Talk:Cranky Kong/Archive 1

Nemesis

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Donkey Kong is NOT his nemesis. They encountered eachother a whopping one time, and the only reason they fought was because he was super pissed at being trapped in a cage. -- A Link to the Past 02:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Yes Donkey Kong Sr. is Mario's ORIGINAL, FIRST Nnemesis. At the time of Super Mario Brother's release, Bowser and Mario had no backstory, and Bowser was still his Nemesis. They didn't have to have a backstory to be nemesises for that game. Nintenfreak 02:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

And Donkey Kong was not doing it against Mario. So, he's not acting as an enemy against Mario, he's not acting as a villain, he's just angry. King Kong, was he evil? And, that doesn't really help. Nowadays, Mario and Bowser do have a past relationship. Donkey Kong and Mario's connection was never, ever established, and the only connection they ever had was rivals. DK Jr. had just as much relationship with Mario as DK did. The only relationship ever established between Mario and DK Jr. was the same as DK and Mario's - they had no past relationship, they just met. DK kidnapped Pauline and Mario thusly had to defeat him, Mario kidnapped DK Jr. and thusly DK Jr. had to defeat him. Also, note that DK Jr. was still a baby in Mario Kart 64 when Mario had met Princess Peach and company looong ago. And don't say he's not in it; that may be true, but he was in it originally. And even then, SMK had him playable. -- A Link to the Past 03:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't even notice.

Latest comment: 20 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Nice attempt at slipping in that whole "Nintendo can't be shown to disagree" thing. Nothing Nintendo ever said implied that Cranky Kong is Donkey Kong. My statement was added to point out that Rare's writings have never been specifically supported by Miyamoto or others involved with Donkey Kong, but your words were only meant to make that statement seem pointless. -- A Link to the Past 00:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

You say that Nintendo never commented on Rare's statements and can't be shown to agree. The same logic could just as well mean that Nintendo can't be shown to DISagree. So I could have deleted that point, or make another point that contradicts it. Nintendo never supported Rare's word? Never mind the fact that Rare created Cranky Kong and have every right to decide who he is, there are two points in the "in favor" side that are from Nintendo? Why are you arguing with us, anyway? We're big fans of the Donkey Kong Country games, and you couldn't be bothered to list them in your top 143 (or whatever) games. We know what we're talking about more. --Chiphead 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was exhausted when I made the original revision, so I apologize for not removing both sides. I meant to do so but was distracted with other things. --Schrei 03:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying that we should assume they agree? I guess never even implying that they agree with a single letter of those statements from Rare isn't good enough for you.

And nevermind the fact that 100% of DKC = Nintendo's. So it is NOT Rare's right.

And yes, thanks. I mean, I was looking all over for the opinion of two guys from Nintendo's American division and Nintendo's Europe division. Who cares what the creator has to say on the matter?

I'm a big fan of the Donkey Kong series. You know what that means? You're biased. I'm a fan of the series, and you're a fan of what Rare puts out, so you accept what they say as fact.

I couldn't be bothered to list them because I don't like them as much as those 143 games. You're saying that because you like them more than me, your opinion is more valuable to the debates?

And the last statement of this reply... You morons! Did you even read the argument? You were demanding that it be fact that Nintendo contradicted THEMSELVES! The whole argument was about them supporting what Rare said in the manual. It cannot be confirmed either way because A. Rare is an unofficial source and B. Miyamoto has never openly expressed his views on this. However, Hal Labs, who had Miyamoto and other members of EAD working closely on SSBM, they say "he now prefers the laid-back jungle lifestyle to construction site mischief". -- A Link to the Past 03:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Not to derail this into a petty fanboy argument, but I (and others) have played the hell out of the DKC games over the past decade, and know them to a degree that's simply not possible for someone who thinks more highly of over 140 other games (which is a pretty damn big number), and because of that, our word is more reliable than yours. Again, I don't want this to turn into who's a bigger fan of what, so this is the last we'll speak of it.

Now back to the point. Rare is far from an unofficial source. They not only made all the Donkey Kong games from 1994 to 2002 (discounting Mario games with Donkey Kong in them), but they created the character of Cranky Kong, so they'd have every right to decide who he is. If Nintendo never said they agree with him, that doesn't mean they disagree. Likewise, if I say Nintedo never said they disagree, that doesn't mean they agree. That's why said arguments were taken off the page. Now if Nintendo of Japan never commented on it, but NOA and NOE did, we'd have to go by the other two, as they represent Nintendo in their respective regions, and are authorised to speak for them on such matters. As for the Smash Bros. trophy, they're not 100% accurate. For example, Daisy's bio cites an appearance in Mario Golf which didn't happen until Mario Tennis.

Finally, can you please stop insulting those who disagree with you? That kind of behavior may be acceptable on the GameFAQs boards, but we're trying to settle a dispute on what is trying to be a reliable encyclopedia. You have to respect the other side if you want any respect back. Calling us "morons" isn't going to convince anyone to take you seriously. --Chiphead 04:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You assume that because you like the game better that you know more about the game. I'd say I know everything about the games' content, and if you do, then you don't hold any priority over me. In fact, your bias towards these games could reflect towards you making a biased argument and having it reflect what you want.

