Smash Bros. Canon Tournament! (Mario Vs. ????) - 06/14/10

[_clinton]

Falco should win. And _clinton, your dominance in this thread is killing this all. Might reply your wall tomorrow or somewhere else this week.

My walls aren't bad IMO, really there are only like two to three points to each of them that I focus on for the most part for like every argument. Granted those things vary with length, but still they are quite short to reply to if you just look right, the worse part about typing them isn't the time it actually takes to type (because I type fast), but finding the things like creator interviews/game script info. (in fact, pasting that stuff is what really takes a chunk of time)

But to prove my point, Falco vs. Link:

1. Saying Link isn't getting him out of the sky unless Falco wants to himself for a number of reasons (like just what Link's bow is in the 1st place, a ****ing bow)
2. Ground game in general has Falco packing a huge arsenal of Sci-Fi techs. meant for a star bounty hunter such as a mini gun and such, and Sci-Fi gone out of control gear >>>>> fantasy dark age setting stuff, just saying.

Or on Lucas' power:

1. Things like saying it is unknown what happens in the game after it of course (thanks Itoi interview for clearing up what the black screen means with the words End? at Mother 3's ending for starters), and what the power is in the 1st place, like the connection it has with the user.
2. Ness connection with his power to Lucas' and all of the things they have in common, like an identical weapon even for the end of the game (to go along with their powers in general), and things like what the said interviews have to say on it, like their relation in the 1st place.

 

[RWB]

Hi _clinton! Grammar_man here!

Anyway, Falco on the ground has his blaster, and assuming he's fast enough to fire it before Link can put on his magical armor(assuming TP) or use a shielding spell(composite), he wins. And shooting from the hip will be faster than that.

In the worst case, he has Barriers that can take anything Link tries to throw at him.



If in Arwing, Link can't even get to him- even with his masks the Arwing is too fast for him to catch.


Falco wins this one.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Well, forgive me here Clinton. I was simply providing a list of what Link can do (as proven in games). Sorry for being analytical, but open to both ends of the match. I don't know if you noticed, but I did say Falco had a large initial advantage. In other words, I was saying Falco won, but someone else may have something to say on the matter. We don't all make tons of crap up like you do and believe it's 100% truth. But whatever, keep killing the topic and suck the fun out of it.

 

[WhatIsRaizen?]

Win = +1. Loss = -1. Draw = no change.

Current Match-Up:
THE BOUNTY HUNTER Vs. THE AURA BEAST

Zero Suit Samus Vs. Lucario

Vs.

Loser's Round 6, Match 2.

Vs.

 

[PowerBomb]

If Spamus was allowed the Justin Bailey portion of the original Metroid, that would be awesome, but that was changed.

I think Lucario has just too many options in this one. Unless Samus gets her ship when in Zero Suit.

One more thing... this thread is dying... quickly. Raizen, you might as well end this thread soon and let it die.

 

[_clinton]

I was simply providing a list of what Link can do (as proven in games).

And my last post with you was responding to it and how it doesn't matter when it comes to Falco in a kind manner.

Like pointing out that there are three possible reasons for why the ice arrow won't bug Falco's Arwing:
-The range at which you can logically fire them is an issue, Link's only using Dark Ages stuff, even if that stuff is unbreakable (as shown in the games with a good chunk of the stuff like the master sword) it still logically is going to have to deal with range issues that a bow would give you before a Sci-Fi gun or the like would.
-Why can't he reflect an ice arrow with his wings like he does to every other sort of projectile?
-Why would the extreme heat bug Falco's Arwing when the guy can fly the thing in an ice world and the fuel system in the 1st place has control over gravity in a surrounding area?

Sorry for being analytical, but open to both ends of the match.

I'm open to you being open to both sides of the match, which is why I responded to your post.

I don't know if you noticed, but I did say Falco had a large initial advantage.

And if anything I was pointing out more on just how large that large initial advantage was, like a 99-1 match up in Falco's favor or something else like that (like a toddler being placed in a boxing match with Mike Tyson in his prime and it being serious, or a guy trained to the max with a sword vs. a guy trained with a Gatling gun packing unlimited ammo and there being about 100 yards between them on an open plain).

We don't all make tons of crap up like you do and believe it's 100% truth. But whatever, keep killing the topic and suck the fun out of it.

Also, I'm having lots of fun in this topic (way too much if that, hearing a reply like "this" makes me lol a lot and puts a smile on my face).

Oh and I <3 how you say I'm making up crap despite the fact that I'm quoting my stuff from things like creator interviews about the canon and the actual game script where as you guys are quoting things like Samus' speed booster from a SNES instruction booklet filled with errors/dumb choice of words to describe a good chunk of things, like I love how they worded the various hatches and what they are for one thing in the stupid book.

Also I have to <3 how the only reason Samus has won her matches (besides the other clear thing in this thread) has been largely from a fabricated type of invulnerability to let her "magically pass through everything" even though that doesn't actually happen in her games.

(Even from two plumbers who actually do have "unlimited invulnerability" in their game play mechanics from as early as Mario Brothers 3 lost to her somehow, oh and their unlimited invulnerability really shows up in games like Yoshi's Island when Mario grabs a power star)

Still, show me how strong that various BS stands if you are shine sparking when a bomb goes off on you in Samus' games, besides the many foes that still rip through her dash of course, or the wall stopping her (oh and how there is no real proof that she has 100% control over herself at those speeds, she certainly can't wall jump when using the booster for starters).

 

[Crystanium]

where as you guys are quoting things like Samus' speed booster from a SNES instruction booklet filled with errors/dumb choice of words to describe a good chunk of things, like I love how they worded the various hatches and what they are for one thing in the stupid book.

