Official Pokémon Sword and Shield speculation thread (Updated June 5th, 2019)

[emerson.brant]

I can't confirm its meltan, nobody knows at all.
But another thing I can't do is discard it.
We're talking about maybe millennia, things could be different that time.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

You're expecting too much for ancient people. Even the oak's document is more recent than this painting.

How can you prove that? There's no timeframe given from Oak's document beyond "ancient", and there's certainly no timeframe for the hill picture.

We're talking about maybe millennia, things could be different that time.

When was it confirmed that hill was millennia ago?

Look for similarities, not for exact copies, please.

1. Nobody's expecting an exact copy. But that doesn't mean that we're going to ignore the addition of details that don't currently exist on Meltan. That can't be explained away as "they didn't get all the details and simplified it".
2. Why should we focus on similarities to an existing Pokemon? What's wrong with expecting it to be something else? SwSh are sure to introduce dozens of new Pokemon.
3. Even if we focus on similarities instead of differences, why single out Meltan? Why not say it could be a Cacturne, for example? Cacturne is a bipedal Pokemon with two eyes-it could fit that shape. Sure, its head is triangular, not circular, but maybe it looked different then?

 

[Boss1708]

You can't expect perfectly accurate representations of Meltan from cavemen, but you could atleast expect them to be able to count the number of eyes Meltan has

 

[prog rocker]

Or the fact that it doesn't have limbs and has a tail.

 

[Grass Type Gardenia]

How can you prove that? There's no timeframe given from Oak's document beyond "ancient", and there's certainly no timeframe for the hill picture.

When was it confirmed that hill was millennia ago?

1. Nobody's expecting an exact copy. But that doesn't mean that we're going to ignore the addition of details that don't currently exist on Meltan. That can't be explained away as "they didn't get all the details and simplified it".
2. Why should we focus on similarities to an existing Pokemon? What's wrong with expecting it to be something else? SwSh are sure to introduce dozens of new Pokemon.
3. Even if we focus on similarities instead of differences, why single out Meltan? Why not say it could be a Cacturne, for example? Cacturne is a bipedal Pokemon with two eyes-it could fit that shape. Sure, its head is triangular, not circular, but maybe it looked different then?

Unlike some Hill Figures which were speculated to have been made recently, some are in fact a lot older. The Uffington White Horse that the Hill Figure is inspired on is around 3000 years old.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

Unlike some Hill Figures which were speculated to have been made recently, some are in fact a lot older. The Uffington White Horse that the Hill Figure is inspired on is around 3000 years old.

Which is still not a confirmation of when this particular hill figure was made.

 

[Grass Type Gardenia]

Which is still not a confirmation of when this particular hill figure was made.

I'd expect it would be of the same age of 3000 years old, although we won't know until the game does come out.

 

[emerson.brant]

How can you prove that? There's no timeframe given from Oak's document beyond "ancient", and there's certainly no timeframe for the hill picture.

When was it confirmed that hill was millennia ago?

1. Nobody's expecting an exact copy. But that doesn't mean that we're going to ignore the addition of details that don't currently exist on Meltan. That can't be explained away as "they didn't get all the details and simplified it".
2. Why should we focus on similarities to an existing Pokemon? What's wrong with expecting it to be something else? SwSh are sure to introduce dozens of new Pokemon.
3. Even if we focus on similarities instead of differences, why single out Meltan? Why not say it could be a Cacturne, for example? Cacturne is a bipedal Pokemon with two eyes-it could fit that shape. Sure, its head is triangular, not circular, but maybe it looked different then?

I don't know yet how to quote part by part, sorry. But I'll try to answer, many things though.

I can't prove the time, nobody can. But when we look at the thing we have at the hill, the common thinking is something very very old.

For your list:
1 - Imagining an old time, meltan could be a little different that time.
2 - I said it could be something totally different, the only thing I don't know is why you are already discarding meltan, why not man?
3 - Meltan because it's a mythical new pokemon and until the present moment it had no role.

 

[Lunala]

Why does every legendary Pokemon and their mother evolve now?

 

[BlindCaptainDrip]

Source? Looks cool

Disclaimer: I am a frequent VP lurker. I see a ton of "leaks", but only post things that can be somewhat believable. This one was good. Posted with Japanese text, so cannot translate. OP never responded to anyone's inquiries, which is a good thing as far as real/fake. The real leaks never have the OP commenting again.

 

[prog rocker]

Why does every legendary Pokemon and their mother evolve now?

They are just four. Sure, they are from the same gen, but they are still the minority.

 

[emerson.brant]

You can't expect perfectly accurate representations of Meltan from cavemen, but you could atleast expect them to be able to count the number of eyes Meltan has

3000 years ago meltan could have 50 eyes, why not?

 

[Lunala]

Are people speculating that the tall figure is the evolution of Melmetal, or an alternate form of Melmetal?

 

[emerson.brant]

Are people speculating that the tall figure is the evolution of Melmetal, or an alternate form of Melmetal?

Is it possible for you?

 

[Boss1708]

Maybe the cavemen that depicted Meltan had a few more drinks than usual before painting Meltan. Maybe that's the reason why they thought Meltan has 2 eyes. Double vision...

 

[RileyXY1]

It's crazy how obsessed people are with Meltan.

 

[prog rocker]

It's crazy how obsessed people are with Meltan.

I know, right? That and forcing it into the Armor Evolution theories.

 

[emerson.brant]

It's crazy how obsessed people are with Meltan.

You know, mythical should mean something...

 

[Lunala]

Is it possible for you?

There's lots of speculation on Meltan, but almost none on Melmetal. It seems not to be as popular in rumors.

 

[Pulsaro23]

If people are really getting tired of DLC, then why do most games these days still have them?

For the same reason a lot of games have microtransactions (although DLCs are less extreme): to get even more of the players' money.

They already “locked” features behind a pawall (ie USUM) and still sold well.

Personally, I don't feel that way about third version (including USUM), since in them characters get redesigned, some of the more poorly implemented features are redone, the main story is often altered and the post-game is changed in order to fit the new story, making it an improved semi-remake of the original (though I'll agree that them introducing new Pokémon in USUM that aren't available in SM was a little irritating). Meanwhile, DLC is restricted to the preexisting story, mechanics and post-game of the base game, making a third version-style overhaul harder to do and, more often than not, the features it introduces could have been in the base game from the start.