The Official Thread For the Sal Romano/Gematsu Leak

[Artsy Omni]

I did not state that it does not make any sense to refer to Villager as Animal Crossing Guy, I am asserting that someone is not grossly incompetent if they did not objectively believe that the leak was alluding to Villager.

Ah, my mistake. Carry on. =P

Actually, I can confirm as someone who posted in the pre-E3 thread for Villager that "Villager" was one name people used. As was "Animal Crosser".
Mainly to be unisex, as opposed to "Animal Crossing Boy/Girl", "Village Boy/Girl", etc.

Yeah, perhaps to say that there wasn't any unanimity was going to far. But it definitely wasn't unanimous across, like, the whole of the internet like it is now. =P That's all I was trying to say.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

But on the contrary, Villager is the only character that doesn't HAVE a name in the games. So it only makes sense to call him "The animal crossing guy" for the lack of a better name. If it were any other character, they'd have a specific name to use.

It wasn't until he was revealed that there was any unanimity behind the name "Villager"

No more than "Pokemon from X/Y". It might've been alluding to Villager, but the fact that "guy" does often get used as Male doesn't help much at all. Especially when we found out later than Villager could be Female as well. It's still ambiguous. Not nearly as much as the example I just posted, but it wasn't that blatant either way. It still is easily readable as "Character from Animal Crossing" easily. That even might've been how it was written, "Animal Crossing guy", which doesn't help much since it's not a blatant character name.

There might be some confusion, though; Yes, it was going to be Villager, but there was no way for people other than the Developers to know so. It's because they tried to put Villager in Brawl that this is the case. It's pretty much hindsight entirely. We found out Villager was considered only after Smash 4 was revealed. At least, that he was going to be put in the game at one time. Sakurai said "no" previously during Brawl's development(however, he was referring to characters like Villager and Nintendog in general. As in, these typess of characters aren't viable). But he never mentioned it was more than a "this guy looks like he can't fight"(for whatever reason, he didn't specify that much). The second interview actually explained he wanted to add him period, but decided to not do so. Which is why we got an Item and a Stage overall(as many characters currently do, especially Stages). The thing is; The first thing that mentioned Villager says "He will not be playable", so hearing Animal Crossing Guy overall makes them think "It might be anyone from the game", not just Villager. If it wasn't for the interview after Smash 4's Villager reveal, there was no way to know Villager was directly considered for playable during development(just that characters like that were considered and moved aside. In fact, we couldn't tell if Villager and Nintendog were given more than a glance at and thrown aside at that point).

It's ultimately only more blatant he meant Villager after the second interview, overall. Not before.

 

[Deleted member]

No, we knew about Villager being looked over in Brawl before Smash 4's reveal.
Sakurai talked about it in a 2008 Famitsu, the same one where he discussed about Dixie originally being a tag-team to Diddy.


This just goes to show it's less hindsight bias as it is you just don't pay attention to what's being said and when.

 

[Welshy91]

What is a "Chorus Men"? I like to know what I'm hating before I begin the process.

 

[Artsy Omni]

No more than "Pokemon from X/Y". It might've been alluding to Villager, but the fact that "guy" does often get used as Male doesn't help much at all. Especially when we found out later than Villager could be Female as well. It's still ambiguous. Not nearly as much as the example I just posted, but it wasn't that blatant either way. It still is easily readable as "Character from Animal Crossing" easily. That even might've been how it was written, "Animal Crossing guy", which doesn't help much since it's not a blatant character name.

There might be some confusion, though; Yes, it was going to be Villager, but there was no way for people other than the Developers to know so. It's because they tried to put Villager in Brawl that this is the case. It's pretty much hindsight entirely. We found out Villager was considered only after Smash 4 was revealed. At least, that he was going to be put in the game at one time. Sakurai said "no" previously during Brawl's development(however, he was referring to characters like Villager and Nintendog in general. As in, these typess of characters aren't viable). But he never mentioned it was more than a "this guy looks like he can't fight"(for whatever reason, he didn't specify that much). The second interview actually explained he wanted to add him period, but decided to not do so. Which is why we got an Item and a Stage overall(as many characters currently do, especially Stages). The thing is; The first thing that mentioned Villager says "He will not be playable", so hearing Animal Crossing Guy overall makes them think "It might be anyone from the game", not just Villager. If it wasn't for the interview after Smash 4's Villager reveal, there was no way to know Villager was directly considered for playable during development(just that characters like that were considered and moved aside. In fact, we couldn't tell if Villager and Nintendog were given more than a glance at and thrown aside at that point).