Also I have to <3 how the only reason Samus has won her matches (besides the other clear thing in this thread) has been largely from a fabricated type of invulnerability to let her "magically pass through everything" even though that doesn't actually happen in her games.

This is why I don't hang around in this thread anymore. Apparently this fellow never grew up and still *****es about Samus when the discussion isn't even about her. Grow a pair _hillary _clinton.

 

[PKNintendo]

This is why I don't hang around in this thread anymore. Apparently this fellow never grew up and still *****es about Samus when the discussion isn't even about her. Grow a pair _hillary _clinton.

Ouch talk about a mad burn.
I need to catch up here... the thread moves way to fast.

 

[_clinton]

This is why I don't hang around in this thread anymore. Apparently this fellow never grew up and still *****es about Samus when the discussion isn't even about her. Grow a pair _hillary _clinton.

lol at this, anyway:
1. It is ok with the rules still to talk about old match ups, I know the rules in this thread because I've read them/helped change them.

Debates are open to everyone, and yes CHARACTERS WILL CHANGE, you can help make the character that YOU think is deserving change.

2. Samus isn't really the focus, her "speed booster/hyper mode" BS invulnerability that you guys keep saying she has is the main focus of my argument.

You would know that if you've actually paid attention that my real complaint is on the idea of invulnerability in general, it's not like Samus is the only character who I'm at odds with for the topic of invulnerability, pretty much every platform game character has some BS version of it (again, the Mario brothers and Wario have unlimited forms of it, but somehow you still think they would lose to Samus going by your rules, WTF?), and the main reason they have it in the 1st place is clearly because of what game type they've had, so that in my eyes is clearly nothing more than various game mechanics supporting the main bulk of it (and it isn't even 100% "invulnerability" with any of those platformer characters).

Its also more along the lines of that Samus is just one of the two top BSers with it besides Ganondorf, and the only reason you guys really have for saying she has won so many matches is because of that BS, along with G-Dorf and some others.

****, I'm not even 100% on banning the "moves" at least, the thing I'm willing to debate that is logical about all of the magic armor, starman, and so on is that there is some logical reason for why it works, such as a stat change (you know what "defense up is?"), but there is no way it is 100% protect from all BS, because they clearly don't work that way in game.

Of course, if you still don't think it works that way, then how come you aren't in support of Samus taking contact damage? She clearly does in the game.

3. Your last part, congrats on that, you'd think you'd come up with something better than "grow a pair _hillary _clinton," or just say nothing at all but maybe I'm expecting too much.

I mean the actual 1st part of what you said, "grow a pair" doesn't even make sense in the context of it for what is really going on in this thread ATM and what you are *****ing about towards me in the 1st place. I mean one meaning of the thing means to do something "manly" compared to what is already being done by the person said in general. Yet I'm sure this meaning would apply to the stupidity of this thread in general as well from a logical point.

And the 2nd part of it "_hillary _clinton," I just love your form of mentality that you showed right there using that part in the way that you did, good job right there.

 

[REL38]

The reactions Clinton spurs remind me so much of Galekill that I'm reminded how much Link, Samus and Mother Boys talk annoy me

>____>

 

[PowerBomb]

The reactions Clinton spurs remind me so much of Galekill that I'm reminded how much Link, Samus and Mother Boys talk annoy me

>____>

The problem was that he wasn't negotiable.

 

[Crystanium]

lol at this, anyway:
1. It is ok with the rules still to talk about old match ups, I know the rules in this thread because I've read them/helped change them.

Good for you.

2. Samus isn't really the focus, her "speed booster/hyper mode" BS invulnerability that you guys keep saying she has is the main focus of my argument.

It's impossible to bifurcate the two.

You would know that if you've actually paid attention that my real complaint is on the idea of invulnerability in general,

But, you often mention Samus more than any character when it comes to this discussion. Am I not telling the truth?

it's not like Samus is the only character who I'm at odds with for the topic of invulnerability, pretty much every platform game character has some BS version of it (again, the Mario brothers and Wario have unlimited forms of it, but somehow you still think they would lose to Samus going by your rules, WTF?),

I don't have any set of rules. Mario has Starman. Starman wears off in 15 seconds. As for Wario, this idea of invulnerabilty was introduced later for Wario. He originally never had it. The first game Wario ever appeared in was Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins. He was the last boss in the game. He was vulnerable.

and the main reason they have it in the 1st place is clearly because of what game type they've had, so that in my eyes is clearly nothing more than various game mechanics supporting the main bulk of it (and it isn't even 100% "invulnerability" with any of those platformer characters).

In your eyes. What that means is that's entirely your opinion. I don't care about your opinions.

Its also more along the lines of that Samus is just one of the two top BSers with it besides Ganondorf, and the only reason you guys really have for saying she has won so many matches is because of that BS, along with G-Dorf and some others.

It seems things haven't changed. I think you should just move on and stop visiting this thread.

****, I'm not even 100% on banning the "moves" at least, the thing I'm willing to debate that is logical about all of the magic armor, starman, and so on is that there is some logical reason for why it works, such as a stat change (you know what "defense up is?"), but there is no way it is 100% protect from all BS, because they clearly don't work that way in game.

Logic. Video games. Here's a hint. Logic is subject to reality. Video games are not real. Come back to me when you can explain how Samus' Grapple Beam works from a logical perspective. No, wait, don't do that. I won't be around to see what you conjure up.

Of course, if you still don't think it works that way, then how come you aren't in support of Samus taking contact damage? She clearly does in the game.

