>>43817482I've been thinking lately something along the lines of,
>why do people assume there should be at least one Pokémon of every type?Is it autism? Completeness?
That sounds like a dumb thing to say, but think about it.
Why do types exist? Types are a gameplay attribute and a form of balance for combat.
They're also an element of world-building.
Okay. So the reason we tend to get more "realistic" ones more commonly is because that's the world-building part. There's a lot of "fish-type" Pokémon in Pokéworld. Fine.
The elephant in the room is the battle balance. Of course, just having a unique type combination doesn't make it good or useful; see some of Rotom's forms that went unused for generations. But the reason they didn't make stuff like Dragon/Fighting for EONS is because those two types are already very strong, and making one that doesn't support the world-building could be catastrophic for game balance and world-building. If it's something anyone can just go and catch, why wouldn't everyone have one? And if it's something like Kommo-O, which doesn't have much reason behind WHY it's that type other than "it wasn't done yet", it makes it seem unwarranted. Charizard wasn't Fire/Dragon until the Mega rolled around, and in hindsight we can see that decision was made with good reason.
I posit that up to about gen 5 Game Freak had a good sense of these things; but in an attempt to revive Pokémania, decided to scrap it in favour of another OP type to "fix" Dragon (which was mostly relegated to endgame or legendaries) and allowing Megas to type-change other Pokémon to being part Dragon without merit.
