It is currently Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:05 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 1177
Location: Hokkaido, Japan
DRW wrote:
After having so many objects of so many different types (a plant, a symbolic rendition of a planet/sun, a piece from a tree, a piece from a bird's dress), why should the one object that coincidentally happens to be something eatable in real life, why should this be the one object that Mario literally has to eat to activate his power, even though every other object is implied to work by simply coming into contact with it?

Besides, the ironic thing is: The Super Mushroom resembles the very real-life mushroom that stands as the symbol for mushrooms that you should not eat: The fly agaric.
Because that is usually how you gain the effects of a mushroom. By consuming it one way or other (like using it as an ingredient in medicine). Spotty mushrooms (sometimes even explicitly stated to be fly agarics) are often used in fiction and mythology to have either some kind of magical effects or is poisonous like real fly agarics. That particular mushroom in Alice in Wonderland is often depicted as spotty or even exactly like a fly agaric although it's not supposed to be poisonous.

DRW wrote:
Well, the thing is: In Mario games, the item usually doesn't reseble the superpower. There are exceptions, like the various suits in SMB3 (raccoon, hammer and frog suit). But other than that:

A fire flower isn't a flower with a mouth, so that you can imagine Mario using the flower like a gun.
The feather doesn't make you fly in a way so that you can imagine that Mario needs to wave the feather around like a bird moves its wings. The feather is just an icon and the actual object that you gain is a piece of cloth, i.e. something completely different.
Likewise, you don't find raccoon ears and a tail. You find a leaf that makes the tail magically appear.

So, unlike in other games, the items aren't really something that you apply and "use". In "Zelda", sure, you buy a bow and suddenly, you can shoot arrows, even if the sprite only shows the arrow itself. And a bottle of potion is obviously something to drink.

But in the Mario games, you have a magical object that gives you a completely different object as your actual superpower:
Flower --> Fireballs
Leaf --> Tail
Feather --> Cape
The powerup itself isn't actually the one that gets used. The powerup is the one that transforms Mario himself into another form.
That's why there's no real point in trying to come up with ways how the items are actually applied. They are magic. Their special ability isn't accomplished by using the item, the special ability is accomplished by the item having transformed Mario into a stronger form.

That's why the most likely explanation is that Mario simply touches each item for the transformation to occur. Since the items are so abstract, there's no need to assume: "The Super Mushroom has to be eaten, the Super Star is used as an earring, the feather needs to be put under your gloves."

But then again: If there's no real explanation of how Mario actually uses a Fire Flower or a feather, but if the most straightforward explanation is that Mario touches the item and then transforms, why should this one item that happens to resemble an eatable real world object be something that Mario actually eats? Why should the Super Mushroom be the one big exception?
No I don't agree at all. The most straightforward way to use these items depends on the item itself. For the leaf it's putting it on your head because that's how tanukis usually use them when transforming, for other things that's not so obvious, like the feather or flower, the most straightforward way I think would be to use them with a spell, waving them like a magic rod or concentrating hard while holding them or something. That's usually how transformations are done in fiction when using some kind of artefact. If they are used by merely touching it would be hard to carry them. The items are not used after the transformation but there is no doubt that they give the power to Mario to transform, and exactly how they are used, probably even differs among the developers' minds. Since the item is used in-game by just colliding with its sprite they never had to think about the details and all the developers might had their own ideas of this, just like you and me.
I'm not sure what the flower not having a mouth has to do with anything. Mario is clearly conjuring fireballs from his hands in the artwork and using the flower itself like a gun would be kind of stupid (then again that IS how it's used in Smash Bros :P).

DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
Just because the player can tell the difference between poisonous and normal mushrooms doesn't mean anything to the gameplay. I mean logic doesn't always apply if it comes in the way of gameplay.
Sure, but it's not necessary that this remains an illogical detail. You simply have to drop the idea that Mario eats the mushrooms and it suddenly makes sense: Just like the Goombas have the touch of death, so does the poison mushroom. It's put into the question mark blocks to trap Mario into a corner or to let him accidentally jump against or fall onto it.
Having the mushrooms being the only items that Mario needs to eat, you just introduced a plot issue with the poison mushrooms: How would you, for example, show its effect in a cartoon based on the game?

And as I said: "Donkey Kong 94" has a cutscene that literally shows how Mario gets hit by a Super Mushroom after thinking it's a poisoned mushroom. That's not gameplay anymore, that's story. He clearly isn't eating it there, yet it transforms him.

