SSB4 Rumours and Leaks

[Sabrewulf238]

So if the Sal and the RosalinaX leaks are true... then we have 46 or 47 characters in the roster, meaning 1-2 are still up in the air.

46 or 47 because you could see PT (therefore Squirtle+Ivysaur) as one, or you could see Squirlte and Ivy as two (cuts).

So that means not all hope is lost in regards to K. Rool or Mewtwo... or Dixie.


I also find it interesting that RosalinaX said "He said 48 characters for smash ( it could change )". So they could have increased the roster a little...

I didn't hear about the "it could change" part.

That's one of two things:
1. He's a faker trying to keep his options open.
2. Possible it's information that while legit, could be outdated.

 

[Deleted member]

@Johnny Wellens
I'm on the "it's real" side of the argument, but this is some pretty big talk from someone who's only been here about two months.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

According to Sal, the leaker was very explicit that Pac-Man, Little Mac, and Mii would be revealed at E3 "barring impromptu change". If the leaker just knew that they would be in the game, he could have said so.

We shouldn't twist the facts to help the validity of the leak.

First off, do we even know what department Sal's leaker works in? It could really be anything, from producer to testing to PR. Not that I want the identity revealed, but I'm just pointing that out.

At the same time, as you said, E3 was still predicted and Little Mac is still in the game. If Little Mac was deconfirmed, that'd be something else, but even you (and others) can't deny that Pac-Man and Mii are all but confirmed at this point.

For leak number 2 while I think it's highly likely, just like leak 1 had, I need evidence.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Oh my God, seriously so many of you guys are so pathetic. So dead set on disproving this leak or that leak. "Oh according to the bylaws of leaking E3 blah blah blah." I'm done with this thread. Fools I tell you, you're fools and I can't take it anymore. A suggestion before I go: Ease up. Relax. Take everything with a grain of salt. The minute one of you starts talking like you know what's going through someone else's mind you already look like an imbecile. You guys aren't discussing leaks, you're driving them into the ground using made up logic and bias. Normally I'd wish that the leak you guys dismiss the most turns out to be true just so you'll learn a lesson, but that doesn't work with you morons. You didn't learn with Melee, you didn't learn with Brawl and you won't learn with 4. This is obviously not directed to every single person on this thread. Some of you have good ideas and worthwhile thoughts. If you're upset or offended by this post, then you're exactly who I'm talking about. Good day.

Wow... What the heck? I'm pretty sure everyone is offended by this. I haven't posted in this thread for I don't know how long and I'm offended by it lol. No need for insulting people who try to disprove a leak. Just ease up, relax and take what they are saying with a grain of salt

 

[Oblivion129]

Little Mac, Pac-Man, and Mii Missing E3

I'll be the first to admit, I have no idea. There are literally tons of reasons as to why this person could've thought the trio would appear at E3. But even so, things happen, and not everything always goes according to plan. And Little Mac eventually showed. The guy is still backing Pac-Man and Mii, too. So, much like the rest of the rumor, time will tell there.

Oh my God, seriously so many of you guys are so pathetic. So dead set on disproving this leak or that leak. "Oh according to the bylaws of leaking E3 blah blah blah."

Is this what you were looking for? He said it himself that the leaker said they would appear at E3.
We're not trying to discredit the leak, we're trying to find out in what position the leaker is in, how he gets his information, etc.

For anyone else that wants to see Sal's post, it's on page 791.

 

[The Nerd]

While I know you said you would be leaving this post as 'one last thing' I feel compelled to respond. Forgive me.

I was going to do this earlier but real life comes first. I'm going to post this one last thing and leave it at that. In the end, it does matter because the roster is what it is and the people here aren't going to change their minds no matter what. The problem with the rumor is that people want to believe it that evidence get twisted or ignored.

I was unaware people wanted to believe this rumour; the lack of K.Rool, Ridley, and several other popular characters, along with the inclusion of Chrom, Pacman, and Mii, made this leak taste quite terrible in the mouths of people around here. I recall with some degree of fondness how people regretted complaining about the Betternet Roster leak as they would rather it than this roster.

When you analyze anything, you review the facts and date, and then make a conclusion. With this rumor, the stance has been to come to a conclusion then try to fit the evidence to the conclusion. You can see this in numerous situations. This is what we call confirmation bias. What is confirmation bias you ask? Well,

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

It is a good idea to be aware of confirmation bias when trying to debate something. I agree. But I am of the opinion that some comfirmation bias is inevitable, because humans are very bad at thinking within the realm of pure logic. Despite our limitations, let us press on.

So basically, confirmation bias is when you try to prove your own conclusion first and skew the rest. It's no surprise that when confronted with specific issues with the leak, that it's believers attempt to rationalize it away rather than look at it first. As I mentioned before, there are three major issues that this rumor runs into. One of the most drastic of those was the fact that the characters were not shown at E3 despite the rumor specifically saying they were to be shown. If we apply the same criteria that is applied to other rumors, you'd assume that it might not be true, as something he said would happen didn't. What many people did was assume that the characters were pushed back and they would be shown at a later date. While possible, it's not very probably as it is more likely that the characters were not to be shown at the event than Nintendo removing the reveals at the last minute. Not to mention that Pac-Man and Mii were not shown despite the fact that they would have been far enough along to show almost a year ago if we believe the rumor.

