The Official Thread For the Sal Romano/Gematsu Leak

[josh bones]

rosalina is the only thing making me doubt this rumor at this point

 

[ChikoLad]

I'm not going to argue definition over something again.

Since what I am saying doesn't seem to be clear:

When I refer to "planning stages", I'm referring to content that is being planned on.
When I refer to "pre-production stage", I'm referring to before plans are set; mere brainstorming.

Sakurai thought about Villager and about a style he could use in the brainstorming period, but decided against it and Villager never made it to the planned content period.


Except that, moveset wasn't the issue. That's where your whole point crumbles apart.
The issue was that Sakurai felt that Villager didn't fit the violent atmosphere of Smash, a point Sakurai made pretty damn clear before and after Brawl's release.

To insist that Villager was a safe guess is insisting Sakurai pulling a full 180 was an inevitability. Which is the thought process of a madman.

He never said that. He simply said "Animal Crossing doesn't lend itself to a fighter, because the characters don't actually fight at all". He basically just said they weren't a natural fit, and that they were harder to come up with a moveset for. He never implied they "weren't violent enough to be a worthy pick". This would directly contradict other characters who made it into Smash, like R.O.B and Mr. Game & Watch (hell, R.O.B is a peripheral), as they don't come from something remotely violent either. By your logic, they shouldn't be in Smash either, so there is no way that is what Sakurai implied. Characters that don't typically fight are just naturally harder to make a moveset for. This is all he meant.

 

[Miles Pierre]

I see what you are saying; but objectively, he was planned. That is the only material aspect of the argument.

No. Objectively he was not planned. "Being planned" and planned are two different things; moreover you cannot confuse an entire game being planned (pre-production/brainstorming) with one character appearing in the game. Again, this is the difference between considered and planned. Planned means it already happened. It's solidified. The decision was made. Villager was not fit for SSB. Therefor he cannot be planned for SSB because he was already rejected. You cannot have a character that's rejected from the game because they aren't a fighter simultaneously somehow remain planned for said game.

What's confusing you is the difference between multiple decisions and one singular decision. The entire game consists of multiple decisions that need to be made but that doesn't mean that each individual decision is a "planned for the game". The entire game is being planned. One character or rep is one single decision. Do these characters work for a fighting game? The answer is no.

AC was considered for Brawl, not planned. The entire game was planned yes, but that does not mean a singular character was. Like GoldenYuiitusin says Villager was NOT planned for anything. He was simply considered.

The statement you guys are making makes it seem like Sakurai already made up his mind about Villager and decided to have him in the game but for whatever reason he didn't make it. We all know thats not true.

Here is a breakdown:

A-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? Yes > Planned Content > Finished Content
B-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? Yes > Planned Content > Unfinished Content
C-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? No > (rejected/dismissed)

Villager occupies C, which is pre-SSB4. Bowser occupies A in relation to Melee. Toon Link occupies B in relation to Melee.

So you see how saying Villager was planned for SSBBrawl makes no sense. He's not in categories A or B. It's impossible for him to be planned content and it's totally dishonest.

He never said that. He simply said "Animal Crossing doesn't lend itself to a fighter, because the characters don't actually fight at all". He basically just said they weren't a natural fit, and that they were harder to come up with a moveset for. He never implied they "weren't violent enough to be a worthy pick". This would directly contradict other characters who made it into Smash, like R.O.B and Mr. Game & Watch (hell, R.O.B is a peripheral), as they don't come from something remotely violent either. By your logic, they shouldn't be in Smash either, so there is no way that is what Sakurai implied. Characters that don't typically fight are just naturally harder to make a moveset for. This is all he meant.

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 fighting characters.

He didn't basically say they have harder movesets to come up with. You correct another user about what Sakurai said and then add fluff in the same post? Amazing and hypocritical.

All he said was the characters don't lend themselves to fighting games.

But I would argue that @GoldenYuiitusin is closer to the heart of what he was saying than what you said. Animal Crossing and Nintendogs are very passive games with no violence of any sort. They already have their established moods. Passive, caring, and non-violent. A game for everyone. Rob is not a good example because he didn't have an established mood so he could conform to any play style. As far as movesets go Villagers moveset surprised no one because we ALL knew what moves an AC rep could use. So again I'd argue that @GoldenYuiitusin is probably closer to what Sakurai was thinking than what you assume.

 

[Deleted member]

Also, Miles, Golden, please drop the semantics argument. Seriously. You know what is being talked about and what is meant.

