|
|
Post by Koopalmier on Dec 10, 2010 6:19:34 GMT -5
Wikipedia. Say what you want, Wikipedia articles do their best to have the actual name for things. MK's mushrooms are just called Mushrooms. And, 1up : You can eat an apple. You certainly can't cook it with anything. |
|
|
|
Post by 1up on Dec 10, 2010 13:52:22 GMT -5
@ Koopalmier
Apple pie...
And, like I already said, Super Mushrooms and Mushrooms are the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koopalmier on Dec 10, 2010 13:55:53 GMT -5
Apple may work with legums at best. And with cakes. But certainly not with fish, or with salt, or with meat, or rice, or potatoes, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1up on Dec 10, 2010 13:58:49 GMT -5
@ Koopalmier
What are we even arguing about...? >_>
|
|
|
|
Post by Koopalmier on Dec 10, 2010 14:04:31 GMT -5
How "normal" Mushrooms can be used for mostly anything, so they could work as fuel as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1up on Dec 10, 2010 14:12:02 GMT -5
@ Koopalmier
How did apples get brought up?
|
|
|
|
Post by Koopalmier on Dec 10, 2010 14:19:09 GMT -5
I said that Mushrooms can be done for anything, can serve as decoration, can (obviously) be eaten, can be cooked with anything, etc.
Then you said eating and cooking-with-anything are the same.
Then I gave apples as an exemple.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1up on Dec 10, 2010 14:29:04 GMT -5
Oh... okay... >_>
Anyway, I completely condone using Wikipedia as a source. People are always bashing it and calling it inaccurate, but it really isn't. 9 out of 10 times it has the correct information.
|
|
|
|
Post by SMBBQ on Dec 10, 2010 17:03:24 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm one of those "Wikipedophiles" who take down innacurate information on a page. There's lots who do that, and with so many, it's rare to find a page that's completely innacurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Dec 11, 2010 11:44:36 GMT -5
Wikipedia is considered innacurate because I could go to the Mario page on it right now, post that Mario likes to eat pickles with his beard. And it would appear on the site. I don't even have to be a member or anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Artemendo on Dec 11, 2010 13:22:41 GMT -5
Yes, it would appear there, but it would be immediately taken down by 5000 people who know Mario does not eat pickles with his beard. The people who bash it for this don't see the difference between short-term and long-term accuracy. At any given moment of time, anything on Wikipedia might be false. However, over a stretch of time, it is extremely likely that everything on there is more or less accurate. I do remember reading several comparisons between it and traditional encyclopedias (taking long-term Wikipedia content) and it was not less reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica and friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarisa on Dec 11, 2010 14:07:54 GMT -5
To be fair, Wikipedia is an good source for anything well-known but not respected by the scholarly establishment, from comic books to Interlingue history. But I'd rather have a specialized source if one exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheat-master30 on Dec 11, 2010 14:09:33 GMT -5
Yes, it would appear there, but it would be immediately taken down by 5000 people who know Mario does not eat pickles with his beard. The people who bash it for this don't see the difference between short-term and long-term accuracy. At any given moment of time, anything on Wikipedia might be false. However, over a stretch of time, it is extremely likely that everything on there is more or less accurate. I do remember reading several comparisons between it and traditional encyclopedias (taking long-term Wikipedia content) and it was not less reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica and friends. The latter part sounds suspiciously more like 'other encyclopedia writers/editors are morons' than 'Wikipedia is realiable'. If you can't outdo a wiki which can be edited at any one time, it's fairly good evidence your print encyclopedia contributors don't have the appropriate level of knowledge to write the thing. But why are people arguing about what a Mushroom is called? What, the Mario Kart instruction books aren't evidence enough? Super Smash Bros isn't evidence enough? |
|
|
|
Post by Koopalmier on Dec 11, 2010 14:22:59 GMT -5
Because it has different names on two versions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Artemendo on Dec 11, 2010 14:27:55 GMT -5
The latter part sounds suspiciously more like 'other encyclopedia writers/editors are morons' than 'Wikipedia is realiable'. If you can't outdo a wiki which can be edited at any one time, it's fairly good evidence your print encyclopedia contributors don't have the appropriate level of knowledge to write the thing. Not quite. I think the print editors are all educated people and try to do their job as well as they can, but there is just only a limited number of them. See, Wikipedia might be editable by anyone, but the edits by the real experts - whose knowledge the print guys would not have - will have good citations and arguments behind them, and will stick, providing a better level than the all-around reliable, but not-quite-specialist print encyclopedias. This gets dragged down by edit wars and people misinterpreting Wikipedia's guidelines ("the word rather than the spirit"), which means the quality is roughly the same as the books. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarisa on Dec 11, 2010 14:34:36 GMT -5
Also, with a limited number of editors, some of which are not experts in the field, errors creep in. Encyclopedia Britannica has a howler in its article on Interlingua.
And Mario wouldn't get more than a passing mention in an encyclopedia with scholarly pretensions anyhow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Artemendo on Dec 11, 2010 14:57:50 GMT -5
Also, with a limited number of editors, some of which are not experts in the field, errors creep in. Encyclopedia Britannica has a howler in its article on Interlingua. You seem to be an expert on that, and notice an error in exactly the article on the thing you know a lot about... this reminds me of Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy: Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for that rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge.Seems to be true for encyclopedias, as well! |
|
|
|
Post by Your Buddy Bill on Dec 17, 2010 11:10:27 GMT -5
Hey, I'm back!!!! Anyways, I only bothered to read the first two pages of this thread, but Im gonna say what I will anyway. Sorry if it cuts off somewhere, my time is short.
Most creatures cannot use power-ups. In NSMB beta, the Mega Goomba, Super Piranha, Mega Dry Bones and others would be Mega versions of their kind, but the Mega Mushroomed enemies idea was nixed. For a unofficial Mario TCG I'm working on, Power ups can ONLY affect things with the subtype 'Hero' unless otherwise stated. Not all humans can use power-ups, but humans are much more often 'Heroes' which is a condittion one is born with.
Mushrooms: Filled with energy similar to the Toad's Vim energy, which can heal you if you eat it, it can fuel boosters short-term in MK, they can make you big, etc. There are two sub-varieties:
1. Growth: These are the ones in 2d games
2. Healing: These are the ones in PM and SMRPG (i think)
-----Subcategories are
-----A. Normal (red/white)
-----B. Super (blue/white)
-----C. Ultra (green/white)
-----D. Max (I always imagined it as a golden-yellow color, white spots)
-----E. Timed
----------I. Slow shroom (TTYD)
----------II. Long-last Shroom (Hey, they make Long-last shakes out of something, right?)
-----F. Drops (have a 'splitting' ability not unlike Chus in LoZ TP)
3. Ability
-----A. Bee (causes [DNA or Virus or Bacteria or something] modification that turns one into a bee. Goes away when hurt because the hit triggeres the immune system to help protect the wound, and it recognizes the bee-ness as foreign and destroys it. As for water, probably a reaction with the venom in the unusable stinger. That or a reaction to the nectar/pollen buildup.)
-----
|
|