It's ultimately only more blatant he meant Villager after the second interview, overall. Not before.

I get what you're saying about Villager, but I don't quite understand the comparison to Pokemon X/Y. That's apples and oranges.

EDIT: I understand that "Animal crossing guy" leaves some specificity to be desired, but I feel like even a small amount of common sense would allow one to deduce that it's referring to Villager.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

No, we knew about Villager being looked over in Brawl before Smash 4's reveal.
Sakurai talked about it in a 2008 Famitsu, the same one where he discussed about Dixie originally being a tag-team to Diddy.

This just goes to show it's less hindsight bias as it is you just don't pay attention to what's being said and when.

It does not mean Animal Crossing Guy was easy for everyone to assume it was Villager. That's what you just need to accept. People do have different opinions than you, and after him saying "he won't appear" period, thinking maybe somebody else from the series could show up instead is not even weird at all.

And yes, it's entirely hindsight. He didn't make it clear whatsoever how much Villager was looked at till the second interview at all. But if you want to link to that Famitsu article that explains the Villager thing, please do. I only ever saw that tiny little snippet that said "Characters like [this](showing Villager and Nintendog) will not appear in Smash Bros."

I get what you're saying about Villager, but I don't quite understand the comparison to Pokemon X/Y. That's apples and oranges.

No. Both were vague statements referring to a potential character. While it's somewhat clear what Animal Crossing Guy was to the development team, it was definitely not clear to every human being. Just like the Pokemon from X/Y bit was. That's what the comparison was talking about. From the fans' point of view, both are ambiguous character statements overall in the end. Enough that people speculated who they could've been and only some assumed. It was only slightly easier to guess who the AC rep was if you had prior knowledge, but it was still ambiguous of a character name. Could've said Villager or even AC Player(as Morbid pointed, even. A less vague statement instead of something that had multiple meanings to people who don't even take stuff at face value, which is a lot of people anyway).

 

[ChunkyBeef]

What is a "Chorus Men"? I like to know what I'm hating before I begin the process.

Behold, your potential future.

I feel like the Ghost of Smash's Future, warning Masahiro Sakurai that this is what could be if he continues down the path he's on now.

 

[Artsy Omni]

No. Both were vague statements referring to a potential character. While it's somewhat clear what Animal Crossing Guy was to the development team, it was definitely not clear to every human being. Just like the Pokemon from X/Y bit was. That's what the comparison was talking about. From the fans' point of view, both are ambiguous character statements overall in the end. Enough that people speculated who they could've been and only some assumed. It was only slightly easier to guess who the AC rep was if you had prior knowledge, but it was still ambiguous of a character name. Could've said Villager or even AC Player(as Morbid pointed, even. A less vague statement instead of something that had multiple meanings to people who don't even take stuff at face value, which is a lot of people anyway).

I think it's fair to say that "Pokemon X/Y" is a million times more vague than "Animal Crossing Guy." =P The former could be attributed to a lack of more specific information, while the latter is more likely attributable to somebody just not knowing what to call the little dude. At least in my estimation.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I think it's fair to say that "Pokemon X/Y" is a million times more vague than "Animal Crossing Guy." =P The former could be attributed to a lack of more specific information, while the latter is more likely attributable to somebody just not knowing what to call the little dude. At least in my estimation.

You're missing my point a bit. Both were vague, period, to people of the fanbase. Regardless of which one is more doesn't much matter in the end. It's also why one was easier to guess than the other.

That's all I ever was getting at when comparing them.

