What is with the meme that Bulbasaur's line are based on frogs? Not all Gen I Pokemon are clearly, directly based on things. Take Koffing for example, wtf is it supposed to be? Is it made out of rock? Is it supposed to be nival mine or something? It's much more loose compared to Pokemon in later gen, but it's general concept is that it's based on gas and air pollution- not a specific object or animal. After all, at this time Pokemon were still literal monsters with magic powers, and I think Venusaur is perfect representation of that. I think Venusaur isn't a frog or a dinosaur, it's just a bulky monster with a flower on its back.
But if you still think it's based off a frog lets take a look
Frog/Toad-Like Traits
>it's crouched like stance reminds one of a frog
>it's warty
>it's vaguely reptilian-ish
>wide mouth
Non-Frog/Toad traits
>it's got mammalian ears
>it has visible, fang-like teeth
>it has claws, which contrasts to all fully evolved frog Pokemon that have fingers.
>doesn't appear to go through any metaphorosis unlike every other frog Pokemon to exist, including poliwag's line. If it was a toad, it's starts off a toad and stays a toad
>Bulbasaur's name in Japanese name is fushigidane; meaning "isn't it strange?" which may add to the fact it's a generic monster and not a natural creature like an animal-based Pokemon
It's quite possible GF took some inspirations from frogs and toads, but in the end Bulbasaur's line are not frogs. Many Gen I Pokemon often had a concept behind them and their design went around that; in the case of Bulbasaur's line, the concept surrounding it was the flower on their backs- not what animal it was.
>>25824076
cool story breh
>>25824076
>meme
Everything about your post is valid except this. Can we stop calling everything a "meme"? A commonly held opinion, however wrong it may be, is not a meme.
A lot of the appeal of starters is the simple elemental animal design that lets kids pretend they have a pet [lizard/turtle/penguin/etc.], so Bulbasaur and Chikorita tend to bother some people for not being obvious animals. I think Gamefreak wanted the animal aspect to be vague in order to focus on the plant aspect, but since Grass was the least popular starter 2 gens in a row they started making Grass starters conform to the "obvious animal" rule.
>>25824162
I'm OP and I can agree to this. It's just become a meme itself to call things like this a meme.
>>25824196
That much I can agree with. Calling things a meme is, in fact, a meme. Unfortunately.
>>25824076
That was informative. Thanks OP
>>25824076
>frog
It's clearly a toad with ears... like a horny toad.
also
>implying reptiles don't have teeth
>>25824076
Jesus Christ, are you fucking retarded? It's not based on anything necessarily, just its own unique monster with perhaps some inspiration from assorted creatures or organisms.
Also, Koffing is based off a mine. Please kill yourself.
>>25824264
>you fucking retarded? It's not based on anything necessarily
Isn't that more or less what I said? The only concept surrounding it is the flower on it's back. It starts of as a bulb and eventually becomes a fully bloomed flower.
>Koffing is based off a mine
Did you read that off bulbapedia, anon?Koffing and Weezing are probably like what you said "its own unique monster with perhaps some inspiration from assorted creatures or organisms" (except in this case objects), but it's central concept is the idea is loose and that it produces is toxic gas.
>Please kill yourself
already dead, bud.
After much thought, I figured out that it's called Weezing because there are two of them, hence "we" instead of "whe".
>>25824386
>>25824264 sorry, I meant >>25824277
>>25824386
Don't try to make Gen 1 seem like the place with deep designs, this type of thing (like Koffing and Venusaur) is present everywhere in both subtle and literal forms.
>>25824492
I'm not trying to make it out like it had deep designs, I'm saying it was a simpler time and they didn't care about literally translating real world animals and objects into Pokemon. Some Pokemon were like that, of course, but that wasn't how a majority of Pokemon were produced.
>>25824076
>doesn't appear to go through any metaphorosis unlike every other frog Pokemon to exist, including poliwag's line. If it was a toad, it's starts off a toad and stays a toad
Croagunk line, Froakie line?
I mean its clearly a kind of dinosaur.
>>25824548
Oh fuck you're right.
