Paper Mario Mixing and Making (Another Mario Profile Revision)

JPTheGamer · Mar 20, 2026

Chariot190 said:
Dude.

Jeez; sorry I even asked!

Lou_change · Mar 20, 2026

Chariot190 said:
That's the thing. It could be accepted or completely wrong, neither actually helps or goes against the main argument here.

There is stuff exclusive to Yoshi's Woolly world like power badges, yarnballs, Kamek one shots a bunch of Yoshi and uses the resulting wonder wool to power up Baby Bowser.

LuckyEmile · Mar 20, 2026

Chariot190 said:
3. Nintendo-run dev Q&A calls it a crossover "with the Paper Mario games":
The question itself is about a crossover with the "Paper Mario games", and the answer treats Paper Mario as the obvious pick for a crossover partner.
So, well right there, this is tied to the actual Paper Mario games phrasing in a Nintendo-hosted format, we are told flat out it's a cross over between M&L and the actual Paper Mario games and cast, so honestly argument is done and dead right there.

Miiting highlights about Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam

The developers of the Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam game visit Miiverse to answer questions from around the world. We've chosen a few of the most popular to share with you below, but be sure to check out Miiverse for even more (remember to load the oldest comments to see the full interview!). You...

play.nintendo.com

I don't think this is a great point, because you're pulling a quote from the wrong person. The "crossover with the Paper Mario games" statement you quoted isn't from a dev, but rather a question posed to them. And considering the big text above it says "Read on as fans have their questions answered", that pretty much shoots down the idea this wording/question came from a usable source... The answer does admittedly end with mentioning the idea of a crossover too, but since this was a loaded question, they might have been influenced by it in their answer or just not wanted to argue a point here. The focus of the answer was a desire for a third character, and from there two Marios; essentially what lead to the point of having such a character rather than a desire for MaLu and PaMa to finally meet, so the crossover was more a minor point not too worth challenging.

Chariot190 said:
The timeline matters a lot here:
Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga (original) is 2003.
Paper Mario: TTYD is 2004.

In 2003, the Paper Mario line was basically just Paper Mario 64. At that point, it's not even hard to imagine Nintendo treating it as "just Mario, but in a different presentation", because the series had not yet gone all-in on paper-as-physical-world rules the way it does later, much like say, Wind Waker with its toon art style.
Early Paper Mario is much more like an art direction / presentation layer on a Mario RPG framework (it literally started as "Mario RPG 2" conceptually before becoming its own thing under a different branding situation, so Paper Mario 64 was, at the time, intended to be the same Mario, more or less anyway).

So sure: in that early era, you can reasonably say "yeah, Mario and Paper Mario are basically the same mf in a loose sense", because the franchise split wasn't much of a thing yet, in fact, it wasn't even a franchise yet, it was a single title.

But your argument is doing something completely different: it tries to use a 2003-era reference to force shared continuity onto games that came AFTER the split became explicit.

Come TTYD (2004) and beyond, the series leans harder into paper as a real property. It escalates over time until it's effectively its own setting with its own rules, and Paper Jam literally shovs that in your face by treating the Paper Mario side as a separate world inside the book that spills out and then gets returned to its original world.

Not exactly a counterargument, but just to make something clear: Yes, TTYD is a 2004 title, but it was announced in August 2003, before the November release of Superstar Saga. It's not like these games are made in a flash (and surely to release so soon after, development must have been quite far along), so there would be details from TTYD that could be pulled from to be in the mindset of pushing further into that paper aspect that still wasn't stopping this nod. So it should be fair to say that the timeline isn't such that TTYD/Paper Mario becoming a series can't be accounted for yet.

Chariot190 said:
Then you extend that "shared history" forward into later Paper Mario games that are WAY more paper-world dependent (TTYD, SPM, etc)

Did SPM actually play into the paper-world? I remember it as more based on stuff like MS Paint and didn't really have many paper elements, certainly not to the point of being "paper-world dependent"...

To be fair, Sticker Star does play into the paper stuff again, and is certainly the one Paper Jam wants to play into the most, so SPM taking a break doesn't matter much either way. But I guess this makes it interesting that Sticker Star is referenced by MaLu to have it point to a Paper Mario title as a point in Mario history again! Mario from Sticker Star is just seen as one of many examples of Mario specifically. Even more interestingly, this is from Paper Jam itself, meaning the game (the one everyone points to for proof of the two being separate) as a primary source itself is claiming Sticker Star Mario and, say, 3D Land Mario are examples of the same guy. (And the effect being for Paper Mario shouldn't mean much, when, say, a Luigi card has an effect for all three bros and vector art used for mainline Bowser will target Paper enemies). This calls into question how much we can trust the supplementary material for the game when the game itself is fine with Sticker Star being another example of Mario, essentially making these secondary canon claims a contradiction. (From what I recall, everything else in the game signalling the two are separate is mostly just inferred rather than anything blatant).

There was a dev statement provided in point 4, but all it seems to say is it made references. References to Paper Mario games have been used by both sides of the debate here, so I'm not entirely sure how meaningful that is in the face of how many other games reference Paper Mario in a light supportive of it being part of the main continuity. All the other sources claiming this is a crossover are from stuff like websites and marketting: usable, but not a priority over the game. I can see how this is quite disingenuous to say in the face of sheer amount of these statements, it's clearly not a one-off here and consistent across languages, to just handwave something that ubiquitous (and the effort put into collecting them all on your part is worthy of the praise it deserves) isn't something I can quite get away with here. However, it's at least worth pointing out these descriptions, and the game treating it as a part of Mario's history do sort of clash (though understandably, it can be hard to just say "this is a crossover" in-universe without being immersion breaking, so I get it's easier to establish that outside the product itself).

Lou_change · Mar 21, 2026

LuckyEmile said:
Mario from Sticker Star is just seen as one of many examples of Mario specifically. Even more interestingly, this is from Paper Jam itself, meaning the game (the one everyone points to for proof of the two being separate) as a primary source itself is claiming Sticker Star Mario and, say, 3D Land Mario are examples of the same guy. (And the effect being for Paper Mario shouldn't mean much, when, say, a Luigi card has an effect for all three bros and vector art used for mainline Bowser will target Paper enemies). This calls into question how much we can trust the supplementary material for the game when the game itself is fine with Sticker Star being another example of Mario, essentially making these secondary canon claims a contradiction. (From what I recall, everything else in the game signalling the two are separate is mostly just inferred rather than anything blatant).

Counterpoint the Yoshi and Toad cards feature members of the species that aren't the main one despite in at least Toad's case all Amiibo are for toad the character.

Chariot190 · Mar 21, 2026

LuckyEmile said:
I don't think this is a great point, because you're pulling a quote from the wrong person.

This dodge kind of just explodes on the article itself lad.
Yes, the question uses the word "crossover" (because that's what it is, why are we pretending it isn't?).
But the dev answer ALSO uses it as their own framing:
"we put forward the idea of a crossover" (answer; confirming that even from the foundation of the game itself, that was always the intent).
"fitting for this crossover" (answer; confirming it's still one)
later again: paper cast "coming from the paper world" (answer; literal plot premise elaboration)

That's to say, it is not "just the question". The devs say it. Full stop, in fact let me highlight it for you.

A: Mario & Luigi games in the past were all about using two buttons, but for this title, we thought that we'd try to break new ground and make the action based on three buttons instead. However, when we tried to think of a new third character, we didn't come up with anything very good. Things carried on like that until we thought, "Wouldn't it be fun if there were two Marios?", and then Paper Mario emerged as a prime candidate. We felt that Paper Mario would push Mario & Luigi towards some new play styles, by means of a contrast between the solid and the flat, so we put forward the idea of a crossover".
A: It was probably making the most of Paper Mario as a main character. He has specific qualities, like his "paperishness" and unique gameplay style, and we had to find ways to show these qualities in lots of different settings, in a manner that was fitting for this crossover. And since we had to work from the Mario & Luigi base, Paper Mario didn't always catch the attention as much as we'd hoped... We started to worry that we were going to be in deep trouble with the Paper Mario team! Well, I'm joking a little here, but I did have to work hard to create big scenes for the Paper Mario character.
Q: Both the Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi series are known for their high-quality storylines, so did this aspect also turn out to be tricky to handle?
A: ...It did. We were thinking, since the paper characters were coming all the way from the paper world, let's make the main story something really bizarre, crammed with red herrings and misapprehensions. We had things like going back and forth to the paper world, and the Mushroom Kingdom turning gradually into paper... But we overdid it a bit, and the first draft of the plot ended up being a complete muddle that wouldn't resonate with anyone...
So we simplified the script and structured it with greater emphasis on showing the different characters meeting and interacting with each other. We had to do a lot of re-writes.

