Possible Mario Profile Split/Varies Rating

[Pikaman]

I agree with different profiles as long as we make clear as water that everything's still canon and the separation exists to keep track of the stats' consistency. Like Iron Man.

Simple note at the end of the verse page does the trick for that, one at the bottom of each profile too if you feel the need

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Option B seems best for me, especially since many games are linked together (3D Land/World are in the same universe as Galaxy for example)

 

[Psychomaster35]

I’d say Option B would do if it means that Mario’s power tends to vary game after game.

 

[Pikaman]

Option A [4 (6)]: @Armorchompy @Maverick_Zero_X @Seol404 @Eficiente (@Pikaman @TMaakkonen)

Option B [1 (3)] @Psychomaster35 (@Bobsican @I’m_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die)

Neutral: @Chariot190

 

[Pikaman]

Staff: 4v1 in favour of A

Blue Names: 2:2 even with 1 neutral

Staff and Blue Names: 6v3 in favour of A with one neutral

could probably do with more input though, 2:1 ratio of overall opinion with 5 staff involved usually sounds solid but this is a BIG CRT

 

[Da_Lunge_Fish]

On this topic, it's a bit of a can of worms.

Spoiler: Stuff

Yes some users would agree that inconsistency should not give a Varies, but then what attention and care do they put into the many cartoon verses we have on the wiki handled like this: Import character A is consistently at Tier 9 & consistently with anti-feats beyond it, but also has some far higher feats, same with other characters. So import character A is listed at (for example) "[whatever], at most/likely 6-C". Then background character B gets the same, "[whatever], at most/likely 6-C", and background character C, and everyone in the verse even tho they all have clear anti-feats against it and never did feats anywhere near that level, if some have occasional feats above Tier 9. The why? of this is very simple, the 6-C couldn't possibly be dismissed as if the feat didn't happen, therefore in needs to be in a profile, therefore rudimentary powerscaling means other characters would scale to this. Because it's in a character's profile and others can harm them & stuff.

The why? on how we allowed this bs is also very simple, we could simply make the equivalent of handling those characters like this "Varies (Due to cartoonish inconsistency. If other characters scale to them, they would do so to their regular performance. They would not scale others to their best feat, dummy. [(link) Here are some exemplary feats in between their normal performance but below their beat showing]) from [X] normally to 6-C at best", but as long there exists users who see "Varies" as this thing that can only apply to canon, in-universe recognized and "serious" changes in stats, then it's as if a fraction of all inconsistencies in fiction didn't exist in the wiki. Thus, we allow wacky scaling for everyone in cartoons for the best feats in them.

If a character's inconsistency makes them have different stats across their series, then they fit the definitions of the word variable. It's stands to reason that variable tiers should be used for them, and that not do so would limit practicality and thus mess us up. The whole unsaid "It feels bad to use "Varies" for cartoonish inconsistency, that shouldn't happen" doesn't give an alternative for it, and even if it did some characters have both cartoonish inconsistency and an in-canon reason to vary in stats. It's better to just use Varies for inconsistencies and may everyone who disagrees deals with it.

I agree with different profiles as long as we make clear as water that everything's still canon and the separation exists to keep track of the stats' consistency. Like Iron Man.

It's not equivalent at all to iron man. Iron Man blatantly has different suits of armor. This is just trying to avoid this supposed inconsistency

 

[Pikaman]

It's not equivalent at all to iron man. Iron Man blatantly has different suits of armor. This is just trying to avoid this supposed inconsistency

“Supposed” lmao, he’s very obviously inconsistent

And we are actually basing this off of something which is the quote that each game just has Mario kinda as an actor fulfilling a “role”, each “role” will get a profile under proposed changes

at least I think that’s what the argument is here

 

[Eficiente]

Rough comparison if you like. 1 character & canon, many profiles & stats. And yes, I genuinely take it as basic how inconsistent this character is, which of course includes looking at his own showings and how the scaling of everyone in the verse reflects off of him, "supposed inconsistency" is disingenuous.