 

[Artsy Omni]

I must say, the idea of leaks is really nebulous to me. I have to wonder how video game information is initially "leaked" in the first place and in what form. Like, what happens at the very origin of a leak? Is somebody tipped off by a developer? Or is it more often somebody jumping through loopholes to obtain the information themselves? Are people getting paid to give information, and if so, does more money buy more specificity?

I feel like it's reasonable to think that whoever is obtaining the information might not always be capable of relaying that information in the most precise form. For instance, if he found out about Villager, he might not know what to call him. Or maybe the tipper is holding back information. You never know, right?

I feel like if I understood the nature of leaks better, I'd be better equipped to judge if a leak is plausible or not.

After all, if I am given vague information that's 100% true, and I relay that information to the public in the most precise form of which I am capable, does the fact that it's vague make it any less true?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I must say, the idea of leaks is really nebulous to me. I have to wonder how video game information is initially "leaked" in the first place and in what form. Like, what happens at the very origin of a leak? Is somebody tipped off by a developer? Or is it more often somebody jumping through loopholes to obtain the information themselves? Are people getting paid to give information, and if so, does more money buy more specificity?

My guess is that he just copied what he saw and that was it. It's the most likely reason we didn't know who the Pokemon from X/Y was till the reveal, and he might not have known either. Regardless of leaking that information before e3, that doesn't tell us when he obtained the information, which is of course a different situation.

I feel like it's reasonable to think that whoever is obtaining the information might not always be capable of relaying that information in the most precise form. For instance, if he found out about Villager, he might not know what to call him. Or maybe the tipper is holding back information. You never know, right?

Oddly enough, Animal Crossing Guy is less ambiguous than Villager overall. If only because it tells us what series it's from. People guessing Villager(did Sakurai even used that name previously? I know he did obviously during Smash 4's reveal and the later interview) after he said Animal Crossing Guy makes sense.

I feel like if I understood the nature of leaks better, I'd be better equipped to judge if a leak is plausible or not.

It's hard to say why people are ambiguous. As noted, sometimes it's purposely done, sometimes they are relaying exact information they have. Of course, it's hard to tell in some cases if they were giving us the exact information shown or changed it up a little. That's why some people seem to not be sure if he meant Chorus Kids, Chorus Men, or Chorus Man. Translation errors, miswritings(many copy down things wrong. I literally did that some time ago. I spelled a word wrong in my main data files for some game information I was compiling for an FAQ).

After all, if I am given vague information that's 100% true, and I relay that information to the public in the most precise form of which I am capable, does the fact that it's vague make it any less true?

Nope. But the kicker is; How do we know the information given was true in the first place?(that in itself would be something that Sal would have trouble with. He's relaying what he's given, true or not) The leaker's way of giving information is kind of odd(has Sal outright said how he is given it, though?), since I think it was e-mail only. And only when the leaker wants to, making it hard to gather information quicker or ask any questions.

 

[Noiblade]

No guys you're obviously all wrong.
When the leaker said Megaman, he meant Megaman the franchise not the character.
When the leaker said Little Mac, he meant a small Big Mac
When the leaker said Chrom he actually meant Google Chrome.

What is a "Chorus Men"? I like to know what I'm hating before I begin the process.

But in all seriousness:
I really hope that your view on the characters doesn't actually cause you to believe/disbelieve this leak.

 

[Deleted member]

It does not mean Animal Crossing Guy was easy for everyone to assume it was Villager. That's what you just need to accept. People do have different opinions than you, and after him saying "he won't appear" period, thinking maybe somebody else from the series could show up instead is not even weird at all.

I don't need to accept jack ****. Especially if it came from a bull.
And yes, one would think it's weird to see someone thinking other AC characters could show up when Sakurai pretty much disowned the entire cast as unsuitable. I dunno, maybe I overestimate people's ability to use common sense.

And of course, we looked at games like Animal Crossing and Nintendogs, where there aren't really any characters that lend themselves to fighting, and we decided not to include characters from those series as fighters.

Characters like the above will not appear if it does not seem plausible for them to fight.

(Pretty sure that all of the NPC Animal Crossing characters were under "like the above".)

