Adding 3 More Feats to Mario

[Foxthefox1000]

No. SPM having "save the universe again" is vague as hell. 64, the very game argued last thread could have been what it was talking about for all we know since that also had universal peril. Not only can you call it flowery language but you can also have it mean literally any other game that came before it.

And again, the mentions of "world" in TTYD clearly relate to the planet. TEC asks Peach why she likes the world and it's inhabitants. Galaxy didn't come out yet so clearly this must've meant the planet as well. Saying, "it meant the Paper Mario series" both isn't supported and is your own headcanon and would be treating the Paper Mario series as separate from the "main" mario's adventures, stuff you were against in the past.

 

[DragonLord]

And Mario isn't TLoZ, so that isn't my problem, because the encyclopedia has mistakes, this doesn't.

It is not just because of any mistakes, hell the Zelda Awakening guide is used and that has Mistakes, the Hyrule Historia has plenty of mistakes and timeline that contradicts several plot points, the note itself on the page gives the real reasoning

As a rule, we consider unsupported additions or retcons to the lore written in the Hyrule Encyclopedia as unreliable due to that in the staff page of the book, the authors themselves admit to taking creative liberties with the lore that wasn't taken directly from the games or other developmental materials.

It is not about any mistakes, it is about the source itself having ambiguity on how much input they had on any statement in the book, this Magazine itself clarifies a similar problem that not everything is directly linked to Nintendo, therefore not everything ether book says is assumed to be correct without evidence to support the claim

unless there is a significant difference, I do not see how these cases would be any different, unless the Mods agree to overturn the rules on Zelda too

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I’m not buying Uni Crystal Stars either tbh

 

[DaReaperMan]

Neither am I

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Also, saving the universe is very vague in itself, it does not always mean they would destroy it or significantly alter it in a way which would give 3-A.

In the game, it says the Grodus wants to conquer the world, and all it says that if the shadow queen that she engulfed the world in her foul magic, which would not be enough for 3-A

Note, this is ignoring the fact that "world" in TTYD clearly means Planet, and not universe, but even if it WAS, it still would not be 3-A

 

[Foxthefox1000]

To be fair, there IS a statement by Grodus and somewhere else that the world would be destroyed. In Grodus' case he even specifies creating a new world after, clearly inferring physical destruction would take place in order to create a new world.

But yeah, it's only referring to the planet.

 

[Lou_change]

I am against Shadow queen's feat being 3-A or even usable.

I guess Mario party 5's feat is a little iffy but I think it is good I already made an ignored argument for it.

Olly's feat also seems good.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

However, should those MP5 translations check out and they say exactly what they say in your post, then there should still be 2 feats that are Tier 2 here and are still enough to change the "possibly" into a definite tier IMO.

We don't need all 3

 

[DragonLord]

You know something I just realized… why is supernova itself being used as evidence Shadow Queen is comparable to the Crystal Stars?, Supernova uses only 1, not all 7

 

[DragonLord]

However, should those MP5 translations check out and they say exactly what they say in your post, then there should still be 2 feats that are Tier 2 here and are still enough to change the "possibly" into a definite tier IMO.

We don't need all 3

Just a note, Looking at the Japanese word for Destroy, it seems to be connected to “Ruin” or “Spoil” as well depending on the kanji

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Yeah I noticed that too, which is why I ask for more input on them.

 

[Lou_change]

Even if bowser is just corrupting the dreams that would be corrupting the whole dream would if affecting the dream's timeline should still be low 2-C given this corruption is compared to destroying the original dream but if this is thru magic it is questionable if anyone scales also it seems koopa kid is capable of doing this.

 

[DatOneWeeb]

It is not just because of any mistakes, hell the Zelda Awakening guide is used and that has Mistakes, the Hyrule Historia has plenty of mistakes and timeline that contradicts several plot points, the note itself on the page gives the real reasoning

Wow, that's awesome, now can you prove those mistakes can also be found here? No? Then this shouldn't be an argument.

It is not about any mistakes, it is about the source itself having ambiguity on how much input they had on any statement in the book, this Magazine itself clarifies a similar problem that not everything is directly linked to Nintendo, therefore not everything ether book says is assumed to be correct without evidence to support the claim

Except they literally said their information comes from Nintendo. If we're going to nitpick the "correct to our knowledge" section, then that means that they would have to make up something. So if that were the case, point to me what they had to use guesswork on. You claim not everything is assumed to be correct, but it's the complete opposite. You are the one who needs to find contradictions in what they claim.

