It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:28 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 880
Location: Sweden
Quote:
It's not about choice of words. I try to argue against the basic assumption: "Cartoon style was good for Mario in the Mushroom Kingdom. But in a city, a realistic style is more fitting, so it matches the atmosphere."

No, it doesn't. Realistic style matches the atmosphere in every situation because that's what humans look like in, well, reality.

But if they already chose cartoon style, they should have kept it that way. Cartoon style in a big city is no more or less out of place than in a kingdom surrounding.

The degree in how far each style fits to the surroundings is exactly the same: If you already have big-nosed cartoon characters in the kingdom surroundings, they also fit to the city surroundings.

The idea that the cartoon style matches well with the kingdom locations while the realistic style matches more with the city environment is incorrect. In a "Super Mario" setting, even city folk should look like the Mario bunch.
Thanks, now I get it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you and realism may have many meanings, but don't try to deny that realism isn't a widely accepted discipline of art.
Also you can't really say this and that is incorrect on a subjective matter like this. It's just a matter of opinions.
I want to clarify that my opinion isn't that the realistic characters are necessarily fitting better in a realistic urban environment like this, on the contrary I think mixing styles wildly works very well here. My opinion on this matter is only that I think the liberties Nintendo took in their choices of style is still within what I'd consider tasteful. In other words, I have no problem that the characters are depicted in a different way from Mario, and I don't think it necessarily means Mario isn't considered human.

Quote:
But if the whole point is to depict Super Mario as a giant, an inflated version of a normal human, then depicting all the other characters in this inflated version makes no sense.

This has nothing to do with video game logic, it has to do with common sense:
If you want to depict your character as a giant, but literally every single other human character is exactly the same size, then people will never even get the idea that your character is supposed to be a giant.
I fully agree with you that making other characters and objects smaller is a good way to depict Mario as a giant. But on the other hand they might not have wanted to emphasize on that. Especially since the Super power up was added in later. And if making other characters smaller would mean they have to redraw them and therefore also loose detail, it probably isn't a very good idea. By video game logic I mean that if you can make something look better you do it, even if you have to sacrifice realistic proportions. You may think it's a retarded choice, but I think it's perfectly good choice considering the circumstances. In the end the only thing that matters is that it looks good and is interesting to look at, not that everything makes perfect sense.

Quote:
It's not ridiculous if these mushrooms are a common occurence in that world and if this means it protects you from any harm.
Don't you think if using a certain creme would prevent your skin from any impact for exactly one time, including car crashes, and that you don't need to re-apply the creme until it is actually needed, that people would use them by default, constantly?
Yes, superheroes only transform when they fight. But apart from being able to smash bricks, the Super Mushroom is something for protection. It doesn't make Mario faster or jump higher, it only acts as a life bar.
It wouldn't be ridiculous in the real world, if something only has benefits with no side effects, of course everyone would use it, that just makes logical sense. But it normally doesn't make sense for an author of a fictional work to implement something like that. In fiction, if there is a power up it usually comes with some limitation that makes it not possible to use it all the time, because if that was possible everything fantastic about it would disappear. Of course there are exceptions, but in general I think it's a bad idea.
The exact effects of the Super Mushroom is irrelevant to the discussion I think, what matters is that it increases your abilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19254
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Pokun wrote:
So you use the title "Super Mario Bros 2: Mario Madness" in forum talk just to avoid any confusion with the FDS SMB2 game?

Correct.

Pokun wrote:
Kinoko-ichizoku is another word used in Japanese versions, it means the mushroom tribe/clan as in contrast to the invading kame-ichizoku the turtle tribe/clan.

"Invading" only if you believe the Toads. There's evidence that the land belonged to the Goombas, the Toads were the invaders, and the Goombas hired mercenaries from Koopa Troop (cartoons: Koopa Pack) to reclaim their homeland. Of course this wouldn't be clear from the manual because it's written from the Toads' point of view. On the other hand, Bowser appears to have occupied Dinosaur Land for no reason other than Lebensraum.

Pokun wrote:
Video game logic, not everything is depicted in realistic proportions, especially if it would make it hard to see details in the low resolution the system provides, makes perfect sense to me.

Hence the large heads on Graphics Induced Super Deformed characters. But sometimes they keep their large heads even when next to more realistically proportioned characters, as opposed to transforming to meet the ambient art style like on The Simpsons. You can see this with big-headed child characters in Super Smash Bros. series, such as Ness, Lucas, Toon Link, and Villager, next to someone like Sheik or Marth or Captain Falcon or Ryu. So what's the excuse now? That they have to keep the heads big in order to accommodate the 3DS's top screen not being any taller than the NES's output?

Pokun wrote:
The Super Mushroom is a power up that increases your strength. Doesn't it sound ridiculous that everyone are wandering around in a transformed state at all times?

Most people in the developed world wander around with Enough Food To Eat at all times. Nowadays, people wander around with their phones on them at all times. Athletes wander around with roids in them at all times. Schoolchildren wander around with Ritalin in them at all times.

Pokun wrote:
[Koopa Troopas] are based on the Shellcreepers that are roughly the same size as normal Mario.

Image
In this screenshot, they're noticeably shorter than Mario
.

Pokun wrote:
You should know Tepples by now, there's no way to tell when he's joking or when he's being serious. :)

Sometimes, there's no way for even me to tell. (See ha ha only serious.)

DRW wrote:
Cartoon style in a big city is no more or less out of place than in a kingdom surrounding.

Agreed. Case in point: characters in the cities of Dimmsdale (The Fairly OddParents) and Townsville (The Powerpuff Girls) are cartoonish. So are the inhabitants of the neolithic Dome City (Super Mario World TV series). Also the cities in EarthBo-- wait a minute...

Half of the SMW series shows the Mario Bros. introducing bamboo tech to neolithic humans living among living-fossil wildlife. If it's supposed to be an adaptation of the Super Famicom* game Super Mario World, I can't tell what part, as game canon is that the dominant sapient species in Dinosaur Land is Yoshis. If anything, the cartoon is more like Mario meets The Flintstones.

