• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Gotta Revise 'Em All, Part 1: Splitting the Pokemon Canons (Massive Pokemon CRT)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pikaman said:
A spin-off of a game having similar lore in the case of a single character is not enough to solidify it being canon, I won’t speak on whether Conquest is canon but this is not the smoking gun by a long shot
Click to expand...
So now your backtracking. Typical.

One literally says that NOT following the canon lore means it’s non canon, and when I give evidence it does, now all of a sudden it’s not enough.

See the backwards logic here? Stop shifting the goal post everytime and make up your minds.
 
StrymULTRA said:
Not to mention that spin offs are not canon by default unless explicit evidence lol.

Pokémon shouldn't be an exception.
Click to expand...
I am addressing this point affirmatively while the iron is hot. People brought up Conquest, and since the supporters of a thread were accused of not addressing points, ignoring arguments regarding Conquest would only further fuel that fallacious view.

Conquest is both a spinoff and a crossover, no explicit evidence exists.

Now we should be able to move on.
 
I’ll put
Moritzva said:
I am addressing this point affirmatively while the iron is hot. People brought up Conquest, and since the supporters of a thread were accused of not addressing points, ignoring arguments regarding Conquest would only further fuel that fallacious view.

Conquest is both a spinoff and a crossover, no explicit evidence exists.

Now we should be able to move on.
Click to expand...
I didn’t ignore a thing from you, which is in fact, quite the opposite.

You openly said Conquest doesn’t follow the canon and I debunked you. I await your response to that and you have yet to respond to that.

You openly said something wrong and now dodge the question when I counter back.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
I’ll put

I didn’t ignore a thing from you, which is in fact, quite the opposite.

You openly said Conquest doesn’t follow the canon and I debunked you. I await your response to that and you have yet to respond to that.
Click to expand...
You didn't debunk anything, and you still have yet to prove anything other than the fact that a crossover character like Arceus exists in a crossover.
 
Moritzva said:
You didn't debunk anything, and you still have yet to prove anything other than the fact that a crossover character like Arceus exists in a crossover.
Click to expand...
It's not even a Direct Crossover. In fact the page here says it's more of a Nod to the games themselves

They picked elements of Nobunaga's Ambitions and meshed it with Pokémon within the Pokémon World

It's a Onesided Canon. Which is why Nobunaga's Rayquaza can be acquired in the Core Series
 
StrymULTRA said:
After whatever happened here, I'd like to re-post (again) this argument of mine.

To avoid further derailment, please directly reply to it about the points of allowing cross-scaling. Please, do, I have not that much patience given how wonky this became.
Click to expand...
Can somebody list the staff members who have commented in this thread previously please?
 
I'll ping them directly. According to the OP, there's @Andytrenom, @Armorchompy, @JustSomeWeirdo, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Colonel_Krukov.

Confluctor is listed but I won't ping them since they're now retired (they should be unboldened in the OP because of that). I wasn't included in the OP's tally so it may not be accurate.

All of y'all, please have a look at Strym's counterarguments linked here.
StrymULTRA said:
After whatever happened here, I'd like to re-post (again) this argument of mine.

To avoid further derailment, please directly reply to it about the points of allowing cross-scaling. Please, do, I have not that much patience given how wonky this became.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for helping out. It would be very appreciated if you try to properly evaluate them and make a decision here.
 
StrymULTRA said:
After whatever happened here, I'd like to re-post (again) this argument of mine.