Also, saving the universe is very vague in itself, it does not always mean they would destroy it or significantly alter it in a way which would give 3-A.

That's not at all what I argued. I said they claimed Mario had to "save the universe", which means they're referring to... the universe in a different event. Which would be TTYD. What did Mario have to save in the last game? To stop the destruction of his world. Which would mean universe in this context.

Not to mention world should not just mean planet. Since other characters like Ghost T. will use the term world as "this world" when claiming he's going to leave after having his last wish (likely going to Overthere which is shown in the sequel). So saying something like, "he's going to a different planet" would not make sense. There's also Grodus stating, "I'm sorry Princess but Tech is no longer in this world." This also wouldn't mean planet only, because the location is at the moon. And please don't try to argue moon = world in this context out of nowhere.

 

[DragonLord]

Wow, that's awesome, now can you prove those mistakes can also be found here? No? Then this shouldn't be an argument.

My line starts with “it’s not about mistakes”, a Lore Guide (least on This website) can have mistakes and still be valid

Except they literally said their information comes from Nintendo. If we're going to nitpick the "correct to our knowledge" section, then that means that they would have to make up something. So if that were the case, point to me what they had to use guesswork on. You claim not everything is assumed to be correct, but it's the complete opposite. You are the one who needs to find contradictions in what they claim.

But they also “literally” say that not all of it is from Nintendo, I’m not nitpicking, that’s there official statement for legality, nobody here can definitively prove the positive or negative without other evidence to show it’s true because it can equally be guesswork or official canon, in fact the reasonings for why I feel it would be more guesswork haven’t even been addressed, the entire Article is exaggerated and uses the story it’s summarizing as an example of a “rubbish” story, through my readings I have found no part in where the objective lore summary began

 

[liluzivert]

I, don’t really know what your trying to say here honestly, you, I assume, are saying that this reviewer got the info on the story through Nintendo, which I find kinda weird when that would be kinda pointless to explain the plot to a person who’s job is now to play the game in question, Paper Mario isn’t complicated, a reviewer can figure out the plot

Or... maybe you're assuming they didn't get information from Nintendo about what game they want said reviewer to play? Which makes even less sense than what you're trying to say. Why would someone review a game sent by a company if they don't even have some sort of idea as to what they are getting into? Not to mention if the plot presented there is "invalid" then Nintendo would've obviously corrected the review, considering they are in a partnership.

Do you?, can you definitively prove ether way without just asking the writer themselves?, honestly I’d like to know, I gave my reasoning why I think it’s a part of there opinion and I don’t really see a debunk for that reading, in the end there blurb is nothing but exaggerated, there feelings on the story is that it’s rubbish and that the game knows it is and uses examples of the story to show this, the story summary is even paused to ask why Peach gets kidnapped so many times and questioning her security

"Yeah guys, can we prove anything in fiction without asking the person who made it?" "well when they said this guy was gonna blow up the planet, they could easy mean that they were gonna make a big explosion on the planet"

For the love of god, stop nitpicking. We take things at face value, we don't assume anything unless we have proof. In this case he is literally just explaining the plot of the game, which there's literally nothing in the game itself that contradicts it. The feelings on the story are feelings, they are not the same as the information presented. And that is how a review works. You present factual information and then share your opinion on it. Especially when Nintendo themselves are endorsing it. You can't assume the evidence presented is an opinion, unless you have evidence that it goes against the game.

The Simpler sounding wording does not make an argument inherently more correct, I can make any extremely wrong statement and put it in a simple way, and my argument is not standing on could he’s, these factors that can make these statements are even factors admitted by the magazine itself for clarity, and if no source can make it definitive, it’s a bit up in the air of it’s validity, and if these factors aren’t definitively debunked I feel I have the right to question them

That isn't what I meant at all. It is called Occam's Razor dude. We cannot assume more than what is presented, which you have been doing this whole time. I don't want to hear that you haven't been relying on "could be's" after you just said that every part of that review is not literal just because you don't understand how a review works.