So either one of two things is true: Either Super Show PL109 "Quest for Pizza" is a backdoor pilot for SMW, or 7 GRAND DAD IS CANON.


* SMW has some Japan-only elements, like the sign over Bowser's castle reading "Koopa" and the continuity announcer describing it as Captain N and the New Super Mario Bros. 4 over the credits of Yo Yogi! or whatever else preceded it on NBC's then Saturday morning lineup. Why is "Unskinny Bop" by Poison in my head now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1469
Pokun wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you and realism may have many meanings, but don't try to deny that realism isn't a widely accepted discipline of art.

Yes, it is. But you shouldn't include it into a work that has already been established to have cartoon characters, unless it's some parody or satire, like "South Park".

Pokun wrote:
I think mixing styles wildly works very well here.

But mixing style implies that Mario is not a normal human being like us. In the past games, the idea was that Mario is what constitutes as a regular human.
But with the introduction of the New Donk City people, Nintendo basically established: Mario's look is not just art convention, it's not just what regular humans look like in the "Super Mario" world. Realistic humans like us actually exist as a distinct separate side species inside that world. Mario is literally from another species of humans than us because representations of us exist inside the "Mario" canon as well and they're not cartoonified.

Pokun wrote:
Especially since the Super power up was added in later. And if making other characters smaller would mean they have to redraw them and therefore also loose detail, it probably isn't a very good idea.

The size difference was probably added when they were still in the planning phase. And this would have only concerned the Mushroom Retainer sprite and Princess Toadstool in the first game.

Besides, here's a proof that the idea "other characters are always in their small form, even if their sprites match the size of Super Mario" is definitely not in effect and that it's purely something you made up by yourself:
An image that's 100 % artwork and 0 % gameplay. Left is when you enter the scene as small Mario, right is when you enter it as Super Mario:
Attachment:
SMB3.png
SMB3.png [ 8.92 KiB | Viewed 446 times ]


You really still think that the designer's intention in the left picture is "in-universe, Toad is smaller than Mario, despite what the picture shows you"?

Or the intro to "New Super Mario Bros.": Mario is in his Super form, walking with the Princess. Then the Princess gets kidnapped. Mario runs out of screen and you hear that he gets attacked. When he gets back on the screen, he's small.
So, you think that the developers intended Mario to take a walk in his Super form with Princess Toadstool being in her small form? (So much about Mario not using his Super form in everyday life, but only when he fights.)

And despite the advanced graphics, you think that they still didn't present it in the way they intend it, but play a game of make believe where you are supposed to imagine something despite the scene on the screen showing you something completely different?

Pokun wrote:
But it normally doesn't make sense for an author of a fictional work to implement something like that.

As I said, it's primarily an item of protection, not attack. Mario doesn't deal more damage with it. That's not like Bruce Banner becoming the Hulk.

But it doesn't really matter what's the explanation anyway. At least your explanation (all the other characters are in their small form, it's just that the sprites are displayed as big) simply doesn't hold water. It means contradicting what's right in front of our eyes.

tepples wrote:
Of course this wouldn't be clear from the manual because it's written from the Toads' point of view.

You really like those fan theories, do you?

The manual isn't written from anybody's point of view. The manual doesn't exist in-universe, it's the narrating description for us in the real world to explain the story of a game. If the manual says the Koopa Troopers are the invaders, then that's the case simply because the manual stating it makes it true.
You cannot accuse a story book for a work of fiction of being Stalinist revisionist hisory, unless that story book actually exists within that world.
But as long as that's just Miyamoto tellung us the story of his game, you cannot say it's not true. Him writing it makes it true because he creates the details of that world.

tepples wrote:
You can see this with big-headed child characters in Super Smash Bros. series, such as Ness, Lucas, Toon Link, and Villager, next to someone like Sheik or Marth or Captain Falcon or Ryu. So what's the excuse now?

Stuff like "Super Smash Bros." is just a fanservicey non-canon crossover. Of course they keep their individual styles there because these games happen in neither franchise's universe. I'm pretty sure the story mode in "Street Fighter VI" will not reference the fight between Ryu, Pikachu and Donkey Kong that took place on Samus Aran's spaceship.
So, yeah, different situation from Mario and New Donk City.

_________________
Available now: My game "City Trouble".
Website: https://megacatstudios.com/products/city-trouble
Trailer: https://youtu.be/IYXpP59qSxA
Gameplay: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
German Retro Gamer article: http://i67.tinypic.com/345o108.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 880
Location: Sweden
Quote:
"Invading" only if you believe the Toads. There's evidence that the land belonged to the Goombas, the Toads were the invaders, and the Goombas hired mercenaries from Koopa Troop (cartoons: Koopa Pack) to reclaim their homeland. Of course this wouldn't be clear from the manual because it's written from the Toads' point of view. On the other hand, Bowser appears to have occupied Dinosaur Land for no reason other than Lebensraum.
Haha you do really like these theories. Very well, it adds an interesting twist to the discussion. The winners of war writes history they say. I don't believe in this theory of course, but that doesn't mean Nintendo technically can't retcon it and say that this is indeed the canon case.

Quote:
In this screenshot, they're noticeably shorter than Mario.
That's from the Famicom version. In the arcade version, Kaettekita Mario Bros and in the PAL exclusive Mario Bros Classic they are much fatter, but not much taller. They are still shorter than Mario but it's not that big of a difference. I don't think it necessarily means they are giant turtles but they couldn't draw them as small turtles either because, well I already explained why you can't draw characters too small. And that leads directly to the next part:
tepples wrote:
Pokun wrote:
Video game logic, not everything is depicted in realistic proportions, especially if it would make it hard to see details in the low resolution the system provides, makes perfect sense to me.

