Resurrecting Asura's Profile

[Zamasu_Chan]

So are they real galaxies or not?

I say they are for several reasons.

I'd like to point out that scan of Chakravartin sitting at the center of the milky way is not a reliable source. It's concept art that was never used.

Secondly, all the surrounding galaxies in the void of space were evidently gone for two reasons. 1. We see the spatial background, objects and space particles being sucked in the statue. 2. After the golden statue explodes, we see it spawn countless galaxies. We even get an establishing shot of the void of space before they're spawned in and we see no signs of galaxies until after the explosion (it even changes the spatial background from gold to blue). Another reason is right as the credit start to roll. We see Mithra fly past several galaxies when returning to Geia, showing that A, Asura traveled a multi galactic distance and B, we never saw those galaxies when flying with Asura, so we can conclude that Chakravartin did indeed destroy the galaxies.

As for the size inconsistency? This was touched upon a while ago. Due to graphical limitations on a 6 gigabyte game, it's hard to portray things at a massive size so consistently without creating unnecessary space/data. We do get a shot right here, of Asura hitting Goldi boi in the forehead and when we get a clear view, we don't see a single pixel of Asura anywhere. Look at it frame by frame at 11:44 here.

With that cleared up, them being real galaxies should not be an issue. I would bring up the potential universal arguments but I'll leave that alone for now.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I'd like to point out that scan of Chakravartin sitting at the center of the milky way is not a reliable source. It's concept art that was never used.

Are you sure about it being not used along with Asura’ Daughter also traveling what seems to been the moon? If we have a wide camera angle, that would been used to see exactly what happened there.

Beside, if the concept art is still used in the final product, that is a different story.

Still neutral though,

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Are you sure about it being not used along with Asura’ Daughter also traveling what seems to been the moon? If we have a wide camera angle, that would been used to see exactly what happened there.

What do you mean by this?

Beside, if the concept art is still used in the final product, that is a different story.
Still neutral though,

Nah, concept art in a guidebook <<< Soource material (the main game) nothing other than a lost concept says they're small galaxies. Let alone implies it.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Also the visual effect is still decent to this day as well although kinda hard due to some blurriness, but eh, what you gonna do that about that too.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

What do you mean by this?

Nah, concept art in a guidebook <<< Soource material (the main game) nothing other than a lost concept says they're small galaxies. Let alone implies it.

You mean it was in a art book which was apparently published in 2015. 3 years after the game was released in 2012.

Keep in kind, there is nothing that say it is contradicted by the source material and can, in fact, support what was shown.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Also apparently it does have creator’s commentary according to a summary of Amazon and published by Capcom so I think the devs does have a hand in the artbook it seems.

Amazon product ASIN 1927925290

 

[KLOL506]

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/vsbattles/images/b/b7/XuURfdv.png/revision/latest?cb=20230403123507

This is in the calc KLOL use the statement and it does say galaxy too.

I should note that this is concept art and I just used the same steps as Zamasu. I know very little about Asura's Wrath.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I should note that this is concept art and I just used the same steps as Zamasu. I know very little about Asura's Wrath.

Ah, I see. That is understandable.

However, concept arts, in general, is a tricky matter, but in cases such as this, I think if it backed by Capcom and the creator(s) of the game itself, then it is secondary canon ie. Supporting evidence since in this case, we using a statement along with a concept art that seems to being used in the game itself as it is not like unusable IIRC as there is nothing else to go by other than the game itself and the official art book

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Ah, I see. That is understandable.

However, concept arts, in general, is a tricky matter, but in cases such as this, I think if it backed by Capcom and the creator(s) of the game itself, then it is secondary canon ie. Supporting evidence since in this case, we using a statement along with a concept art that seems to being used in the game itself as it is not like unusable IIRC as there is nothing else to go by other than the game itself and the official art book

Shouldn’t be tricky at all. If something is established as concept art, that means it was never used in the base game because the storyboards were changed. The drawing itself doesn’t fit the game cause it's slightly different.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Shouldn’t be tricky at all. If something is established as concept art, that means it was never used in the base game because the storyboards were changed. The drawing itself doesn’t fit the game cause it's slightly different.

Thing is, it doesn’t say “concept art”, it say “shooting part” above the statement as this is part of game development and the drawing itself is blurred in the said screenshot being used so not a valid point.

As again, just because it is a concept art doesn’t mean it wasn’t used. Just revised and been used to make it look better.

Also storyboard being changed doesn’t mean we should prematurely drop the statement especially since this is a official artbook and beside, if it was truly dropped, then why use the concept art in the first place?

Because it is not scrapped in the first place and can been revised multiple times.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Anyway to summarize this:

1. Zamasu asserts the art is a unreliable source when it is coming from a official artwork book published years later after the initial release of the game back in 2012 (Guidebook was in 2015) and is backed by the publisher and the devs.

2. Zamasu has made some interesting points regarding the dwarf galaxies and whatever or not they are actually real or just there for visual effects as well as absorbing Mantra from everywhere in the galaxy at the very least.