But fine. What's stopping the reviewer from talking about the game's story legitimately? Oh right. Nothing. Just because there are moments within the review that are opinionated, doesn't mean there are informative moments with facts as well. And in your case you have absolutely no evidence leaning towards your point.

and please, it’s Mario, you don’t need to fill your messages with how I’m “you claim all this Shit” or “don’t know how reviews work”, I don’t have any ill will against you and (I hope) I’ve come off as calm

You can't expect people to not be mad when you're flooding the crt with pointless, baseless information. You're wasting people's time by complaining about how Nintendo Power and other sources supported by them aren't legit because "well this could happen or that could happen".

We go off of what we know

-We know the game refers to world as universe (thanks to weeb's scan above)
-We know that there's nothing that contradicts the idea of it referring to universe
-We know that the review of the game says the universe would be destroyed, and said review is supported by Nintendo themselves

What you are doing is trying to find a flaw in these arguments, by making up "could be's" on how Nintendo's sources could be inaccurate.

It is not about any mistakes, it is about the source itself having ambiguity on how much input they had on any statement in the book, this Magazine itself clarifies a similar problem that not everything is directly linked to Nintendo, therefore not everything ether book says is assumed to be correct without evidence to support the claim

"Not everything in the book is assumed to be correct" Which implies some things CAN be correct. A "could be" scenario. "The book COULD BE incorrect".

in the end there blurb is nothing but exaggerated, there feelings on the story is that it’s rubbish and that the game knows it is and uses examples of the story to show this, the story summary is even paused to ask why Peach gets kidnapped so many times and questioning her security

"The story explanation could be non literal because it questions why Peach gets kidnapped and why her security is low". A could be, because nothing actually proves that the story summary itself is non literal.

So far we have three points that support the idea of 3-A. Your points are all "what ifs". You don't have proof, or evidence. You don't actually know how the Magazines are made. You don't actually know whether or not everything that reviewer said was literal. In our case we can assume that guides/reviews have legitimate information if they are endorsed by Nintendo, so long as nothing is contradicted within the plot. And we have extra evidence on the game itself to back it up.

And you have basically nothing, but "well the writer could've meant this, not every book is automatically accurate". We can't get anything out of these statements because you have nothing to back them up, which just leads into annoying circular arguments that no one wants to debate about.

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

@Antvasima I'm going to leave the King Olly feat to some of the other staff to discuss since it's plausible. I should note that link to that space description is completely unrelated and out of context. Olivia is simply describing how large the desert is (A huge space with alot of sand), not the very concept of space itself. Ask for the other two, neither are valid and doesn't suggest a Universal rating.

The description for PM:TTYD came from a review which is not a source we use for ANY verse in this site, regardless of how much it is associated with the source material. The point of a review is to judge the quality of a product, not give us insights of the story or its mechanics because these reviews would usually abridge the plot and world. In fact, there are innumerable amount of times where a review would get a plot point or the entire story/lore wrong. X Play's review of Megaman Battle Network 6 is just one of the many examples. Playing the game myself and remember watching a walkthrough of TTYD, the threat of the Shadow Queen is largely seen as a Planet-level threat, not a Universal one.

Ask for MP5, as many others have stated, it seems to fall more into corruption or Bowser just causing mayhem. We don't know how Bowser is going to achieve it and most of his Tier 2 feats primarily consists of the use of artifacts or devices. With no coherent explanation on his plan and having no feats prior, it's only natural to go with it being a hyperbolic description of what actually is going to happen.

 

[DragonLord]

Why would someone review a game sent by a company if they don't even have some sort of idea as to what they are getting into?

Because that’s there Job?, there paid to play a game and review it?, like it’s not just something they do when they feel like it, they do it because there paid if they do it, at best they’d be told what the general gameplay is and theming, they don’t need the entire story

You can't assume the evidence presented is an opinion, unless you have evidence that it goes against the game.

Perhaps it’s not definitive that it’s not Nintendo giving them factual info, it’s not definitive for the opposite ether, that’s the issue here, your trying to argue only one interpretation is correct when the Book itself for legal reasons says that it isn’t all objective, we don’t even know the process these books are given definitively

That isn't what I meant at all. It is called Occam's Razor dude. We cannot assume more than what is presented, which you have been doing this whole time. I don't want to hear that you haven't been relying on "could be's" after you just said that every part of that review is not literal just because you don't understand how a review works.

