If Super Smash Bros. was true to canon: a tier list - Updated 9/12/18

[Deleted member]

Inb4 someone says kirby is stronger than Goku because he's a game character

 

[BonafideFella]

If power-ups count, then could some of Yoshi's (the watermelons, the fruits in Galaxy) raise him up?

Those power-ups weren't all that combat-oriented though, save for the watermelon which is just a bunch of seeds at rapid speed.
Still bloody powerful without them.

 

[Opossum]

Anyone have a screenshot of mog's list? The site isn't working for me.

 

[Just a random scrub]

(I made that tier list super late last night so yeah I ended up forgetting about some things).

I updated Diddy Kong's position to Athletic.
Wario is superhuman, forgot about some of the things he does.
Toon Link and Young Link are also superhuman.
Mario Bros. Are continent destroyers (benefit of the doubt. I didn't consider some of their power-ups to count as much, but even if they used one of each they could still do some serious damage).
Bayo was upgraded to Godlike since she can literally send Angels to Hell
Meta Knight was upgraded to Galaxy Breaker since I'm assuming he's at least that powerful.
Bowser Jr. Was nerfed to city leveler since I felt like I was overrating him. Even with all of his devices I don't think he'd be capable of destroying large amounts of land before being stopped.

Anything else I missed?

I have a few other personal suggestions.

Like osby said, and could definitely be raised up a little. At the very least, Peach's feats of speed, strength and durability allows her to crush Peach has resisted flames from Giant Bowser (whose fireballs are hot enough to melt rock in base form), strong enough to launch Giant Bowser into the sky with one swing of her parasoal, can disable opponent's magic with her Mute spell, and do all sorts of other crazy ****.

: Eh, Atlethic's better, but I think he could be a bit higher; he is basically Donkey Kong's Luigi and can keep up with him in nearly every apperance.

is up to interpretation (I feel he's the same tier as Mario, due to being Mario in different clothing), but even if you went with the weakest interpretation, I don't see what makes him sub-human as opposed to Human tier.

: They don't have much impressive, but they can jump several times their own height and kill polar bears with a few hammer swings, so a little stronger than human.

: He's lit, but I feel near omnipotent is pushing it. (If this is based on the fact that he's been described to have limitless power, that was a very vague statement and most likely hyperbole.) Also, if defeating Gods is all you have to do to get in the highest tier, then a good chunk of the roster rises up to that tier (a lot of the time, God simply acts as a title; Kirby's strongest foes are absurdly powerful, but none I'd describe as truly godly). He's still nuts, but I'd place him in Galaxy Breakers, personally.

: From what I know, definitely not on par with Ness.


: Can survive hits from Akuma, who destroyed an island with a single punch. I think that's enough to put him up in City Level. I'd assume this would scale to 's durability too. Also, he's lifted up a boulder. That had somebody else standing on it. Who was also holding a boulder.

: I have no idea why she's as high as she is. Usually, the most impressive thing she does ingame is help Link in the final boss fight, and even then, her help isn't very complicated and requires little raw strength. Aside from that, she really hasn't demonstrated anything impressive strength, speed or durability wise (in fact even getting killed by a single energy sphere in Spirits Tracks), and is honestly pretty featless overall. I'm not sure what she got in BotW, though, so that could probably change things, but from what I know, I have no idea why she's in continent and above characters like Ike, Little Mac, Peach, and even all three Links. Honestly, I'd place her in Powerful.

: Fierce Deity is some strong ****. I think it'd be enough to upgrade him to City Leveler or even Continent Destroyer.


To chime in on some of the other people in the unknown strength tier; has nearly nothing impressive at all, he's completely featless, so even with his Smash moves, I'd have a hard time placing him higher than sub-human; are fodder like most other Mario enemies, so they'll most certiantly be very low, even with their variety of abilities.

That's all I've got for the time being, everything else seems understandable to me.

I'll probably upload my own tier list soon-ish.

If power-ups count, then could some of Yoshi's (the watermelons, the fruits in Galaxy) raise him up?

Ehh, I wouldn't think so; aside from the Melons, the rest of Yoshi's power ups bar maybe the Dash Pepper are geared more towards non-combat purposes.

 

[Zinith]

Ehh, I wouldn't think so; aside from the Melons, the rest of Yoshi's power ups bar maybe the Dash Pepper are geared more towards non-combat purposes.

Wouldn't that also include starman as he is shown to use it New Island and Super Mario Run? There's also his transformations

 

[Mogisthelioma]

is up to interpretation (I feel he's the same tier as Mario, due to being Mario in different clothing), but even if you went with the weakest interpretation, I don't see what makes him sub-human as opposed to Human tier.

Oops. Meant for him to be human.

: From what I know, definitely not on par with Ness.

Above or below ness? My Mother knowledge is limited.