You have them straight up not only confirm the question, but even go onto explain why they picked it too and why they specifically chose that line of games, clarify it's a crossover with Paper Mario (the franchise) in particular, differentiate the main and paper characters from the two games as different beings, and more. Like this isn't something you get to argue. Funnily, they even highlight how shifting of substances was going to be a major plot point originally and a threat (that is to say, not exactly something Mario cast can just "do" or is common place, bit of a red flag for the "Mario's artstyle just canonically shifts in-universe" as a legit point even if it wasn't irrelevant as proof).

I'm not quoting the wrong person, the only way you could even come to that conclusion is if you simply didn't read the article and as if they didn't go in depth themselves.

LuckyEmile said:
The "crossover with the Paper Mario games" statement you quoted isn't from a dev, but rather a question posed to them. And considering the big text above it says "Read on as fans have their questions answered", that pretty much shoots down the idea this wording/question came from a usable source...

That header does not erase who is speaking in the A lines.
The page is literally presenting Q lines and A lines, and it names the staff in that intro, which you not so subtly conveniently removed. The A lines are the staff answers. It's called an interview.

And, yes, fans, having their answered, by devs and people of actual influence.
Why did you just straight up ignore the key part of that entire sentence anyway?

"Read on as fans have their questions answered by Akira Otani, a producer from Nintendo, and from AlphaDream, director Shunsuke Kobayashi, composer Yoko Shimomura, battle designer Jun Iwazaki, co-director and Hiroyuki Kubota, 3D designer."
I'm actually asking, why did you removed the keypart of the sentence Emile? Saying who's actually doing the answering? As in people who worked on the game are answering the questions.
Why is the first paragraph of your reply you cutting out critical context and shifting the framing away from the truth of it?

And no, they parrot it, confirm it, and outright explain in depth why it's true.
"Q: What was it that initially gave you the idea of a crossover with the Paper Mario games?"
Yep cool question, such a cool question they confirm it, five different times.

LuckyEmile said:
The answer does admittedly end with mentioning the idea of a crossover too, but since this was a loaded question, they might have been influenced by it in their answer or just not wanted to argue a point here.

This is not a "loaded question" in the slightest. Its the obvious question to ask about a game whose entire premise is "Mario & Luigi meet Paper Mario". Calling it "loaded" is just a way to dismiss the answer without engaging with it, but sure, let me explain here:

1. "Loaded question" is the wrong concept here and blatantly so given a loaded question is something like "when did you stop doing thing" where it shoves in guilt or an assumption from the start.
"How did you get the idea for a crossover with the Paper Mario games?" is not loaded. It is descriptive. It matches the product, the point of the interview is to tackle the crossover aspect even, it's not a one off random question.

They could have rejected the premise if it was wrong too. They didn't. They affirmed it, and moreover explained why it was true because that's the basis of that entire discussion; the instant they start actually explaining in detail why it's a crossover, it being a loaded question stops even being on the table and it simply becomes a normal question.

2. You can't just pretend the devs were brainwashed by the question, the idea that the devs were "influenced" into calling it a crossover because a fan asked it is absurd, because:
The game already exists. The premise is already designed.
And they themselves state it was them who wanted a crossover from the very start.
This is not a live debate where someone is cornered on stream or something, this is an official Nintendo-published Q&A summary. It is curated. The wording is chosen. And the fact it is a crossover was already made publicly evident even before that interview came out.

The question did not go back in time to redesign Paper Jam. The question reflects the premise Paper Jam was already being marketed as.

3. The devs use "crossover" in their own answer, not just as a response to a word so even if you want to be pedantic and say the question used "crossover" first in the pre-set interview, the dev answer explicitly adopts it as their own framing multiple times:
"we put forward the idea of a crossover" (literally confirming it was something they did and wanted, as in direct confirming they weren't influenced by the question) and also "fitting for this crossover"
And they also explain the paper cast and explicitly note how it's crossing over with the Paper Mario franchise.

That's not devs dodged arguing or whatever. That's the devs describing the project and how it came to be.

4. This is an official Nintendo-hosted piece, not a random tweet, you're treating this like an offhand reply in a comment section, yet this is Nintendo-hosted.
They chose the questions.
They chose the answers.
They condensed and posted it, and they did so with people actually involved in the game's development process no less giving us actual tangible usable information instead of just steve or someone from treehouse yapping 5th-hand info.

If Nintendo thought "crossover with the Paper Mario games" was a false premise, they would have:
reworded the question, edited the answer to avoid the term, clarified the framing, or simply not post a interview where the whole purpose of it was to talk about how it's a crossover.
They did none of that. They published it and pushed it as actual insider talk, because that's what it is.

Claiming they might have been influenced by the question is not skepticism, it's dodging the actual substance here to avoid conceding a blatant provable contradiction and confirmed intent from a reliable source.

5. The "they didnt want to argue a point here" excuse is backward anyway, this is not a hostile interview. There is nothing to "argue". The staff can just explain their own design intent, which is quite literally exactly what they did.

And the answer isn't a reluctant concession. It's a basic straitforward explanation, everything from why they needed a third member, the "two Marios" concept, Paper Mario as the pick, proposed a crossover themselves, even going so far as trying to balance Paper Mario the pre-existing character in a way that would appease the devs who make the PM games.

Thats not "fine, I guess, sure, if you say so idk". That's "this is how we built it and also a bunch of stuff your question didn't remotely ask but I feel like elaborating upon anyway".

6. The core contradiction here is that you want to:
A. accept the entire story premise (book world, doubles, etc) and use it when convenient
but
B. dismiss the explicit "crossover" language whenever it threatens the merge theory

That is special pleading. When the language supports you, its "canon" or whatnot. When it doesn't, it is "influenced" or "loaded" or "not worth challenging".
Like anyone remember that interview ya'll throw around with Shigeru? By this logic that's also unusable so we should actually be creating more splits.

If that's the standard, no source can ever disprove you, because you will always declare it contaminated whether or not it is or isn't.

Anyway yeah no dude, calling that question "loaded" is just an attempt to handwave away an official, curated Nintendo Q&A because it says the exact thing you can't have it say to continue this thread.
The devs were not "influenced" into describing their own project as a crossover and noctupling down on it and literally talking about the other dev team. The crossover is the point of the game, and Nintendo published the explanation.

LuckyEmile said:
The focus of the answer was a desire for a third character, and from there two Marios; essentially what lead to the point of having such a character rather than a desire for MaLu and PaMa to finally meet, so the crossover was more a minor point not too worth challenging.

This is just minimization disguised as "analysis" tbh:

1. Motive does not change what the thing IS.
Even if the very first spark or idea was "we need a third button / third hero", that does not make the crossover "minor".
That's like saying "they only built a bridge because the road needed it, so the bridge is a minor point".
No. The end product is still a bridge. The game is still a crossover that clearly separates the two characters and settings.

And the dev answer literally confirms they pitched a crossover. Not "we made a third hero who is identical to this pre-existing thing but is secretly a brand new OC".
The reason something begins does not erase the result or conclusion.

2. The Q&A itself proves crossover is NOT "minor" too, you don't even need outside refs, you can take it in a vacuum even. The same Nintendo page I pasted and you're now trying to undermine keeps hammering crossover framing in the dev answers:

They say they "put forward the idea of a crossover" after picking Paper Mario as the third hero.
They say the tricky part was "making the most of Paper Mario as a main character" and making his paper traits work "in a manner fitting for this crossover".
They talk about being worried about the "Paper Mario team" because they needed big Paper Mario scenes.
They explain story drafting around paper characters coming from the paper world, going back and forth, and even an early concept of the Mushroom Kingdom gradually turning into paper.

That is not "minor". That is gameplay, story, scene planning, and dev coordination all around, "this is a crossover with the Paper Mario franchise and Paper Mario (the character) is one of the crossover heroes".

3. The "loaded question" escape is absurd, the claim that the devs were "influenced by a loaded question" is basically saying:
"A fan asked about a crossover, so the devs adopted that wording to avoid conflict".

But as above:
This is not a random live chat clip. Nintendo published it as an official feature page with named staff.
The answers are concise and edited. If Nintendo or the devs did not want "crossover" framing, they could simply avoid the word or clarify it.
Instead, the devs reuse "crossover" as their own description multiple times AND they detail the paper world distinction framing on top and differentiating the lines of games and characters within them.

"influenced by the question" idea only works if you believe a fan question can retroactively rewrite the dev intent, the published wording, and the rest of the game premise. That's not skepticism; that's denial.
Even worse, it might be a question the fans were asking, but it wasn't a fan actually delivering it though, which honestly I'm not sure if that's telling or not that one of the more popular questions put in by fans at the time all simultaneously figured it was a basic crossover (because it is).

4. "They didnt want to argue" isn't even real. Argue with who? This is a Nintendo-hosted promo Q&A. They are explaining their own design choices. There is no opponent to placate? And the answers aren't "fine, I guess". They are direct explanations, and clear elaboration even with direct confirmation the crossover was both their own idea and goal, as in, the very thing that needs to shut down the idea they were influenced by a curated question down immediately: Paper Mario (franchise/character) was chosen, and it was the case from the start.