Also, those poison mushrooms are even thrown at him as obstacles, which makes the eating idea even less likely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpY3KI5FQTQ&t=4m15s
Yes it's not necessary that this remains an illogical detail, and yes if you accept the poisonous nature of the mushroom to be more symbolic for an evil mushroom that chases you and curses you (alternatively it could be using poisonous spores) you can partly explain why Mario gets hurt by it even if he knows its dangerous. It does however gets you wondering why it can't be destroyed like other enemies. The answer is of course that the developers didn't sweat the details and probably just thought it would be cool to have a power-up item with negative effects, and it therefore also acts like other power-up items that are also indestructible.
But my point is that how it acts in some games is not evidence enough to convince me that the mushrooms are not eaten. Especially since it is eaten in other games. Donkey Kong '94 plays with the game mechanic thing of sprite collision while in the Mario RPG series mushrooms are clearly used as medicine or food (and don't tell me they are different mushrooms, they are clearly derived from the same power-up item).
As for how cartoons would solve it, I imagine Mario would simply mistake an edible mushroom for a poisonous one. In the Japanese cartoon movie you mentioned Luigi is doing exactly this, and mistakenly eats mushrooms which has all kinds of random effects.

DRW wrote:
Let me ask you this:
"Super Smash Bros." has Simon Belmont now. If they include a wall meat item into the game, would Simon
a) simply touch it to mimic the way the item is taken in its original games
or
b) eat the meat because it's clearly supposed to be something that he eats?
Since it's a recovery item it would make most sense to include it among the other food items that are picked up and eaten by pressing A. So I guess that's closest to option b. It not like it's a universal rule in Smash Bros that anything that is used by digestion has to be picked up by A. Almost everything is taken from other games and also often acts like it did in the game it was taken from, but there are also a lot of things that doesn't (the fire flower is a good example).

DRW wrote:
But my main reason to believe that coins aren't items from the transformed mushrooms is because the manual only mentions the mushrooms in regards to the powerups. Coins are mentioned one chapter earlier.
Yeah and I wonder if it wasn't just an overlook by the person writing it. It's a question of how the original idea was and how the re-conned idea is. The ret-conned idea is probably like you described, Bowser hid the petrified people in these naturally occurring floating blocks just like he did with the yoshis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 21511
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Pokun wrote:
for other things that's not so obvious, like the feather or flower, the most straightforward way I think would be to use them with a spell

The feather might have been inspired by Dumbo, wherein it served as a placebo to help a young elephant concentrate while learning to fly. If I were to animate a transformation, I'd have Mario grab the feather by both ends, shake it to unfurl it as if unfolding a bed sheet, and wrap it around his neck.

Pokun wrote:
exactly how they are used, probably even differs among the developers' minds. Since the item is used in-game by just colliding with its sprite they never had to think about the details and all the developers might had their own ideas of this, just like you and me.

Unfortunately, this particular developer's anti-mod mentality interferes with prototyping exactly what more detailed transformation sequences might have looked like had more memory been available.

Pokun wrote:
I'm not sure what the flower not having a mouth has to do with anything. Mario is clearly conjuring fireballs from his hands in the artwork and using the flower itself like a gun would be kind of stupid (then again that IS how it's used in Smash Bros :P).

The Smash Fire Flower behaves exactly like the Fire Flower in a picture book titled Super Mario Bros.: Trapped in the Perilous Pit. The cover depicts Luigi using a Fire Flower as essentially a Boring Company Not a Flamethrower.

_________________
Pin Eight | Twitter | GitHub | Patreon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1884
Pokun wrote:
For the leaf it's putting it on your head because that's how tanukis usually use them when transforming

Tanookis maybe. But not Mario. After all, do you know of any artwork where he has the tail and the ears and where the leaf is still visible under his cap?

Likewise, having to use a spell in combination with any of these items is pure conjecture.

I'm aware that the whole issue itself is just conjecture. And to be honest, I don't even trust Nintendo itself in this matter. It's totally likely that the upcoming animated movie has Mario actually eating the mushroom.
As you said: The RPGs have mushrooms that are eaten too.
But in "Smash Bros.", the Super Mushoom is not implemented as something to eat.

So, yeah, there's probably not a definite answer.

But as far as the current situation in the classic mainline games is concerned, I look at the material we have in front of us:
The orginal "Super Mario Bros." artwork has Super Mario carrying a Super Mushroom with a smiley face.

While it's clear that this is just a conceptual artwork (Mario doesn't actually punch Goombas away in the game and the Mushroom Retainers aren's standing in front of Bowser's castle with Princess Toadstool in Bowser's arms), it's still an indicator:
We have Mario in his Super Mario form and he's holding a smiling Super Mushroom in his hand. Even as a conceptual artwork, this depiction would be totally backwards if the Super Mushroom was supposed to be eaten to make Mario big.

Here, it looks like the mushroom is closer in nature to Link's fairies that restore his life energy and not like Pac-Man's power pelletts: The Super Mushroom transfers its powers to Mario via some kind of physical contact. Mario running around with the Super Mushroom while using his fist for something is a good indicator for this powerup.