: I have no idea why she's as high as she is. Usually, the most impressive thing she does ingame is help Link in the final boss fight, and even then, her help isn't very complicated and requires little raw strength. Aside from that, she really hasn't demonstrated anything impressive strength, speed or durability wise (in fact even getting killed by a single energy sphere in Spirits Tracks), and is honestly pretty featless overall. I'm not sure what she got in BotW, though, so that could probably change things, but from what I know, I have no idea why she's in continent and above characters like Ike, Little Mac, Peach, and even all three Links. Honestly, I'd place her in Powerful.

I ranked her as an amalgamation of all Zeldas. So I included her big sealing power explosions from BotW, but yeah I may have overrated her.

So here's my new list: https://www.smashtierlist.com/5d497b1f7424b65caa80103f091a71a9be18c52983502202230c42c112185a04/
I really need to know what you think of Lucas. Is he above or below Ness?

 

[Opossum]

Oops. Meant for him to be human.

Above or below ness? My Mother knowledge is limited.

I ranked her as an amalgamation of all Zeldas. So I included her big sealing power explosions from BotW, but yeah I may have overrated her.

So here's my new list: https://www.smashtierlist.com/5d497b1f7424b65caa80103f091a71a9be18c52983502202230c42c112185a04/
I really need to know what you think of Lucas. Is he above or below Ness?

Your link is showing a blank list on my end. Can you screenshot it?

 

[Just a random scrub]

Wouldn't that also include starman as he is shown to use it New Island and Super Mario Run? There's also his transformations

Oh yeah, I forgot about those. Maybe that could raise him up.

I ranked her as an amalgamation of all Zeldas. So I included her big sealing power explosions from BotW, but yeah I may have overrated her.

'Kay, assumed it was BotW related. My knowledge on that is pretty muddy, lol.

So here's my new list: https://www.smashtierlist.com/5d497b1f7424b65caa80103f091a71a9be18c52983502202230c42c112185a04/
I really need to know what you think of Lucas. Is he above or below Ness?

From what I've seen, he's underneath Ness. Don't know exactly how much weaker, you'll have to ask somebody else about that. What I'm pretty sure of, is that he didn't face anybody as powerful as Giygas. (If somebody else can give a more concrete statement on Lucas' power level, by all means chime in).

Scrub-boy out. Peace.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Your link is showing a blank list on my end. Can you screenshot it?

Yeah, I've got him under superhuman

 

[Arthur97]

View attachment 209314
Yeah, I've got him under superhuman

Not sure why the Star Fox crew is considered superhuman. Also, the Pits are probably two of the strongest beings on the roster (moreso than Palutena I'd say). Also, the Robins could not destroy cities without Grima which is something they actively tend to avoid. Mario? Luigi? I mean, depending on how seriously you take them, they are seriously powerful, but still. And did Ken ever even pull of highly destructive feats like (Evil) Ryu?

Oh, yeah, and Sonic has beat more than one god. Think that'd put him a little higher. Even excluding Super Sonic (which he does use in Smash) he's beaten at least one of them without them.

I could go on, but...there are some issues here.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

I would say that the Star Fox crew are "super humans" (super anthropomorphic animals?) because they are capable of the same feats human can accomplish but their physical abilities are enhanced by their animal physiology. Examples being Falco being able to jump extremely high and use his beak for attacks because he is a bird, and Wolf having claws and fangs that he can utilize as weapons in a fight. And Fox is fast because... foxes are fast...?

 

[osby]

Not sure why the Star Fox crew is considered superhuman. Also, the Pits are probably two of the strongest beings on the roster (moreso than Palutena I'd say). Also, the Robins could not destroy cities without Grima which is something they actively tend to avoid. Mario? Luigi? I mean, depending on how seriously you take them, they are seriously powerful, but still. And did Ken ever even pull of highly destructive feats like (Evil) Ryu?

Oh, yeah, and Sonic has beat more than one god. Think that'd put him a little higher. Even excluding Super Sonic (which he does use in Smash) he's beaten at least one of them without them.

I could go on, but...there are some issues here.

I know you don't like Palutena but all of Pit's powers are granted by her, him being stronger than her doesn't make much sense.

Also if you count Evil Ryu, I think you should also count Grima.

 

[Arthur97]

I know you don't like Palutena but all of Pit's powers are granted by her, him being stronger than her doesn't make much sense.

Also if you count Evil Ryu, I think you should also count Grima.

Except he had to actively avoid killing Palutena when they fought. A task which was fairly easy to do. Also, in the original, Pit beat Medusa who had captured Palutena and is largely her equal. Even with the bow (which is unlikely to possess her full power), he beat her. Also, Palutena is rarely if ever shown to actually be powerful.

Thing is, I think Ryu can also achieve some similar feats without Evil Ryu, so it kind of balances out. If not, then, yes, both him and Ken would hardly be superhuman.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

In Uprising, Palutena was very weakened due to resisting the Chaos Kin for three years. You can even see her limping while she walks into battle.

