The Official Thread For the Sal Romano/Gematsu Leak

[Deleted member]

Not different enough to matter. That's playing semantics at this point.

He was guessed to be in the game by someone. That means they were notable that somebody thought they could actually be put into the game, which makes Chorus Men not entirely that radical of a guess anymore. Wii Fit Trainer is in the same category. Both are hard to guess, but still not impossible in the end.

Of course, that'd be funny if we find out they're an AT, and that random guy was right.

As for BKupa, that's exactly how I interpret it as, that if one person can guess it, others can. I don't see any mocking, since it's a very realistic point. Even if he was mocking it, I still agree that one guesser means other can guess too. Either a person can guess it or they can't. No inbetween. WFT was definitely guessable(as someone previously outright said they think she'll be in the game, well before Sal's Leaker leaked it), just not an easy one(understandably so).

How was the Assist Trophy suggestion a guess by any means, let alone for playable status? By this logic, because I brought up Astro Boy as someone I wanted in Smash, that means that I predicted him, even though I acknowledge that he has no chance. Just because someone is suggested doesn't mean that the person thinks the character will get in said role. Guessing and suggesting are not the same thing.

And seriously, you think BKupa wasn't mocking people who used the Infinite Monkey Theory? You do realize that he's been saying all along that the leak is real as well as making fun of terrible logics used against the leak, right? The problem with using the Infinite Monkey Theory against the leak is we have no evidence to support that anyone suggested Wii Fit Trainer as a playable character was likely or even a possibility.

Also I'm going to need a source on where someone seriously predicted Wii Fit Trainer was going to be playable.

 

[True Blue Warrior]

How was the Assist Trophy suggestion a guess by any means, let alone for playable status? By this logic, because I brought up Astro Boy as someone I wanted in Smash, that means that I predicted him, even though I acknowledge that he has no chance. Just because someone is suggested doesn't mean that the person thinks the character will get in said role. Guessing and suggesting are not the same thing.

And seriously, you think BKupa wasn't mocking people who used the Infinite Monkey Theory? You do realize that he's been saying all along that the leak is real as well as making fun of terrible logics used against the leak, right? The problem with using the Infinite Monkey Theory against the leak is we have no evidence to support that anyone suggested Wii Fit Trainer as a playable character was likely or even a possibility.

Also I'm going to need a source on where someone seriously predicted Wii Fit Trainer was going to be playable.

Even if sales was enough to get a Wii Fit rep, WFT still wouldn't have been obvious as she was a major NPC whereas the Miis where the main characters. This is an important fact.

 

[Noiblade]

This. I'll believe Sal Romano if Chorus Men are confirmed, but if literally any character in the leak is debunked, the whole leak is dead (though lack of Pac-Man or Mii would kill the entire thing; anything else would just kill the second half).

While I agree with most of what you say, I disagree on the Mii part.

You mean shown at E3 right? Or do you mean in the game all together?
Mii isn't really essential to E3 imo.

 

[Sol_Vent]

So, hypothetically, let's say that every character from the leak is shown at E3 except Chorus Kids. How do you feel about the leak then?

 

[ChunkyBeef]

It doesn't matter who is deconfirmed. If ANY of the characters that Sal's leakers have claimed are in the game are deconfirmed, the leak is debunked. The concept that Chorus Men being debunked means more than Shulk being debunked makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. I mean, people are taking the Sal Romano leak as fact when it clearly isn't yet, but I haven't seen you jumping out of airplanes, waving signs and setting up soapboxes to tell people to remain neutral or anything. You're taking what I said far too literally.

Trust me. If people are crazy enough to rationalize the inconsistencies and general holes in a leak like this one, they're going to come out in droves when one of the ones on the list possibly get revealed as an Assist Trophy and say exactly what I said. Only Chorus Men has the kind of finality to lay the Gematsu Leak to rest permanently.

People have settled for the Gematsu Leak and will hear no other arguments, and it's such a sad sight to see.

 

[JaidynReiman]

While I agree with most of what you say, I disagree on the Mii part.

You mean shown at E3 right? Or do you mean in the game all together?
Mii isn't really essential to E3 imo.

In general. I said Pac-Man or Mii because they're still have to be revealed from the first "leak." If either one is confirmed to be unplayable (or Pac-Man isn't shown at E3), the whole thing is dead. Any characters not confirmed playable in the second half only kills that half, the first half is still open to being real (although frankly I personally believe it was made pretty clear both were from the same person).

Makes perfect sense to me. I mean, people are taking the Sal Romano leak as fact when it clearly isn't yet, but I haven't seen you jumping out of airplanes, waving signs and setting up soapboxes to tell people to remain neutral or anything. You're taking what I said far too literally.