 

[sanicspood]

who the **** would vote for option A

 

[PrinceofPein]

A looks solid
Tbh it would just better to drop the tier 3 feat and go with other consistent feats.

 

[Newendigo]

I just want to mention you can have multiple profiles for the same canon character, we do it for Goku due to the density of his stats.

I think it perfectly works for Mario due to how much stuff he has through the games, feats widely varying from different entries depending on the theme, and I always supported the idea, but every time is brought up it was (And is still treated) like some insult to ones mom, like jesus christ.

A lot of people would argue "But the profile's density can easily be deal with through tabbers", and while yes it does help to compress the profile while reading it, is a complete annoyance when it comes to editing it

For one, functions such as compression, embedded links, tabbers and such all stop working when entering the source mode, for obvious reasons. The profiles go from this to this, a mess to deal with whether is adding, removing, or editing text, and Mario is not even that heavy when it comes to density.

And two, you can't normally edit the content that is inside the tabbers while using the viewer editor, either you use a tiny box that only shows a bit of the content in source, or use that mode right away; the latter being more tedious than the former, in my opinion.

So personally, at least in this occasion, think is better to split the pages into a couple of ones, for all indexing purposes.

 

[EliminatorVenom]

I dunno, this is a hard choice.

While splitting the profiles ends up as more consistent with each other, it is not "true" consistency, but rather a more arbitrary separation that has the objective of being more manageable to categorize. With Miyamoto's statement about it being the same Mario across all games (with the charitable interpretation that feats may have been done differently in each different separation of the profile) plus the fact that there isn't really any more evidence that I know of for, say, SMB1 and SMB2 being any more canon with each other than SM64 is, aside from the Mario tropes and technological limits they shared by being closer in time, I dislike the separation, as cool as it would be to separate feats like that. However, profiles must be arranged by how they should be, not by how simpler it would be to make them differently.

My opinion doesn't really matter here as I am not a specialist in Mario, but those are my two cents here.

 

[Nero415]

I dunno. Still don't feel right separating the Mario franchise by games as with the exception of Paper Mario.

 

[The_Impress]

I mean dude unless you unironically wanna assert shit like "Mario with the 3-C tennis racket hits the 3-C ball which bounces off the 3-C floor to reach the 3-C Toad who also hits it with his 3-C racket but this time it hits the 3-C net", it's clear the devs and Nintendo don't want their characters locked in a specific "canon" that limits their scope of games.

Like I'll just say it, it's just disingenuous for us to act like this is the intent, and acting like it having a plot and hints of continuity makes it unlike cartoon continuity, is kinda underestimating narrative strength of said cartoons, you see Mickey Mouse cartoons that can have immensely beautiful imagery and narrative with little to no humor, they're not meant to be limiting factors.

Not everything has to be the linear "A then B then C" narrative, sometimes a character's iconography is what's of value rather than their narrative history, and Nintendo tends to want Mario to embody that, he's iconic.

Also it's not "lmao inconsistency", Lunge it must be hella fun to misrepresent arguments and take away any nuances, right? Because that's what you've been doing across the thread, not arguing, just saying reactionary shit because you know you've got fuckall otherwise to argue. Quit it.

 

[Elizhaa]

Also, has anyone else pinged people like @GyroNutz @Starter_Pack and @Elizhaa ? They have knowledge on Mario combined with also being fairly open-minded and level headed.

I am not familiar with the verse; currently, with the sheer amount of anti-feats and the current arguments, I agree with the OP and options A.
I am open-minded to changing my mind to new evidence.
Since it could help with the thread, I pinged @SamanPatou @CrimsonStarFallen since they are listed as knowledgeable members of the verse.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Saman already commented, and I still have take great issues that I'm compiling arguments later.

 

[The_Impress]

Take your time.

