Rare made Donkey Kong confusing...

[Mandolin]

I don't think any of this is confusing. More and more recent sources indicate that Cranky is Donkey Kong's father and the original Donkey Kong. Donkey Kong Junior appearing at the same time as adult DK is really not any more confusing that Baby Mario and Mario, and it doesn't matter because it only happens in non-canonical spinoffs. I'd bet the Baby DK in Yoshi's Island DS is the new Donkey Kong / Donkey Kong Junior, not Cranky. As for the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games, we can assume they take place way back in the arcade days, and that DK is actually old Cranky Kong.

[DekuScrubby]

Originally Posted by Smouvy

Disagreed, thanks to Mario's Story, because Super Mario Bros. was the first time he ever entered the mushroom kingdom (which also includes Yoshi's Island), so that'd mean that Mario got old, got kids (Baby Mario, Baby Luigi, Baby Peach etc.), so judging that, the series in which they are babies should be placed on the far end of the story line instead. This however was made even worse with Partners in Time, because to make both this theory correct AND have Partners in Time, it must mean that Partners in Time is an even later game in the timeline, seeing they meet their baby selves in the past.

So basically:
Super Mario Bros. (aka Mario's arrival) -> All kinds of Mario games that don't feature Baby personae or are mentioned to have been babies a long time ago -> All main characters get babies -> All baby games -> Partners in Time -> All games in which babies are also used (which is made possible thanks to the Time Machine from Partners in Time.

That way it also seems more logical as of how both Baby Mario and Mario can appear in games like Mario Kart Wii.

Donkey Kong's Timeline can be judged from this to, but I can't be arsed to do that too atm.

By the way, this also clears up confusion with Bowser Jr. being Bowser's son or not, because in Super Mario Sunshine, Bowser is clearly referred to as 'papa', while in Partners in Time, they don't seem to know each other, that is because Bowser Jr. grew up to be the Bowser we know now. This doesn't necessarily mean that any game with both Bowser Jr. and Bowser will be 2nd generation, because in those games (like Super Mario Galaxy and New Super Mario Bros.) it's never said whether he is the son of Bowser, or just the past version of him. We, however, can assume that any game with more baby persons that Baby Bowser in it is 2nd gen Mario, while every game with only Bowser Jr. in it, is the end of the 1st gen Mario (which also explains why Jr. is older than Baby Mario, he was born first..). As does it explain why in Mario World, Mario doesn't know the Yoshi, while in Mario World 2 he is on one the whole game. Assumable, Baby Donkey Kong in the first Donkey Kong (aka Cranky Kong), meaning that all Donkey Kong games play with 2nd Gen Mario). And that Jumpman than was still a teenager whereas Cranky was a tad older.

Confusing eh? It IS the most logical explanation!

Uhhh... no. Baby Mario is Mario's son? WTF.

[Smouvy]

Originally Posted by DekuScrubby

Uhhh... no. Baby Mario is Mario's son? WTF.

Yes, for it's the only way to make Mario's Timeline make any sense at all.

[Wolfe Logan]

I actually had the theory that Jumpman and Mario were seperate entities... Jumpman being Mario's father. It wasn't so warmly greeted. lol

[Mandolin]

Originally Posted by Smouvy

Yes, for it's the only way to make Mario's Timeline make any sense at all.

As much as I hate to admit it, it's true.

Originally Posted by Wolfe Logan

I actually had the theory that Jumpman and Mario were seperate entities... Jumpman being Mario's father. It wasn't so warmly greeted. lol

Great Zombie Jesus! I think you just may be right!

[Wolfe Logan]

My reasoning behind it was... If Cranky is current DK's grandfather (or ever father), and the average gorilla (which the Kongs are supposedly) lives like 30-40 years... Then for DK and Mario to exist at the same time would make Mario very very old (or at least older than he looks)...

Unless Jumpman was current Mario's dad. Then it clicks into place, yeah?

[Smouvy]

Originally Posted by Wolfe Logan

Unless Jumpman was current Mario's dad. Then it clicks into place, yeah?

Yes, and also declares the fact that Super Mario Bros. 1 exists, in which he enters the Mushroom Kingdom for the FIRST time. Basically, the Mario in Super Mario Bros. 1 has to be Jumpman, no way of getting around that!

[Wolfe Logan]

Well... I suppose. But, that would assume that Jumpman had a brother who wore green, too.

But yeah, because if Baby Mario is current Mario, then he would've met Baby Peach (who's current Peach) long before SMB1, if that were current Mario in that game. Therefore... Because she was called Toadstool... She wasn't Peach, she was... someone else. Maybe?

I'm confused. XP My theory is failing.

[Smouvy]

How do you declare Mario 64, on which she signs as:

Princess Toadstool,
Peach.


??!??

[Wolfe Logan]

See, I told you it was a bad theory.

Okay, forget anything I said about Peach, and just run with the 'Jumpman is Mario's father' thing.