>>48334332I don't deny that but at the same time many Pokemon are straight up based off real animals like in Gen I we had Rattata, pidgey, caterpie, etc. Many times when people think of new Pokemon they think one based off a real animal. This is what I meant when I say Pokemon draws heavily on real animals, not just in the way Pokemon are treated but the creatures themselves.
One of the big thing things that seperate Pokemon from other franchises, imo, is the fact that, as I mentioned, the monster themselves are not separate from the wild life or 'animals'. Franchises like Digimon or Monster Rancher have what they call "animal" types but those distinctions don't exist in Pokemon. The series treats almost all Pokemon, wheter they be a pidgey, or a chansey or an objectmon, in a similar manner. They're all thrown in a context where they live like wild animals, people treat them in a similar manner to the way you interact with them to the food they eat, and even Oak said in the first gen Pokemon are kept as pets when talking to the player. That TPC handbook gives us an interesting look as the guidelines seem to support this viewpoint such as Pokemon showing human behavior without a way the approve of, or wearing clothes, or even the language they use such as "real animals" rather than "animals" and clearly stating Pokemon are the replacement of real animals.
So it's clear it's not a 1:1 comparison but it's foolish to deny that's not the general feel they're going for.