So? It's the game. Clearly Samus isn't moving at supersonic speeds, or else I wouldn't see her. Games undermine and limit things. If you're still going behind the idea of bad translation, well, there goes a whole load of video games from the NES up to the N64. Guess who was responsible for the translations of Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and even EarthBound? Dan Owsen.

3. Your last part, congrats on that, you'd think you'd come up with something better than "grow a pair _hillary _clinton," or just say nothing at all but maybe I'm expecting too much.

You are expecting too much. Like I said, though, I don't care.

I mean the actual 1st part of what you said, "grow a pair" doesn't even make sense in the context of it for what is really going on in this thread ATM and what you are *****ing about towards me in the 1st place. I mean one meaning of the thing means to do something "manly" compared to what is already being done by the person said in general. Yet I'm sure this meaning would apply to the stupidity of this thread in general as well from a logical point.

I take it you looked up "grow a pair" online somewhere and then defined it for all the world to see so that you could look more intelligent than you really are. Not that it matters. You just sputtered words here that don't make any sense.

And the 2nd part of it "_hillary _clinton," I just love your form of mentality that you showed right there using that part in the way that you did, good job right there.

Form of mentality? I was poking fun at your name. Surely... Never mind. You're likely not aware of that.

I would suggest you just leave this thread like I have. There's other things you can be doing in life than this.

 

[REL38]

Trying to use logic/realism to make sense of how things work in a video game is so pointless due to the nature of this thread

Like trying to argue why Pikachu can't use Surf just cuz "it makes no sense"

Kinda how like how moving at super sonic speeds wouldn't make you "invincible" from a realistic/logical standpoint, but given how it is an ability clearly displayed in-game there's absolutely no reason Samus wouldn't have it

Just ends up being video games don't make sense so there's no point in trying to force it to make sense

 

[PowerBomb]

Trying to use logic/realism to make sense of how things work in a video game is so pointless due to the nature of this thread

Like trying to argue why Pikachu can't use Surf just cuz "it makes no sense"

Kinda how like how moving at super sonic speeds wouldn't make you "invincible" from a realistic/logical standpoint, but given how it is an ability clearly displayed in-game there's absolutely no reason Samus wouldn't have it

Just ends up being video games don't make sense so there's no point in trying to force it to make sense

That's Joe's thread amirite

Some stuff can make absolutely no sense, but it's a freaking video game. If my super-powered cat, which is a psychic mutant that can fire off lasers, can EXPLODE for no reason other than someone teaching it how to EXPLODE, than fine, it's a video game; that's how it works.

 

[Ganonsburg]

But I would say that logic can have some part in this thread when the game says nothing about that subject. As an example, we never see most characters use the loo, but logically we can say they can. However, if a game were to say "X character must take a dump every 10 minutes," or "X character produces no bodily waste," then that would take precedence over logic. For some things it won't be so clear, and will have to be debated (politely) case by case, but the point still stands. In this thread, game canon>logic.

 

[Kewkky]

I suggest that the argument "it must be a bad translation" should never be used.

 

[JOE!]

_clinton, stop trolling

srsly

 

[Sonic on the Rocks]

Sure is "ZZS vs Lucario" discussion on this page.

_clinton, I'm not going to antagonize you, because I'd rather be discussing matchups. I would request that you do the same and just let the unrelated arguements die when the matchup switched over. In the interest of continuing this thread, which from the looks of things has been running much more smoothly than the one from 2 years ago.

Everyone else, just because you mad doesn't mean you have to try to be insulting. For example:

Grow a pair _hillary _clinton.

This is not going to help things at all. Really guys, at least try to keep the banter inside posts with matchup discussion.


ON THAT NOTE
I could see this matchup could go either way.

 

[Kewkky]

Everyone else, just because you mad doesn't mean you have to try to be insulting.

I was not being insulting, "it must be a bad translation" IS a very stupid argument to make. There's nothing else to say on the subject: if you're using that phrase to structure part of your main argument, and being serious about it too, then you need to get better at debating. I mean, that's pretty much closing the doors to EVERY counterargument others can make against it except the one it's being used for, and it's not even true at all! It's such a crappy argument, I could use it against him and he'd have to answer the same way we'd have to answer: "No, just no".

And not even YOU can deny that this is a very weak argument to make.

 

[PowerBomb]

___ supporter: This translation says _____ about this character
___ supporter: Well, that's a wrong translation, so now your argument is invalid. I have no proof, but your argument is still invalid.

>_>

 

[_clinton]

The problem was that he wasn't negotiable.

Same could be said to you guys, god one word in an instruction booklet that isn't even backed up by the game it is from itself (and then latter given a better reasoning for it) and you guys automatically turn down any argument about it.

**** even the guys supporting Sonic and his "invulnerability" that was used at the start have shown to be more flexible about "what it does" than you guys are with just a power up that isn't even the best thing Samus has (but you certainly are making it sound like it is), and they certainly have more proof to the power of what Super Sonic does than what Samus' speed booster does, has Samus taken down gods with the speed booster, just wondering?

(In fact they are too flexible IMO, Ike vs. Sonic still hasn't changed, despite the fact that Ike's canon in no way shows Yune's blessing to be as powerful as what the Ike fans have been saying, a massive speed, strength, and defense boost =/= something that kills god beings)

But, you often mention Samus more than any character when it comes to this discussion. Am I not telling the truth?

Well, I just gave a reason for why I might be bringing up Samus more and more, like how you guys are the most stubborn about her so called invulnerability, usually the Sonic side is when I talk about this, which like I said already I find funny.

I don't have any set of rules. Mario has Starman. Starman wears off in 15 seconds.

