Talk:Ivysaur (SSBB)
image
the image looks badly pixelated. can someone find a bigger file or resize it? FyreNWater 22:07, August 13, 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry, this was a quick cropping job and the best I could do. If anyone else can upload something prettier, I'd appreciate it. -Thores 22:17, August 13, 2007 (EDT)
- Is this one a little better? -Mr Spaz 22:17, August 13, 2007
New Image after Merge?
I can't easily find the previous picture that was there, so should I use this one:
Image:Ivysaur(edited).jpg
If you can tell that it's edited we shouldn't use it, is it noticable. Click it to see what picture it was edited from. You can tell if you know where to look but tell me what you think at first glance. I also cropped out a Squirtle picture and edited a Charizard and I'm asking for feedback on their SSBB pages. I'll go ahead and put it in for now if no one provides feedback. Metallic Igloo 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Seed Locking?
Is "Seed Locking" a fan-made name or no? Is it a Technique? Amycats2 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone please answer me!Amycats2 (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Aw, forget it!Amycats2 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The bit comparing Ivysaur to Olimar...
Unlike other character articles I've read on this wiki, which don't specifically state that a character is a poor alternative to another character, this article compares Ivysaur to Olimar to a pretty negative extreme, stating that the former is a "poor version of Olimar." To my knowledge, there isn't supposed to be any bias anywhere on the mainspace, so I was wondering if anyone else thinks that the last two sentences in the attributes section should be removed? 71.105.121.171 19:23, 8 December 2013 (EST)
- Bias largely applies to areas shaped heavily by opinion or personal ideology. For example, this wiki does not evaluate whether Brawl or Melee is a better game, as "better" is variable in terms of views by different players. However, certain things can be ranked objectively. For example, it would be absurd to treat Ganandorf and ROB's recoveries as being equal in comparison, under the guise of neutrality. As discussed on the tier list page, it is more than possible to extend these objective rankings to overall characters. There's room for discussion on the actual placement, but it makes sense to have the wiki content reflective of overwhelming consensus. In this case, the Olimar and Ivysaur comparison can be useful for evaluating each character's strengths and weaknesses, and there are objective reasons for considering Olimar to be a superior character in competitive play. Mr. Anon
talk 19:43, 8 December 2013 (EST)
- Then, out of curiosity, how come Charizard's page doesn't say something like, "Despite a grab that is comparable to King Dedede, Charizard is outclassed by Dedede due to slower attacks, a worse recovery, less useful throws, etc."? If we are going to do this kind of comparison on one character page, why don't we do this on the majority of them? And I suppose I was off when I used the word "bias". I was just didn't like the last two sentences comparing Ivysaur to Olimar, since it kind of left me with the impression like, "Why use Ivysaur, when Olimar is similar, yet superior in almost every way?". 71.105.121.171 19:54, 8 December 2013 (EST)
- I wouldn't be against highlighting more strategy-level similarities between characters. However, I don't consider myself to be anywhere near an expert on the game, so I generally differ my judgement to more knowledgeable editors. In this case, I believe the last two sentences were largely to note the similarities between Olimar and Ivysaur in terms of their strategies being heavily based on mid to long range damaging through projectiles, while explaining why one champion is significantly preferred to the other in competitive play. Mr. Anontalk 20:01, 8 December 2013 (EST)
- "how come Charizard's page doesn't say something like, "Despite a grab that is comparable to King Dedede, Charizard is outclassed by Dedede due to slower attacks, a worse recovery, less useful throws, etc."?"
- I wouldn't be against highlighting more strategy-level similarities between characters. However, I don't consider myself to be anywhere near an expert on the game, so I generally differ my judgement to more knowledgeable editors. In this case, I believe the last two sentences were largely to note the similarities between Olimar and Ivysaur in terms of their strategies being heavily based on mid to long range damaging through projectiles, while explaining why one champion is significantly preferred to the other in competitive play. Mr. Anon
- Then, out of curiosity, how come Charizard's page doesn't say something like, "Despite a grab that is comparable to King Dedede, Charizard is outclassed by Dedede due to slower attacks, a worse recovery, less useful throws, etc."? If we are going to do this kind of comparison on one character page, why don't we do this on the majority of them? And I suppose I was off when I used the word "bias". I was just didn't like the last two sentences comparing Ivysaur to Olimar, since it kind of left me with the impression like, "Why use Ivysaur, when Olimar is similar, yet superior in almost every way?". 71.105.121.171 19:54, 8 December 2013 (EST)
- Because no one has wrote such a line down? It's not like the Wiki made a conscious decision to exclude such a line.
- "since it kind of left me with the impression like, "Why use Ivysaur, when Olimar is similar, yet superior in almost every way?""
Trivia?
Is it worth mentioning that Ivysaur's the only one of the trainer's Pokemon without an HM move?
No, that's waaaaaayyy too insignificant to be worthy of mention. Also, think about it. If you can't say with confidence that a trivia point is worth mentioning, or if you have to question it, then it probably isn't. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 18:59, 14 December 2015 (EST)