And yes, it's entirely hindsight. He didn't make it clear whatsoever how much Villager was looked at till the second interview at all. But if you want to link to that Famitsu article that explains the Villager thing, please do. I only ever saw that tiny little snippet that said "Characters like [this](showing Villager and Nintendog) will not appear in Smash Bros."

http://www.geocities.jp/bgrtype/gsl/words2/dairantosmabrax/smashbrothersx.html

『ピクミン』以外には『どうぶつの森』も候補にありましたが、『どうぶつの森』のキャラクターを戦わせるのはさすがにイメージとかけ離れすぎていて。
虫取り網やスコップを武器にしてキャラ作りすることも可能は可能でしたが(笑)

Rough translation:
"Aside from Pikmin there was also a candidate from Animal Crossing, but as expected, it is too far from the image to let a character from Animal Crossing fight.
It was possible though, to make the character use a bug net and shovel as weapons (laughs)."

Looking back on it now, other than bug nets and shovels, this doesn't specify the Villager.

Though a quote does exist that specifies it, given this old post from Starphoenix: http://smashboards.com/threads/new-smash-bros-for-wiiu.304894/page-2461#post-14333871

I'd look through more, but it's almost time for that damn maintenance.

 

[Noiblade]

I'm positive if the leaker didn't mean villager he would have specified the animal it was.
Tom-Nook=Raccoon/tanooki

 

[Deleted member]

He specified it was a "Guy".
As in "human".

(Only half-trolling)

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I don't need to accept jack ****. Especially if it came from a bull.
And yes, one would think it's weird to see someone thinking other AC characters could show up when Sakurai pretty much disowned the entire cast as unsuitable. I dunno, maybe I overestimate people's ability to use common sense.

Quite a few people did not assume it was Villager but anyone possibly from the series. And there was no reason for them to not assume so. As for why I'm talking about with "accepting opinions", it means that you respect them, not agree with them. No flaming, no calling people idiots, none of that unnecessary stuff. It does nothing to add to your message beyond pissing people off at best. I'll just leave it at that since my point is now crystal clear and continue with the rest of the regular message.

No, it was not common sense to assume Villager either. It was common sense to assume it was definitely someone from Animal Crossing, like the leak said. A guy from Animal Crossing. Not everybody saw that "old information" before the reveal. Many saw just the image with Villager and Nintendog, not the article you linked. Common sense like that requires tons of information. The lack of it means the common sense changes(since it also depends upon their knowledge). I'll also have to note that like "obvious" things, they don't apply to every person equally. In fact, I don't see how it was even close to common sense when that information wasn't even commonly available to speculators period. I've speculated on SSB for ages. So why didn't I see both the image and article? Because it wasn't easily available to everyone who looked for it. I never found that article itself through Google searching period. That is kind of an issue in itself.

(Pretty sure that all of the NPC Animal Crossing characters were under "like the above".)

That's very much open to interpretation. That's kind of the problem here; People take things differently. I don't get why you aren't understanding that overall. Your opinion is not a fact no matter how many times you say it.

]http://www.geocities.jp/bgrtype/gsl/words2/dairantosmabrax/smashbrothersx.html

Rough translation:
"Aside from Pikmin there was also a candidate from Animal Crossing, but as expected, it is too far from the image to let a character from Animal Crossing fight.
It was possible though, to make the character use a bug net and shovel as weapons (laughs)."

Looking back on it now, other than bug nets and shovels, this doesn't specify the Villager.

The picture did show Villager, which is why people thought he was never going to be in. This also is part of why people were led to believe someone like Tom Nook had a chance.

Though a quote does exist that specifies it, given this old post from Starphoenix: http://smashboards.com/threads/new-smash-bros-for-wiiu.304894/page-2461#post-14333871

I'd look through more, but it's almost time for that damn maintenance.

I can tell you from experience that not everyone knew of that old post, and only saw the picture.