Trust me. If people are crazy enough to rationalize the inconsistencies and general holes in a leak like this one, they're going to come out in droves when one of the ones on the list possibly get revealed as an Assist Trophy and say exactly what I said. Only Chorus Men has the kind of finality to lay the Gematsu Leak to rest permanently.

People have settled for the Gematsu Leak and will hear no other arguments, and it's such a sad sight to see.

As far as I'm concerned, anything against Gematsu debunks it. However, I do agree with you that many people just won't accept it. Hell, if Chorus Men are an AT I'm sure people would still justify trying to explain away that inconsistency.

We'll see how things go, though.

 

[Deleted member]

This doesn't make sense.

The logic behind your post is: if Shulk/Chrom/PacMan/Mii is deconfirmed, people will suggest that the leaker had "outdated information" or that it is an "ever-changing" landscape. How does this logic not apply to Chorus Men either?

If anything, the "ever-changing landscape of development" applies more to them than anyone else, considering that they are a group of 3 characters, maximizing at 12 on the screen at a time.

It doesn't matter who is deconfirmed. If ANY of the characters that Sal's leakers have claimed are in the game are deconfirmed, the leak is debunked. The concept that Chorus Men being debunked means more than Shulk being debunked makes no sense.

Precisely.
Chorus Kids being confirmed would be the done deal on the leak being legit, but once any of the remaining characters are confirmed to not be playable, the leak is dead.

The only way the "outdated" claim can be made would be if we find all of the mentioned characters within Smash 4's data like we did with Brawl's scrapped characters. But by then, it being "outdated" would be rather meaningless other than "oh, so it actually was true at some point".

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

How was the Assist Trophy suggestion a guess by any means, let alone for playable status? By this logic, because I brought up Astro Boy as someone I wanted in Smash, that means that I predicted him, even though I acknowledge that he has no chance. Just because someone is suggested doesn't mean that the person thinks the character will get in said role. Guessing and suggesting are not the same thing.

They're barely different at all. All it is is that people think they will be in the game. If one person can suggest it, that means others can. You only need literally one guess to debunk a character being "unguessable". At this point, no character is unguessable period, unless they did not exist prior to the Smash game they were put in. Roy was not guessable because he didn't exist yet. Every other character of course is guessable.

And seriously, you think BKupa wasn't mocking people who used the Infinite Monkey Theory? You do realize that he's been saying all along that the leak is real as well as making fun of terrible logics used against the leak, right? The problem with using the Infinite Monkey Theory against the leak is we have no evidence to support that anyone suggested Wii Fit Trainer as a playable character was likely or even a possibility.

That's the exact one that was directly guessed by someone. Outright said that it'll happen. That already proves that Wii Fit Trainer was clearly guessable period. This doesn't help much for Chorus Men, though. I'm having trouble finding the post(if somebody else wants to link it, that works too, but I don't have it on me), and I don't care if it was a "joke post" either. Somebody guessed she be in, period. That means others can.

I also don't care if BKupa was mocking people or not. That theory is actually extremely realistic and happens quite often. The whole idea that nobody would want WFT playable before her announcement is ludicrous. Sakurai just clearly didn't see people suggest her, not that nobody wanted her in. There is no such thing as a character nobody would ever want unless they didn't exist yet, period. That's just how life works, everybody has a fan. Keep in mind I still think WFT was hard to guess, but saying impossible is just a lie and we all know it. Having a post where somebody guessed her well before the leak(joke or not) means it happened, proving that bit wrong.

Also I'm going to need a source on where someone seriously predicted Wii Fit Trainer was going to be playable.[/quote]
It was right here on this topic, somebody posted a GameFAQs link where somebody outright said "Wii Fit Trainer will be playable in a future Smash Bros." And they were right.

You dismissed it despite it outright predicting it properly(which I don't get why, since it's right on the dot). It's more than the Chorus Men got. I think it already proved WFT was clearly guessable, just not an easy one. I will be clear that's my final stance on WFT too. She was guessable, but not easily. This does not actually mean Sal's leaker guessed her, it means it's possible he could have. I'm being specific about this for a reason.

As for Chorus Men, even if the semantics matter(I don't really believe semantics do much to show that somebody thought throwing them in the game could work as an unrealistic idea as is), the end result won't do anything to hurt the leak. Them being in helps the leak. Them being out does nothing. I'll explain down below why Chorus Men doesn't necessarily have a high impact on the leak as much as it could have.

-----------

Moving on, I don't think Chorus Men being disconfirmed means much at this point. With him having trouble with Ice Climbers(and they still haven't been announced, so the best we can conclude is that either they're in or he can't make them work, either or), him having trouble with Chorus Men is another possibility. Them being reduced to an AT overall is actually a real possibility. However, because of the IC problem, this happening doesn't discredit the leak. We already have decent evidence he got a set of planned characters, not necessarily characters who were definitely getting in, just those Sakurai wants to put in.

