Your "head anti-canons"

winstein

winstein

Justice is not limited, it is a universal quality
Awards Committee
MarioWiki
winstein
EDIT: "Established in-universe fact/explanation" replaces the word "lore" to better explain what I am talking about.
EDIT 2: I have thought of a better term: "head anti-canon". It's unrefined as a term, but I feel it works in this context.

The Mario world has a whole lot of lore, by virtue of how many games there are within the series. It could be memorable things like how Baby Mario and Baby Luigi are delivered by a stork to their parents, or obscure stuff like Wario stealing Koopa Troopa's kart in regards to how Wario is playable in Mario Kart 64 and not Koopa Troopa how in Super Mario Bros. the indestructible blocks are transformed Toads.

Even with that, there are some things we might not necessarily agree on. The most famous case is the Koopalings, where it was established in Western territories that they are Bowser's children, but later on Miyamoto had affirmed that they're not quite his children, at least in the biological sense. Instead, Bowser Jr. is the only child of Bowser. Despite this, not every fan subscribed to this change, or re-clarification as I understood it. Those fans are adamant about the Koopalings being Bowser's children and it's very unlikely that it would change their stance, though to be fair this was prevalent in the past so the paradigm shift would be too much.

To start this topic off, here's something that I don't support: the concept of Star Children. Yoshi's Island DS introduced the idea that there are seven Star Children, and they are baby versions of major Mario characters: Mario, Luigi, Peach, Donkey Kong (modern), Wario, Yoshi and Bowser. The reason I didn't quite like the idea is:
  • The implication that a person can only be special from birth, which struck me as disingenuous because I thought that other characters outside the seven are special in their own way. I have no doubt that they were chosen because the adult counterparts are proven to be characters that are well-liked, and each of them had a game under their name (except Bowser, but it's made up by the fact that he's a recurring villain).
  • The game itself doesn't put the supposedly Star Children into action even though they are supposed to be special. As far as I know, Baby Luigi is not playable!
  • This is an assumption of mine, but I felt that they created Baby Wario just to fill in a Star Child gap, so in other words I think Baby Wario is pretty unnecessary, and this is supported by how Baby Wario never appeared in another game (unlike the rest of the babies).

Thank you for reading.
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

Mario is, by design, has no real lore. It's very deliberate that Nintendo gave it no canon. The lore's only purpose is to establish some sort of context for the games, so they're not some nonsense meaningless platforming by random people in nonsense land. So for the small amount of whatever you call lore, it's hard to accept what's "happened" or not.

I do suppose the only thing that's been consistently ignored is the non games media, Mario edutainment, and Hotel Mario, so those are probably the only pieces of lore I can outright reject. But for everything else, it's all ambiguous.

The Star Children is pointless drivel and adds practically nothing to character qualities, so I do think it can be safely ignored.

There has been confusion on Mario's occupation, but even of Nintendo confirmed that he's no longer a plumber, I still cling to the notion that he is an active plumber. Just look at the beginning of Super Mario 3D World...
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

Mario Party X said:
Mario is, by design, has no real lore. It's very deliberate that Nintendo gave it no canon. The lore's only purpose is to establish some sort of context for the games, so they're not some nonsense meaningless platforming by random people in nonsense land. So for the small amount of whatever you call lore, it's hard to accept what's "happened" or not.

I do suppose the only thing that's been consistently ignored is the non games media, Mario edutainment, and Hotel Mario, so those are probably the only pieces of lore I can outright reject. But for everything else, it's all ambiguous.

The Star Children is pointless drivel and adds practically nothing to character qualities, so I do think it can be safely ignored.

There has been confusion on Mario's occupation, but even of Nintendo confirmed that he's no longer a plumber, I still cling to the notion that he is an active plumber. Just look at the beginning of Super Mario 3D World...
Click to expand...

I've struggled to come up with a word to use for this topic, because what I mean is an established in-universe fact or explanation, like the explanation of how the indestructible blocks are transformed Toads, or the aforementioned Koopalings part. I settled for "lore" because it's like folklore where there are explanations on how characters/places/events are a certain way in its universe, as well as unexplained quirks that are interesting to know.

Thank you for reading.
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

winstein said:
  • The game itself doesn't put the supposedly Star Children into action even though they are supposed to be special. As far as I know, Baby Luigi is not playable!
Click to expand...

Fuck
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

I see, though I do hope I've contributed to the topic by pointing out that at least no one is losing sleep that Mario and Luigi have been once scammed by Friendly Floyd.

I also am not sure how to fit the humans in Mario Tennis and Mario Golf into the Mario World, but some do look like they fit in the world at least, or just resemble existing Mario characters like Azalea.

