• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Super Mario CRT: Galaxy? I Think Not!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dino_Ranger_Black said:
Battle Belt Galaxy appears in World 6 and Flip Out Galaxy appeared in World S. The former already exists while the latter only appears after the hungry luma transforms and with the fact we use portals to travel across between them, it’s clear that it doesn’t takes place within the same spot and debunks that it’s a pre-existing location. Especially when they are the only locations within both sections.

This type of skybox only appeared twice in the game and is clearly depicted as a galaxy in both cases as it isn’t small and is taking after an actual type of galaxy. As far as I’m concern, the only arguments made against these locations sizes’ are the names, which I already went over why that isn’t a good argument and the scope of the levels, which also isn’t a good argument since we we’re only given a limited amount of space to travel around and the celestial bodies within the area, specifically the several cluster of stars, which only further support the case.
Click to expand...
So as Bambu pointed out, seeing a galaxy in the level does not mean the Luma became the galaxy, in fact, it actually supports the opposite. Since the entire galaxy can be seen from Flip Out Galaxy, that would mean that Flip Out Galaxy is outside the galaxy we see in the background and is merely a collection of small planetoids floating in space, like the other galaxies are shown to be.

I don't mean to be rude here but I feel like I've responded to these points multiple times already.
 
I still agree with Dino, I simply do not really see any actual refutes and more so knit picks to what he is saying. IRL, the only galaxy visible from Earth with the naked eye to my knowledge is the Andromeda Galaxy. And you normally can't see other galaxies with the naked eye from other galaxies. You can see a portal that is in the direction of other galaxies within the overstory as well as the starship, but that's just for show and those portals aren't the entire picture of those galaxies. But the inside of each and every galaxy still has starry sky backgrounds and what not, and some galaxies are actually implied to dwarf the Milky Way Galaxy such as Grand Master Galaxy. Plus, dwarf galaxies are still 4-A sized, and also the number of galaxies that are clearly real galaxies in the universe still far outnumber the stage galaxies excluding the main topic of them being real galaxies. And it sounds mind baffling of galaxies at the center of the universe or edge of the universe to not be real galaxies when there are so many real galaxies in the universe.
 
Last edited:
Medeus makes sense to me. Thank you for helping out.
 
I don't see how my point can be considered a knit pick, given his entire point hinges on us accepting that the galaxy visible in the background is what the Luma became. It is literally possible to see such things from Earth (something you yourself agree with), I don't see how this is being considered concrete. It isn't a refutation to say "point too minor, don't agree". If your argument is now that this is a dwarf galaxy, that still requires proof outside of its namesake as a galaxy. We're talking about a game where celestial objects are shown to be much smaller- so show me the fully sized dwarf galaxy that a Luma makes.
 
Still waiting for empirical evidence to suggest that that the Lumas are becoming the entire galaxies when there is very much evidence to the contrary.

Seeing a galaxy in the background really should not be enough when there is contradictory evidence to imply they are much smaller, evidence which is much better supported I might add.
 
What's even the debunk here? That since Mario Galaxy doesn't make you walk across thousands of kilometres of rock for every planet you visit, that every planet and galaxy you visit must be the size you see in-game? They're called galaxies (separately from their names), the planets have their own gravitational fields, with Mario being able to reach escape velocity using launch stars which is acknowledged in the prima guide. The one decent debunk that I've actually seen is that the Mushroom Kingdom is called the "Grand Finale Galaxy". While this is demonstrably not trying to portray an actual galaxy, it is also the only level in the star list that isn't called a galaxy, unlike every other main level in the game, to my knowledge.

Also agree with what DDM and Dino have been saying.
 
GyroNutz said:
What's even the debunk here? That since Mario Galaxy doesn't make you walk across thousands of kilometres of rock for every planet you visit, that every planet and galaxy you visit must be the size you see in-game? They're called galaxies (separately from their names), the planets have their own gravitational fields, with Mario being able to reach escape velocity using launch stars which is acknowledged in the prima guide. The one decent debunk that I've actually seen is that the Mushroom Kingdom is called the "Grand Finale Galaxy". While this is demonstrably not trying to portray an actual galaxy, it is also the only level in the star list that isn't called a galaxy, unlike every other main level in the game, to my knowledge.

