how many of you fell for this in early 2010?

why is that drillbur only sort of fucked up

>>28107525
the weird thing is they got 4 pokemon right, so that would mean they had access to something like concept images

>>28107525

>5 out of 7 mostly correct

That's not bad. They legit had some info.

>>28107790

leaked blurry in-game battle screenshots, actually

>>28107790

We had silhouettes of those mons already

>>28107525
Never understand this, this Galvantula/Crofagigus "design" reveal before of after official announcement?

>>28107564
>>28107790
>>28107821
Screenshots of these epokemon were widely leaked before hand, so they had access to (blurry) shots of their sprites, and in some cases only their backsprite.

>>28107851
It was before official announcement, but after we got to see the BACK of the pokemon in battle.

Pretty much all the fake leaks I ignored because they were blatantly off

The only one I didn't was the legit starter one because I was afraid it was real as the art looked it

>>28107790
We already had blurry screenshots of all the Pokemon in that image that were real from battle footage and screens, and art of Victini was already widespread

>>28107525
I want that chime evo

God, can you imagine if Cofagrigus looked that shitty

>>28107849
no we didn't, i was here for gen 5 the starters and victini were the only thing we had at the time

File: 7ec68a3159ea61ae6169bbbb4ef641677f330c877244e6449b1e8dadfc413109.png (345KB, 600x508px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 600x508px

>>28107525
That cofragrigus is triggering me.

>>28107940
Except we did

>>28107882
Oh...

>>28107969
Jesus christ this.
It's painful to look at.