So, hypothetically, let's say that every character from the leak is shown at E3 except Chorus Kids. How do you feel about the leak then?

The same. If he had trouble with Ice Climbers, he can have trouble with Chorus Men. It doesn't hurt the leak one iota and only adds to the outdated information theory at best.

 

[ChunkyBeef]

Precisely.
Chorus Kids being confirmed would be the done deal on the leak being legit, but once any of the remaining characters are confirmed to not be playable, the leak is dead.

The only way the "outdated" claim can be made would be if we find all of the mentioned characters within Smash 4's data like we did with Brawl's scrapped characters. But by then, it being "outdated" would be rather meaningless other than "oh, so it actually was true at some point".

Except I have two instances of examples of people trying to rationalize some VERY large holes in the leak by doing what I said would happen, and the leak isn't even confirmed true or not. They both go by the name 'Pokemon from X and Y' and 'Rosalina'.

Here's how it went:

* Rosalina revealed.
* Gematsu Leak Detractors: "Well, Rosalina was never mentioned! The leak is debunked!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Not so fast! He probably didn't have access to that information!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The information he had probably was outdated!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Something probably changed in development!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The leak was only for things shown off at E3!" (Forgetting that it wasn't all shown at E3, oops.)

* Greninja revealed.
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "There it is, Pokemon from X and Y! Gematsu Leak confirmed 100% real!"
* Gemtasu Leak Detractors: "Not so fast! The leak never specifically says Greninja!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "He probably didn't have access to that information!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The information he had probably was outdated!"

Now, gaze into my crystal ball as we consider a potential future of the Gematsu Leak! WooooOOOOOOoooo!

* Chorus Men confirmed Assist Trophy.
* Gematsu Leak Detracters: "Chorus Men are an Assist Trophy! Gematsu Leak debunked!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Not so fast! He probably didn't have access to that information!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The information he had probably was outdated!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Something probably changed in development!"

Sorry, but past behavior is indicative of future behavior. I just kinda stopped caring, honestly, since I already know how things are gonna go down in either instance.

 

[Noiblade]

Except I have two instances of examples of people trying to rationalize some VERY large holes in the leak by doing what I said would happen, and the leak isn't even confirmed true or not. They both go by the name 'Pokemon from X and Y' and 'Rosalina'.

Here's how it went:

* Rosalina revealed.
* Gematsu Leak Detractors: "Well, Rosalina was never mentioned! The leak is debunked!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Not so fast! He probably didn't have access to that information!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The information he had probably was outdated!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Something probably changed in development!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The leak was only for things shown off at E3!" (Forgetting that it wasn't all shown at E3, oops.)

* Greninja revealed.
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "There it is, Pokemon from X and Y! Gematsu Leak confirmed 100% real!"
* Gemtasu Leak Detractors: "Not so fast! The leak never specifically says Greninja!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "He probably didn't have access to that information!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The information he had probably was outdated!"

Now, gaze into my crystal ball as we consider a potential future of the Gematsu Leak! WooooOOOOOOoooo!

* Chorus Men confirmed Assist Trophy.
* Gematsu Leak Detracters: "Chorus Men are an Assist Trophy! Gematsu Leak debunked!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Not so fast! He probably didn't have access to that information!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The information he had probably was outdated!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Something probably changed in development!"

Sorry, but past behavior is indicative of future behavior. I just kinda stopped caring, honestly, since I already know how things are gonna go down in either instance.

I wonder if there's a pattern here?

 

[Deleted member]

There is a sheer difference between an unmentioned character being revealed, a character fitting a mentioned vague label, and a mentioned character being outright disconfirmed.

"Rosalina" was never a hole to begin with except to those desperate to discredit the leak, and "Greninja vs. Pokémon from X/Y" is merely debatable at best.
A direct disconfirmation for any of the remaining mentioned characters would be a legitimate hole that would swallow up the leak.

Why? Because regardless of whether or not development plans did change, the leak is effing useless. It would be irrelevant for whether or not it was ever true since it would be undeniably false as far as speculation for Smash goes.
However, False =/= Fake. The only way to know whether or not it was fake is by checking for evidence that each character was actually planned for the game.

 

[praline]

That's why I hope Chrom or Chorus Men are revealed as ATs.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

There is a sheer difference between an unmentioned character being revealed, a character fitting a mentioned vague label, and a mentioned character being outright disconfirmed.

"Rosalina" was never a hole to begin with except to those desperate to discredit the leak, and "Greninja vs. Pokémon from X/Y" is merely debatable at best.
A direct disconfirmation for any of the remaining mentioned characters would be a legitimate hole that would swallow up the leak.