Occam’s razor is not “the simplest wording is the correct one”, in fact in this case the Occam would be that the Book has no simple right or wrong since the thing that even confirms they get info from Nintendo also says someone of it doesn’t it would be an assumption to say there right without further evidence

You can't expect people to not be mad when you're flooding the crt with pointless, baseless information. You're wasting people's time by complaining about how Nintendo Power and other sources supported by them aren't legit because "well this could happen or that could happen".

I mean, even if all I say is wrong, that isn’t a cause for anger, not only is the subject about something people do for fun, not everyone is going to think the same as you and will have questions, and if you want to argue these things as factual canon then you should be ready for peoples questions

please, calm down a little, and really if you think I’m problematic you can just report me

"Not everything in the book is assumed to be correct" Which implies some things CAN be correct. A "could be" scenario. "The book COULD BE incorrect".

Could be correct, could be not, everyone is working on a could be because the source itself is mixed with seemingly factual and non-factual bits, leaving everything in question, and people have to give evidence why the one could be is right

So far we have three points that support the idea of 3-A. Your points are all "what ifs". You don't have proof, or evidence. You don't actually know how the Magazines are made. You don't actually know whether or not everything that reviewer said was literal. In our case we can assume that guides/reviews have legitimate information if they are endorsed by Nintendo, so long as nothing is contradicted within the plot. And we have extra evidence on the game itself to back it up.

Okay, then show them, I’ve only seen a few and all of them are contentious, and tell me, do you know how magazines are made?, like seriously that would be pretty interesting to hear

 

[DaReaperMan]

@Dino_Ranger_Black makes sense to me

 

[liluzivert]

Okay, then show them, I’ve only seen a few and all of them are contentious

That's not at all what I argued. I said they claimed Mario had to "save the universe", which means they're referring to... the universe in a different event. Which would be TTYD. What did Mario have to save in the last game? To stop the destruction of his world. Which would mean universe in this context.

Not to mention world should not just mean planet. Since other characters like Ghost T. will use the term world as "this world" when claiming he's going to leave after having his last wish (likely going to Overthere which is shown in the sequel). So saying something like, "he's going to a different planet" would not make sense. There's also Grodus stating, "I'm sorry Princess but Tech is no longer in this world." This also wouldn't mean planet only, because the location is at the moon. And please don't try to argue moon = world in this context out of nowhere.

-No proof that World can refer to planet
-The review endorsed by Nintendo uses the word "universe".

With that in mind, what contradicts the notion that it is universal? If the review is consistent with the story, then how is it not valid in that context at the very least? I don't want to hear how Nintendo Power and game reviews are made, because clearly you don't know how they're made either and it does not matter in this specific context when it could be both ways.

I just want to know, what proves that it's not universal.

I mean, even if all I say is wrong, that isn’t a cause for anger, not only is the subject about something people do for fun, not everyone is going to think the same as you and will have questions, and if you want to argue these things as factual canon then you should be ready for peoples questions

please, calm down a little

There's a difference between having your own opinion and actually nitpicking statements ad nauseum.

 

[DaReaperMan]

@Antvasima I'm going to leave the King Olly feat to some of the other staff to discuss since it's plausible. I should note that link to that space description is completely unrelated and out of context. Olivia is simply describing how large the desert is (A huge space with alot of sand), not the very concept of space itself. Ask for the other two, neither are valid and doesn't suggest a Universal rating.

The description for PM:TTYD came from a review which is not a source we use for ANY verse in this site, regardless of how much it is associated with the source material. The point of a review is to judge the quality of a product, not give us insights of the story or its mechanics because these reviews would usually abridge the plot and world. In fact, there are innumerable amount of times where a review would get a plot point or the entire story/lore wrong. X Play's review of Megaman Battle Network 6 is just one of the many examples. Playing the game myself and remember watching a walkthrough of TTYD, the threat of the Shadow Queen is largely seen as a Planet-level threat, not a Universal one.

Ask for MP5, as many others have stated, it seems to fall more into corruption or Bowser just causing mayhem. We don't know how Bowser is going to achieve it and most of his Tier 2 feats primarily consists of the use of artifacts or devices. With no coherent explanation on his plan and having no feats prior, it's only natural to go with it being a hyperbolic description of what actually is going to happen.