5. This dodges the actual point: the crossover framing is not isolated to one Q.
Even if you try to nitpick Q1, Q3 and Q4 are even worse for this CRT:
Q3 is explicitly about crossovers being complicated, and the answer is explicitly about handling Paper Mario as a crossover main hero and building scenes for him.
Q4 is explicitly about story handling, and the answer is explicitly about paper characters coming from the paper world and even draft concepts that revolve around that world split.

That's to say, your "minor point" falls apart on contact with the very next questions.
And Emile, the last thing you want to argue is minor when all "evidence" put forth here is the dictionary definition of minor, your big "gotcha" this post is a loreless amiibo gallery.

Effectively, saying "the crossover is minor" because the initial thought was "we wanted a third hero" is ignoring every single thing about the game and process as a whole.
The devs describe Paper Mario as a main hero, describe design and story work built around crossover constraints, mention the Paper Mario team, and talk about the paper world premise.
That's not a side detail, that's the entire point.

LuckyEmile said:
Not exactly a counterargument, but just to make something clear: Yes, TTYD is a 2004 title, but it was announced in August 2003, before the November release of Superstar Saga. It's not like these games are made in a flash (and surely to release so soon after, development must have been quite far along), so there would be details from TTYD that could be pulled from to be in the mindset of pushing further into that paper aspect that still wasn't stopping this nod. So it should be fair to say that the timeline isn't such that TTYD/Paper Mario becoming a series can't be accounted for yet.

Ok dude, let me be real with you here for a second, just, think about this for a sec, this collapses under its own logic:

1. You just undercut yourself with dev-time logic, by a critical amount even.
You're saying "games take time to make, so SS could account for TTYD's direction".
Ok. Games take time to make, that's true ~~and a good chunk of the time are close to done not to far after announcement but whatever~~. That applies to Superstar Saga too.

Superstar Saga did not magically appear in November 2003. Its design, writing, item descriptions, and little nods would have been locked in way earlier, quite a bit actually given Alpha's prior game launched in January 2002, we can pretty solidly get the dev cycle pinned down from that alone as beginning at least sometime in 2001-2002. So the idea that SS's lil Paper Mario 64 nod was being carefully shaped around an unreleased TTYD direction is already speculation stacked on speculation with fifty caveats inbetween. Especially given, TTYD is pretty easy to pinpoint when it really got moving in development. Hironobu Suzuki, TTYD’s Script Director, has Cubivore: Survival of the Fittest (2002) as his intervening credit after Paper Mario (2000). Misao Fukuda, credited on TTYD for Script, was on Clock Tower 3 (2002) as Event Planner, and that game released in Japan on December 12, 2002.
So if you assume the story/event staff were not doing two substantial jobs at once, which they almost certainly weren't given the scopes of these two games (Clock Tower in particular given the studios were different, Capcom and Sunsoft ~~also wtf I didn't know Clock Tower was Capcom~~) the most aggressive "latest possible" handoff point is around late 2002 / very early 2003. Which still comes after SS's inferred dev start and launch date like 2+ years later.
But hey let's go further; for SS, the main link is Yoshihiko Maekawa, on Tomato Adventure he was one of the directors, and on Superstar Saga he was the director. Hiroyuki Kubota was Scenario Event Director on Tomato Adventure, then Lead Scenario and Field Design on Superstar Saga. Tetsuo Mizuno was a producer on both. Toshizo Morikawa went from Map Graphic on Tomato Adventure to BG Graphics Lead on Superstar Saga. That is a pretty clean lead-team line ngl. SS most likely began in early 2002 (maybe even 2001 given potential overlap and TA coming out in January 2002 and being finished quite some time beforehand, freeing them all up sometime in 2001 to begin SS dev), not 2003. A 2003-only start is impossible even, because by May 3, 2003 they already had a working demo of the game with a large chunk of it completed. One useful extra clue: Maekawa later said that on "the first game and Tomato Adventure" he was a hands-on director, which fits the idea that those two were part of the same close AlphaDream thing as opposed to two widely separated projects, which aligns with the excessive overlap between those two games' staff line up above and shared studios.
Either way, most things point toward nearly, if not over, a year difference in development cycles, which aligns with the fact they came out a year apart almost.
If you're going to use "dev time" as an argument, it cuts both ways, and it hurts you more than it helps you.

2. The date gap makes your "they factored in TTYD" logic borderline impossible.
SS released about 11 months before TTYD.
Youre asking people to believe the SS team was proactively aligning a tiny reference with a future paper-escalation direction in a different series that had not even shipped yet or was finished by your own wording, and keep that in mind, that paper escalation and more clear distinction was actually a prominent challenge in TTYD's direction, it didn't start off that way, but it did shape over time so assuming the SS team would have that foresight, knowledge, or if it was even established before SS was out is extreme conjecture.

And even worse: you talk like SS could "continue to factor it in" after release.
No. Once SS is out, the nod is done. The contents are frozen, needless to say, patches or quick fixes did not exist back then. Nothing about SS can be updated to reflect what TTYD ends up actually being, nor should they care.
So bringing up that TTYD was "far along" is irrelevant unless you can show SS's devs had access to it and cared enough to integrate it and that SS itself wasn't also far enough along to actually justify changing the easter egg. You have shown neither.
This is an argument from sheer possibility. "Maybe they could have" is not evidence that they did.

3. You're mixing announcement timing with internal dev access, TTYD being announced in Aug 2003 tells the public it exists. It does not prove the SS team had:
detailed internal lore docs
drafts of story/world rules
a mandate to align references
or any collaboration with Intelligent Systems at that time

Announcement date is not proof of production coordination. This is just a non sequitur.

4. You're ignoring basic yet major caveats too: different teams, different priorities.
Superstar Saga (AlphaDream) and Paper Mario (Intelligent Systems) are different teams. There is zero reason to assume AlphaDream was getting fed "TTYD lore direction" so they could adjust one tiny block reference in a different franchise.

And the kicker is, ironically: Paper Jam dev Q&A you were trying to attack above explicitly shows how crossover work is a special case that required effort, and they even joke about the "Paper Mario team" because they had to make big Paper Mario scenes and handle his traits properly.
That implies cross-team coordination is not default; its a thing they do when they're literally making a crossover title.

You're claiming, basically, that "Even though they don't normally coordinate, they absolutely coordinated deeply for a minor SS easter egg because TTYD was in dev (ignoring SS's own dev cycle)". That's not how that works. Again, this is special pleading. You're trying to push coordination when you need it, without evidence.

5. You're overselling what the SS nod would even mean, even granting the most generous possibility, a "Paper Mario" ref in SS is still:
a reference for players
a brand nod
a cute lil callback

It is not a confirmation of continuity that main Mario lived the entire Paper Mario timeline including titles past that point, and it sure ain't proof that later paper-world rules and games (the stuff that becomes explicit in the series) were already being canon-merged into the main Mario & Luigi line, doubly so when we have blatant confirmation they're not the same dude anymore even if they were once upon a time.

You're trying to flip "they were aware of Paper Mario" into "shared full history"; that isn't the same claim or fact yet you're acting like it is (and we can't even affirm they were aware of TTYD anyway while creating SS). TTYD announcement timing argument is pure speculation without much o anything to back it, and your dev-time logic backfires because SS also has a dev cycle and tiny references are usually decided and implemented well before release.
Without concrete evidence of cross-team lore-sharing at that time, this is just conjecture of a behind-the-scenes dev to save a weak point that the only evidence that exists for this is evidence against no less.

LuckyEmile said:
Did SPM actually play into the paper-world? I remember it as more based on stuff like MS Paint and didn't really have many paper elements, certainly not to the point of being "paper-world dependent"...

Two problems:

1. This is a dodge that doesn't actually hit the point; even if SPM had zero paper mechanics, it would still be a Paper Mario-series title, with Paper Mario as that series' lead. That doesn't magically turn into "main Mario lived it" by default. You still have to prove what is shared, not assume "shared aspects" means "shared everything".

2. Even on its own terms, you're factually incorrect. SPM is built on a major world-rule gimmick: flipping between 2D and 3D as a core mechanic used for puzzles, hidden paths, and progress, including story progress no less. Nintendo's own yap sells the game on that idea even, like this isn't a niche aspect.

"Guide Mario through a parallel universe by flipping between 2D and 3D worlds..."

Super Paper Mario

Prepare to enter a whole new dimension with Super Paper Mario.

www.nintendo.com

the staff talk about the idea of switching between 2D and 3D as a central concept they used to shape the game.

Interview: Super Paper Mario

We recently sat together with Kensuke Tanabe , producer of Super Paper Mario, and Ryota Kawade , chief director of game design and direction on the title that's taking Mario into a new dimension.

www.nintendo.com

And in-game framing treats the flip as messing with dimensions too:
Bestovius: "flip between dimensions... between 2-D and 3-D... yadda yadda"
Here's the page for it, read it, they got citations.

