Quoted By:
Let's talk about the supposed 'patterns' seen in starter Pokemon.
The common statement is that all the grass starters are based off extinct animals, the water starters have some sort of weapon, and the fire starters are Chinese zodiac animals.
I've always found the extinct animal theory pretty weak. Bulbasaur's line is only dinosaurian in it's English name, and in my eyes it's really stretching it to say Torterra is an Ankylosaur, Serperior some sort of extinct snake (I mean, in what way is it something like Titanoboa and not just another snake?), and Chesnaught a Glyptodon. Even Sceptile isn't necessarily a dilophosaur at all, it's clearly based on a leaf-tailed gecko and there's no evidence we should see it anything else other than that. It's really only look back and trying to see a pattern we throw those onto any of the starters. However, Maganium clearly being a sauropod heavily lends to this theory. Decidueye, though, lends to it even more: the terrestrial stilt-owl was native to Hawaii before its extinction.
The weapons theory for the water starters, I feel, is much weaker. Totadile's line doesn't have any weapons, really, unless you count its jaw? Mudkip certainly doesn't have any, and counting Primarina's voice as a weapon seems to be a stretch. Empoleon also doesn't really use its trident, it's more just a decoration on its head. But Greninja, Blastoise, and Samurott fit the motif. Another pattern that's probably intentional that most don't point out is that every water starter is semiaquatic; they're never based on fully aquatic or fully terrestrial animals.
The zodiac theory, however, is the strongest. The only one that's a bit of a stretch is Fennekin, as foxes are not dogs. But that's not too far of a stretch. Other than that, the zodiac theory is true for every fire starter.
If these patterns are real, perhaps they're simply treated loosely and that explains the stretches. What do yinz think, are the patterns real or just fan speculation?
