>>45679572Fairy is easily one of the least consistent types conceptually and in execution, up there with normal and dragon. With better, more easily defined types like ghost, electric and steel, even a child with minimal pokemon knowledge could ascertain a pokemon's type with just basic information and its appearance. Ghost pokemon almost all look spooky and have supernatural themes. Electric types are often have names and design elements related to electricity. Almost all steel pokemon have obvious metal components. And so on. What makes a fairy type a fairy type? What do they have in common? The answer is at best vague. Cuteness, supernatural or mystical power related to life, the moon, and mischievousness are all at least somewhat common themes among fairies, but none of them are regular enough, especially when it comes to integration with design, to unite the type. Put four random sixth gen and onward fairy pokemon together, and there'd likely be little in common visually and thematically between them. Present these four pokemon to someone with minimal pokemon knowledge to guess the type they share and they'd find it difficult at the very least. The same could not be said for most of the other types. All that's just the pokemon designed with fairy type in mind. What pokemon were and were not retconned into being fairy also seems inconsistent. The fairy type concept, when including retcons, becomes a total clusterfuck. The normal type at least as the excuse of being a catchall type, and at least dragon wasn't haphazardly added to old pokemon outside of mega evolution. Don't get me wrong. I like a lot of fairy type designs. The type itself is just poorly executed, both in terms of design and concept, as well as competitively. If they gave it a clearer identity and nerfed it I'd probably enjoy the type.
