Things that should be changed in Mario lore.

Reminds me of some Super Sentai seasons where all the villains are portrayed by performers in full-costumes that look completely inhuman (well beyond 'having four limbs' cuz they're still played by a person in the costume) and then the female villain is literally just...a regular Japanese woman.
 
Does Nintendo even have the rights to the Kongs besides the usual Donkey Diddy Cranky trio?
 
You can represent seductive bimbo design better than an uncanny abomination where they had to make her look like a human rather than the apes like the rest of them. I'm not speaking in terms of personality but more from a character design perspective.

I'm sick and tired of character designs such as her. Every single time we had a female member of a nonhuman species they almost always have to design at least one of them to look human. Dixie is a good design for a female ape, they don't have to rely on those tropes like they did with Tiny and Candy.

I mean, I can understand being tired of it but one could argue that since Dixie (old) Tiny and I guess Wrinkly Kong exist then Candy offers a form of visual variety among the various female kongs.

But again, I just find Candy boring, the way she looks or not, I often forget she even exists.
 
I also think that making Daisy butch would piss off way too many people and would open up all sorts of cans that a franchise like this is in no way capable of handling. Which is why it would be better to do that with a new character so it could be handled better if it were to be done at all.

by "piss off way too many people" you mean piss off the luaisy fans who already shit on both luigi's and daiy's characters by making them fit into traditional gender roles.

also about the whole can of worms thing, lorewise it would make sense as daisy picked the literal most effeminate (gay) man in the canon to date. she could've very well not have been attracted to luigi because he's a man, but because of his femininity.

but honestly i will admit sexuality is best for the fandom to decide, not the canon in most cases (besides luigi please save him)
 
by "piss off way too many people" you mean piss off the luaisy fans who already shit on both luigi's and daiy's characters by making them fit into traditional gender roles.

also about the whole can of worms thing, lorewise it would make sense as daisy picked the literal most effeminate (gay) man in the canon to date. she could've very well not have been attracted to luigi because he's a man, but because of his femininity.

but honestly i will admit sexuality is best for the fandom to decide, not the canon in most cases (besides luigi please save him)

More like piss off the people who enjoy Daisy's (apparently) tomboyish but still wears dresses thing.

Shipping isn't even on my mind when it comes to this discussion and I never cared for it anyway.
 
This is a misconception that for some reason still lives on two decades after the Rare buyout. Don't listen to the oafs of GameFAQs.

It's enough to just look at the staff credits in games that feature Donkey Kong Country concepts post-buyout* (e.g. Kremlings) to dispel that misconception: you'll see Rare isn't credited at all.

However, DKC is the only property created by Rare to not be owned by them.

*Except for a handful of handheld Rare-developed DK games, obviously
 
Last edited:
it might be worth noting they got the rights to almost all of hte original diddy kong racing characters, aside from krunch who was designated a kremling and so nintendo kept him. so. yeah nintendo fully owns all dk specific characters
in any case god candys design is so uncomfortable and invokes quite a lot of uncanny valley. its like. heres a fairly regular human woman body (with a fur texture) also theres a cartoony ape face on an oversized head. and i realised just the one jungle climber artwork really doesnt help shes just Particularly bad in it
the dk64 model is only barely tolerable but then i also look at it and like, thats just a human person. that is a member of the homo genus. that is a human woman lady person. with maybe furry limbs and ape facial structure and thats it. im not big on that either
 
And it's not like the designers were contemptible mysoginists who made every single female character are the same archetype.
As the critique is supposed to go, people who design characters aren't necessarily misogynists but they tend to fall into tropes that, well, Anita Sarkeesian touches on, but tropes that are argued to have negative social impacts, very generally speaking.

There's a LOT of seductive women whose trait is just that.... I mean Crash Bandicoot had Tawna and I do believe there's more where that came from in several series.

Anyhow what if Wrinky Kong was playable. xD
 
As the critique is supposed to go, people who design characters aren't necessarily misogynists but they tend to fall into tropes that, well, Anita Sarkeesian touches on, but tropes that are argued to have negative social impacts, very generally speaking.

I mean she tried to argue it but she did a very bad job at it. She failed to explain why the trope is inherently bad and instead just showed examples of it and said that is bad because the trope is bad without even looking into the context for each example she brought up.

Tropes are not inherently good or bad, context is what matters when it comes to that stuff.....but I'm getting further off topic than I already have so I'll not say anymore on that.
 
if one were a sapient non-human and they cosplayed as a human, would they be a furry?

I would love to see a freakish invertebrate like a jellyfish try to cosplay as a human. And no, they can't be too antropomorphized either.
 
You do know that Daisy is dating a GUY named Luigi, right?

1654984291951.png


luaisy is not canon please do not talk about it like it is

plus it is common for lesbians to date a man before finding out they like women, considering the most semi-canonic luaisy stopped around gamecube and wii era it's honestly not a too far off headcanon and would be interesting to be canon
 
Back