The problem with Paper Mario: Sticker Star

#151Attack_A_HorsePosted 11/22/2012 12:52:54 PM
Kingboo83 posted...
Ha ha. Now I'm convinced you both are the same person. As if you couldn't have made it any more obvious.

Quietisgood:

What "basic things" else do I need to be able to comprehend? Who are you to tell me I'm not able to comprehend the situation? Again, you're just resorting to your usual "if you can't comprehend," etc., etc., with anyone who tries to refute your standpoint. You're question-begging in the sense that you're implicitly asking something from TC that he has been trying to make valid for you by his definition of story-centric, which I thought applied with the context of it, personally, but you just keep presenting it all off as non-specific or irrelevant in some manner, as you can do that without your own definition. Maybe he wouldn't have to keep repeating his question if you would just give your definition of what a story-centric game is, despite how "irrelevant" you think it may be (which does not "stop" you from being able to do that--it would even help your argument in this case somewhat if you just did and make you more credible).

Okay. What does that have to do with...uh...anything? Yes, the TC knows the game has characters. Yes, he knows it has a story, etc. His definition for a story-centric game was: "A video game with more emphasis placed on story-related elements than gameplay-related elements. What else would it be?" And I thought the arguments (not just his) presented for that were true in a lot of sense, based on that definition alone. Maybe if you really did give your "own" definition, and then provided some examples of how the game mended with said definition and refuted his, your argument would be more validated. But you just sit there on the sidelines and pass off anything anyone would throw at you, subjective or not, from what I've been able to tell so far. (But even as far as subjectivity goes, you demand, in your own words, "anyone who thinks Paper Mario is a story-centric game obviously doesn't know what story-centric really means.")

Attack A Horse (nice alt. name, btw):

Oh, ha ha. Look at you. Resulting to more personal attacks and having a condescending undertone, to make up for your own flawed reasoning. Yeah, I said "y'all." What of it, buddy?

1. No, you first.
2. How about stick to the actual discussion and argument at hand, something you're starting to prove you've become incapable of.
3. And how is it irrelevant? Because you now say it is? Someone else's "opinion" is now irrelevant? Oh, as if this whole argument hasn't been based on prejudiced standpoints, because not everyone might agree with that definition--but how are we supposed to even then know what story-centric really is, or "is" for that other person, if they can't even come up with their own terms or examples of said definition? You can only really just then sit in the back and act like a court judge; able to push off anything as "irrelevant," or doesn't count with already-explained-and-provided-for-definition, just as you've been doing, because you yourself haven't provided your own guidelines to follow and apply in a definition to refute back the argument and examples with, based on your prejudice.

Anyways, I can't believe I'm arguing this much with a troll (yes, I'll call you a troll, because that's exactly what you've pretty much proven yourself to be). Have fun going nowhere with this.


Did you fix your Enter key? I'm glad you were able to understand at least that part of what I wrote and break up your nonsensical walls of texts.
#152Attack_A_HorsePosted 11/22/2012 1:02:49 PM
Kingboo83 posted...
Ha ha. Now I'm convinced you both are the same person. As if you couldn't have made it any more obvious.

Quietisgood:

[not me]

Attack A Horse (nice alt. name, btw):

Oh, ha ha. Look at you. Resulting to more personal attacks and having a condescending undertone, to make up for your own flawed reasoning. Yeah, I said "y'all." What of it, buddy?

1. No, you first.
2. How about stick to the actual discussion and argument at hand, something you're starting to prove you've become incapable of.
3. And how is it irrelevant? Because you now say it is? Someone else's "opinion" is now irrelevant? Oh, as if this whole argument hasn't been based on prejudiced standpoints, because not everyone might agree with that definition--but how are we supposed to even then know what story-centric really is, or "is" for that other person, if they can't even come up with their own terms or examples of said definition? You can only really just then sit in the back and act like a court judge; able to push off anything as "irrelevant," or doesn't count with already-explained-and-provided-for-definition, just as you've been doing, because you yourself haven't provided your own guidelines to follow and apply in a definition to refute back the argument and examples with, based on your prejudice.

Anyways, I can't believe I'm arguing this much with a troll (yes, I'll call you a troll, because that's exactly what you've pretty much proven yourself to be). Have fun going nowhere with this.


I ended my post with "Just my two cents." You then chose to also end your post in the same way. THAT is what I call a condescending undertone, and it is the ONLY reason I used "y'all" in my post (you chose to mimic my post).

It's funny how you can say and act as condescending as you want, but oh no when someone acts the same way to you, it's the end of the world. How ironic.

