Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendTriforce
Again, you're assuming this is a new Pokemon. Essentially, you are saying that "because this region has an idol based on a Legendary Pokemon, the idol must be a new Pokemon." We don't know that. It could be a new Forme for an old Pokemon.
|
I am not assuming anything. It is a Pokemon that is not depicted in the current data. A Pokemon revered in a far away region that hasn't yet been announced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendTriforce
This is not a fact. A fact contains indisputable proof. Lack of proof in either direction does not make your side a fact.
|
No facts are not indisputable proofs. They are things that have, as of yet not been proven to be false. Many "Facts" in history have changed with new findings. It was a Fact that the earth was flat until sailors made a complete trip around the world. It was a Fact that the Sun revolved around the Earth until a new theory discovered that it was the other way around. A fact is an accepted truth that cannot be refuted at that time due to lack of evidence to back up claims against.
Quote:
fact
n.noun
•Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
•Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
•A real occurrence; an event.
•Something believed to be true or real.
•A thing that has been done, especially a crime.
•The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence.
|
Various forms of what a fact is. The very first two fit in with everything I have said. Based on real occurrences, and information(something) known to have existed as well as the fourth fits, believed to be true or real.
Before Generation 5, yes it was a fact that we have had 3 main games per region since Generation 2.
It is currently a fact that Gamefreak does not make Spin Offs.
It is currently a fact that Gamefreak doesn't have data based on Spin Off locations.
Facts can change when the source of the fact changes. If Gamefreak makes a Spin Off, then the fact that they don't make Spin Offs will no longer be a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendTriforce
Just because it is unlikely that Game Freak will make a spin-off does not mean they won't make a spin-off. This is another logical fallacy. You are assuming that all games Game Freak will ever make are not going to be spin-offs. It is unlikely they will, but not impossible. Just because I am unlikely to be hit by lightning in my lifetime does not mean I won't be hit by lightning in my lifetime.
|
That is again not an assumption. You are the only one making assumptions of what you believe the other person to be saying. Please where do I say they absolutely never will make Spin Off games? They are the core designers. By standards they are held to uphold the main games. It is currently a fact that they don't make spin offs and therefore it is a fact that they will not reference a potential spin off in their game. Why? Because it is a fact that they don't acknowledge spin off information in their main games. The spin offs do not exist in the main series and that is a fact.
Because they have never done it IS a fact that leads to the belief that it will not be done. It is generally accepted that they won't so until they do make a Spin Off, it is an accepted fact that they don't deal in spin offs to their creation. They have three other companies, one of which is owned by TPC which owns all rights to Pokemon trademark and is the sister company to Gamefreak. That company is Creatures Inc which makes a good number of Pokemon Spin Offs. Until Gamefreak does make a Spin Off, it is a fact that they don't deal in Spin Offs. Then and only then will there be a contradiction with the current set of facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendTriforce
Well, that's what I'm saying. We can't really tell either way. That could be the case, or it might not be the case. That's the entire point I've been trying to tell you in both of my posts. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer for you.
|
At this point I don't think you know what you are talking about because no that isn't what you are saying. What you are trying to say and what you quoted me saying are two completely different things. My quote is saying that unless the references are in a Spin Off not made by Gamefreak the Strange Souvenir is not a reference to a Spin Off title. Its in a Main Series game so the Souvenir is a reference to a Main Series game. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. It could be another Munna scenario. Referenced now and may not appear for another 4 generations. I am saying if you want to say that the Backpacker and Strange Souvenir are hints to anything, then its to another generation later down the line. Either it could be the next one, the 7th Pokemon generation or it could be the 12th generation or the 15th generation or the 9th generation. Its the first time they actually purposefully put a hint in like this. It could mean absolutely nothing. It could be a scrapped idea because they do it all the time, Cacophony in Gen 3, God Stone in Gen 5, Berserk Gene in Gen 2. Before Gen 5, Lock Capsule was also one of the unused items that held no purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendTriforce
I've asked questions, not made assumptions; I never strayed from my own advice.
|
All you've been doing is making assumptions about a conversation you weren't a part of and trying to assert a holier than thou attitude with your own improperly targeted attacks. Trying to correct someone else on what you think is incorrect is making an assumption. You assume the opposite of what I believe. It is called a difference of opinion. This happens even when given the same facts. We will both read it differently and pull different information from the same facts presented to us. Based on what could have been only half of the conversation or even just the post you initially responded to, you assumed I was throwing opinions around. You used an improper definition of a word to defend your own entitled response in an attempt to throw dirt on my reply. All you have been doing is making an assumption of facts that you choose to look through. Don't make your own assumptions and throw your own opinions around as facts. Your own advice, please follow it.
Facts around the backpacker and Strange Souvenir:
Not native to Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, Sinnoh, Unova, or Kalos
Not a Pokemon in the current National dex. (Not a Pokemon that exists in any of the 6 current generations)
Facts related to outside of the game:
Gamefreak doesn't deal in Spin Off titles.
Gamefreak doesn't support the idea of Main titles on home console.
These are current facts that discredit two main theories of:
related to Spin Off Console title.
related to Hoenn remakes.
This is what I have been saying the entire argument. Its very long winded so I can understand getting lost and focusing on the wrong subject at hand. Bottom line to my entire point, the Strange Souvenir and the Backpacker aren't related to whether or not we are getting Hoenn Remakes or whether or not we're getting a Wii U console Pokemon game.
Based on other outside fact(s):
New Region, New Pokemon = New Generation
You can conclude that IF its anything of a hint, its to a new generation. That is only IF you consider it a hint at all. I don't play in that ballpark. Things like these are easter eggs. They don't mean more than what they usually show. Munna's description discovery was an hindsight discovery. She wasn't referenced then and brought in later. Gamefreak as eloquently put earlier, is full of trolls. They know their fans bleed over these types of things and could have thrown this in for their own giggles. As I said, despite the constant roar for Grey and Hoenn Remakes through Gen 5, I did not believe we'd get either. Despite what is being said now, I do not believe we are getting them now. Could we get them despite this? Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't believe we will or that I don't see what others call hints as anything more than fun little easter eggs built into the games.