And you can recharge them an unlimited number of times, and this isn't the 1st time I've said this, but it gets ignored still for whatever reason. Plus it's not like the Starman power-up is the only power-up that grants Mario destruction over everything and is rechargeable (again, said more than once).

He originally never had it. The first game Wario ever appeared in was Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins. He was the last boss in the game. He was vulnerable.

Just because he originally never had it doesn't mean ****, Samus in her 1st appearance on the NES was never able to stack beams, fire super missiles, space jump, use the speed booster, the gravity suit, power bombs, and the spider ball yet you don’t see me saying she can’t use those things now do you?

Logic. Video games. Here's a hint. Logic is subject to reality.

Hey, good job applying a straw man to my point, now maybe you should look at this again:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation

Still waiting for how if the speed booster really worked the way you said it does, why wouldn’t Samus just ****ing bust through to the hid out of Mother brain and ram her *****y self at 700+ MPH (or why Samus can stop in general after turning it on, but hey a door can stop her, so whatever).

Guess who was responsible for the translations of Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and even EarthBound? Dan Owsen.

This is what I have to say about translations:
http://earthboundcentral.com/m2eb/

I also like stuff like this, but for more than one reason:
http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/Sypha_Belnades#Captain_N
http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/Holy_Water#Appearance_in_Castlevania_I
So glad it isn’t called a fire bomb anymore.

Of course this company has done the worse as far as translation errors go:
http://www.capcom.com/

Anyway I’ll just close on this:

Form of mentality? I was poking fun at your name.

Yeah, and I was making fun of you for how you were poking fun at my user name, how about that?

I would suggest you just leave this thread like I have. There's other things you can be doing in life than this.

You’ve left the thread?

In this thread, game canon>logic.

So, what happened with the pokedex again? It sure is funny when compared to the other things in this thread.

You guys are clearly VERY ****ing biased about what “impossibilities” you’ll ****ing take, I mean you all seem to be ok with an old SNES booklet saying it even when the game won’t back it up, but you aren’t ok with a wild pokemon being a blackhole, another one having super armor that is unbreakable, or another that has fire breath packing a power level of over 9000?

Would you please explain why that is ok with you guys other than the fact that you really haven’t been paying attention to what you’ve been saying for the last 800 pages?

What I'm saying in case you can't tell is that why is Samus’ ok, but not the things in Pokemon?

The only way I can think of it being truly ok with you all is if you are either all full of **** to the point where it is flowing from your mouths, or you really haven't been paying attention to what you've been saying like I said (which is ok in my book), so what is it people?

And to add to the very funny thing, what is actually game canon and what isn't is part of what I'm debating, the idea of something being 100% invulnerable is hardly canon from what I see. The game's clearly don't mean 100% invulnerability when they say that as well, as clearly shown in the games that have the stuff.

I mean the idea is so often used in platformer games, you know like I said those are the games where you die on “touching” a foe for starters, and things like bottomless pits and the like shouldn’t be in games as well, but whatever.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation

Again, I’m not saying you should throw everything out 100% just because the stuff uses the wording of invulnerable and the like, I’m only saying it should be given a closer look as to what it really does, the term invincible/whatever is so overused to describe things in this world even though we do know it isn’t logical in the 1st place. (I hope I don’t really have to explain that it is people)

God it is more than just a ****ing “translation error,” which was like only 1% of my argument in the 1st place people at the start, funny how that small part of it has been so overblown (just because you would all rather just poke at it instead of the actual issues), it’s an overused word filled with BS in the definition in the 1st place and it is used because the people who have made the stuff that uses it don’t want to spend 10 pages explaining what it is (which may be for good reason):
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtistsAreNotArchitects

They sure do **** up when they try, that is all I'm saying:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale

So they chose an easy way out with it, and that word is the easiest way out I can think of for talking about something “tough,” or something that protects you from “a lot of nasty things” it is a worthless word, but it sure has a lot of bite somehow in this thread.

 

[the king of murder]

Originally Posted by _clinton
You guys are clearly VERY ****ing biased

Yeah, everyone who doesn't share your opinion is biased.

No offence, but before you call other people biased, you should look at yourself first. Because you're clearly not better.

You really like to argue, don't you? Like the previous MU, everyone agreed that Falco wins, yet, you still had to argue about unnecessary things.

And in case you have missed that, we have already allowed the Pokedex entries since the PT vs TLink MU.

Current MU: Lucario wins unless ZSS gets more than just her taser and super athletic power.

Aura Sphere, ExtremeSpeed and Sworddance should already be enough for ZSS to handle.

 

[Ganonsburg]

So, what happened with the pokedex again? It sure is funny when compared to the other things in this thread.

We fixed the problems with that. Chill out, this thread is a work in progress. We're not going to get everything perfect from the get go. Anyway, the main problem with the pokedex is that it sometimes contradicted itself and contradicted the gameplay. Our solution to this problem allows us to still use the Pokedex, but without having the contradictions.

You guys are clearly VERY ****ing biased about what “impossibilities” you’ll ****ing take, I mean you all seem to be ok with an old SNES booklet saying it even when the game won’t back it up, but you aren’t ok with a wild pokemon being a blackhole, another one having super armor that is unbreakable, or another that has fire breath packing a power level of over 9000?

Everyone's biased. If you didn't know this, get off the computer and go out into the real world. I promise you won't melt in the sun.

And to add to the very funny thing, what is actually game canon and what isn't is part of what I'm debating, the idea of something being 100% invulnerable is hardly canon from what I see. The game's clearly don't mean 100% invulnerability when they say that as well, as clearly shown in the games that have the stuff.

