211
edits
Talk:Pseudo-legendary Pokémon: Difference between revisions
→So seriously, what's the definition?
| Line 351: | Line 351: | ||
: PS. I'd like to point out that the opening paragraph used to mention that all pseudos had Attack as their highest stat, though it wisely did not include that as a part of the definition of what makes a pseudo a pseudo. [[Hydreigon|Now it doesn't say that any more.]] Just sayin'. --[[User:HeroicJay|HeroicJay]] 07:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC) | : PS. I'd like to point out that the opening paragraph used to mention that all pseudos had Attack as their highest stat, though it wisely did not include that as a part of the definition of what makes a pseudo a pseudo. [[Hydreigon|Now it doesn't say that any more.]] Just sayin'. --[[User:HeroicJay|HeroicJay]] 07:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
::The pseudolegendaries are variations on a theme. The dual types and stats are part of that theme. Single type would suggest that there's an underlying difference. Experience group makes them hard to raise, suggesting that they're all very similar. Like PP of moves, experience group is an indicator of the similarity of Pokemon. If Nintendo feel the need to make it a lower experience group, that makes it easier to raise, suggesting that there are underlying differences - the Pokemon are not considered equal. Stats like that aren't just a random choice. <span class="sc">[[User:Werdnae|<span style="color:#2D4B98;">Werdnae</span>]]</span> <small>[[User talk:Werdnae|<span style="color:#009000;">(talk)</span>]]</small> 20:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC) | ::The pseudolegendaries are variations on a theme. The dual types and stats are part of that theme. Single type would suggest that there's an underlying difference. Experience group makes them hard to raise, suggesting that they're all very similar. Like PP of moves, experience group is an indicator of the similarity of Pokemon. If Nintendo feel the need to make it a lower experience group, that makes it easier to raise, suggesting that there are underlying differences - the Pokemon are not considered equal. Stats like that aren't just a random choice. <span class="sc">[[User:Werdnae|<span style="color:#2D4B98;">Werdnae</span>]]</span> <small>[[User talk:Werdnae|<span style="color:#009000;">(talk)</span>]]</small> 20:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::I can't say I agree. We can say that the two types and the level-up curve are traits they all have, at present, but how is it part of the definition? If you remove those restrictions, the number of pseudolegendary Pokemon remains six, so those restrictions aren't helping with the definition and just unnecessarily restrict possible future psuedolegendaries. I was asked to provide a source that they're not necessary. Where's the source that they are? I mean, let's say, totally hypothetically, that one made a page called "Pikachu Clones" back in the fourth gen, discussing Pokemon such as Pichu, Plusle, Minun, and Pachirisu. (The usefulness of such a page isn't the point; let's just say that one existed.) At the time, they decided to define the Pokemon as "Cute mono-Electric-type Pokemon that have a resemblence to Pikachu. Aside from Pichu and Pikachu, none of the Pikachu clones evolve." Are you to say that, when the fifth gen came out, this hypothetical page would have been wrong to alter its definition and include Emolga? If so, why? And if not, then why did the definition need to include the "mono-" part of it at all if it's unnecessarily limiting and so easily discarded? --[[User:HeroicJay|HeroicJay]] 20:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC) | |||