• 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 General Discussion Thread.

Armorchompy said:
You guys have been whining about this for like two weeks now and nobody's told you anything, you're fully aware I saw all of these posts and didn't delete any of them, you've openly accused me of collusion to my face like four times and I just kinda ignored it, fym you "can't say anything bad"?
Click to expand...
StretchSebe said:
So, since you're referring to the downgrade thread:

I specifically tried to go point by point in engaging with the thread starter, starting with your first of various points you insisted discussion be framed around for that thread. You didn't like me pointing that out about framing, but I still complied, and was willing to. You respond with indignation, and then say that 'Nobody said the Scarescraper was non-canon.' I go on to explain how framing is important, and how Scarescraper was disregarded for evidence despite being a deliberate, developer choice to be an in-universe location like a boss arena would be, and ask the difference. You engage a little with the importance of framing, but then make the point I was about to in Death of the Author: That we can't really draw higher 'intent' or 'context' from the creator of something in order to get a 'true' meaning or reason within a piece of media.

This is a well known concept, and has existed since the 60's. It's something I linked and named explicitly twice.

Then you claim that your first point was something I brought up? And I point out that, no, I'm just engaging with your first point? Then you tell me actually, your first point is 'objective,' and you 'will not be responding to this "point" again...'

Your own point. Your first point. Which is something a famous essay delves into the issues with...

To which you spend the rest of the thread disengaging, saying I was 'throwing accusations into the mix...' for pointing out that nobody can get into author's heads, let alone through the work they make (unless they comment on such). Which quickly devolves into straw manning me, following up by providing me a genetic fallacy. I don't think it was that 'rude' or 'out of line' at that point for me to point out your bad faith. In fact; I think it was pretty clear, all things considered, when you ran out of ideas to just shrug me off that you began saying things like you 'don't know how to respond' to try and dodge entirely, and 'nO u' me on being bad faith.

Again, I worked within the bounds of your thread, trying to argue against your points so specifically without doing any of that. Unless you seriously want to suggest you have some ability to know author intent that nobody else has, and that I was 'accusing' or 'insulting' you for saying otherwise.

Inb4: These are public forums, Armor. You publicly couldn't even deal with your first point being debated, and openly resorted to fallacies and dodging in less than like, ten responses.

"failed to argue against it" is cope, dude. Serious cope. Why even cope so hard when you got what you wanted?

Do you seriously believe your own hype so much you think you can just say whatever, wherever despite people being able to find and read what actually happened?
Click to expand...
You can keep coping about 'whining' while continuing to dodge actual substance. I'd think one would be mindful of the egg on their face, but I guess not always.
 
Armorchompy said:
You guys have been whining about this for like two weeks now and nobody's told you anything, you're fully aware I saw all of these posts and didn't delete any of them, you've openly accused me of collusion to my face like four times and I just kinda ignored it, fym you "can't say anything bad"?
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, you really could've calculated a bunch of other feats in the franchise that would've yielded results above tier 6 yet still below tier 3 which would've probably given you a lot less backlash in the downgrade thread you made. I still don't know why you won't bother calculating or evaluating feats like that.

No offense.
 
Last edited:
JTGamer96 said:
Well, you really could've calculated a bunch of other feats in the franchise that would've yielded results above tier 6 yet still below tier 3 which would've probably given you a lot less backlash in the downgrade thread you made. I still don't know why you won't bother calculating or evaluating feats like that.

No offense
Click to expand...
Bro whatd i say earlier about stopping unneeded beef, armor doesnt owe u a calc, sure believe what you want. Theres probably some good tier 5 tier 4 ish stuff that can be calcd. If you
 
ZespeonGalaxy said:
Bro whatd i say earlier he doesnt owe u a calc, theres probably some good tier 5 tier 4 ish stuff that can be calcd
Click to expand...
I didn't say he did, dude; I just wondered why he wouldn't evaluate or calculate a feat like that
 
Accelerated_Evolution said:
I am planing to do a CRT, just wanted to know if someone could explain the 71 layers
Click to expand...
StretchSebe said:
Thinking about it, I'm not sure they directly use them for like, fights, or empowering themselves, or anything.

In using them in terms of game progression, they do collect and hold onto them throughout games though. Again, to progress through gates, or galaxies and stuff, but there could be something said of the fact Mario collects and holds onto so many given they can empower those who hold them.