 

[AKM sama]

Option A looks like the objectively correct alternative given the information presented imo. Option B is just the lazy way out that sacrifices accuracy.

 

[The_Impress]

It's wrt how much effort people are willing to put up, and the aesthetics, essentially, and the scenario where we're not able to derive a proper canon outline to extract files from, latter is a subjective burden to fulfill afterall

 

[TMaakkonen]

Decades of time, a slew of new characters and abilities, I can see why people would argue both the two being fused and remaining separate

I guess? But if SMB includes 3D games, then I'm not sure NSMB should be disregarded as 2D & 3D games themselves have more differences.

Looking at both Japanese & English sites, I tend to agree that the main "Super Mario" main series should probably include 2D + 3D games, since story and feats wise they are most similar.

The official home of Super Mario™ – History

Explore the history of Mario, the Mushroom Kingdom, and more at the official Nintendo site for all things Mario.

mario.nintendo.com

ゲームアーカイブ | マリオポータル | Nintendo

これまでのマリオのゲームをご紹介します。

www.nintendo.co.jp

The Japan site also lists categories, Super Mario, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario Tennis, Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi, Mario Golf and surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) it appears Mario Strikers is now given a category. I'm not sure are we going to create a page for all spin-offs, and some others like Mario + Rabbids should probably stay, but the main "Super Mario" series should have all 2D & 3D games.

For bare minimum at least, but I guess the inconsistencies would still happen within Super Mario series as well.

 

[Armorchompy]

It's wrt how much effort people are willing to put up, and the aesthetics, essentially, and the scenario where we're not able to derive a proper canon outline to extract files from, latter is a subjective burden to fulfill afterall

For the record I would absolutely be willing and eager to help with Option A.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody write a single post that explains the conclusions here so far in an easy to understand manner please?

Also, what do @DarkDragonMedeus and @GyroNutz think about this?

 

[Pikaman]

Can somebody write a single post that explains the conclusions here so far in an easy to understand manner please?

Also, what do @DarkDragonMedeus and @GyroNutz think about this?

So in short, we are currently looking at scrapping the 3-C ratings for Mario, and looking at two options

A: Splitting Mario into several Mario profiles based on different games and game continuities

B: Giving Mario a Varies tier

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I would personally prefer option B in that case, given that I think that it is officially the same character, just with a loose canon.

It also seems less complicated.

 

[Armorchompy]

At the end of the day the notion stated is, "They're meant to be like Cartoon Characters", the way Cartoon characters work, old timey ones, is essentially every episode is meant to be independent of the last, there are callbacks yes, but they're mostly meant to be cute references rather than any legitimate implication of canon. You can look at Tom and Jerry where there are bajillion stories where either Tom or Jerry are put in irreparable situations that'd change the course of the series by the end of each episode, but they act like it never happened. Mickey Mouse can just have vastly different origins and living situations in every episode that have NO continuity whatsoever. The cartoon timeline is meant to represent a "narrative first, continuity negligible" mindset.

If each game is an episode, like how DDM told me in DMs, then each game is non-canon to prior and doesn't scale. Of course there are exceptions, there is a thing called convenient canon where a few games can have temporary canon to each other but then the series goes back to the cartoon continuity.

Now in terms of indexing we can reconcile it like this:

• Option A: We gives files for each iteration of Mario, games which are direct sequels are assumed to be conveniently canon to each other for indexing convenience as well as logical sense. This will yield about 20-30ish files for each major character, to be added overtime, with the priority ones being focused first
• Option B: We don't split Mario and give him a Varies tier, not necessarily for inconsistency alone, but instead acknowledging Mario's statistics and powers are subject to the game's direction, and do not operate by conventional canon logic, each individual game and group of canon games are still subject to feat consistency within themselves. Essentially this is all the previous to-be-split files assumed to be keys, and listed in a varies for uncertain canon and indexing convenience.