Also agree with what DDM and Dino have been saying.
Click to expand...
Of course not, and to present it as such implies you've not been keeping up. I'm not asking for millions of light years wide areas. I'm asking for proof that these celestial bodies they are scaling to are of that size, which is different. Literally no proof whatsoever has been provided of that claim outside of them being called galaxies. Good heavens.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Of course not, and to present it as such implies you've not been keeping up. I'm not asking for millions of light years wide areas. I'm asking for proof that these celestial bodies they are scaling to are of that size, which is different. Literally no proof whatsoever has been provided of that claim outside of them being called galaxies. Good heavens.
Click to expand...
Guessing you didn't read past the first sentence of my post, or DDM and Dino's posts. "Good heavens" indeed.
 
GyroNutz said:
Guessing you didn't read past the first sentence of my post, or DDM and Dino's posts. "Good heavens" indeed.
Click to expand...
Which one? Are you ignoring the post where I argued against "Flip Out Galaxy" given, again, there is literally 0 evidence of that being the galaxy created by the Luma? or are you just trying to discredit me without a point?
 
GyroNutz said:
What's even the debunk here? That since Mario Galaxy doesn't make you walk across thousands of kilometres of rock for every planet you visit, that every planet and galaxy you visit must be the size you see in-game? They're called galaxies (separately from their names), the planets have their own gravitational fields, with Mario being able to reach escape velocity using launch stars which is acknowledged in the prima guide.
Click to expand...
Yes, we absolutely should accept that the planets you visit are the size we see them in the game, empirical and rational evidence would both bring us to this conclusion. What you are suggesting here is that the events that take place during the game are not actually the events that happen in the story which is not something we should accept on any level, this is far beyond a gameplay limitation argument you are just saying the entire game doesn't happen like we see it happen.

Prima Guide is no longer accepted, I'm fairly certain, but if it was it wouldn't help your case since it also refers to Melty Molten Galaxy as a planetary system.
 
Seol404 said:
Prima Guide is no longer accepted, I'm fairly certain, but if it was it wouldn't help your case since it also refers to Melty Molten Galaxy as a planetary system.
Click to expand...
Can you post the scans of this? Even if the guide has issues with staying consistent with the game, I'm just curious about this evidence.

Although, if something like Mushroom Kingdom is referred to as a "galaxy", it sets a precedent that the game treats the word loosely and other instances should be checked thoroughly and not just assumed to be galaxy-sized on the basis of being called "galaxies" only.
 
image0.webp

@AKM sama
 
Can somebody remind us of the arguments for each side here please?
 
TLDR for my argument is that the galaxies are very clearly not as large as real galaxies, and that there is no supporting evidence from the games or from WoG to imply they are small simply for gameplay limitations but rather that what we see is simply their canonical size. Along with the lack of evidence to support them just being small sections of larger galaxies rather than just small planetoids floating out in space which is supported by the fact that many share the same background in Galaxy 1 and are notably seen close together at the end of the game.
 
@Antvasima Well, the franchise, to my knowledge, clearly shown to be competent in how a galaxy is depicted. The small planetoids debate rather contradictory considering there are actual sized planets within the same levels. We've seen several kinds of accurately size galaxies and as a collection of dust, gas, and stars, even an entire one within aits outskirts such as the discussed Battle Belt Galaxy and Flip Out Galaxy and other games such as Super Mario Odyssey.