Hmm. I'm slightly alarmed that, setting aside a recap for the last paragraph, the first statement is a declaration, or thesis. While it may not have been your intent, and it is good style to state what you set out to prove, it reads as though you have drawn a conclusion prior to looking at the evidence. On the principle of charity I will assume this is not the case. You list three major issues that this leak has, which strike me as an interesting, but valid place to start.

Alarmingly you talk about 'the criteria that is applied to other rumours" without ever really defining it. For posterity, I will do so now; the criteria you put forth is that a leak must be 100% correct, or else 100% incorrect. Following this line of logic, you argue that people should have declared the leak dead rather than possibly allow it to live given they only had a 50% success rate for E3 predictions. This seems fairly harsh, but let us carry on for now, feeling reasonably secure that we are on a moderately good start.

Still don't believe me? Consider the Greninja reveal. After it, many people here said "He got Greninja right!" That is actually an incorrect statement. He never said "Greninja" would be in. He specifically said "Pokemon from Pokemon X and Y" (link if you don't believe me). This is very different. He didn't get Greninja right. He was right that there was a Pokemon from Pokemon X and Y." However, what people did was assume he knew the character when he never specifically said that character was in the game. This is confirmation bias. People want to believe the leak is real, so they skew the information to fit their ideas. Here, he was assumed to have gotten Greninja right, even though he never said Greninja. He only said a new Pokemon from X and Y was coming. This is looking at the conclusion before the evidence. Instead, let's consider the evidence. He didn't state that a character would be added but a character from a group would be. With many of his other characters, he was specific. But here, he is not. Also, if he has a credible source, then the source would know the characters names. If he knew what the character looked like, then he would have been able to describe the character "He's a Pokemon. He's blue, a frog with a tongue scarf." Conversely, how would the leaker only know that he was from Pokemon X/Y and not know his name or what he looked like. He would probably have to know who he was to identify that he was from a specific game.

I would like to interject here with some of my own thoughts. I once again must point out I strongly dislike the rapidly forming pattern of : People said X -> People are wrong -> Here is my thesis. It frames things in a somewhat condescending and negative light, despite your best efforts to not do so. I also must feel inclined to point out again that confirmation bias only occurs naturally if someone wants the outcome in question. Many people did not but felt inclined to agree regardless. I disagree with your statement that people assume he got Greninja right when he did not. Rather, I believe people decided to say that it was close enough. You then argue based on the specificness. I agree that it is strange that the leaker provided a pool of characters rather than one specific character, but you suddenly begin to make a huge list of assumptions. Well, you begin with a statement that this is a defection of the normal pattern, but then shift gears to say "Also, if he has a credible source, then the source would know the characters names." I do not understand why you assume this. It is intuitively a safe assumption, but as you have been so keen to point out earlier our intuition is often wrong. You also choose to assume that the tipper Sal is getting his information from is, once again, either 100% right or wrong. This assumption had already rendered this paragraph useless, so using it as a defense again is simply trying to reinforce one point. This is fine, so long as that one point comes under heavy scrutiny. Let us return to what you were saying.

Based on this, it doesn't seem very likely that he would have a source because he didn't have a name or description. In fact, it seems more likely that he didn't have any information, and "Pokemon from X and Y" was a safe guess. it would make sense because while you can be specific with Shulk and Plautena, it's hard to do the same with Pokemon. In the new game, it could be any one of 70 characters, and that's a lot of chances you could be wrong. It's safe to say there will be a new Pokemon, and it would likely be true because every Smash game has added a new Pokemon. No surprise he was right and no surprise everyone eat it up when Greninja was announced. So let's take a look at the three issues I brought up before

1. He never stated he had a source until after the characters were revealed. It was a prediction up until that point.
2. He stated the characters were to be shown at E3, but the characters were not shown at E3. Two characters have yet to be seen.
3. He stated a Pokemon from X and Y would be included instead of saying a specific character (Here, Greninja)

We at this point make another assumption, this time an uncharacteristically poor one; that if this leak is false Sal made it as opposed to his source. You argue that it seems unlikely that he has information, on the grounds he leaked a set of safe characters on the second round. We then format a list of problems his leaks have. I like this a lot, as I like list formats. Let us create another list, the list of assumptions we have needed to reach your current conclusion thus far.

1. Leaks must be 100% correct, or else be wrong.
2. A leaker is allowed to choose the quantity of the leak, but whatever he leaks must be as accurate as possible. This is to say that while he does not need to reveal the entire roster, if he does reveal a character it must be the actual character and not a set of potential characters.
3. The second leak is considered safe and easily created.
4. Because the second leak is considered safe and easily created, it loses credibility.

Now, what you should do is consider these as a whole. What many people do is assume he was right and then add rational for the following. What happens is that you have three different scenarios to explain this. First, he didn't say he had a source because he wasn't sure that the source was credible. Of course, this is silly because all new sites post rumors regardless of their credibility. Then, the characters weren't shown at E3 because they were pushed back. Again, a little silly because it seem strange that Nintendo would show off so many characters (more than Brawl) and then half that. Not to mention that almost a year later we only know 6 characters. My favorite is that the information came from two different sources. Then, they say he didn't know Greninja because either him or the source doesn't know Pokemon (forget using Google or describing the characters). That's three different explanations to explain some of the issues with one rumor. See how it's more silly and preposterous. One could be possible. Two maybe. But three separate issues? It's like a bird with one wing. It just doesn't fly. Occam's Razor is the simplest answer is the best. So what's the simplest answer? He made it up. First he never said a source before because there was no rumor. No need to claim you have info until your right. Third, they weren't shown at E3 because, in the end, he didn't know anymore than the rest of us. And third, he gave a broad category because he doesn't have information. So it's safe to say a New Pokemon will be added. So I can explain all three with one answer. Because they are related, it makes more sense he made it up.