Or the games do mean it, and you forget that games need to be challenging and beatable. If the hero/heroine were fully invincible, the game is stupid easy. If the enemy is invincible, the game is impossible. Just take the invincibility as they give it to you. We've all pointed out what the limitations are, you just ignore them or take them too literally (or apply them too liberally).

 

[PowerBomb]

_clinton, if you look at the tense of the verbs, they are referring to the past. In the past, Galekill was here with his nonnegotiable-self. I was not referring to you, sorry.

@MU: ZSS can't really do anything to Lucario. All he needs is this:
Leftovers
Aura Sphere
Double Team
Detect
Calm Mind

Just spam Detect/Double Team to evade ZSS's moves, and then once he can effectively evade them mosst of the time, use Calm Mind to boost Aura Sphere. Once this happens, Aura Sphere should take a healthy chunk of HP away from ZSS each time it hits (and it WILL hit).

Lucario wins, MU should be declared over, unless anyone wants to debate whether ZSS wins/has a chance.

 

[Ganonsburg]

I agree with Lucario winning. ZSS can't really do anything to him, especially if he has a move like Extremespeed or Detect.

 

[Kewkky]

You guys are clearly VERY ****ing biased about what “impossibilities” you’ll ****ing take, I mean you all seem to be ok with an old SNES booklet saying it even when the game won’t back it up, but you aren’t ok with a wild pokemon being a blackhole, another one having super armor that is unbreakable, or another that has fire breath packing a power level of over 9000?

You know why we don't go with the pokedex? Because during the gameplay, NONE of it is true! You'd think that a pokemon being a black hole, just for existing would start sucking everything in it, given the terms being and black hole, but when you encounter one, all it does is tackle and tail whip. Why should we choose to NOT use gameplay elements, and instead revolve around what the game doesn't support at all? In this thread, we're supposed to pit two characters by giving them all of their gameplay elements, and if it's backed up by the non-gameplay then it's added in. But if you have a pokemon whose information in the pokedex says "His fire breath melts rocks" but when you use flamethrower on a rock-type it's not very effective, then we should know that the pokedex is nothing but bull**** and only there to entertain us with things to read that will send our imaginations soaring. When was the last time you saw a Machoke pushing a mountain? Charizard melting rocks? Psychic pokemon actually being psychic and controlling things and all that whatnot that the pokedex implies, instead of just doing HP damage?

CLEARLY you are not understanding how EVERYONE in this thread works with things, and you believe that your way is the way it has been done since the start of the thread, but all that you are is a random person who visited the thread, and tried to change all the rules to fit exactly what you want to argue. Are you STILL not wondering why everyone disagrees with you? EVERYONE? Who hasn't said that you're ruining the thread? Don't you think that YOU are the problem here, and not everyone else? There MUST be something wrong here, something breaking what has been the norm since the thread has been created... And you being the only one EVERYONE has a problem with, don't you think that there might be a correlation between these two elements? When will you learn?

 

[warpd]

This has turned into a rant thread...

Zamus does not have any way to really hurt Lucario.

 

[_clinton]

And in case you have missed that, we have already allowed the Pokedex entries since the PT vs TLink MU.

I didn't miss that at all, please note that my comment's point was to bring light of the fact that you guys were not in the past ok with the stuff in the pokedex that didn't make sense in the long run, so you threw it out. Some of you wanted to throw the entire pokedex out like you all said, despite the fact that there was clearly good data in it:

You know why we don't go with the pokedex? Because during the gameplay, NONE of it is true!

Oh boy

Anyway going on with you TKoM:
Yet guess what things like the speed booster being 100% invulnerable and being so called "unstoppable" does as well to the Metroid games game play if it is taken 100% literally?

You guys are still going with the SNES statement despite the problems that it has for gameplay and stuff, but you will remove stuff from the pokedex if it has for problems with the gameplay, if you guys can't see the biased in that than I'm very sorry.

I mean in the past I brought up the fact that it making Samus run at 700 MPH or so and she herself being a respectably sized target is again a far better reason for why she busts through "everything," and she hardly needs the word "invulnerable" in the definition of it except to put things there that aren’t there, but you guys still seem to be going with the SNES statement despite the fact that it is a clear contraction to the game play of the games.

So, I hardly see how I'm being biased at least in this part of the debate when I want to remove all of the impossibility words in this thread in general that don't have much data and replace them with more logical points shown in the game that still get the moves abilities off, and it is not just the stuff in Samus' game. Things like Starmen/whatever, magic armor/Zelda stuff, DK stuff, Wario's stuff, pokemon, Super Sonic, FE stuff, EB stuff, Star Fox stuff, and so on are on that list as well, so really WTF is wrong with that?

Again the only reason why the stuff is in the wording that it is anyway is because people are lazy/not willing to put enough time into explaining the stuff fully because it doesn't matter for the game at hand, which makes sense actually, but they clearly do slap some limits on it and show off just what it can do, and they are clearly showing it is hardly 100% invulnerability and so on.

We've all pointed out what the limitations are, you just ignore them or take them too literally (or apply them too liberally).

What limitations have you guys really pointed out again when it comes to things like Ike, Samus, Ganondorf, and so on? Stuff that is only in their games with a "plot device," that is hardly saying much, especially when you ignore all of the other powers that are clearly shown in other games just because they don’t have the “same name” as what is protecting Ganondorf. I mean just because Ganondorf can take a sword to the gut and be just fine for the most part doesn’t mean he can take something like a nuke going off in his face like several of these characters can clearly do.

Plus what happens when the perfect defense meets the perfect offense again? Just saying...