The main arguments about the scale of these levels is largely comprised of the names and the fact backgrounds are reused. We already covered why using names as an argument is fallacious. It's clear that they are merely describing the level the player travels across and not the actual galaxy. The background reusing argument isn't a valid either as not only the franchise and even it's sub-series such as Donkey Kong and Yoshi have always been reusing certain background for something depicted as a completely different location as seen Fuzzy Time Mine and Floating Time Mine, despite the latter taking place in space, it was debunk by the in-game story. We are already given a map, the ones inside the domes specifically, that shows the areas are indeed different sections of cosmos, rather than Mario being confined into a single galaxy or location. Despite Good Egg Galaxy and Hurry Scurry Galaxy sharing similar backgrounds, the sections they reside in are different as the Terrance and Fountain domes reveals. Not only that, we were given a narrative explanation that the accessibility of the levels Mario visits are determined by how much further he can travel within space via the amount of stars he collected. If Good Egg and Hurry Scurry are resided within the same location, well, it wouldn't make sense that he would need more stars to travel to the same location when he can revisit areas he has already been in or the fact he needs less stars to travel into Space Junk Galaxy, a level clearly not within the same galaxy. The ending is redundant as we already know the universe was reset/recreated in the aftermath and the small planetoids seen during the welcoming of the new galaxy is the question mark planetoid from Gusty Garden and the battle fleet from Good Egg, both which aren't in the intro of the game or were even seen near each other when we actually play their respective levels and former was hovering over an appropriately-sized planet different from ours and that's not even in the ending or the former level. I think discrediting the entire series for this after several games, including the games that started this argument, is too extreme. It's clear that these areas are at least stellar range in size and we are fully aware how ridiculous it is to demand how many literal miles it is in size, which seems to be the main demand considering other aspects of this argument have been proven otherwise. For my thought on this, it seems that we don't know what we are looking for.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Dino, also I think some people misunderstood what he was saying regarding Flipflop Galaxy's background. I didn't think he was implying there was a galaxy inside those galaxies, but rather the galaxy in the background implies similarities to the Milky Way Galaxy's background. In which that's how the skies above Earth look; stars, Nebula appearing throughout the sky which are inside our galaxy. But the Andromeda Galaxy is visible with the naked eye despite being outside the galaxy.
 
Dino_Ranger_Black said:
@Antvasima Well, the franchise, to my knowledge, clearly shown to be competent in how a galaxy is depicted. The small planetoids debate rather contradictory considering there are actual sized planets within the same levels. We've seen several kinds of accurately size galaxies and as a collection of dust, gas, and stars, even an entire one within aits outskirts such as the discussed Battle Belt Galaxy and Flip Out Galaxy and other games such as Super Mario Odyssey.

The main arguments about the scale of these levels is largely comprised of the names and the fact backgrounds are reused. We already covered why using names as an argument is fallacious. It's clear that they are merely describing the level the player travels across and not the actual galaxy. The background reusing argument isn't a valid either as not only the franchise and even it's sub-series such as Donkey Kong and Yoshi have always been reusing certain background for something depicted as a completely different location as seen Fuzzy Time Mine and Floating Time Mine, despite the latter taking place in space, it was debunk by the in-game story. We are already given a map, the ones inside the domes specifically, that shows the areas are indeed different sections of cosmos, rather than Mario being confined into a single galaxy or location. Despite Good Egg Galaxy and Hurry Scurry Galaxy sharing similar backgrounds, the sections they reside in are different as the Terrance and Fountain domes reveals. Not only that, we were given a narrative explanation that the accessibility of the levels Mario visits are determined by how much further he can travel within space via the amount of stars he collected. If Good Egg and Hurry Scurry are resided within the same location, well, it wouldn't make sense that he would need more stars to travel to the same location when he can revisit areas he has already been in or the fact he needs less stars to travel into Space Junk Galaxy, a level clearly not within the same galaxy. The ending is redundant as we already know the universe was reset/recreated in the aftermath and the small planetoids seen during the welcoming of the new galaxy is the question mark planetoid from Gusty Garden and the battle fleet from Good Egg, both which aren't in the intro of the game or were even seen near each other when we actually play their respective levels and former was hovering over an appropriately-sized planet different from ours and that's not even in the ending or the former level. I think discrediting the entire series for this after several games, including the games that started this argument, is too extreme. It's clear that these areas are at least stellar range in size and we are fully aware how ridiculous it is to demand how many literal miles it is in size, which seems to be the main demand considering other aspects of this argument have been proven otherwise. For my thought on this, it seems that we don't know what we are looking for.
Click to expand...
I can't really speak for the others doubting the legitimacy of Mario profiles, but personally you'd already proven that actual sized celestial bodies exist. The only issue is it is also proven that these celestial bodies dwarf any made in the game to the point of hilarity. It has not been proven that any characters scale to these obscure real-sized celestial bodies over those you are free to explore in-game. Seeing is one thing, sure. But you're trying to use this to claim characters are creating these bodies, too- which has counterpoints listed previously.