Yeah, I don't know either how you distinguish between simply carrying an item around like Pauline does in the DK64 ending, and actually activating it.
But this iconic image of Mario (and the fact that they actually drew a face on the mushroom as if it's alive) shows that the original intention was not eating and more like the mushroom being Mario's magical animal buddy (fungus buddy?) who, along with the other magical buddies (that don't resemble food) transfers superpowers into Mario upon contact/activation.

And by accepting this, one doesn't need to come up with convoluted explanations for everything else, like spells or waving a feather like an idiot. It's all straightforward: Find an item, touch it, get its power. And don't maneuver yourself into a corner where the Poison Mushroom can hit you.


And regarding some other of your points:

Poison Mushrooms can't be destroyed like other enemies because not even all enemies can be destroyed. It's just its properties.

And you might have a cartoon where Mario accidentally eats a poisoned mushroom. But this would be a one-time thing.
I was talking about: If you have a cartoon that depicts Mario's adventure as it actually canonically happened, where there are two or three blocks per area with powerups while the rest contains coins: How would the poisoned mushroom work if Mario has to eat it? In SMB2j's in-universe canon, how was the Poison Mushroom ever a danger to Mario after the first consumption?

The Mario anime has Mario eat the Super Mushroom (and the Fire Flower and Super Star), but they used creative freedom anyway. For example, the three items didn't even have the effects from the game. They were the three legendary items that Mario has to consume to defeat Bowser.
The American cartoon is a bit more authentic here where these items are actually just items that can be found every few episodes and that usually have the effects from the game. (Apart from the stars that have the same effect as Fire Flowers.)

tepples wrote:
The feather might have been inspired by Dumbo, wherein it served as a placebo to help a young elephant concentrate while learning to fly.

That's actually quite likely, that they get the item from there. I never thought about this, but yeah, that's probably true.

Which also serves as an example that just because an items is taken from another work, the item doesn't necessarily function the same in the current work:
Dumbo's feather is just a placebo. However, that's not true for Mario: The feather doesn't activate Mario's "natural" flying powers. Grabbing the feather spawns a dust cloud and when the dust has disappeared, Mario suddenly has a cape on his back.

Likewise, Alice might eat a mushroom who grows in a forest.
But in "Super Mario Bros.", the mushroom is mobile, it is alive and smiling (even if its intelligence is probably not comparable to the actual mushroom people/Toads, but more like if you encounter a dog or something like that), so it would be pretty grim if Mario chomped down the little guy. Instead, when Mario grabs it, the mushroom's magic transfers to Mario and he grows bigger and becomes stronger:
Attachment:
Mario.png
Mario.png [ 72.68 KiB | Viewed 3272 times ]

_________________
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: Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 1177
Location: Hokkaido, Japan
tepples wrote:
Pokun wrote:
I'm not sure what the flower not having a mouth has to do with anything. Mario is clearly conjuring fireballs from his hands in the artwork and using the flower itself like a gun would be kind of stupid (then again that IS how it's used in Smash Bros :P).

The Smash Fire Flower behaves exactly like the Fire Flower in a picture book titled Super Mario Bros.: Trapped in the Perilous Pit. The cover depicts Luigi using a Fire Flower as essentially a Boring Company Not a Flamethrower.
What do you do when you don't have a blowtorch.

DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
For the leaf it's putting it on your head because that's how tanukis usually use them when transforming

Tanookis maybe. But not Mario. After all, do you know of any artwork where he has the tail and the ears and where the leaf is still visible under his cap?

Likewise, having to use a spell in combination with any of these items is pure conjecture.
Why not Mario? He is using a friggin tanuki leaf so he might as well use it the correct way. I'm no expert on tanuki illusion magic but the leaf is usually not visible after the transformation (otherwise the tanuki would be exposed right away) so there's no reason it would go under your cap. It's no less conjecture than touching the items are or putting them in your pants.

Quote:
But in "Smash Bros.", the Super Mushoom is not implemented as something to eat.
I'm not sure if you have played Smash Bros? I already told you, the games are not making a universal distinction between edible and non-edible items. There are just items that activate when you pick them up with A and items that are activated in other ways.

DRW wrote:
"Super Mario Bros." artwork has Super Mario carrying a Super Mushroom with a smiley face.
Yes I agree that this is the biggest evidence that the mushrooms were supposed to be not eaten at some point of the development. I believe that they were first supposed to be eaten (because a mushroom that makes you grow when eaten is the most basic form of the idea that was taken from Alice in Wonderland), then at some point this possibly changed so that just holding it would give you power. Possibly also the mushroom was supposed to be the denizen itself here, as we discussed before. Then in later games (possibly already in SMBj which added poisonous mushrooms) they ret-conned it back to mushrooms being eaten again. Since mushrooms are no doubts items (although living items like trees, hills, banana-peels and everything else with a face) in later games, so there is no worry about cannibalism when eating them. But it's still not glass clear, as you mentioned there are situations in Donkey Kong '94 that doesn't add up with the edible Mario RPG mushrooms, and the fact that Mario can get cornered by poisonous mushrooms in SMB2j.

