>>44192915>Wont speak for the other anon but I never mentioned such a thing as "my" definition. "The" definition is the one TPC has. If you don't give a shit about what the topic is your opinion on the topic is worthless.Far as I can tell you've been going back and forth (or maybe constantly agreeing past each other, who knows) about what TPC's official stance is. My point is that this definition went full retard the moment it became something besides what the words "legendary Pokemon" imply.
>Which happened in Gen 1.And? Is Gen 1 somehow sacred to you?
I thought we would be in agreement about this point at the very least, given how I pointed out Mewtwo hardly fits within the semantic meaning.
>Yes, because that's the only one that matters and the one we should agree upon to have worthwile discussion. You wanting to push your personal taste as fact is what makes worthwile discussion impossible.I have a hard time seeing discussion about a corporation's misuse of language as particularly worthwhile outside of pointing out where they went wrong, but I guess here we all are posting about it now.
>>44192951So we're leaning harder into the 'urban legend' interpretation, with the player themselves being witness to legends in the making. Fair enough, but the player is also someone tasked with documenting all the monsters they meet with an automatic digital encyclopedia-device (or phone application). How can these 'legends' possibly get off the ground with modern-day hard evidence existing? Again, what is being framed as 'legendary' really ought to just be 'a rarity' for consistency's sake. (But that won't happen because TPC is too far down the rabbit hole already with their terminology, which is what it is.)