Anyway, how about if I do an example using something like the power star for example in order to bring it down to earth more for what I’ve been trying to say? The starman/super star shows enough power to turn a baby that can't even walk or crawl yet to flat out running fast enough to run up walls/move across various liquids that you would just have to swim in, and makes him tough enough to walk across various lethal objects such as "lava" at the same time and all of this is just done when Mario is just a baby, and it is rechargeable as well, I wonder what differences are shown from when he is older?

Of course no matter how strong starman/super stars are, they are nothing compared to the power stars Mario finds in several games, those babies pack the power of creation in them for starters from looking at their strength, I mean ever wonder why bosses have been giving up stars after their death? Hell things like starmen and so on seem to be a product of power stars in the 1st place (things like the red Luma gives you a red star that allows you flight in SMG for starters).

Putting facts of just what the starmen does is a lot better IMO then just using an overused word. There certainly is more detail with just that info there on the ability.

 

[Kewkky]

So, I hardly see how I'm being biased at least in this part of the debate when I want to remove all of the impossibility words in this thread in general that don't have much data and replace them with more logical points shown in the game that still get the moves abilities off, and it is not just the stuff in Samus' game. Things like Starmen/whatever, magic armor/Zelda stuff, DK stuff, Wario's stuff, pokemon, Super Sonic, FE stuff, EB stuff, Star Fox stuff, and so on are on that list as well, so really WTF is wrong with that?

Then you should leave this thread, and join this one: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=237756

THIS thread that we are in right now is about EVERYTHING that happens in the games, without backup of real-life explanations. What happens in the games is law, even if there's no logical explanation. If I have this character, and that character can create matter, then accept that he can create matter and move on! If this other character can spin at 9.0x10^9 THz while naked and not die in the process while ONLY using a common Twister matt, then boy oh boy you must accept it!

THE OTHER thread concentrates more on what you want:

Things like Starmen/whatever, magic armor/Zelda stuff, DK stuff, Wario's stuff, pokemon, Super Sonic, FE stuff, EB stuff, Star Fox stuff, and so on are on that list as well, so really WTF is wrong with that?

That's rationalized in the other thread, and things that are impossible due to there being no logic behind it, are banned. As you can see, even futuristic things are allowed, given the fact that Samus is still #1 there and has a sizeable advantage over the other contenders, but they don't allow things like Speed Booster because invincibility is impossible, and running that fast with her physique is realistically impossible.

So, what are you gonna do? Go to the thread that satisfies your needs? Or try to turn this thread into a copy of the other one?

 

[_clinton]

THIS thread that we are in right now is about EVERYTHING that happens in the games, without backup of real-life explanations.

Yet, you aren't ok with the pokedex at all, why is that again?

THE OTHER thread concentrates more on what you want:

Ah no, the other thread puts the characters into a real life setting minus a few exceptions that btw still wouldn't work (Samus' future stuff wouldn't work in a RL setting, just saying), to the point where it is too much of what you think I want, the thing I want is still considered actual canon, just w/o some BS like saying Diddy Kong can take a car going at 700 plus MPH just by using a move like going bananas despite there being no proof saying Diddy can take something like that in his game, but only because he has the word "invulnerable" placed on a move he has.

So, what are you gonna do? Go to the thread that satisfies your needs? Or try to turn this thread into a copy of the other one?

So, I like how this thread used to say Link getting the fire arrow was a game mechanic.

I don't see what the big deal is, all I'm looking for ATM is that the word invulnerability or so be removed from this thread for very clear reasons and then in turn just actually finding in game examples of what is really going on with the stuff.

The stuff should be able to stand on its own without having the word "invulnerability" by it as I have clearly shown by bringing up the super star/starman in Mario, Mario can still be beaten with a starman according to the game anyway as I have pointed out in the past, so the word invulnerable shouldn't be in the description in the 1st place.

Still why the definition of game mechanic took 500 pages to change into a logical definition instead of that bad one makes this even funnier.

 

[Kewkky]

Yet, you aren't ok with the pokedex at all, why is that again?

Have you ever seen a Charizard melt rocks with his flamethrower? Whenever I tried this, it said "it's not very effective..."... And I never COULD get my Machoke to move mountains... Was I doing it wrong?

Ah no, the other thread puts the characters into a real life setting minus a few exceptions that btw still wouldn't work (Samus' future stuff wouldn't work in a RL setting, just saying), to the point where it is too much of what you think I want, the thing I want is still considered actual canon, just w/o some BS like saying Diddy Kong can take a car going at 700 plus MPH just by using a move like going bananas despite there being no proof saying Diddy can take something like that in his game, but only because he has the word "invulnerable" placed on a move he has.

If "Going Bananas" makes the character take every hit in his game, then we don't need to assume that he can take every hit period, and that includes a car going at 700mph. That's just how it works in his game, you can't argue with it since it's pretty obvious NOTHING in his universe can bug him when "Going Bananas" is active. Why would you assume the car will be able to affect him, if nothing else affects him? Is it the force of impact? It doesn't matter, really, since according to his universe, he's not going to be bothered at all by the car... Unless the car has the definition "it destroys everything it encounters regardless of defense", we're not going to see monkey roadkill anytime soon as long as "Going Bananas" is active.

So, I like how this thread used to say Link getting the fire arrow was a game mechanic.

It doesn't even matter if it was a game mechanic or not. This thread gives everyone their game's weapons and whatnot, so Link starts out with a fire arrow, and done. The only reason that explanation was there was so that people understand that "shooting arrows into the sun won't get anyone else fire arrows", or if Link ever runs out of fire arrows he can't just shoot one into the sun to get more.

I don't see what the big deal is, all I'm looking for ATM is that the word invulnerability or so be removed from this thread for very clear reasons and then in turn just actually finding in game examples of what is really going on with the stuff.

