>>43876224Listen here you little shit, don't you fucking pretend like coloration doesn't play a big part on advertising a Pokémon's Type.
>mon is x color, must be x type? no>mon is x type, must be x color? noBUT
>mon is x color, suggests it's likely to be x type? yesThe correlation between certain Types and colors is obviously very very high. I'm tired of shitters making fun of people for saying Luxray should be a Dark Type. Which, by the way, I used to say exactly the same thing.
>haha, idiot! you though it was dark type because it's black???You mean I noticed a reliably common-as-fuck trend among Pokémon designs? Yes you nimrod, it clearly LOOKS like a fucking Dark Type. No one is an idiot for thinking it was Dark when Pokémon goes out of its way to make 90% of Dark Types have the same look and style as Luxray does.
Also people say it shouldn't be Dark because it's not mean or evil. Okay, well there's nothing suggesting it acts nice either, so let me ask you this. If in the next games, Luxray got a new dex entry stating that it behaves in a violently cruel manor, would ANYONE continue to argue that it shouldn't be Dark?
Oh, but they wouldn't argue that it doesn't LOOK like a Dark Type, because it already does doesn't it