The main argument about the scale of the levels is the fact that they are not the same size as these other bodies you present. Quite literally no evidence to the contrary has been provided, rather outlying points are occasionally brought up. Because of this, I still do not see any legitimate reason to scale Mario to celestial bodies he never interacts with at any point. Some of the second paragraph has little to do with my points so I feel as though I will leave it here. Show me the normal-galaxy-sized celestial body created or destroyed by the protagonists.
 
I personally think that Dino seems to make sense above.
 
I'm still on the side of the feats not being valid. I think Dino and Medeus' side isn't really addressing the actual issue we have with it.
 
Okay. I hope that they will focus more on that part then.
 
We seem to be at quite the standstill, are there any other members knowledgeable on Mario who could comment?
 
I believe other neutral staff members should be called in to evaluate that. Both sides have made their arguments and this thread will not go forward without further input from other staff members.

Can someone summarize the points in a single post?
 
The explanation should preferably be thorough enough, but still easy to underhand, and should also be evenhanded.
 
AKM sama said:
I believe other neutral staff members should be called in to evaluate that. Both sides have made their arguments and this thread will not go forward without further input from other staff members.

Can someone summarize the points in a single post?
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
The explanation should preferably be thorough enough, but still easy to underhand, and should also be evenhanded.
Click to expand...
This still applies.
 
The actual celestial bodies dwarfing the levels means nothing. The Galaxies are scaled down for gameplay is literally what we've been trying to say for so long. Mario's Planet must have small micro sections of suspended land if we're going by icons and gameplay I guess. The fact these arguments are still being made based on icons and gameplay that are clearly not to scale because of limitations and artistic expression really grate me, especially as we're supposed to believe an exploration of the universe with Bowser having grand plans to create a galaxy and wanting to be served a "galaxy-sized" cake being part of the game's story doesn't imply the scope is actually how the game advertises because gameplay and literal level icons are taking precedence over it.

The other side believes the opposite and that the levels are the size they present themselves as.

There is no distinction between what they call galaxies in this game. There's only "Grand Galaxy" from the Japanese version which has connections to "universe" from the English version as "Grand Galaxy Map" became "Universe Map" so we might not wanna use that. And "Grand Galaxy" is just the literal translation. The intention and what it's supposed to be understood as is to use it to mean "World". The icons on the map don't have to represent the entire galaxy nor does the gameplay have to. There is no other meaning for "Galaxy". I don't understand why people can't tell these are actual celestial bodies dumbed down for gameplay. The fact they're in space full of the other celestial bodies we've proven exist means these are likely the celestial bodies they say they are too. And does it matter their sizes when they're located in various areas of the universe which still supports the speed and the actual celestial bodies exist which get destroyed in Galaxy 1? He wanted to create a galaxy too and given the scope of the game and contextually speaking I'm finding it extremely hard to believe he meant only a few small planetoids.

And again there's no reason the Grand Stars should be weaker than Lumas. Like, it took like dozens at the least to reverse the effects of the black hole the Reactor causes in Galaxy 1 which was powered and fueled by the Grand Star.

What does the size matter? What is the point of these arguments? You're saying we missed the point than concisely explain it.
 
To sum it up, I think Stars in general should should just naturally have "the power of the stars" due to all the similarities I've drawn between many games making it very consistent. Stars grant "Star Power" and "The Power of the Stars" which are probably just the same thing said differently. They grant Power basically. This power can be used for many things and this Star Power is the universal energy system all Stars share.