To avoid further derailment, please directly reply to it about the points of allowing cross-scaling. Please, do, I have not that much patience given how wonky this became.
Click to expand...
Alright, I'll try:
  1. In regards to event Pokemon, it doesn't seem like there's any proof that the majority are actually 'the same' as the one from the movie and not just a promotional gimmick? The Wobuffet can be assumed to be the same, but for the rest of the movies I think occam's razor would apply: "They're actually the exact same Pokemon from the movies despite the movies being alternate timelines completely incongruent with the games and despite there being no statement on this" versus "It's a promotional gimmick".
    1. It might seem like an annoying argument, but you do have to prove that they are the same, instead of stating that "they were released to promote the movie, so they are the same".
    2. The Zygarde example actually helps my point. It literally says it right there that the Pokemon are released for promotion: "To commemorate the TV broadcast of "Pokemon XY&Z".
  2. The Pokemon Manga having strict rules regarding it's adapation is not a point for making it share the same canon as the games and anime. I've addressed this point probably half a dozen times in this thread now and you didn't really say anything different from Kukui or Executor here.
  3. Saying that the capabilities of wild Pokemon are the same in all mediums is blatantly false. Again, I've gone through a lot of examples in this very thread (Deoxys being the prime example) and you didn't seem to respond to those.
  4. Overall while your post is good, it seemed like you didn't really go through all of the arguments I'd made against Kukui and Executor and Arceus prior? I can understand if you disagree with them, but you don't—it seemed like you didn't acknowledge them outright.
    1. That being said, I understand that you couldn't go through the entire thread (especially with all of the derailment and whatnot). So this isn't really your fault.
As for the blog, I don't want to make a very lengthy rant about that since the author isn't here, but it seems to fall into the (already discussed) trap of "the games/anime/manga reference the anime/manga/games, so ergo these two characters are the same!" which is silly. The thread has talked about this so much that it's even listed as a counterargument in the OP. As for specifics:
  • Many of the 'statements' of the characters being the same do not exist. For example, he claims this as evidence that Steven Stone is the same in all canons...but there is literally no evidence other than the fact that they discuss all of his various appearances. It's late here so I might've missed everything but there's literally nothing supporting that.
    • This is honestly the biggest problem with the blog. Every single 'trainer spotlight' link proves literally nothing about the characters being the same because all of them are just history lessons...and he uses the trainer spotlights a lot, it is arguably 40% of the blog. If CN made an article talking about all the different Bens throughout the history of Ben 10, we wouldn't say Reboot Ben and Classic Ben are the same people.
  • I have already acknowledged all of the game's references to the anime and vice versa. In fact the list is even in the OP. Again, ya should have read more of the thread kek
  • Mere references to other canons mean nothing. If we took this as evidence we would have to make literally every other big media franchise share one canon.
  • Things being "based off" other things also does not count for much. It's not used commonly throughout the blog but that can pretty much be summarized as a 'reference'.
  • Most of the strongest points of the blog (Ash-Greninja, for instance) were talked about pretty extensively in this thread already, too.
  • The Manga adapations of the movies are canon to neither the manga nor the movies.
  • His reasons for the TCG being canon are also notably bad. For example, he says that the Deoxys from the movie is the same as the one from the TCG. Why? Because the TCG based a set off it, so they must be canon? I double-checked to make sure I wasn't missing anything but this sort of reasoning is circular as all ****, and he uses it multiple times too (like the trainer spotlights).
    • "The TCG adaptation of the movie is canon to the movie."
      "Why?"
      "Because the TCG is an adaptation of the movie." With these sorts of standards, we should make the movie adaptations of every book/comic canon.
The blog doesn't really have anything this thread hasn't addressed multiple times. In fact it seems particular bad because they seem to have literally no rule or basis for what should be considered canon in the first place, which is why evidence of something being canon is as basic as "it's an adaptation" or "they wrote a history article", and then most of the stronger evidence is "they made a reference". The former two makeup more than half of the blog and are debunked just by the nature of their argument. The latter has been refuted several times by me alone, not to mention many other staff/commenters, and that's the rest of the blog.
 
