Pit must be removed from this game.

#101ViewtifulGene(Topic Creator)Posted 10/13/2012 4:42:45 PM
dedekong posted...

You're contradicting yourself. Why consider it a moot point, if you used it as an example yourself?


I meant it's a moot point regarding the relation between origin and inspiration for fictional characters.
---
"Once again, ViewtifulGene's logic blows minds and crushes dreams." -TheGamingGolfer
Official Batman of the SSB4 Board
#102rychu_supadudePosted 10/14/2012 12:09:35 AM
I don't know why I'm deigning to respond to this craziness, but...

ViewtifulGene posted...
XenogearsVII posted...

x = Cupid
y = Icarus
Cupid = Icarus, therefore:
x = y
--------------------------------------------
Set 2:
x = 1
y = 0
x = y, therefore:
1 = 0


Not my argument. I said he originated from Cupid. I didn't say he is Cupid. You made a strawman fallacy.


And you just destroyed your entire argument. Yes, Pit was based on Cupid, I don't see the point in denying that. The people in this topic who are trying to divorce Pit from his origins are being rather... I'll be generous and use the word "silly".

The supposed rule that people love to quote states that "the character must have originated in a video game". At no point did the person who ultimately decides which characters appear in the game state that this was intended to exclude characters who are clear copies of characters from other sources.

The only thing that matters is this: The specific character "Pit" did not appear in any published media prior to the release of Kid Icarus. Sakarai broke your interpretation of his rules. Your claim to the contrary is nothing but a falsehood.

I would not be surprised if you replied to this with some long-winded refutation, but I can say straight up that I won't be bothering to read it. I've expressed my thoughts on this matter, and that's enough to satisfy me.
#103ViewtifulGene(Topic Creator)Posted 10/14/2012 5:06:00 AM(edited)
rychu_supadude posted...
I don't know why I'm deigning to respond to this craziness, but...

ViewtifulGene posted...
XenogearsVII posted...

x = Cupid
y = Icarus
Cupid = Icarus, therefore:
x = y
--------------------------------------------
Set 2:
x = 1
y = 0
x = y, therefore:
1 = 0


Not my argument. I said he originated from Cupid. I didn't say he is Cupid. You made a strawman fallacy.


And you just destroyed your entire argument. Yes, Pit was based on Cupid, I don't see the point in denying that. The people in this topic who are trying to divorce Pit from his origins are being rather... I'll be generous and use the word "silly".

The supposed rule that people love to quote states that "the character must have originated in a video game". At no point did the person who ultimately decides which characters appear in the game state that this was intended to exclude characters who are clear copies of characters from other sources.

The only thing that matters is this: The specific character "Pit" did not appear in any published media prior to the release of Kid Icarus. Sakarai broke your interpretation of his rules. Your claim to the contrary is nothing but a falsehood.

I would not be surprised if you replied to this with some long-winded refutation, but I can say straight up that I won't be bothering to read it. I've expressed my thoughts on this matter, and that's enough to satisfy me.


Doesn't matter. Pit did not originate in a game because he owes his existence to mythology. You cannot divorce Pit's creation from the mythology that preceded him. To define origin by publication date is naive because it ignores relevant events that happen before publication. Therefore you cannot say that he truly originated in a game.

Sakurai has added characters that did not originate in games. The way Sakurai currently enforces his rule defies the very definition of the word origin. Even if he believes he is enforcing his rule, he does it in a way that still permits characters who did not truly originate in games.
---
"Once again, ViewtifulGene's logic blows minds and crushes dreams." -TheGamingGolfer
Official Batman of the SSB4 Board
#104Hejiru206Posted 10/14/2012 5:47:23 AM
This argument is still going on?

Pit is definitely based on Cupid. But Pit is eligible because he originated in a video game. Cupid didn't. Pit isn't Cupid, he's based on Cupid. In the same way that Mario isn't literally a landlord and Zelda isn't literally Zelda Fitzgerald. (They were named after those people rather than being visually based on them, but you get the point.) A lot of Pokemon are based on mythology. That doesn't mean that the Pokemon itself originated hundreds of years ago. If Pit was literally Cupid in a video game, then would be ineligible. But he's not; he was originally based on Cupid. So Mickey and Batman are ineligible, but Pit isn't because he's actually a different character than Cupid.
Medusa is debatable because she's a lot closer to the Greek Medusa than Pit is to Cupid. I would say that she is a different character based on Medusa, but there's no real strong case either way.