 

[Shyy_Guy595]

Star Fox crew scale from tanking their weaponry which can vaporize spacecraft which were referenced to be made of steel. Energy levels for that easily reach hundreds of tons of TNT. They also casually pilot vehicles that can travel FTL given how fast they can reach a far planet from practically the opposite end of their star system as well as having a warp drive feature.

Also, I'd personally rate the Mario cast super high given all their insane feats. Mario beats Bowser but Bowser is in a higher tier and Jr. is literally his son who recently has been portrayed as comparable to his father and yet they're only City?

 

[Technourgos]

Shyy_Guy595
Prove that steel is being vaporized. Also, what vehicles? Arwings? The only information for that is Mach 4.2 in the atmosphere, which would be more like 660 mi/h, as opposed to the sea level speed of sound at 768 mi/h.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Huh, this thread is alive again.

I should apologize for ranking the Belmonts pretty low. Upon reflection they can fight universals which puts them much higher than I had them.

 

[Technourgos]

She's quite the contender. In her early form before becoming pure Phazon energy, Dark Samus was capable of "reform[ing] her body short of total atomic disruption." In other words, only total atomic disruption probably would defeat Dark Samus. Again, this was her early form, so considering she's become more powerful as time went on, I'd imagine a more powerful attack is going to be required. Aside from Samus, who had the Phazon Beam, I know of no character in the roster who can even achieve this. By the time Metroid Prime 3: Corruption comes around, Dark Samus is a "Phazon energy-based entity." Put another way, she's an energy being.

In terms of speed, Dark Samus has a "short-range warp". Context is needed, since traveling at a short range doesn't sound very far. There isn't any indication that Dark Samus had any way of traveling from the planet Tallon IV to the planet Aether via space ship. If fact, the answer to the question of how Dark Samus traveled from Tallon IV to Aether from the Metroid Prime 2: Dark Echoes Q&A is due to her "short-range warp", which she used "to move to Aether." Tallon IV is part of a solar system, but Aether isn't. This means Dark Samus' ability to travel "short-range" at least means she's capable of inter-planetary travel.

Dark Samus is capable of rendering herself invisible. When she was originally Metroid Prime, she was able to avoid detection so that certain electromagnetic wavelengths were required to see her, such as infrared or x-ray. That's a wavelength anywhere between 700 nanonmeters (nm) to 1 millimeter (mm). X-ray wavelengths are anywhere between 0.01 nm to 10 nm. In Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, Dark Samus could turn invisible so that one would need the ability to observe dimensions that probably are greater than three dimensions. I say this because we can observe one- and two-dimensions, such as a line or a square. Points would be considered zero-dimensional.

I suspect Dark Samus was actually traveling to a greater dimension so that she would appear invisible in the same way a three-dimensional person would appear invisible to a two-dimensional person on Flatland. Then there is her other ability to turn invisible so that she can only be seen by those who "see" sound. I don't know what wavelength of sound she'd be using. Dark Samus hasn't demonstrated the ability to turn invisible so that infrared or x-rays are required since her original form as Metroid Prime, so I can't say for certain if she's still capable of doing that. Still, I figured I'd bring up other abilities she's demonstrated in the series.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

In terms of speed, Dark Samus has a "short-range warp". Context is needed, since traveling at a short range doesn't sound very far. There isn't any indication that Dark Samus had any way of traveling from the planet Tallon IV to the planet Aether via space ship. If fact, the answer to the question of how Dark Samus traveled from Tallon IV to Aether from the Metroid Prime 2: Dark Echoes Q&A is due to her "short-range warp", which she used "to move to Aether." Tallon IV is part of a solar system, but Aether isn't. This means Dark Samus' ability to travel "short-range" at least means she's capable of inter-planetary travel.

Considering the size of the universe, traveling form one planet to another might as well be a hop, skip, and a jump away. I can see how that falls under short range.

 

[Sebas22]

R.O.B. is easily the strongest character. He is not tied down by fictional worlds and universes, he's actually real, lives in our reality, and the day machines rise up, he will destroy us.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

So where are we going to put Terry on this list? I haven't played any of his games, has he done anything crazy or mind blowing?

 

[Ben Holt]

Mario is higher than you think if you consider math.
He can withstand being literally a few feet from a black hole in the Galaxy games.
Do you have any idea how much strength that takes? Not to mention that he jumps like 15 feet high under the gravity of said black hole.

 

[Technourgos]

Mario is higher than you think if you consider math.
He can withstand being literally a few feet from a black hole in the Galaxy games.
Do you have any idea how much strength that takes? Not to mention that he jumps like 15 feet high under the gravity of said black hole.

How do you know this black hole doesn't have a small event horizon? What's the g-force of this black hole? The Mario series isn't exactly known for its accuracy in astrophysics.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

How do you know this black hole doesn't have a small event horizon? What's the g-force of this black hole? The Mario series isn't exactly known for its accuracy in astrophysics.

Not many video games are to begin with. It's the benefit of the doubt that takes place in a lot of these threads.

