you. I can't debate with someone who can't keep his facts straight or even learn them CORRECTLY to begin with. I haven't even been arguing anymore. I'm just helping you see places where you've either misunderstood me, made something up entirely, or failed to research things past said. Stop trying big shot. I'm not even going to entertain you anymore.

On your argument about it being made to resemble clouds, it's not. As seen in Froakie's French name, it resembles bubbles/foam. Certain frog species carry their eggs/tadpoles on their back inside of bubbles.

Even if it IS foam (they look nothing like bubbles, name basis or not) it still DOES resemble a cloud and it's entirely possible and just as likely that it was an intentional art direction.

[Pokemon Master - Miko]

165032_269038776555058_2009293760_n.jpg Leaked On Serebii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Raguna]

165032_269038776555058_2009293760_n.jpg Leaked On Serebii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It isn't leaked, it's fanart. One that have been thrown around here multiple times, even!

[Shraeder]

165032_269038776555058_2009293760_n.jpg Leaked On Serebii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those aren't real...

Edit: Anyone notice that when Chespin attacks its spines get sharper?

[SapphireBlueEyes7799]

Aw man. He got all excited. Poor guy...xD

[BBtheASH]

I think the next three gens will be Water/Fighting then Three gens grass/fighting, if we're going in the Grass-Fire-Water cycle.

Along with the predicitions of Fennekin being Psychic I don't see how that those slits on his forehead could evolve into a third eye. To me those are just wrinkles to show determination or willingness to fight.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! No third eye no third eye! Please no third eye!

Although it would be bad *ss! I really dnt want something so cute with an extra body part! :'(

[DrewStar1414]

Defiantly fennikin its got this strange compelling body language that's just like oh yeah i'm gonna look so awesome when i evolve.

[JurassicJonah]

This is completely unrelated and I know there's no chance of it happening, I just thought it was a cool idea that I saw somewhere on some fan art. The artist drew the starter's evolutions and described them as:

Fennekin: Ladylike and noble like a princess
Froakie: Going along with the thief/dorobou theme
Chespin: Growing his hood into a type of leaf armor and helped protect the Fennekin princess from said dorobou Froakie thief

It would be so much better if I could find the artwork that went along with the explanation :/

[Thalion]

I mentioned this a ways back. I think it would be the most poetic, haha. Since they would be both strong and weak to eachother. It would make the game more interesting.

[Shraeder]

This is completely unrelated and I know there's no chance of it happening, I just thought it was a cool idea that I saw somewhere on some fan art. The artist drew the starter's evolutions and described them as:

Fennekin: Ladylike and noble like a princess
Froakie: Going along with the thief/dorobou theme
Chespin: Growing his hood into a type of leaf armor and helped protect the Fennekin princess from said dorobou Froakie thief

It would be so much better if I could find the artwork that went along with the explanation :/

Only problem is what about male Fennekin?

[wunderkind]

Only problem is what about male Fennekin?

Well, there are male Gardevoir and female Mr. Mime, so I doubt it would matter if there were male Princess Fennekins :P

[YellowHat's Revenge]

This is completely unrelated and I know there's no chance of it happening, I just thought it was a cool idea that I saw somewhere on some fan art. The artist drew the starter's evolutions and described them as:

Fennekin: Ladylike and noble like a princess
Froakie: Going along with the thief/dorobou theme
Chespin: Growing his hood into a type of leaf armor and helped protect the Fennekin princess from said dorobou Froakie thief

Yea, I first heard that concept on some DA artist's fan evolutions for Chespin. I enjoy the notion quite a bit, and can visualize it happening.
The only thing being that Fennekin doesn't necessarily have to be ladylike. Just very elegant and sleek. Not necessarily a noble lady, but just noble (someone suggested the idea of a mage, as well).