Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
No, I stated why I disagreed with you earlier in this thread, and in the exact same sentence, I stated why I disagree with b64 more... I didn't actually "Start" a thing.The problem with this is it creates undemonstratable vagrities within canon. Vagrities which become unprovable within debates such as these.
Which means nothing in a VS debate. This discrepancy was made by CAPCOM of Japan from as far back as the original Final Fight due to the release of Poison's Bio.
No, we know this because newer canon overrides old canon. in SFA was canon, it'sendings would clash with newer canon, rendering it obsolite. Since the release of Street Fighter Alpha 2, and Alpha 2 Gold, SFA has been obsolite.
Perhaps, but that doesn't stop people from using them amirite?
Seriously, if those endings where canon, the entire series would be fecked sideways. none of those endings are canon, because they follow a series of events, and Bison dies only once in A3.
We know this because of a Retcon... Which has not happened in this case.
Listen to what your saying for a moment, and tell me this - you've played the entire game franchize with every character available right? If so, you would know there are a few vagrities and plotholes, empty spaces that make you scratch your head, so you go looking through official material to fill the gaps of the story. Perfectly reasonable. However, if you read something that contradicts what you know to be officially recognised within the game to be right, do you then take the sourcebook's interpretation to be the correct one because it's more conveniant?
you forget, Matt is not a CAPCOM employee, he may be an Advisor at times, but that does not give him the ability to overwrite primary canon.
Because it's not demonstratable. We know that Gouken was technically 'Dead' for a number of years, we know he came back, we know he looks a little older than he did back when Gouki SGSed him, we know Ryu & Ken recognized him on sight, we know Akuma recognised his power for what it was when the SGS failed the 2nd time, We know Gouki is capable of killing him in other ways due to after having recognised Mu in Gouken, he immediately challenged Gouken to a Death Match, and we know that Mu is not a force of creation. Logic dictates that Gouken was not 'Destroyed' or 'Killed' at all when he fell to the 1st SGS, merely rendered unconscious, because that was his first true test & use of Mu ever.
You can take Matt's interpretation if you like, hell CAPCOM itself can if they like, but until that Retcon happens, we have to follow what is. we cannot make assumptions like that until it is confirmed.
1. You didn't have to mention me at all. I argued with b64 while keepin' yur name outta my mouth the entire time. You coulda shown me the same respect and did the same. You didn't, and clearly took a shot at me, callin' my evidence "unsupported". You started this back up and you can try to play innocent all you want but what you did wasn't called for if you didn't wanna drag some shit back up.
2. That's your problem. You can't make up what's canon and what's not just so you can have an air tight defense in nerdy VS debates. What they say is what's canon, rather it's stupid/makes sense or not. They are the master of their creations.
3. Means everything in this debate. You just failed to grasp the point.
4. Most of the shit that's in SFA1 doesn't override shit. We know it aint canon cuz Capcom said it wasn't and that SFA2 is.
5. Bison dies multiple times in A3, so says the SFEC. And we know SFA3 follows a series of events cuz the creators said so. The game itself fails to indicate the order of events and only eludes to ONE ending actually being canon.
6. The retcon was stated by Capcom and accepted by fans, sometime before it was implemented in the actual games.
7. YES! You clearly don't understand the point of a SOURCE book.
Lulz, Matt got the info from an EMPLOYEE of Capcom. The phuckin' producer, dude. Matt didn't just make it up. Like seriously...you keep forgettin' this.
8. Listen to yourself. He gets phucked up by an SGS and comes back, no scars, didn't see'im rise from his grave or nothin'. Ryu visits his grave every year and noticed no dirt unturned or anything. He just appears in SFIV. What Ono says is true, man.
Originally posted by No End N Site
1. You didn't have to mention me at all. I argued with b64 while keepin' yur name outta my mouth the entire time. You coulda shown me the same respect and did the same. You didn't, and clearly took a shot at me, callin' my evidence "unsupported". You started this back up and you can try to play innocent all you want but what you did wasn't called for if you didn't wanna drag some shit back up.
Ok, apparently I cannot say anything, even though I made my point perfectly clear in this very same thread... Fine, do what you want. I said what I said because I didn't want to be accused of hypocriticism by b64. If I had challenged only his point of view without reiterating my opposition of yours, it would have made me look like I was going back on what I had said earlier in the thread, nothing more, and I didn't drag you or your name through the mud dude. I am allowed to challenge others oppinions the same as you and anyone else.
Originally posted by No End N Site
2. That's your problem. You can't make up what's canon and what's not just so you can have an air tight defense in nerdy VS debates. What they say is what's canon, rather it's stupid/makes sense or not. They are the master of their creations.
No, it becomes yours when you challenge the rules of canon by simply taking one source over another.
Originally posted by No End N Site
3. Means everything in this debate. You just failed to grasp the point.
You made no point exept to throw out an already explained event... That has been made canon ages ago, it's hardly the same thing.
Originally posted by No End N Site
4. Most of the shit that's in SFA1 doesn't override shit. We know it aint canon cuz Capcom said it wasn't and that SFA2 is.
Your not reading what I wrote....
I said SFA1 has been made non canon because it conflicts with SFA2 & 3. Argo, it follows the rule of newer canon overriding older canon... Now, which is older? SFA1 or SFA2, thats right, SFA1 is older, and this gets overwritten by SFA2 storyline as the official canon.