Besides, I can't tell if Gene is being serious now or still being tongue-in-cheek.
---
"The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense." -Tom Clancy
#105ViewtifulGene(Topic Creator)Posted 10/14/2012 6:05:29 AM
Hejiru206 posted...
This argument is still going on?

Pit is definitely based on Cupid. But Pit is eligible because he originated in a video game. Cupid didn't. Pit isn't Cupid, he's based on Cupid. In the same way that Mario isn't literally a landlord and Zelda isn't literally Zelda Fitzgerald. (They were named after those people rather than being visually based on them, but you get the point.) A lot of Pokemon are based on mythology. That doesn't mean that the Pokemon itself originated hundreds of years ago. If Pit was literally Cupid in a video game, then would be ineligible. But he's not; he was originally based on Cupid. So Mickey and Batman are ineligible, but Pit isn't because he's actually a different character than Cupid.
Medusa is debatable because she's a lot closer to the Greek Medusa than Pit is to Cupid. I would say that she is a different character based on Medusa, but there's no real strong case either way.

Besides, I can't tell if Gene is being serious now or still being tongue-in-cheek.


Before there was Pit there was mythology. You can't possibly say that Pit truly originated in a game when he owes the beginning of his existence to the mythology that preceded him and inspired Pit's writer.

I'm not saying Pit himself originated back then. I'm saying his origin is that old. There's a difference. I originated from my parents but that doesn't make me the same age as my parents.
---
"Once again, ViewtifulGene's logic blows minds and crushes dreams." -TheGamingGolfer
Official Batman of the SSB4 Board
#106Anarchy612Posted 10/15/2012 9:03:27 PM
ViewtifulGene posted...
Hejiru206 posted...
This argument is still going on?

Pit is definitely based on Cupid. But Pit is eligible because he originated in a video game. Cupid didn't. Pit isn't Cupid, he's based on Cupid. In the same way that Mario isn't literally a landlord and Zelda isn't literally Zelda Fitzgerald. (They were named after those people rather than being visually based on them, but you get the point.) A lot of Pokemon are based on mythology. That doesn't mean that the Pokemon itself originated hundreds of years ago. If Pit was literally Cupid in a video game, then would be ineligible. But he's not; he was originally based on Cupid. So Mickey and Batman are ineligible, but Pit isn't because he's actually a different character than Cupid.
Medusa is debatable because she's a lot closer to the Greek Medusa than Pit is to Cupid. I would say that she is a different character based on Medusa, but there's no real strong case either way.

Besides, I can't tell if Gene is being serious now or still being tongue-in-cheek.


Before there was Pit there was mythology. You can't possibly say that Pit truly originated in a game when he owes the beginning of his existence to the mythology that preceded him and inspired Pit's writer.

I'm not saying Pit himself originated back then. I'm saying his origin is that old. There's a difference. I originated from my parents but that doesn't make me the same age as my parents.


i think we're done here
---
if there is no flame war in your topic then it was ignored
PSN: Anarchy612
#107MonkeyDsamPosted 10/16/2012 7:36:28 AM
ViewtifulGene posted...
Hejiru206 posted...
This argument is still going on?

Pit is definitely based on Cupid. But Pit is eligible because he originated in a video game. Cupid didn't. Pit isn't Cupid, he's based on Cupid. In the same way that Mario isn't literally a landlord and Zelda isn't literally Zelda Fitzgerald. (They were named after those people rather than being visually based on them, but you get the point.) A lot of Pokemon are based on mythology. That doesn't mean that the Pokemon itself originated hundreds of years ago. If Pit was literally Cupid in a video game, then would be ineligible. But he's not; he was originally based on Cupid. So Mickey and Batman are ineligible, but Pit isn't because he's actually a different character than Cupid.
Medusa is debatable because she's a lot closer to the Greek Medusa than Pit is to Cupid. I would say that she is a different character based on Medusa, but there's no real strong case either way.