The second point I am neutral on since I do see some potential merit in this, but overall neutral on.

The argument was the usage of the artbook itself as Zamasu is trying to discredit the reliability of the screenshot and the art book it came from even though it doesn’t necessarily contradicted what was portrayed in the game itself.

of the milky way is not a reliable source. It's concept art that was never used

I like to inform everyone that we don’t see a lot of text underneath the images being shown.

In fact, under the shooting part, we see text explaining what the artwork was about a specific scene and so on.

 

[SamanPatou]

Zamasu's right when he says the concept art wasn't used, since the final in-game version does differ from the screenshots shown in the art book, but I always gave credit to the description of the scene itself.

We should check whether or not similar pages contain descriptions matching the actua- final product, or just describe the scrapped material they show.

Still, it can be argued the thing on which Chakravartin sits isn't really the Milky Way, or at least doesn't look like it/doesn't have the same features, even compared to the surrouding dots that are meant to at least replicate the appearance of a galaxy.

It's true as well that the background over which Mithra stands does change after Chakravartin explodes, showings galaxy-like thingies that weren't there before.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Alright, but I also want to mention that Mantra is a cosmic energy so it isn’t out of the question if it is energy that was released after Chakravartin’s death as keep in mind, the plot did involve Mantra after all.

Zamasu's right when he says the concept art wasn't used, since the final in-game version does differ from the screenshots shown in the art book, but I always gave credit to the description of the scene itself.

Are you sure about this?
I don’t think we can just drop the concept art because it didn’t say concept above the screenshot, it say “shooting part” as I don’t think it was not used, but it was used and rather revised.

Even the Wikipedia page does mention the concept art can been used in the final product if it isn’t scrapped.

Concept art - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[KLOL506]

Are you sure about this?
I don’t think we can just drop the concept art because it didn’t say concept above the screenshot, it say “shooting part” as I don’t think it was not used, but it was used and rather revised.

Even the Wikipedia page does mention the concept art can been used in the final product if it isn’t scrapped.

Concept art - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I don't think that's exactly the best example to use in any case. Concept art being usable for stuff is a case-by-case basis for a good reason.

 

[SamanPatou]

Alright, but I also want to mention that Mantra is a cosmic energy so it isn’t out of the question if it is energy that was released after Chakravartin’s death as keep in mind, the plot did involve Mantra after all.

What do you mean exaclty?

Are you sure about this?
I don’t think we can just drop the concept art because it didn’t say concept above the screenshot, it say “shooting part” as I don’t think it was not used, but it was used and rather revised.

I never meant that, I was referring to the two pictures being part of early work and not the final product.
The major point is whether or not the description should be considered valid for the final game too or only for the scrapped concept.
I'll try to find more pages and see what do they say about other episodes.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I don't think that's exactly the best example to use in any case. Concept art being usable for stuff is a case-by-case basis for a good reason.

I know.

The major point is whether or not the description should be considered valid for the final game too or only for the scrapped concept.

While this is fair, I also personally don’t think it isn’t valid.

Not to mention, the reason why I say that is because Chakravartin does have energy absorption since the scenes we shown in the game does tell us he was the God of Mantra IIRC or something like that.

 

[Cyberblader90]

The bit about him sitting atop the Milky Way isn't stated in the game and is instead from an art book with some discrepancies (such as dropped concepts like Chakravartin using Naraka pillars in combat). It's inconsistent with the visuals from the game because the golden spiral thing he's sitting on is visible from Gaia, which is within the Milky Way. He's also facing Gaia which would be impossible if he was sitting atop the galaxy that Gaia is located within.

 

[Eseseso]

The bit about him sitting atop the Milky Way isn't stated in the game and is instead from an art book with some discrepancies (such as dropped concepts like Chakravartin using Naraka pillars in combat). It's inconsistent with the visuals from the game because the golden spiral thing he's sitting on is visible from Gaia, which is within the Milky Way. He's also facing Gaia which would be impossible if he was sitting atop the galaxy that Gaia is located within.

So does this support him being bigger or smaller than his current size?

 

[KLOL506]

So does this support him being bigger or smaller than his current size?

From what I'm seeing, most likely bigger.

 

[SamanPatou]

The bit about him sitting atop the Milky Way isn't stated in the game and is instead from an art book with some discrepancies (such as dropped concepts like Chakravartin using Naraka pillars in combat). It's inconsistent with the visuals from the game because the golden spiral thing he's sitting on is visible from Gaia, which is within the Milky Way. He's also facing Gaia which would be impossible if he was sitting atop the galaxy that Gaia is located within.

That's what I was talking about, the game never refers to Chakra's size or position, the golden spiral doesn't look like a galaxy and I agree that the perspective would have been different if he was sitting in the middle of the same galaxy in which planet Gaea is.

So does this support him being bigger or smaller than his current size?

It would make him billions of times bigger, because he would be much larger that the surrouding galaxies (which would be considered real) instead of just big as a real one.