This paragraph is why I felt the disparate need to respond. I have a soft spot in my heart for Occam's Razor. The key premise behind Occam's Razor is that, given two explanations that give equally valid arguments for all of the same outcomes, the one that is simpler and uses less assumptions is true. It does not say the simplest answer is the best, this is an ironic oversimplification of the tool itself. Furthermore, you cannot use Occam's Razor to conclusively show something is right or wrong, it is merely a heuristic with which to measure theories.

Sorry for the bold and underline, but as I stated, I have a soft spot of Occam's Razor, and your use of it bothers me.
Oversimplifying your opponents arguments is also called straw-manning, and while you have been someone guilty of it throughout this post it becomes more evident here.

Returning to the top of your paragraph, you once more follow the formula I expressed malcontent with above. I will not fault you too much on it again, as you have not learned otherwise yet. Sal has dealt with this paragraph quite nicely on his own regarding his site, and so I do not feel the need to post about it once more. The arguments you give for your opposition are decently fought against, but if I do not use them, then this whole thing falls out of the sky faster than, say, an airplane with one wing. You've also left out some critical information -

"But Smashchu! What about Wii Fit Trainer? He got that right." That is true.

Ah, good.

However, it was likely a lucky guess. "How can you say that. Isn't it silly and preposterous that he just guessed this character." Not necessarily. It has been shown that Wii Fit Trainer was talked about somewhat. However, it's not unreasonable to think that someone got her right. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of predictions made. It's possible that someone got that character right. Also, when you look a all the other evidence, it seems more likely he made it up rather than he had a source and there are a lot of suspicious instances. Again, it's weighting the evidence. What happened is that him and others committed the Texas Shapshooter Fallacy. I've mentioned it before here, but here is a quick refresher. It stems from a shooter firing at a barn. When he noticed the shots clustered, he drew a target on it. The same happened here. When he got an character not many people thought of, he drew the target. Just because he got something right doesn't mean he has inside information. Especially when you consider what I mentioned before. Also, it's not unlikely for people to guess characters. On 4Chan, minutes before, someone posted that "Suppose a new Pokemon was announced, who do you want." and he posted a picture of Greninja. Of course, he did better than Sal did, but no one thought he had inside information.

I had not heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy before, thank you for the quick refresher. It is very interesting. You make a valid point; he (the leaker, not Sal) certainly may have just randomly guessed WFT and then claimed it was a leak.

There are other things as well. One thing to look back is the Chaos Zero leak. He knew characters specific names and other content in the game (Final Destination, Stage Builder, and the Dragoon). Sal only said characters and nothing else which is unlikely because if someone had inside information, they would know more than just character names. Other rumors had similar information like character's abilities or other game content. Also, Sal's last rumor was done right before a direct. It seems strange that the guy would wait 10 months before giving more info, and do it right before Nintendo gives more info. Many people questions why he would lie. It would hurt his site's reputation. It's because it's click bait. Basically, the rumors exist for traffic. Here is what I mean. The website is beat by GameXplain and Malstrom's blog for numbers of searches. Note that Malstrom hasn't posted much recently. In otherwords, Sal's website is very no name. How can you improve searches? Why, have a fake rumor of course. And since he got Wii Fit Trainer right, it's even better. Now you can drive hits to your site. Why did he get information before the direct. Because the direct would bring in more hits for Smash info. It's also why he had a lot of safe guesses. So long as none of those characters are specifically deconfirmed, it's no problem.

From the first line in this post we make assumption number 5; leakers will behave and act in a consistent manner. The rest of this is accusing Sal of making the leak himself to drive hits up, and Sal has once again posted a counterpoint more eloquently than I can.

You may wonder where I'm getting some of these later ideas from. Again, it all stems for the fact that I considered the evidence first, then drew a conclusion. Even though he got WFT right, there were still a lot of other issues that didn't make sense. Weighting the evidence, it seemed more likely he didn't know anything and was able to guess. It them drew from there and I can explain some more of the other small inconsistencies (why doesn't he have other information, why did the last leak come hours before the direct and not any time else in the last 10 months). It also explains why he made an account on Smashboards to make 1 post after the characters weren't shown at E3. One of the things about confirmation bias is that it usually happens when emotions take over. It's no surprise that a lot of people celebrated after Greninja came out and they can claim "They leak is true. See. See." The people here want it to be true. This is also why there is this double standard where if the littlest thing is wrong, the rumor is false whereas when this was wrong everyone ignored it. Looking back at the Brawl leaks, everyone hated them because they didn't fit what they wanted for the game. So much so that mods actually deleted them. I suspect there will be more of an outcry when a real leak comes though. I also expect many of the people listening to this one would be upset if such a situation occurred. To close, don't jump the gun. People were smart with the Plautena leak because they tried to disprove it first. By being unable to do so, they gave it credibility. It's credibility was earned, not assumed.