-No proof that World can refer to planet
-The review endorsed by Nintendo uses the word "universe".

With that in mind, what contradicts the notion that it is universal? If the review is consistent with the story, then how is it not valid in that context at the very least? I don't want to hear how Nintendo Power and game reviews are made, because clearly you don't know how they're made either and it does not matter in this specific context when it could be both ways.

I just want to know, what proves that it's not universal.


There's a difference between having your own opinion and actually nitpicking statements ad nauseum.

Ahem.

 

[liluzivert]

Ahem.

No, this is not a debunk. It is specifically supported by Nintendo, just like their guides and magazines. And this statement is consistent with the game and also contradicts nothing. Reviews aren't valid if they either have:

• Wrong information and/or contradictions.
• Not affiliated with the company who's game they reviewed.

 

[DragonLord]

There's a difference between having your own opinion and actually nitpicking statements ad nauseum.

I mean if you really think I’m nitpicking and biased and just wasting time you could just report me, because I’m not changing my stance that these aren’t nitpicking statements

 

[Starsprite53]

Hmmm,i think we do need to focus on the more plausible feats first Olly->Bowser->Shadow queen

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima I'm going to leave the King Olly feat to some of the other staff to discuss since it's plausible. I should note that link to that space description is completely unrelated and out of context. Olivia is simply describing how large the desert is (A huge space with alot of sand), not the very concept of space itself. Ask for the other two, neither are valid and doesn't suggest a Universal rating.

The description for PM:TTYD came from a review which is not a source we use for ANY verse in this site, regardless of how much it is associated with the source material. The point of a review is to judge the quality of a product, not give us insights of the story or its mechanics because these reviews would usually abridge the plot and world. In fact, there are innumerable amount of times where a review would get a plot point or the entire story/lore wrong. X Play's review of Megaman Battle Network 6 is just one of the many examples. Playing the game myself and remember watching a walkthrough of TTYD, the threat of the Shadow Queen is largely seen as a Planet-level threat, not a Universal one.

Ask for MP5, as many others have stated, it seems to fall more into corruption or Bowser just causing mayhem. We don't know how Bowser is going to achieve it and most of his Tier 2 feats primarily consists of the use of artifacts or devices. With no coherent explanation on his plan and having no feats prior, it's only natural to go with it being a hyperbolic description of what actually is going to happen.

Dino makes sense to me. We especially cannot use reviews as source material, either here or elsewhere.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

With that in mind, what contradicts the notion that it is universal? If the review is consistent with the story, then how is it not valid in that context at the very least? I don't want to hear how Nintendo Power and game reviews are made, because clearly you don't know how they're made either and it does not matter in this specific context when it could be both ways.

I just want to know, what proves that it's not universal.

You have to prove "World" stated many times within TTYD contextually refers to the universe some secondary source claims. In terms of importance primary source should always be > a secondary one, especially a source with problems already stated by many others.

"TEC is no longer of this world" isn't good evidence. It's a popular saying for dead people. And it doesn't discredit the fact that throughout the story and lore there is nothing implying the Shadow Queen will effect the universe at all.

There's nothing saying Grodus wanted to blow anything up either like the source claims. It just seems shaky.

I'd prefer talking about the other things

 

[DragonLord]

Really, i think the problem with this judgement is that it assumes that if nothing contradicts a source, the source is true, which isn’t always true especially with secondary media or story summaries, because often with these media they are mixed with opinions or interpretations of the text in question, not hard facts and lore doscuments, in that case it’s not factual to call it Canon or Non-Canon, they are both assumptions

the actual process should be that, you should bring evidence to show that the claim makes more sense and has substance to it, not debate that I’m “nitpicking” when I say the source itself is not good enough due to words the source itself clarifies

and it seems that the actual evidence this claim has substance isn’t winning over people from what I see

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Shadow Queen is probably not happening unless some really substantial evidence pops up to support uni.

King Olly seems to be more or less okay with everyone. I think that's more than likely going to be accepted.

