The Mario Epidemic

[Josh64]

To be fair, Iwata confirmed that there will only be NSMB game per console. We'll just see DLC now until the next gen, 2D platformer wise

 

Yeah I know, which makes it more frustrating for me. It made sense to appear on the 3DS now, but of all the games they could have released, surely they could have thought to release the Wii U version a year or two into its life and given us something else instead.

 

I don't know, you wait all day for a bus...

[Fierce_LiNk]

@Fierce_LiNk...

 

How is 8 Halo games in 12 years the same as 17 Mario games in 3?

 

Because the majority of those are flagship games. Like I said in the second part of my post, it is on a par with Nintendo doing a flagship Mario every other year, when really it's one per console. Plus, what you're not taking into account is the diversity between each of those Mario games. 4 Halos and 4 Marios are two entirely different things.

 

 

Uncharted is 4 games in 7 years....

3 were full on Home Console games and 1 was a full on Handheld game...

 

... If that was the way Nintendo treated Mario games, wouldn't that be far better? If over a 7 year console cycle (if it had lasted as long as the PS3) the Wii had had Mario Galaxy 1, 2 and 3 and the 3DS had Super Mario 3D Land... and not loads of Mario spin-off/side series instead... I think that more focused/refined approach would have been far better. And give plenty of time for other franchises between.

 

No, it wouldn't be better because you would be losing the likes of Paper Mario, Mario Kart, Mario and Luigi and so on, which are ENTIRELY different breeds of games compared to Galaxy and Sunshine. That is the part you don't seem to be getting. Each Mario franchise has its own different audience. Mario Kart doesn't really appeal to me, but it appeals to many. Paper Mario appeals to much fewer, but those seem to be the hardcore.

 

Also with Sony, you may say 3 Uncharted's on the PS3 is quite a few, however, they were also putting out and developing new IP's at the same time, something Nintendo's First Party studios haven't done for a long time.

 

Also, if Sony follow the trend, there might be a lesser reliance of Uncharted for the PS4; where as the overreliance on Mario has been building since the Gamecube.

 

WiiSports, WiiFit and the Big Brain series are probably three of the most popular IPs anyone has created in the last decade.

[Retro_Link]

@Fierce_LiNk

 

Well Nintendo themselves fell into the 'more than one flagship title' themselves with Galaxy on the Wii... who knows if that hadn't had a console cycle the length of the 360/PS3 we wouldn't have had Mario Galaxy 3 as well; I actually think we probably would have done. Both Sony and Microsoft had to sustain those console for a greater time than Nintendo did the Wii, so I don't think seeing 3 Halo's or Uncharted is unreasonable.

 

OK those 17 Mario games in 3 years are different genre's, but having 17 games with Mario in over 3 years still sounds like a lot to me, it sounds like an over-reliance on one franchise...

 

[if we apply the same ratio back to 2001 when the first Halo came out, that would be 68 Mario games, to Halo's 8! :p]

 

... Why do they have to be Mario games?

Why does the 'Paper' [Mario] series have to be confined to just Mario, why not expand it to other franchises?

 

Or when making a new Nintendo RPG series, or series in general, why not set it on the Starfox/Metroid/F-Zero universe, or better yet a new IP?

 

Why do we have 2 different Mario RPG series?

 

The likes of Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi, Mario vs Donkey Kong, are largely series that only really appeals to us Nintendo fans and not the casual NSMB market. They don't set the sales chart on fire. So why not give the Nintendo fans some differentiation. Why are Nintendo applying Mario to their games in both the hardcore and casual market?

 

WiiFit/WiiSports/BrainTraining... we're clearly looking for very different things from our new IP's.

I enjoy those games, but they don't fill the gap in the market left by Nintendo's character franchises, the likes of which Sony are delivering hand over fist.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Retro_Link

[Serebii]

@Fierce_LiNk

 

Well Nintendo themselves fell into the 'more than one flagship title' themselves with Galaxy on the Wii... who knows if that hadn't had a console cycle the length of the 360/PS3 we wouldn't have had Mario Galaxy 3 as well; I actually think we probably would have done. Both Sony and Microsoft had to sustain those console for a greater time than Nintendo did the Wii, so I don't think seeing 3 Halo's or Uncharted is unreasonable.