Your initial point is that "history repeats itself", using Mewtwo/Dedede/Bowser as examples as to why Villager was an obvious guess.
Except that, the case for the three villains in Smash 64 and Villager in Brawl are too different to compare. Rendering the entire string of logic to be heavily flawed.

You can't ***** about semantics just because it renders your point void; your point rests on a direct comparison between the two cases as if they were identical. Which they were not.
The three villains were meant to be in the game, but forces outside Sakurai's control prevented this. Villager was never meant to be in Brawl; Sakurai thought about him when deciding characters, and actively decided against it for his own reasoning as opposed to being forced to not include him later in development because of hardware or time restraints.

Villager's case pretty much matched that of Balloon Fighter, Excitebiker, Bubbles, Urban Champion, and any other NES star he thought about before picking the Ice Climbers. Does that mean they were all safe bets for Brawl and safe bets now?
And considering the logic used for Bowser/Mewtwo/Dedede, wouldn't that also mean that the likes of Toon Zelda and Dr. Mario are safe bets as well? More so than Villager?

This is where semantics come in to play, whether you like it or not. Quit making excuses as to why your logic isn't flawed when it is.

 

[Miles Pierre]

Your initial point is that "history repeats itself", using Mewtwo/Dedede/Bowser as examples as to why Villager was an obvious guess.
Except that, the case for the three villains in Smash 64 and Villager in Brawl are too different to compare. Rendering the entire string of logic to be heavily flawed.

You can't ***** about semantics just because it renders your point void; your point rests on a direct comparison between the two cases as if they were identical. Which they were not.
The three villains were meant to be in the game, but forces outside Sakurai's control prevented this. Villager was never meant to be in Brawl; Sakurai thought about him when deciding characters, and actively decided against it for his own reasoning as opposed to being forced to not include him later in development because of hardware or time restraints.

Villager's case pretty much matched that of Balloon Fighter, Excitebiker, Bubbles, Urban Champion, and any other NES star he thought about before picking the Ice Climbers. Does that mean they were all safe bets for Brawl and safe bets now?
And considering the logic used for Bowser/Mewtwo/Dedede, wouldn't that also mean that the likes of Toon Zelda and Dr. Mario are safe bets as well? More so than Villager?

This is where semantics come in to play, whether you like it or not. Quit making excuses as to why your logic isn't flawed when it is.

Thank you! This is what I'm trying to get across. Maybe I simply don't express myself clearly enough. In any case would hope this settles the matter but ... it probably won't.

 

[ChikoLad]

Regarding the semantics argument:

This is the academically accepted Games Design Process. Pre-Production could also be referred to as the "planning stages".

Sakurai's initial consideration of an Animal Crossing character fits under Research, Brainstorming, and Game Objectives (possibly Concept Art too, if he made any).

So based on Sakurai's own comments, he did PLAN for an Animal Crossing character. Things just didn't go according to plan.

This really has nothing to do with the leak though at this point.

 

[SmashChu]

And yet your argument against the Salromano leak has been the definition of confirmation bias.

You've ignored the fact that no one has predicted Wii Fit Trainer seriously, which gives the leak credit. When people bring this up as an argument, you then proceed to add hindsight bias to your argument; arguing that sales were a major reason why Wii Fit Trainer was included in the game. The problem is, these are arguments that are being made after the confirmation of Wii Fit Trainer, not before. Beforehand, no one could come up with anything resembling a case for Wii Fit Trainer as playable and when Wii Fit Trainer was brought up, it was not in anything resembling people thinking Wii Fit Trainer would happens. That is confirmation bias.
There are good reasons to believe that the information Salromano got was outdated. It explains why salromano said Animal Crossing Guy instead of Villager and why he did not specifically state a Pokémon from X & Y, because they had not decided on one yet.

You're are not understanding the concept, and, as a result, you are guilty of the bias.

To make appropriate conclusions, you have the weight the evidence. First, consider the fact that the original rumor said that 6 characters would be shown at E3. Very specific. Well, only 3 of the 6 characters were shown. This is very key because, if we assume it is real, then the mole told him that there would be 6 characters and they would appear at E3. But we know that didn't happen. So the information was wrong. This suggest the rumor is not real. This is simple logic. Guy says he has inside info. Said info was wrong, so a reasonable conclusion is he didn't have inside information. Now, there is more damning evidence than just this; however, this is the most key as this is something where he is specifically wrong. The rumor being a lucky guess also better explains why he didn't have a source before WFT was shown (there wasn't one) and "Pokemon from X/Y" (there is no information. He's guessing). This is far better than the alternative which is what you suggest. You, and others, have to make multiple scenarios to explain the same thing. The characters weren't shown at E3 because the dates were moved. He didn't announce information because he didn't know the credibility of the source, and he didn't know the Pokemon because his information is outdated. With each happening, you have to add to the story and make more scenarios in order to make it make sense. Thus, it would be more rational to believe he got a lucky guess because it explains everything else. It's Occam's Razor:"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better"