Hence the large heads on Graphics Induced Super Deformed characters.
Yes and I strongly believe in this philosophy. Video game is art, and when it comes to art, logic comes second and feelings comes first. Art is a lot about expressing feelings after all. This is why I believe so much in what feels right here. Of course what I feel is right isn't necessarily the same as what Miyamoto and gang felt was right, so I could be totally wrong on my guesses (actually I'm most likely wrong on a lot of things here).

Quote:
Yes, it is. But you shouldn't include it into a work that has already been established to have cartoon characters, unless it's some parody or satire, like "South Park".
OK so you finally accepted realism is a genre of art. I find it a bit funny that you think realism has a place in characters' size proportions even if it would get in the way for the aesthetics, but you really don't like realism in character design to be mixed in. I guess what you don't like is just the fact that realism and SD characters are mixed.

Quote:
But mixing style implies that Mario is not a normal human...
Yeah you said the same things a number of times now. You think it implies Mario isn't human while I don't think so. I don't think there's anything more to argue here.

Quote:
As I said, it's primarily an item of protection, not attack. Mario doesn't deal more damage with it. That's not like Bruce Banner becoming the Hulk.
I really don't see what the exact effects of the power ups has to do with the discussion. It only matters that it increases Mario's strength, not in what exact manner it does so.

Quote:
You really still think that the designer's intention in the left picture is "in-universe, Toad is smaller than Mario, despite what the picture shows you"?
Correct and I think I already explained why I think so. I also bought up those contradictions in the games and explained why I don't believe in them. I think the developers just changed this when it was convenient to do so (or there where confusion among the developers in the first place), but that doesn't mean much to me.

Quote:
Stuff like "Super Smash Bros." is just a fanservicey non-canon crossover. Of course they keep their individual styles there because these games happen in neither franchise's universe. I'm pretty sure the story mode in "Street Fighter VI" will not reference the fight between Ryu, Pikachu and Donkey Kong that took place on Samus Aran's spaceship.
Oh let's discuss Smash Bros. I used to think Smash Bros is just a non-canon crossover, but when I thought about the idea that they are toys that came to life I thought Smash Bros was its own canon. Of course they are not canon to each character's game (Smash Bros has no place in the Zelda timeline for example). That's why they are just stuffed toys (and later figurines and amiibo) of video game characters. But then Brawl even included a story mode to confirm that it indeed has a story. I view it as that they are toys/video game characters and Smash Bros is a crossover space where they can meet and do more or less friendly fights, much like the space where the video game characters in Wreck it Ralph go to to take a break from their video game roles (although they don't fight). But while Mario, Link and everyone are actors in their various games, the games still happens in their own worlds. So they are both actors and real at the same time, it's kind of the Yoshi Island mystery.
I think games like the Mario Kart series is also something like this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1469
Pokun wrote:
The winners of war writes history they say.

And in this case, the winners didn't write it, but the inventors of the fictitious world. Nintendo doesn't record actual history, so those kind of fan theories are moot.

You can reinterpret my own game to claim that the enemies are actually nice and that Amy is the aggressor. But I make the story and I would tell you: No, that's not the case, simply because I say so. I created this world, I'm not a person living inside it, trying to convince people that these harmless peasants are actually a gang.

Same with the "Super Mario" games.

Pokun wrote:
I guess what you don't like is just the fact that realism and SD characters are mixed.

I thought about it and I came to the conclusion: Mixing them is not a problem per se.

In "Asterix", you have cartoony style (most characters, Gallians and Romans), but you also have realistic style (Caesar, that blond Gallian woman and her boyfriend, various Roman people). So, the different styles are just individual properties of people.
Likewise, in an all-star game like "Super Smash Bros.", you have many different styles anyway. Everybody looks differently.

So, this is all nice and well.

My problem is:

For 36 years, the "Mario" universe had only cartoony human characters. And now, suddenly, they introduced realistic characters.

This in itself wouldn't be an issue yet. Mario looks differently from Princess Toadstool, so a realistic guy wouldn't be out of place yet.

But the problem is that the realistic characters are shown in one specific environment.
They don't mix and match styles randomly, like in "Asterix", where both Romand and Gallians, men and women alter between realistic and cartoony.
In "Super Mario Odyssey", every New Donk City resident is realistic. And realistic characters only appear in New Donk City.

There's a method behind it. It's not just general mixing of styles in the same way the real world has tall, small, slim and fat people.
Since no character native to New Donk City looks like Mario and since no character not from New Donk City looks hyper realistic, it's not just a random mix like in "Super Smash Bros." anymore. It's an actual in-universe difference just like certain places in the real world are inhabitated primarily by white people and other primarily by black people.

Since there's such a clear-cut distinction, this imlies an actual racial or species difference. That's not just like with Asterix and Caesar, that's more like with Frodo and Legolas.

Pokun wrote:
I really don't see what the exact effects of the power ups has to do with the discussion. It only matters that it increases Mario's strength, not in what exact manner it does so.

Mario uses the Super Mushroom in everyday situations: He starts like that in "New Super Mario Bros." And Mario and Luigi's little intro scene in "Super Mario Bros. 3" has them in their super form, just like the story intro scenes in the Game Boy Advance remakes of SMB3 and SMW.
Hence, it is proven that Mario uses the Super Mushroom outside of fighting. Therefore, this isn't unlikely for the other characters to do so as well.

Pokun wrote:
Quote:
You really still think that the designer's intention in the left picture is "in-universe, Toad is smaller than Mario, despite what the picture shows you"?
Correct and I think I already explained why I think so.

Yeah, but your "less details" argument doesn't hold water when it comes to a huge artwork that's bigger than anything in the gameplay anyway and that is only there for artistic purposes and has no bearing on the gameplay.

Your theory that the Mushroom Kingdom inhabitants are always in their small form and that Nintendo basically means "They look like they're in their big form, but please simply pretend that they aren't" has literally zero support from anything but your own personal head canon. There's nothing implying this even slightly, but there are countless examples where even Mario himself is in his Super form in regular everyday life.

