>>48614432They don't have to do that because appearance is only but one aspect but how we see the things acting and being treated in context helps a lot more than anyone here ever wants to admit.
More importantly it's *fiction*. They don't have to follow the real world at all. Despite me using this primarly to put down the degenerates here the way Pokemon ties the Pokemon themselves to the concept of animals and how we interact with them is pretty damn interesting. It gives these magical, fantastical creatures a familiar grounded anchor to us in the real world. Like, say, the Empire from the Elder Scrolls is very grounded in the real life Roman Empire, and in a way the Imperials are fantasy Romans. One of these days I will get around doing a video essay on the subject.
But back on subject I already mentioned that it's *fantasy* and thus does not have to follow real life. Thus Professor Oak can tell us since Gen I face-to-face that Pokemon ownership has a parallel to real pet ownership. Pokemon also takes straight inspiration from real animals like Pidgey, Caterpie, Ratatta, etc. but also ties these with all the fantastical designs like Chansey and Blissey. Basically presenting these creatures as one giant group, like in real life we see various lifeforms with very varied shapes and see them as the concept of "animals". These familiar desings being tied with the mora fantastical designs allow them to be seen without any objection as they're all thrown in the same context.
It's unlike Digimon that has "animal" type digimon that include Renamon, Gatomon, or Leomon. Or like in Monster Rancher with beast types. Or even the Elder Scrolls separating animals like deer and wolves from monsters like atronachs and goblins. A Pidgey and a Chansey belong in the same group as Pokemon, there's no division on which Pokemon is and isn't a beast, they're all *fantastical* beasts.
>>48614379I do not such thing, boychick.