Flip

Flip is a technique used by Mario in the Paper Mario series. At the push of a button, Mario goes from 2D to 3D, with the camera rotating to show depth. The Flip Meter imposes a limit upon the time Mario can stay in 3D.

www.mariowiki.com

"I remember" is not an argument here. The official descriptions make it clear: the 2D/3D shift is a major world mechanic, used for secrets and progression: it is not a tiny look change.

This attack is aimed at the wrong target, and it misses even then. Shared background beats can exist given that's what you're arguing. That still does not grant main Mario free real estate into later Paper Mario-series plots, and SPM absolutely leans on a 2D/3D world-shift mechanic as a core piece of play and world logic. And whether or not SPM plays with that paper world (it does, but even if it didn't), that doesn't make it free pickings for main Mario because SPM is explicitly part of Paper Mario's setting and timeline, and his timeline is not the exact same as main Mario's.

LuckyEmile said:
To be fair, Sticker Star does play into the paper stuff again, and is certainly the one Paper Jam wants to play into the most, so SPM taking a break doesn't matter much either way. But I guess this makes it interesting that Sticker Star is referenced by MaLu to have it point to a Paper Mario title as a point in Mario history again! Mario from Sticker Star is just seen as one of many examples of Mario specifically. Even more interestingly, this is from Paper Jam itself, meaning the game (the one everyone points to for proof of the two being separate) as a primary source itself is claiming Sticker Star Mario and, say, 3D Land Mario are examples of the same guy. (And the effect being for Paper Mario shouldn't mean much, when, say, a Luigi card has an effect for all three bros and vector art used for mainline Bowser will target Paper enemies). This calls into question how much we can trust the supplementary material for the game when the game itself is fine with Sticker Star being another example of Mario, essentially making these secondary canon claims a contradiction. (From what I recall, everything else in the game signalling the two are separate is mostly just inferred rather than anything blatant).

This whole paragraph is trying to extrapolate and upgrade "a ref exists in a battle item system" into "the plot says this happened in main Mario's past". That is not a valid move. Here is why, step by step:

1. You keep asserting a story claim that you cannot quote.
You claim Paper Jam is "claiming Sticker Star Mario and 3D Land Mario are examples of the same mf"
Ok. Where does Paper Jam say that in story text?
Not in dialog or recap from what I could see.

A Battle Card image is not a sentence. A NFT is not a story statement. If you cannot quote an in-world line like "That happened to me" or "I did that", then you do not have a story claim. You have a ref you are overreading and acting as if it's real proof in the face of the ludicrously overwhelming evidence you admit is against you.

2. What Battle Cards actually are, as seen in Nintendo's own manual, tells you they're battle items used for battle effects (damage/heal/buffs). It does not treat them as "records of Mario's past adventures" or "timeline entries".

https://www.nintendo.com/eu/media/downloads/games_8/emanuals/nintendo_3ds_2/mario___luigi__paper_jam_bros_/ElectronicManual_Nintendo3DS_MarioAndLuigiPaperJamBros_EN.pdf

Found two links for it even.

https://csassets.nintendo.com/noaext/image/private/t_KA_PDF/manual-3DS-mario-and-luigi-paper-jam-en?_a=DATAg1AAZAA0

You're trying to push the fact battle item cameos exist into "its lore past confirmation".
That jump has no proof you've given to even be remotely a thing.

3. Your "Sticker Star proof" is cameo art / asset use, nothing more.
Yes, Paper Jam uses Sticker Star-related imagery on cards. That is a cameo / asset use.
For example, the Royal Sticker appearing on a Battle Card, via Bowser art from Sticker Star.
That's obviously a ref appears on a card, sure but it is not "the story says main Mario lived Sticker Star", let's not even get into the obvious caveat, we'll do that below instead.

4. "But it's in Paper Jam, a primary source!" does not help you. A game contains story AND systems. Battle Cards are a system. Primary source does not mean "every UI element is lore", like this shit ain't Undertale.

You still need an in-world statement tying Sticker Star's events to main Mario and not Paper Mario, who is literally in that game anyway.
You do not have that.

5. Your own examples prove cards are gameplay-first, which makes your lore argument worse.
"a Luigi card has an effect for all three bros"
"mainline Bowser art will target paper enemies"

Yes. Exactly. That's gameplay design. Those examples prove the card system is not a strict identity/timeline validation.

You cannot have it both ways where when it helps you, cards are lore history ("Sticker Star is Mario history"), when it hurts you, cards are "just effects".

The consistent reading isn't complex whatsoever, cards are battle items with battle effects, and their art can reference other games. That's it.

6. "Tilt like stickers" is also just a UI gimmick, not a timeline statement. Shiny cards being tilt-able is a mechanical/visual callback. It does not mean "Sticker Star happened to main Mario".
It as a feature of shiny cards, not as any in-world claim. Just saying this now in case anyone gets any funny ideas, idk why it'd matter but eh, the fact I'm having to argue amiibo cards tells me I shouldn't assume anything.

7 Your "this makes official crossover framing contradictory" claim is backwards as well.
There is no contradiction unless you force one by treating card art as lore. Which they aren't.

The official framing is consistent across:
Nintendo-hosted dev Q&A: devs call it a crossover (in their answers), talk about making Paper Mario work as a main character "fitting for this crossover," mention the Paper Mario team, and explicitly talk about paper characters coming from the paper world.
Official Nintendo press copy: describes the Paper Mario side as a separate "Paper Mario universe" and says you return them to their "original world", numerous times.
Nintendo Dream explicitly labels it a collab with the Paper Mario series (and talks about returning paper characters to their original world in the elaboration), so argument died there, thanks for just ignoring that I suppose.

A Sticker Star cameo on a battle card does not clash with any of that. Crossovers use refs. That is normal. Why wouldn't Paper Jam reference past Mario titles?

8. And even if the card exists... so what? Of course it does. It proves nothing.
Your argument never answers this; why are you acting like a Paper Mario / Sticker Star reference inside a Paper Mario crossover is surprising evidence?

Paper Mario is literally in the game. The entire premise is Mario & Luigi colliding with the Paper Mario side. In a game like that, you would EXPECT:
Paper Mario themed content in the UI
Paper Mario themed collectibles
references to Paper Mario entries (especially the then-recent Sticker Star era the devs confirmed they took from)
art callbacks, icons, and gimmicks, whatever.

A card showing Sticker Star imagery ain't "proof of shared timeline". It is the default expectation for a crossover product. It proves Paper Mario exists as the crossover partner, not that the game secretly collapses both histories into one dude, while literally going out of its way as a major plot point to do the opposite.

And even in the impossible world where you tried to treat the card as "timeline proof" (it isn't), it still wouldn't override the explicit premise framing elsewhere in the same game, dev Q&A openly frames paper characters as coming from the Paper games, official yap frames the Paper Mario universe as a separate dimension with an original world to return to with that world being the Paper Mario games, and also the entire game as a whole.

Your argument is basically amounting to "crossover game contains crossover references, gotta be a shared timeline", despite the very premise saying otherwise.
That is not evidence. That's mistaking non-canon fanservice for canon history while ignoring everything else.

9. "Everything else proving they're separate is mostly inferred" is factually false.
This is not a subtle inference-based case? The devs straight up say paper characters came from the paper world and discusses draft story ideas around that in multiple interviews and yap, things like Dream flatout says it's a crossover with those games explicitly, multiple sources state they're not "just paper", they're the characters from the Paper Mario games. That is explicit.
Official text uses "Paper Mario universe" and "original world" wording. That is explicit framing.

The only thing that is "inferred" here is this attempt to make battle card cameos act as lore they were never meant to be, in the face of the actual lore.

You have ZERO in-context line saying "Sticker Star happened to main Mario", or "hey this event that happened in Sticker Star we did", or something that'd confirm the events transpired.
You are using a battle item system (cards) as if it is a lorebook, let alone as if it says anything at all, despite the manual describing cards as battle items with battle effects, even worse you're deciding that because an AMIIBO happens to have that as a card option.
Like yeah, Paper Mario is a version of Mario, doesn't mean it's the same Mario.
We could use this exact same logic via the exact same method no less, to argue Toon Link is secretly the Hero of Time because a Link amiibo gives both variants in certain games they're usable in, and what about the other usable amiibos?
Like the Toad cards, you have main Toad, but then you also have Fuckleberry or whatever his name is. Was main Toad and him secretely always the same character? Of course not, they're simply topical or related to the amiibo (both "Toad"-related) not whatever it is you're trying to push here. I mean it gets worse when you consider the duo and group cards too but that's besides the point.
Your own examples (party-wide effects, targeting rules) prove the card system is gameplay-first.
Even if Sticker Star refs exist on cards (they do), that is exactly what you would expect in a Paper Mario crossover, and it still does not override explicit dev + official framing that Paper Jam is a crossover with Paper Mario (franchise).
If you want to argue "Sticker Star is main Mario history", quote the actual lore where Paper Jam says that.
Until you can do that though, this is just reading lore into non-canon UI that contradicts your claim anyway because we see a bunch of cards featuring characters not literally the sole entity they are categorized under because you do not have actual substantial proof.

