I would love to see Ivysaur and Squirtle return, they were very unique and fun to play as, especially Squirt.
The only thing I have against them is that we already have a lot of Gen 1 Pokemon, other than that though, I really want them back but not as much as Wolf.
Grouping Pokemon by generation is clearly not what the developers do (with the sole exception of 'current gen' and 'previous gen'). I've gone over many times how a Pokemon's generation of conception does not correlate with said Pokemon solely representing only that generation of games, but I'd be happy to get into that topic again.
Firstly... all generations are not made equally. Aside from the clear iconic nature of the first 151 Pokemon, there arent even the same number of Pokemon in each generation. I find it odd that 1/72 Pokemon in a later generation, should be then comparable to 1/151 Pokemon of the first generation. Numerically it is ridiculous.
The only thing the generations actually stand for are the regions initiated, and even that is a stretch considering each generation of games (since gen 2) has had at least two regions playable, and since gen 3, there have been at least different games entirely (remakes counting within the generations). In fact, the initial three starters are so iconic, that they a player is able to make the choice between the three in 5/6 generations. If that doesn't disprove the fan-made concept that generations are irrelevant, than nothing does (though, certainly nothing proves it).
I think that, instead of getting Ivysaur, we should get Bulbasaur or Venusaur instead. This is because Ivysaur doesn't have enough merits to be playable in Smash, and the reason people want him is because he was already in the game. Bulba/Venusaur would use the same moveset, just with slightly different stats.
First of all... the 'only reason he is wanted in the game' is a pretty ridiculous claim.
Secondly, even if Ivysaur is not technically Bulbasaur or Venusaur, it doesnt mean that she does not represent the three of them. Visually, she is an even ground between them, of course. Of course, in terms of 'character,' all Pokemon are species, and any one in Smash is not necessarily a specific character. Considering Pokemon evolve, however, it is clear that one of the species, if a specific character, could easily be from the same family line, and thus, the same character identity... if that matters, for no reason at all.
We have some characters with two arguable spots within their characters identity (Dr/Mario, Zelda/Sheik, Toon/Link, Zero Suit and SAMUS for certain). What difference is it if one character is an amalgamation of representation? Pacman is in as an amalgamation character, and most characters in the game do things representing their franchise more than themselves as just a character.
No matter how you slice it, the only reason Ivysaur is placed at a lower level of importance, is all fan-made bull****.
