Two new screenshots from japanese ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smpu8RZn3xc
Second screenshot.
Watch the ad to see them in movement.
thanks for the old news
>>26421870
>white arms
>nigger legs
Tanning confirmed?
Slowpoke.jpg
>>26421920
primitive Racist fool.
>>26421870
WHY IS THERE NO GRASS
H
Y
I
S
T
H
E
R
E
N
O
G
R
A
S
S
>>26421920
It's shading from motion, you big fatdummy
>>26421943
>it's shading
Proof? Why can't there be a tanning feature in the game? We're on a tropical island after all.
>>26421939
?
>>26421920
what are shadows
>>26422024
proof isn't necessary. there is not tanning because it is already confirmed you just pick other skin colours. also the reason you are saying there is tanning now is because of a few shadows that you ignorantly misinterpreted because you're an unintelligent moron.
>>26421920
>what is shading
>>26421920
>>26422024
no tanning. you just fucking pick your race. also those are just shadows. proof is in the logic. proof is in being intelligent.
>>26422174
I'm not talking about that though. That's a separate thing.
>>26422176
>>26422149
Shading doesn't magically make you tan.
>>26422195
Proof it.
>>26422204
you are fucking not getting the point. why would there be tanning when picking different skin colors is an option you are given at the very beginning. it is a "separate" thing, yes, but it is one that negates the necessity of the other thing. point number two: the specific image you are referring to, the one with supposedly two different skin colors, does not have two different skin colors. what you are seeing are fucking shadows on the legs, and the arms are in the light. this is not a proof of tanning. if it were, the arms would be tan and the legs be white. but even then you could differentiate it from shading and shadows. the proof is in the image and the video. the proof is in using logic and common sense. we are not even technically saying tanning is impossible, but rather that this image is not a proof of it. you are done.
>>26422204
blatantly misunderstanding lighting and shadows does not a tan character make
>>26422204
Are you legit mentally handicapped or something?
>>26422204
>Shading doesn't magically make you tan
literally what shading does, anon.
>>26422259
Why wouldn't there be tanning?
>>26422272
I am not misunderstanding anything. I think you're jumping to conclusions
>>26422288
Not an argument
>>26422306
Prove it
>>26422720
You have lived on this earth far long enough to know that things are darker in the shade, thus "magically tanning" people. Yes everything in the shade is darker so the magical tan isn't as prominent as a real tan, but if you were to single out skin tone it would look magically tanned.
Anyway I believe what they're saying is why can't there be tanning anyway? Like I mean it is a possible thing to put in a game, though pretty fucking stupid and in pokemon it's farfetched. Yes you're correct to say that this example right here IS due to shading, but they're just making a remark about it being possible. No need to get your panties in a twist.
>>26422919
I already said I'm not misunderstanding anything. So stop jumping to conclusions.
Also stop applying real-life to fictional media
>>26422925
Stop not applying real-life to fictional media?
The opposite to what you just fucking said is 100% as valid. Applying real life to fictional media is just as viable as applying concepts that aren't. In fact your entire opinion itself is based on real life as an opinion is formed... in real life???
You clearly are misunderstanding something.
>>26423004
(You)