Besides, I can't tell if Gene is being serious now or still being tongue-in-cheek.


Before there was Pit there was mythology. You can't possibly say that Pit truly originated in a game when he owes the beginning of his existence to the mythology that preceded him and inspired Pit's writer.

I'm not saying Pit himself originated back then. I'm saying his origin is that old. There's a difference. I originated from my parents but that doesn't make me the same age as my parents.

---
FC: 4382 - 2193 - 3429
A wild AS member appeared: AS*Luffy
#108MonkeyDsamPosted 10/16/2012 7:37:50 AM
MonkeyDsam posted...
ViewtifulGene posted...
Hejiru206 posted...
This argument is still going on?

Pit is definitely based on Cupid. But Pit is eligible because he originated in a video game. Cupid didn't. Pit isn't Cupid, he's based on Cupid. In the same way that Mario isn't literally a landlord and Zelda isn't literally Zelda Fitzgerald. (They were named after those people rather than being visually based on them, but you get the point.) A lot of Pokemon are based on mythology. That doesn't mean that the Pokemon itself originated hundreds of years ago. If Pit was literally Cupid in a video game, then would be ineligible. But he's not; he was originally based on Cupid. So Mickey and Batman are ineligible, but Pit isn't because he's actually a different character than Cupid.
Medusa is debatable because she's a lot closer to the Greek Medusa than Pit is to Cupid. I would say that she is a different character based on Medusa, but there's no real strong case either way.

Besides, I can't tell if Gene is being serious now or still being tongue-in-cheek.


Before there was Pit there was mythology. You can't possibly say that Pit truly originated in a game when he owes the beginning of his existence to the mythology that preceded him and inspired Pit's writer.

I'm not saying Pit himself originated back then. I'm saying his origin is that old. There's a difference. I originated from my parents but that doesn't make me the same age as my parents.


oops wrong button
Before mario ther were plumbers or in jumpmans case carpenters therefore mario can't be in this game.
---
FC: 4382 - 2193 - 3429
A wild AS member appeared: AS*Luffy
#109BlackBeetleborgPosted 10/16/2012 7:44:56 AM
I'm going with the latter, TC.

He can say what he wants, but rules are always bent.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdU8oqCbvzo&feature=watch_response LoL-BlueberryHuggles UMvC3 Phoenix Wright/Captain America/Sentinel
#110ViewtifulGene(Topic Creator)Posted 10/16/2012 8:00:34 AM
Anarchy612 posted...
ViewtifulGene posted...
Hejiru206 posted...
This argument is still going on?

Pit is definitely based on Cupid. But Pit is eligible because he originated in a video game. Cupid didn't. Pit isn't Cupid, he's based on Cupid. In the same way that Mario isn't literally a landlord and Zelda isn't literally Zelda Fitzgerald. (They were named after those people rather than being visually based on them, but you get the point.) A lot of Pokemon are based on mythology. That doesn't mean that the Pokemon itself originated hundreds of years ago. If Pit was literally Cupid in a video game, then would be ineligible. But he's not; he was originally based on Cupid. So Mickey and Batman are ineligible, but Pit isn't because he's actually a different character than Cupid.
Medusa is debatable because she's a lot closer to the Greek Medusa than Pit is to Cupid. I would say that she is a different character based on Medusa, but there's no real strong case either way.

Besides, I can't tell if Gene is being serious now or still being tongue-in-cheek.


Before there was Pit there was mythology. You can't possibly say that Pit truly originated in a game when he owes the beginning of his existence to the mythology that preceded him and inspired Pit's writer.

I'm not saying Pit himself originated back then. I'm saying his origin is that old. There's a difference. I originated from my parents but that doesn't make me the same age as my parents.


i think we're done here


Yup. Pit's origin is not a game.
---
"Once again, ViewtifulGene's logic blows minds and crushes dreams." -TheGamingGolfer
"Supez teh king" -dedekong