LuckyEmile said:
There was a dev statement provided in point 4, but all it seems to say is it made references.

No, that's just trying to minimize what it actually says because the implication is damning.

The dev interview doesn't just say "we referenced things" in a vague, meaningless way.
It says:
they "referenced all of the Paper Mario series games"
they were influenced most by "Paper Mario: Sticker Star" as the "latest data"
and Nintendo says they kept a rule that the "Paper Mario is silent" (so he doesn't speak because that's part of his character)
That ain't just "lol references". That's very clear "we treated Paper Mario as the Paper Mario series character and followed Paper Mario series constraints", which when coupled with the billion other statements like flat out confirmation it's a crossover and collab with those games in particular, the characters are from THOSE games, the world is those games, and all the other direct statements, I honestly shouldn't have to even argue this. Thinking on it I'm going to propose a discussion rule.

LuckyEmile said:
References to Paper Mario games have been used by both sides of the debate here, so I'm not entirely sure how meaningful that is in the face of how many other games reference Paper Mario in a light supportive of it being part of the main continuity.

You're doing equivocation again: "random easter egg reference" and "dev says we based this crossover on the Paper Mario series rules and data and also it's just them, this is a crossover between those two very much not the same world and games, in fact it's the point of the game" are the same category?
They are not and never will be.

A cameo in a random game is not the same as the crossover devs explicitly saying, well, you know what they've said.
Those statements exist because Paper Jam is literally about integrating Paper Mario as a main character who has his own setting and world. Of course that matters more.

And "in the face of"? You're arguing in the face of an entire game that's built around the very premise that invalidates this whole thread.
You could have a million lil "references", and it still wouldn't be enough, ignoring the quantity of such nods isn't actually that many in the grand scheme of things, and the majority are either:
1. Completely unrelated to world building or evidence of canonicity.
2. Came before the explicit split.

Be real here, it's not me who's arguing some niche thing, it's you who's arguing against both explicit intent and premise and a billion lil inferences given you mentioned that right above that the game also includes indirect implications furthering the distinction.

LuckyEmile said:
All the other sources claiming this is a crossover are from stuff like websites and marketting: usable, but not a priority over the game.

This is a false hierarchy to protect a losing position. The Nintendo-hosted dev Q&A is not "random marketing slop". It's a published Nintendo feature with named staff, and the dev answers explicitly say everything you can't have be true for this entire argument to even hold a bit of water.

Dev intent + premise, on Nintendo's site, you're acting like it's Nintendo Power, ironic given past threads, though unlike them, these sources are actually from authoritive players in the game process, not editorial, and it's not just them
Official manuals and official press are not "low priority" either btw. They are part of the product documentation and official framing of what the product is. If you want to claim the "game contradicts them", you need an actual in-game line doing that, one that actually matters. What you have is you reading lore into battle cards or things from decades prior, while ignoring the billion facets that make your read unjustifiable.

Also priority over the game? That's honestly the biggest issue with this thread, the very fact to even make this argument you have to ignore an entire game.
Everything in the game aligns directly with the dev confirmations too, it'd be one thing if there was some sort of blatant contradiction in the game that shows the consistent statements from authoritative sources are invalid, but it just shows what they already say.
Everything in the game exists to show Paper Mario, who is confirmed, well, PAPER MARIO, to be a different character, from a different world, and that applies to all paper characters.
You even just admitted that the game has numerous inferences and implications separating them even further, not like they're needed but the fact you just conceded there's a bunch doesn't help your stance, it's just the final nail in the coffin.

LuckyEmile said:
I can see how this is quite disingenuous to say in the face of sheer amount of these statements, it's clearly not a one-off here and consistent across languages, to just handwave something that ubiquitous (and the effort put into collecting them all on your part is worthy of the praise it deserves) isn't something I can quite get away with here.

Right, cool. This is admitting the body of evidence is overwhelming, then trying to get out of it anyway.

If you already know you "can't get away with" handwaving it, then stop doing it.
Do you really not respect my time that much? That you're just arguing to argue even knowing you can't get away with it and it's disingenuous per you own words?
Because the next sentence is literally you going back to handwaving, just with softer wording.

This isn't honest skepticism. It's stalling, like I straight up said I'm busy, why are you arguing something you know is disingenuous? If you don't have any actual proof, don't act like you do.

LuckyEmile said:
However, it's at least worth pointing out these descriptions, and the game treating it as a part of Mario's history do sort of clash

No, they don't "clash". You are calling it a clash by mislabeling UI references as "this specific Mario's exclusive history in-universe".
Your entire "the game treats Sticker Star as Mario history" claim is based on Battle Cards / card art / card effects, while ironically ignoring the hundreds of statements and showings within the same game that show and state the opposite, and then ignoring how that very UI and game mechanic disproves your claim it's lore inference anyway by mixing characters constantly.
The only "clash" is the official statements and game say "crossover / paper world" vs. you insisting "card cameo = story canon history".
That's not a clash in sources. That's misreading the category of evidence, and then just ignoring the game as a whole.

LuckyEmile said:
(though understandably, it can be hard to just say "this is a crossover" in-universe without being immersion breaking, so I get it's easier to establish that outside the product itself).

This is another escape hatch, come on now.

Ok so 1. The dev Q&A, descriptions of the game, even official Nintendo magazines and the dev staff themselves literally uses in-universe framing: "paper characters coming all the way from the paper world". That's story framing, not just "marketing", like this shit is ON the back of the box even.

2. You don't need characters to say the literal word "crossover" in dialogue for the premise to be explicit.
A legendary book world spills out, you return them home, and you have two Bowsers as you team up with the titular Paper Mario. That's the premise. It's not "immersion breaking" to be explicit about it; it's literally the story. The fact the devs and official text clarifies it's a direct crossover collab with the Paper Mario game world and characters is besides the point, it'd be obvious even if we didn't get multiple direct confirmations.

I'm noticing a pattern here:
You admit the crossover framing is ubiquitous and you "can't get away with" dismissing it.
Then you try anyway by calling official/dev material "marketing" and elevating loreless battle-card cameos to critical lore information with zero evidence backing it while handwaving the contradictions to it.
When knowing it'd be challenged, you pre-emptively retreat to "it sort of clashes" and "immersion breaking" instead of producing an actual in-story/game/authoritative explicit proof with actual weight to it.

If you know the evidence is consistent across languages and you can't honestly handwave it, stop arguing it, respect everyone's time, and stop pretending a card cameo is stronger than dev intent + official premise framing.

Anyway I'm done ~~because im deadass tired~~, you didn't give any actual proof or confirmation to the claim being pushed, honestly I'm a bit baffled you even replied given you concluded you're being disingenuous and you even cut out key parts of the articles, which I'm willing to handwave this time but don't do that again dude.

Lou_change said:
Counterpoint the Yoshi and Toad cards feature members of the species that aren't the main one despite in at least Toad's case all Amiibo are for toad the character.

Also yeah this ig, Blue Toad and Yellow Toad and Captain Toad and the regular Toad are all established distinct characters.

SuperMarioGamers3 · Mar 21, 2026

Ah... the Classic Chariot Gish Gallop. Welp, let's do this. Good thing I have this to keep me sane.

Chariot190 said:
Official + dev wording consistently presents Paper Jam as Mario & Luigi world collides with the Paper Mario universe/series, and Paper Mario (the franchise dude) comes over with that cast and then gets sent back to that original world. They very clearly state it is a direct crossover with THOSE games, and even have an entire interview with wanting to keep them consistent to THOSE games even down to character quirks. There's no world you get to argue Paper Mario in the Paper Mario crossover isn't actual Paper Mario.
Even if you could argue it, that doesn't make the argument right, you can argue anything if you try hard enough, this won't change what the intent is behind this game, and unfortunate as it might be, it's an intent that goes directly against your OP.

...that's some nice irony considering how you argued in the last CRT I posted, but whatever. Anyhow, my interpretations actually does keep these elements in mind. Unlike your argument, I like to consider everything surrounding what we see. I'm going cut through all of this and say that I do think that this mysterious book holds the Paper Mario world and the various events that it contained all the way up to Sticker Star.

But hey, Chariot, if you care about author intent so badly, here's Miyamoto after Paper Jam saying that it's always the same Mario. And you cannot escape this with cope, Miyamoto was actively involved in every Paper Mario title, including Sticker Star AND Paper Jam.

