The canonicity of Yoshi's spin-off games was being used as a comparison example to the matter at hand. I wrote what I know and think about those games starring Yoshi because I have led myself to believe that their canonicity is more questionable than most people think they are.
I find that most people on both sides of the discussion think about this matter in the wrong way. This isn't just a matter of people finding random trivia facts about canon that work in their favor of proving a consistency or inconsistency related to their conclusion only for the opposition to insist that those facts aren't valuable or that the interpretation of those facts is flawed. What's important is to establish how normal Mario and Paper Mario canonically relate to each other in a way that makes sense in the setting of the fictional work overall. The conclusion needs to be contextually sensical, not just based on a count of facts working in a conclusion's favor.
Fame doesn't truly make that difference in the circumstances of this matter. Mario may be famous for having many roles in different games, but this attribute can apply to all Super Mario series characters. The purpose of it is for there to be a reason for the characters - "our characters" in Shigeru Miyamoto's perspective - to sometimes be enemies and sometimes be friends. This attribute of the fictional work that has the roles of characters vary if that's fitting, in the same fashion as Mario, applies to many other characters. It applies to characters who participate in sports games and who aren't famous for their cooperation despite that being out of character in their appearances during other games. A good example of this is Chain Chomp, who can participate in Mario Tennis Aces without incompetently jumping all around the court trying to eat the hero characters if there are any. Meanwhile, the Star Spirits have two roles that both fit their style of being divine guardian characters. The Star Spirits being this way could pass in a fictional work that has normal continuity and canonicity rules, but it's unquestionably fine in the Super Mario series where the roles of characters are intentionally inconsistent. No matter what side of the discussion you're on, the Star Spirits having two roles is negligible.
I too do find it a little annoying; the user in question was someone who asked me to permaban him via "User request". I did ask him if he would like me to lift his ban so he could debate, but told him he would need to promise to debate in a civilized manner. As for "Passive aggressive tone" I won't debate on whether or not he was being that but I could perhaps ask him to try to make his doc profanity free if that's what is being asked. He said he was going to voice chat with me some parts though.
I don't want to argue to extensively since I have less than an hour before RL work, but I just wanted to focus on the book part. I think what he meant to say is that even within the Mario universe, Paper Mario/Mario Story is a book series written by Hemmingway in which there are numerous copies of the book and each game is written as their own separate books. There are ways to interpret that maybe each and every book contains a separate universe, and past books chronologically did happen within a past of a sequel's story. The book opened up in Paper Jam was perhaps a copy of Sticker Star given that the "Plot hole" stuff from Sticker Star appears in that game combined with the some of TTYD's abilities are performed in that game would prove that at some point takes place after TTYD. The "Mario Story" book series is also something that appears in Luigi's Mansion which was teased in the original Paper Mario as an eventual sequal. And the author of that "Mario Story" book series is in fact Hemmingway.
Based on? Is there any actual confirmation of that? And to be exact, any actual confirmation of the Paper Jam one being such a book?
Oh I think i know who that is. I don't really care about the profanity itself and I don't expect any kind of civil or respectful behavior from them.
Even if they are books written in-verse (which I get that he has a book called "Paper Mario" but I find that kinda flimsy), they clearly aren't representative of the original story, the Paper Mario 64 Bowser thing makes that one story go in a completely different direction from the originals, they clearly are self-aware (which is consistent with Paper Jam) and I also don't think anything implies them being different books. Note, for example, that the TTYD book and the Sticker Star book look fairly similar to one another (the star design changes a bit, and the SS one has a bunch of stickers on it, but the former can just be considered a minor redesign and the latter means very little at all). Admittedly, SPM is being read from the Dark Prognosticus, which is a bit of a deviation, though given the DP's actual role you could consider this either an in-story reading or just a framing device.
There's definitely a lot of changes but like, things that do remain the same can still be attributed to trying to remain accurate to the original, it's not like they updated the depiction in any significant way. Even if you don't wanna consider that, an easter egg is pretty minor all considered when there's actual WoG on the opposite.
This seems to be more of a theory than factual information, so I don't want this interpretation to be used to explain the continuity of the Paper Mario games. It's an interesting and creative idea, but the VS Battles Wiki is not the place for it.
I'm pretty sure "unique" was meant exclusively relative to the two worlds in question. The universe that normal Mario lives in definitely isn't unique in the sense you mean it in because there are countless dream worlds that resemble it. Surely the word "unique" was meant in a different sense in that description.
The dream worlds aren't really ever that relevant to Mario, and arguably not even that similar, while if this was different from the "real" Paper Mario world it would be functionally identical.
They can claim anything they want, that doesn't mean that'd hold that much weight, given that these quotes are clearly addressing qualities of the world and characters.
In the case that you're correct, this still doesn't mean that "unique" was meant to be compared to the entire series, rather than being relative to the two relevant universes.