On the topic of black holes, in RtDL Kirby & his squad were able to outrun Magolor's black holes. Unlike the ones in SMG, these ones can clearly be seen distorting the light around them, meaning they've reached or are on the verge of the event horizon. The fact that they can both outrun this and not be ripped apart by the vortex of gravity suggests (but doesn't confirm) that all 4 of them are capable of running faster than light on foot as well as being virtually indestructible.

 

[Ben Holt]

Mario also doesn't need oxygen, as he can survive underwater indefinitely in 2D games.
He can also survive on the moon and in the vacuum of space.

 

[Technourgos]

Not many video games are to begin with. It's the benefit of the doubt that takes place in a lot of these threads.

Sure, but some games take certain things into account that other games don't. Legacy of Kain isn't going to take into account convection, and even current Zelda games seem to ignore this as well. Meanwhile, Metroid takes it into account. I tend not to give the benefit of the doubt anyway because they're all different video games. It's fun to debate about these things, but pointless at the same time.

On the topic of black holes, in RtDL Kirby & his squad were able to outrun Magolor's black holes. Unlike the ones in SMG, these ones can clearly be seen distorting the light around them, meaning they've reached or are on the verge of the event horizon. The fact that they can both outrun this and not be ripped apart by the vortex of gravity suggests (but doesn't confirm) that all 4 of them are capable of running faster than light on foot as well as being virtually indestructible.

See, and this is why I think it's silly. Kirby suffers from other attacks that would be considered a nuisance by any human for the most part. Yet he's not being spaghettified.

Mario also doesn't need oxygen, as he can survive underwater indefinitely in 2D games.
He can also survive on the moon and in the vacuum of space.

And this doesn't make sense because Mario demonstrates inconsistencies. He either needs oxygen to survive underwater, or he doesn't. Wearing a helmet for one of the Noki Bay levels in Super Mario Sunshine lacks the requirements necessary to swim underwater. There's also Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins where Mario wears a space suit while in one of the space levels. The Mario series is very inconsistent and sometimes I think it's really just left up to the creative team for the purpose of being fun.

 

[Izanagi97]

So where are we going to put Terry on this list? I haven't played any of his games, has he done anything crazy or mind blowing?

I heard he defeated Mars (the Roman God of War), other than that, I don't know

 

[MetaWeegee]

See, and this is why I think it's silly. Kirby suffers from other attacks that would be considered a nuisance by any human for the most part. Yet he's not being spaghettified.

Kirby getting hurt by Waddle Dees is just gameplay mechanics designed to make the game harder, considering he survives way worse things canonically.

And this doesn't make sense because Mario demonstrates inconsistencies. He either needs oxygen to survive underwater, or he doesn't. Wearing a helmet for one of the Noki Bay levels in Super Mario Sunshine lacks the requirements necessary to swim underwater. There's also Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins where Mario wears a space suit while in one of the space levels. The Mario series is very inconsistent and sometimes I think it's really just left up to the creative team for the purpose of being fun.

The times where Mario can breath underwater and in space outnumber the times where he can't, and like with the Kirby series, many of these gameplay restrictions can be simply attributed to making sure the game actually presents a challenge.

 

[Technourgos]

Kirby getting hurt by Waddle Dees is just gameplay mechanics designed to make the game harder, considering he survives way worse things canonically.

Why should I accept this ad hoc? What is the demarcation to determine when you should accept and not accept what occurs in-game?

The times where Mario can breath underwater and in space outnumber the times where he can't, and like with the Kirby series, many of these gameplay restrictions can be simply attributed to making sure the game actually presents a challenge.

Why does the number of times matter? It's logically impossible for the selfsame character to both be capable of surviving underwater or in a hard vacuum for an indefinite period of time, and also suffer under those same conditions.

This is the problem with these kinds of debates. No one agrees on what standards to work with, and even when one is agreed upon (using our physics), the whole debate ends only when people get bored and move on.

 

[MetaWeegee]

Why should I accept this ad hoc? What is the demarcation to determine when you should accept and not accept what occurs in-game?

Because it doesn't corroborate with anything that Kirby has accomplished canonically as part of the storyline of a game. Him fighting and beating planetary level threats is part of the canon story of a large chunk of Kirby games. And you conveniently ignored the fact that Kirby canonically survives **** infinity times worse than a Waddle Dee and comes out no worse afterwards. With this in mind, him being nerfed for gameplay purposes is far from illogical, especially when you consider the purposes of both. (Gameplay exists for entertainment purposes, and if Kirby displayed the full extent of the strength he canonically displays in cutscenes, then the game would be easy, and ergo boring as ****, and wouldn't sell a ****ing dime. The game is only a game if the player can win or lose. Meanwhile, cutscenes are meant to provide the story, much like a movie, and you don't really have to worry about making the game too easy because the cutscenes are out of the player's control, and thus you can go nuts with them. And since their purposes is explicitly to provide story, it's more logical that what a character demonstrates in cutscenes is what the creator fully envisioned for the character to be able to accomplish. Maybe someone else could have explained it better than I did, but I hope I got the general gist of it across).