Now we're here, and the same thing comes up. "The leak must be true because he got Wii Fit Trainer." Suddenly, all other information is not taken and weighted to make a conclusion, but all other information is either disregarded or rationalized to fit the conclusion. This, by definition, is what happens with confirmation bias and you're doing it right now. You are ignoring all other evidence or explaining it (like you did in your last sentence). Now, what I did above what weight the evidence. I took the two theories and pit them against each other. What I showed is that the idea that "He got a lucky guess" better explains the situation than the alternative. Furthermore, I only have to explain one instance rather than 3. You, on the other hand, saw Wii Fit Trainer and though that he MUST know something. An interesting case. On 4chan, literally a minute before the direct, a poster said which Pokemon did you all want in the most. "Pic related for me." Of course, it was a picture of Greninja.. Sure enough, Greninja was shown less than a hour later. Note that when it came to guessing characters, NO ONE said Grejinja. Much like Wii Fit Trainer, a lot of people never expected him, and someone managed to get it right. Just because someone got it right doesn't mean that they had insider knowledge. The rumor is simply the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Sal shot at the barn. When he noticed that three of his six characters were right, he drew a target and said he has inside information. The bullets clustered and he went with it.

The end is that, first, you have to weight the evidence. You and most everyone else is looking threw their lens. They couldn't believe WFT was possible. So when someone says it, gets it right, and immediately says he had information all along, well then by golly he must know something. Could there be another explanation, especially when you have a lot of situations pop up that throw water on this fire? To close, doesn't this:

Look kind of like this:

 

[Miles Pierre]

Regarding the semantics argument:

This is the academically accepted Games Design Process. Pre-Production could also be referred to as the "planning stages".

Sakurai's initial consideration of an Animal Crossing character fits under Research, Brainstorming, and Game Objectives (possibly Concept Art too, if he made any).

So based on Sakurai's own comments, he did PLAN for an Animal Crossing character. Things just didn't go according to plan.

This really has nothing to do with the leak though at this point.

No. Things being IN the planning process or stage does not mean he planned for an animal crossing character.

 

[ChikoLad]

No. Things being IN the planning process or stage does not mean he planned for an animal crossing character.

...You literally just contradicted yourself.

I would take this further and give you a bit of a lesson in games design, even making direct comparisons to Sakurai's work and my own work, but it has nothing to with the topic matter at hand, and I really don't care enough to. You can warp things in your mind for the sake of feeling right, but the facts are the facts.

 

[viewtifulduck82]

rosalina is the only thing making me doubt this rumor at this point

The rumor never said that those were the only newcomer characters in the game, so rosalina doesn't matter at all here.

 

[Miles Pierre]

...You literally just contradicted yourself.

I would take this further and give you a bit of a lesson in games design, even making direct comparisons to Sakurai's work and my own work, but it has nothing to with the topic matter at hand, and I really don't care enough to. You can warp things in your mind for the sake of feeling right, but the facts are the facts.

No I didn't. But I can see why you're confused. I wasn't saying things that are being planned aren't being planned. I'm saying that under the umbrella of brainstorming(a game's planning or pre-production), a character who was considered and dismissed is not planned. Just because some people refer to brainstorming as the "planning stage" does not mean that everything that is contained in said stage is planned for the game. Let's refer to this again:

A-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? Yes > Planned Content > Finished Content
B-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? Yes > Planned Content > Unfinished Content
C-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? No > (rejected/dismissed)

Yes the entirety of the process could be described as the production/planning stage but that definition only applies to the entire game not every individual idea that circulated during development. This is the important difference between consideration (brainstorming) and planning (decision).

edit: If you asked Sakurai was Villager planned for Melee or Brawl what do you think he'd say? He'd say "No, we considered those characters but at that time we felt that they didn't lend themselves to fighting games". He'd look at you crazy if you tried to say that because villager was on a list that he was planned.