@Antvasima impress goes into it a bit more

 

[Confluctor]

Option B seems better to me. The other one just doesn't seem doable imo. We probably need to write a good note on the verse page as well as each file just in case - if we go with B.

 

[Pikaman]

Option A [6 (10)]: @Armorchompy @Maverick_Zero_X @Seol404 @Eficiente @Elizhaa @AKM sama (@Pikaman @TMaakkonen @Pain_to12 @Newendigo)

Option B [3 (7)] @Psychomaster35 @Confluctor @Antvasima (@Bobsican@I’m_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die @sanicspood @Nero415)

Neutral: @Chariot190

I think that’s the vote count now?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Varies tier does not work since that would mean that they get something like
“Varies from 9-A, up to 3-C”
That’s would mean they can be anywhere from tier 9 to tier 3, but so far they have only shown tier 9, 8, 7 and one outlier tier 3.

I really don’t get the opposition argument an outlier is an outlier nothing more. This is an example of such case.

So it’s either split the profile or rate them to why they have consistently shown

 

[StrymULTRA]

That’s would mean they can be anywhere from tier 9 to tier 3, but so far they have only shown tier 9, 8, 7 and one outlier tier 3

That can be done from Varies too though.

 

[PrinceofPein]

That can be done from Varies too though.

It cannot be done
As he isn’t anywhere from tier 9 to tier 3
He is either tier 9 or 8 or 7. Then we have the 3-C

If it is getting a varies tier it would be “varies from 9-B to 7-C”

 

[StrymULTRA]

I'm pretty sure we have Tier 5 and 4 feats scattered across the series tbf.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I'm pretty sure we have Tier 5 and 4 feats scattered across the series tbf.

Well that changes the whole story
And we should definitely split the profiles as tier 3 won’t be an outlier if we have other tier 4 and 5 feats

 

[Pikaman]

Option A [6 (10)]: @Armorchompy @Maverick_Zero_X @Seol404 @Eficiente @Elizhaa @AKM sama (@Pikaman @TMaakkonen @Pain_to12 @Newendigo)

Option B [3 (7)] @Psychomaster35 @Confluctor @Antvasima (@Bobsican@I’m_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die @sanicspood @Nero415)

Neutral: @Chariot190

I think that’s the vote count now?

So, I’m assuming we need more input? Or would a 2:1 Staff ratio with 9 staff votes and hefty member input also in favour of option A, albeit not by a quite as convincing margin, be enough?

 

[The_Impress]

More input + DDM wants time to address the arguments.

 

[Pikaman]

Thought so just confirming

 

[Pikaman]

NGL completely forgot DDM hadn’t made arguments yet

 

[StrymULTRA]

Well that changes the whole story
And we should definitely split the profiles as tier 3 won’t be an outlier if we have other tier 4 and 5 feats

I'm against split btw. I'm more for a varies and having a check out of all the feats for different tiers would help us to see what's outlier and what's not.

 

[Antvasima]

Varies tier does not work since that would mean that they get something like
“Varies from 9-A, up to 3-C”
That’s would mean they can be anywhere from tier 9 to tier 3, but so far they have only shown tier 9, 8, 7 and one outlier tier 3.

I really don’t get the opposition argument an outlier is an outlier nothing more. This is an example of such case.

So it’s either split the profile or rate them to why they have consistently shown

Can't we just list regular Mario with "Variable" followed by the 4 different tiers that you mentioned then?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Can't we just list regular Mario with "Variable" followed by the 4 different tiers that you mentioned then?

Well it is possible first let’s see which option gets the most votes, and if it is option B, then we can move on from their and see which tier range would be most appropriate.

But picking 4 different tiers instead of a range will no longer make it a “varies” rating but rather “keys” for different level of stats.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I really can't list stuff now but aren't Power Stars generally Tier 4 as those powered from it can create realms that big in SM64?

That can be helpful.