Even if you're done arguing, at least be a Saint and read me over before moving on.
This will be the last argument I'm going to make before retirement. I was hoping to not have to make such a lengthy one, but oh well.
Guess I'm going with a bang.
Nowhere in the game does it state the Zelda characters in Scribblenauts Unlimited are strictly Toon based. The designs, while with similarities, are in the Scribblenauts art-style in the first place, meaning
that Sheik we're using in the chart has nothing to do with the Scribblenauts Sheik. The "Toon" Sheik you insist on referring to is an made-up at worst and non-canon at best... Who even legitimately sees Scribblenauts Sheik and thinks "Oh, that's Toon Sheik right there"?
Irrelevant point and strawman (seriously? I "insist"? I only
brought it up once to AEM and responded to his response).
Regardless of "Scribblenauts style" it uses the Toon designs for the characters (with Toon versions of Sheik and Beast Ganon made). Same with the Paper designs for the Mario characters.
Man, what are we even going on about here? The whole idea that Sheik as she appears in Scribblenauts Unlimited having anything to do with Roy is an absurd amount of straw grasping as it is.
What
AEM and I were going on about was how Toon Sheik, like Roy, had not been
directly disconfirmed, but by sheer logic is as good as disconfirmed.
Which you would've caught if you didn't decide to just target the
side point of the argument about the logic used for Toon Sheik's disconfirmation label.
No feasible reason, despite the fact that he's a friggin' Lord in his game. Later promoted to Master Lord. First sentence of his Melee trophy saying he is son of the lord of Pharae prinicpality and making it pretty obvious of what comes next in his lineage. None of that is feasible reasoning? Hell, I guess the possibility of ever seeing Peach referred to as "Princess Peach" is out of the question as well, considering giving a proper name to a veteran is just unacceptable for the announcer to ever do. Sacrilege, surely.
Need a tin man and a lion to go with that scarecrow of a strawman?
Marth is of the Lord class too. However, he's never
Lord Marth, he's
Prince Marth. (Or
King Marth depending on the game.) Roy is
never given the title "Lord Roy". Hell, if I recall correctly, he's never called Prince Roy either. He's always been "Roy".
That is why it's unfeasible. Because it's an arbitrary title
never been used to refer to him (not even in his literal debut in Smash) JUST FOR THE SAKE of having a different moniker from the other Roy already featured in game.
If there was some new character simply named "Peach" completely unrelated to the Peach we already have (and isn't a princess), the "old" Peach
can feasibly be named "Princess Peach" because
that's a moniker she's legitimately known as/referred to.
It's stupid, but would the thousands of Roy fans agree with you? Would Sakurai care when that small distinction is plenty of DLC for making another easy edit of Marth?
Are videos games completely above ever having more than one character of the same name? You can poke at it all you want, but objectively speaking, how stupid it is has no relevance to the conversation. If you'd like to explain what issues lie with having characters of the same name has when an audial distinction is given, that's a lot less arrogant and a lot more helpful to the conversation.
Notice how the examples in the One Steve Limit work around it in
other ways than labeling the characters the exact same way with a change in tone by an announcer or 3rd party stating their name.
Really, the arguing point that would be
least supported by the One Steve Limit trope is this one. At least the others (giving Roy a title or fully labeling Roy Koopa) would be
proper examples of the trope in effect. Hence why the concept is stupid; the trope is
not in effect.
Furthermore, do you not realize that Sakurai was
actively avoiding adding newer characters similar to pre-existing ones? And before you try to use Doc/Pittoo/Lucy as a counterexample, they
were not meant to be separate characters. They were alts like Alph and the Koopalings. They only became separate because the changes in their moves/properties would affect match outcomes in different ways to the standard characters.
What makes you think Sakurai's looking for easy clones for DLC?
And a second time, you resort to saying an idea is stupid rather than flawed.
Roy's requests are still beyond modest in the Smash community throughout the years, so clearly there are plenty of people who would be willing to see the Koopalings receive name changes in order to have their veteran return. So again, deconstructing the point does us all a lot more good than ignoring it.
Can't deconstruct what hasn't been constructed in the first place. You literally have no point here.
Just a statement that Roy is moderately scoring high on a popularity poll from months ago and a hypothesis that the Roy fans would want (at least) Roy Koopa to be given a full label so Roy could retain his that
somehow is blended into an argument that rehauling the Koopaling's names to their full names just so Roy can be incorporated is not asinine (which I was using to mean
unreasonable, not stupid. If I was saying it was stupid, I'd just
flat out say it.)