Why? Because regardless of whether or not development plans did change, the leak is effing useless. It would be irrelevant for whether or not it was ever true since it would be undeniably false as far as speculation for Smash goes.
However, False =/= Fake. The only way to know whether or not it was fake is by checking for evidence that each character was actually planned for the game.

Chorus Men may be the only legitimate exception due to the whole Ice Climbers problem said before. But only them. Unlike everybody else, there's no reason to cut those characters. It's not a gameplay issue.

I am not saying IC and Chorus Men aren't in the game. I am saying it's possible that it could come up, and if IC especially isn't playable, it's fairly obvious why Chorus Men wouldn't be either(in this particular scenario). However, if IC is playable, and Chorus Men isn't, that means either 3 characters at once was too hard to program(a reasonable guess), the character was a fake leak, or Sakurai changed his mind period(like he did with Villager not being in Brawl). Again, I don't think Chorus Men being disconfirmed hurts the overall leak, but the rest of the leaked characters would do so. Because everything else is a safe guess period, one of them not being in makes it more believable he guessed a lot of characters.(keeping in mind Sal may be credible, but his leaker is not the same credibility. Unless his leaker has leaked multiple different games before and got it all right, but I don't remember that being the case respectively)

 

[ChunkyBeef]

There is a sheer difference between an unmentioned character being revealed, a character fitting a mentioned vague label, and a mentioned character being outright disconfirmed.

You bring up some good points, but I'm merely trying to point out that no matter what happens, what gets said, confirmed or deconfirmed, whatever happens during development, whatever changes and doesn't, people react predictably and past behavior is indicative of future behavior. That's why I posted the notable moments in the Gematsu Leak timeline where these things come up.

I mean, like I said, people are already treating the Gematsu Leak as 100% real and comparing new leaks to it, so that should tell you everything you need to know. It's sad.

 

[True Blue Warrior]

There is a sheer difference between an unmentioned character being revealed, a character fitting a mentioned vague label, and a mentioned character being outright disconfirmed.

"Rosalina" was never a hole to begin with except to those desperate to discredit the leak, and "Greninja vs. Pokémon from X/Y" is merely debatable at best.
A direct disconfirmation for any of the remaining mentioned characters would be a legitimate hole that would swallow up the leak.

Why? Because regardless of whether or not development plans did change, the leak is effing useless. It would be irrelevant for whether or not it was ever true since it would be undeniably false as far as speculation for Smash goes.
However, False =/= Fake. The only way to know whether or not it was fake is by checking for evidence that each character was actually planned for the game.

Pretty much this. That said, how likely do you think this leak is in being false?

 

[Bauske]

So, hypothetically, let's say that every character from the leak is shown at E3 except Chorus Kids. How do you feel about the leak then?

People will still argue it into the ground, call the reveals "lucky guesses" or "certainties" and flood their arguments with hindsight bias.

There is a sheer difference between an unmentioned character being revealed, a character fitting a mentioned vague label, and a mentioned character being outright disconfirmed.

"Rosalina" was never a hole to begin with except to those desperate to discredit the leak, and "Greninja vs. Pokémon from X/Y" is merely debatable at best.
A direct disconfirmation for any of the remaining mentioned characters would be a legitimate hole that would swallow up the leak.

Why? Because regardless of whether or not development plans did change, the leak is effing useless. It would be irrelevant for whether or not it was ever true since it would be undeniably false as far as speculation for Smash goes.
However, False =/= Fake. The only way to know whether or not it was fake is by checking for evidence that each character was actually planned for the game.

This. Thank you.

Leak supporters aren't trying to come up with excuses to defend the leak. They're using logic to fend off people who don't believe in it.

Whenever someone says "but what about Rosalina!" I roll my eyes. It's a ridiculous argument.

Look at it this way. We have absolutely NO idea what was said to Sal prior to E3. Did the leaker say "all of these characters will show up"? Did he say "some of these characters may show up"? We don't know. All we know is he Sal said these characters may show up at E3. Nowhere was it said which ones exactly or what the entire roster was. Rosalina has absolutely no bearing on the first leak, plain and simple. You cannot use her as grounds to deconfirm the leak because there's no logic backing it. If the leaker had given us a list of ALL the newcomers planned, and Rosalina wasn't on that list but got revealed later, then there would be a case for argument. That is not the case here.

Now, why would a leaker mention six characters for E3 when only three were revealed? The only thing I can think of, which again is perfectly plausible, is that when he got his information, he didn't know what the finalized plan was for the E3 reveals. It's perfectly reasonable to think they may have been selecting their options as to which characters to reveal at E3. Is it also plausible to believe the leaker was making stuff up? Sure, that's a reasonable theory, but it falls a bit shorter with the inclusion of the nearly unpredictable Wii Fit Trainer.