When you are able to run past enemies and break them apart by just touching them... Then use cheats to be able to try this on bosses and see the effects and realize that they get greatly injured when you hit them... Then go to the only boss you can Speed Boost legally and do so, only to find out it does no damage and makes him angrier... Then run over floors full of spikes in Speed Booster and get hurt, but afterwards shinespark into walls and ceilings full of spikes and nothing happens until the Speed Booster runs out... Don't you think that there's something wrong here? Maybe the boss that resisted the attack was programmed to resist that attack specifically so as to stop the player from taking the easy route. Maybe the floor of spikes is at a different altitude from the previous floor and changing from normal to spikes would cancel out the Speed Booster.

What other explanation is there for it? It's invincible unless you go through an event which forces the move to stop. If Samus drops, her momentum dies down. If she slams into something, her momentum dies down. If she hits a wall, her momentum dies down. And when her momentum dies down, the move deactivates, and so does the invincibility... I can't think of any other explanation that explains it as perfectly as this does, and apparently neither can anyone else who's arguing against you. And your explanations aren't as perfect or precise as this one. And if you can't even properly debunk this example, then why should we try to debunk the others?

The stuff should be able to stand on its own without having the word "invulnerability" by it as I have clearly shown by bringing up the super star/starman in Mario, Mario can still be beaten with a starman according to the game anyway as I have pointed out in the past, so the word invulnerable shouldn't be in the description in the 1st place.

I missed this, so could you please give me a rebuttal of how you debunked the Starman invulnerability?

Still why the definition of game mechanic took 500 pages to change into a logical definition instead of that bad one makes this even funnier.

Why are you even here? To laugh at everyone? To laugh at the thread? To laugh at the idea of the OP running the thread? Get the **** out if that's all you're here for.

 

[WhatIsRaizen?]

When do you guys think I should come to a conclusion of this thread? Cause for us to do every match-up, we'll need to discuss 1560 different match-ups. So far we've discussed 268, there's 1292 to go if we do each and every match-up. It's been about an year since the start of this thread. So what do you guys think? End in after a while, or just keep going?

It'd take an estimated 4 more years to complete all other MUS.

Here's the next MU btw:

Current Match-Up:
THE PRINCESS OF HYRULE Vs. THE MANLY FALCON

Zelda Vs. Falcon

Vs.

Loser's Round 6, Match 3.

Overall Results

Wins +6:

,

Wins +5:



Wins +4:


Wins +3:

, , ,

Wins +2:

, , , ,

Wins +1:

:mewtwo:, , , , ,

Neutral:

, ichu:, , ,

Loss -1:

, , , ,

Loss -2:

, , ,

Loss -3:

, ,

Loss -4:

,

Loss -5:



Loss -6:

,

Vs.

 

[_clinton]

Have you ever seen a Charizard melt rocks with his flamethrower? Whenever I tried this, it said "it's not very effective..."... And I never COULD get my Machoke to move mountains... Was I doing it wrong?

Yet for some reason you’re ok with the speed booster being harmed by spikes even when shine sparking (yeah, just saying you are [Bwrong[/B] about Samus not being harmed by spikes while shine sparking in Super Metroid, she gets hit by them twice, once when she 1st hits them of course, than another after the shine spark goes away from hitting the wall), oh and there are several other enemy attacks that punch through the speed booster in that game as well, just saying. That sure sounds like a powerful invulnerability option.

Oh and I still find it funny that people would defend game mechanics where if done right the lowest pokemon can take out gods, but hey it’s not like Charizard’s flamethrower wouldn’t eventually melt the rocks, the dex never says it is done an instant, but whatever.

If "Going Bananas" makes the character take every hit in his game, then we don't need to assume that he can take every hit period, and that includes a car going at 700mph. That's just how it works in his game, you can't argue with it since it's pretty obvious NOTHING in his universe can bug him when "Going Bananas" is active.

Except falling off a cliff and so on, that bugs him, along with other hazards like lava in other games where it has shown up, but whatever.

It doesn't even matter if it was a game mechanic or not.

My comment was towards Link getting the fire arrow and the OP was saying it was a game mechanic, when it clearly isn’t.

This thread gives everyone their game's weapons and whatnot, so Link starts out with a fire arrow, and done. The only reason that explanation was there was so that people understand that "shooting arrows into the sun won't get anyone else fire arrows", or if Link ever runs out of fire arrows he can't just shoot one into the sun to get more.

Or the explanation was there because it really thought that the way Link got the arrows was by a game mechanic, but I guess you forgot about the 2nd part of the explanation for why it was a game mechanic there.

Of course, right now I don’t see much if any problem with the definition, so whatever.

When you are able to run past enemies and break them apart by just touching them...

This can also be explained by the fact that you are going at 700 MPH or so and happen to be 6 foot something and a couple hundred pounds w/o the armor on adding to the force, you don’t need invulnerability to see what will happen all the time from that force.

Then use cheats to be able to try this on bosses and see the effects and realize that they get greatly injured when you hit them...

So, what bosses are these? I’m pretty sure slamming Ridley with the effects of the speed booster in SM does **** to him, and it’s the same to stuff like Kraid.

There are only a few bosses I can think of that actually get harmed by the booster like you are saying, and those said bosses aren’t on the largest of threat lists anyway.

Then go to the only boss you can Speed Boost legally and do so, only to find out it does no damage and makes him angrier...

It doesn’t make him angrier, oh and boss attacks still hurt Samus when she is speed boosting, just thought I’d say that.

