| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| Why is the HP 4700 listed on Mariowiki? He actually has 4096 HP... Won't somebody correct this? - [[User: StoneMonkWisdom|StoneMonkWisdom]] | | Why is the HP 4700 listed on Mariowiki? He actually has 4096 HP... Won't somebody correct this? - [[User: StoneMonkWisdom|StoneMonkWisdom]] |
|
| |
|
| And where does it say he has such a random number as his true amount of health? {{User:Reversinator/sig}} | | And where does it say he has such a random number as his true amount of helth? {{User:Reversinator/sig}} |
| | |
| Well, several other sources say 4096, and there's always Mallow's Psychopath special to reveal Culex's Health - [[User: StoneMonkWisdom|StoneMonkWisdom]]
| |
| | |
| Name these sources. {{User:Reversinator/sig}}
| |
| | |
| I went ahead and used Psychopath on Culex (VC version), and it did indeed say 4096... [[User:WikiGuest|WikiGuest]] 17:05, 19 February 2010 (EST)
| |
| | |
| Oh. {{User:Reversinator/sig}}
| |
| | |
| In regards to the sources requested, most any walkthrough guide on gamefaqs that mentions Culex inside also state his HP being 4096, then if one looked hard enough, there may be a couple youtube videos of the Culex battle where Mallow uses Psychopath on Culex, or you could watch any and add up the damage total yourself proving to be less than 4700. - [[User: StoneMonkWisdom|StoneMonkWisdom]]
| |
|
| |
|
| == Battle Music == | | == Battle Music == |
| Line 28: |
Line 18: |
|
| |
|
| :Yes. All ''Final Fantasy'' games have similar battle music, but Culex's is directly from ''Final Fantasy IV''. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] | | :Yes. All ''Final Fantasy'' games have similar battle music, but Culex's is directly from ''Final Fantasy IV''. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] |
|
| |
| == 2D or 3D in the infobox ==
| |
| {{Settled TPP}}
| |
| {{Proposal outcome|passed|12-0-4|2D sprite}}
| |
| By now most subjects in Super Mario RPG are being represented by their new 3D models in the remake which I 100% agree with, however Culex is an odd case. I'm proposing we decide whether his 2D sprite or 3D model would fit his infobox best.
| |
| <gallery>
| |
| Culex Sprite - Super Mario RPG.png|2D sprite
| |
| </gallery>
| |
| Not only is this sprite also used in the remake for the initial battle, I think this is most fitting for
| |
| Culex's characterization of him literally being a 2D sprite
| |
| <gallery>
| |
| SMRPG Culex 3D screenshot.jpg|3D model
| |
| </gallery>
| |
| The 3D model of Culex used for a post-game rematch. Some may consider this the "true look" of Culex, but I'm just a bit iffy on this as I don't think it represents Culex's lore as I mentioned and he even returns to 2D sprite form after the battle.
| |
|
| |
| I'm also including an option to use both images together as we have been doing on several pages around the wiki.
| |
|
| |
| '''Proposer''': {{User|Swallow}}<br>
| |
| '''Deadline''': December 5, 2023, 23:59 GMT
| |
|
| |
| ===2D Sprite===
| |
| #{{User|Swallow}} Preferred choice as stated
| |
| #{{User|Sparks}} Per Swallow. If Culex had been 3D when first encountered, I would've chosen the 3D option. This is his signature look.
| |
| #{{user|Blhte}} per all.
| |
| #{{User|Tails777}} Honestly, the 2D sprite just feels more official, even if there isn't a definitive version of Culex. But his main encounters focus more on the 2D sprite over the 3D model so I vouch for keeping it 2D.
| |
| #[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - 3D is treated more as a "variation" of him. Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Biggestman}} The entire joke with Culex is that he's a 2D character in a Prerendered/3D game, also Culex 3D is a special form anyways.
| |
| #{{User|DesaMatt}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|LinkTheLefty}} 100% this. If Culex ''just'' had 3D representation in the remake, the other option would make sense, but he is presented as both, and the idea behind the 3D form is that he had a "post-game wish" granted. It is not his standard representation. And I know we don't have a general spoiler rule, but showing the 3D form as his main image ruins that for people who just glance at the page. 3D Culex is not Culex; it is "Culex 3D". 2D Culex is not "Culex 2D"; it is Culex.
| |
| #{{User|Hewer}} Per all, mainly the point about his 3D form being a variation.
| |
| #{{User|Pseudo}} Per all, his 2D form is his iconic form even in the remake.
| |
| #{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
| |
|
| |
| ===3D Model===
| |
|
| |
| ===Both===
| |
| #{{User|Swallow}} Second choice
| |
| #{{User|Tails777}} I'd also be okay with this as a secondary option.
| |
| #{{user|Shokora}} – It's honestly a tough one, but I think it's worth displaying both. I don't think we can fully represent the character with either one or the other. If it wasn't for the 3D form being individually named and reverting back to the 2D sprite in-game, it would be simple. But the character's detailed 3D model should be there to be seen at the top of the page.
| |
| #{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all of you collectively
| |
|
| |
| ===Comments===
| |
| Culex appears mostly as a two-dimensional sprite. He only becomes three-dimensional in his rematch. I will think this over, but I'm currently leaning on the 2D side, although both can symbolize his different appearances. I don't think 3D is the way to go here. {{User:Sparks/sig}} November 21, 2023, 21:20 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| Where's the "split into two pages, treating this like an X boss" option? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:35, November 21, 2023 (EST)
| |
| :<s>Why would we do that? It's explicitly, definitively, the same character, just having mastered access to the third dimension. [[Special:Contributions/73.171.104.211|73.171.104.211]] 22:02, November 21, 2023 (EST)</s>
| |
| ::Why do we split [[Dreamy Bowser]], then? Splitting forms is standard here, especially for separate RPG battles. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:13, November 21, 2023 (EST)
| |
| :::Are we going to split all the rematch bosses? Will those accompanying crystals get split too? {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:26, November 21, 2023 (EST)
| |
| ::::Considering things like [[Biffidus X]], probably. I'm just thinking doing so would leave this proposal redundant. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:41, November 21, 2023 (EST)
| |
| :::::I would say [[Bowser X]] would be another example to think about when splitting these versions, since it looks virtually identical to Bowser. If Bowser X looks the same to Bowser and is still split, wouldn't this mean Culex 3D gets a split? {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:48, November 21, 2023 (EST)
| |
| ::::::If I may chim in, I wouldn't be against splitting the rematches, as they are similar to the ''Mario & Luigi series'' X bosses; stronger stats being the main thing about them. But my only real concern is the palettes, being closer to how ''Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam'' handled things and those boss rematches are also not split. It's a tricky slope cause X bosses could be seen as closer to other stronger variants of enemies (such as R enemies or such) and being stronger variants has been enough to keep things split, yet that would be inconsistent with how this game and ''Paper Jam'' goes about their rematches. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
| |
| ::::::It was not something I thought about when making this proposal, simple as that. The aim of this proposal is entirely for the infobox image. If you want to split them, then that should be your own proposal. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 05:17, November 22, 2023 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| ==Culex 3D turns taken dialogue==
| |
| In the quotes section, the cutoff for "we are nearly evenly matched" says 25-34, but in my own experience with the fight I had 40 turns and got the dialogue. Does anyone want to test this info or change the cutoffs to be more vague until it's tested? - [[User:Gamersquiddy|Gamersquiddy]] ([[User talk:Gamersquiddy|talk]]) 18:15, January 19, 2024 (EST)
| |
| :If that's what you got, then that's what should be in the article. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 18:34, January 19, 2024 (EST)
| |
