Post by rpggamer100 on Aug 10, 2017 15:22:43 GMT -5
This is one of the dumbest theories MatPat has ever put up. All these points can easily be debunked by either common sense or someone who's actually played the games and/or seen a let's play of them. What are you thoughts on these videos I could give you my own spin on them too but I won't for now as I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't watched it...
Here they are just in case you don't know it's a two-parter so yeah:
Post by rpggamer100 on Aug 12, 2017 17:48:35 GMT -5
Why Part 1 is wrong
Donkey Kong - If this is Donkey Kong's ancestor, then the same would go for Mario, this is Mario's father not actual Mario especially seeing the names moustaches on the artworks look different. Also, the story of Donkey Kong Jr. is that Mario/Jumpman is taking him back to the wild not being all mad that he took his girlfriend and keeping him locked up forever.
How he kills Wigglers and Cheep Cheeps - First, let's ignore the fact for a second that they kill you if you touch them. In Super Mario 64/Super Mario 64 DS Mario had no way of knowing that he was ruining the Wiggler's home and Mario was stuck in a kill or be killed situation. And in Super Mario Sunshine, the Wiggler was stopping the birth of the legendary sandbird. Also, that same Wiggler is seen rampaging through Gelato Beach right in the next mission putting many lives in danger so Mario had to take him out. Then there's Cheep Cheeps, not only do they kill you if they touch them, but they swim in large numbers so it's hard to avoid them, and then there's the situation with "we go fishing in real life and that's killing fish but that's seen as okay" but you might argue that "But wait, people go fishing for food" yes people do go fishing for food but there's also a good deal of people who go fishing for sport and which is the more gruesome way to die. Getting hit with a fireball that'll pretty much instantly kill you or being stabbed in the head and dragged up to the surface where you suffocate and die. I'm not saying fishing for sport is wrong but I am saying that what Mario is doing most certainly isn't because he's doing it in self defense. Oh and let's not get started on the varieties of Cheep Cheeps that'll eat you whole.
Yoshi Situation - In the 2D Mario games, as you can see Mario isn't hitting Yoshi, he's actually pointing. If you look closely you can see there's a finger. It's also shown on a artwork for Super Mario Galaxy 2 and then there's the situation where Mario abandons Yoshi off a cliff, when they get to that point of time their fates are pretty much sealed they're done for so Mario may as well jump back up to save himself not to mention that in SMG2, Yoshi doesn't die, he just goes back into an egg. Also dropping him off is completely optional and doesn't really happen if you don't want it to. Also who's the one pressing the button to abandon Yoshi? The player, that's like saying that Mario is evil because he killed Tuxie by dropping her off the edge in Super Mario 64/DS. It's also like saying Mario's evil in Paper Mario Thousand Year Door because you pick the mean options in that game. It's the player's choice so technically WE'RE the real bad guys here not Mario.
Luigi - MatPat states that Luigi is one of the most innocent characters in the Mario universe which is true but then he goes on to pay out Mario as this abusive and cruel brother to Luigi. To start off he said that Mario wouldn't let Luigi come along on his adventure in Paper Mario. 1. Luigi didn't even care. 2. Mario probably wants Luigi to be able to have his own adventures and not constantly ride along to his success. Then there's the ending of New Super Mario Bros. Wii, it's notable that the door on the blimp closes by itself. Also, Mario doesn't even notice Luigi he's too busy talking to Peach and by the time he does notice Luigi, they see that the Toads have taken him along on their blimp. Then there's the ending to Mario is Missing it's unknown what Mario is thinking it's probably "Oh yeah this is your stupid adventure Luigi this is what you're gonna get." No actually he could be thinking about anything but I doubt it's "OH I HATE YOU SO MUCH LUIGI YOU SUCK!" And then we get to the stupidest argument in this two-parter MatPat completely overreacts about this. He claims that Mario is so abusive to Luigi is when he goes up to him in Mario Power Tennis and grinds his shoe but that's just basic sibling rivalry all it shows is that Mario is a bit competitive with Luigi really brothers will be that way especially if their twins. Y'know I have a brother and we've done way worse things to each other than that right there in fact MatPat is treating it like Mario went up to Luigi with a knife and stabbed him in the stomach and the just started laughing manically but no it's just a friendly grinding on the shoe.
Really it's only the Mario Party Tennis bit that he really has going, Luigi does ion fact seem shock about it and jealously seem to be the only real answer to that. Everything else, yoy either not apart of the main story (as they more Player import or is assumptions that goes against the series in general.
