Fair
Yeah I got mixed up there lol
I mean, it looks like King Boo, I'd say it's decently fair to use. Though, fair enough.
I don't think that matters, he can still hurt you, and he clearly doesn't have Invul given you can hurt him.
I mean that's an inconsistency but it doesn't mean King Boo doesn't scale to them as a boss.
Right, but there's a difference between arguing points and opposing points, and framing a debate with addressing only specific points when there could be other points to consider that can be excluded through such framing. I'm only on addressing point 1, so I guess I'll see as we go if any inconvenient points are excluded
You are correct: Nobody explicitly said it was 'non-canon.' But it was disregarded as evidence on the basis it was just 'game mechanics.' The modes occurring there are 'game mechanics,' sure. But the building and it's properties are canon. A building having strange properties in a series where the supernatural and magic have been nearly ubiquitous since the very first games seems like one of the more mundane things to have in such a series. Again, it is true the player can determine modes on the spot for gameplay purposes, but the building can't just be void of properties outside the bare minimum of 'it has ghosts' because for gameplay purposes, modes can be selected for Luigi to do things within it.
Mario literally got buffs from FRA Train to bully a former mod years ago, I really wouldnt call out trains here.
Fair, I might have worded that poorly but the intention was just to stress "please read this before you comment", I'm not trying to restrict people.
I, at the very least, didn't disregard the Scarescraper as game mechanics or as anything other than a place that really exists in the mario world. I disregarded the endless mode as game mechanics, there is a real difference between the two, and while you may be right in saying that the endless mode could be contextualized through the supernatural location it happens in, that would be quite the assumption with little backing, and if I recall correctly nobody really thought to make it in the first place. I would disagree with it, for the record, but that's outside the boundaries of this thread.
Maybe because they thought it'd be fun, or maybe because the mansion didn't fit the concept of the side mode very well. I couldn't know and it doesn't really matter, the endless mode which is what was relevant is not contextualized at all, and that's why we rejected the thing.
By turning on the lights and also we seen Big Boos get harmed before
or maybe boos are consist shown to be comparable if weaker than the main cast
boos are said to stronger the more of them there are in an area in Luigi’s Mansion I am doing this pretty much just to argue minions downscaling but I suppose it might be better to wait
Huh, I see. I guess yeah, fair to keep it for a different thread.
I have reworded that section a bit
Framing is pretty important, and so is wording.
In Bowser's arena, you fight bowser and beat him with bombs. In the Scarescrapper, there is far more diversity in ghost catching, and in one instance, you climb an uncountable amount of floors to catch ghosts. It's really not that crazy of an assumption: It's literally just taking what's presented in the games and accepting them for what they are. That said:
Games are supposed to be fun. I know the current state of the industry muddles that, but you actually kind of gave the game away on this first point, right?
One of these is a set in stone event in the main story, one of them is a questionably existent, questionably canon mode with absolutely zero context that you unlock after you beat the side mode proper. There is an obvious difference between the two and that difference is why one can be considered canon and one can't. You claim the endless mode is "one instance", i rebuke it by saying that there is absolutely no proof that said instance exists in the world of the game and is not just a fun, apocryphal mode added in (which is the explicit reason it got rejected, mind you), whereas it is unquestionable that in Mario 64, Bowser is defeated by throwing him into small bombs.
... Stretch. You were the one who asked me why I thought the developers added the Scarescraper as a physical place. I answered, because I thought you were trying to prove some point, rather than whatever this is, and I noted, anyways, that I couldn't know, and that it didn't matter. From this, you seek to claim that I pretend to know the developer's intent, and that it is a big part of my argument, when I explicitly said the exact opposite.
I address that in point 10 of my blog. Any verse's ratings will always be inconsistent, especially one as big as this one's, but that does not allow one to ignore all anti-feats, and I do think that my new rating is a massive improvement in terms of consistency, even though it isn't, because it cannot be, perfect.
True. I'm neutral on the subject since there's just as much proof for Mario being Tier 8 or 9 as there is for Mario being Tier 7 or Tier 6 so you can just pick and choose whichever tier you want for the most part.
..So again, picking and choosing. One location of one game is more valid than one location of another game because game mechanics. You can just say that if that is how you want to approach what you will and won't consider for the verse.
You framed the first argument through 'developers deliberately choice.' You said to 'construct your arguments around the ones made in it' (it being the blog). So I worked with your point, and complied with the request to be arguing around the ones made in your blog. I simply did what you asked.
Oh yeah, right there. That's fine. Your prerogative to pick and choose as a moderator.
I was trying and go one by one. I want to approach the arguments and downgrade in good faith.
I have explained that there is a clear objective difference between the two repeatedly. I will not be responding to this "point" again given that we're just going in circles, especially given that you're being pleasant enough to throw some accusations into the mix too.
It would not be a Varies, because Mario's power level does not canonically vary. It would be an At least/possibly rating, but I simply do not believe that tier 3 or 4 are consistent enough to get even a possibly rating, given the sheer amount of evidence against them - I do not think tier 4 has much backing behind it at all, there's like, what, 2 non-banned tier 4 feats? And they're pretty questionable too.
Being hurt by something counts as an anti-feat, they don't need to be maimed by it. I've addressed that in point 5- I really wish people read the sandbox, I put quite a bit of work in it.
A 3-C character would not be hurt by lightning. Beyond a certain point heat resistance is related to durability.
That doesn't make the showings where he does suffer some damage not anti-feats.
You're right, any verse has them. Not any verse has literal dozens of them.
From my perspective (and I'm just saying this as a general statement, I'm not saying this is only in Mario's case), a Varies rating seems more like a compromise than a solution.
