>>20049256I was asked to use the game as a basis, and the game does not provide the information to make such an assumption. As you so elegantly put it, this is NOT a world that runs by the logic of ours, so using that kind of logic is pointless. I am also aware that kind of conclusion would make ANY effort to explain it be pointless. It's a GAME. It's not supposed to be a full explanation of anything. It's only going to do what it's programmed to do. The only real distinction that can be made between the games and other media is the plot. The explanations for how the pokeworld works are only in the context of it being part of a game. None of it makes sense for being an actual world. You want my real opinion, here it is:
The prevalent thought across the franchise is that pokemon ARE capable of acting beyond instinct; that they can choose for themselves how to act and perceive things. I will even count the games as reflecting this matter. The thought has always been that pokemon are FRIENDS; that you form a deeper bond with them than you would a pet. I will agree that the games do not exactly reflect this mentality, but gameplay and story segregation and all that. Pokemon are supposed to be equals with humans.
As for the attack thing, I have mixed feelings on how this is supposed to be interpreted. Most would say you are telling the pokemon what to do, and if this is true, they must really trust you know how to battle better than they do. However, there is a point where this no longer becomes necessary, which I think no one has even given it thought. Eventually, the pokemon should start putting it together and start reacting on it's own. They no longer need us to train them. Why do they stay? Because they value our companionship. Truthfully, a pokemon could learn how to use it's moves on it's own anyway, but it would need a very specific set of circumstances to do so. Make no mistake, though, traveling in the wild can be just as dangerous.