It's also fully possible that Miyamoto just wanted to show as much as possible of the game in one picture, and he couldn't very well draw the mushroom in Mario's stomach, so he choose to depict it in a different way that still shows that he gets stronger from the mushroom.

Quote:
And by accepting this, one doesn't need to come up with convoluted explanations for everything else, like spells or waving a feather like an idiot. It's all straightforward: Find an item, touch it, get its power. And don't maneuver yourself into a corner where the Poison Mushroom can hit you.
I don't see anything more straightforward than using a magic item like a magic item. Touching them to get power sounds like it came from lame works made by people with no imagination taking the games or manual artwork too literally. If I'd animate Mario's transformation for the star for example I would probably make it hover (kind of like when using a power star in Super Mario 64) then he would get a super powerful sparkling form and play the star BGM.

DRW wrote:
Poison Mushrooms can't be destroyed like other enemies because not even all enemies can be destroyed. It's just its properties.
Is that what you think was the original idea or a ret-conned idea? If it was the original idea it would have made more sense to add a new enemy which is a combination of a spiny and buzz beetle. But I strongly believe the original idea was to make a negative power-up and the details were just left out.

DRW wrote:
And you might have a cartoon where Mario accidentally eats a poisoned mushroom. But this would be a one-time thing.
I was talking about: If you have a cartoon that depicts Mario's adventure as it actually canonically happened, where there are two or three blocks per area with powerups while the rest contains coins: How would the poisoned mushroom work if Mario has to eat it? In SMB2j's in-universe canon, how was the Poison Mushroom ever a danger to Mario after the first consumption?
Well the thing is a cartoon that depicts Mario's adventures canonically would probably still need to take lots of decisions that depicts things differently from the games, simply because a game like that doesn't translate verbatim into a movie or it would be very boring. A poisonous mushroom as a plot device would work well used for tricking, and it could be used many times if you are clever enough:

Bowser: Bwahahaha! I expected more from Mushroom Kingdom's "hero"! Hahahahaa!
Mario: Dammit I'm done for... If only I had a... *spots a mushroom behind Bowser up high* a mushroom?? If only I could get to it!
Bowser: I think it's about time to finish this! *Bowser performs a claw attack*
*Mario dodges and jumps on Bowser's head and manages to get the mushroom*
Bowser: Why you little...!
Mario: *munch munch* Haha! Now I'll show you Bowser!! Huh!? I-I don't feel so well...
Bowser: What's wrong? You don't like poisonous mushrooms!? Bwahahaha!
Mario: !!!
Bowser: Bwahahaha! I knew you would chow down a mushroom if you got the chance to, so I swapped it out!
Mario: Damn! It was a trap!!

There are unlimited opurtunities to depict trickery like this in movies. Of course it could be used in many other ways as well besides trickery I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1884
Pokun wrote:
Then in later games (possibly already in SMBj which added poisonous mushrooms) they ret-conned it back to mushrooms being eaten again.

I don't know in how far the addition of poisonous mushrooms would be an indicator for an eating retcon. As I already said: Poisoned mushrooms that behave like enemies are more likely an indicator that Mario is not eating them.
(See below.)

Pokun wrote:
It's also fully possible that Miyamoto just wanted to show as much as possible of the game in one picture, and he couldn't very well draw the mushroom in Mario's stomach, so he choose to depict it in a different way that still shows that he gets stronger from the mushroom.

This would be a very bad decision. He should have used the Fire Flower then. I mean, imagine a picture of Popeye beating up bad guys while holding an unopened can of spinach in his hands.

Pokun wrote:
Well the thing is a cartoon that depicts Mario's adventures canonically would probably still need to take lots of decisions that depicts things differently from the games, simply because a game like that doesn't translate verbatim into a movie or it would be very boring.

I know. I merely used the cartoon analogy for a better picture. What I actually meant was: How is the Poison Mushroom supposed to work in the canon way Mario's adventures unfolded?

Your example with Bowser is again just a one-time scene that works exactly once and is totally situational.
But if we assume that the games are the master version of what the Mushroom Kingdom looks like and that there are literally question mark blocks scattered around in this world, then I'm still curious how a poisoned mushroom that you have to eat should ever work, apart for maybe the first time.
Yeah, if you're doing the approach of the anime where the 50 Super Mushrooms that you can find in the game actually stand for just one legendary item in the movie, that's fine. But if you use the literal approach where the Mushroom Kingdom really looks like in the games and where 50 Super Mushrooms are actually 50 Super Mushrooms scattered around in that world, then I'm really curious how the Poison Mushroom is canonically supposed to be a danger for the actual Mario in the same way as it is for the Mario sprite inside the game mechanics.


