That's not what I was saying at all. I was using the April Direct as an example of people blowing things out of proportion when the answer appears to be present. And why would I even say that the proper way to judge is by excluding context when my argument was based on people ignoring the crucial context within the April Direct ("other boss appearance")?If looking at Sakurai's history of statements and their impacts "overanalyzing" a statement of Sakurai's , sure. But then what you're saying is that the only way to properly judge something is without context or knowledge. Reflect on that a bit .
I think , that if you look at the April Direct , within the context of Sakurai's statements , previous actions, and knowledge of what the Smash Bros community wanted, then it becomes damn near impossible to argue he wasn't teasing Ridley as a new character. Those who think he wasn't teased seem to have a massive hindsight bias.
Furthermore, if you're saying that one should look at the April Direct including the context of what Sakurai has said earlier, then the issue is that they don't really say anything significant (to the point where it is beyond reasonable doubt to believe that Ridley is playable), or rather, no one has been able to be convincing in their argument of why that particular piece of "evidence" was contextually significant. Most pro-Ridley fans have pointed to the whole "Nintendo/Sakurai always de/confirms characters immediately" argument when they point to things like Shulk and Chrom, but they forget that Mewtwo wasn't deconfirmed immediately, which suggests that this isn't a consistent pattern as people would like to think.