Here's another neat dev statement:
"Mario and Paper Mario, Princess Peach and Paper Princess Peach…It was fun to create interactions between different versions of the same character who come from different worlds like these examples. For this game, we created themes for each of the interactions between the main characters. We emphasized the characters’ personalities for each of the character interactions, such as Mario being curious about Paper Mario’s special abilities and trying to see if he can use them himself (even though both Mario and Paper Mario are the heroes of their respective worlds), the two Princess Peaches talking about girl stuff, the Bowser Jrs. getting along immediately like old friends, etc."

Here's Risa Tibata when developing Color Splash, another Post-Paper Jam title and the successor to Sticker Star;
Tabata: "...But I think one thing is that because this is taking place within the greater Mario world, we wanted to focus as much as possible on the familiar Mario characters. All Toads, right? It's just a bunch of Toads. So, we had to think, if it's all Toads, how do we make them distinct and give them personality? So, one thing we thought, so, the basic Toad is red, and if they have something different about them, we'll change the color. And of course, a lot of the personality comes out in text. And so, you can also use the fact that they all look alike as the basis for jokes. So, one thing we're going to focus on, because we have all those limits, obviously, we're using all these familiar characters, is: How do we create variety, and how do we create interest?"

Here's the thing as well; Intelligent Systems (the Paper Mario developers) didn't do much with this game, because they never helped develop it. Paper Jam was made by AlphaDream, Switch Entertainment Inc., Digital Works Entertainment, Will Co., Ltd. Sound Racer Ltd. Do any these sounds familiar to those who research Sticker Star? They wouldn't be- because Sticker Star wasn't developed by ANY of them, either. Sticker Star was made by Intelligent Systems , Vanpool, and Nintendo SPD Group No.3.

Edit: I was wrong on Intelligent Systems never helping with the game lol- however, it's goog to note that they only get a "Special Thanks" rather than being called the Supervisors for the game.

And yet, someone who supervised both developments, Miyamoto-san, was still more than happy to claim that it was all the same Mario, in spite of everything he knew about the series up until that point.

Even Peach and Paper Peach come to the conclusion that are the same person, they even bringing up playing the sports games.

Same characters, different worlds, all parallel. No contradictions to see here.

Chariot190 said:
At best, a block labeled "Paper Mario" tells you the devs are referencing the Paper Mario brand/game for the player. It doesn't automatically mean "main Mario literally lived the full plot of Paper Mario 64", at least, not anymore.

Let me make this easy for you;

Superstar DX: "Blocks of Nostalgia: Blocks Featured In Past Adventures".

Each and every block references a direct ADVENTURE Mario was apart of. One for Super Mario Bros, Super Mario World, and Super Mario 64.

And the, the block from "Paper Mario". And interestingly enough, the Japanese Version doesn't say it's from "Paper Mario". It says it's from the "Mario's Story", which was the JAPANESE title of the game. This was insisted upon three times, before and after the release of Paper Jam, without any differences between the two. This is blatantly not referring to a vague idea of a franchise- do not act like it is.

Chariot190 said:
And even worse: you talk like SS could "continue to factor it in" after release.
No. Once SS is out, the nod is done. The contents are frozen, needless to say, patches or quick fixes did not exist back then. Nothing about SS can be updated to reflect what TTYD ends up actually being, nor should they care.

And also, using the "it's a faithful remake argument" is also not gonna work, chief. Alphadream made some choice decisions, such as removing psycho Kamek and replacing him with Dr. Toadly, to which Dr. Toadly never had a modern model to work off of. This game was a from-the-ground-up asset remake of the game, to which they ample opportunity to clarify and remove the one Block of Nostalgia that seemingly contradicts the last the game they developed. And you cannot also say "oh! they just don't know/care about Paper Jam!" They outright reference it by having the battle cards inside the suitcase. This shows us, quite frankly, that they didn't see a contradiction with Mario having a Paper Adventure.

Chariot190 said:
Official Nintendo descriptions does NOT present "our Mario used to be paper". It presents that a book opens, characters from the "Paper Mario universe" spill out, and you send them back to their own "original world". That is a 2-world setup by default. What you need to be true is never once stated or confirmed anywhere in a single piece of media, it's something you have to stitch together from disconnected bits.

Official Nintendo Descriptions described Paper Mario TTYD as Mario "returning to paper form"- a game Nintendo knew existed before Superstar Saga even released.

Chariot190 said:
That's not "considering every facet". That's mixing weak unrelated bits to manufacture doubt against a clear premise. We call this the patchwork fallacy. You're piling up disconnected points so the conclusion feels supported by volume, even though none of the points actually bridge the gap or support the specific goal you have in mind.

Wow, me having a direct bulletin bill sign that screams "MARIO'S PAST ADVENTURES: PAPER MARIO!" with a direct line noting that it's the exact Paper Adventure, alongside actual direct mentions to other Mario games is "unrelated"?

Chariot190 said:
B. cosmetics / art gags (Odyssey outfits, to a game we KNOW he experienced no less, and just stuff that doesn't even connect here)

Yeah, I'm yet again going to cut this off by noting that you have no idea what my point was with these references. An issue that was brought to me was that Mario cannot be Paper Mario in part due to the fact Paper Mario is made of Paper. My point, was to show that this isn't a contradiction. Mario CAN be Paper, he can take on a paper form. I SHOWED this by noting all of the various times Mario can change his core physiology- such as him noted to be 8-bit or 64 polygonal. I also showed how, in the Paper Mario series, Paper Mario does the same thing with the 8-bit designs. BOTH of them share DIRECT adventures, with nothing in the universe stating that there is a difference between the two, Goombario says that Mario experienced the original Super Mario Bros. not just some slop adventure, SUPER MARIO BROS. We then get another blatant piece of evidence; Super Mario Bros. 3.

Chariot190 said:
And you yourself just admitted to why this CRT is faulty: you admit you're not arguing from text, you're arguing from an "interpretation" you stitched together regardless of the obvious intent.

Holy shize, this is actually disingenuous. You are ACTIVELY picking out my wording to justify me supposedly conceding my point.

Chariot190 said:
1. It shouldn't BE an interpretation.
When the game premise and official yap are direct (Paper Mario universe/setting/characters), you dont need a fan-theory "interpretation". There's nothing to interpret, we know for a fact that's who they're supposed to be, and it's made explicitly clear they DO NOT share the same world so your "past selves" argument doesn't fly here.

Do you understand, Chariot, that people can have correct and incorrect interpretations? An interpretation, is simply "To present or conceptualize the meaning of by means of art or criticism." which we are BOTH attempting to do. They can be well-founded, or completely off the mark.

Chariot190 said:
2. The hoop-jumping is a big red flag too. Your whole structure is accept the crossover language (because you must, you can't deny that ong), then use unrelated bits to force "main Mario also lived the Paper Mario series"

I have shown NOTHING unrelated or disconnected from my point, the the fact you're twisting my words shows how much you don't understand my point. I show, BLATANTLY, that a Post-Paper Jam game presents the fact that Mario experienced not just a "version" of the Paper Mario adventure, but a PAPER VERSION of said adventure, ABSOLUTELY suggesting that Mario experienced the original Paper Mario to a T. The fact that it's INSISTED upon not just once, but TWICE in the remake, and then a THIRD time when they re-released the game on NSO shows us that the original Mario did experience it.

No matter what you say, this evidence exists, and you're going to have to deal with that. Simple hand-waving will not work. In my argument, everything exists. In yours it doesn't.

Chariot190 said:
4. The "parallel universe where he happens to be paper" line is self-contradicting. You admitted Paper Jam is "a parallel Mario where he happens to be paper", but you also insist main Mario lived the Paper Mario plots. So which is it? Are Paper Mario plots in main Mario's past, or are they in the parallel paper Mario's past?

A Paper Mario from the past IS a parallel version of Mario. The mysterious book chronicles Mario's various adventures across the Paper Mario universe, that fact is obvious. But as we see from the Paper Mario games, it's clear that Paper Mario experienced not just vague adventures adjacent TO Mario, but direct and clear showings that he experienced, without anything to say otherwise, the exact same adventure. We can see within multiple Mario games that make direct mention of Originally Paper Mario exclusive elements, such as the Star Road, Bowser's Castle (Super Circuit), Goomboss (SM64DS), Star Spirits (Mario Party 5), etc.

Actually, the reason I presented the Shogakukan Guide was to present how we can reconcile this being a crossover between the two worlds, on top of this being a past version of Mario. Look. Two distinct Mario's, two different physiologies, and yet, we know intuitively that they are the same character. Get the point, here? You are asking for something definitive when the entire point is; I don't need to.

Chariot190 said:
Found two links for it even.
https://csassets.nintendo.com/noaex...-mario-and-luigi-paper-jam-en?_a=DATAg1AAZAA0
You're trying to push the fact battle item cameos exist into "its lore past confirmation".
That jump has no proof you've given to even be remotely a thing.