Mario Party 5 depends on if the source material (Japanese scans) truly do say Bowser was gonna destroy them and then replace them consistently. But apparently the English version finding "ruin" from translating the japanese text isn't entirely wrong. So that's also something to consider. In general, the game seems inconsistent with Bowser ruining dreams or destroying them, and in some contexts they can even mean similar things. If you bring ruin to something you are destroying it. So for now it's up in the air. Could LuckyEmile or one of the site's resident translators help with these scans like in the last thread?

 

[DragonLord]

Mario Party 5 depends on if the source material (Japanese scans) truly do say Bowser was gonna destroy them and then replace them consistently. But apparently the English version finding "ruin" from translating the japanese text isn't entirely wrong. So that's also something to consider. In general, the game seems inconsistent with Bowser ruining dreams or destroying them, and in some contexts they can even mean similar things. If you bring ruin to something you are destroying it. So for now it's up in the air. Could LuckyEmile or one of the site's resident translators help with these scans like in the last thread?

I believe generally when a Japanese word can be translated as two words without much indicating one is more right, the English Translation is used, least that’s how I’ve seen it dealt with for stuff like the Space Colony ARK and Final Egg Blaster

 

[DatOneWeeb]

My line starts with “it’s not about mistakes”, a Lore Guide (least on This website) can have mistakes and still be valid

...and? No mistakes just means it's better?

But they also “literally” say that not all of it is from Nintendo, I’m not nitpicking, that’s there official statement for legality, nobody here can definitively prove the positive or negative without other evidence to show it’s true because it can equally be guesswork or official canon, in fact the reasonings for why I feel it would be more guesswork haven’t even been addressed, the entire Article is exaggerated and uses the story it’s summarizing as an example of a “rubbish” story, through my readings I have found no part in where the objective lore summary began

It is a nitpick my guy, if their guesswork was being displayed in this section, you either show it or you have no argument to begin with.

The description for PM:TTYD came from a review which is not a source we use for ANY verse in this site, regardless of how much it is associated with the source material. The point of a review is to judge the quality of a product, not give us insights of the story or its mechanics because these reviews would usually abridge the plot and world. In fact, there are innumerable amount of times where a review would get a plot point or the entire story/lore wrong. X Play's review of Megaman Battle Network 6 is just one of the many examples. Playing the game myself and remember watching a walkthrough of TTYD, the threat of the Shadow Queen is largely seen as a Planet-level threat, not a Universal one.

You claim it's not meant to give us insight of the story nor mechanics, despite it doing exactly that. Claiming that reviews would mess up the actual plot, yet your example came from... a Youtube channel. This comes from a Nintendo-partnered magazine. And playing the game myself, they've used world in a context beyond planet, as I've shown before.

 

[DatOneWeeb]

Could LuckyEmile or one of the site's resident translators help with these scans like in the last thread?

The person who I got my translation from is who LuckyEmile worked with to help with the last thread.

 

[DatOneWeeb]

Not to mention world should not just mean planet. Since other characters like Ghost T. will use the term world as "this world" when claiming he's going to leave after having his last wish (likely going to Overthere which is shown in the sequel). So saying something like, "he's going to a different planet" would not make sense. There's also Grodus stating, "I'm sorry Princess but Tech is no longer in this world." This also wouldn't mean planet only, because the location is at the moon. And please don't try to argue moon = world in this context out of nowhere.

For TTYD, I should yet again point out that the SPM guide said Mario had to save the universe before, which would mean that Mario had to save the universe before from... the X-Nauts and Shadow Queen.

 

[DragonLord]

and? No mistakes just means it's better?

I’m Sorry, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, but At this point I don’t even think your reading what I’m saying

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

In the story and the lore there is nothing that says Shadow Queen will affect the universe at all, in game we clearly see that she only goes as far as the planet.

There is little to no proof why "mario saving the universe again", would refer to TTYD

 

[DatOneWeeb]

I’m Sorry, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, but At this point I don’t even think your reading what I’m saying

Because the arguments don't hold up, no.

 

[DragonLord]

Because the arguments don't hold up, no.

That…. You just…. I feel I’ve just witnessed a self burn

Good day and have fun with your thread

 

[DatOneWeeb]

In the story and the lore there is nothing that says Shadow Queen will affect the universe at all, in game we clearly see that she only goes as far as the planet.

There is little to no proof why "mario saving the universe again", would refer to TTYD

Because I literally just displayed where world isn't planet only.