The Cutscene Power to the Max Trope explains this perfectly: "Being this powerful during the gameplay would make the game extremely easy." You don't want to just select "Planet destroying punch" for every level of Kirby. Why even bother playing then? It's very, very common amongst game creators in general. (Like for example, say I want a character in my game I'm making to be a planet buster who punches a huge ass planet to pieces and ****, and can survive the explosions of that. I'll have him punching the **** out of planets day in, day out during the cutscenes, but I won't just make him invulnerable in the gameplay to everything below that level because then, regardless of my intents, that would make the game boring and unplayable. It doesn't change my intent at all, I'm just shifting the gameplay around for entertainment purposes.) But then, when it's time to show a cutscene and reveal the next part of story, then I can cut loose and show my character at his best without ruining the fun of the game.)

To answer "What is the demarcation to determine when you should accept and not accept what occurs in-game?" My general rule is, "If a character has consistently been shown to be stronger against threats equal to or greater than things that kill him in gameplay, then the character is probably being weakened for gameplay/entertainment purposes."

Why does the number of times matter? It's logically impossible for the selfsame character to both be capable of surviving underwater or in a hard vacuum for an indefinite period of time, and also suffer under those same conditions.

Because it's the more consistent outcome, and if you're looking to gauge these characters at their best, then if makes more sense that you go with the more consistent high end ****. Like you said, it's one or the other, and consistency is a great way of determining what to go with, at least in my experience. Liberties can be taken. And Mario's been shown surviving indefinitely in space multiple times outside of gameplay, and it is a canon part of Super Mario Galaxy's storyline that Mario breathes in space (if he couldn't, he'd die before reaching Bowser), whereas the gameplay is the only place where Mario is shown to be unable to survive in space, so using close examination of intent, Mario being unable to survive in space is more than likely a gameplay nerf.

This is the problem with these kinds of debates. No one agrees on what standards to work with, and even when one is agreed upon (using our physics), the whole debate ends only when people get bored and move on.

Nobody ever said you had to participate, and if you're just here to grill us about why we shouldn't bother doing this (spolier alert: it's ****ing fun) and try to ruin people's fun, then by all means, feel free not to.

 

[Just a random scrub]

Nobody ever said you had to participate, and if you're just here to grill us about why we shouldn't bother doing this (spolier alert: it's ****ing fun) and try to ruin people's fun, then by all means, feel free not to.

So much this. It's one thing not to enjoy VS debating, but it's kinda a **** move to tell people what they enjoy doing is silly and pointless. Not just here, but in general

 

[Technourgos]

Because it doesn't corroborate with anything that Kirby has accomplished canonically as part of the storyline of a game.

So you're dismissing gameplay outright? If not, you'd need to find a demarcation again. This is interesting because it doesn't take into consideration other video games where cut-scenes or dialogue are presented in the same format where the story is involved, nor does it consider interactive cut-scenes, i.e., quick-time events. If you are to have a set of criteria, you must consider all video games, not just video games you're currently discussing because if you should ever find yourself debating with people who are talking about a video game character who has QTEs, or whose story is presented in the same format as that of the gameplay graphics, you cannot just be dismissive about it.

Fighting a planetary threat doesn't actually mean anything. It's a vague word. Climate change is a planetary threat, and scientists are working on ways to combat it. You don't suddenly think that humans are on an equal level to that of a planetary threat. By the way, you're the one who made up the Waddle Dee scenario, not me. You only inconvenienced yourself. Kirby could touch lava and be injured by it. There. I also don't accept your notion that a character is nerfed for entertainment purposes. A character who appears weak in-game while much more powerful outside of gameplay can be made to appear stronger simply by increasing the damage output and reducing the amount of damage received. It's not difficult.

You might argue that it would make the game boring, but "boring" is a subjective experience, much like "fun". What might be boring to you doesn't necessarily mean it's boring to someone else. If a character like Waddle Dee (your example) couldn't actually do anything to Kirby, then make it that way. Yet, Bandana Waddle Dee, a Waddle Dee himself, seems to share just as much of the capabilities Kirby has. So why doesn't any other Waddle Dee possess the same? Or maybe other Waddle Dees are just as capable. Why would King Dedede or whoever send out some weakling knowing full well that Kirby wouldn't be harmed? The developers probably should throw out the weak characters.

Cut-scenes aren't immune, either. Video games have graphically improved over the years. Even the PlayStation 2 was able to generate some fantastic cut-scenes. Just look at Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2. As for citing a trope, I really don't care. I don't just accept things on authority. There are ways to counter-act making a game easy, such as making enemies match a character's own abilities. This is commonly seen throughout video games, such as boss battles. One fun example is in Super Metroid where you can skip a mini-boss called Spore Spawn through sequence breaking. You can return later with all of your upgrades and instantly kill it it. I also don't believe Kirby can destroy planets with a punch.

