Quoted By:
I was one of the first adopters of Fairy type and wrote the big screenshotted pasta of my theories, so no bias from me here to clarify.
Was it necessary in terms of the video game? Yes, I think it was inevitable that we'd get a new type, it was one of those variables that was going to change and be a 'big announcement' someday. I don't think that Fairy-type was such a bad type to choose in terms of how it effected the gameplay. It's given Dragon users something to think about and while Dragons still may stay on top for now, the potential is there for them to have their shit severely wrecked and I think that's a good thing. I think the potential to make Poison more useful is a good thing too, it hasn't done so but Fairy type is an incredibly new development that will expand over the next decade.
Was it necessary in terms of the lore/world of the game? No. In the Pokemon world, I think there are better and worse new types to have chosen. Fairy is interesting in that it adds mystique and can avoid feeling shoehorned whilst also making up for ret-conning within world lore, but I don't think it really fits with the general ethos of the Pokemon world, which is nature and technology combining into one.
What I'd love to see in future games is a region in which Fairy type doesn't exist as 'Fairy type' and is instead referred to as something else as the Pokemon in that region display different visual qualities to Fairy type. This would be executed in that the 2 types are for all intents and purposes the same (Type matches/weaknesses etc.) but just labelled differently. I think it'd be a good demonstration of Legend vs Science which has been a concurrent theme in the Pokemon series, with Gen V/VI Pokemon looking more like traditional Fairies and the Gen VII Pokemon looking more like spectral light Pokemon based on scientific phenomena, weather and the visible light spectrum.
I think this would be a good way of working 'Fairy' into Pokemon lore.
