debates about Rugrats canon
- Oct 18, 2012
- Reaction score
See, this is what's irritating to me. Personally, I always try to keep an open mind about their creative decisions and try to look at it from their point of view. At the end of the day, if there aren't any new AFs, then there aren't any new AFs, and I would at least be willing to hear out their reasoning for that decision.I just find it very odd. Their reasoning.
But the answer given in that interview isn't even an attempt at justification, it's just... nothing. It's, "Yes, these games also take place in Alola and we are adding lots of new Pokémon. But we decided not to add more Alola Forms." And... that's it.
What am I supposed to do with that? I mean, I can speculate as to a few different reasons - maybe they just didn't have any ideas for new AFs, or maybe they want these games to be more about Gen 7's stuff whereas AFs were intended as an extra nostalgia trip for the anniversary games - but whatever the case may be, would it be so hard to just tell us that? I can't imagine it would be that they're afraid of any backlash, because there is only one scenario in which they're not going to receive any, and that's the one in which they do add new AFs, so it would be a moot effort.
You know, this rationale always confused me a bit. Let's take the USUM wishlist, for example, and let's say that the bullet point at the top about "new Pokémon, new Alola Forms, and new UBs" is partially wrong.Wouldn't be the first time Pokemon leakers included bs just to fool people or even cover themselves in case GF figures something out. (or any leakers for that matter I remember certain Smash leaks doing this too).
But... virtually everything else in the leak has been correct, including the unguessable bit about Giovanni/RR. If it were an attempt to "throw GF off the trail," I don't imagine it would work very well. I don't really see how a fake inserted claim of new Alola Forms is going to somehow make them not notice that it also talks about the secret post-game episode that only an insider could know about.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to make a case any one way or the other about the wishlist leak in particular, but merely using it as a hypothetical. Obviously, it is entirely possible for leaks to insert false info just for a laugh or because the leaker misheard the information, or had only partial information, or lacked context, or maybe got a bit speculative. I'm just not so sure about the idea of the "smokescreen technique." That's not to say that it isn't a thing, but I struggle to see how it actually helps the leaker evade detection.