Well, that's that. There may be some editing and other issues I missed, but I need to head to bed. I wont really reply to this unless there is a question. Again, people who believe the leak wont change their minds and the roster will be whatever it is regardless. Till next time!

I could not parse anything new out of this paragraph, which is a proper summary and restating of your points. It was a moderately enjoyable read, if one that I disagree with on occasion. Sorry I got heated about Occam's Razor. It's a useful but misunderstood tool.

At the end of everything, the assumptions you made to show this leak is false are:

1) Leaks must be 100% accurate
2) Leakers can control the quantity of their leaks, but what they leak must give as much detail as possible.
3) The second half of the leaks are 'safe' (For some murky definition of safe.)
4) Leaks lose credibility if they are safe
5) Leakers will leak similarly to other leakers.

Ultimately, if you lose a couple of these assumptions you still have a strong argument, but you are relying on some combination of these to state this leak is wrong. Unfortunately, I believe I can show that these assumptions do not hold.

1) The pokemon X/Y leaks had small amounts of misinformation, but were, on the whole, accurate. Leak accuracy does not need to be 100%.
2) Leakers are human beings that choose what they want to leak, there is no code of the leakers that enforce them to give detail. Why wouldn't they? There are a myriad of reasons I can think of.
3) On its own, this point has nothing to it. I do not think the Chorus Men are considered safe regardless, but even if they are,
4) 'Safe' leaks are, by definition, leaks that are primarily made up of things the community finds likely. How does a leak lose credibility by containing things considered likely?
5) The Brawl and Melee leaks were similar, it's true. The Pokemon X/Y leaks were nothing like the Brawl & Melee leaks.
Hell, the Brawl/Melee leaks are nothing like the Palutena leak, which also seems likely to be true. There is no reason to think leakers need to be similar at all. Given how leakers can have a wide variety of rolls and potential places in a company, there is no reason to believe they *would* be similar.

So at this point there is very little reason to think the leak is false based on your post. The problem is that there is a wide variety of reasons to believe it is both true and false, hence the tenuous and stressful nature of the postings here. This post itself contains no reasoning as to why it should be true, it exists merely as a counterpoint to your reasoning as to why it should be false. Honestly, I have no idea if it's true or not, as there isn't enough supporting data. Having given it some logical thought, I find it likely to be true, but I do not believe there is enough data to make it worth arguing my points. I also require assumptions that may or may not hold. It's why, of all of your statements, I find the statement "Again, people who believe the leak wont change their minds and the roster will be whatever it is regardless. " the most true out of everything you've said. Oh, and thanks to anyone who actually made it this far down teh almighty wall of text. This ended up being significantly longer than I thought it would be.

 

[DiZ0X]

According to Sal, the leaker was very explicit that Pac-Man, Little Mac, and Mii would be revealed at E3 "barring impromptu change". If the leaker just knew that they would be in the game, he could have said so.

We shouldn't twist the facts to help the validity of the leak.

When did he say that?

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

I remember this one dude who was so positively sure Squirtle would be playable in Brawl.


Also I like how this is the go-to place for Smash 4 talkies.

 

[Smashoperatingbuddy123]

What the hell?!

http://awesomescreenshot.com/0242nszx52

Was it 3 character reveals and we diden't know it

(It's not me who found this)

 

[TheTuninator]

When did he say that?

In the initial leak. You can find it on Gematsu if you're curious.

 

[dezeray112]

You seem dead set on convincing everyone this leak is wrong. Everyone's free to speculate. As I've said myself, I'm not 100 percent on my source. But there are a few things I should tackle.

Little Mac, Pac-Man, and Mii Missing E3

I'll be the first to admit, I have no idea. There are literally tons of reasons as to why this person could've thought the trio would appear at E3. But even so, things happen, and not everything always goes according to plan. And Little Mac eventually showed. The guy is still backing Pac-Man and Mii, too. So, much like the rest of the rumor, time will tell there.

Pokemon from X and Y

Again, I don't know. This is what the guy told me, so it's what I posted. I don't know how involved he is in the game's development, or how 'inside' his insder knowledge is. There are, again, tons of reasons as to why he might not have known or been able to say the Pokemon's name. Or even describe him at that. Depending on the guy's involvement, it's possible he was only told about a "Pokemon from X and Y" being in the roster.

Safe Guesses

I see this term tossed around a lot. I honestly don't think there's any such thing. There are no safe guesses when it comes to naming a roster. Wii Fit Trainer wasn't a safe guess, as you'll admit, and I don't know how 'likely' (again, this would be a synonym of a safe guess, which doesn't really apply as this newcomer thing can be pretty darn random) Mega Man, Villager, and Little Mac were, but this guy's 4 for 6 on his E3 leaks so far. Which is pretty darn good.

Leaker Not Leaking Other Things Like Stages, etc.

I don't know, I'm not the leaker. Why is this guy only telling me newcomers? Again, I don't know.

Posting a Baseless Rumor

"First, he didn't say he had a source because he wasn't sure that the source was credible. Of course, this is silly because all new sites post rumors regardless of their credibility."

I'm sorry, I'll try to maintain a crappier website.

Seriously, though, that second sentence is silly in itself. If I get an e-mail from "blahblah@mailservice.com" with a list of characters said tipster claims will be in the game, would you expect me to just run with it without first attempting to verify the guy? If I cared more about hits and less about credibility, sure. But that's not me.