Also what personal attacks? You see what you want to see, my friend. All I see is a hypocrite. :)
#153RynviePosted 11/22/2012 1:25:32 PM
Dear god guys, can it. You're not even arguing about the topic any more.
#154slaterastlePosted 11/22/2012 1:27:33 PM
this is true, thank you for writing an entire essay on it
#155quietisgoodPosted 11/22/2012 1:29:02 PM
What "basic things" else do I need to be able to comprehend? Who are you to tell me I'm not able to comprehend the situation? Again, you're just resorting to your usual "if you can't comprehend," etc., etc., with anyone who tries to refute your standpoint. You're question-begging in the sense that you're implicitly asking something from TC that he has been trying to make valid for you by his definition of story-centric, which I thought applied with the context of it, personally, but you just keep presenting it all off as non-specific or irrelevant in some manner, as you can do that without your own definition. Maybe he wouldn't have to keep repeating his question if you would just give your definition of what a story-centric game is, despite how "irrelevant" you think it may be (which does not "stop" you from being able to do that--it would even help your argument in this case somewhat if you just did and make you more credible).

Okay. What does that have to do with...uh...anything? Yes, the TC knows the game has characters. Yes, he knows it has a story, etc. His definition for a story-centric game was: "A video game with more emphasis placed on story-related elements than gameplay-related elements. What else would it be?" And I thought the arguments (not just his) presented for that were true in a lot of sense, based on that definition alone. Maybe if you really did give your "own" definition, and then provided some examples of how the game mended with said definition and refuted his, your argument would be more validated. But you just sit there on the sidelines and pass off anything anyone would throw at you, subjective or not, from what I've been able to tell so far. (But even as far as subjectivity goes, you demand, in your own words, "anyone who thinks Paper Mario is a story-centric game obviously doesn't know what story-centric really means.")


i didn't think it was possible for 329 words to say so little. do you want to know what you need to be able to comprehend? everything, my posts, attack_a_horses post and every other post in this topic. i'm able to say you and your group of alt accounts (since everyone with the same opinion is an alt account) can't comprehend because you've continuously shown it, in this post and your previous posts. and again as i've stated many times (again, if you would actually read...) my definition of it is irrelevant because we're not discussing my definition - we're discussing the OP's definition and we're discussing the fact that he has failed to explain how the series fits his own definition. the burden proof isn't on me to do anything. and you say that's points have been provided but where? when has it been proven that paper mario as a series has focused more on story than gameplay? no where, you know why? because it can't be proven.
---
Hypothetically, if the only choice you've got is to do the wrong thing, then it's not really the wrong thing, it's more like fate.
#156SebVettelPosted 11/22/2012 3:32:57 PM
This topic seemed like it might be interesting. Looks can be deceiving.
#157Watt64Posted 11/23/2012 1:21:58 AM
quietisgood posted...
Watt64 posted...
quietisgood posted...
wiiking96 posted...
Hey TC, can you try to explain again why the Paper Mario series has traditionally been story centric? That would help.


considering he's continuously failed to do it, I doubt it.



Why won't you stop saying that the TC "fails" at eveything when it's really you? Don't try and deny it: you're a troll. And i'm not just throwing that word around. Eveybody here knows you are, and if you reply back saying "LOL", or "you fail at *insert word here*", then you'll just be proving it even more.

Why don't you just keep quiet. After all, quiet IS good. ;)


damn bro, u mad.


Yes, I admit it. I am.



Okay, not really. But your not so creative reply "makes me mad, bro."

As Gamestar300 would say: Deal with it.
---
"Hi, mister! I'm Watt. Can I, um, get out of here?"
#158Counterpwnt(Topic Creator)Posted 11/25/2012 9:50:34 AM
Is Paper Mario for the Nintendo 64 a story-centric title?

Before I can answer that question in full, I must first define what I mean by “story-centric.” I am writing this in Microsoft Word, and it may take more than one GameFAQs post to say and explain all my points.

When I refer to a game as story-centric, I am referring to its possession of a particular element: namely, a plot that holds the entire exposition together.

The plot is accompanied in this case by written narrative, written dialogue/monologue, and particular plot-related events.

Written narrative directly concerns the actions, feelings, or thoughts of characters within the plot at hand.

Written dialogues and monologues are tools used by the aforementioned characters to clarify: the motivations of their actions; the content of their reactions; and to have first-person individual reflections on their actions, feelings, or thoughts.

Plot related events are necessary story elements that present obstacles to the plot path, and become problems to be solved, moved through, or moved around.

Part I: Pre-prologue

Paper Mario begins with a presumably omniscient narrator telling a story about the Star Spirits. It begins with, “Today, I’m going to tell the story of Star Spirits and Good Wishes.” The narrator intends to finish the story—whomever he is telling the story to is not entirely relevant, though we can assume as engaged gamers that he is telling it to us.

However, considering that the game begins with the opening of a book, we can assume that the entirety of Paper Mario is contained, or will be contained, within this book. It is the story of “Paper Mario,” or “Mario Story” in Japan.

It continues, “Far, far away, beyond the clouds, it is said that there is a haven where the Stars live.” This is Star Haven, where we find ourselves at the end of the game. It is also creating a setting for both the beginning and the end of the plot. Like many stories, it begins and ends in the same place.

“In the sanctuary of Star Haven, there rests a fabled object called the Star Rod.”