Oh, and you’d think a boss being programmed for stopping the speed booster (and the thing is somewhat huge btw, certainly is a lot bigger than the foes that are actually hurt by the speed booster) would be a hint that as long as you have enough force behind yourself, your attack, or your defensive object like “Croco” has in all three you’d be able to stop the speed booster and it isn’t really invulnerability because you can stop it without being a wall, but whatever.

BTW, the acid/lava that kills Crocomire is also one of the only things that still burns a hole in Samus’ suit by that end game from entering it, and the instruction booklet does say Croco is one tough SOB, so saying it is just a “fake game mechanic” that doesn’t make sense is BS when clearly Croco has enough power to be a treat according to the canon (unlike things like Pokemon’s level or move sets, or leveling up in Mario RPGs for the most part).

Of course something that pretty much lols at the idea of the speed booster being invulnerable in game/shows that you can stop it w/o being a wall must be wrong than an instruction booklet for that game for the same subject.

I still want to know why you think characters like Mario or Ness couldn’t pack enough force behind their attacks to stop Samus while she is speed boosting as well, when a foe that is pretty much pure fat can just by standing in the way? Ness just fights foes where he himself physically only comes up to their small toes in size (proven in game btw, Fourside is fun like that, of course if you don’t get what I’m saying, just look at your toes yourself and then think of Ness), and Mario beats up giants all the time as well for foes, so why the **** couldn’t they pack enough force to stop Samus from running? When they lol at mountain sized foes, not saying that Samus doesn’t as well (Kraid, he is like 65 feet tall right?), but it certainly isn’t on the level that some other characters do.

Maybe the floor of spikes is at a different altitude from the previous floor and changing from normal to spikes would cancel out the Speed Booster.

And yet, even spikes that aren’t on the floor or ceiling but instead are on Samus’ path of running itself stop her as well.

It's invincible unless you go through an event which forces the move to stop.

This btw includes various foe attacks, various objects, and various foes themselves just thought I’d say that again. I really don’t see how she could for example run through Bowser still, or Mario packing a mega mushroom, just saying.

I missed this, so could you please give me a rebuttal of how you debunked the Starman invulnerability?

So, how come you can kill a foe packing super star (combined with mega mushroom in that game) power in SPM again? Just bringing that up for starters other than the fact that I just brought up how Power stars are stronger than them.

Why are you even here? To laugh at everyone? To laugh at the thread? To laugh at the idea of the OP running the thread? Get the **** out if that's all you're here for.

Spoiler

Actually I was just commenting about how slow this thread is moving just in general. Which hardly means I'm laughing at someone, but please go ahead and think that or whatever you want about things like this and reply to them the way you just did, then I really will have a reason to lol, but hey some people have already done that. I love it when certain stuff like this is true, as in the reactions:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UltimateShowdownOfUltimateDestiny

 

[Ganonsburg]

This MU goes to Falcon, I'd say. Zelda really doesn't have anything that can hurt him when he's in a car running her over at high speeds. Which Zelda are we using for these MU's anyway?

TP Zelda has:
Sword
Light Arrows

OoT Zelda has:
Ocarina (with all of Link's teleporting songs, Zelda's Lullaby, and Song of Time, considering she taught them to him. However, she doesn't have songs like Song of Storms or Saria's Song)
Light Barriers (or whatever she pinned Ganon down with)

Shiek has:
Deku Nuts
She was ready to confront Bongo Bongo, so she's got to have some kind of fighting know-how. But we can't really say to what extent.

Overall, it's pretty bismal. They both have the ToW as well, but they don't really use it in 1:1 fighting. Even if she managed to shoot a light arrow into CF's engine and stop it, CF has bounty hunter training that likely outdoes Zelda's (and a gun, but I'm not sure if that's just Brawl graphics or if it's actually canon) .

inb4_ClintonargueswithmetosaythatCFwinseventhoughIalreadysaidit

 

[Lovely]

Zelda wins if Captain Falcon is not in his Blue Falcon. :/

I don't think stopping a vehicle that goes beyond 1609 KM is not an easy task. ;p

 

[WiiWouldLikeTwoPlay]

When do you guys think I should come to a conclusion of this thread? Cause for us to do every match-up, we'll need to discuss 1560 different match-ups. So far we've discussed 268, there's 1292 to go if we do each and every match-up. It's been about an year since the start of this thread. So what do you guys think? End in after a while, or just keep going?

It'd take an estimated 4 more years to complete all other MUS.

Let it lose steam on its own, as it inevitably eventually will. Then, it will fade to oblivion, and be forgotten, as is the course of nature.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Zelda wins if Captain Falcon is not in his Blue Falcon. :/

I don't think stopping a vehicle that goes beyond 1609 KM is not an easy task. ;p

Do you mind explaining the Flyer-less match-up? I'm having trouble seeing the match in my mind because I have little knowledge of CF outside his flyer and I'm having a memory block on all of Zelda's abilities.

 

[RWB]

Falcon shoots from the hip in non-vehicle mode. Dead Zelda. And he is way faster, since you need supersonic reflexes just to drive F-Zero.

Vehicle Mode, he runs her over at supersonic speeds.

 

[BSP]

The Falcon Flyer is Falcon's ship. The Blue Falcon is Falcon's racer. Falcon will probably win, unless he somehow loses both ships. What can Falcon do when he's not behind a wheel?

Oh right, he has a pistol, but i haven't seen him use it.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Yeah, Falcon definitely wins. I was thinking of the Blue Falcon, and completely forgot about the Falcon Flyer. There's no way Zelda can take down two of his vehicles. One if she's lucky, but no way with two. I think it might be close to without his vehicles (even though he has a gun, isn't it a pistol? Arrows have better ranges than pistols, despite the firepower of pistols and speed, so the weapons are about equal), but it doesn't matter really.