Regardless of whether it's correct or not, just because all six weren't revealed does not harm the leak at all because he never stated all six would be revealed at E3. In fact, we don't know the exact wording at all, which makes this such a pain in the patoot and creates so much debate.

For me, looking at things from a logical standpoint and looking at the evidence rather than looking at the lack thereof, I have a hard time seeing how people put up arguments against this leak when there really aren't any. There are vague issues and there is a lack of information, but from my standpoint, there is absolutely no proof against the leak.

 

[True Blue Warrior]

People will still argue it into the ground, call the reveals "lucky guesses" or "certainties" and flood their arguments with hindsight bias.

Hindsight bias? All of the remaining characters on the second leak, with the exception of the Chorus Men, are easily believable and does not solely rely on the legitimacy of Sal in order to be believable.

Had it not been for the fact that this leak is something that should be kept an eye on due to WFT, I would have never considered the Chorus Men as plausible candidates at all (and for good reasons).

None of the remaining characters, except for the Chorus Men, can be legitimately be used to prove that this leak is 100% correct because every single one of them had reason(s) to be considered contenders.

 

[chronomantic]

Except I have two instances of examples of people trying to rationalize some VERY large holes in the leak by doing what I said would happen, and the leak isn't even confirmed true or not. They both go by the name 'Pokemon from X and Y' and 'Rosalina'.

Here's how it went:

* Rosalina revealed.
* Gematsu Leak Detractors: "Well, Rosalina was never mentioned! The leak is debunked!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Not so fast! He probably didn't have access to that information!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The information he had probably was outdated!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Something probably changed in development!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The leak was only for things shown off at E3!" (Forgetting that it wasn't all shown at E3, oops.)

* Greninja revealed.
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "There it is, Pokemon from X and Y! Gematsu Leak confirmed 100% real!"
* Gemtasu Leak Detractors: "Not so fast! The leak never specifically says Greninja!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "He probably didn't have access to that information!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The information he had probably was outdated!"

Now, gaze into my crystal ball as we consider a potential future of the Gematsu Leak! WooooOOOOOOoooo!

* Chorus Men confirmed Assist Trophy.
* Gematsu Leak Detracters: "Chorus Men are an Assist Trophy! Gematsu Leak debunked!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Not so fast! He probably didn't have access to that information!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "The information he had probably was outdated!"
* Gematsu Leak Supporters: "Something probably changed in development!"

Sorry, but past behavior is indicative of future behavior. I just kinda stopped caring, honestly, since I already know how things are gonna go down in either instance.

You stopped caring? wow I'd have to see it to believe it.

 

[ChunkyBeef]

You stopped caring? wow I'd have to see it to believe it.

Just because I'm not an active player in this game doesn't mean that I don't enjoy spectating and pointing out what should be obvious.

 

[Deleted member]

Pretty much this. That said, how likely do you think this leak is in being false?

I don't find it particularly likely that it's false at this present time.

You bring up some good points, but I'm merely trying to point out that no matter what happens, what gets said, confirmed or deconfirmed, whatever happens during development, whatever changes and doesn't, people react predictably and past behavior is indicative of future behavior. That's why I posted the notable moments in the Gematsu Leak timeline where these things come up.

I mean, like I said, people are already treating the Gematsu Leak as 100% real and comparing new leaks to it, so that should tell you everything you need to know. It's sad.

And there are people treating it as 100% fake and refusing to acknowledge the possibility that it could be real, which is equally as sad.

This. Thank you.

Leak supporters aren't trying to come up with excuses to defend the leak. They're using logic to fend off people who don't believe in it.

No problem. And yes, that is an accurate summation.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Look at it this way. We have absolutely NO idea what was said to Sal prior to E3. Did the leaker say "all of these characters will show up"? Did he say "some of these characters may show up"? We don't know.

But yeah, after she was confirmed, I figured I'd share the rest, which my source told me would appear at E3, barring impromptu change. - Sal

The article on Gematsu also says the leaker said all six would appear at E3.

For me, looking at things from a logical standpoint and looking at the evidence rather than looking at the lack thereof, I have a hard time seeing how people put up arguments against this leak when there really aren't any. There are vague issues and there is a lack of information, but from my standpoint, there is absolutely no proof against the leak.

Proof, no. But the lack of precision in these leaks is critical. Why only three characters at E3 instead of six? Why say "Pokemon from X/Y" instead of Greninja? Why not reveal anything else about anything else, especially Rosalina or Charizard?

Let's assume some level of legitimacy, even if only because of Wii Fit Trainer. We have three basic explanations:

A) The leaker is lying. They only know so much, and filled in the rest with what might be either guesses or blatant lies.
B) The leaker is dumb. Misreading E3 plans and/or not knowing how to Google a frog. Possibly misinterpreted stage elements and ATs too.
C) The leaker is giving outdated information. This is the popular answer, but you still have issues with how reliable their information is when they're referring to an upcoming E3 schedule (which changed) and much later referencing a Pokemon placeholder (but not a Fire Emblem one). What else could change between "then" and release?

