Male and Female Starter Pokémon Gender Ratio?
I’m not askingwhatthe gender ratio of a starter Pokémon is. I already know that it has an eighty-seven-point-five chance of being male, and a twelve-point-five chance of being female. In other words, that’s a seven-to-one ratio of a male; and, thus, a one-to-seven ratio of a female.
What I’m wondering is—why? I mean, I already know the obvious reason; it’s because they want female starters to be rare. I understand that part.
But. . . it’s exceedingly frustrating for me, personally, as a person who, frankly, enjoys the Pokémon games and plays them a lot, to know that there is such a difference between the chance of a male and female starter. Why is that the case? Is there a legitimate reason, or is it just because Nintendo and Game Freak like to aggravate us with the fact that female starter Pokémon are so hard to get?
I may just be overthinking this—I tend to do that a lot—and I’m sorry if this explanation seems so complicated and intricate. I just . . . wonder about the Pokémon world sometimes. There typically isn’t much thought put toward the logistics, or it doesn’t seem like there is. Some clarification would definitely be helpful. Thanks!
Pleaselog inorregisterto add a comment.
It’s because the ‘starter’ Pokemon are supposed to be rare and special, which is why you can’t catch more. Having common female starter Pokemon would make breeding them and getting a bunch of them make them not as special. So it’s their way of showing that you should cherish the one you have.
Also, if you want more, just breed your starter with Ditto. Ditto can breed with any gender.
400 million years later you might have received a good reason somewhere else at this point but I’ll give you one that I think more accurate than the ones you have received already and it won’t be long.
The ratio is given to be realistic to endangered species irl. GF took the most basic way out and lowered the female ratio drastically bc if there aren’t enough females a species can’t breed efficiently for the most part. The thing is if they flipped the ratio to be female biased it would give the same effect bc although the males could potentially breed with a bunch of females some animals mage for life and other need to cooperate to protect the young and in female biased species that need cooperation the offspring survival rate plummets bc the level of cooperation plummets as well.
This also lines up with the fact that starters can’t be found in the wild and because the professor wants you to fill the pokedex instead of giving you a Pokemon found in the wild they give you and your rival(s) one of the endangered practically impossible to find one’s
Okay I know this post is possibly dead ever since two years now but I actually can give a logical answer about this. Plus, it’s my first comment so let’s prosperity happen.
I mean, of course Victini above (or below, idk) already answered about the reason GF did so: Unless one is a Ditto, only the female parent gives their species to the bred child. But what wasn’t been said is that Ditto is itself a tad-bit-little harder to get than an “usual” Pokemon that’d be on the same group egg of whichever starter you would wanted to breed. In fact, it doesn’t exist in Ruby/Sapphire (but does in Emerald) and is (apparently) only catchable-in-the-wild-but-not-after-a-whole-adventure in the Gen II games (and their remakes).
Too long didn’t read version:You have one eighth of a chance of having that starter that wouldn’t make you wait to beat the game/a side-quest/a trade (yes, “beat a trade”) to make more of ‘em. They’re your journey pal, afterall, they got to live your journey before you try to make them kids.Now for the in-universe explanation: It’s basically the same.If their rates would be 50/50, they would be easier to reproduce and wouldn’t be so rare, as they are always described to be.
But I do admit that despite it being quite logic, it can be annoying when you want a girl but get a boy.PS: Eevee isactuallya 87m-12f ratio.
(sorryididntexpectedthistobethislong)