Ayewale said:
  1. It might seem like an annoying argument, but you do have to prove that they are the same, instead of stating that "they were released to promote the movie, so they are the same".
Click to expand...
Sure. The events have many artworks of the Mon coming directly from the source, like Arceus' movie, Diancie, Hoopa, Shaymin (from Giratina's movie), etc. Almost every movie event has that, confirming it comes straight from the animated series.
Ayewale said:
    1. The Zygarde example actually helps my point. It literally says it right there that the Pokemon are released for promotion: "To commemorate the TV broadcast of "Pokemon XY&Z".
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, see above.
Ayewale said:
  1. Saying that the capabilities of wild Pokemon are the same in all mediums is blatantly false. Again, I've gone through a lot of examples in this very thread (Deoxys being the prime example) and you didn't seem to respond to those.
Click to expand...
Deoxys one was already addressed. Arceus' example quite explains why issa game mechanic. In the games it can't change types at will unlike the anime/manga, but that was because of a game-play limitation to avoid it being broken. In Legends he actually could because the new fighting style allowed it to do so (even if in a limited way, aka through just using Judgement) without being broken. Deoxys should be the same, especially when both use similar ways (Arceus through the plates, Deoxys through the meteor he used to fall to the Earth) to change forms. Is simply because you can't use these items mid-fight as the Pokémon Game system doesn't allow that.
Ayewale said:
  1. The Pokemon Manga having strict rules regarding it's adapation is not a point for making it share the same canon as the games and anime. I've addressed this point probably half a dozen times in this thread now and you didn't really say anything different from Kukui or Executor here.
Click to expand...
Maybe because they were right? Pokémon is not a timeline logic, but more a shared world logic. Anything adds information to the same world, is all like sides of the same dice.
Ayewale said:
Many of the 'statements' of the characters being the same do not exist. For example, he claims this as evidence that Steven Stone is the same in all canons...but there is literally no evidence other than the fact that they discuss all of his various appearances. It's late here so I might've missed everything but there's literally nothing supporting that.
Click to expand...
Throughout the years, Steven has popped up in other Pokémon adventures—and not always in the role of Champion. Even if he’s not sporting that impressive title, though, Steven (and his frequent partner Metagross) has had quite an impact on the world of Pokémon. Let’s take a closer look at Steven’s many exploits.

Idk man, it seems like it talks about the same guy.
Ayewale said:
  • Most of the strongest points of the blog (Ash-Greninja, for instance) were talked about pretty extensively in this thread already, too.
Click to expand...
Then repeat them, I'm not gonna go through over 500 posts to read those.
Ayewale said:
Things being "based off" other things also does not count for much. It's not used commonly throughout the blog but that can pretty much be summarized as a 'reference'.
Click to expand...
For your average franchise yes, but for Pokémon is important given Masuda's words about how Pokémon timeline works.
Ayewale said:
  • The Manga adapations of the movies are canon to neither the manga nor the movies.
Click to expand...
Says you?
 
It's because the shared Multiverse/Canon, which is why TPC does not mind sharing Pokémon across different mediums. There's no point in thinking "Is this Canon, or not".
1. It's Pokémon, Executor_N0 already pointed out the shared multiverse/Canon

2. It's approved by TPC on all their platforms. Obviously Super Smash Bros doesn't qualify as that's straight up Crossover.

A. Let's use Pokémon Unite, a side series.
1. Here's Proof that Aeos Island exists within alongside core series worlds, as it directly mentions the other regions. Full context

2. The Manga is directly on the TPC official website

B. Pokémon Masters is Blatant with this.

Pokemon.com: How do you flesh out characters who have had minimal screen time in the Pokémon RPGs? Did you work with people at The Pokémon Company to make sure your new details were in canon?

Mr. Sasaki: We have worked with The Pokémon Company closely on details in the game, and they have of course checked our new details to make sure they fit in the world of Pokémon. One of the major new features of this game—and the content that we want to highlight—is the interaction between various Trainers. Players will be able to enjoy new and exciting interactions between Trainers who may not have interacted before.

To create these interactions, we considered the personalities and backgrounds of these Trainers and made sure that our content did not deviate from that. If a character would never say or do a certain thing, we made sure that they do not in our game.
Click to expand...

All details in Pokémon are checked to make sure it doesn't deviate from core series.

And all deviations are accounted for with a reason, mostly through the introduction of a new energy system
 
I'm not an expert on Pokemon actually, I only know bits and pieces. However, Executor N0 is someone I have a lot of trust in regarding the verse. And I suppose Strym's post also seems reasonable.
 
Last edited:
I didn't look into StrymUltra post clearly.

I was thinking you meant besides the 6 sources, all others are non canon, but rather species shouldn't be scaled beyond the 6 sources. That is, if I'm getting this straight
 
Yemma670 said:
I didn't look into StrymUltra post clearly.

I was thinking you meant besides the 6 sources, all others are non canon, but rather species shouldn't be scaled beyond the 6 sources. That is, if I'm getting this straight
Click to expand...
Quite yes. I listed only 6 because they were the ones that came at my mind at that moment, but more can be proposed if those have a direct connection to Main Core too.
 
Antvasima said:
@Andytrenom, @Armorchompy, @JustSomeWeirdo, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Colonel_Krukov @GyroNutz @Starter_Pack, @DarkDragonMedeus, @GyroNutz, @Psychomaster35

Would you be willing to evaluate the following response post as well please? I personally think that Ayewale seems to make sense, but I am not a good person to ask.