Also, even though it showed Villager, note how it doesn't specify him by name in the image itself. Now, if people only saw that, they could assume it's the series itself clearly being ignored for a playable character. That said, "Animal Crossing Guy"(which is vague as it can get) still is not blatantly Villager to everyone. You're also making a simple mistake; Assuming everybody even knew about either of those posts, the one where Villager was said to having no chance, and the one where characters like Villager or Nintendog wouldn't fight. If they didn't know, how they can guess Villager was equivalent to Animal Crossing Guy? The answer is; They can't. It's possible to think that was the case if you had the information, but without it, it's only guessable, but not to the point of being "for sure". Besides that, I'd like to note how many people seriously thought Tom Nook would be playable. Which still overall proves my point; It was never obviously Villager to the fanbase as a whole when reading "Animal Crossing Guy." In addition, no, there is no way everybody's opinion could match yours on that. I really don't care what logic they use, they didn't automatically equate the leaked name with the exact character. And it's easy to see why. Because of the lack of information or because people didn't think a scrapped concept that was said to not work(because he couldn't see them fighting period) would ever come up. That's also part of why many thought the AC Rep was near difficult to guess. Even thought i think it was hardly impossible for him to change his mind, it was no less a difficult guess overall.

Also, keep in mind I nor many have seen Starphoenix's post too. Plus, look a moment at Starphoenix's post. "I'm holding off on..." I think that alone actually shows that Sakurai was willing to add him to a later entry. In a way, that more or less disproves the idea that(if they saw the translation) people couldn't guess Villager being in 4 was hard. Maybe hard, or maybe even easier than we give credit for. I earlier equated Villager with characters like Mewtwo, who were considered for the previous game(64 in the latter's case), but left out for whatever reason. As you can see, the situation is very very similar. That said, it's not even hard to believe people would think Sakurai would pull a Mewtwo and put him in the next game, provided they read all the information(which is possible, of course. That post you linked wasn't from a Backroom, so...).

 

[Chauzu]

A character I want is not in this leak so I don't like it and thus don't believe it.

 

[Noiblade]

A character I want is not in this leak so I don't like it and thus don't believe it.

Pretty much 90% of this leaks detractors.

 

[Bauske]

This.

I could go either way on the leak. If it's fake, no skin off my back, I put no stock in whether it's real or not.

It's just some of the arguments that denouncers have make it incredibly difficult to not want to play Devil's advocate.

I think this is my biggest issues with leak "debunkers." People in support of the leaks come up with hypothetical situations as possible solutions to the issues at hand. We're not saying they're 100% what actually happened, but if you give it a slight thought and think outside the box, you can see that a hypothetical situation can make sense.

Example: Sal's source listed six characters for E3 2013. We don't have a context. We don't know precisely what was said. His source could have said "all six of these characters will be shown off at E3" OR he could have said "some of these characters may show up at E3." Do we know for certain? No, we don't.

So leak supporters say this. We say that plans change. Sal never stated all six characters would be revealed. He just stated those six names. That's it. No other information. Regardless of whether the leaker said they ALL would be revealed or just a FEW would be revealed is unknown to us. What we do know is that none of them have been deconfirmed yet and everything so far has been right.

So, in my opinion, that's logic. It's using facts to find a solution. Again, we don't know what was said and we don't know the context. But people who are trying to debunk it come up with reasons to ignore these facts and say ideas that, while may be true, have no basis to be taken seriously given the information at hand. Saying "all six weren't revealed, so it's a lie" or "Sal is just making it up for publicity" aren't facts. These aren't solutions to the problem or windows to the answer. They're negative ideas with no context behind them to validate them.

My point is, we need to stop coming up with excuses against the leak when those excuse are slathered in bias and based on nothing relevant to the information at hand.

Is Sal lying? Is he making this up? Is the leaker real? Does he have real information? We don't know any of these things. What we do know is he's predicted 11 characters and five have been accurate. None have been debunked. No other leak has done that. These are the facts that matter.

 

[Moldy Clay]

As far as I am concerned, we will never know whether this 'leak' was fake or real unless NONE of the rest of the characters are playable.

If characters are revealed, people will think it was true.
If characters are not revealed, people will think he was throwing in fakes with the real ones to throw off the scent.
If he reveals he's lying and just made extremely lucky guesses, people will assume he's pretending to avoid heat.
If characters are revealed that weren't leaked, people will claim he didn't see them or he purposely left them out.

None of these are certain things, but believers will fall back on those, regardless.

