Emily is always wrong, baby.
Only #2 was completely wrong tho.
#3 may or may not be wrong, since we did indeed get voice acting, but not for all NPCs. That could change.
Stop giving this stupid cunt attention and she might eventually go away.
>>341745981
Reminder this ugly cunt said Mother 3 was coming.
And it didn't happen.
Whoever trusts her is clinically retarded.
I remember when Emily Rogers said Project Cafe (Wii U) would launch with
>Soul Calibur 5
>Grand Theft Auto 5
>Endless Ocean 3
Why people continue to believe her is beyond me.
>>341747470
>Endless Ocean 3
If only.
>Thinking rumors are automatically actual facts/confirmed leaks
She's a moron and a attention whore, but everyone who thought these were in any way facts stated by her are morons as well. I'm pretty sure she states her finds as rumors regardless of where she "found" them or with how many people she confirms them with.
>>341747746
Either way, she's a bitch.
>>341745981
who the fuck is this even? some shitty youtuber?
>Is private to hide the fact shes wrong and wont have to own up to anything
Could she be more pathetic
Hope the cunt fucks off for good this time. But she'll probably get the craving for attention again soon.
>it's a /v/ posts a twitter screencap of a literal who episode
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ5EDVxPiL4
>>341747738
>HD Endless Ocean
Sign me the fuck up.
>>341748887
Emily Rogers is like Tamaki from Unseen64.
They pretend to be Nintendo fans and leakers but they actually just leak fake poop so real fans will end disappointed.
They are actually anti Nintendo.
>>341745981
>Rumor 1
>uses the word confirmed
so how's the cancerous feminist horde holding up since nintendo told them to fuck off?
>every game MUST have a playable female!
>>341749592
They are pretty mad. Especially Neogaf.
>>341747470
If I start making fake leak saying Nintendo games are coming to Steam how many followers would I get?
hey, emily rogers here
>>341749293
>actually anti Nintendo.
that's the first thing I thought when I saw OP pic
>says rumor
>huuur wrong
>2/3 right anyway
>>341749980
One was a given, the other had a decent chance. You don't get credit unless you hit the curve ball, and she missed completely.
>>341746857
#1 is wrong because she says "you can choose which one to get", but then she explicitely adds "or get both". If she does that, there's no reason not to add "or neither" as well, except if you think that it's impossible to get neither.
>>341749980
>2 right
>on shit everybody could have said with 99% certainty
yeah, great accomplishment. Now go shill somewhere else