There has been no such canonical explanation for why Mario's feat range so wildly in tier. He could be swinging and pounding away at Tier 3 enemies in Super Mario Galaxy (2), but get consistently picked off by non-Tier 3 feats and enemies within subsequent games following Galaxy without an explanation or even some sort of allusion to reasoning as to why Mario is demonstrably weaker in that regard. Yes, obviously, they're not going to come up with some sort of powerscale-y type explanation, but something as to why his feats range as much as they do is necessary for a Varies rating.
What, that neither of us know author/creator intent? Come on, man.
I agree it doesn't canonically vary. It's pretty consistently Tier 4/3. It's a shame you don't seem to like or care about the various games that make this consistency obvious, especially with how many of them there has been at this point, but if you're going to disregard them, or be ignorant to them all, the least you could give is a 'varies' if you otherwise only know about the absolute minimum end of things that have happened within the series.
If you're so hellbent on the validity of anti-feats, want to read some counter blogs someone seemed to have made years in advance to a lot of what you present? You don't have to consider my points - again, your prerogative - but at least maybe consider the literal lists countering what you present?
I dunno, K. Rool appeared in a Mario baseball game
Yeah, I agree it'd be a compromise.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he should have a varies either. But a straight downgrade seems far worse. Like, you actually have to throw out nearly 20 years worth of games to support such a position. It's regressive in the absolute worst way.
I wish some of these blogs didn’t consistently go out of their way to bring up Sonic or Kirby stats and bemoan how Mario is oppressed on the Wiki or whatever because it really doesn’t help any of the points they make and just make them and their arguments seem worse. Armor doesn’t work with Sonic or Kirby stuff and isn’t the most knowledgable on either verse, and both verses are managed by completely different groups of people with completely different arguments, and both verses have had their own histories on this wiki in terms of what they could or couldn’t get away with.
"It's a shame you don't like Mario and also don't know anything about it otherwise you'd see my opinion as blatantly obvious"
I swear to god if it's superbe- Man.
I don't agree with anti-sonic or anti-kirby stuff. I like those verses, and don't consider anti-feats valid regardless of verse.
Simply linked them for the counterpoints to common (and mentioned) anti-feats.
Is this necessary? You're just poisoning the well. I'm not even mad I'm used to it but like, why do this. What's the point.
I literally just listed that (and the other one) as an example of MP characters being hurt by minor stuff rather than as a "proper" example. But it is a legitimate anti-feat, there is no audio but they do cry out in pain, and the goal of the game is to briefly incapacitate them by landing enough hits.
Same thing as before, fairly sure they cry in pain. I was originally linking to gfycat, I think moving them to the wiki (not handled by me, although I am extremely grateful to the content mods that did it) removed the audio, so unfortunately the scans don't have full context anymore. So fair enough on them not making much sense as is, but no "hard downplaying on purpose" I fear.
... you're not serious, are you?
I at least expect good faith, like I've been giving you.
Not gonna lie, don't really think you did. Sorry if that seems not good faith, but if you've given them the same amount of bad faith as you've given me here, I don't really believe you're engaging with this entire subject in good faith to to be honest with you. I mean, you're literally using a genetic fallacy to ignore counter arguments and points, But that's ok too.
Yes, obviously there are feats and such that are Tier 3, that much is undeniable. However, this does not address the sheer quantity of feats that are significantly below Tier 3. Now again, I'm not saying Mario should be as low as Tier 9 or even Tier 8, because that is pretty absurd, in my opinion. However, the evidence speaks for itself: there is a monsoon of non-Tier 3 feats that are done that include standard Mario. And this also doesn't address that when that same standard Mario is doing Tier 3 stuff, there are more feats and such that follow these Tier 3 things that are significantly lower than Tier 3.
Notice just how many feats are in the Tier 9, 8, and 7 range compared to the single Tier 3 calculation.
I simply don’t think we need to discuss the complexities of Kirby and Sonic and why they’re scaled how they are when discussing Mario and how he’s scaled.
No you haven't. You don't get to attack my knowledge, call me biased, and then claim that. That is the opposite of good faith. You don't get to accuse me of bad faith literally in the same post and then say you've been giving me good faith. Just keep on arguing whatever you want and I'm going to try to think you're taking this honestly.
I am not saying that I am going to ignore arguments. I am saying that I will be refusing to engage in circular stonewalling. When I refuse to acknowledge an argument it's because I already have done so.
I don't even know how you want me to respond to this.
I get where you're coming from. I still feel like a lot of this can be explained by A. Much of the statements and evidence of higher tiering being within dialogue and lore without nearly as many feats as the lower end stuff, and B. Things just changed a lot as the series has gone on, in many ways. One of the ways was the increasing power creep of final boss battles in scale and scope, among other things. Galaxy is far more modern than something like World, and pun intended, there is a world of a difference in power level stated and displayed between them.
Actually, I have been engaging in good faith, and you can't tell me otherwise by now. I will openly say you are engaging in bad faith at this point, because all you've done is consider my good faith in trying to argue within your guidelines for the thread, and your points directly 'bad faith.'
Idk. How do you want to respond to it? Conversation goes both ways.
Yeah, that too. A good amount of mario movie calcs were done.
Good faith is just arguing, you're throwing nothing out except Arguments against the opposition's arguments. Arguing in bad faith, is going to the other side of the wall; poisoning the well with venomous nothings like "bias",
The second you dropped this little gem(I could probably find something else earlier) you were arguing in bad faith, so yeah...
Damn bro, you still mad over Spongebob?