The Gematsu source could very easily be making good guesses. It's not that far fetched. The only one who was way out there was Wii Fit Trainer (of the revealed ones) while the others were all things people guessed/expected/hoped for (along with "Pokemon from XY" and "Animal Crossing guy").

They could also be totally telling the truth.

Unfortunately, it's a situation that can't really be proven either way unless the game doesn't have any of the other characters he suggested, and even if it is disproved, people will still believe it, and will reference it as though it was real AFTER the game's out "REMEMBER THAT GUY THAT LEAKED THE ROSTER" but maybe didn't.

The only thing that will dent the masses is when characters start getting 'deconfirmed', but a lot of the characters, with the exception of Chorus Men, are ones that people have been predicting/wanting/expecting since longer than the 'leak' existed and they all have a lot going for them. It'd be surprising to not see most of them in the game in the first place.

I personally chalk it up to lucky guesses, but I entertain the idea of it being real because a lot of the time, the leaks that people try hardest to disprove tend to be real. That and, well, I want a lot of those characters, and would be totally cool with that roster outside of the fact I think there are better Rhythm Heaven candidates than a one-off minigame triplet from only the DS game.

I think the actual argument about its validity is tired and meaningless though, since you can't do -anything- with it outside of speculation. You just have to wait until E3 to really try prodding at it again, and even then, the argument's not going to change unless we get like 3 newcomers NOT on the list, and a bunch confirmed as ATs instead.

 

[Noiblade]

I personally chalk it up to lucky guesses, but I entertain the idea of it being real because a lot of the time, the leaks that people try hardest to disprove tend to be real. That and, well, I want a lot of those characters, and would be totally cool with that roster outside of the fact I think there are better Rhythm Heaven candidates than a one-off minigame triplet from only the DS game.

See, I understand where you're coming from on the lucky guesses, but I just don't think that's the case.

 

[Pazzo.]

It's always intense in here... well, any developments?

 

[Fablemad]

See, I understand where you're coming from on the lucky guesses, but I just don't think that's the case.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.

And that goes for everything you said on this thread since yesterday, hence why no one is giving you any attention.

See, one can appreciate a good argument in the Gematsu debate(GoldenYuiitusin makes good points that I can take into consideration)

Yours, though, are rude and you make it sound so biased just because you believe in the leak.

Please, next time, refrain from being so condescending and maybe, just maybe, people will take you seriously. If you want to be negative, then gamefaqs is right around the corner.

 

[Noiblade]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.

And that goes for everything you said on this thread since yesterday, hence why no one is giving you any attention.

See, one can appreciate a good argument in the Gematsu debate(GoldenYuiitusin makes good points that I can take into consideration)

Yours, though, are rude and you make it sound so biased just because you believe in the leak.

Please, next time, refrain from being so condescending and maybe, just maybe, people will take you seriously. If you want to be negative, then gamefaqs is right around the corner.

1.Please, other than me blatantly using sarcasm, please point out to me how I was being "rude".
2.Have you even read my other points? Seriously go back to around page 13 or so to where I make points for and against the leak.
3.Okay buddy, I expect to see you at gamefaqs too, i'll be there in a minute. Wait for me!

 

[Fablemad]

1.Please, other than me blatantly using sarcasm, please point out to me how I was being "rude".
2.Have you even read my other points? Seriously go back to around page 13 or so to where I make points for and against the leak.
3.Okay buddy, I expect to see you at gamefaqs too, i'll be there in a minute. Wait for me!

I'm referring to this, dude:

So there I've debunked your "HURR DURR LUCKY GUESSES AND RESEARCH" argument. I'd say there's at least 90% that this leak is legit.

No guys you're obviously all wrong.
When the leaker said Megaman, he meant Megaman the franchise not the character.
When the leaker said Little Mac, he meant a small Big Mac
When the leaker said Chrom he actually meant Google Chrome.

Pretty much 90% of this leaks detractors.

You're not being sarcastic, it's borderline insulting everyone who doesn't believe in the leak.