The idea of applying the One Steve Limit to the two Roys itself is reasonable. It's the idea of
altering what's already present in order TO apply the One Steve Limit that renders it asinine.
Because you were right about a few other characters completely unrelated to the context, you've suddenly got expertise of how DLC will be done simply because I'm the opposition? So what, hubris is how we'll enclose this thing? If I never even said a thing, there are still others who disagree with your decision. Golden, nobody is doubting Roy's return. That's a given. The fact of the matter is that I and several others all agree that nothing has been set to completely shut Roy out from ever returning, which is the point of the chart in the first place. Anyone else should be deconfirmed for being "unlikely" if the chart's purpose is suddenly otherwise.
Strawman
again.
I didn't make any such claim that I had expertise on the subject nor that you were inferior because of me being right.
I said that I was done bending over and giving in either completely or through compromise because each case I did, my opposition proved to be justified. So I'm refusing to bend over this time.
As for the last sentence, that's why not only Toon Sheik (look, here's me
insisting on bringing her up again
) has been labeled down for the count, but why Young Link, Worlds Link, Pokémon Trainer, etc. were as well.
Hell, cases where a tag-team is involved are technically up for debate now considering Sakurai having to outright scrap the Ice Climbers. Non-Final Smash transformations too, since the reason why Zelda/Sheik and Samus/Zero Suit were split and Charizard going solo.
Hypothetical: Say we mark a character for deconfirmed and ultimately they're added as DLC despite no prior role ever being given to them. Roy is getting a Binding Blade remake and Sakurai decides to add him with a few tweaks to his Melee moveset as an easy appeasement to his Melee fans. If we had no reason prior to believe that Roy was already A.) given a role in the game that prevents him from ever receiving DLC or B.) been usurped by a playable character that he absolutely cannot coexist with within the mechanics of the game, then this is less that of an objective chart and more of a general prediction thread (which we already have countless other threads for). We'd be marking Roy for exclusive reasoning when it should be done inclusively. That was my mistake with wanting to mark characters like Miis and Dark Pit as deconfirmed in the past. Are we about to willingly repeat it again?
If it was
just that Roy has no role in the game, there'd be no issue.
It's the fact that his "role" has already been filled by Lucina (Young Link Clause; unless you honestly believe we need to change
Young Link's marking as well despite Toon Link's existence) and there's already a "Roy" present in the game.
That's quite different from "Miis make cameos on the Find Mii stage" and "Dark Pit appears as a teaser segment of Palutena's cinematic trailer".
Again, through reasons of principle alone, as in I could not give any less of a **** of what actually happens to Roy, Roy should be kept unmarked until role as an Assist Trophy, stage element, or something else completely immune Alfonization shows up for him. With others in the thread clearly saying something similar to that effect, is it truly out of the question to ask for a similar perspective as any other character in limbo?
Putting him disconfirmed because of quite damning logic
is similar perspective to the others in limbo. To deny the damning logic would be giving Roy special treatment that characters like I've previously stated do not get.
Either they
all get it or none of them do.
Now that that's out of the way,
it's time for a special announcement. I'm officially retiring from the Speculation Chart.
I'm going to be quite honest and say that I was kind of glad when the Character Boards were closed, since running this thing has been quite stressful for me, and I'm already under a lot of stress as it is, so I don't want to build it up
again through this thread.
I pass the torch on to @
AEMehr
, and request that ownership of the thread be transferred to him.
AEM, why I chose you is this:
-You are more professional about this than I am.
-You are a mod, so that'll be overall better for the thread than a lowly member like me.
-You're already doing the major part of the thread, the charts themselves, so really, it's more like
your thread anyway that I just happen to be the figurehead for.
I know the charts have been giving you a lot of stress as well, so I apologize for essentially getting out of it and leaving you to handle everything.
But on the plus side is, instead of having to wait on me to make the final decision or update the front post with the charts, you'll be able to take care of it
much quicker. And with you in charge, perhaps there will be less controversy that ends up making the thread look bad. I mean, we're not even at 100 pages, and I'm not proud of a majority of them.
I will still participate in the community decisions and any votes that are done down the line, but I'm taking a much less active role.
Here's to a new future for the Speculation Chart.
fits neither of these requirements and should remain in limbo.
