- 3,719
- 2,757
DDM already agreed to a "possibly Low 2-C" while DRB flat-out disagrees because "we can't assume 'World' means a universe or that they are the same size just because they call the main universe and these paintings worlds the same general term"
However, Illuzivert and many others have brought up how in order to encompass the main universe, the Power Stars would have to make these worlds 4-D and/or expand infinitely. Regardless of if it would "happen over time" or not, that's still an upgrade. The Void, The Rift, and other feats where something expands to eventually effect all of reality are still given those tiers because the power that set it off/sustains it would have to have such power to start it/do so. Also, can you even make a finite object or concept infinite with any amount of time anyways? Seems counterintuitive.
And if we're really gonna argue it's simply just size manip then that's a feat of infinite speed for the Power Star(s).
Others like Gyro disagree with the descriptiors like bottomless and infinite underworlds because they liken that to the notion of a bottomless pit and therefore game mechanics or something.
However, I disagree with this because unlike other examples of bottomless pits in gaming, these ones were:
1.) Specifcally created by Bowser and not just pits in an overworld with no explanation
2.) They describe the dimensions of the world they inhabit. A dimension Bowser created was stated to have no bottom. A dimension he created was said to have infinite underworlds. Two examples describing the dimensions of these dimensions and both are written off like some game mechanic.
Why can't these be taken literally?
Especially when Bowser specifically created these worlds and "has no bottom" and "infinite" are descriptors of these worlds? Why treat these similarly as well when different words and phrasing are used? Hell, we even have a direct pit being referred to as bottomless fron earlier in the thread trying to be used as an example against these, but why not use that phrasing for the others as well? It's because unlike the pit, the examples we have refer to the dimensions of the world as a whole.
However, Illuzivert and many others have brought up how in order to encompass the main universe, the Power Stars would have to make these worlds 4-D and/or expand infinitely. Regardless of if it would "happen over time" or not, that's still an upgrade. The Void, The Rift, and other feats where something expands to eventually effect all of reality are still given those tiers because the power that set it off/sustains it would have to have such power to start it/do so. Also, can you even make a finite object or concept infinite with any amount of time anyways? Seems counterintuitive.
And if we're really gonna argue it's simply just size manip then that's a feat of infinite speed for the Power Star(s).
Others like Gyro disagree with the descriptiors like bottomless and infinite underworlds because they liken that to the notion of a bottomless pit and therefore game mechanics or something.
However, I disagree with this because unlike other examples of bottomless pits in gaming, these ones were:
1.) Specifcally created by Bowser and not just pits in an overworld with no explanation
2.) They describe the dimensions of the world they inhabit. A dimension Bowser created was stated to have no bottom. A dimension he created was said to have infinite underworlds. Two examples describing the dimensions of these dimensions and both are written off like some game mechanic.
Why can't these be taken literally?
Especially when Bowser specifically created these worlds and "has no bottom" and "infinite" are descriptors of these worlds? Why treat these similarly as well when different words and phrasing are used? Hell, we even have a direct pit being referred to as bottomless fron earlier in the thread trying to be used as an example against these, but why not use that phrasing for the others as well? It's because unlike the pit, the examples we have refer to the dimensions of the world as a whole.