Click to expand...
Krukov and DDM already did. Former is for split, latter is against.
 
Pikaman said:
In the Anime a flying type Pokémon can still be hit by ground type moves if it’s planted on the ground, similarly positioned and typed Pokémon do not have this issue in the game. Our current standards do not treat flying type Pokémon’s relatively unconditional resistance to ground as game mechanics. Until you manage to change those standards, that’s a case of typing, a fundamental and basic concept of Pokémon, acting differently between mediums
Click to expand...
I'm reading through all of this, still on Page 4, but god damn it this is such a weak god damn argument, and it's so desperately grasping at straws.
Game makes it crystal clear that Flying types aren't immune to the Earth itself, but can't be hit by said moves due to their wings. Don't bring up idle animations or poses of them being on the ground, this is just lazy GM being lazy GM.
Gravity quite literally informs us that Flying types are dependent on their aerial movement to have "immunity"

Drop it already. You're doing nothing but hurt your side.
 
GodlyCharmander said:
I'm reading through all of this, still on Page 4, but god damn it this is such a weak god damn argument, and it's so desperately grasping at straws.
Game makes it crystal clear that Flying types aren't immune to the Earth itself, but can't be hit by said moves due to their wings. Don't bring up idle animations or poses of them being on the ground, this is just lazy GM being lazy GM.
Gravity quite literally informs us that Flying types are dependent on their aerial movement to have "immunity"

Drop it already. You're doing nothing but hurt your side.
Click to expand...
It’s minor supporting evidence, don’t get your knickers in a twist, and also under our current standards flying types resist ground regardless of whether they fly or not. There is a CRT to change that atm though so if you have issue with it feel free to go there
 
Finally finished the CRT, I find myself as mostly agreeing with the Original Post. However, an argument can be made as to why species are generalized as being comparable on average, as one could say they were all created by the same Arceus, which has no logic on making them any different, with the exception of the ones treated as individuals by the plot.
If one can prove without a shadow of a doubt that one media is part of the "Grand Multiverse" that encompasses the games, then I'd be willing to agree that species can be cross scaled from different universes. But, I don't particularly find the arguments for that convincing.

Thus, I agree with the OP for the time being.
 
Yeah, I personally have a hard time believing that things like events and mystery gifs should be used as canon, and scaling the wild Pokémon in the games to feats in the manga is also stupid for me, so I agree with OP for the moment.
 
Can you guys kindly tell why events are invalid, when literal artworks and descriptions confirm that is literally the same Pokémon?
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I'm not an expert on Pokemon actually, I only know bits and pieces. However, Executor N0 is someone I have a lot of trust in regarding the verse. And I suppose Strym's post also seems reasonable.
Click to expand...
Not questioning your judgement, but do you disagree with my original post or not? Executor is pretty close to agreeing with me and you didn’t seem to acknowledge my response to strym.
 
StrymULTRA said:
Can you guys kindly tell why events are invalid, when literal artworks and descriptions confirm that is literally the same Pokémon?
Click to expand...
The description for Wobuffet confirm that it is the original Pokémon. The descriptions for Zygarde (which you used as an example for other Pokémon) literally says right there that event Pokémon are made as promotional gimmicks, not as displaced pokemon from across the multiverse.
You dismissed this point as irrelevant for no discernible reason. If we’re going to consider the descriptions important, then a description confirming the obvious (that they’re marketing gimmicks) is equally important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

CloverDragon03
Gotta Revise 'Em All, Part 2 (Clover Edition): Mainline Game Scaling
5 6 7
Replies
254
Views
15K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
Noarasia
  • Locked
Giratina 5-Dimensional ?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Shiraito983
Shiraito983
Bobsican
Pokémon: Nearly Everything is Canon
5 6 7
Replies
257
Views
20K
Bobsican
Bobsican
Super_Ascended_Sean_Pazdera
Pokemon's Psychic Power profile
Replies
36
Views
2K
Super_Ascended_Sean_Pazdera
Super_Ascended_Sean_Pazdera
Peppersalt43
Pokemon LS Band-Aid Fix (Featuring Mudsdale)
Replies
18
Views
1K
Imaginym
Imaginym
Back
Top