By the way, the Wario stealing Koopa's kart is a myth. There are no sources on this whatsoever. The original citation, the Mario Kart 64 instruction booklet, does not mention it. The Mario Kart 64 players guide has no mention. Nintendo Power does not appear to mention it in any of its issues. If someone says I'm wrong, there should be evidence.
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

everything to do with the pixl war in super paper mario


Everything.
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

I don't trust the theories involving Rosalina's family. She's not related to any of the Mario Bros., nor Peach.

If anything, Rosalina was born long before any of them ever existed; this also means that Bowser didn't exist during Rosalina's childhood.
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

Any non-RPG lore that tries to go way deeper than it should.
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

Isabelle said:
Any non-RPG lore that tries to go way deeper than it should.
Click to expand...

Anything that tries to go way deeper in general I'd say.
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

Yeah I could've phrased that better I guess.

What I basically meant was that I'd be more forgiving for RPGs, hence why I’m not particularly bothered by SPM's plot (mainly because when I first played it I was a kid who could get easily impressed). But yeah, any lore shpuldn't be deeper than it should. I've said it before, but the deepness that people want to see in Paper Mario's story again is something I would rather have in other series like Zelda or Fire Emblem. Now Zelda itself too kinda should focus more on the ongoing adventure more than lore, but I think this kind of lore works mostly for FE, since it's actually got multiple nations and continents in games so it would be important to learn about them before knowing what's going on between who and why.

So yeah, Mario should stay simple. Can't fix what ain't broken, you might end up making it worse.
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

Wouldn't even call what they had all that deep anyhow. Just a bunch of simple (and dull) fantasy tropes.

To me it's like trying to explain why mushrooms make you grow. It doesn't matter.
 
Re: Lore in Games that you Don't Support

MnSG said:
I don't trust the theories involving Rosalina's family. She's not related to any of the Mario Bros., nor Peach.

If anything, Rosalina was born long before any of them ever existed; this also means that Bowser didn't exist during Rosalina's childhood.
Click to expand...

Are they fan theories or official? The thread is mainly about lore or in-universe facts that are official, because being that they are not official, it doesn't reach a lot of people and are thus easier to ignore. From the way you explained it, it certainly sounds like a fan theory, but if it is official, could you please elaborate?

Thank you for reading.
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

It's a fan theory.

A MatPat one at that, so don't trouble yourself.
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

Isabelle said:
It's a fan theory.

A MatPat one at that, so don't trouble yourself.
Click to expand...

It's not so much of being troubled, but more like: is this something in-universe in Mario that I have never heard of? You know, since this didn't strike me as something that's officially established.

Thank you for reading.
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

I for one will take SPM's lore any day over having everything that could remotely be compared to a legitimate backstory eradicated with a giant thick eraser like what happened after that game. It may have went a little far with how it was written but I don't think the optional history dialogues should've been canned, they made for good reads and added history to a universe that I'm invested in. While not being so incredibly pivotal to the main plot to the point where there are plot holes if you don't listen to the historian. If say, the main plot had constantly referenced the Pixl war enough to leave holes if you play the story without talking to the guy, that would've been a different story. But it's side content and I'd rather have it than not have it.

I don't support the possibility of Baby Rosalina existing in the form she does, it doesn't line up with the backstory of SMG. I also don't support the inconsistency between when someone dies for good and when they appear to die for good but come back without explanation. Fawful alone has this inconsistency within his appearances: he explodes in Superstar Saga, not permanent. He explodes in BIS, permanent. Another one is that Antasma is generally accepted as dead, however his death animation is literally the same one that they used on the Koopalings and Kamek in Paper Jam, so unless you want to claim they too are permanently dead, Antasma can't be. And I know for a fact that Kamek and the Koopalings will never be killed off, so at least be a little less obvious with the plot armor.

Not really in-universe related but more what they do with the scenarios in each game, but I really don't like how Bowser is the villain EVERY time. Other than the RPGs (which time again showcase other sources of conflict in the Mario universe making the rest of it seem jarring when all evil besides Bowser is forgotten), Nintendo likes to promote "evil Mario characters" as literally "Bowser and his army" and forget that there have been other villains and can be yet more once in a while if they'd give it a chance. I'd just like to see a more varied rogues gallery that isn't almost completely composed of the same group (I say almost because of guys like Wario, but at this point they usually group even the Wario Bros. with the good guys, like on the website where 'friends' is "everyone that isn't the Koopa Troop" and 'foes' is "Koopa Troop") So basically, it seems to be established that evil doesn't exist outside the Koopa Troop in the main games, and I don't like that. Now once in a while there is a primary antagonist other than Bowser but it's always in a spinoff and usually one that other games ignore completely. And I'll admit that some early villains were kind of "not-Bowsers" like Wart, even if I do think he deserves a chance to shine in the modern era, but spinoffs have provided villains that are IMO distinct enough from Bowser to stand on their own. I'd love to see what the modern main series can do if given the freedom of a new villain even once.

(My god why am I so long-winded, trust me I really wish I was better at formatting my opinions to be more concise but ugh)
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

I don't think there is anything that says "Bowser is the only villain." That's just circumstance.