Listen, you have to assume that some of them could be lucky guesses, or even safe. You're not being objective, you took a side and you stick to it like death awaits you if you don't. Be impartial, and assume that ''Pokemon X and Y'' and ''Animal Crossing guy'' is very vague and could've meant other characters.

It's been said before: Oh, maybe Romano didn't know the name of the characters, or the leaker didn't. To which I answer: if you're going to post this as a leak, do some research. There's no way the guy who's sending him emails doesn't know the name of a character he's working on, unless it's the freaking janitor. Even then how would he know it's a pokemon and not : ''The frog thingy''

You've said earlier that Animal Crossing Guy obviously refers to a human, to which I'll answer you this:
If the reveal was Tom Nook, would we've called the Gematsu leak wrong because ''Guy" technically refers to a human? Nope, everybody would've cheered for Sal Romano, the messiah.

And yes, I would say even Megaman was a safe bet after Sonic. And don't even get me started on Little Mac, who wasn't even announced at E3, therefore invalidating what he said.

Wii Fit Trainer, now that's the spot on guess that makes me doubt if it's real or not. It's the ONLY argument that's valid for the Gematsu leak.

Anyways, just saying man, try to be more comprehensive. You can either believe or not, but none of the two sides have the right to call each other ''gullible'' or ''stuck up because you don't like the characters'', you know?

 

[Noiblade]

I'm referring to this, dude:
You're not being sarcastic, it's borderline insulting everyone who doesn't believe in the leak.

Okay, look maybe it does sound rude, but you can tell that it's sarcasm.

You've said earlier that Animal Crossing Guy obviously refers to a human, to which I'll answer you this:
If the reveal was Tom Nook, would we've called the Gematsu leak wrong because ''Guy" technically refers to a human? Nope, everybody would've cheered for Sal Romano, the messiah.

I didn't say that. Someone else did, they pointed out that it was sarcasm. The closest thing I said was "If it was anyone else besides the villager he probably would have said "Animal Crossing [Insert animal name here]"

Anyways, just saying man, try to be more comprehensive. You can either believe or not, but none of the two sides have the right to call each other ''gullible'' or ''stuck up because you don't like the characters'', you know?

I make arguments disproving other ones, is that rude to you?
Should I just stop debating? Do you want me to make more points against Sal?
What do you want?

You call me out for being "rude" despite all of that being sarcasm, and i've pointed it out several times.

 

[Thunderfang747]

I think it's fair to say that "Pokemon X/Y" is a million times more vague than "Animal Crossing Guy." =P The former could be attributed to a lack of more specific information, while the latter is more likely attributable to somebody just not knowing what to call the little dude. At least in my estimation.

Perhaps whoever is getting this information is only getting pictures of the characters rather than a list. If they saw Greninja but weren't familiar with gen VI they might really not know and as you said, if you only saw a picture of Villager "Animal Crossing Guy" would be an easy thing to call him. Granted even this feels a bit weak, if I discovered a leak with a picture of a pokemon I wasn't familiar with I think I would do a bit of research and figure it out before leaking. It is at least a possibility though.

 

[TheAnvil]

A vague text leak is no different from a blurry picture leak. Neither should be taken seriously.

 

[Artsy Omni]

A vague text leak is no different from a blurry picture leak. Neither should be taken seriously.

Oversimplification. Both a vague text leak or a blurry picture could be legitimate. Should you put your hopes on either? No. But it can still be taken seriously.

 

[Zzuxon]

A vague text leak is no different from a blurry picture leak. Neither should be taken seriously.

This leak has made actual predictions though.
It has supporting evidence, unlike picture leaks.

 

[Twewy]

When the leaker said Chrom he actually meant Google Chrome.

GOOGLE CHROME SEARCHES FOR ITS NEXT VICTIM!

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Seriously, I can't believe people are still in here arguing.
The conclusion is this:

• First half of the leak is quite likely true, but not 100%
• Second half of the leak could be either way, not enough evidence

That's all you can determine. That's it. Nothing else. Why bother trying to fight your corner?
Why even have a corner? Why pick a side? This is all there is.

A lot of you guys need to stop reaching, and take the facts for what they are; pieces of an incomplete puzzle.
Seriously, just wait for the next piece.