All three explanations lead to a very good possibility of getting something wrong, even if so far they've been "correct."

 

[ChunkyBeef]

And there are people treating it as 100% fake and refusing to acknowledge the possibility that it could be real, which is equally as sad.

I don't find that quite as sad, really. It's best to be somewhere in the middle, neutral, 'cause while there's still some merit to the leak, there's an equal number of reasons to be skeptical of it. Still, it's unfair to all the new leaks, which deserve to be approached with neutrality and an open mind, to cross-reference their leaks with the Gematsu Leak, don't you think? This isn't like some isolated occurrence, either. I've seen it done with pretty much every leak. I know you have, too. You're part of the E3 Rumors/Leaks thread, are you not?

Either way, at the end of the day, the game is going to release and people are going to remember the Gematsu Leak as the accurate/inaccurate leak.. for about the five or six seconds it takes to load up Smash 3DS.

 

[Morbi]

I don't find that quite as sad, really. It's best to be somewhere in the middle, neutral, 'cause while there's still some merit to the leak, there's an equal number of reasons to be skeptical of it. Still, it's unfair to all the new leaks, which deserve to be approached with neutrality and an open mind, to cross-reference their leaks with the Gematsu Leak, don't you think? This isn't like some isolated occurrence, either. I've seen it done with pretty much every leak. I know you have, too. You're part of the E3 Rumors/Leaks thread, are you not?

Either way, at the end of the day, the game is going to release and people are going to remember the Gematsu Leak as the accurate/inaccurate leak.. for about the five or six seconds it takes to load up Smash 3DS.

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly, it is fallaciously to proclaim that the leak is objectively true just as it is erroneous to state that the leak is definitively false. Neutrality is the most logical interpretation of the leak. I also agree with your secondary premise, it is annoying that every leak tries to establish a correlation with this specific leak.

 

[Bauske]

But yeah, after she was confirmed, I figured I'd share the rest, which my source told me would appear at E3, barring impromptu change. - Sal

The article on Gematsu also says the leaker said all six would appear at E3.




Proof, no. But the lack of precision in these leaks is critical. Why only three characters at E3 instead of six? Why say "Pokemon from X/Y" instead of Greninja? Why not reveal anything else about anything else, especially Rosalina or Charizard?

Let's assume some level of legitimacy, even if only because of Wii Fit Trainer. We have three basic explanations:

A) The leaker is lying. They only know so much, and filled in the rest with what might be either guesses or blatant lies.
B) The leaker is dumb. Misreading E3 plans and/or not knowing how to Google a frog. Possibly misinterpreted stage elements and ATs too.
C) The leaker is giving outdated information. This is the popular answer, but you still have issues with how reliable their information is when they're referring to an upcoming E3 schedule (which changed) and much later referencing a Pokemon placeholder (but not a Fire Emblem one). What else could change between "then" and release?

All three explanations lead to a very good possibility of getting something wrong, even if so far they've been "correct."

Okay, my bad, and I apologize. I didn't realize the article stated that all six characters should have been revealed. Still, in Sal's post, he does say "barring impromptu change."

I still stand by the fact that we don't know exactly what the leaker stated. The article on Gematsu was posted shortly after or even during E3, so I'm sure that, if hypothetically this leaker is real, Sal might have been just as confused as we were when only three of the six were revealed. Maybe that's why the Gematsu article is worded that way but his later response on SmashBoards is worded in a more forgiving way. It could also be that something's fishy. It's too hard to tell.

What I'd like to know is exactly what was said to Sal in that first email. I don't need a name or anything incriminating. I just want to see the wording to know the leaker's initial intention and thoughts on the reveals. The arguments of ALL or SOME seem to be based on information that's too vague to really work with. However, I will admit I tend to side with the idea of it being accurate because it seems like the idea of it being false is all based around he-said-she-said telephone syndrome style statements and acting as if unknown information is accurate.

 

[Morbi]

Okay, my bad, and I apologize. I didn't realize the article stated that all six characters should have been revealed. Still, in Sal's post, he does say "barring impromptu change."

I still stand by the fact that we don't know exactly what the leaker stated. The article on Gematsu was posted shortly after or even during E3, so I'm sure that, if hypothetically this leaker is real, Sal might have been just as confused as we were when only three of the six were revealed. Maybe that's why the Gematsu article is worded that way but his later response on SmashBoards is worded in a more forgiving way. It could also be that something's fishy. It's too hard to tell.