 

[ChikoLad]

No I didn't. But I can see why you're confused. I wasn't saying things that are being planned aren't being planned. I'm saying that under the umbrella of brainstorming(a game's planning or pre-production), a character who was considered and dismissed is not planned. Just because some people refer to brainstorming as the "planning stage" does not mean that everything that is contained in said stage is planned for the game. Let's refer to this again:

A-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? Yes > Planned Content > Finished Content
B-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? Yes > Planned Content > Unfinished Content
C-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? No > (rejected/dismissed)

Yes the entirety of the process could be described as the production/planning stage but that definition only applies to the entire game not every individual idea that circulated during development. This is the important difference between consideration (brainstorming) and planning (decision).

Except your point falls flat, as planning and deciding are not one in the same, and brainstorming is closer to planning by definition. I could plan to do something, but DECIDE, at the last minute, not to. And your model places decision making before planning. This is incorrect.

In the end, this is splitting hairs and at this point relates to the leak in no way, but something brainstormed is something planned. It's not a fully developed plan, but to say it is not a plan at all is like saying someone isn't human because they are not an adult.

 

[Miles Pierre]

Except your point falls flat, as planning and deciding are not one in the same, and brainstorming is closer to planning by definition. I could plan to do something, but DECIDE, at the last minute, not to. And your model places decision making before planning. This is incorrect.

In the end, this is splitting hairs and at this point relates to the leak in no way, but something brainstormed is something planned. It's not a fully developed plan, but that's like saying someone isn't human because they are not an adult.

Weird:
Plan:
1. a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.
2. an intention or decision about what one is going to do.
3. decide on and arrange in advance.
"they were planning a trip to Egypt"

4. design or make a plan of (something to be made or built).

I guess you think Villager was supposed to be made or built for Brawl? Interesting.

edit: I hope you guys see how this applies to the entire game but NOT villager.

 

[ChikoLad]

Weird:
Plan:
1. a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.
2. an intention or decision about what one is going to do.
3. decide on and arrange in advance.
"they were planning a trip to Egypt"

4. design or make a plan of (something to be made or built).

I guess you think Villager was supposed to be made or built for Brawl? Interesting.

edit: I hope you guys see how this applies to the entire game but NOT villager.

1) It applies to the Animal Crossing character because Sakurai did in fact, propose the idea of using an Animal Crossing character.
2) At some point in development, Sakurai had intended/made the decision that Animal Crossing was worthy of having a playable fighter. He may not have had a narrowed down idea, but the decision was there at some point in development.
3) Well this directly contradicts common sense here. What dictionary are you using here, may I ask? Everyone knows you can decide against a plan you make. Planning something does not mean it is your end decision, or even that your plan is feasible to begin with (e.g. "I planned to go to the library today, but a car hit me on my way and I required medical attention, making it impossible for me to go to the library"). That's common sense. Doesn't mean you didn't make the plan. Sakurai decided against the plan of having an AC character in Brawl. But he did make the plan. It just didn't seem feasible at the time.
4) Sakurai did this. He clearly discussed the idea with the intention of making it happen. He didn't do it for the hell of it.

So yeah, that's enough of that, it's totally irrelevant. I'mma go get some shut eye.

 

[Morbi]

No. Objectively he was not planned. "Being planned" and planned are two different things; moreover you cannot confuse an entire game being planned (pre-production/brainstorming) with one character appearing in the game. Again, this is the difference between considered and planned. Planned means it already happened. It's solidified. The decision was made. Villager was not fit for SSB. Therefor he cannot be planned for SSB because he was already rejected. You cannot have a character that's rejected from the game because they aren't a fighter simultaneously somehow remain planned for said game.

What's confusing you is the difference between multiple decisions and one singular decision. The entire game consists of multiple decisions that need to be made but that doesn't mean that each individual decision is a "planned for the game". The entire game is being planned. One character or rep is one single decision. Do these characters work for a fighting game? The answer is no.

AC was considered for Brawl, not planned. The entire game was planned yes, but that does not mean a singular character was. Like GoldenYuiitusin says Villager was NOT planned for anything. He was simply considered.

The statement you guys are making makes it seem like Sakurai already made up his mind about Villager and decided to have him in the game but for whatever reason he didn't make it. We all know thats not true.

Here is a breakdown:

A-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? Yes > Planned Content > Finished Content
B-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? Yes > Planned Content > Unfinished Content
C-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? No > (rejected/dismissed)

Villager occupies C, which is pre-SSB4. Bowser occupies A in relation to Melee. Toon Link occupies B in relation to Melee.

So you see how saying Villager was planned for SSBBrawl makes no sense. He's not in categories A or B. It's impossible for him to be planned content and it's totally dishonest.




He didn't basically say they have harder movesets to come up with. You correct another user about what Sakurai said and then add fluff in the same post? Amazing and hypocritical.