Making Things Up

Let's get one thing straight, and long-time followers of my site will attest to this. I don't make things up. Not for traffic, not for anything. My site exists to provide game news in the most excellent way possible. I don't fabricate information. I'm just like all of you in this, and I'd be pretty pissed off if anyone did something like that. Again, I'm still not 100 percent on my source, but so far he's in the green with his 'leak.'

"In otherwords, Sal's website is very no name. How can you improve searches? Why, have a fake rumor of course. And since he got Wii Fit Trainer right, it's even better. Now you can drive hits to your site."

The site is pretty big actually. More hits would be nice, sure. But we average many more hits than I think you'd imagine per day. It's okay, though. You didn't know.

To Everyone Else

I think my talk with Star, as well as what I've written above, just about sums up everything I can think to say. But yeah. No one has to believe the leak. It's fun to discuss, but being dead set on proving these things true or false without further evidence is not really doable at the moment. Unfortunately it's a waiting game and that's what we'll all just have to do. But I'll tell you now, this isn't something I've gone and pulled out my sleeve for hits. There's no debating that.

Edit: Also, to clarify some more, I've tried contacting this guy for more information. When Star mentioned the leaker being too busy to respond, what I said specifically was that the guy seems to operate on his own schedule, e-mailing me when he wants to rather than what I want him to. Star can attest to that.

Thanks for providing the info Sal! Other than that, like I've already stated, I guess we'll just leave it to future events to see what happens.

 

[Jason the Yoshi]

What the hell?!

http://awesomescreenshot.com/0242nszx52

Was it 3 character reveals and we diden't know it

(It's not me who found this)

After seeing this, I believe Mewtwo is not in.

However, I'm watching the trailer after I get off work in case this is a clever trap

 

[Autumn ♫]

What the hell?!

http://awesomescreenshot.com/0242nszx52

Was it 3 character reveals and we diden't know it

(It's not me who found this)

It's Photoshopped. No where in the trailer is the screen like that, and the Pokemon aren't even in the right order that they were shown.

 

[Chimera]

What the hell?!

http://awesomescreenshot.com/0242nszx52

Was it 3 character reveals and we diden't know it

(It's not me who found this)

It's not real either. Photoshopped.

 

[9Volt]

First off, do we even know what department Sal's leaker works in? It could really be anything, from producer to testing to PR. Not that I want the identity revealed, but I'm just pointing that out.

At the same time, as you said, E3 was still predicted and Little Mac is still in the game. If Little Mac was deconfirmed, that'd be something else, but even you (and others) can't deny that Pac-Man and Mii are all but confirmed at this point.

For leak number 2 while I think it's highly likely, just like leak 1 had, I need evidence.

Nothing is confirmed untill they are showed on a oficial way.

 

[Rebellious Treecko]

So I see the"almighty Sal" has spoken.

No one has to believe the leak. It's fun to discuss, but being dead set on proving these things true or false without further evidence is not really doable at the moment. Unfortunately it's a waiting game and that's what we'll all just have to do.

...Yeah. This.
I'm not fully believing any leaks at the moment...or until the game comes out. I see this leak as comparable to the early stages of the PokeBeach X and Y leaks.

What the hell?!

http://awesomescreenshot.com/0242nszx52

Was it 3 character reveals and we diden't know it

(It's not me who found this)

I call bull****.
I'm watching that part right now, and I haven't spotted Mewtwo. (unless it's on screen for one frame only...would Sakurai really do that?)

----

 

[Cap'nChreest]

What the hell?!

http://awesomescreenshot.com/0242nszx52

Was it 3 character reveals and we diden't know it

(It's not me who found this)

Can you explain? All I see is a silhouette of spaghetti in the corner...

oh Mewtwo... really?

 

[Smashoperatingbuddy123]

Ok fake here's the same shot

 

[Jason the Yoshi]

Ok fake here's the same shot

I knew it was a trick the whole time

 

[Autumn ♫]

Ok fake here's the same shot

I don't even think that's real, as the Pokemon are in the wrong order and you don't ever see Pikachu and Charizard until you get up the mountain.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

I don't even think that's real, as the Pokemon are in the wrong order and you don't ever see Pikachu and Charizard until you get up the mountain.

Its after the mountain. after they reveal Zard. it zooms out and he flies up.

 

[Chimera]

I don't even think that's real, as the Pokemon are in the wrong order and you don't ever see Pikachu and Charizard until you get up the mountain.

It's after the scene where they show Charizard. It's immediately before he takes off into the air.

 

[Sonic Poke]

Guys...
Boxing Ring stage in the first trailer hinted Little Mac.
Halberd stage is a hint to Meta Kinght.
Kremilings in smash run is a hint of some sort to K. Rool.
Polar Bear in smash run hinted Ice Climbers.
Goroh is a hint to Captain Falcon.
Walugi with wario's symbol is a hint to Wario.
Pseudo Palutena's troll hinted Palutena.
Greninja's troll in the trailer is a hint of some sort about Mewtwo.
Ridley's shadow is a hint of some sort to Ridley.

But guys, this cloud never hinted Pac Man.

 

[IsmaR]

This isn't the "hint" thread.