What I'd like to know is exactly what was said to Sal in that first email. I don't need a name or anything incriminating. I just want to see the wording to know the leaker's initial intention and thoughts on the reveals. The arguments of ALL or SOME seem to be based on information that's too vague to really work with. However, I will admit I tend to side with the idea of it being accurate because it seems like the idea of it being false is all based around he-said-she-said telephone syndrome style statements and acting as if unknown information is accurate.

The original wording would give us too much context, all great "leaks" are entirely ambitious for the longevity of their existence.

 

[Bauske]

The original wording would give us too much context, all great "leaks" are entirely ambitious for the longevity of their existence.

Can't argue with that. But that said, vague leaks have proven to be correct before, right?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Can't argue with that. But that said, vague leaks have proven to be correct before, right?

Indeed. But being vague only serves to weaken a leak. With the exception of WFT(and people can't seem to get the wording right on whether it's Chorus Kids, Chorus Men, or Chorus Man), it's a fairly vague leak full of hyper safe guesses.

Most of the guesses don't need this leak to make them obvious choices(not that they will get in, but they're really damn easy to believe). In a way, I understand why people think it doesn't help the leak at all, and throwing in safe stuff really doesn't. Unless they get disconfirmed, which isn't likely.

My overall opinion is that the leak is likely to be real overall, but debunking it with disconfirmations(except Chorus Men as I explained previously) isn't that hard either. Chrom doesn't get in? Huge problem. It means he was likely lying out of his teeth for an easy guess, at least the second leak, clearly. The 1st leak isn't even proven right, we still have 2 more to go, both likely. However, if neither shows up, it means either Sakurai changed his mind, or Sal's Leaker was lying.

I think many don't realize that due to the idea of "outdated information", even if the leak ends up wrong, Sal's Leaker himself may not have been lying. That's what makes this situation very difficult overall. He's hard to discredit period. Sal himself is fine, mind you, but the leaker? He's on thin ice at this point.

 

[ChunkyBeef]

Can't argue with that. But that said, vague leaks have proven to be correct before, right?

Psst.

Every fighting game leak in recent years has been 100% accurate with their leak, not in several parts and with no vagueness. Any inaccuracies genuinely attributed to lack of time or support from third parties.

 

[papagenos]

I don't find that quite as sad, really. It's best to be somewhere in the middle, neutral, 'cause while there's still some merit to the leak, there's an equal number of reasons to be skeptical of it. Still, it's unfair to all the new leaks, which deserve to be approached with neutrality and an open mind, to cross-reference their leaks with the Gematsu Leak, don't you think? This isn't like some isolated occurrence, either. I've seen it done with pretty much every leak. I know you have, too. You're part of the E3 Rumors/Leaks thread, are you not?

Either way, at the end of the day, the game is going to release and people are going to remember the Gematsu Leak as the accurate/inaccurate leak.. for about the five or six seconds it takes to load up Smash 3DS.

It's only BEST to be neutral if you care about not being wrong in which "side" you take on this or any leak.

However my goal here is not to be right or wrong to "win" knowing what leaks are real or something... my goal is to try and figure out what the roster for smash 4 will be.

So with no bias for what characters I want and without the bias of being afraid to ever believe anything unless it's 100% true I'd place this leak somewhere in the high 90's% likely after weighing all of the information about it.

All the information which includes:

1.who the leaker is (the owner of a gaming site someone who is involved with people who may have info and has something to lose if the info is false)

2.when we got the information (right before E3 makes sense and so does right before the direct as this is when nintendo might have information floating around behind the scenes, also sharing more characters hours before the direct was DANGEROUS for a faker because it just added to the possibility of losing credibility by having one of the new characters instantly be deconfirmed...this was credibility that had stood the test of time for almost a full year)

3.how long information has lasted without being proven false (at this point a year)

4.official information slowly pointing more and more towards characters like pacman (old namco assist trophies shown) and Mii(several stages) to be likely when these characters had been guessed way before this information about the game pointed to them.

5.the fact that 5 out of our 6 known newcomers were in some way predicted by this leak. (this includes the impossible to guess Wii Fit Trainer, Villager who sakurai straight up said would not happen, and Megaman a fan favorite but there was nothing pointing towards capcom working on the game).

So with all that piling up, could he still be wrong? sure. if this was court i'd say that there is still some reasonable doubt this isn't true...however IS he wrong? no way he's guilty. guilty of having real information on Smash 4 and anyone who's actually followed this leak knows it's true.

 

[DaDavid]

Fingers crossed these last few days, Shulk better show up or else... I will be mildly disappointed.

 

[Morbi]

Fingers crossed these last few days, Shulk better show up or else... I will be mildly disappointed.

What if Shulk shows up as an assist trophy; therefore refuting the leak? He would still show up. Regardless, that is what my fingers are crossed for.

 

[DaDavid]

What if Shulk shows up as an assist trophy; therefore refuting the leak? He would still show up. Regardless, that is what my fingers are crossed for.