All he said was the characters don't lend themselves to fighting games.

But I would argue that @GoldenYuiitusin is closer to the heart of what he was saying than what you said. Animal Crossing and Nintendogs are very passive games with no violence of any sort. They already have their established moods. Passive, caring, and non-violent. A game for everyone. Rob is not a good example because he didn't have an established mood so he could conform to any play style. As far as movesets go Villagers moveset surprised no one because we ALL knew what moves an AC rep could use. So again I'd argue that @GoldenYuiitusin is probably closer to what Sakurai was thinking than what you assume.

You comprehend the definition of "planned" quite proficiently; however, it is apparent that you do not understand the notion of "objectivity." I will give you a hint, you cannot bend or stretch its definition to accommodate your perspective. Good day, sir!

 

[Miles Pierre]

1) It applies to the Animal Crossing character because Sakurai did in fact, propose the idea of using an Animal Crossing character.
2) At some point in development, Sakurai had intended/made the decision that Animal Crossing was worthy of having a playable fighter. He may not have had a narrowed down idea, but the decision was there at some point in development.
3) Well this directly contradicts common sense here. What dictionary are you using here, may I ask? Everyone knows you can decide against a plan you make. Planning something does not mean it is your end decision, or even that your plan is feasible to begin with (e.g. "I planned to go to the library today, but a car hit me on my way and I required medical attention, making it impossible for me to go to the library"). That's common sense. Doesn't mean you didn't make the plan. Sakurai decided against the plan of having an AC character in Brawl. But he did make the plan. It just didn't seem feasible at the time.
4) Sakurai did this. He clearly discussed the idea with the intention of making it happen. He didn't do it for the hell of it.

lol. Yeah you've already proved you're dishonest. I think I'm done.

You comprehend the definition of "planned" quite proficiently; however, it is apparent that you do not understand the notion of "objectivity." I will give you a hint, you cannot bend or stretch its definition to accommodate your perspective. Good day, sir!

I'm not bending it to fit my perspective. If I say Rayman was a planned character for Brawl what impression does that give you? If I make a thread that says "Tails was a planned character for Brawl" what kind of info are you expecting me to provide? It makes you think of these characters in the same terms as Toon Link and other characters who were going to be in the game but due to budget/time/unforseen forces were not included. It doesn't give you the impression that Sakurai rejected them because at their core (in his opinion) they were'nt fit for a fighting game -- like he did with Villager. If anyone is stretching the definition of planned it you guys. I'll just sign off by quoting this post again:

Your initial point is that "history repeats itself", using Mewtwo/Dedede/Bowser as examples as to why Villager was an obvious guess.
Except that, the case for the three villains in Smash 64 and Villager in Brawl are too different to compare. Rendering the entire string of logic to be heavily flawed.

You can't ***** about semantics just because it renders your point void; your point rests on a direct comparison between the two cases as if they were identical. Which they were not.
The three villains were meant to be in the game, but forces outside Sakurai's control prevented this. Villager was never meant to be in Brawl; Sakurai thought about him when deciding characters, and actively decided against it for his own reasoning as opposed to being forced to not include him later in development because of hardware or time restraints.

Villager's case pretty much matched that of Balloon Fighter, Excitebiker, Bubbles, Urban Champion, and any other NES star he thought about before picking the Ice Climbers. Does that mean they were all safe bets for Brawl and safe bets now?

 

[ChikoLad]

lol. Yeah you've already proved you're dishonest. I think I'm done.

Strike me down where I stand, for I am a "dishonest" heathen.

Also signing off with that quote is literally the definition of hypocrisy.

-------------

Anyway, I think I'm done with this topic. If people aren't willing to look at the principle facts of the leak, like SmashChu did in his post, then there is no truly intelligent discussion to be harvested here. Just wild speculation.

 

[Morbi]

lol. Yeah you've already proved you're dishonest. I think I'm done.


I'm not bending it to fit my perspective. If I say Rayman was a planned character for Brawl what impression does that give you? If I make a thread that says "Tails was a planned character for Brawl" what kind of info are you expecting me to provide? It makes you think of these characters in the same terms as Toon Link and other characters who were going to be in the game but due to budget/time/unforseen forces were not included. It doesn't give you the impression that Sakurai rejected them because at their core (in his opinion) they were'nt fit for a fighting game -- like he did with Villager. If anyone is stretching the definition of planned it you guys. I'll just sign off by quoting this post again:

Um... okay; if that is what you truly believe, that is fine. I am not necessarily advocating anything past the objective fact of the situation. They were both planned; I do not care about the extent, that is most certainly immaterial as the portions of your argument do not directly attenuate the value of the assertion. Ya digg, homie?