Alright, I assume we will not come to an agreement here, especially since not even Nintendo itself seems to be in agreement either.
(They can't even decide whether small Mario is the regular Mario and Super Mario is giant Mario or whether Super Mario is his regular size and small Mario is some curse-like form.)

I, for my part, see the usage of the items in the way they were shown in the cartoons:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA10XUaI3Mo&t=12m38s
www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4rsX56teFs&t=40s
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJs2auMVm50&t=15s

This is in line with the original artwork, with the existence of Poison Mushrooms that can hit you and even with the way the Super Mushroom is used in "Super Mario Bros. 2" (USA). (Try interpreting the Super Mushroom usage from that game as Mario eating the mushroom.)

_________________
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 Apr 27, 2019 2:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 1177
Location: Hokkaido, Japan
DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
Then in later games (possibly already in SMBj which added poisonous mushrooms) they ret-conned it back to mushrooms being eaten again.

I don't know in how far the addition of poisonous mushrooms would be an indicator for an eating retcon. As I already said: Poisoned mushrooms that behave like enemies are more likely an indicator that Mario is not eating them.
I don't know, the danger of eating mushrooms is that some are poisonous and may even be deadly. I never heard of a mushroom that is poisonous to touch. When I first heard that there are poisonous mushrooms in SMB2j (which actually wasn't until super Mario Allstars was released since I grew up in Europe) I immediately thought it was a contradiction since I still thought mushrooms was rescued denizens and wasn't eaten. If they really was supposed to be monsters I think they'd be depicted more like enemies instead of power-ups. Their purpose was to trick the player into taking a dangerous power-up.

DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
It's also fully possible that Miyamoto just wanted to show as much as possible of the game in one picture, and he couldn't very well draw the mushroom in Mario's stomach, so he choose to depict it in a different way that still shows that he gets stronger from the mushroom.

This would be a very bad decision. He should have used the Fire Flower then. I mean, imagine a picture of Popeye beating up bad guys while holding an unopened can of spinach in his hands.
Yeah it's kind of stupid, but I just meant that Miyamoto might have changed the rules for mushrooms to just be held before drawing the boxart or even for the sake of the boxart.
Developer A: Mario didn't eat the mushroom and still got super powers on that picture?
Miyamoto: Yeah but nobody said that the mushrooms must be eaten, did they?
And problem solved. Or may be not...

I just remembered another reason I thought the mushrooms were not items as a kid: Unlike the flower and real mushrooms they are very mobile.

DRW wrote:
Your example with Bowser is again just a one-time scene that works exactly once and is totally situational.
But if we assume that the games are the master version of what the Mushroom Kingdom looks like and that there are literally question mark blocks scattered around in this world, then I'm still curious how a poisoned mushroom that you have to eat should ever work, apart for maybe the first time.
Yeah well trickery is very situational and only works as many times as you are clever enough to use them and/or as many times as your target is stupid enough to fall for it. I just wanted to give an example of tricking Mario into eating a poisonous mushroom although he already knows the existence of them and therefore would be more careful what mushrooms he eats (and I wanted an excuse to write some stupid Mario fanfiction).

OK so you are simply trying to solve the problem that the game mechanics about poisonous mushrooms doesn't make sense story-wise if the mushrooms are supposed to be eaten. And I think we can all agree that there is an obvious problem here. It's just that I'm not interested in solving that problem if it gets in the way of the logic around the items (that mushrooms are made for eating). Plus it's hardly the only plot hole caused by the game mechanics. If it can't be solved in a logical way without causing new problems I prefer to interpret them in a different way instead (like a movie would do) or leaving it for "open interpretation". The game mechanics was made to make an interesting game rather than make sense story-wise, and a story that makes sense had to be a secondary goal. Personally If I were one of the developers I'd might have wanted to put some more thought behind the ideas so that they make more sense story-wise, but that's obviously not how the Mario team worked.

Those cartoons' depictions is what I don't like. They obviously wanted the cartoon to look a lot like the games do, and for a Mario cartoon you kind of can get away with simply colliding with the items. But for example let's say a cartoon with Simon Belmond stepping on a piece of meat and it just disappears as he just absorbs it through his foot or hand, wouldn't work very well. Meat is for eating.

I mean I know how to use a tanuki leaf when I see one.

Quote:
"Super Mario Bros. 2" (USA), try interpreting the Super Mushroom usage from that game as Mario eating the mushroom.
Huh? Those are are stationary items in subspace. Why wouldn't they be edible? Because it's the first game they look like fly agarics?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1884
Pokun wrote:
I don't know, the danger of eating mushrooms is that some are poisonous and may even be deadly. I never heard of a mushroom that is poisonous to touch.

Well, I did: The Goomba.

Pokun wrote:
If they really was supposed to be monsters I think they'd be depicted more like enemies instead of power-ups. Their purpose was to trick the player into taking a dangerous power-up.