To answer "What is the demarcation to determine when you should accept and not accept what occurs in-game?" My general rule is, "If a character has consistently been shown to be stronger against threats equal to or greater than things that kill him in gameplay, then the character is probably being weakened for gameplay/entertainment purposes."

Why can't enemies in-game be just as powerful? Video game developers always create enemies, including bosses, who are more powerful all because they gave such characters certain features, health, damage output.

Because it's the more consistent outcome, and if you're looking to gauge these characters at their best, then if makes more sense that you go with the more consistent high end ****. Like you said, it's one or the other, and consistency is a great way of determining what to go with, at least in my experience. Liberties can be taken. And Mario's been shown surviving indefinitely in space multiple times outside of gameplay, and it is a canon part of Super Mario Galaxy's storyline that Mario breathes in space (if he couldn't, he'd die before reaching Bowser), whereas the gameplay is the only place where Mario is shown to be unable to survive in space, so using close examination of intent, Mario being unable to survive in space is more than likely a gameplay nerf.

No, you don't go with the high-end. That requires evidence. You need to settle for low-end because it makes the fewest assumptions. For example, the Metroid Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission manuals tell us that the speed booster allows Samus to run at supersonic speed. That's all it says. It doesn't tell anyone the Mach number. Supersonic can range anywhere above the speed of sound (M>1) to Mach 4.9. As much as I'd like to go for the high-end and say Mach 4.9 is Samus' top speed, I have to settle for lower, which based on the conical shock wave, shows Samus' low-end to be Mach 1.06. The shinespark is at least at Mach 2. Since there is an inconsistency in the Mario series (and that's no surprise, since Mario isn't known for consistency, either), it's one or the other. Maybe you could settle for whichever game to determine Mario's breathing, but since he's the self-same character, this is a logical impossibility and you're just deciding to choose what benefits Mario.

Nobody ever said you had to participate, and if you're just here to grill us about why we shouldn't bother doing this (spolier alert: it's ****ing fun) and try to ruin people's fun, then by all means, feel free not to.

I'm not ruining anyone's fun. I've debated for years about fictitious characters. A single post would take at least two hours of my time because I'd be writing out calculations and doing research on characters I knew nothing about. You're more than welcome to debate about that which I personally find to be a waste of time. Anyway, I won't be continuing. Just think about what I wrote. That's all I ask.

 

[MetaWeegee]

So you're dismissing gameplay outright? If not, you'd need to find a demarcation again. This is interesting because it doesn't take into consideration other video games where cut-scenes or dialogue are presented in the same format where the story is involved, nor does it consider interactive cut-scenes, i.e., quick-time events.

I mean, I was specifically talking about Kirby and similar games. I acknowledge full well that it doesn't apply equally to every single video game (nor did I make such an assumption). I do think that things are different when the cutscenes and gameplay are much more integrated. And gameplay should not be entirely dismissed, I just think it's silly to dismiss legitimately insane feats because a character can die from a single touch to a weak mook during the gameplay.

If you are to have a set of criteria, you must consider all video games, not just video games you're currently discussing because if you should ever find yourself debating with people who are talking about a video game character who has QTEs, or whose story is presented in the same format as that of the gameplay graphics, you cannot just be dismissive about it.

Condescending much? I've been doing this **** for a while too, and as mentioned above, I don't think gameplay should be entirely dismissed and stuff. But sure, if you're gonna be this condescending and act like I don't know what the **** I'm talking about. If you want a respectful argument, you aren't helping your case for ****. But sure, talk down to me like I'm your lesser and I don't know how to handle myself in a VS debate. This is why I decided to respond, because this **** pisses me off.

Fighting a planetary threat doesn't actually mean anything. It's a vague word. Climate change is a planetary threat, and scientists are working on ways to combat it. You don't suddenly think that humans are on an equal level to that of a planetary threat. By the way, you're the one who made up the Waddle Dee scenario, not me. You only inconvenienced yourself. Kirby could touch lava and be injured by it. There.

Some of these enemies literally create black holes and create planet-sized explosions (one of which Kirby tanked with virtually no damage whatsoever, I might add) though. I'm sure you knew exactly what I meant by "Planetary threat" but decided being condescending once wasn't good enough.

And I brought up Waddle Dees because you brought up Kirby suffering from attacks other humans would consider a nuisance, and Waddle Dees are basically the Goombas of Kirby and the definition of canon fodder, so I figured you were discussing the weak enemies of Kirby. If you weren't, I'll apologize for misconstruing your words.

I also don't accept your notion that a character is nerfed for entertainment purposes. A character who appears weak in-game while much more powerful outside of gameplay can be made to appear stronger simply by increasing the damage output and reducing the amount of damage received. It's not difficult.