In SMB1 of "All Stars", he even gets a Super Mushroom when he rescues the Princess in his small form, so that he matches her size. Then she kisses him and you see a huge artwork of that scene where they're still to scale to each other.
So, what do you think happened here? That Mario was regular sized, just like Princess Toadstool. Then he grew to a three meter tall giant while the Princess was still 1.60 m despite the sprites showing exactly the opposite? And then she kissed giant Mario and the drawn artwork still didn't show him as a giant and her as a dwarf, but we are supposed to assume that this is the case here?

Sorry, but no. That's just ridiculous: "Please completely ignore everything that's actually on-screen, from sprites to artworks to animated cutscenes, and consider a developers' intention that the developers never uttered at all, but that I made up in my head and seriously believe that this is what they had in mind."

Compared to this theroy, every fan speculation about the family relations of Donkey Kong are scientific work.

It's absolutely clear: In the Mushroom Kingdom, the Super form is the default everyday-life form for everybody.
The only unanswered question is: What is the nature of the two forms? Is the small form a weakened version, similar to an illness? Or is the small form the default birth form, but everybody just chooses to use the Super Mushroom for increased strength all the time?

Pokun wrote:
Oh let's discuss Smash Bros.

"Super Smash Bros." is more like those educational cartoons where the Turtles, Archie and Bugs Bunny appear together to tell you that you should not pick up smoking: It's its own wacky crossover universe, but the plot happened in neither of the regular franchises. It's as canon as Robert Englund dressing up as Freddy Krueger and answering questions in-character in a talkshow. This event also has a "story", but it's only "canon" to itself, not to the actual movies.

_________________
Available now: My game "City Trouble".
Website: https://megacatstudios.com/products/city-trouble
Trailer: https://youtu.be/IYXpP59qSxA
Gameplay: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
German Retro Gamer article: http://i67.tinypic.com/345o108.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 880
Location: Sweden
Quote:
And in this case, the winners didn't write it, but the inventors of the fictitious world. Nintendo doesn't record actual history, so those kind of fan theories are moot.
Still, the developers could technically just decide that the manual is coming an in-universe text or something, so it's technically possible. I can't think of any example but I remember that they said the manual for the Earthbound NES prototype had a manual that was partly designed to be the Grandfather's Dairy, which is an in-game item. Since the game wasn't released we can't see this manual though, such a shame.

Quote:
For 36 years, the "Mario" universe had only cartoony human characters. And now, suddenly, they introduced realistic characters.

This in itself wouldn't be an issue yet. Mario looks differently from Princess Toadstool, so a realistic guy wouldn't be out of place yet.

But the problem is that the realistic characters are shown in one specific environment.
They don't mix and match styles randomly, like in "Asterix", where both Romand and Gallians, men and women alter between realistic and cartoony.
In "Super Mario Odyssey", every New Donk City resident is realistic. And realistic characters only appear in New Donk City.
I see, you are still very set on what makes logical sense or not. But Mario games' style have changed a lot over the years, although most characters where defined in SMUSA and SMB3 and haven't change that much since then. The biggest change was from the arcade games Donkey Kong and Mario Bros (and Game & Watch games from the era) over to SMB. The New Donk City represents that arcade era, although the inhabitants aren't taken from any Mario game, they do represent the culture that Donkey Kong was inspired from.

Quote:
Yeah, but your "less details" argument doesn't hold water when it comes to a huge artwork that's bigger than anything in the gameplay anyway and that is only there for artistic purposes and has no bearing on the gameplay.
Yes I admit that my argument doesn't explain that particular situation. Although I still think they did that for convenience. It was probably easier to make small Mario small than to make Super Mario gigantic, either that or there was some kind of confusion of which his true form is supposed to be.

Quote:
Your theory that the Mushroom Kingdom inhabitants are always in their small form and that Nintendo basically means "They look like they're in their big form, but please simply pretend that they aren't" has literally zero support from anything but your own personal head canon. There's nothing implying this even slightly, but there are countless examples where even Mario himself is in his Super form in regular everyday life.
Well this is about my own beliefs, not what is canon as that isn't very clear when the games contradict themselves (especially the old manuals) and common fictional sense. You keep bringing up new "proofs" but I think I explained why I don't believe in them. I can say it again: I believe the developers are doing it for convenience, they don't care which is canon here they just did it because it looked good in that situation.

Quote:
It's absolutely clear: In the Mushroom Kingdom, the Super form is the default everyday-life form for everybody.
The only unanswered question is: What is the nature of the two forms? Is the small form a weakened version, similar to an illness? Or is the small form the default birth form, but everybody just chooses to use the Super Mushroom for increased strength all the time?
Well according to your own "proof" the big form is their natural form and the small form is the transformed form (just like for Wario). Recent games deforms Mario when he takes damage and make him normal when he grabs a mushroom, I don't think the squished form is supposed to be Mario's true form in these games.

OK I have another explanation that even I might be able to accept one day, and it should also explain all those contradictions in games you bought up (retconning it, we will just have to ignore the old manuals' descriptions of "Super" though). There are no doubt many kinds of mushrooms in the Mushroom Kingdom as proven by many Mario games. Among them there are mushrooms that recovers strength (especially used in the Mario RPG series), there are mushrooms that turn you into a bee and there are mushrooms that makes you gigantic (the Mega Mushroom in NSMB series). The Super Mushroom, although it probably was initially supposed to be something like the Mega Mushroom, eventually turned out to become a recovery type of mushroom. The small Mario is, just like the small Wario, a comical representation of Mario having taken damage in battle. What do you think about this?

