D
Deleted member
Guest
@
Verde Coeden Scalesworth
False because.....it's entirely possible to have a Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard through trading and, if "Original Trainer" is so damn important, through breeding and keeping the hatchlings while trading back the parents.
You act as though the fact trading has to be involved means anything; it really doesn't.
Irrelevant because......a **** ton of examples where other characters don't match their "canon" counterparts. Best examples? Ness and Lucas.
They are using PSI powers they have no access to in-game. The explanation? "Paula/Poo/Kumatora taught them these moves". And somehow....Red isn't allowed to trade for the two starters he's missing? That makes no sense. Something made up entirely for Smash is perfectly acceptable, yet something with basis in regards to a big part of a franchise isn't?
Also, the fact the games aren't mentioned on Pokemon Trainer's trophy? Irrelevant. Brawl's got a lot of issues in regards to Trophies, anyway.
Brawl tells me I can catch Wobbuffet in Red/Blue and that Moltres can be caught in Gold/Silver and Crystal while it doesn't exist in Red/Blue and doesn't appear in FireRed/LeafGreen.
Literally, the only instance he was actually "Red" was in G/S/C. Yeah, there was the dummy data for FR/LG, but guess what? I'm going to go ahead and point out something that can actually kill that point on my first post on the matter; the rival's dummy data was labeled Terry. Not "Blue" or "Green", "Terry".
So yeah, if you hadn't grasped that at this point, he had no "defined" name outside his (then) one-time role as a NPC unlike other characters you can name like Ness or Link, don't know what to tell you.
Trading point is irrelevant. Especially since it doesn't say "catch and train", it says "raise and train". By your logic, it goes out of the way to ignore the existence of Trainers catching their Pokemon! "Raising" could mean any Pokemon, whether they were home-caught or transferred among friends.
And last I checked, there is no ****ing Trainer in existence that can catch an Ivysaur and Charizard in the wild. Only way that's close to possible is through X/Y's Friend Safari for Ivysaur, but wait, that involves other people just like trading....AND, it's long after Brawl. So what's your point here?
I really hope you don't think that Yoshi in Brawl is Mario's ol' pal.....because quite a few of these arguments you use legitimately cam apply to Yoshi.
By your logic, Villager is a specific individual. After all, he is "Animal Crossing Boy" in Brawl, after all. And.....his description treats him as a specific individual....and.....marks him as a recurring character. In this case, he's not even City Folk's default male player from the boxart, it's all one guy. A guy that simply has no name.
He's "Red". He's "Yamaguchi". He's "Satoshi". Hell, he's "Ash", "Jack", "Jesus", whatever. He's whoever the player identifies him as. He's a representation of the player.
Red is merely one interpretation of who he is. But it isn't his definitive identity. This is why he's Red and he's not. However, there is one thing that is fact; he's not the player from Johto, Hoenn, or Sinnoh (or any after Brawl). He's the one from Kanto. If the specific label of FR/LG is to be used, it would be because of Rock Smash and Bullet Seed not existing in Gen I.
Catching isn't even mentioned once there, nor is anything about "my own". Raising and training is only brought up in the very beginning, which quickly ties in to battling. Did you even read the Trophy?
You are making the claim that he isn't Red. Burden of proof would then fall on you to back up said claim regardless of my proposition on a different way to think. And no, "taking P Trainer for what he is called and is given as in the game" isn't substantial evidence or even remotely close to "how it is".
You are exerting what my Critical Thinking textbook refers to as "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.
Verde Coeden Scalesworth
Accidentally skipped this one, though I think I've countered these in the later points.
1st point is irrelevant and false.
False because.....it's entirely possible to have a Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard through trading and, if "Original Trainer" is so damn important, through breeding and keeping the hatchlings while trading back the parents.
You act as though the fact trading has to be involved means anything; it really doesn't.
Irrelevant because......a **** ton of examples where other characters don't match their "canon" counterparts. Best examples? Ness and Lucas.
They are using PSI powers they have no access to in-game. The explanation? "Paula/Poo/Kumatora taught them these moves". And somehow....Red isn't allowed to trade for the two starters he's missing? That makes no sense. Something made up entirely for Smash is perfectly acceptable, yet something with basis in regards to a big part of a franchise isn't?
Also, the fact the games aren't mentioned on Pokemon Trainer's trophy? Irrelevant. Brawl's got a lot of issues in regards to Trophies, anyway.
Brawl tells me I can catch Wobbuffet in Red/Blue and that Moltres can be caught in Gold/Silver and Crystal while it doesn't exist in Red/Blue and doesn't appear in FireRed/LeafGreen.
He's only "Red" when he's an NPC. And since you're so adamant of keeping this before Brawl....
Literally, the only instance he was actually "Red" was in G/S/C. Yeah, there was the dummy data for FR/LG, but guess what? I'm going to go ahead and point out something that can actually kill that point on my first post on the matter; the rival's dummy data was labeled Terry. Not "Blue" or "Green", "Terry".
So yeah, if you hadn't grasped that at this point, he had no "defined" name outside his (then) one-time role as a NPC unlike other characters you can name like Ness or Link, don't know what to tell you.
Trading point is irrelevant. Especially since it doesn't say "catch and train", it says "raise and train". By your logic, it goes out of the way to ignore the existence of Trainers catching their Pokemon! "Raising" could mean any Pokemon, whether they were home-caught or transferred among friends.
And last I checked, there is no ****ing Trainer in existence that can catch an Ivysaur and Charizard in the wild. Only way that's close to possible is through X/Y's Friend Safari for Ivysaur, but wait, that involves other people just like trading....AND, it's long after Brawl. So what's your point here?
I really hope you don't think that Yoshi in Brawl is Mario's ol' pal.....because quite a few of these arguments you use legitimately cam apply to Yoshi.
Oh, but see, here's the real kicker.
By your logic, Villager is a specific individual. After all, he is "Animal Crossing Boy" in Brawl, after all. And.....his description treats him as a specific individual....and.....marks him as a recurring character. In this case, he's not even City Folk's default male player from the boxart, it's all one guy. A guy that simply has no name.
It's meaningless only to those that are jaded.
He's "Red". He's "Yamaguchi". He's "Satoshi". Hell, he's "Ash", "Jack", "Jesus", whatever. He's whoever the player identifies him as. He's a representation of the player.
Red is merely one interpretation of who he is. But it isn't his definitive identity. This is why he's Red and he's not. However, there is one thing that is fact; he's not the player from Johto, Hoenn, or Sinnoh (or any after Brawl). He's the one from Kanto. If the specific label of FR/LG is to be used, it would be because of Rock Smash and Bullet Seed not existing in Gen I.
No, the reality is that Pokemon Trainer is meant to represent a new gimmick Sakurai wanted to incorporate. Which is the battling aspect of Pokemon; the point that is emphasized throughout the Trophy.
Catching isn't even mentioned once there, nor is anything about "my own". Raising and training is only brought up in the very beginning, which quickly ties in to battling. Did you even read the Trophy?
Can't really take this one seriously.
You obviously do not understand burden of proof.
You are making the claim that he isn't Red. Burden of proof would then fall on you to back up said claim regardless of my proposition on a different way to think. And no, "taking P Trainer for what he is called and is given as in the game" isn't substantial evidence or even remotely close to "how it is".
You are exerting what my Critical Thinking textbook refers to as "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.
Last edited by a moderator:
