- 220
- 161
Damn whos that?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Forest of Susser
- Thread starter Arc7Kuroi
- Start date
- Status
- 18,929
- 27,713
- Thread starter
- #202
The most based One Piece scaler on YouTube
- 3,417
- 1,256
Maybe Naruto the last flashbacks with Hinata can helpYo, chat. Since Naruto confirms that he never left the village until the LoW, that means that ANY flashback of Naruto being elsewhere would serve as proof that a location is part of Konoha.
Find a scan of Naruto hiking in the mountains ong
Real talk tho we do have a f-ton of flashback of him training in forests. So each of those would be part of Konoha. IIRC in the anime we see him going to a mountain to train.
- 18,929
- 27,713
- Thread starter
- #205
I hope it’s bigger than 120 meters…
- 220
- 161
NGL that's what I was thinking but Hinamid is so lame I can't recall anything in specific that'd help. Nami negs. There is the forest in The Last when Naruto made Mini Clones but that's as fad as I recall.
- 4,200
- 2,782
Comparing someone to VonKey in any context is low-key bullying ngl/j
- 10,896
- 12,314
I agree with Damage.
I don't think Arc's counterargument is very convincing. Population size being accounted for in size design is an incredibly indirect take that expects a lot from the author. I have large doubts the argument pans out in terms of (pseudo)-medieval economic planning at that.
The argument that some landmarks and Konoha size are separate makes no sense to me. If the rest isn't drawn consistently in that panel, then the consistency of Konoha's size is equally drawn into doubt. You can't really claim this panel focuses more on depicting one thing's size more than some others.
And by looking at the panels, the buildings drawn and the street layout the estimation doesn't seem to fit what we see. And before someone says something about the buildings not being drawn to scale because they would end up too small: By the same reasoning, the forest may be drawn too small (relative to the village) so that it doesn't take up 95% of the shot.
That we aren't sure that it is the FoD doesn't help either.
Also, the calc employs background-to-foreground scaling (assumed FoD is further in the background than the image scaling line) which inflates the size.
I don't think Arc's counterargument is very convincing. Population size being accounted for in size design is an incredibly indirect take that expects a lot from the author. I have large doubts the argument pans out in terms of (pseudo)-medieval economic planning at that.
The argument that some landmarks and Konoha size are separate makes no sense to me. If the rest isn't drawn consistently in that panel, then the consistency of Konoha's size is equally drawn into doubt. You can't really claim this panel focuses more on depicting one thing's size more than some others.
And by looking at the panels, the buildings drawn and the street layout the estimation doesn't seem to fit what we see. And before someone says something about the buildings not being drawn to scale because they would end up too small: By the same reasoning, the forest may be drawn too small (relative to the village) so that it doesn't take up 95% of the shot.
That we aren't sure that it is the FoD doesn't help either.
Also, the calc employs background-to-foreground scaling (assumed FoD is further in the background than the image scaling line) which inflates the size.
- 18,929
- 27,713
- Thread starter
- #210
We are sure it’s the FoD. That as much as been agreed upon rather unanimously within the thread, which you can go through and read if you’d like. Databooks confirmed such to be the case.
- 31,397
- 27,687
A lot of the proof such as population speculation is very much in question.
I'll address some of the new panels tomorrow.
Last edited:
- 220
- 161
Oh, I'm not talking about Arc's arguments in the original post. I think the stuff that was discovered on pages 4-6 and the new arguments for Konoha's size have far higher value.
- 31,397
- 27,687
@DemonGodMitchAubin Arc7Kuroi asked me to ping you for this once again. Most important new posts to take a look at being here from myself and his response, though there's been a lot of other discussion too since then.
- 2,281
- 1,337
Neutral for now. waiting for more arguments (will be back when this is 12 pages)
- 12,437
- 5,640
its not that deep..Arc asking him to view his response instead of UchihaSlayer's is wild.Bro is setting up his own thread.
- 15,442
- 15,409
Isn’t it fun how threads can suddenly gain 3 more pages the second you look away for a day?
Well ultimately here’s my take. At the end of the day, I still think the massive shot of all of Konoha, using the Forest of Death, is the best way to go to determine the full size of Konoha itself. It’s based on the confirmed size of the Forest, which is a known large location.
As for the consistency thing, I gotta be honest. As an artist myself, it is incredibly difficult to maintain consistent sizes of massive locations, objects, etc. You can have things be one way and then draw them another size. Consistency is really hard to manage often, so I often don’t like to rely on it as a crutch. Yes, is a smaller Konoha more consistent based on certain panel sizes, yeah. But are these shots the best to determine the villages entire size? I don’t think so. I still think the best way is to take the entire shot of the entire village and forest of death. I am a big proponent in taking full area shots as the size determiners
So yeah, that’s my take
Well ultimately here’s my take. At the end of the day, I still think the massive shot of all of Konoha, using the Forest of Death, is the best way to go to determine the full size of Konoha itself. It’s based on the confirmed size of the Forest, which is a known large location.
As for the consistency thing, I gotta be honest. As an artist myself, it is incredibly difficult to maintain consistent sizes of massive locations, objects, etc. You can have things be one way and then draw them another size. Consistency is really hard to manage often, so I often don’t like to rely on it as a crutch. Yes, is a smaller Konoha more consistent based on certain panel sizes, yeah. But are these shots the best to determine the villages entire size? I don’t think so. I still think the best way is to take the entire shot of the entire village and forest of death. I am a big proponent in taking full area shots as the size determiners
So yeah, that’s my take
- 18,929
- 27,713
- Thread starter
- #221
With 6 staff agreements, 1 neutrality, and only 3 disagreements, I think this thread can be concluded and closed. I’ll update the verse page to denote Konoha’s new accepted size from this thread (only the radius calc in the blog is accepted atm not the Kage Rushmore mountain height volume for any curious), and expect a follow up thread discussing ramifications, new calcs, etc etc.
- 31,397
- 27,687
I've got a little bit more to post if that's alright Arc7; was currently in the middle of writing my response to Mitch.
- 3,417
- 1,256
This is getting a bit tiring, if you are going to through around the same arguments you already shown in the form of "expressing my frustration while simultaneously rephrasing my argument" please don't.
- 31,397
- 27,687
I get that consistency is a hard thing to achieve for an artist, even a talented mangaka, so I don't hold that stance too strongly in judgement but a strong part of me thinks that not acknowledging the more consistent ends at all and solely going with the most inconsistent value possible just because it's based on a pretty good method is a step backwards.
It produces some really awkward issues that we have to reconcile with.
Just to give a hypothetical example, we get a pretty wide shot of the destroyed ruins of Konoha when Pain uses his Almighty Push on it. We can see Naruto and his giant toad summons appearing roughly in the middle of this crater, a bit closer to one side than the other.
Now, if we use the monument-to-wall distance in the calc that means if those characters are in the middle then the distance from them to the walls or to the Hokage monument would be roughly 31 kilometers.
Here is a shot of the toads and Pain facing off with the wall behind the toads. Here is a shot of Pains in the same position with the Hokage monument behind them.
I don't think it would be hard to find rough measurements of how far each landmark is here from the characters, whether its to the wall or to the Hokage monument. If it's a lot less than 31 km then sure, you could say: "Size scaling is too difficult for an artist; it may only look a kilometer away but based on a visual from hundreds of chapters ago that distance should actually be 31 km."
But isn't there an equally plausible alternative that these more consistent panels showing a lesser distance are the author's intended vision and his earlier panel that showed the Forest of Death could be a mistake?
Because these aren't just one-off little mistakes. Kishimoto provides many such angles throughout that arc here, and here, and here, and here.
The argument that the author has trouble showing scale seems to work in reverse too; maybe Kishimoto can draw the features of the village really well up close but struggled to draw it correctly when he did the wide shot in chapter 115. We can't really say which version of scale he struggled with, but we can see how he consistently drew the village since that chapter.
Is this not a significant portion of the entire village?
It produces some really awkward issues that we have to reconcile with.
Just to give a hypothetical example, we get a pretty wide shot of the destroyed ruins of Konoha when Pain uses his Almighty Push on it. We can see Naruto and his giant toad summons appearing roughly in the middle of this crater, a bit closer to one side than the other.
Now, if we use the monument-to-wall distance in the calc that means if those characters are in the middle then the distance from them to the walls or to the Hokage monument would be roughly 31 kilometers.
Here is a shot of the toads and Pain facing off with the wall behind the toads. Here is a shot of Pains in the same position with the Hokage monument behind them.
I don't think it would be hard to find rough measurements of how far each landmark is here from the characters, whether its to the wall or to the Hokage monument. If it's a lot less than 31 km then sure, you could say: "Size scaling is too difficult for an artist; it may only look a kilometer away but based on a visual from hundreds of chapters ago that distance should actually be 31 km."
But isn't there an equally plausible alternative that these more consistent panels showing a lesser distance are the author's intended vision and his earlier panel that showed the Forest of Death could be a mistake?
Because these aren't just one-off little mistakes. Kishimoto provides many such angles throughout that arc here, and here, and here, and here.
The argument that the author has trouble showing scale seems to work in reverse too; maybe Kishimoto can draw the features of the village really well up close but struggled to draw it correctly when he did the wide shot in chapter 115. We can't really say which version of scale he struggled with, but we can see how he consistently drew the village since that chapter.
Is this not a significant portion of the entire village?
- 31,397
- 27,687
I know you're just having fun because you've 'won' this thread Arc but I don't appreciate the childish meme responses.
- 11,748
- 16,163
I mean, what are you expecting Kishi to do here? Draw them as dots? He's just working within the limitations of the medium, as the important part of those panels is to showcase Pain, Naruto, and the Toads interacting rather than drawing them to scale in comparison to Konoha as a whole. The characters being showcased clearly is more of a priority than drawing them to perfect scale in comparison to the landmarks that surround them.
I think given that he still drew the village to be fairly larger than the circular forest on its outskirts over 300 chapters later indicates to me that this was still his intended portrayal of the village's overall scale.
- 3,417
- 1,256
Is that another shot of the Florest of death?
- 31,397
- 27,687
Yes? If that's the correct size they're supposed to be. Characters can be drawn at a small scale depending on the situation.
Or if Kishimoto wanted to just focus on the characters, he didn't have to include the background details of the village in those panels.
- 11,748
- 16,163
Yeah, but that's just it, he has an artistic license to do whatever he wants in any given situation.
In the Pain Arc, he wanted to showcase the characters in-focus clearly, that's the main purpose there. Him choosing to add the background is just an artistic choice. Just as it's an artistic choice for Kubo to use more plain backgrounds in order to create beautiful contrast.
In the War Arc panel, the intention is very clearly to showcase the sheer scale of the Allied Shinobi Forces, rather than zero in on the individuals making up the Alliance.
- 21,469
- 30,790
Is there a tldr that can be read? I've ran through this thread but 200 messages isn't something that can be easily remembered
- 31,397
- 27,687
There's Arc's opening post. My response post here. Arc's response to my response. DT also made a short-ish summary here for why he disagrees.
There are many other posts scattered throughout the pages going into for or against but the ones above are the most important ones IMO.
- 11,572
- 10,863
Respectfully, we've stalled this thread way further than was absolutely needed. Out of respect or kindness for Damage, Arc has kept this thread open and waited for over a week Damage to finally give his rebuttal (by this time we already had enough votes), and we even got a revote from staff after, and we finally got the final revote from Mitch just a few hours ago. This thread has been open for 3 weeks and we got the required amount of votes for this thread for 3 weeks. This thread has been open far longer than it's needed thanks to Arc's good graces, but this thread has been already accepted and should be closed. It's nobody's fault that we have latecomers to this thread, it most certainly isn't Arc's. And he isn't required to hold this thread open longer either.
- 31,397
- 27,687
3 weeks is not an astronomical amount of time for a CRT. There's only 5 votes for a solid upgrade (1 possibly) against 3 disagree votes. That's a majority, sure, but it's not an overwhelming majority of say 5 votes in favor against just 1 person dissenting.
Also, this started on the 19th, right? That would make this more like 2 weeks and 1 day.
- 3,417
- 1,256
3 weeks is an astronomical amount of time when there were already enough votes to close this
- 11,572
- 10,863
Then even more so it begs the question why it's even still open. 6 votes vs 3 votes is far more than enough to close it as soon as the discussion has ended. The discussion ended as soon as Arc asked for a revote. You and Arc got your revote, so this should be closed.
- 31,397
- 27,687
As far as I'm aware there's no rule mandating exactly how quickly a CRT has to be applied once it's hit the required amount of votes. There's a standard grace period of 48 hours after a thread is made where it can't be applied in order to give people time to at least see the thread, but nothing about how long/short a thread can still be discussed for after votes have been given.
I'm not trying to delay the thread to next year guys.... It really hasn't gone on for very long.
Why don't we at least wait to see what KT has to say?
- 18,929
- 27,713
- Thread starter
- #240
Twice as many agrees as disagrees is very much a large minority when we have 10 staff votes in this thread. Like we all can precog KT’s disagree, and it’s still a 2 staff margin. I’ll give him until the end of the night, and we will proceed from there. I’m well within my right via site standards of 48 hours passing with overwhelming support to close this thread. But I haven’t so I don’t want to hear any “oh but it’s only 3 weeks”. If there are late dissenters who feel their voice was stifled, they can wait a due amount of time, and the topic can be revisited. However, I already made the concession of you and I getting our last posts 3 pages ago with the intent to wrap the thread up. I believe I’ve been more than fair, and frankly I know KT thinks this thread is fvcking r3tarded, and I don’t really feel like entertaining his condescending attitude towards any Naruto disagreement we have. I’ll remain patient, but if nothing major changes here relatively soon, this will be closed and we can move on.
If the rest of the thread mods in here think this is unfair then I’ll acquiesce. And honestly, maybe it’d be in your best interest to coalesce and ruminate on your arguments against this thread over time, and revisit it down the line when you have a more robust perspective on the situation. Rather than scramble last minute with a KT hail marry.
If the rest of the thread mods in here think this is unfair then I’ll acquiesce. And honestly, maybe it’d be in your best interest to coalesce and ruminate on your arguments against this thread over time, and revisit it down the line when you have a more robust perspective on the situation. Rather than scramble last minute with a KT hail marry.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