Quote:
"Super Smash Bros." is more like those educational cartoons where the Turtles, Archie and Bugs Bunny appear together to tell you that you should not pick up smoking: It's its own wacky crossover universe, but the plot happened in neither of the regular franchises. It's as canon as Robert Englund dressing up as Freddy Krueger and answering questions in-character in a talkshow. This event also has a "story", but it's only "canon" to itself, not to the actual movies.
Well yeah that's pretty much what I meant to say, although it's official and not some third-party licensing of Nintendo characters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19254
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
The behavior in Super Mario Bros. 2 when only one gem of health is left supports the "comical representation of Mario having taken damage in battle" theory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 880
Location: Sweden
Yes that's probably the first time it was actually used for comical effect. In SMB he just looks small, not particularly chubby or comical as it was initially probably not intended to be a comical effect, and SMB2j and SMB3 just reuses the SMB design more or less.

Nowdays it's so well known that Mario becomes small when he is hit that it's taken for granted. He becomes small because he is a video game character or because he is Mario. It's part of his nature and is just as certain that Donal Duck is a duck or Popeye becoming strong when eating spinach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1469
Pokun wrote:
Still, the developers could technically just decide that the manual is coming an in-universe text or something, so it's technically possible.

Yes, they could. But they won't. And they will never do this with Mario, claiming that the Mushroom Kingdom is the aggressor.

So, it is absolutely nonsensical to come up with these kind of theories, pretending that this is actual real history and the developers are people who try to cover it up.

It's a fictitious world. There is no "how it really happened" because nothing of it is real. What the developers tell you is the truth because them saying it makes it canon.

The only times when you can disprove the word of the work's creator itself is in two instances:

1. If it's about subjective stuff, like morals. So, when an author creates a character who rapes and pillages and enslaves people, then the author calling his character "morally sound" doesn't have to be the truth.
Ergo, if you want to claim that Mario is an asshole and not the nice hero, based on his behavior in certain games, go ahead.

2. If the creator is obviously lying and contradicting the work itself. For example, if George Lucas said that Luke Skywalker is an African American woman, this would obviously be bullshit.

But if Nintendo says "The Koopa tribe attacked the Mushroom Kingdom", you cannot say: "That's not true. The Mushroom people took the land away from the Koopas." Because Nintendo saying it already makes it true since they make the story. Unless you can find hard proof for your theory in the work itself, these theories are moot.

Pokun wrote:
Well this is about my own beliefs, not what is canon as that isn't very clear when the games contradict themselves (especially the old manuals) and common fictional sense. You keep bringing up new "proofs" but I think I explained why I don't believe in them. I can say it again: I believe the developers are doing it for convenience, they don't care which is canon here they just did it because it looked good in that situation.

And that's the thing: You invent something in your head. But instead of treating it as your own personal private canon, you actually project your personal, unproofed views on the developers. You believe that they share your view.
You don't even have the slightest indication that this is the case, but you still simply don't say: "As far as I'm concerned, that's the case in the storyline", but you say: "I believe they intended it the way I just made up."

Pokun wrote:
Well according to your own "proof" the big form is their natural form and the small form is the transformed form (just like for Wario). Recent games deforms Mario when he takes damage and make him normal when he grabs a mushroom, I don't think the squished form is supposed to be Mario's true form in these games.

That's again one of the inconsistencies in canon:

In the old games, small Mario was the normal form with Super Mario being the tranformed form (hence the name "Super"), but with all other Mushroom Kingdom inhabitants always being in their big form as well.
In those games, small Mario didn't look squished. For example, in that SMB3 artworks, the small Mario artwork looks just like the Super Mario sprite.

In the newer games (probably starting with "Super Mario Land 2" where there was a distinct form for Small Wario that was different from his common look), that idea was pretty much dropped.
Now, Super Mario is the default form with small Mario being actually literally Small/Chibi Mario.
This flows better with all the other characters being in their big form all the time, so they simply made big the default form.
But this means that the name "Super Mario" is now pretty much an artifact title because if there's only Small Mario and Mario, what is Super Mario supposed to be? Is it just a general nickname because he's the hero instead of being a name in the same line as Fire Mario, Raccoon Mario, Cape Mario etc.?
Not that these kind of continuity errors ever bothered Nintendo.

But one thing was never true: That the developers consciously made the decision:
"We draw all characters in their Super form, even in artworks, but they are supposed to be in their small form. If Mario is 27 pixels high, he's supposed to be a three meter tall giant. Next to him stands Princess Toadstool with a height of 32 pixels. That one is supposed to be 1.60 m. The graphics show her as taller than Super Mario and much taller than small Mario, but in-universe, it's meant that she's slightly taller than small Mario and only half as tall as Super Mario. Despite still being drawn five pixels taller than Super Mario. But let's just pretend that it's the other way around, even though we could easily draw it exactly like that. But we don't because it's more convenient."
That one is just stupid beyond belief.

_________________
Available now: My game "City Trouble".
Website: https://megacatstudios.com/products/city-trouble
Trailer: https://youtu.be/IYXpP59qSxA
Gameplay: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
German Retro Gamer article: http://i67.tinypic.com/345o108.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 880
Location: Sweden
Quote:
Yes, they could. But they won't.
Yes of course not. This theory is absolutely silly.

Quote:
And that's the thing: You invent something in your head. But instead of treating it as your own personal private canon, you actually project your personal, unproofed views on the developers. You believe that they share your view.
You don't even have the slightest indication that this is the case, but you still simply don't say: "As far as I'm concerned, that's the case in the storyline", but you say: "I believe they intended it the way I just made up."
This discussion is about what I believe the developers are thinking. Why is that such a big problem? I believe that the Super Mushroom was first intended to be a power up that gives Mario super natural powers, but in later games it gradually turned to be a recovery power up (first because of convenience and then naturally). Which one is canon (if there even is one) I don't know.

Quote:
That's again one of the inconsistencies in canon:

In the old games, small Mario was the normal form with Super Mario being the tranformed form (hence the name "Super"), but with all other Mushroom Kingdom inhabitants always being in their big form as well.
In those games, small Mario didn't look squished. For example, in that SMB3 artworks, the small Mario artwork looks just like the Super Mario sprite.