 

[ndayday]

A-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? Yes > Planned Content > Finished Content
B-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? Yes > Planned Content > Unfinished Content
C-----Idea > Consideration > Decision? No > (rejected/dismissed)

Can everyone just read this and say ok? Seriously not sure why the word 'planned' is being talked about as feverishly as it is.

 

[Miles Pierre]

Um... okay; if that is what you truly believe, that is fine. I am not necessarily advocating anything past the objective fact of the situation. They were both planned; I do not care about the extent, that is most certainly immaterial as the portions of your argument do not directly attenuate the value of the assertion. Ya digg, homie?

I provided the definition of planned and showed it was not in line with the argument that HyperFalcon put forth or the statement that "Villager was planned (for Brawl)". You keep conveniently leaving out "for Brawl" so that your argument can hold water. Villager was planned? What does that mean? Villager was put on a piece of paper? So what? Big deal? That's a useless statement and you know it.

The statement itself has no object but we can assume that it means "for Brawl". This is where your problem comes in. Yes villager was in the planning stage of the entire game. He was considered and denied, but he was not categorically planned for the game. He was not to be made or built for Brawl. There wasn't a decision to have him in the game. There was no positive decision towards him which the statement "Villager was planned (for Brawl or any SSB)" suggests.

You say you do not care to what extent they were planned but that too is being purposefully obtuse. Just because they both were considered does not mean they both were planned. The entire game was brainstormed and then a PLAN for a final product was made. Villager was not included in this plan for a final product. Thus - he wasn't "planned". Just because he was included in the brainstorming process does not mean he was planned for the final product.

and now I am really done.

 

[Morbi]

I provided the definition of planned and showed it was not in line with the argument that HyperFalcon put forth or the statement that "Villager was planned (for Brawl)". You keep conveniently leaving out "for Brawl" so that your argument can hold water. Villager was planned? What does that mean? Villager was put on a piece of paper? So what? Big deal? That's a useless statement and you know it.

The statement itself has no object but we can assume that it means "for Brawl". This is where your problem comes in. Yes villager was in the planning stage of the entire game. He was considered and denied, but he was not categorically planned for the game. He was not to be made or built for Brawl. There wasn't a decision to have him in the game. There was no positive decision towards him which the statement "Villager was planned (for Brawl or any SSB)" suggests.

You say you do not care to what extent they were planned but that too is being purposefully obtuse. Just because they both were considered does not mean they both were planned. The entire game was brainstormed and then a PLAN for a final product was made. Villager was not included in this plan for a final product. Thus - he wasn't "planned". Just because he was included in the brainstorming process does not mean he was planned for the final product.

and now I am really done.

I am not conveniently omitting "for Brawl," I have already stated on several occasions, it is immaterial. You fallaciously assume that what I am referring to must correlate with HyperFalcon's sentiment. I do agree with her, but I am not necessarily alluding to her argument. I am debating my opinion, you are merely presuming that it must "be in line with the argument that HyperFalcon put forth."

Secondly, the statement can be useless. I could care less, the objective fact is not useless.

Again, I am not purposely conveying an ambiguous statement. I am asserting that HE WAS PLANNED. AS SUCH, IT IS RATIONAL TO ASSUME THAT A REASONABLE PERSON MIGHT SPECULATE IN VILLAGER'S FAVOR.

Winter is Coming...

 

[Deleted member]

He never said that. He simply said "Animal Crossing doesn't lend itself to a fighter, because the characters don't actually fight at all". He basically just said they weren't a natural fit, and that they were harder to come up with a moveset for. He never implied they "weren't violent enough to be a worthy pick". This would directly contradict other characters who made it into Smash, like R.O.B and Mr. Game & Watch (hell, R.O.B is a peripheral), as they don't come from something remotely violent either. By your logic, they shouldn't be in Smash either, so there is no way that is what Sakurai implied. Characters that don't typically fight are just naturally harder to make a moveset for. This is all he meant.

Except that, in this excerpt from a 2008 issue of Famitsu....

『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)

.....he's saying it would have been possible to make him fight using things such as the bug net and shovel.

So I reiterate; moveset had nothing to do with it. It was that he didn't fit the image of a fighter. Which is pretty much what is meant by "he doesn't fit Smash's violent atmosphere". You've argued a strawman with the "not violent enough to be worthy"; that was not what I was saying.