 

[egaddmario]

No Birdo, No Diddy, No Bowser Jr. I assume those are the 3 missing. But as for Smash-

This 48 roster thing has people up in arms. That and Sal's leak are SEPARATE. People need to stop trying to combine them until we get more credibility behind the MK8 leak. Sakurai stated he wanted more retro characters, yet all we've gotten has been modern characters. I'm expecting at least one retro because of this. Now people can argue with me all they want, but Mac is doubtful for the retro because his design is taken from a 2009 game- which we all know is pretty recent. And Mega Man and Pac Man are both 3rd party, so i don't think they would count towards the retro character. People doubting Takamaru are warranted, but you can't deny he's been getting a ton of love as of late. Attempting to factor any retro rep into the 48 character roster usually results in more than 4 cuts, which the MK8 rumor states.

And i don't get why people are cut happy in the first place- Snake and Pokemon Trainer I understand for 3rd party and transformation mechanics respectively (and even then Charizard was salvaged), but characters like Ike, Lucas, ROB, and Wolf were all in Brawl for a reason. Most of those reasons are still present for this game- Ike was still the first console Fire Emblem character and gained steam for the series here (and was in 2 games, something most Lords haven't been able to pull off), Lucas still reps Mother 3, the most recent game (and presumably last game) in the Mother series, ROB still reps the hardware he was modeled after, and Wolf is still the anti-hero for Fox. I get the feeling people always scream cut because of the MK8 leak, which i hope is fake. No one wants a character they've been playing for 6 years to be gone.

Sidenote- my name irl is Sal. So it's weird when everyone talks about him XD

Reposting this because i thought i brought up some good points and it went widely unnoticed.

 

[EmbersToAshes]

It's after the scene where they show Charizard. It's immediately before he takes off into the air.

Meh...I doubt this is real. I suppose it's feasible that Mewtwo could be behind Darkrai for a frame or two, considering how Darkrai's bobbing around pretty much conceals that spot most of the time, but I just don't see it after multiple replays. Probably a fake.

 

[Smashoperatingbuddy123]

Guys...
Boxing Ring stage in the first trailer hinted Little Mac.
Halberd stage is a hint to Meta Kinght.
Kremilings in smash run is a hint of some sort to K. Rool.
Polar Bear in smash run hinted Ice Climbers.
Goroh is a hint to Captain Falcon.
Walugi with wario's symbol is a hint to Wario.
Pseudo Palutena's troll hinted Palutena.
Greninja's troll in the trailer is a hint of some sort about Mewtwo.
Ridley's shadow is a hint of some sort to Ridley.

But guys, this cloud never hinted Pac Man.

S flag/galaga aliens is a hint of some sort to pac-man

 

[Miles Pierre]

While I know you said you would be leaving this post as 'one last thing' I feel compelled to respond. Forgive me.



I was unaware people wanted to believe this rumour; the lack of K.Rool, Ridley, and several other popular characters, along with the inclusion of Chrom, Pacman, and Mii, made this leak taste quite terrible in the mouths of people around here. I recall with some degree of fondness how people regretted complaining about the Betternet Roster leak as they would rather it than this roster.



It is a good idea to be aware of confirmation bias when trying to debate something. I agree. But I am of the opinion that some comfirmation bias is inevitable, because humans are very bad at thinking within the realm of pure logic. Despite our limitations, let us press on.



Hmm. I'm slightly alarmed that, setting aside a recap for the last paragraph, the first statement is a declaration, or thesis. While it may not have been your intent, and it is good style to state what you set out to prove, it reads as though you have drawn a conclusion prior to looking at the evidence. On the principle of charity I will assume this is not the case. You list three major issues that this leak has, which strike me as an interesting, but valid place to start.

Alarmingly you talk about 'the criteria that is applied to other rumours" without ever really defining it. For posterity, I will do so now; the criteria you put forth is that a leak must be 100% correct, or else 100% incorrect. Following this line of logic, you argue that people should have declared the leak dead rather than possibly allow it to live given they only had a 50% success rate for E3 predictions. This seems fairly harsh, but let us carry on for now, feeling reasonably secure that we are on a moderately good start.



I would like to interject here with some of my own thoughts. I once again must point out I strongly dislike the rapidly forming pattern of : People said X -> People are wrong -> Here is my thesis. It frames things in a somewhat condescending and negative light, despite your best efforts to not do so. I also must feel inclined to point out again that confirmation bias only occurs naturally if someone wants the outcome in question. Many people did not but felt inclined to agree regardless. I disagree with your statement that people assume he got Greninja right when he did not. Rather, I believe people decided to say that it was close enough. You then argue based on the specificness. I agree that it is strange that the leaker provided a pool of characters rather than one specific character, but you suddenly begin to make a huge list of assumptions. Well, you begin with a statement that this is a defection of the normal pattern, but then shift gears to say "Also, if he has a credible source, then the source would know the characters names." I do not understand why you assume this. It is intuitively a safe assumption, but as you have been so keen to point out earlier our intuition is often wrong. You also choose to assume that the tipper Sal is getting his information from is, once again, either 100% right or wrong. This assumption had already rendered this paragraph useless, so using it as a defense again is simply trying to reinforce one point. This is fine, so long as that one point comes under heavy scrutiny. Let us return to what you were saying.



We at this point make another assumption, this time an uncharacteristically poor one; that if this leak is false Sal made it as opposed to his source. You argue that it seems unlikely that he has information, on the grounds he leaked a set of safe characters on the second round. We then format a list of problems his leaks have. I like this a lot, as I like list formats. Let us create another list, the list of assumptions we have needed to reach your current conclusion thus far.