Yeah, they are depicted like items to trick the player if he isn't catious: In gameplay, if you don't pay attention in all the action and jump against a Poison Mushroom because you mistook it for a Super Mushroom for a split second, you get hit. Same goes for Mario in canon if he just has to touch the mushroom. However, if he has to consciously pick it up and put it into his mouth, the whole split second-"didn't pay attention" thing is much harder to imagine.

Pokun wrote:
The game mechanics was made to make an interesting game rather than make sense story-wise, and a story that makes sense had to be a secondary goal.

Sure, but if it's possible to fit the story into the game mechanics, I choose to do so.

For example, consider the following:
Yoshi can eat every item, including feathers. If he does, the item's effect immediately transfers to Mario.

This was clearly a gameplay mechanic, but it is no problem in my "world view":
Since Yoshis cannot transform with Super Mushrooms etc., whenever Yoshi eats any the items (and by eating he also obviously touches it), the item's effect transfers over to Mario who is riding Yoshi:
Yoshi touches the item and Mario touches Yoshi. Hence, since the magic cannot settle within Yoshi, it transfers over to Mario.

But it's a bit hard to imagine if Mario only gets big if the Super Mushroom lands in his belly: How exactly does Yoshi eating the Super Mushroom have an effect on Mario?

Sure, it is a gameplay mechanic that the developers simply implemented without thinking of the canon implications. But if I can have it both ways, i.e. the gameplay mechanic can be applied in a logical sense to the story, then I take this version instead of accepting that gameplay and canon diverge.

Pokun wrote:
Those cartoons' depictions is what I don't like. They obviously wanted the cartoon to look a lot like the games do

That's what I like about them. "Super Mario Bros." is a videogame first and foremost, playing in some strange fantasy world. The game is the absolute master version. That's why I welcome cartoon conversions that treat the world like in the games.

"Castlevania" is kind of different: Yes, it's also a videogame first. But the whole mythos is based on vampire lore. The world of "Castlevania" is supposed to be our world in the Middle Ages. So, whipping candles in gameplay or finding meat in walls is just a means to an end. I can understand if the developers assume that Simon Belmont, in canon, doesn't literally whip candles for hearts.

But Mario does jump against question mark blocks in canon. We even see them in cutscenes, like in that "Donkey Kong" Game Boy ending.
"Super Mario Bros." is much more designed to run on videogame mechanics, that's why a cartoon version should do this too.

Pokun wrote:
Quote:
"Super Mario Bros. 2" (USA), try interpreting the Super Mushroom usage from that game as Mario eating the mushroom.
Huh? Those are are stationary items in subspace. Why wouldn't they be edible? Because it's the first game they look like fly agarics?

I was talking about the way they are implemented in the game: Unlike the Super Star and the hearts, Super Mushrooms have to be consciously picked up.

This means, unlike in the other games, we even have a specific animation here: Mario jumps on the mushroom, picks it up, holds it over his head and the mushroom disappears, giving Mario one more energy point/making him big.

In the other games, when Mario simply runs into an item and it immediately takes effect, you can easily claim that he canonically ate it and the game simply doesn't show the eating animation.

But if you do have a specific animation of the interaction between the character and the item (picking up the mushroom and it taking effect and disappearing while held over Mario's head), this scene is hard to imagine as eating.


The thing is: You have to use the "story is subservient to gameplay mechanics" explanation when you assume that Mario eats the mushroom.
In this case, you have to handwave the animation from SMB2us or the idea that Yoshi can eat a mushroom and Mario gets big or the fact that "Super Mario World" has a glass box with an item that switches between mushroom, flower, feather and star every few milliseconds. (In canon, Mario could never accidentally activate the lame Super Mushroom instead of the coooer Fire Flower or Cape Feather from that switing item if he had to eat the mushroom.)

But by simple touch activation, I don't have to handwave anything. Story and gameplay mechanics fit neatly together:
The SMB2us mushroom gets activated by holding it up.
Yoshi eating (and therefore touching) any item tranforms Mario transitively.
And the switching item transforms Mario into whatever the item was when he grabbed it, so Mario's challenge of timing his movements to get the desired item is identical to the player's challenge of timing the sprite's movement: If he grabs it the moment when it's just a Super Mushroom, he merely gets bigger (or stays the same if he's already big), but missed the chance to get any of the better items.

_________________
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 Apr 27, 2019 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 1177
Location: Hokkaido, Japan
I still don't buy it.
OK let me put it this way: Touching an item to get its power is lame and therefore any necessary handwaving to keep things sensible may be required. Food is for eating, tanuki leaves are for putting on your head, magical artefacts are for using the way they are meant to, anything else just sounds like a bunch of excuses for a lack of imagination to me.

DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
I don't know, the danger of eating mushrooms is that some are poisonous and may even be deadly. I never heard of a mushroom that is poisonous to touch.

