>>50578495>ONE out of over ten posts you pointed at was made by me, and it doesn't contain any mention of threats or harassment as you claimHow is it relevant that you posted it?
And it does have references to harassment, or at least annoying people
Also
>You have 0 evidence because 2 out or 14 might not be the exact thingYOu have these pretty poor standards for arguing and seriously think we shouldn't call out shills?
If anything we're being generous
>>50578501>Oh so youre one of those idiots that think the dexcut was solely so they could sell home. Yeah, I'm one of those that actually plays pokemon.
>Because them saying they were improving the models totally doesnt mean anything right. The Not if that isn't what's happening, no.
First, because we knew it wouldn't be the case as the models were futureproofed and people who are actually into the franchise knew this since 2013.
Second, because, well, that's just not what ended up happening
>le PLAan exception
> The fact that we know they develop multiple games at the same time and the next game they released having those improved models totally means they were lying right?Yes. Just because a product doesn't use the general model pool doesn't mean the model pool was entirely thrown out.
Unless you think the detpika movie used the XY models which on /vp/ is entirely possible.
>You literally have no evidence to point to SV being more like a traditional game>evidence NOW mattersLet's Go also wasn't like a traditional game and traditional games still followed it.
But if you want to get dissapointed go ahead.