The opposing side can discredit your interpretation like you're doing to their interpretation. There are strong likelihoods that the quotes addressed the qualities of the series' world and characters in the sense of game design or in the sense of canonical attributes. We need to figure out which interpretation is correct by prioritizing analyzing better evidence and how lesser evidence relates to them, so we can understand the underlying reasonings of the interpretations.
I would say that the Paper Mario universe is definitely a lot more relevant when discussing Paper Jam than some dream worlds that aren't even acknowledged in passing in the game. I think it is very acceptable to not consider the latter a "suitable" counterargument when talking about the former.
This is meant to counter the interpretation that all Paper Mario games are separate book universes. You would be really hard-pressed to call those "unique" when they're both found in the same type of object and have the exact same art-style. Passing similarities that some other worlds may share with mainline aren't relevant.
Anyone can try to discredit anything, but I'm at a pretty big advantage given that I don't need to make up headcanon about what the official website is saying and can just take it at face value (Something something Occam's Razor). I disagree that it's about game design, I disagree that it's lesser evidence, and I have to yet see any real evidence on this.
Let's halt the discussion of whether or not dream worlds are a factor because I only intended for that to support the other factor that can be independent.
I think that both interpretations take the statements at face value. Whichever interpretation is the correct one depends on other evidence that contextualize the statements, determining whether it's best to perceive the statements as insight about the way the paper universe functions or to perceive the statements as advertisement of the games' paper graphics and tone.
I think you're giving way too much credit to someone typing up some blurb for a kids' 3DS rpg, they're not gonna get deep diving into the series' "lore", but I think it definitely can be interpreted as "no this isn't just a carbon copy of the actual paper mario games this is those actual games".
No, definitely not. If you read "this guy is made of paper", and interpreted that as "oh actually it's just an artstyle, that's what they're referring to", that's not taking it at face value, that is essentially coming up with a theory regarding what the actual intended meaning is by looking at surrounding context. The default assumption when it comes that's meant to introduce the story, setting and characters of a game is to take it literally, that's not an "interpretation". This isn't an "oh it could be either way, let's decide which" debate, it's a "people who don't want the split need to disprove the default assumption that is supported by a bunch of evidence" debate.
How were you led to think this about what I wrote? I'm not really giving any sort of credit to whoever wrote the description of Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam beyond them being able to write a simple sentence. I didn't write that the statement was diving into the series' "lore"; I wrote a few paragraphs about the semantics of a few words, and how it affects the viability of someone else's theory. What I wrote about someone else's theory doesn't give credit to the original description. I would appreciate an answer to the point I made about what "unique" means in the description.
Believe it or not, aside from your over-exaggeration of the wording, it's very normal to interpret it the way you think doesn't work.
I'm not addressing those because I'm discussing the validity of the specific evidence you presented.
You're doing the complete opposite of "being productive" by slowing the discussion to a grinding halt by focusing on the small picture. The conclusion regarding this specific topic would not change things at all, so fixating on it isn't relevant. Quite frankly I am also very annoyed by the fact that you're putting yourself above everyone else in the discussion by claiming you understand both sides and acting as some sort of mediator.
That's within the context of an interview where they talk a lot about how the paper plays into gameplay, that's not just about it being an aesthetic.
No it's literally not lol, they say the characters are made of paper, there is one inherent meaning to that sentence and one inherent meaning only.
This is just conjecture that's trying to establish an even ground when there isn't one. If someone read a website that said characters were made of paper, they wouldn't start making up headcanons, they would think that they're made of ******* paper, and I can guarantee to you that basically any people who haven't looked into the situation too far think that they are indeed made of ******* paper.
Yes, and those reasons are what the opposition is trying to use to prove that the default assumption of "said to be paper + looks like paper = is paper" isn't correct. That doesn't mean that that stops being the default when its validity being debated, it just means it isn't an absolute truth, which I never claimed it was.
The discussion has already been going on for a while just fine, we don't need someone to play devil's advocate at every turn. I'm not going to keep debating about the debate, it is the definition of pointless.
I don't claim to be some arbiter of ultimate truth. They can think whatever they want and bring their own arguments to the table, and if the arguments are sufficiently convincing and receive enough support they will "win" the discussion and Paper Mario will not be split. That is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that unless sufficient opposing proof is provided, the simplest possible assumption is the one we go with, and in this case that is taking things at face value, especially with the obvious context of Paper Jam.
Oh yeah I agree BTW
Put me as neutral, I see both sides as potentially valid.
The Sticker Star bit isn't true, the book opens several pages in. Fair enough on TTYD, but I wouldn't take it as iron solid evidence myself, back then I don't think it was really more than a cute framing device.
I would ask you to elaborate on this, when possible.
lol
I'm disappointed that a staff member would make these fallacious points to discredit me, and call one of them a fact. These need to be addressed.
I didn't vote. I shouldn't be part of a vote count I never participated in.