Originally posted by No End N Site
5. Bison dies multiple times in A3, so says the SFEC. And we know SFA3 follows a series of events cuz the creators said so. The game itself fails to indicate the order of events and only eludes to ONE ending actually being canon.
I happen to have a copy of SFEC right here, and it does not allude to any endings canonicity at all... Thank you.
Originally posted by No End N Site
6. The retcon was stated by Capcom and accepted by fans, sometime before it was implemented in the actual games.
*Shakes head* Where is it implemented? I see no indications of a retcon in the games like I saw with Sagat's loss to Dark Ryu.
Originally posted by No End N Site
7. YES! You clearly don't understand the point of a SOURCE book.Lulz, Matt got the info from an EMPLOYEE of Capcom. The phuckin' producer, dude. Matt didn't just make it up. Like seriously...you keep forgettin' this.
The only problem is, it hasn't been IMPLEMENTED YET, you keep forgetting this.
Originally posted by No End N Site
8. Listen to yourself. He gets phucked up by an SGS and comes back, no scars, didn't see'im rise from his grave or nothin'. Ryu visits his grave every year and noticed no dirt unturned or anything. He just appears in SFIV. What Ono says is true, man.
Exept that, you know, Ryu's been busy with 2 tourneys and the war with Shadaloo and S.I.N. and struggling with the Satsui No Hadou and all that.
Basically what this means is that we know certain things about Gouken's revival, and not one bloody indication of him pulling a new body out of thin air. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And unless CAPCOM has retards working for them, they would have made that clear in his story, which they didn't.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Ok, apparently I cannot say anything, even though I made my point perfectly clear in this very same thread... Fine, do what you want. I said what I said because I didn't want to be accused of hypocriticism by b64. If I had challenged only his point of view without reiterating my opposition of yours, it would have made me look like I was going back on what I had said earlier in the thread, nothing more, and I didn't drag you or your name through the mud dude. I am allowed to challenge others oppinions the same as you and anyone else.No, it becomes yours when you challenge the rules of canon by simply taking one source over another.
You made no point exept to throw out an already explained event... That has been made canon ages ago, it's hardly the same thing.
Your not reading what I wrote....
I said SFA1 has been made non canon because it conflicts with SFA2 & 3. Argo, it follows the rule of newer canon overriding older canon... Now, which is older? SFA1 or SFA2, thats right, SFA1 is older, and this gets overwritten by SFA2 storyline as the official canon.
I happen to have a copy of SFEC right here, and it does not allude to any endings canonicity at all... Thank you.
*Shakes head* Where is it implemented? I see no indications of a retcon in the games like I saw with Sagat's loss to Dark Ryu.
The only problem is, it hasn't been [b]IMPLEMENTED YET
, you keep forgetting this.Exept that, you know, Ryu's been busy with 2 tourneys and the war with Shadaloo and S.I.N. and struggling with the Satsui No Hadou and all that.
Basically what this means is that we know certain things about Gouken's revival, and not one bloody indication of him pulling a new body out of thin air. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And unless CAPCOM has retards working for them, they would have made that clear in his story, which they didn't. [/B]
1. No you wouldn't have. You coulda just said that you didn't agree with me and you also didn't agree with b64. You didn't have to take the shot you took. You have the right to say whatever the phuck you want, but don't try to play innocent when I call you out on it.
2. That's not what's goin' on dude...
3. The point was, we think Poison's a dude cuz Capcom said so. It has never once been written anywhere IN THE GAME that she was. And it still isn't said IN THE GAME. Your pickin' what sources you want to suit yourself. That's my point.
4. I read what you wrote and it's still bull shit. SFA2 doesn't even conflict with half the shit in SFA1. And we sure as in hell don't just forget A2 cuz of A3. THE SHIT THAT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH A2 STILL ISN'T CANON IN A1 CUZ CAPCOM SAID SO. My point for Christ's sake.
5.
Street Fighter Eternal Challenge
Bison's continual reappearances despite A NUMBER OF DEATHS were attributed to the existence of the Psycho Drive...
CLEARLY, it's sayin' that some of the endings are canon. We know that he only dies ONCE in every ending. Meanin' that SEVERAL endings are canon. Unlike the game, which contradicts what's written and displays each character killin' Bison off ONCE and not tellin' which one is canon.
Now surzly, how are you gonna argue with this?
6.00 Goddammit, you missed the shit outta the meanin' of what I just posted. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE GAME TO BE CANON. We never see Bison in Rose's body implemented into the game and we know it still happened cuz Capcom said so.
7. Right, he's been hunted down by Bison and strugglin' with the SNH since Alpha and still manages to visit Gouken's grave every year. You mean to tell me that Ryu hasn't been back to Suzaku castle since A3?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Let's take it easy guys, no need to get riled up.
I'm not riled up, but surzly, you have to read what this guy is sayin'. If you did, you'd be like WTF?! Example...
It's like me paintin' a picture of a kid sprawled out on the ground with half his brain hangin' outta his head, cuz he just fell outta window. I mean, I drew Xs over his eyes and everything. O'course anyone who sees my art will think he's dead. Evidence points to him being dead. So, you come up to me and ask me, "Damn! Why did you a paint a kid comittin' suicide?", and I say "Oh, he's not dead, he just hurt himself." Now are you gonna say, "NO! THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT'S IN THE PAINTING!!! And he won't be alive, like you say, until you paint another piece that shows him up on his feet!"
Now, are you gonna say that, or are you gonna be like, "Hmmmm, he looks pretty dead to me but since it's your work, if you say he's not, than that's good to know."?