In the newer games (probably starting with "Super Mario Land 2" where there was a distinct form for Small Wario that was different from his common look), that idea was pretty much dropped.
Now, Super Mario is the default form with small Mario being actually literally Small/Chibi Mario.
This flows better with all the other characters being in their big form all the time, so they simply made big the default form.
But this means that the name "Super Mario" is now pretty much an artifact title because if there's only Small Mario and Mario, what is Super Mario supposed to be? Is it just a general nickname because he's the hero instead of being a name in the same line as Fire Mario, Raccoon Mario, Cape Mario etc.?
Not that these kind of continuity errors ever bothered Nintendo.
Yes that's what I've been saying.
One thing that goes well with the "big Mario = natural form" theory is the fact that most of the other power ups: fire flower, leaf, feather, frog Mario, tanuki Mario etc (not the star though) have always been in the big Mario form. The one thing that goes against it is the fact that in the earlier Mario games (before SMW at least) the super mushroom stacked with the better power ups and was even required (taking a flower in SMB when small, just transforms you into the big form without fireballs). The non-Japanese SMB3 even reverts Mario back to Super Mario instead of small Mario if taking a hit when having a second level power up, effectively giving him 3 hit points.

Besides the naming of Mario and Super Mario in the old manuals the series has been quite consistent though. But the old manuals is the whole reason why I have a hard time accepting the new possible canon, it's deeply rooted in my five year old heart.

Quote:
But one thing was never true: That the developers consciously made the decision:
"We draw all characters in their Super form, even in artworks, but they are supposed to be in their small form. If Mario is 27 pixels high, he's supposed to be a three meter tall giant. Next to him stands Princess Toadstool with a height of 32 pixels. That one is supposed to be 1.60 m. The graphics show her as taller than Super Mario and much taller than small Mario, but in-universe, it's meant that she's slightly taller than small Mario and only half as tall as Super Mario. Despite still being drawn five pixels taller than Super Mario. But let's just pretend that it's the other way around, even though we could easily draw it exactly like that. But we don't because it's more convenient."
That one is just stupid beyond belief.
Of course everything wasn't made in one big decision, you just made that up to make it sound more stupid than it is. Changes happens naturally as they develop the game.
Regarding the realism of sizes, you can think it's stupid how much you want, but the developers probably changes in-universe rules around whenever it's convenient and don't care about realism one bit. This is most likely the whole reason why there's so much inconsistency in the Mario series in the first place. I don't think realism is very important in fantasy fiction like this, on the contrary I generally shun it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1469
Pokun wrote:
This discussion is about what I believe the developers are thinking. Why is that such a big problem?

Because parts of your beliefs are based on totally nothing.

This one here is absolutely legit:
Pokun wrote:
I believe that the Super Mushroom was first intended to be a power up that gives Mario super natural powers, but in later games it gradually turned to be a recovery power up (first because of convenience and then naturally).

It is based on actual observations:

In the old manuals, small Mario was referred as Mario and big Mario as Super Mario. And the sprites were both legit representations of Mario. So, the small one was the regular guy and the big one was the giant.

In the new games, small Mario is a squished version of himself and only Super Mario looks natural.
Furthermore, the official heights imply that big Mario is the regular one because Bowser, who never grows through Super Mushrooms, is only slightly taller than Mario there, which is only true if Mario is big, and their heights are still in a realistic scale.


So, yeah, theorizing about that is absolutely legit.

However, saying:
"They drew the characters as big, but they meant them as small. Everybody except for Mario, that is. The Princess Toadstool sprite is 32 pixels and it's meant to be 1.60 m. The Super Mario sprite is only 27 pixels, but it's meant to be 3 m. The small Mario sprite, 16 pixels, is supposed to be 1.55 m."

This one I call bullshit. Because that there's a conscious discrepancy between what is drawn and what is intended in-universe, even if it's not only about sprites, but also about artworks in the game, there's absolutely no reason to assume this.

And this has nothing to do with realism or video game logic or whatever.
Drawing something and then saying: "Yeah, ignore what I just drew. That doesn't count. It's in the game, but not inside the canon", that's so stupid.
Especially if it's not even "Ignore what I just drew", but if it's a fan theory: "Ignore what they drew."


Remember when they had a hard time drawing a mouth for the Mario sprite, so they opted for a mustache? Now imagine if they said: "We drew him a mustache, but he doesn't actually have one in-universe. It was made out of convenience, but in canon, he's clean-shaven, although even the artworks show him with a mustache."

They might have this or that motivation and they may draw something out of convenience. But as soon as they draw Super Mario to scale with all the other characters, that's what it becomes.

You cannot claim that the Super Mario sprite that has fewer pixels than the Princess Toadstool sprite is supposed to be a character that towers at 3 m over Princess Toadstool, video game logic or not. If Luke Skywalker is clearly a white man, you cannot say he's a black woman.

And if Princess Toadstool is shown taller than even Super Mario, then you cannot say that this very scene is meant to be her being much, much smaller. That's not how art works. Especially if the artist never ever claimed anything that sounded even slightly like this.

Princess Toadstool is taller than Super Mario. That's an undeniable fact. It's in the game and even in artworks.
You can draw certain conclusions now:

Small Mario is just a weakened form, Super Mario is the default.

Mushroom Kingdom people always are Super by default.

Mario is from Brooklyn, so the small form is his default, but for Mushroom Kingdom people, the big form is the default.

But you cannot just ignore the obvious facts and say: "The size match between Super Mario and the others: Yeah, that isn't really supposed to be there in the first place. You have to imagine the other characters as if they had been drawn small, even if they aren't."

_________________
Available now: My game "City Trouble".
Website: https://megacatstudios.com/products/city-trouble
Trailer: https://youtu.be/IYXpP59qSxA
Gameplay: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
German Retro Gamer article: http://i67.tinypic.com/345o108.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 880
Location: Sweden
Quote:
Because parts of your beliefs are based on totally nothing.
You can't possibly know what I base them on. They are based on many things I experienced, I think I explained why I believe so as good as I could though. Call it "nothing" if you want. And beliefs are beliefs, I never claimed that I know or that I want to teach it to others, but that I believe. That's the point of believing.