In the OP I've shown how Stars consistently buff characters and amp their stats, I've shown how it grants the ability to alter maps magically, enable the use of certain abilities, and enable a ship to move via Star Power. These are consistent throughout every series from PM to Party to the Main games. Star Pieces are used to permanently power-up Mario and his partners in Paper Mario and these same Star Pieces are fragments of the Stars which naturally grant Star Power. These same fragments all were used to create the Crystal Stars which help Mario fight a threat he can't beat in base and also heal him much like other Stars have shown to do throughout the series.

It seems simple to me: Stars grant Star Power. This can be used in many ways. Lumas can access Star Power and even become Power Stars which naturally have this, but these Lumas are all inferior to a single Grand Star which caused an at least 3-B event due to effecting a good portion of the universe at the least. But I also raised the possibility of Uni due to effecting an NPC on the edge of the universe, and based on context I've posted in the OP all evidence points to it being at the end of the universe due to the progression of it's little character arc before the Reset. Don't see what sizes of the individual levels even matter when these are my points. It effected a good portion of the universe and that's fact. The NPC is also my evidence it reached the entire universe as a blast is omnidirectional. Unless we are trying to claim the main universe is small I don't get the arguments that were made in my absence.

The Power Star rating is being discussed in another thread specifically tailored to it so that can be ignored here.

I don't feel like reposting all the evidence again when it's right there in the OP.

This is my stance on the matter. I can't summarize the other side's arguments if I don't understand what's apparently the main point of their arguments nor why it matters to what I'm proposing.
 
Last edited:
A bump and also I'd like to add that we KNOW for sure at least 2 galaxies we're effected by the Reset because Rosalina specifically travels to another galaxy to reach Bowser. This galaxy is also colored red which is what the farthest known galaxies are commonly viewed as due to Redshift.

So again, at least 3-B since this is one of the farther galaxies, and knowing that, the assumption it consumed most of the observable universe isn't entirely implausible either given the supporting evidence surrounding it. At least a Possibly rating should be added I feel.

I'd also like to add that the Japanese version of Galaxy may hold proof the universe has a 4D space-time continuum due to Matter Splatter's mission name.

超空間の 示す道

Translations vary due to the kanji used having multiple meanings, but the first kanji is known as an expression of superiority as it's uses involve "transcending" or adding onto something to make it grander with "super" and "hyper".

The next kanji refers to "void" and "vacant" as it's possible uses and the third in line refers to "interval" or "space".

Add these three together and you can get hyperspace/superspace or even superdimensional and hyperdimensional in some translations. (See names in other languages)

Knowing this, I feel like it seems like they're supporting this space being superior to the main one, which fits the definitions of hyperspace and superspace which talk of space of more than three dimensions.

I'm aware of the other definitions of Hyperspace, but this clearly isn't the typical Hyperspace depiction where you enter a space enabling FTL travel. And Mario's main universe is already wacky and extraordinary so making a distinction that this place is somehow special makes no sense.

We also see the ground and some objects blipping in and out of existence similar to how higher-dimensional objects would theoretically behave in a 3D space. Via Super Paper Mario we also know there are beings who can access an interdimensional space inaccessible to Mario even if he flips from 2D to 3D

I feel like this is enough evidence along with the OP for a Low 2-C rating.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Omnificence
Super Revision Bros 2.0 (Mario and the Power Stars)
2 3
Replies
116
Views
6K
Omnificence
Omnificence
Accelerated_Evolution
  • Locked
Power Stars (Super Mario) AP and abilities revision
Replies
24
Views
2K
Omnificence
Omnificence
Omnificence
  • Locked
Super Multiplier Bros REVAMPED (4-B AP proposal for Mario Bros)
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
Omnificence
Omnificence
Omnificence
  • Locked
Super Multiplier Bros (3-B key proposal for Mario Bros)
Replies
3
Views
924
Maverick_Zero_X
Maverick_Zero_X
Omnificence
Super Multiplier Bros (3-B key proposal for Mario Bros)
2
Replies
65
Views
3K
Omnificence
Omnificence
Back
Top