1. Leaks must be 100% correct, or else be wrong.
2. A leaker is allowed to choose the quantity of the leak, but whatever he leaks must be as accurate as possible. This is to say that while he does not need to reveal the entire roster, if he does reveal a character it must be the actual character and not a set of potential characters.
3. The second leak is considered safe and easily created.
4. Because the second leak is considered safe and easily created, it loses credibility.



This paragraph is why I felt the disparate need to respond. I have a soft spot in my heart for Occam's Razor. The key premise behind Occam's Razor is that, given two explanations that give equally valid arguments for all of the same outcomes, the one that is simpler and uses less assumptions is true. It does not say the simplest answer is the best, this is an ironic oversimplification of the tool itself. Furthermore, you cannot use Occam's Razor to conclusively show something is right or wrong, it is merely a heuristic with which to measure theories.

Sorry for the bold and underline, but as I stated, I have a soft spot of Occam's Razor, and your use of it bothers me.
Oversimplifying your opponents arguments is also called straw-manning, and while you have been someone guilty of it throughout this post it becomes more evident here.

Returning to the top of your paragraph, you once more follow the formula I expressed malcontent with above. I will not fault you too much on it again, as you have not learned otherwise yet. Sal has dealt with this paragraph quite nicely on his own regarding his site, and so I do not feel the need to post about it once more. The arguments you give for your opposition are decently fought against, but if I do not use them, then this whole thing falls out of the sky faster than, say, an airplane with one wing. You've also left out some critical information -





Ah, good.



I had not heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy before, thank you for the quick refresher. It is very interesting. You make a valid point; he (the leaker, not Sal) certainly may have just randomly guessed WFT and then claimed it was a leak.



From the first line in this post we make assumption number 5; leakers will behave and act in a consistent manner. The rest of this is accusing Sal of making the leak himself to drive hits up, and Sal has once again posted a counterpoint more eloquently than I can.



I could not parse anything new out of this paragraph, which is a proper summary and restating of your points. It was a moderately enjoyable read, if one that I disagree with on occasion. Sorry I got heated about Occam's Razor. It's a useful but misunderstood tool.

At the end of everything, the assumptions you made to show this leak is false are:

1) Leaks must be 100% accurate
2) Leakers can control the quantity of their leaks, but what they leak must give as much detail as possible.
3) The second half of the leaks are 'safe' (For some murky definition of safe.)
4) Leaks lose credibility if they are safe
5) Leakers will leak similarly to other leakers.

Ultimately, if you lose a couple of these assumptions you still have a strong argument, but you are relying on some combination of these to state this leak is wrong. Unfortunately, I believe I can show that these assumptions do not hold.

1) The pokemon X/Y leaks had small amounts of misinformation, but were, on the whole, accurate. Leak accuracy does not need to be 100%.
2) Leakers are human beings that choose what they want to leak, there is no code of the leakers that enforce them to give detail. Why wouldn't they? There are a myriad of reasons I can think of.
3) On its own, this point has nothing to it. I do not think the Chorus Men are considered safe regardless, but even if they are,
4) 'Safe' leaks are, by definition, leaks that are primarily made up of things the community finds likely. How does a leak lose credibility by containing things considered likely?
5) The Brawl and Melee leaks were similar, it's true. The Pokemon X/Y leaks were nothing like the Brawl & Melee leaks.
Hell, the Brawl/Melee leaks are nothing like the Palutena leak, which also seems likely to be true. There is no reason to think leakers need to be similar at all. Given how leakers can have a wide variety of rolls and potential places in a company, there is no reason to believe they *would* be similar.

So at this point there is very little reason to think the leak is false based on your post. The problem is that there is a wide variety of reasons to believe it is both true and false, hence the tenuous and stressful nature of the postings here. This post itself contains no reasoning as to why it should be true, it exists merely as a counterpoint to your reasoning as to why it should be false. Honestly, I have no idea if it's true or not, as there isn't enough supporting data. Having given it some logical thought, I find it likely to be true, but I do not believe there is enough data to make it worth arguing my points. I also require assumptions that may or may not hold. It's why, of all of your statements, I find the statement "Again, people who believe the leak wont change their minds and the roster will be whatever it is regardless. " the most true out of everything you've said. Oh, and thanks to anyone who actually made it this far down teh almighty wall of text. This ended up being significantly longer than I thought it would be.

I was going to properly respond to @SmashChu 's insanely long post but I don't think I have to anymore. Between this post and Sal's post I think you guys covered his assumptions fairly nicely. He really does have a bone to pick and it's fairly obvious the way he reasons against it. Kudos to you @ The Nerd . You have far more patience than me and again, what a wonderful post.
I know it's wishful thinking but I think everyone in here should read this post and @salromano 's here -- it would immediately settle a lot of discussions that have been circling a drain of repetition.

 

[Wolfie557]

Guys...
Boxing Ring stage in the first trailer hinted Little Mac.
Halberd stage is a hint to Meta Kinght.
Kremilings in smash run is a hint of some sort to K. Rool. Just a trophy/boss/something but not playable. Also, its not like they WOULDNT use kremlings in some sort when they got the goombas, brawl had them too but only the water ones.
Polar Bear in smash run hinted Ice Climbers.
Goroh is a hint to Captain Falcon.
Walugi [ and Ashely months before.]with wario's symbol is a hint to Wario.
Pseudo Palutena's troll hinted Palutena.
Greninja's troll in the trailer is a hint of some sort about Mewtwo.
Ridley's shadow is a hint of some sort to Ridley.