Well, I did: The Goomba.
Whether a Goomba is really a mushroom or not they have never been depicted as being poisonous to touch in any game. You take damage by touching them because that is how the abstraction layer of action game mechanics simplifies things. Don't come and say that they canonically attacks by sprite collision. There's no way in 10000000000000000000000 years I will ever accept that, and I'm sure that that none of the developers ever thought it that way either, nor do most players with an IQ above 5. Not even the cartoons were that stupid.

They obviously attack with a body blow or something. Just like slimes of Dragon Quest (although these guys derives from D&D oozes who really attacks by acid and therefore are dangerous to touch).

DRW wrote:
But it's a bit hard to imagine if Mario only gets big if the Super Mushroom lands in his belly: How exactly does Yoshi eating the Super Mushroom have an effect on Mario?
Yoshi can do amazing things with his stomach. Creating eggs from things he eats and he can use the magic of items by consuming them and transfer the power to Mario (due to their bond I guess). I don't think it's any different from collecting coins by eating them.

DRW wrote:
"Castlevania" is kind of different: Yes, it's also a videogame first. But the whole mythos is based on vampire lore. The world of "Castlevania" is supposed to be our world in the Middle Ages. So, whipping candles in gameplay or finding meat in walls is just a means to an end. I can understand if the developers assume that Simon Belmont, in canon, doesn't literally whip candles for hearts.
My point was that colliding with items to pick them up and possibly use them is a common mechanics in games. I don't have a hard time imagining the character to use it after colliding with it although there is no animation for it in the game. And I think actually the candle thing may be a canonical thing as opposed to a purely game mechanic thing. The Belmonds (and certain other people with special powers) have the power to materialize things from candles and other lamps. The hearts are a bit harder to explain though. I guess they represent the necessary energy for the Belmonds to use their powers which they can absorb from candles or enemies.

DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
Quote:
"Super Mario Bros. 2" (USA), try interpreting the Super Mushroom usage from that game as Mario eating the mushroom.
Huh? Those are are stationary items in subspace. Why wouldn't they be edible? Because it's the first game they look like fly agarics?

I was talking about the way they are implemented in the game: Unlike the Super Star and the hearts, Super Mushrooms have to be consciously picked up.

This means, unlike in the other games, we even have a specific animation here: Mario jumps on the mushroom, picks it up, holds it over his head and the mushroom disappears, giving Mario one more energy point/making him big.

In the other games, when Mario simply runs into an item and it immediately takes effect, you can easily claim that he canonically ate it and the game simply doesn't show the eating animation.

But if you do have a specific animation of the interaction between the character and the item (picking up the mushroom and it taking effect and disappearing while held over Mario's head), this scene is hard to imagine as eating.
I never had a problem with this animation. It doesn't really show what he does with the item except picking it up. And of course this item was originally a heart in Yume Koujou that probably isn't supposed to be eaten, which partly explains why they didn't bother to literary make the character eat it in the animation. Also they might not be the exact same mushrooms due to their different behaviour and effects (increasing max life).

DRW wrote:
But by simple touch activation, I don't have to handwave anything.
Except for the other quadrillion problems that are introduced by this. I don't get how you can think the fact that Mario can be cornered by a poisonous mushroom is a huge problem while one-touch activation isn't. There must be some way to activate the item, like a spell or concentrating hard or there would be no way to even store it, besides being lame. Also, all tanukis I asked says you put the leaf on your head or you'd look stupid, so there you go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1884
O.k., you may find touching the item lame. I don't. It was good enough for the cartoon at least.

As I said, we will probably not get to an agreement here.


Yeah, o.k., the Goomba thing was a bad example. However, I still stand by my view:
If the Poison Mushroom needs to be eaten, then a canon depiction of events would make Mario an idiot. He would be an even bigger idiot in "Donkey Kong" 94 where, in this case, he would have caught a mushroom with his mouth that Kong himself threw at him.

So, no matter if the regular items simply need to be touched or whether they need to be squeezed or whatever to be activated*:
As late as 1994, the developers still considered the Poison Mushroom to be touch-activated, so much that they even included both, the Poison Mushroom and the Super Mushroom, into cutscenes where Mario definitely 100 % doesn't eat either.

* I admit that I don't know yet how the distinction is made between carrying an item around and activating it. But this doesn't mean that eating the mushroom is the best alternative.
Again, the DK ending shows us both situations: Pauline is holding a Super Mushroom, throws it at Mario, Mario panics (since he thinks it's one of the Poison Mushrooms from earlier in the game), but then the mushroom touches him and makes him bigger.
This one pretty much disporves that a certain spell is necessary since Mario was unwillingly affected. But it also shows that there's somehow a way to not activate the item, as Pauline does.
And none of this would make any sense with the idea of eating the mushroom.