I literally ****ing explained this EXACT argument. If you do it too much though, then the game wouldn't be challenging. What is so ****ing hard to grasp about this? There still needs to be a ****ING GAME. If I was making the game, I COULD just make my guy take no damage to reflect the fact that he is so far above the basic mooks, but then, THERE'S NOTHING TO CHALLENGE MY PLAYER. And don't do that "subjectivity" crap. If what you find fun in a game is being able to walk through the objects that are supposed to be challenging you with no threats whatsoever in a game specifically designed for you to have to overcome challenges at the cost of death, what you are looking for is not a game. That is objective.

You might argue that it would make the game boring, but "boring" is a subjective experience, much like "fun". What might be boring to you doesn't necessarily mean it's boring to someone else.

Yeah, it's subjective, but I think most people would find an adventure game where you'd actually be capable of losing more entertaining than one where you literally can't die no matter what you do and there's no challenge of any sort. This is the dumbest argument I've heard in a long while. Just because Kirby is designed as an easy series of games doesn't mean you shouldn't be at any risk of losing. At that point, you're just playing a movie where you have to move and jump sometimes and nothing else. It's not even a game at that point. At this point, I have a hard time believing you aren't just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

If a character like Waddle Dee (your example) couldn't actually do anything to Kirby, then make it that way.

Then why play the game if there's no challenge at all? Why should I keep the gameplay 1-1 with the character's true capabilities if it completely removes any challenge and any reason to play the game.

Yet, Bandana Waddle Dee, a Waddle Dee himself, seems to share just as much of the capabilities Kirby has. So why doesn't any other Waddle Dee possess the same? Or maybe other Waddle Dees are just as capable. Why would King Dedede or whoever send out some weakling knowing full well that Kirby wouldn't be harmed? The developers probably should throw out the weak characters.

I mean, is Dedede really known for being very intelligent? Waddle Dees and Doos are basically fodder and he has a lot of them. Besides, generally Dedede counts on beating Kirby himself. I doubt he expects them to destroy Kirby by that point, but it's not like he has a better idea outside of waiting for Kirby to come to him. And that's also why he has plenty of stronger enemies in his army that he sends out alongside the fodder. And fodder is important in video games to keep the player with something to do outside of bosses.

As for Bandana Waddle Dee, that's like saying that since Usian Bolt can run 27.44 miles per hour, every other human being in existence can run 27.44 miles per hour. Maybe if we saw most other Waddle Dees do things that Bandana Waddle Dees did, sure that comparison could work.

Cut-scenes aren't immune, either. Video games have graphically improved over the years. Even the PlayStation 2 was able to generate some fantastic cut-scenes. Just look at Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2.

...And pointing out the graphical capabilities of games dismisses my point because?....... I genuinely don't know what you're arguing here.

As for citing a trope, I really don't care.

"I Don't care about your point, so therefore it's invalid." Alright man. You act condensing towards me, yet can't even argue against this because you "don't care."

I don't just accept things on authority. There are ways to counter-act making a game easy, such as making enemies match a character's own abilities. This is commonly seen throughout video games, such as boss battles. One fun example is in Super Metroid where you can skip a mini-boss called Spore Spawn through sequence breaking. You can return later with all of your upgrades and instantly kill it it.

Okay, I acknowledge some enemies have legit reason to be equal (particularly the bosses). Again, if you're arguing they are are equal, that doesn't invalidate any of Kirby's black hole or planetary feats or anything. And complaining about "accepting things on authority" right after you just tried to grill me on debate equity because apparently I don't know as much as you or something? Come on.

I also don't believe Kirby can destroy planets with a punch.

Even though he literally cracks holes in planets for fun?

Why can't enemies in-game be just as powerful? Video game developers always create enemies, including bosses, who are more powerful all because they gave such characters certain features, health, damage output.

First "Kirby isn't strong because he loses to weak enemies", now "Well, they're as strong as Kirby, so the gameplay doesn't invalidate anything." So you see how these two conflict each other? If you want to say the Waddle Dees and Doos are equal to Kirby, HOW DOES BEING ABLE TO DIE TO THEM INVALIDATE THE FEATS KIRBY DOES, THEN? (Not that the Waddle Dees and Doos are equal to Kirby, seeing as they are literally portrayed as absolute weaklings and only exist as fodder). You're literally contradicting yourself just to try and argue.... what exactly?

Besides, weren't you arguing Kirby wasn't planetary or something BECAUSE he was being hurt by basic enemies in game? So if they are also on his level.... how does that invalidate any of Kirby's planetary feats then? Why even point out the fact he can die to them? Shouldn't even have responded to this because it's the same argument I've already addressed multiple times phrased slightly differently but, whatever.

No, you don't go with the high-end. That requires evidence.

Doing the exact same high end consistently multiple times isn't evidence? Then what is?

