| the_dengle said: Why does it have to be explained that an object being indestructible within its own game is not necessarily indestructible by nature? Most characters' clothes do not sustain visible damage. But that doesn't mean everyone is wearing super armor that is impervious to any kind of attack that can be thrown at them. This applies to equippable items and to "plot armor." Weapons that are clearly made of metal or even less durable materials have the properties of those materials whether they are exhibited in-game or not. Ganondorf is only killed by the Master Sword in Zelda, but it's not impossible for another weapon to kill him. He is still a man. There is nothing comparable to Samus' arsenal in the Zelda universe. There are swords and shields, some crude magic with nearly mundane applications, literal God power, and little in-between (highly advanced machines with powerful lasers that... cause an unpleasant burning sensation). Samus has mini-nukes, and the beams that come from her arm cannon are even more powerful than those. Ultimately, the fun in these pissing contests ought to come from comparing characters with nothing in common. Especially when weirdos like Kirby or Game & Watch get involved. |
ROFL at the last Paragraph.
I seriously can't believe this thread has gotten over 200 + posts since I last read it. Reading all these answers has really made me laugh IRL.
I'm telling you, there's a lot of bias towards Nintendo Character because most of their games get a E to a T rating. They automatically think the PS All-Stars would win because the come from M rated games!
Besides Nintendo Characters win by sheer numbers alone. Don't forget Fox McCloud conquered a WHOLE DINOSAUR PLANET because he had a headache and HE JUST CAN!
Sounds like Bruce Willis from Die HARD! 