Because name any other game at the time where Mario had to save the universe. Especially in the sequel to TTYD.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Because I literally just displayed where world isn't planet only.

Ah yes, a common phrase for dead people mean every time they say "world" they automatically mean a universe.

Because name any other game at the time where Mario had to save the universe. Especially in the sequel to TTYD.

Super Mario 64?? We proved it was universal in last thread.

Plus the fact "saving the universe" is not even tier 3, considering all the shadow queen's plan was to cover the "world" (Which looking at the game was only the planet) in her magic, which does not give you a tier

 

[DatOneWeeb]

Ah yes, a common phrase for dead people mean every time they say "world" they automatically mean a universe.

You missed the point when you claimed it's planet only, but it gives us insight it isn't just planet. If you want to be REALLY technical, he'd be referring to Overthere, aka another universe.

Super Mario 64?? We proved it was universal in last thread.

We proved it was Low 2-C, but several people disagreed with it affecting the entire real world. Not to mention a connection to 64 would be VERY odd when SPM is prone to reference/make cameos to TTYD and PM64, like several.

Plus the fact "saving the universe" is not even tier 3, considering all the shadow queen's plan was to cover the "world" (Which looking at the game was only the planet) in her magic, which does not give you a tier

You realize that the general plot as a whole was the X-Nauts wanting to use the Crystal Stars to do the feat, right?

 

[Lou_change]

Dude it is the least relevant of the feats and the argument requires us to accept a review of a Mario game where stories are one of the things least prioritized, by a group partnered with Nintendo uk not main Nintendo and that the Shadow Queen scales to all 7 crystal stars and that she corrupted the entire universe when with the crystal stars thousand of years ago she is implied to have to prepare despite having the crystal stars at the time and that it was required to steal the stars to defeat her.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

It doesn't matter if "World" was used in some figurative language for the dead passing on to the afterlife. It's literally just figurative language meant for the afterlife. We need direct proof that this "world" frequently talked about being effected by and destroyed by the Shadow Queen is the entire universe, when there also exists figurative language and context clues that lead you to believe only the planet is being referred to. Here are a couple of quotes relating to the world and it's people and landmarks

"Ahhh! These woods are the most wonderful in all the world. Yes, indeed!
Building a house here was just the FINEST idea I ever did have. Oh, my,
yes!"


"Mario, I feel I must ask... Did you know that I used to be a rather
famous actress? I was a diva of the stage! I was known as Madame
Flurrie the world over... But...the flithy air outside the spotlight
repelled me. So I came to the woods."


"Hmm... Very interesting... Perhaps it's pointing to the
floating town of Glitzville... There's a stunning arena
there where great warriors engage in furious battles!
Ostensibly, families go there on vacation to lounge and
enjoy the fights, but... Behind the scenes, the richest
people in the world wager on the bouts."

Are you to tell me these quotes aren't clearly referring to the planet when they say "world"? I doubt the entire universe's population conglomerates at Glitzville for vacations. I doubt Flurrie meant the entire universe referring to her being "world-renowned" traveling for her acting career. And I doubt she meant the universe when building a house in what she believes to be the best forest in the world.

So no, sorry. I'm still not buying it. You can't prove that save the universe quote from SPM was referring to TTYD. That is pure speculation on your part with no proof. What is factual is It's a vague statement. What is factual is that most statements of "world" contextually refer to the planet and this is mostly the case with fiction in general. What is factual is that "world" was only used differently to be part of a common phrase said for the dead and relates in no way to the world talked about in-game that the Shadow Queen was gonna effect. What is a fact is that if you were to completely trust this source it does not state that Grodus had a plan of blowing anything up anywhere within the game itself. The Crystal Stars were never the ones doing the destruction anyways, much less blowing something up.

To be blunt, this statement of "they want the Crystal Stars so they can blow up the universe" has NOTHING supporting it, down to even the most minute detail. It is completely inaccurate to what we are told in the game about their plan, and what the Crystal Stars' roles were. The only time actual destruction is mentioned was when they learned of the "cataclysm" (Shadow Queen) while the rest of the lines in the game refer to world conquest as their plan for gathering tje Stars. But then it also gets revealed to us they just wanted the Crystal Stars to revive the demon and break the seal. How does this not completely contradict everything the source claims?