You didn't discount Donkey Kong '94, developed by Nintendo. And I guess the fact that Nintendo funded them, allowing them to create a character for their series (and thusly making it their character), it doesn't matter. You may believe that it's their right to decide what Cranky Kong is, but in all legal logic, it's Nintendo's.

NoA never commented on it. Employees did. Do you say that Metroid: Zero Mission isn't a remake because someone emailed NoA and an employee said so?

I can prove that Hal did not make those mistakes, but NoA themselves - for one, Masahiro Sakurai was at the helm of the game, and Meta Knight's trophy said he first appeared in Kirby Super Star. He personally created Meta Knight. Truth be told, there are two games listed on the trophy description, so NoA had removed the two games thing, only using one, and used Kirby Super Star instead of Kirby's Adventure, and in Daisy's case, used Mario Golf as opposed to Mario Tennis.

Dude, it's really awesome how two of your allies were flame happy, and you let it pass as good arguing, and when I call you morons for ignoring everything I said since the beginning of the argument, I'm a GameFAQs troll. I guess reverting edits, calling the other's reverts 'inaccurate kiddy fanboy nonsense' despite the Seal of Quality (the one single argument shown to support the statement) was shown to not actually support it. If you can't put your bias towards your allies aside, then stop talking. -- A Link to the Past 05:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about Metroid Zero Mission, nor am I aware of anything NOA said on the matter, nor do am I behind all my "allies'" (who I don't even know) arguments 100%, save for their main point, and I never accused HAL of making any mistakes. That's why I deleted the whole "Rival/Nemesis" section. Donkey Kong 94 was more of a Mario game with Donkey Kong in it (for another example, Super Mario Bros. isn't a Bowser game, and Sonic The Hedgehog isn't a Dr. Robotnik game), but more importantly, it was released before the "Rare period" that started with Donkey Kong Country. Seconly NOA employees are NOA. They are authorised to speak for Nintendo on everything, and their comments were featured in the Donkey Kong Country video, produced and distributed entirely by NOA. Besides that, Dan Owsen and Tony Hartman are considerably higher on the NOA heirarchy than those guys who answer the e-mails. They were the guys who translated and wrote the English text for all those Japanese games, among other things.

I still don't see how people who throw a bunch of money at a project have more to say on it than the people who created the character in question. If you were settling a dispute about a motion picture, would you turn to the director or the studio that produced it? As for the Smash Bros. trophy example, it only supports my point that the bios aren't 100% accurate; Daisy never even appeared in Mario Golf. However, if I remember correctly, if you set Melee to Japanese, and look at Donkey Kong's filmography, it lists Donkey Kong Country, but not the arcade games. -- Chiphead 21:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that we know that you can even understand Japanese. -- A Link to the Past 22:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I can't, but I can tell that the two games listed are for Super Famicom and Nintendo 64. The only Super Famicom games that feature Donkey Kong are the Super Donkey Kong trilogy (the Japanese name for Donkey Kong Country), and the only Donkey Kong game for N64 was Donkey Kong 64, all of which featured the modern incarnation of Donkey Kong. If this was the same character as the Donkey Kong featured in the arcade game, it would have been listed, like it was for Mario. -- Chiphead 04:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

But then, that means that Donkey Kong is not Donkey Kong Jr., wouldn't it? -- A Link to the Past 10:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

No. I'd elaborate, but that's not the point of the argument. All we're discussing is whether or not Cranky Kong was the original Donkey Kong. -- Chiphead 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because it's not a point doesn't mean it doesn't factor in. Have you considered that they counted Donkey Kong as first appearing in DKC based on appearance? As opposed to counting him as first appearing in DK Jr.? -- A Link to the Past 17:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Donkey Kong did not appear in Donkey Kong Jr. in the same way that Mario didn't appear in Yoshi's Island; he appeared, but in a completely different form. But that's not what we're disputing. This page was created for the sole purpose of settling the dispute as to whether or not Cranky Kong is the original Donkey Kong.

Now I was looking at the article's history page, and I noticed an argument on the legitamacy of the Seal of Quality. I take the Seal with a grain of salt. I don't believe that Nintendo thoroughly examines the entire manual of, say, Britney's Dance Beat, but I'm sure they check the manuals and contents of the games that they publish, and any other uses of their characters (for example, Mario in NBA Street). If it's established in the game and documentation that Cranky is the original DK, and Nintendo published it, it means that Nintendo approved it. If Nintendo didn't support the notion, they would have made Rare change it. -- Chiphead 18:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, the design of Donkey Kong is very different in DKC.

So, you're saying that we should go on assumptions that they knew what Rare said? -- A Link to the Past 18:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Of course Nintendo knows what Rare said. They published their games. If they oversee what EA does with their Mario characters, they would oversee what Rare does with their Donkey Kong characters in a game that they publish. The different design could be because they are different characters. It's more evidence to my point than yours. -- Chiphead 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you're willing to bet your account that you can provide a source saying that they read the manuals of their games, right? Of course, you probably won't, because you'r assuming all of this.

And, Donkey Kong Jr. does NOT look like Donkey Kong, not even remotely. -- A Link to the Past 18:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)