 

[Johnny Wellens]

I love how this thread is devolving into defining the word PLANNED. This...is...hilarious.

 

[Miles Pierre]

I am not conveniently omitting "for Brawl," I have already stated on several occasions, it is immaterial. You fallaciously assume that what I am referring to must correlate with HyperFalcon's sentiment. I do agree with her, but I am not necessarily alluding to her argument. I am debating my opinion, you are merely presuming that it must "be in line with the argument that HyperFalcon put forth."

Secondly, the statement can be useless. I could care less, the objective fact is not useless.

Again, I am not purposely conveying an ambiguous statement. I am asserting that HE WAS PLANNED. AS SUCH, IT IS RATIONAL TO ASSUME THAT A REASONABLE PERSON MIGHT SPECULATE IN VILLAGER'S FAVOR.

Winter is Coming...

"Villager was planned (for Brawl)" means that Villager was planned for the final product. We know he was not planned (for Brawl/the final product). Again you have yet to show me how being considered means being planned for the final product.

 

[Deleted member]

I am asserting that HE WAS PLANNED. AS SUCH, IT IS RATIONAL TO ASSUME THAT A REASONABLE PERSON MIGHT SPECULATE IN VILLAGER'S FAVOR.

You are asserting a false point.

Otherwise, Urban Champion was planned for Melee and it is rational to a assume a reasonable person might speculate in Urban Champion's favor.

 

[DeanAdamFry]

Gee I wonder if there are any new leaks from Sal today!

*looks at arguments about the word planned*

Seriously?

 

[Morbi]

"Villager was planned (for Brawl)" means that Villager was planned for the final product. We know he was not planned (for Brawl/the final product). Again you have yet to show me how being considered means being planned for the final product.

If you wish for me to rephrase my sentiment in that fashion; "Villager was considered for Brawl," I would certainly be content with doing so. I suppose it is the more accurate method of conveying my perspective.

 

[Scoliosis Jones]

I'll put in my two cents later on tonight when I get home. I'm a believer of this leak, and while I will not name names, I will say that I think people are thinking too hard about this.

I think it's real, and I don't think it's ridiculous in any way shape or form. But i'll get more into that later.

 

[ndayday]

I wasn't clear. keep talking about the word planned and I'll slap your butt and it won't even be lovingly

 

[Morbi]

You are asserting a false point.

Otherwise, Urban Champion was planned for Melee and it is rational to a assume a reasonable person might speculate in Urban Champion's favor.

You haven't necessarily read the entire argument, I presume? I was alluding to the very beginning of this debate, I don't necessarily believe it was logical for someone to speculate in favor of Villager (prior to e3), but I do believe that it was reasonable. Sakurai's consideration would be the evidence, enough evidence to retain the perspective. This was in response to a proclamation that it was irrational to speculate in favor of Villager after Sakurai denounced him.

I was just indicating my original perspective in "all caps" to make it more overt.

 

[viewtifulduck82]

You haven't necessarily read the entire argument, I presume? I was alluding to the very beginning of this debate, I don't necessarily believe it was logical for someone to speculate in favor of Villager (prior to e3), but I do believe that it was reasonable. Sakurai's consideration would be the evidence, enough evidence to retain the perspective. This was in response to a proclamation that it was irrational to speculate in favor of Villager after Sakurai denounced him.

I was just indicating my original perspective in "all caps" to make it more overt.

In order for someone to have known Sakurai denounced him, but still speculate him on the grounds that he was at least considered, the person would have to expect Sakurai to do a complete 180 in his beliefs on the matter. I don't think that's a good train of logic to run on. The only way it could have been logical to speculate his inclusion, was if you were unaware of Sakurai's previous denouncement. I think.

 

[Morbi]

In order for someone to have known Sakurai denounced him, but still speculate him on the grounds that he was at least considered, the person would have to expect Sakurai to do a complete 180 in his beliefs on the matter. I don't think that's a good train of logic to run on. The only way it could have been logical to speculate his inclusion, was if you were unaware of Sakurai's previous denouncement. I think.

Hence; it is illogical. I believe that it is at the very least reasonable, given his consideration of the character (which is circumstantial evidence for his inclusion).

 

[viewtifulduck82]

Hence; it is illogical. I believe that it is at the very least reasonable, given his consideration of the character (which is circumstantial evidence for his inclusion).

So basically, it was only reasonable to speculate his inclusion if you had incomplete knowledge on the subject..? They would have to have known he was considered, but not know he was denounced, or what he was denounced for.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

So basically, it was only reasonable to speculate his inclusion if you had incomplete knowledge on the subject..? They would have to have known he was considered, but not know he was denounced, or what he was denounced for.