Quote:
So, yeah, theorizing about that is absolutely legit.
OK thanks.

Quote:
And this has nothing to do with realism or video game logic or whatever.
Drawing something and then saying: "Yeah, ignore what I just drew. That doesn't count. It's in the game, but not inside the canon", that's so stupid.
You think it's stupid but it makes perfect sense to me. Let's say you draw a human character in a (fairly) realistic style using a 16x16 metasprite, and then you want to draw a cat and a mouse in the same style. You probably can't fit a realistically proportioned cat and mouse in metasprites with the given resolution unless you sacrifice a lot of details. So let's say you don't want that, so you bend the rules a bit and draw them much bigger. The cat is almost half the size of the human and the mouse is not much smaller than the cat. In this case you would say: "Yes ignore that, they are not supposed to be gigantic cats or mouses. I just drew them that way because I think it made it much more interesting to look at". Doesn't that sound perfectly reasonable although it's undeniably a conscious discrepancy between what is drawn and what is intended in-universe?

Mario Bros enemies are turtles, crabs and even flies that are drawn almost the same size as Mario and Luigi for this reason. They are not real animals though but cartoon characters and they can get away bending the rules easier, but I still think that if for example the Sidestepper or Shellcreeper would show up in a 3D Mario game I would imagine that they could be drawn a bit smaller than they look compared to Mario in Mario Bros, simply because it might fit in better in the game that way, and because it's possible on a modern system. Besides in the artwork they are drawn much smaller than Mario and Luigi. You can say it's stupid but game developers are evidentially doing it all the time.

Quote:
Remember when they had a hard time drawing a mouth for the Mario sprite, so they opted for a mustache? Now imagine if they said: "We drew him a mustache, but he doesn't actually have one in-universe. It was made out of convenience, but in canon, he's clean-shaven, although even the artworks show him with a mustache."

They might have this or that motivation and they may draw something out of convenience. But as soon as they draw Super Mario to scale with all the other characters, that's what it becomes.
To a certain degree anyway. Of course ignoring the moustache's existence just because the resolution allows drawing a mouth would be bending the rules too far, his moustache is part of his character that people recognize after all. You have to be reasonable when bending the rules. Changing sizes a bit here and there (especially in games with a very low resolution) is what I'd consider as reasonable, changing Skywalker to a black woman is not.

Quote:
And if Princess Toadstool is shown taller than even Super Mario, then you cannot say that this very scene is meant to be her being much, much smaller. That's not how art works. Especially if the artist never ever claimed anything that sounded even slightly like this.
First I never said that Mario is supposed to be taller then the princess, and second these are my own theories, they are just as baseless as yours. I never said they are canon, it doesn't matter if the developers haven't mentioned anything about it because they are just theories based on my observations just like yours. So please stop mixing canon with theories, how many times am I going to have to say this?

Quote:
Princess Toadstool is taller than Super Mario. That's an undeniable fact. It's in the game and even in artworks.
Yes she has been drawn taller so many times in games and artwork now that I wouldn't consider anything else.

Quote:
You can draw certain conclusions now:

Small Mario is just a weakened form, Super Mario is the default.

Mushroom Kingdom people always are Super by default.

Mario is from Brooklyn, so the small form is his default, but for Mushroom Kingdom people, the big form is the default.
First one makes sense.

Second one also makes sense, as long as Super in this context is just about size and not about a transformed state.

Third one, wait a minute. OK AFAIK there are no canon material that explicitly says Mario isn't from Brooklyn so I guess that is still valid as a theory (I didn't knew that Brooklyn has mushroom shaped houses though). You mean Mushroom Kingdom inhabitants are bigger than normal people from our world, and Mario needs to keep munching Super Mushrooms just to fit in?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1469
Pokun wrote:
You can't possibly know what I base them on.

I judge your statements by what you tell me, so if you have further knowledge about the issue, present it. All the things that you presented so far are baseless because it assumes something that's neither in the game, nor stated by the developers.

Pokun wrote:
And beliefs are beliefs

Yes, and if my belief is that John Elway dances in the moonlight, wearing a green hat and singing "Oklahoma", then this might be my belief. But if there's no basis for this whatsoever, then there's no purpose to believe it in the first place.

Pokun wrote:
Let's say you draw a human character in a (fairly) realistic style using a 16x16 metasprite, and then you want to draw a cat and a mouse in the same style.

Oh, come on! You know very well that this is not a valid comparison. It was never about Mario in relation to the enemies.
We were talking about the fact that you think that a human character is taller than another human character, but drawn smaller.

Pokun wrote:
First I never said that Mario is supposed to be taller then the princess

Yes, you did.

1. You said that you believe that Super Mario is really the giant form with small Mario being the regular form.
2. You believe that the Mushroom Kingdom residents are not in their Super form all the time.
3. When I asked you why the Mushroom Kingdom people are only to scale with Mario if he's Super Mario, while small Mario looks like a midget to even Toad, you said that this is just because of artistic descisions.

Ipso facto, you think that 16 x 27 Super Mario is much taller than 16 x 32 Princess Toadstool. Because in your imagination, 16 x 27 Super Mario is the three meter giant while 16 x 32 Princess Toadstool is regular height.

And this is in no way comparable with your human and cat example. They can draw Mario in small. If they had meant that the other human characters are to scale to small Mario while Super Mario towers as a three meter tall giant over them all, they would have drawn it this way.

They even kept the size relations in artworks: Small Mario in the SMB3 mini game is still smaller than Toad, only Super Mario looks realistic next to Toad.

Pokun wrote:
and second these are my own theories, they are just as baseless as yours.

My theories are based on what's actually in the game. Yours is what's definitely not in the game.

Pokun wrote:
I never said they are canon, it doesn't matter if the developers haven't mentioned anything about it because they are just theories based on my observations just like yours. So please stop mixing canon with theories, how many times am I going to have to say this?