Regarding "Castlevania" and other games: Yes, I'm aware that picking up items often stands for eating/drinking it. I didn't try to make a general case here. Of course, Simon Belmont and the "Final Fight" guys eat their stuff. Of course, a bottle of potion is something to drink.
I merely said: The Super Mushroom is not something that Mario eats, despite mushrooms being food items and despite the fact that this eliminates all the "Huh huh, Mario is on drugs" jokes.
And I said this based on several indicators (the SMB1 artwork, the Poison Mushroom as the exact opposite item and the way those two items were treated in story portions of "Donkey Kong" 94).
Also, I don't say that there can never be an item in the "Super Mario" series that's supposed to be eaten. For example, if "Super Mario Bros. 3" had pizza pieces that give you a temporary speed boost, I probably would have accepted that they're eaten. But I would have still assumed that the semi-sentinent magical mushrooms that Mario carries in his hand while he punches a Goomba on the SMB1 cover and who have an evil counterpart are not eaten by Mario.

Pokun wrote:
Also they might not be the exact same mushrooms due to their different behaviour and effects (increasing max life).

Did you just pull the "It's not exactly the same mushroom" explanation that you forbade me from using earlier?


Alright, I guess those were my last arguments that I can still bring.

_________________
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 Apr 27, 2019 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 1177
Location: Hokkaido, Japan
DRW wrote:
O.k., you may find touching the item lame. I don't. It was good enough for the cartoon at least.

As I said, we will probably not get to an agreement here.
Fair enough, it's just about our personal opinions of this, and there isn't much more to discuss.

DRW wrote:
If the Poison Mushroom needs to be eaten, then a canon depiction of events would make Mario an idiot. He would be an even bigger idiot in "Donkey Kong" 94 where, in this case, he would have caught a mushroom with his mouth that Kong himself threw at him.
I don't blame him, it probably looked really delicious.
I can't answer this without repeating myself so let's just leave it here. On a related note, the poison mushrooms in Super Mario Kart on the other hand I think are actually activated by collision with the kart. It would be kind of stupid if the mushroom would have to go into the driver's mouth to shrink him, and the animation suggests that they are destroyed by the collision, not swallowed.

DRW wrote:
I admit that I don't know yet how the distinction is made between carrying an item around and activating it. But this doesn't mean that eating the mushroom is the best alternative.
Well at least we agree that they must be used in some way to activate besides touching them.

DRW wrote:
Also, I don't say that there can never be an item in the "Super Mario" series that's supposed to be eaten. For example, if "Super Mario Bros. 3" had pizza pieces that give you a temporary speed boost, I probably would have accepted that they're eaten. But I would have still assumed that the semi-sentinent magical mushrooms that Mario carries in his hand while he punches a Goomba on the SMB1 cover and who have an evil counterpart are not eaten by Mario.
I see, so this belief comes from the fact that the mushrooms are not obvious food.

DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
Also they might not be the exact same mushrooms due to their different behaviour and effects (increasing max life).

Did you just pull the "It's not exactly the same mushroom" explanation that you forbade me from using earlier?
Busted! OK disregard that part. Even though they were originally another item in Yume Koujou they were changed into a mushroom that is obviously derived from the standard Super Mushroom to make the game a bit more Mario-like.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:59 pm
Posts: 1884
Pokun wrote:
Well at least we agree that they must be used in some way to activate besides touching them.

Well, yes and no: There's still the situation in the DK94 ending that Mario got affected by the mushroom unwillingly by simply getting into contact with it. Pauline is carrying the mushroom, she throws it at Mario, Mario gets frightened, then the mushroom hits him and he grows bigger. No active action on Mario's part.

So, I guess the question is: What do you have to do, so that the mushroom doesn't activate, since Pauline holds it in her hand, but Mario gets affected on contact?

Pokun wrote:
I see, so this belief comes from the fact that the mushrooms are not obvious food.

Well, yeah. Obviously, I didn't start out with "I don't want the mushroom to be food. Let's see how I can justify my wish."
Instead, I saw the way the mushroom is depicted and came to the conclusion: "So, Mario doesn't actually eat it, as most people assume."

_________________
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: Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 1177
Location: Hokkaido, Japan
I also once thought that, but then again he does eat it in some games, so everything doesn't add up however you see it, you are forced to do hand-waving no matter what.

The only (mostly) logical conclusion I get from it is that he eats it simply because mushrooms are food, the very basic source for power for most creatures, and many types of mushrooms are local specialities to the mushroom kingdom. Besides the SMB story is mostly ret-conned away anyway in later games. Therefore I regard the donkey Kong '94 situation as just a joke where they play with the game mechanics in story cut-scenes. Whether or not it was originally intended as such a joke, it works very well simply because everyone knows that Mario gets big when a mushroom comes his way, it's like when Popeye gets the content of a can of spinach in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ice Man and 2 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