No. Even if they knew he wasn't in Brawl, that doesn't speak for future games.

This why I compared it to cases like Mewtwo. He was considered for 64, but didn't get in. He was then put into Melee. Villager is the same case. Some might think history repeats. Being likely or not doesn't mean too much for Sakurai. He's unpredictable. Being possible is enough. Likewise, we've seen him change his mind many times before, as I explained in a previous message(before the massive derail). Him putting in Sonic at the last minute is a major point of this. That's a huge change-up that we saw. He directly admitted the actual roster was complete before Sonic came along. Regardless of the reasons, he changed it.

It's reasonable to assume Sakurai changes his mind on past stuff and could make any considered Fighter playable in a later game. Villager is a possible assumption due to this. Also, keep in mind the whole logic thing for a moment; Insane Troll Logic exists too, after all. After he was disconfirmed, people still wanted him in, despite any lack of logic. And could see it happening cause why not? Miiverse is a good example of this happening too. XD

 

[Morbi]

So basically, it was only reasonable to speculate his inclusion if you had incomplete knowledge on the subject..? They would have to have known he was considered, but not know he was denounced, or what he was denounced for.

That isn't necessarily what I implied; so that circular reasoning doesn't really apply to what I believe. I am stating that it was reasonable, not logical. Logic is based on evidence, objective fact. Sakurai denounced Villager would be this fact. Thus if you believe Villager was to make an appearance as a playable character in Smash 4, it wouldn't be a perspective based on logic. It is a perspective based on faith. However, if one cited that Sakurai's consideration for the character was the reason they believe he could be included, it is reasonable. As they have reasoning to support their argument, it is no longer faith based, or at least it isn't predominately faith based at this point. Circumstantial evidence as it is antithetical to the objective fact, nevertheless, it is support that dictates their rationale.

I hope that this elaboration enabled you to understand what I am getting at.

 

[Louie G.]

I think what really matters is that Villager is in Smash Bros 4.

 

[viewtifulduck82]

That isn't necessarily what I implied; so that circular reasoning doesn't really apply to what I believe. I am stating that it was reasonable, not logical. Logic is based on evidence, objective fact. Sakurai denounced Villager would be this fact. Thus if you believe Villager was to make an appearance as a playable character in Smash 4, it wouldn't be a perspective based on logic. It is a perspective based on faith. However, if one cited that Sakurai's consideration for the character was the reason they believe he could be included, it is reasonable. As they have reasoning to support their argument, it is no longer faith based, or at least it isn't predominately faith based at this point. Circumstantial evidence as it is antithetical to the objective fact, nevertheless, it is support that dictates their rationale.

I hope that this elaboration enabled you to understand what I am getting at.

Oooookay, I see what you're getting at now.

 

[ChikoLad]

Except that, in this excerpt from a 2008 issue of Famitsu....

『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)

.....he's saying it would have been possible to make him fight using things such as the bug net and shovel.

So I reiterate; moveset had nothing to do with it. It was that he didn't fit the image of a fighter. Which is pretty much what is meant by "he doesn't fit Smash's violent atmosphere". You've argued a strawman with the "not violent enough to be worthy"; that was not what I was saying.

Just because he brainstormed rough ideas for things he could have used, doesn't mean he didn't struggle to come up with a moveset. Many fan speculators have this trouble themselves. I think Professor Layton could use the slot machine gun and a rapier as tools for fighting in Smash. Yet I struggle to come up with an actual move set. That was basically Sakurai's dilemma. Again, your logic doesn't work because of R.O.B and Mr.Game and Watch.

And with that, I am done.

 

[Louie G.]

Do you guys think that the Villager argument (doesn't fit in as a fighter) can be used against Snake now?
I mean, now the game is really bright and cartoony, which would give Snake a hard time fitting in.
Unless this is off-topic, but this is kind of what we were just talking about.

 

[Morbi]

Do you guys think that the Villager argument (doesn't fit in as a fighter) can be used against Snake now?
I mean, now the game is really bright and cartoony, which would give Snake a hard time fitting in.
Unless this is off-topic, but this is kind of what we were just talking about.

No; according to Sakurai, Villager didn't fit as a fighter, yet he is currently a front-runner for Smash 4. Snake has already proven that he fits, to an extent, as he was already included in Brawl. Villager would actually support the notion that characters that "don't fit" are not actually that obscure, they are welcome into the Smash universe.