But guys, this cloud never hinted Pac Man.This and more Namco stuff revealed does.

 

[Sonic Poke]

We never know when the issue is K. Rool, guy...

 

[PKNinja95]

YOU COULD NEVER TELL BECAUSE OF THE WAY NESS' ****TY VOICE ACTOR PRONOUNCES FLASH

You could say the same for most of Nintendo's frontrunners, like Link, DK, etc.

You're not alone dude. I thought it was either PK Cross or Pulse

 

[Gaxel]

PAC MAN IN THE CLOUDS!!!

Sorry for double post, going by what the guy said, perhaps we can look at the following places for hints.

Original Trailer: Little Mac was probably the one hinted in this with the boxing ring
Megaman: Is the cliff area from anything? And does the pattern on top of Links sheild look like its similar to something else, it reminds me of the shoulder guard Chrom had but I'm probably wrong. Also it looks like Links eyerings are Green? there looks like there is something on the right most mountain right before it zooms in on megaman. I would also try and look for patterns on the moon.
Wii Fit Trainer: Tree hinting at Sceptile? whats the name of the pose she sends people flying with? Also Link slips up could mean something
Rosalina & Luma: Not a character but it could be a hint at Rainbow Road. Also I would look for Star constellations and other patterns. I think I might see Capt. Falcon before it zooms in on launch star?
Little Mac: Look at the posters, Sandbags in this as well and there is his arcade machine. possible Sherrif?
Greninja: PacMan in the clouds.

I'm looking way to deep into this.

...Are you kidding me?

All of you are ridiculous, I remember last time during pre-brawl you guys were saying Ridley was in the clouds = playable. That turned out well, right?

Sakurai is one to leave hints but he's not going to put a tree in a trailer and be like "lol i m goin to put this tre heer n mek skeptale pleighable so ppl lok bak at this traler aftr releas and be lik, 'omg sakruai got uss!'". This is getting out of hand.

 

[DeanAdamFry]

@ Wolfie557 As stage hazards in Brawl but the Kremlings was not an enemy, SSB4 is the first game in the series to actually have them as enemies so this does increase his chances of playability.

 

[powerprotoman]

This isn't the "hint" thread.

sorry but this is in fact relevant to a older leak therefore this falls into line with what this thread was made for

 

[Lolo Lolo]

about characters' hints in trailers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGDW76xyY34

 

[Chimera]

Meh...I doubt this is real. I suppose it's feasible that Mewtwo could be behind Darkrai for a frame or two, considering how Darkrai's bobbing around pretty much conceals that spot most of the time, but I just don't see it after multiple replays. Probably a fake.

Oh it's definitely fake. 100%

 

[IsmaR]

sorry but this is in fact relevant to a older leak therefore this falls into line with what this thread was made for

This thread was made for discussing leaked content and rumours from non-official sources. Nintendo revealing or hinting at anything themselves doesn't fall under that, it falls under official/confirmed stuff, which would fall under this thread.

What "older leak" are you referring to? If it itself refers to hints/speculation, then it's likely just a rumour, not a "leak."

 

[Wolfie557]

@ Wolfie557 As stage hazards in Brawl but the Kremlings was not an enemy, SSB4 is the first game in the series to actually have them as enemies so this does increase his chances of playability.

they were in subspace emissary. im sure but not actually how they are in smash run.
if anything it obnly slightly increases his chances.

 

[Spazzy_D]

It's been said numerous times that the leaker is not getting these characters from visuals.

And yes, it really does matter.
Basic grammar dictates that "men" is AT LEAST 2 individuals. A single individual cannot be "men"; only "man".

That alone should be enough for people with an understanding of the English language to grasp that "Chorus Men" actually means the "Chorus Men" or "Chorus Kids" as they're known in the US, and not Marshal.

"Animal Crossing Guy" refers to a single individual. Villager is an individual.
"Pokémon from X/Y" can refer to either a single individual or multiple individuals given how the term "Pokémon" is used. However, if I'm not mistaken, it was used in context of a single individual. Which Greninja is.
"Chorus Men" refers to more than a single individual. Marshal is a single individual. The Chorus Kids/Men are more than a single individual.

What if "Chorus Men" are just Marshall, Cam, and Ms. Ribbon, each playing exactly the same but being costume swaps like Wii Fit Trainer? I don't think they had a unified name in Rhythm Heaven, did they?

 

[Miles Pierre]

This thread was made for discussing leaked content and rumours from non-official sources. Nintendo revealing or hinting at anything themselves doesn't fall under that, it falls under official/confirmed stuff, which would fall under this thread.

What "older leak" are you referring to? If it itself refers to hints/speculation, then it's likely just a rumour, not a "leak."

The thread is called SSB4 Rumors and Leaks. If someone from Nintendo's twitter accidentally leaked information it shouldn't be posted here? Seems like an arbitrary distinction. Official or not it really shouldn't matter. A good many leaks are actually from the companies themselves simply by accident. Whether its a leak from Nintendo, a hint from Nintendo or a leak/hint from an unknown source all of it should be posted here. I would think this thread should act as a catchall for all unconfirmed/speculative information. Or at least it would be more successful that way... but I know you're probably sick of hearing me harp on the same subject over and over again.