Also I'm not crazy on the idea that Mario and Luigi are apparently only in their 20s.

I mean I can see it, especially when they are shown without facial hair but to me they always seemed to be at least twice that.
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

When M&L Paper Jam separated the main games and the Paper Mario games into two separate universes.

The Koopalings losing status as Bowser's kids.

Baby Bowser suddenly gaining horns, losing teeth, and getting bright yellow skin to make him look more like Bowser Jr.

Everything about the Metal characters being considered separate characters at all. The only explanation for this I will accept is Duplighosts. (The babies are exempt because time machines are a thing.)

The fact that we were teased with the prospect of having a Chain Chomp partner in Paper Mario: Sticker Star, only to have it dognapped from us by executive meddling. I want my Chain Chomp partner, dagnabbit!

Speaking of Sticker Star, Paper Mario exaggerating the paper elements instead of just having it as a fun art style, such as having water suddenly be a danger instead of just water.

Daisy being called the orange princess instead of the yellow princess (yellow is more prominent in most of her outfits).

Pauline's hat.
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

i do not accept daisy's existence as lore
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

it barely counts as lore since Nintendo only acknowledges Daisy as an individual character without background as she is the only thing from SML that has sorta survived after the release.

Sarasaland and Tatanga are dead as fuck Nintendo doesn't recognize them either outside of naming them in Daisy's profile's that tell you the exact same description for her in EVERY game she appears.

------------

For me is more the inverse of the topic, i actualy hate they never acknowledge Rosalina's original super mario galaxy character anymore, going so far to create Baby Rosalina and all.

A lot can be said about established stuff in the series but to me the worst part is that they bother giving some sort of depth to things and then drop it according to the next release.

Example of this is how well established is that Peach can fight and use magic but STILL falls to Bowser's hands and that just makes no sense and it's a tad annoying because i find it a bit stale at times, specially if they milk games like the New Super Mario games.
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

yeah I wish Peach kept her more competent depiction from Super Princess Peach, as well as the RPGs where she's playable (even to an extent including 64/TTYD as she wasn't a useless damsel in those games and actively worked to help Mario and give him info) instead of forgetting any of those happened in most main games by insisting she's nothing more than a helpless screaming... prize. Fuck that status quo tbh. 3D World was the only game to buck it in the recent main series and that was mainly for a SMB2 throwback, they just created a new princess (or rather 7 of them) to stand in for her while she temporarily did something of use. At least in Odyssey she travels the world on her own accord after you beat the game, and hopefully in the next game she avoids the damsel trope entirely, Odyssey did seem to push her desire to break away from that at the end there.
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

Ironically as someone who likes Peach best of all the major Mario females, I couldn't give 2 shits as to whether or not she is kidnapped or not.

Everyone and their mother has been kidnapped in this franchise and if they haven't been kidnapped yet someone out there is plotting out how to kidnap them.
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

Mcmadness said:
Everyone and their mother has been kidnapped in this franchise and if they haven't been kidnapped yet someone out there is plotting out how to kidnap them.
Click to expand...
big up for the mad lad who wants to kidnap lubba
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

Lord Fawful DX said:
I for one will take SPM's lore any day over having everything that could remotely be compared to a legitimate backstory eradicated with a giant thick eraser like what happened after that game. It may have went a little far with how it was written but I don't think the optional history dialogues should've been canned, they made for good reads and added history to a universe that I'm invested in. While not being so incredibly pivotal to the main plot to the point where there are plot holes if you don't listen to the historian. If say, the main plot had constantly referenced the Pixl war enough to leave holes if you play the story without talking to the guy, that would've been a different story. But it's side content and I'd rather have it than not have it.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. After learning about Kingdom Hearts "lore" I think I am actually grateful the Mario series dropped all the bullshit nonsense before we get things like Darkness Prophecy Heart Paper Darkness Mario 2.93. This shit detracts from your game because you have no clue whats going on, and it's real shallow when all motivation for anyone is just because some dumbfuck book.

I'm sorry but Paper Mario "deepness" is as thin as a kiddy pool. And I mean any old kiddy pool at Walmart.
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

Lord Fawful DX said:
Fawful alone has this inconsistency within his appearances: he explodes in Superstar Saga, not permanent. He explodes in BIS, permanent.
Click to expand...

There is a major difference between the two, though. In BiS, Fawful has this grandiose dialogue of taking you out as he dies, and I don't quite remember such a dramatic quote as that in Superstar Saga. Context matters here.

Mcmadness said:
Everyone and their mother has been kidnapped in this franchise and if they haven't been kidnapped yet someone out there is plotting out how to kidnap them.
Click to expand...

Could you like shut up about the kidnapping of Baby Luigi forever then while I complain about it in peace.
 
Re: Established in-universe fact/explanation in Games that you Don't Support

Nah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back