You need to settle for low-end because it makes the fewest assumptions. For example, the Metroid Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission manuals tell us that the speed booster allows Samus to run at supersonic speed. That's all it says. It doesn't tell anyone the Mach number. Supersonic can range anywhere above the speed of sound (M>1) to Mach 4.9. As much as I'd like to go for the high-end and say Mach 4.9 is Samus' top speed, I have to settle for lower, which based on the conical shock wave, shows Samus' low-end to be Mach 1.06. The shinespark is at least at Mach 2. Since there is an inconsistency in the Mario series (and that's no surprise, since Mario isn't known for consistency, either), it's one or the other.

Not quite the same thing. One of those is an interpretation of a vague statement, one of those is discussing the legitimacy of a gameplay only barrier in invalidating something that happens as a part of canon (Mario canonically breathing in space as a central aspect of Super Mario Galaxy being somehow magically invalidated because a developer decided to make him unable to breath underwater in gameplay to make the game harder with no official corroboration elsewhere. Sound ridiculous? Probably because it is).

Like, sometimes the low ends make sense to go with, especially if the high ends are rare (thus making them probably outliers). It works in reverse, though, and if a character more consistently achieves a high end than a low end, and especially when the high ends are crucial to story, there's really no reason to assume the low ends aren't an outlier.

Maybe you could settle for whichever game to determine Mario's breathing, but since he's the self-same character, this is a logical impossibility and you're just deciding to choose what benefits Mario.

Are you ****ing serious? A bias accusation? As if the **** earlier in the post wasn't enough, now I hear this bull****. (And don't try to say "Well I never directly called you bias", the intent of that statement is beyond obvious) Now you're gonna accuse me of bias, even though I never made any claim of the sort. What does the bolded do for you? Like, at all. Nothing would be lost if you removed it, but nah, let's slander me a bit, just for kicks. Well, there's a phrase for that: Ad hominem. "Wow he disagrees with me, he must be biased!" Petty much?.... Okay then. You're just deciding to choose what hinders Mario. See, I can do it too. And the real irony is, you probably would have called me out if I said something bull**** like that.

It's not like Mario is known for being supremely logical anyways. Notice you're literally the only person in this thread who has a problem with this. We're never gonna know the outcome of these things 100%. So if there's an inconsistency, it's one or the other, and I'd rather go with the one that's supported in gameplay and story, and not just gameplay.

I'm not ruining anyone's fun. I've debated for years about fictitious characters. A single post would take at least two hours of my time because I'd be writing out calculations and doing research on characters I knew nothing about. You're more than welcome to debate about that which I personally find to be a waste of time. Anyway, I won't be continuing. Just think about what I wrote. That's all I ask.

Good, if you're just gonna keep dancing around my arguments, be obtuse for the sake of arbitrarily making your argument look less flimsy and patronize me and repeat the same **** over and over, then I want no part of this. Just because you've said this **** for a while doesn't make it legit. I never thought I'd ever use the "Ignore" feature ever, but you proved me wrong. Goodbye.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Glad these discussions are still as mature as they've ever been.

 

[Cracke]

Kirby?
Nice.
Kirby?
Busted.
Kirby is nice, nice as hell.

 

[MetaWeegee]

Glad these discussions are still as mature as they've ever been.

I think this was directed at me, so I'll just say I'm not the one who started slinging bias accusations at my opponent. I don't have a problem with anybody unless they accuse me of dumb **** for no reason.

 

[Just a random scrub]

I think this was directed at me, so I'll just say I'm not the one who started slinging bias accusations at my opponent. I don't have a problem with anybody unless they accuse me of dumb **** for no reason.

I mean, I agree with your arguments as a whole, but I do think even if he was being kinda patronizing, your response was a lil hostile. Like, I get you felt insulted, but you might have wanted to wait until you cleared your head or something. Like, it happens to me all the time. No disrespect at you or nothin'.

 

[Technourgos]

Glad these discussions are still as mature as they've ever been.

They never are.

I mean, I agree with your arguments as a whole, but I do think even if he was being kinda patronizing, your response was a lil hostile. Like, I get you felt insulted, but you might have wanted to wait until you cleared your head or something. Like, it happens to me all the time. No disrespect at you or nothin'.

It's tone policing. One of the funny examples I found online is this one by Tony Campolo, the former spiritual advisor of the former U.S. President, Bill Clinton. He said,

"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a ****. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said **** than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

The interesting thing is that I wasn't even upset or angry or whatever. I was as clear as I could be and all I cared about were the arguments and if they could stand on their own. Some people take things things very seriously, though. Like I said before, I've done these discussions for years. Things tend to get heated for no apparent reason.

 

[Diddy Kong]

No I wasn't addressing anyone personally , it's more like how these discussions always go. It's always heavily biased, and nobody is ever really seeing the point of the other or is willing to really do the research necessarily.

Anyway we already have at least SOME indication of which characters are about the strongest. But the opinion of people differ greatly.

For example, I always argued RBY Mewtwo is probably Top Tier and could easily deal with 99% of the roster. There's a lot of lore and surrounding facts to support his strength, and things are always iffy if we combine video game logic with real life logic and physics.

Therefore am not sure if an actual healthy debate can actually be achieved here honestly.