|
|
Babies
Sept 19, 2008 21:12:47 GMT -5
Post by kingkoopa on Sept 19, 2008 21:12:47 GMT -5
This is really wierd how new baby characters are coming out of nowhere
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 20, 2008 11:28:09 GMT -5
Post by shadowgoomba on Sept 20, 2008 11:28:09 GMT -5
How so?
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 21, 2008 8:20:09 GMT -5
Post by kingkoopa on Sept 21, 2008 8:20:09 GMT -5
Well I man like now for some reason you find out that a baby Daisy exists in the Mario World.
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 21, 2008 13:04:40 GMT -5
Post by shadowgoomba on Sept 21, 2008 13:04:40 GMT -5
Daisy had to be a baby at some point. She just went back in time and found her like the rest of them.
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 24, 2008 18:46:16 GMT -5
Post by kingkoopa on Sept 24, 2008 18:46:16 GMT -5
I know but Nintendo just keeps adding baby characters. I'll bet that the next spin off game will have a new baby character
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 24, 2008 19:03:02 GMT -5
Post by Meta Black Yoshi on Sept 24, 2008 19:03:02 GMT -5
Has there been a baby Waluigi?
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 24, 2008 19:06:12 GMT -5
Post by kingkoopa on Sept 24, 2008 19:06:12 GMT -5
No not yet but there probablly will be
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 25, 2008 9:05:58 GMT -5
Post by shadowgoomba on Sept 25, 2008 9:05:58 GMT -5
So...they're popular. Not much else to say to that. Where's the paradox? Where's the unsolved mystery?
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 25, 2008 10:42:14 GMT -5
Post by PDoogan on Sept 25, 2008 10:42:14 GMT -5
Partners in Time pretty much explains all of this. Now that they have a time machine, Mario or anyone else can go back in time and bring the babies to the future for a while.
This is also what helped me come up with my theory of how the Mario bros. are born at the same time, but Mario is older.
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 25, 2008 18:35:37 GMT -5
Post by kingkoopa on Sept 25, 2008 18:35:37 GMT -5
But how did they use the time machine before PiT
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 25, 2008 19:17:34 GMT -5
Post by Meta Black Yoshi on Sept 25, 2008 19:17:34 GMT -5
Oh thats easy. People just took the time machine back in time before PiT and thats how people from that time were able to use it.
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 25, 2008 20:07:00 GMT -5
Post by kingkoopa on Sept 25, 2008 20:07:00 GMT -5
Oh that makes sense
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 26, 2008 8:14:44 GMT -5
Post by shadowgoomba on Sept 26, 2008 8:14:44 GMT -5
Or PiT was just chronologically first.
|
|
|
|
Babies
Sept 26, 2008 18:51:01 GMT -5
Post by kingkoopa on Sept 26, 2008 18:51:01 GMT -5
Yea it must have been chronologically first (time travel is so wierd)
|
|
|
|
Babies
May 17, 2009 16:55:23 GMT -5
Post by Clive Koopa on May 17, 2009 16:55:23 GMT -5
I find it quite annoying that Nintendo seem to need to keep adding baby characters. I've said it before but personally, I don't like to see both adult and baby characters in the same game. Baby Mario should exist in Yoshi's Island only and possibly Partner's In Time but not at the same time as the Adult Mario.
And if Baby Mario was in the same time as the Adult Mario, then the adult version would probably not been able to exist or something as there is no trace of him in the past.
|
|
|
|
Babies
May 18, 2009 20:01:08 GMT -5
Post by kingkoopa on May 18, 2009 20:01:08 GMT -5
The baby could return to the past
|
|
|
|
Babies
Jul 14, 2010 17:50:25 GMT -5
Post by EpicGyllynn on Jul 14, 2010 17:50:25 GMT -5
I just think that the babies aren't really there. But, thats the easy way out. But if the babies where using the time machine, they would age during each of the events, so they couldn't have remained babies as long as they have. Thats just my 2 cents anyway.
|
|
|
|
Babies
Jul 14, 2010 22:55:16 GMT -5
Post by SMBBQ on Jul 14, 2010 22:55:16 GMT -5
And if Baby Mario was in the same time as the Adult Mario, then the adult version would probably not been able to exist or something as there is no trace of him in the past.[/quote]
But that's the great part about time-travel. To go back into the past wouldn't create a paradox because chronologically, you had already done it.
|
|
|
|
Babies
Jul 15, 2010 9:28:51 GMT -5
Post by EpicGyllynn on Jul 15, 2010 9:28:51 GMT -5
And if Baby Mario was in the same time as the Adult Mario, then the adult version would probably not been able to exist or something as there is no trace of him in the past. But that's the great part about time-travel. To go back into the past wouldn't create a paradox because chronologically, you had already done it. If the babies DO travel through time(Which I think they Don't), as long as they returned to the Past their present selves wouldn't be affected:) |
|
|
|
Babies
Jul 15, 2010 12:18:23 GMT -5
Post by kingkoopa on Jul 15, 2010 12:18:23 GMT -5
If their present selves WERE affected then there wouldn't be any more Mario games now would there?
|
|