As said in their powers and abilities section. In that section, they also provide examples of Mario using them, such as in Mario Party 2, and these:

"Stated to grow stronger from Peach's Castle (Super Mario 64) the more Power Stars Mario collects. (SM64 DS) They're also prime candidates for powering ships and machinery (Galaxy 1 and 2)"

Also, Power moons are also heavily implied to just be power stars of a different shape.
Click to expand...
Besides the fact that the characters gain power from collecting/having them (and their power even being used for ships and machinery), each individual Power Star is equally as strong as another in power.

As such, having a door with a requirement of X amount, or holding X amount is basically just addition.

In the case of holding them, they would linearly give the holder the power of each.

In the case of a door requiring a certain amount, given they're stated to be magic (if you couldn't tell from all the magic stuff they do across the games) in SM64 DS (sorry for the toad voice in advance lol, just read the text), it would linearly add layers of magical protection to the door.
 
StretchSebe said:
Besides the fact that the characters gain power from collecting/having them (and their power even being used for ships and machinery), each individual Power Star is equally as strong as another in power.

As such, having a door with a requirement of X amount, or holding X amount is basically just addition.

In the case of holding them, they would linearly give the holder the power of each.

In the case of a door requiring a certain amount, given they're stated to be magic (if you couldn't tell from all the magic stuff they do across the games) in SM64 DS (sorry for the toad voice in advance lol, just read the text), it would linearly add layers of magical protection to the door.
Click to expand...
OK, thats explains pretty much everything, but there are 2 problems:
  1. This would more likely fall under Negation to Selling than Power Nullification
  2. Its good to address in Mario and the other power star users profiles that they need more than one power star to have layered negation to selling
 
Hey, unrelated question: Why are there so many different tags for this verse? There is "Mario Bros" (the one in the verse page), "Super Mario", "Super Mario (Verse)", "Super Mario Bros", and I've seen people use "Mario" as well.
 
Minion_of_Pigsaw said:
Why are there so many different tags for this verse?
Click to expand...
"Mario bros" "super mario" "super mario bros" or flatout "mario" are ways people refer to the series. Having that many tags bother me and it can be difficult searching for mario related threads since they can use either of those tags and exclude a few
 
F_bhSMlW4AAYrqr


This is the funniest bestiary entry for me because what do you mean "swords don't exist in Mario's world"??
 
Are 1-ups like, canon? Cause I saw they're listed on Mario's profile at least.
 
According to jjsliderman. Yeah. Not familar with regen, just wanted input since as stated with unfamiliarity and being uncertain
 
By 1-Ups we talking about the mushrooms or actual extra lives? I know the items themselves are canon and so is their ability to revive someone but I think we stopped treating the characters as having actual multiple lives ages ago (Although Paper Bowser having infinite self-resurrection that's also combat applicable would rule).
 
Oh, by the way, are we considering accessories and consumable items and such as Optional Equipment for Geno and Mallow? I know Mario and Bowser have it as optional equipment on their profiles, but this is the only game Geno and Mallow appear in, sooooo
 
Huh, never thought about that.

I guess since the game is their only appearance (Outside of a very small cameo Geno had in a Superstar Saga minigame) maybe it should count as standard for them.
 
thetechmaster36 said:
Geno's P&A should be done for now, until we can decide whether or not the other equipment should be Standard or Optional, but lemme know if I'm missing anything in particular
Click to expand...
Looks good, only thing that I can think of to add is shockwave generation since perfect hits in the remake also create damaging shockwaves to hit other enemies, and forcefield creation can have another justification that in the remake perfect blocks show the party making visible barriers against the attack
 
I think listing them in a separate tabber from their innate abilities is a good idea regardless, but whether or not we just call it equipment or optional equipment doesn't seem to matter too much.
 
Yeah, I feel like Standard Equip is better since

Like, Mario and Bowser have it as Optional because this only appears in one out of the several dozens of games they appear in where other equipment is far more common like power-ups or Stars and such

But here, this is Mallow and Geno's ONLY game, so it's not unreasonable to assume that they'd have all of this stuff on them at most-all times
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Accelerated_Evolution
  • Locked
Super Mario - Travel Speed VS Combat Speed
Replies
12
Views
1K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
MicDaniel
Mario, Accelerated Development/Preparation and Zone Speed Statistics amplification.
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
AStrangeverse
AStrangeverse
CloverDragon03
Super Mario Revision: What to Do About Dreams?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Iamunanimousinthat
Iamunanimousinthat
ZespeonGalaxy
  • Locked
Tier 6 Mario Revision
2
Replies
73
Views
8K
ZespeonGalaxy
ZespeonGalaxy
ShakeResounding
WAHOOOO! Mario Bros AP Revisions (M&L Brothership Spoilers) - Part 1 (Feat-Gathering)
10 11 12
Replies
466
Views
27K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Back
Top