>>47340732>When Masuda and Ohmori were asked if Pokemon were smart...They were directly asked if Pokemon are sentient.
>they kinda implied no or you can interpret as a non answer which if the case begs the question as to be vague about it in the first place.They were vague about it because 1) they're Japanese and 2) they're devs/creators of a children's franchise that may or may not (officially) involve slavery, forced labor and cockfighting of sentient creatures depending on how they answer the question.
It's certainly true that Pokemon behave much more like animals in the main series of games. But in most other parts of the franchise, they're shown to behave in highly intelligent ways, think rationally, and engage in verbose conversations with each other, with some of them even subtitled in the anime. Numerous 'mons have been shown to be able to speak to humans either telepathically or outright (Team Rocket's Meowth, for instance), and in some of the spinoff games the Pokemon develop complex societies with high levels of sociological and technological development (From banks to guilds to law enforcement). Even if the main series of games is the only series that matters, there are still "versions" of Pokemon that could be interacted with as intelligently as if they were human. Again, in the main games they behave at a more animal level for sure, but in the Mystery Dungeon titles the lines are so blurred that it serves as one of the main conflicts of the series (i.e. a human turning into a pokemon)
If the devs/lore of today say that pokemon are not generally capable of human levels of intelligence, that assertion conflicts with much of their behavior seen throughout the franchise. That's just bad writing. There are ways you can defend either position, especially considering that the franchise has been retconned into a multiverse now.
As for me... I'll stick to the opinion that best bunny passes the Harkness test.