Assist Trophy would be... not ideal. But depending on what he does I'd be cool with it.

 

[Bauske]

What if Shulk shows up as an assist trophy; therefore refuting the leak? He would still show up. Regardless, that is what my fingers are crossed for.

I would say he's either in or he's out, but my point would be countered by Saki. But yes, in my view, if Shulk is not playable, I'd have a lot less faith that the leak could be real.

 

[Pazzo.]

What we can be sure of is this: No matter what happens at E3, this leak will still be discussed as real.

 

[ScottyWK]

What we can be sure of is this: No matter what happens at E3, this leak will still be discussed as real.

Which is completely absurd to me. Leaks get debunked by much more "trivial" details (that CSS one from a week or two ago got debunked because the font they used was ever so slightly different than a Japanese version). So if one of the characters that is in Sal's leak is deconfirmed, this thing should be deader than the Virtual Boy.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Which is completely absurd to me. Leaks get debunked by much more "trivial" details (that CSS one from a week or two ago got debunked because the font they used was ever so slightly different than a Japanese version). So if one of the characters that is in Sal's leak is deconfirmed, this thing should be deader than the Virtual Boy.

Chorus Kids is the only potential exception to that. Especially if the information was misread and we got Marshall instead. The rest, yeah, no questions asked.

 

[ScottyWK]

Chorus Kids is the only potential exception to that. Especially if the information was misread and we got Marshall instead. The rest, yeah, no questions asked.

How are they an exception? If the Chorus Men show up as an assist trophy, or a stage hazard or anything, then it's still debunked. It's not like the leaker said "maybe Chorus Men, they're still working on making them work."

 

[papagenos]

What we can be sure of is this: No matter what happens at E3, this leak will still be discussed as real.

Yeah once they reveal Mii, Pacman, and Shulk this will still be real

Which is completely absurd to me. Leaks get debunked by much more "trivial" details (that CSS one from a week or two ago got debunked because the font they used was ever so slightly different than a Japanese version). So if one of the characters that is in Sal's leak is deconfirmed, this thing should be deader than the Virtual Boy.

I never thought the "font" thing totally killed the CSS leak but whatever we'll know soon enough.

The thing with Sal is that he gained credibility by getting things right...other leaks don't have that luxury so they never have an initial reason to believe them, so we pick em apart... minor problems don't instantly make this leak seem fake, instead they just tip the scale less in the "real" direction...though at this point this leak has much more tipping it in the real direction then the fake direction. Other leaks however start off with nothing on the real side or the fake side and once someone can point to something that makes it seem possibly fake it has nothing weighing it in the real direction anymore.

 

[Pazzo.]

Which is completely absurd to me. Leaks get debunked by much more "trivial" details (that CSS one from a week or two ago got debunked because the font they used was ever so slightly different than a Japanese version). So if one of the characters that is in Sal's leak is deconfirmed, this thing should be deader than the Virtual Boy.

But this leak has survived for SO long now. There are people on this forum right now who will hold onto Sal's words as gospel.

Let's say one of the characters gets disconfirmed shall we? Rationally, the leak is dead, but people will still want to argue that Sal got 'outdated info'.

 

[ScottyWK]

The thing with Sal is that he gained credibility by getting things right...other leaks don't have that luxury so they never have an initial reason to believe them, so we pick em apart... minor problems don't instantly make this leak seem fake, instead they just tip the scale less in the "real" direction...though at this point this leak has much more tipping it in the real direction then the fake direction. Other leaks however start off with nothing on the real side or the fake side and once someone can point to something that makes it seem possibly fake it has nothing weighing it in the real direction anymore.

That's fine, in terms of gathering people to support the leak and its potential validity. But that should not change the fact that, if one of his leaked characters is deconfirmed, his leak is debunked.

He can gain momentum with credibility all he wants...makes total sense (plus he hasn't been full-out wrong yet). But the second he is dead wrong about a character, his leak is no longer valid.

But this leak has survived for SO long now. There are people on this forum right now who will hold onto Sal's words as gospel.

Let's say one of the characters gets disconfirmed shall we? Rationally, the leak is dead, but people will still want to argue that Sal got 'outdated info'.

Oh I know, people will argue for it still. I have no idea why, but they will. They'll have far less ground to stand on with it though, as he's been CLEARLY proven wrong at that point.

The thing is, any fake leak in the past that got maybe one or two things wrong can claim "oh I was right, my info was just outdated." Simply put though, it's just plain wrong. With fighting games, no one ever leaks rosters before they are set, if I'm correct. For Brawl's leak last year, it's not like the accurate leak with R.O.B and Wolf omitted Toon Link, or included Roy and then said later "my info was outdated." The leak was 100% there, no wiggle room.