As for your first bit, you forgot to state that most things that Mario "Killed" are Bowser's minions, so they are indeed hunting down Mario. The only real exceptions are with Wiggalur, most of the time it's an accident and Wiggalurs are kinda violent to begin with (as with Sunshine).
Post by rpggamer100 on Aug 15, 2017 23:56:23 GMT -5
Why Part 2 is wrong
Mario's "Girlfriends" - MatPat basically claims Mario is a womaniser because of Pauline and Daisy from what I can see, Mario and Pauline are just business partners also, could it be possible that Mario and Pauline are just friends. And you may argue that Pauline says that Mario is her hero but that's Pauline saying that. Pauline may still have feelings for her but Mario doesn't anymore. She also says Mario is her hero of course she is. If anyone had just been saved by some guy from a giant gorilla wearing a red necktie of course they'd say to that person "my hero". Also Peach does have royal business meetings as Princess of the Mushroom Kingdom so it's not wrong for Mario to have a hobby when she's not kidnapped. Also, MatPat said that there's a Mini Pauline toy but no Mini Peach. That was dumb for countless reasons. 1. The Mini Peach DOES exist and has existed longer than Mini Pauline and 2. The Mini Peach toy is shown in the video. MatPat then says to the viewer(s) "YOU DO NOT INVITE ANOTHER GIRL AS YOUR DATE TO ANY SORT OF FUNCTION EVER! ESPECIALLY IF SHE'S A FORMER GIRLFRIEND!" It's funny how the guy that made the video Game Theory Best B**bs in Gaming" is now all of a sudden talking about the importance of a relationship and being strictly authoriteric as for Daisy, the reason Mario says it twice is because he's outta breath and the whole hearts is Daisy kissing Mario for saving her like Peach always does also it was Daisy kissing Mario, Mario just did nothing.
Toad Brick Thing - He then claims that Mario is a murderer because he kills Toads that are trapped in brick blocks. Yes I know it says it in the instruction book but it says they were trapped in bricks NOT brick blocks so when Mario hits them, he's actually separating them so they're not more together when they turn back which also explains why you get points for smashing bricks. He also didn't consider that Mario may not even be aware of the curse. In a Japanese Mario cartoon based off of Super Mario Bros., a wizard (who looks like a character from those Smurfs cartoons) who is only exclusive to this cartoon tells Mario about the curse which he didn't know about. Also, in the New Super Mario Bros. games, it's shown that the curse is no longer intact and also when Mario completes a level, he's not celebrating the havoc, he's celebrating the fact that he completed the level.
Killing beasts such as Goombas - MatPat then claims that Mario is evil and a murder for killing Goombas. Well technically he does kill them but that's because they're part of Bowser's army and they're trying to kill him. Then he goes on to make another comparison where he compares killing Goombas (which happens instantly) to an ancient dragged out form of torture from East Asia. I mean sure, they both involve crushing but they're very different. Also, PTSD only happens when police officers (or anyone else) sees another human die in a violent or gruesome way. These are literally painless deaths, there's is no gore for enemy deaths, they either fall offscreen, disappear, or explode upon death. Also, pretty much none of the Mario enemies are human also, the enemies that take multiple hits to beat appear to be moreso angry or mildly annoyed at Mario not so much suffering. Then MatPat goes on to compare Mario to The Joker, Hannibal Lecter, Mr. Hyde, Ted Bundy, and Lumberjack Dexter. Actual psychopaths who kill people because they feel like it while Mario kills enemies because he's forced to in order to save Peach and/or the Universe.
Additional Notes - At the time where MatPat will say "It's just a theory. A game theory", in this video he says "I can definitively say that Mario has Antisocial personality disorder." Which goes against what Game Theory is supposed to be about. Also, MatPat hasn't stopped about this theory. In Majoras Mask is pointless, he has Mario running off with Pauline in the background for no reason but to reference Mario is Mental and in How deadly is Mario's Bullet Bill, he constantly refers to Mario as everyone's favourite sociopath and in Mario Kart 8 is deadly, he shows a Mario Tennis clip wit Mario standing on Luigi's foot just to reference the video. And in Rosalina Unmasked, he refers to the theory as 100% fact. Also in YouTubers react to racist Mario by the fine bros... I'm not gonna say anything just watch from 0:55 it's better to show you than tell you. Even though the theory has nothing to do with the main Mario games. Also, half the theory is destroyed by the Mario Timeline Theory and MatPat didn't even realise it...