You cannot withdraw from criticism by simply mentioning that it's a theory. The mere fact that it is a theory means that you believe it to be true, therefore I can try to disprove you.

If you had said: "This is just my personal headcanon. I know that this isn't supposed to be true, I know that the developers don't mean it that way. I'm just saying: If I were in charge of the Mario canon, this is what I would do", then this would be alright. Nothing to disprove here.

But saying: "I believe that this is what the developers intended" means that you have a theory that you believe to be canon. Therefore, it's open for discussion.

This is the whole purpose of having a theory: You believe something to be true, it's just not proven yet.
So, by saying "This is my theory", you basically say: "This is what I believe the canon to be."
Having a theory does not mean: "This is what I'd like to have as canon, even though I know it's non-canon." The latter is called fanfiction.

Pokun wrote:
Third one, wait a minute. OK AFAIK there are no canon material that explicitly says Mario isn't from Brooklyn so I guess that is still valid as a theory (I didn't knew that Brooklyn has mushroom shaped houses though). You mean Mushroom Kingdom inhabitants are bigger than normal people from our world, and Mario needs to keep munching Super Mushrooms just to fit in?

This is definitely not canon today. But it's a reasonable assumption if we go by his old backstory. Although it would be a bit too complicated. If humans from our world and humans from the Mushroom Kingdom can both be small and tall, there's really no use in making a distinction that our default is the small form while their default form is the Super form.

_________________
Available now: My game "City Trouble".
Website: https://megacatstudios.com/products/city-trouble
Trailer: https://youtu.be/IYXpP59qSxA
Gameplay: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
German Retro Gamer article: http://i67.tinypic.com/345o108.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 880
Location: Sweden
Quote:
I judge your statements by what you tell me, so if you have further knowledge about the issue, present it. All the things that you presented so far are baseless because it assumes something that's neither in the game, nor stated by the developers.
Well I base them on observations of many things, not just the games (didn't I explain that?). And you just decided that they aren't based on the games on your own.

Quote:
Oh, come on! You know very well that this is not a valid comparison. It was never about Mario in relation to the enemies.
We were talking about the fact that you think that a human character is taller than another human character, but drawn smaller.
So you accept that reasonable bending of rules are perfectly acceptable fort artists when making a game? OK good, then we are on the same level here.

Quote:
Quote:
First I never said that Mario is supposed to be taller then the princess
Yes, you did.
1. You said that you believe that Super Mario is really the giant form with small Mario being the regular form.
2. You believe that the Mushroom Kingdom residents are not in their Super form all the time.
3. When I asked you why the Mushroom Kingdom people are only to scale with Mario if he's Super Mario, while small Mario looks like a midget to even Toad, you said that this is just because of artistic descisions.
So by this you conclude I think Mario is supposed to be taller than the princess? In that case forget that, I never meant to say that, I mentioned that she is shorter than him in SMB1 as a joke (sorry if that caused confusion). I already agreed with you that Princess Toadstool's character design wasn't really defined until SMUSA (and even here it was just decisions based on what was convenient for the time, the characters are replacing non-Mario characters after all). Yes I meant that the size differences was the result of artistic decisions and many developers making many different Mario games among other things.

Quote:
Ipso facto, you think that 16 x 27 Super Mario is much taller than 16 x 32 Princess Toadstool. Because in your imagination, 16 x 27 Super Mario is the three meter giant while 16 x 32 Princess Toadstool is regular height.

And this is in no way comparable with your human and cat example. They can draw Mario in small. If they had meant that the other human characters are to scale to small Mario while Super Mario towers as a three meter tall giant over them all, they would have drawn it this way.
I don't see why it isn't comparable with my cat example? It's still about artistic decisions what the artists thought looked good at the time as the character design wasn't 100% defined yet, fluctuating a lot between games.

Quote:
You cannot withdraw from criticism by simply mentioning that it's a theory. The mere fact that it is a theory means that you believe it to be true, therefore I can try to disprove you.

If you had said: "This is just my personal headcanon. I know that this isn't supposed to be true, I know that the developers don't mean it that way. I'm just saying: If I were in charge of the Mario canon, this is what I would do", then this would be alright. Nothing to disprove here.

But saying: "I believe that this is what the developers intended" means that you have a theory that you believe to be canon. Therefore, it's open for discussion.

This is the whole purpose of having a theory: You believe something to be true, it's just not proven yet.
So, by saying "This is my theory", you basically say: "This is what I believe the canon to be."
Having a theory does not mean: "This is what I'd like to have as canon, even though I know it's non-canon." The latter is called fanfiction.
OK my point is that you keep saying this or that hasn't been proved and is therefore invalid. If it had been proved there would be no reason to theorize in the first place. None of your proofs comes from the developers mouths, they are just theories based on various observations, just like mine.

Quote:
This is definitely not canon today. But it's a reasonable assumption if we go by his old backstory. Although it would be a bit too complicated. If humans from our world and humans from the Mushroom Kingdom can both be small and tall, there's really no use in making a distinction that our default is the small form while their default form is the Super form.
Fair enough, I buy that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1469
O.k., to make sure I didn't misunderstand you, let's put this together:

Question 1:
In "Super Mario Bros. 3", do you think that small Mario has regular size while Super Mario is a giant?
Or do you think that small Mario is a dwarf while Super Mario has regular size?

Question 2:
In "Super Mario Bros. 3", do you think that Princess Toadstool and Toad have regular size or are they giants?

(With regular size I'm not talking about "default" size. Which one is the default is not important here. I'm talking about the actual absolute values. Regular size would be something like 1.55 m (or maybe 1.30 for Toad) to 2.10 m. Giant would mean 3 m and dwarf means 70 cm.)

_________________
Available now: My game "City Trouble".
Website: https://megacatstudios.com/products/city-trouble
Trailer: https://youtu.be/IYXpP59qSxA
Gameplay: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
German Retro Gamer article: http://i67.tinypic.com/345o108.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group