 

[Eseseso]

That's what I was talking about, the game never refers to Chakra's size or position, the golden spiral doesn't look like a galaxy and I agree that the perspective would have been different if he was sitting in the middle of the same galaxy in which planet Gaea is.



It would make him billions of times bigger, because he would be much larger that the surrouding galaxies (which would be considered real) instead of just big as a real one.

I mean, we don't know how large those galaxies are.

IIRC the smallest galaxies are only like 110 light years wide.

 

[SamanPatou]

Yeah, billions was an exaggeration, but scrapping the artbook would still make the "old" Chakra much smaller than the "new".

 

[Eseseso]

I just checked, and the smallest dwarf galaxy, Segue 2, only has a diameter of 221.8 light years, which would make Chakravartin only 4200 light years tall using the pixel scaling from here:

https://www.deviantart.com/kirito352/art/Chakravartin-s-death-explosion-Asura-s-Wrath-808317819

 

[ShionAH]

Is Asura gonna stomp saitama when these go through-?

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

I just checked, and the smallest dwarf galaxy, Segue 2, only has a diameter of 221.8 light years, which would make Chakravartin only 4200 light years tall using the pixel scaling from here:

https://www.deviantart.com/kirito352/art/Chakravartin-s-death-explosion-Asura-s-Wrath-808317819

Why use the smallest galaxy at all? Just use a regular sized one.

 

[Eseseso]

Why use the smallest galaxy at all? Just use a regular sized one.

I thought low balling was our policy.

But if we use a diameter of 151,500 light years (since the average galaxy size is between 3,000 and 300,000 light years according to Wikipedia so we should average the 2 ends), then Golden Chakravartin is 2,869,483.769 light years tall.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

I thought low balling was our policy.

That’s not lowballing but straight downplay. All those galaxies are very close to the same size so assuming it’ll be the smallest or largest possible galaxy would require more evidence. Aka burden of proof.

 

[Eseseso]

That’s not lowballing but straight downplay. All those galaxies are very close to the same size so assuming it’ll be the smallest or largest possible galaxy would require more evidence. Aka burden of proof.

Well what about this:

But if we use a diameter of 151,500 light years (since the average galaxy size is between 3,000 and 300,000 light years according to Wikipedia so we should average the 2 ends), then Golden Chakravartin is 2,869,483.769 light years tall.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

That's better

 

[Eseseso]

That's better

I just checked KLOL's calc using the above height, and while the moon calc is only 10 petafoe, the explosion calc is easily 3-B.

I couldn't calc it fully since I don't know what the target would be instead of the sun, but even using the sun distance it's like 130-something yottafoe.

Btw, how exactly do Asura and Chakravartin scale to the death explosion?

 

[Cyberblader90]

It was brought up earlier that mantra is a universal energy system. It's via chak's mantra pool

 

[Eseseso]

It was brought up earlier that mantra is a universal energy system. It's via chak's mantra pool

But how does his normal AP=his death explosion?

 

[Cyberblader90]

https://vsbattles.com/threads/resurrecting-asuras-profile.151666/post-5617387

 

[Eseseso]

https://vsbattles.com/threads/resurrecting-asuras-profile.151666/post-5617387

That makes sense. Mainly the "trial" part, but also since the statue's GBE should equal its death explosion.

 

[SamanPatou]

I thought low balling was our policy.

Lowballing usually goes in tandem with safeness, depending on the case.
In this context, I'd say that using the average size of a galaxy is more than reasonable.

But if we use a diameter of 151,500 light years (since the average galaxy size is between 3,000 and 300,000 light years according to Wikipedia so we should average the 2 ends), then Golden Chakravartin is 2,869,483.769 light years tall.

We should use these numbers to re-scale his size according to KLOL's calcs.
@KLOL506 Could you adjust your calcs using this new assumption? No calc member has evaluated them yet, so we're still in time.
Thanks again for the help and sorry for the bother.

 

[KLOL506]

IDK why we should use the smallest number instead of just using our Milky Way galaxy as the size for one of those galaxies. It should be a matter of just finding the biggest one amongst Chakravartin and ending it there.

 

[SamanPatou]

Isn't 151,500 light years the average, according to Wikipedia's data?
I guess the size of the galaxies around Chakravartin changes depending on the shot? Wouldn't it be fine to take one that seems decently long from the shot taken to do the pixelscaling?

 

[KLOL506]

Isn't 151,500 light years the average, according to Wikipedia's data?
I guess the size of the galaxies around Chakravartin changes depending on the shot? Wouldn't it be fine to take one that seems decently long from the shot taken to do the pixelscaling?

We use our Galaxy as the basis for all other galaxies, as do we use our Sun as the standard star.

 

[SamanPatou]

I have no issues then.

 

[KLOL506]

I have no issues then.

'Kay, I'll find the biggest galaxy beside Chakravartin and use that instead for our pixel-scaling basis. Is that fine with everyone?