 

[ToothiestAura]

Perhaps whoever is getting this information is only getting pictures of the characters rather than a list. If they saw Greninja but weren't familiar with gen VI they might really not know and as you said, if you only saw a picture of Villager "Animal Crossing Guy" would be an easy thing to call him. Granted even this feels a bit weak, if I discovered a leak with a picture of a pokemon I wasn't familiar with I think I would do a bit of research and figure it out before leaking. It is at least a possibility though.

Type "frog pokemon tongue" into Google and your first result is Greninja. Assuming the leak is true, the only explanation of "X/Y Pokemon" would be that Sal's source had an old document where the decision on which X/Y pokemon to include in Smash was not yet made.

"Animal Grossing Guy" easily refers to several characters. If you saw Tom Nook, KK Slider, Ressetti or Villager and weren't familiar with Animal Crossing, calling them that is very likely. Giving Sal and his "source" the benefit of the doubt, it could simply be because his source was unfamiliar AC. Though, a simple Google search would turn up a more appropriate name for the character.

Seriously, I can't believe people are still in here arguing.
The conclusion is this:

• First half of the leak is quite likely true, but not 100%
• Second half of the leak could be either way, not enough evidence

That's all you can determine. That's it. Nothing else. Why bother trying to fight your corner?
Why even have a corner? Why pick a side? This is all there is.

A lot of you guys need to stop reaching, and take the facts for what they are; pieces of an incomplete puzzle.
Seriously, just wait for the next piece.

Tell this to the entire branch of thought known as Philosophy.

 

[Artsy Omni]

Seriously, I can't believe people are still in here arguing.
The conclusion is this:

• First half of the leak is quite likely true, but not 100%
• Second half of the leak could be either way, not enough evidence

That's all you can determine. That's it. Nothing else. Why bother trying to fight your corner?
Why even have a corner? Why pick a side? This is all there is.

A lot of you guys need to stop reaching, and take the facts for what they are; pieces of an incomplete puzzle.
Seriously, just wait for the next piece.

The problem is, new people continue to find this thread and require the whole process of explanation to be told to them, and as soon as those people make peace with it, then a new batch of people comes in.

I also imagine people don't read the entirety of the first post... which they really ought to do, but you know how people are. =P Even if they do read the original post, they don't always put 2 and 2 together.

It's an unending cycle.

 

[Shroob]

Now, here's the question... What happens if Chrous Men gets revealed at E3? Everyone flips their ****?

 

[Artsy Omni]

Now, here's the question... What happens if Chrous Men gets revealed at E3? Everyone flips their ****?

I think it's been said plenty of times that if Chorus Men, as the dark horse, gets confirmed, people will really start taking this seriously.

 

[TheAnvil]

Oversimplification. Both a vague text leak or a blurry picture could be legitimate. Should you put your hopes on either? No. But it can still be taken seriously.

True, but the fact that it is vague/blurry (vague in this case) is always done to hide weaknesses.

This leak has made actual predictions though.
It has supporting evidence, unlike picture leaks.

It has supporting evidence. But it also more than its share of evidence stacking up against it.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Tell this to the entire branch of thought known as Philosophy.

Philosophy isn't about arguing opinions and beliefs until you're blue in the face. This isn't a philosophical debate, anyway, it's an analysis of facts, for which a rational consensus can be reached.

Regardless, philosophical debate has a protocol for when all argument has run its course; reach a consensus, or agree to disagree (the latter generally means somebody is wrong). The purpose of all arguments should be to reach a consensus, not to prove that you're right. Anybody who can't determine that this discussion has run its course, and reached the same conclusion I did, has no hope of ever leaving this thread.

 

[ChunkyBeef]

Now, here's the question... What happens if Chrous Men gets revealed at E3? Everyone flips their ****?

I concede that I was wrong about the Gematsu Leak and cry myself to sleep that night.

 

[Artsy Omni]

True, but the fact that it is vague/blurry (vague in this case) is always done to hide weaknesses.

False. It is OFTEN done to hide weakness, but it can also just be a lack of information or the fact that somebody can't hold his hand steady.