Here's what it says about the plot:
"Mario & Luigi™: Paper Jam Bros. is an action RPG in which Mario and Luigi join forces with Mario's paper alter ego. When the paper Princess Peach and her two- dimensional subjects fall out of a mysterious book, it's up to you to get them back safely to their own world!"

Paper Mario is called an "alter ego" in this. So, what, it sounds like is that the difference between Mario and Paper Mario is about the same as Clark Kent and Superman (if Superman was made outta Paper, lol). Not only this, but they're called 2-D, when every game besides Super Paper Mario flies in the face of that, including Sticker Star, Color Splash (which literally HAS one where they go into 3D), and TOK. But, you could dismiss the 2D statement as simply being a "they're paper lmao" reference.

Chariot190 said:
I'm not humoring that.

And I should humor YOU simply choosing to ignore my points? At least I'm considering it; you just don't give a shize.

When it comes to Paper Mario 64, The Thousand Year Door, and Super Paper Mario, all three were treated not as a separate entity from Mario when they came out, but shown to be treated as if it simply WAS Mario. Before Paper Jam, all of this connected and was ok.

So, when Paper Jam comes along and supposedly "retcons everything", and then is, by your reasoning, completely flipped on it's head the moment Superstar Saga reinforces on this concept that Mario experienced a literal Paper Adventure, on top of even Paper Jam even suggesting that's the same character, just a Paper parallel (hence, it's the Paper Mario Universe/Series).

So, can EVERY facet of evidence, combined with how Paper Mario and Mario and treated post-Paper Jam, without ignoring any element, lead to a non-contradictory conclusion?

Yes.

And until you can provably demonstrate that every facet of evidence cannot exist alongside each other, that is truly impossible for these two to exist, my arguments hold more ground.

SuperMarioGamers3 · Mar 21, 2026

Also, a member who wishes to remain anonymous sent this:

Yes, sources call it a crossover between the Mario & Luigi and Paper Mario sub-series, nobody's disputing that. But using franchise branding in promotional copy/marketing stuff/Interviews that aren't forced to use a specific wording of your liking doesn't tell you what kind of crossover it is or whether the characters involved are literally the same exact entities from those games. That's not how crossover marketing works anywhere.Look at real examples from 1000 others (If I wanted I would have included them but unlike certain peeps I don't want to overdose my message with unnecessary stuff): "Terry from Fatal Fury will show he's bark, bite, and rising fang when he scores a slam dunk in Street Fighter 6 on September 24!", "Sonic the Hedgehog joins The Battle Cats for a limited-time collab event.", "Fortnite will be teaming up with Resident Evil Requiem for a major crossover event.", "One-Punch Man's protagonist Saitama arrives in MapleStory". Every single one of these uses the similar "character from Universe X appears in Universe Y" framing, not "a X character", "a OC version" (Wanting this specific wording is odd tbh). Nobody seriously argues these are canonical crossovers featuring the literal versions of those characters. They're representations, thematic stand ins. The wording is a marketing convention and not obligatory a lore declaration. Demanding that Paper Jam's framing be read differently requires special pleading.

Smash Bros is actually the clearest example of this. Sakurai consistently and deeply talks about characters in terms of their home series, their history, their games, and yet by the actual game's own framing, every fighter is explicitly just a representation of that character, not the actual canonical entity pulled from their home universe. The promotional language and the canonical reality are just two different things operating simultaneously.Then there's the development history, which is genuinely damning for the "it's definitely that Paper Mario" reading. Paper Mario wasn't even the intended third character from the start, AlphaDream's concept was simply to add a third Mario-type character for gameplay variety, and Paper Mario was selected largely because his flat paper gimmick offered the most mechanical possibilities.It tells us that's a gameplay decision and nothing to do with a lore. If this were truly meant as a direct canonical visit from the Paper Mario series, you'd expect some acknowledgment of that continuity and sufficient references to past Paper Mario events and related things. There's nothing. AlphaDream didn't put it there because the connection to the Paper Mario series was a branding convenience, not a storytelling commitment. Intelligent Systems, who actually made the Paper Mario series, consistently treat Mario and Paper Mario as the same character rather than separate beings across dimensions, based on various evidences. Note, that Super Circuit was developed my Intelligent Systems as well. Their silence on Paper Jam being something to the PM timeline speaks volumes.

And the broader concept of alt-version crossovers who were actually past variants is well established across fiction anyway. In Gumball Multiverse Mayhem, the alternate Gumballs pulled from other dimensions are literally just forms and outfits Gumball wore in past episodes. Teen Titans Go vs. Teen Titans does the same thing, when the titans summoned their alt versions across the infinite earths, many of them are forms the titans also took in many episodes. (These also help). A crossover featuring an alternate or representative version of a character is completely normal and doesn't require treating that version as a fully independent canonical entity just because marketing copy names their franchise of origin.

Also, The Dr. Mario manga's adaptation of Super Paper Mario actually provides a clean parallel to this exact situation. In it, multiple versions of Peach from across dimensions are pulled into the same space simultaneously, Paper Peach, NES Peach, mainline Peach, Super Princess Peach, Dr. Peach, and several others who closely resemble the mainline version. Crucially, the variants aren't treated as genuinely separate beings in reality (legit nothing wouldn't have happened without the OG SMB). This is directly relevant because it establishes a precedent within Mario's own extended media for exactly the framework being dismissed here: alternate or dimensional versions of a character can simply be representations of that character across different adventures, not hard proof of separate canonical entities.

(Apologies for all of the constant edits);

Speaking of the manga, Super Mario-Kun, the longest-running and most prominent Mario manga in Japan, treats mainline Mario and Paper Mario as the same character, dedicating arcs to Mario experiencing the Paper Mario games directly, including entries that came out after Paper Jam like Origami King. What's particularly interesting is that it treats Paper Jam's Paper Mario as a distinct Paper Mario rather than the same one from those adventures, which at minimum shows that even within Mario's own extended Japanese media, the instinct was to separate Paper Jam's version from the Paper Mario series incarnation rather than conflate them. (Again, this is a separate continuity- so it carries limited-weight on its own, but as a reflection of how Nintendo-adjacent creators naturally read the material, it's a fun data point worth noting and not a hard argument, so I hope no one acts like I'm using it as such and antagonizes me for doing it).

BONUS NOTE:

A Mario Game that was deemed non-canon, yet uses the exact same crossover language was Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle.

"Two worlds collide in Mario + Rabbids® Kingdom Battle!"
"This is the story of an unexpected encounter between Mario and the irreverent Rabbids. To bring order back to a splintered Mushroom Kingdom, Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, and Yoshi team up with Rabbids heroes in a journey through four different worlds."
"We decided since the beginning to break the rules. First of all with the Rabbids, but then we spent night and day brainstorming on how to find something unique, how to merge those two worlds that seem separate together, in order to find something to use for both Mario and the Rabbids. As we are tactical fans, we said why not try to bring something completely new in the world of turn based combat, but at the same time we wanted to stay true to the Mario universe with exploration, the adventure, being able to immerse yourself in a colorful world with puzzles, mysteries, and fun new characters who could help along the way."

SuperMarioGamers3 · Mar 23, 2026

Gonna bump de thread!

Lou_change · Mar 24, 2026

SuperMarioGamers3 said:
But hey, Chariot, if you care about author intent so badly, here's Miyamoto after Paper Jam saying that it's always the same Mario. And you cannot escape this with cope, Miyamoto was actively involved in every Paper Mario title, including Sticker Star AND Paper Jam.

We don't use that for several other reasons (all the other stuff we don't consider main Mario) also I feel as it there might be an exception he didn't feel the need to call out specifically for the two Mario's we literally see on screen together.

Chariot190 · Mar 24, 2026

I thought I replied. Ig ill reply in a bit.

SuperMarioGamers3 · Mar 27, 2026

SuperMarioGamers3 said:
Gonna bump de thread!

Bumping this again, lol

SuperMarioGamers3 · Mar 30, 2026

Mario do-a da bumpa thingy

SuperMarioGamers3 · Apr 14, 2026

SuperMarioGamers3 said:
And yet, someone who supervised both developments, Miyamoto-san, was still more than happy to claim that it was all the same Mario, in spite of everything he knew about the series up until that point.

There's an element of this I do want to cover, and that is, that the Official Nintendo Website's Mario Portal (Japan), pre/post Paper Jam, still insist on mixing Mario and Paper Mario together, simply using "Mario". This comes from the "Mario's History" section.

PRE PAPER JAM:

Paper Mario 64:

"Completely unaware of the trouble in far-off Star Haven, Mario was back home in the Mushroom Kingdom, eagerly reading a letter from Princess Peach. It was an invitation to a party at the castle! With much anticipation, he and his brother Luigi set off for the party, oblivious to the chaos that lay ahead...".

Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door:

"So Mario headed for Rogueport, where he knew Peach was waiting... but she was nowhere to be found. Where had she gone?
When Mario started to walk around town to look for her, though, he found himself in the middle of a sticky situation. He ended up helping a sweet Goomba gal who was in trouble. Her name was Goombella, and she claimed to be in the midst of a treasure hunt...".

Super Paper Mario:

"Peach has been kidnapped yet again! Mario and Luigi rush to Bowser's Castle when they hear the news, but Bowser doesn't seem to know anything about it."

Paper Mario Sticker Star:

"Mario, who is paper-thin, along with Kersti from the Sticker Star, set off on an adventure together to find the precious Royal Stickers."

I want to focus on this one, since many believe that this is where Mario & Paper Mario become distinct pre-Paper Jam. This does not say "another version of Mario", not "this Mario is paper-thin", it says plainy; "Mario, who is Paper-Thin".

Let's see the raw Japanese here (This isn't the "History" page, it's the Official Sticker Star Website):

「キノコ王国の年に一度のお祭り、「シールフェスタ」の夜。クッパのイタズラで、願いをかなえる特別なシール「ロイヤルシール」が世界中に散らばってしまいました。紙のようにペラペラなマリオと、シール星からやってきた「ルーシー」は大切なシールを探すため、大冒険へと旅立ちます。」

POST PAPER JAM:

Paper Mario Color Splash:

"Mario and his friends head for Prism Island to figure out what happened."

Paper Mario The Origami King:

"Mario travels the world with Olivia, the sister of King Olly, and sometimes with the floppy Koopa Troop, to reach Peach Castle to stop the Origami King's ambitions."

None of these, I remind you all, NEVER try to make the core distinction that this ISN'T Mario, or that Mario never experiences the Paper titles. Quite literally the opposite.

Including all the caveats I already addressed, I find it very clear that the arguments I presented are the most consistent and rational interpretations of the Paper Mario and Mario debacle.

Lou_change · Apr 14, 2026

SuperMarioGamers3 said:
There's an element of this I do want to cover, and that is, that the Official Nintendo Website's Mario Portal (Japan), pre/post Paper Jam, still insist on mixing Mario and Paper Mario together, simply using "Mario". This comes from the "Mario's History" section.

This also includes the Olympic Games. It would be like clarifying a comic about Batman was specifically pre crisis batman and they don't really do that.

SuperMarioGamers3 · Apr 14, 2026

Valid point.

Lou_change said:
This also includes the Olympic Games.

It's the crossover language- although I'm not particularly opposed (nor would it pose any issues) to having it be interesting the same vein as Mario Sports Mix, Super Mario RPG, Mario Kart 8, or games of a similar vein where it's just a version of the Sonic world that exists in Mario, and a version of the Mario world that exists in Sonic.

I did want to emphasize how Sticker Star's language is very specific to note that it's Mario who happens to be paper, and not some separate version of Mario (they don't say "Paper Mario", just, y'know, Mario).

Lou_change said:
It would be like clarifying a comic about Batman was specifically pre crisis batman and they don't really do that.

With things like that, generally there's a title screen that goes: "PRE-CRISIS: BATMAN"! (Like in the Comic Title) Or other lore mentions engrained across the series that denote that particular version of the Caped Crusader. I'd say characters like Superman and crew are much more different than Mario and how he operates.

Hypertornado099 · Apr 15, 2026

SuperMarioGamers3 said:
There's an element of this I do want to cover, and that is, that the Official Nintendo Website's Mario Portal (Japan), pre/post Paper Jam, still insist on mixing Mario and Paper Mario together, simply using "Mario". This comes from the "Mario's History" section.

PRE PAPER JAM:

Paper Mario 64:

"Completely unaware of the trouble in far-off Star Haven, Mario was back home in the Mushroom Kingdom, eagerly reading a letter from Princess Peach. It was an invitation to a party at the castle! With much anticipation, he and his brother Luigi set off for the party, oblivious to the chaos that lay ahead...".

Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door:

"So Mario headed for Rogueport, where he knew Peach was waiting... but she was nowhere to be found. Where had she gone?
When Mario started to walk around town to look for her, though, he found himself in the middle of a sticky situation. He ended up helping a sweet Goomba gal who was in trouble. Her name was Goombella, and she claimed to be in the midst of a treasure hunt...".

Super Paper Mario:

"Peach has been kidnapped yet again! Mario and Luigi rush to Bowser's Castle when they hear the news, but Bowser doesn't seem to know anything about it."

Paper Mario Sticker Star:

"Mario, who is paper-thin, along with Kersti from the Sticker Star, set off on an adventure together to find the precious Royal Stickers."

I want to focus on this one, since many believe that this is where Mario & Paper Mario become distinct pre-Paper Jam. This does not say "another version of Mario", not "this Mario is paper-thin", it says plainy; "Mario, who is Paper-Thin".

Let's see the raw Japanese here (This isn't the "History" page, it's the Official Sticker Star Website):

「キノコ王国の年に一度のお祭り、「シールフェスタ」の夜。クッパのイタズラで、願いをかなえる特別なシール「ロイヤルシール」が世界中に散らばってしまいました。紙のようにペラペラなマリオと、シール星からやってきた「ルーシー」は大切なシールを探すため、大冒険へと旅立ちます。」

POST PAPER JAM:

Paper Mario Color Splash:

"Mario and his friends head for Prism Island to figure out what happened."

Paper Mario The Origami King:

"Mario travels the world with Olivia, the sister of King Olly, and sometimes with the floppy Koopa Troop, to reach Peach Castle to stop the Origami King's ambitions."

None of these, I remind you all, NEVER try to make the core distinction that this ISN'T Mario, or that Mario never experiences the Paper titles. Quite literally the opposite.

Including all the caveats I already addressed, I find it very clear that the arguments I presented are the most consistent and rational interpretations of the Paper Mario and Mario debacle.

This website was not made to explain the canon or continuity of Mario. It was made to advertise their games lol. Nintendo doesn't even have a consistent idea of what the "Super Mario" series is. This page was made by an anonymous website/marketing manager, they clearly do not care about canon The English website has a completely different list, which adds credence to what I said (the Olympics games being mentioned proves that too)

There is a similar list in one of the guidebooks that people use to prove Paper Mario = Mario, and it includes Smash Bros. If Nintendo had an official "History of Mario" list that was supposed to confirm the "canon" timeline, it wouldn't be this inconsistent

SuperMarioGamers3 · Apr 15, 2026

Hypertornado099 said:
This website was not made to explain the canon or continuity of Mario. It was made to advertise their games lol. Nintendo doesn't even have a consistent idea of what the "Super Mario" series is. This page was made by an anonymous website/marketing manager, they clearly do not care about canon The English website has a completely different list, which adds credence to what I said (the Olympics games being mentioned proves that too)

Hyper, do you know where these descriptions of these games come from? They come from the Official Japanese websites of each of their respective games. This website I linked simply compiled all of them- they even link them in each of the games I specifically linked.

And the website you linked actually does the exact same thing (either quoting the website or instruction booklet) the only difference is that it's detailing every single mainline Mario platformer instead of going over each game in the entire Mario series.

Thunderman101 · Apr 15, 2026

SuperMarioGamers3 said:
Hyper, do you know where these descriptions of these games come from? They come from the Official Japanese websites of each of their respective games. This website I linked simply compiled all of them- they even link them in each of the games I specifically linked.

sata andagi

Onara · May 2, 2026

Ultra and especially LuckyEmile's points are very well illustrated. As someone who has played nearly every Mario & Luigi and Paper Mario game (Superstar Saga GBA, the TTYD remake, and Brothership are the exceptions, and I've only watched a longplay of Color Splash) I implore staff to give their arguments a fair trial.

Edit: Also, I forgot to mention, but I think Ami's points are honestly the best and most concise.

CitRusReality64 · May 3, 2026

Onara said:
Ultra and LuckyEmile's points are very well illustrated. As someone who has played nearly every Mario & Luigi and Paper Mario game (Superstar Saga GBA, the TTYD remake, and Brothership are the exceptions, and I've only watched a longplay of Color Splash) I implore staff to give their arguments a fair trial.

that pfp looks familiar...

Onara · May 3, 2026

CitRusReality64 said:
that pfp looks familiar...

I don't know why my VSBW username is this, it's a really old account that I've been sleeping on until now.

Paper Mario Mixing and Making (Another Mario Profile Revision)

JPTheGamer

JTGamer96

Lou_change

LuckyEmile

Miiting highlights about Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam

Lou_change

Chariot190

Day 132 of working on MGS

Super Paper Mario

Interview: Super Paper Mario

Flip

SuperMarioGamers3

SuperMarioGamers3

SuperMarioGamers3

Lou_change

Chariot190

Day 132 of working on MGS

SuperMarioGamers3

SuperMarioGamers3

SuperMarioGamers3

Lou_change

SuperMarioGamers3

Hypertornado099

SuperMarioGamers3

Thunderman101

Onara

CitRusReality64

Onara

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page