From here, Intelligent Systems has given us a piece of lore about Mario’s Universe per their series canon. While the Star Rod may have never been mentioned in any earlier game and may never be mentioned again, per our current story it is held within Star Haven as a sacred and unworldly object.

The narrator continues, telling us that “Using this fabled Star Rod, the Star Spirits watched over our world. Carefully… very carefully.”

We are then given the context of importance for the Star Rod. So it is not only a sacred and unworldly object within the Paper Mario universe, it is vital to that world’s safety and prosperity to some degree.

On the next page, the lilting melody used as a backdrop for the story begins to warble out of tune, and we see Kammy Koopa taped to the page. This is where we go from listening to the story to being enveloped in it. What is happening is no longer a past event: it becomes the present.

The narrator says “And then…” trailing off, because though the story has been written thus far, it is up to the player to finish it and decide the fate of this particular world through Mario’s feats and deeds. Whatever was going to happen is no longer going to.

The narrator says, “Oh dear, who stuck that weird thing in here?” Bowser pops up and says, “I did! Oh yeah!” This is where the narrator is no longer relevant. His attempt to tell the story of the Star Spirits and the Star Rod has been interrupted by Bowser.
#159Counterpwnt(Topic Creator)Posted 11/25/2012 9:51:56 AM
Bowser, in a sense, takes over from here. He says, “So I can, at long last, beat my archenemy Mario, I’ll take this Star Rod!”

The narration ends with, “Now Star Kids may rise to Star Haven to grant peoples’ wishes… but those wishes will not be granted. Whatever can they do…?” (We, of course, know what they can do, being familiar with Mario’s past roles.)

This part of the game leans heavily on a wrap of narrative, punctuated by dialogue from Bowser, Kammy Koopa, and the terrified Star Spirits. The “stage” has been set… quite literally, as it all takes place on a stage.

From here, we know all we need to know about the game’s plot. There is a sacred object that Bowser has stolen in order to enact revenge upon Mario. The prologue then picks up on that same day, but from Mario’s point of view in the Mushroom Kingdom.

Mario & Luigi receive a seemingly innocuous letter from Princess Peach inviting them to her castle, where she is throwing a party. She mentions that many guests from various towns are there and eager to meet Mario and Luigi.

Here, we see Parakarry for the first time, the seeming poster-boy for post for Toad Town, Mt. Rugged, and the various settlements within this iteration of the Mushroom Kingdom.

Shortly after Peach and Mario begin talking, Peach proposes that they go to the balcony to talk. From here, Bowser crashes the party—at some point probably not too long after having just stolen the Star Rod.

Mario and Bowser fight. They are about even, and Bowser comments—with odd geniality—about “good old Mario, always fighting.” The fight is a sham, however, and the player is utterly unable to win. After delivering two attacks, Bowser says, “You won’t win today… Take a look at what I stole from Star Haven! It’s the Star Rod!” Why would Bowser brag and show off his ace-in-the-hole to Mario? Perhaps because it makes his victory sweeter to be one step ahead, for once.

Let us take a brief aside from this exposition to analyze the story-related purpose of this fight. It wouldn’t be enough for Mario (the player) to simply be told that Bowser was too strong. Intelligent Systems forces the player to take on Bowser, in both his pre- and post-Star Rod transformation, and experience this seeming invincibility per the game’s combat system.

They are saying, “This is what you have to work with. A Jump. You cannot strengthen your attacks, attack any other way, or run away. You cannot defend. This is what Mario (the player) has to work with.”

Mario is, of course, defeated. If Mario won, there would be no story. This staged battle serves the purpose to show the player in objective, numbers-related terms (i.e. turn-based, numeric damage combat) that Mario needs to grow stronger and more diverse to beat Bowser this time.

In many Mario games, Mario has the tools to win right off the bat. He does not get stronger, does not gain new abilities, and only needs to get to Bowser to defeat him. This time, Mario is not equipped to win. One facet of the story’s purpose is to equip Mario for victory.

Mario, defeated, is tossed out the window, floating down through the clouds away from Bowser, the Star Rod, and Peach. He is sent far away with no immediate advantages.

Then the title pops up. It is a way of saying, “Now you know what it happening, now you know what our game is about. This is Paper Mario.”

Then, the prologue begins: ‘A Plea From the Stars’

——I'll write more soon, when I have time.
#160Sol_ClydePosted 11/25/2012 9:58:05 AM
The story is the least of this game's problems.

It would have been much better if it had a real story, but Miyamoto isn't very wrong. If the gameplay is fun, the story isn't an issue.
The problem in this game is precisely the gameplay...

You can't really say the beaten-to-death stories of the first two PM, arguably the most popular of the franchise, was that good. It wasn't. But no one cared because the games themselves were a lot of fun.
It's really the journey and what we do on it. It's why very few games have any decent plot that is up to the decades' standards.
---
Want to make the boards a better place?
REPORT bad posts and topics so the moderators can do something about it.