 

OK those 17 Mario games in 3 years are different genre's, but having 17 games with Mario in over 3 years still sounds like a lot to me, it sounds like an over-reliance on one franchise...

 

[if we apply the same ratio back to 2001 when the first Halo came out, that would be 68 Mario games, to Halo's 8! :p]

 

... Why do they have to be Mario games?

Why does the 'Paper' [Mario] series have to be confined to just Mario, why not expand it to other franchises?

 

Or when making a new Nintendo RPG series, or series in general, why not set it on the Starfox/Metroid/F-Zero universe, or better yet a new IP?

 

Why do we have 2 different Mario RPG series?

 

The likes of Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi, Mario vs Donkey Kong, are largely series that only really appeals to us Nintendo fans and not the casual NSMB market. They don't set the sales chart on fire. So why not give the Nintendo fans some differentiation. Why are Nintendo applying Mario to their games in both the hardcore and casual market?

 

WiiFit/WiiSports/BrainTraining... we're clearly looking for very different things from our new IP's.

I enjoy those games, but they don't fill the gap in the market left by Nintendo's character franchises, the likes of which Sony are delivering hand over fist.

Easy, because they don't sell well. Look at Nintendo's new IPs out of the Wii series of late. They never sell well. Starfox, F-Zero, Metroid etc. have been on a downwards slope, sales wise, as well.

 

Hell, even Skyward Sword underperformed

[Retro_Link]

Easy, because they don't sell well. Look at Nintendo's new IPs out of the Wii series of late. They never sell well.

And yet Sony is constantly taking chances on New IP.

 

 

And why don't they sell well?... maybe Nintendo needs to push them more and dedicate more time to them.

 

Why have two Mario RPG's?...

Why not integrate the story and humour from the Mario&Luigi series into the main Mario Home Console games?... by doing so wouldn't you make the main series even stronger, perhaps increasing it's sales, and at the same time free up the Mario&Luigi developers to work on something new. [as an example]

 

Why release half-asses games based on other franchises like Donkey Kong Barrel Blast/Kirby's Air Race?...

It devalues the property in the general public's eyes.

Both looked like they needed longer in development/are hampered by their control scheme...

 

... Why not develop a second Nintendo racing series as strong as Mario Kart, like Diddy Kong Racing was, and then alternate their releases, creating less monotony, and a different experience year on year.

 

 

Also maybe the likes of Skyward Sword underperformed because of Nintendo's reluctance to develop the franchise, in line with other games on other console around it. OK Nintendo now say they have realised this and will be addressing it, but it's two Zelda's later than it should be.

 

And maybe the constant Mario's wouldn't be as bad if Nintendo would take risks with them either... if anything they feel like they're being dumbed down.

 

Why wasn't the last Paper Mario something as creative as Tearaway for example?...

 

Instead of being a game that even the biggest fans of the series had complaints with.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Retro_Link

[liger05]

Given the revenue the Mario brand generates I think any other publisher who owned it would be doing the same thing.

 

Personally I would like to see other ip`s Nintendo have used more. They may not sell like Mario does but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be profitable.

[Fierce_LiNk]

@Fierce_LiNk

 

Well Nintendo themselves fell into the 'more than one flagship title' themselves with Galaxy on the Wii... who knows if that hadn't had a console cycle the length of the 360/PS3 we wouldn't have had Mario Galaxy 3 as well; I actually think we probably would have done. Both Sony and Microsoft had to sustain those console for a greater time than Nintendo did the Wii, so I don't think seeing 3 Halo's or Uncharted is unreasonable.

 

Nintendo had plenty of stuff left over from the development of Galaxy. If they were going to go for more than one flagship for the Wii, it may as well be one of the best games of its generation.

 

OK those 17 Mario games in 3 years are different genre's, but having 17 games with Mario in over 3 years still sounds like a lot to me, it sounds like an over-reliance on one franchise...

 

[if we apply the same ratio back to 2001 when the first Halo came out, that would be 68 Mario games, to Halo's 8! :p]

 

It doesn't really work as simple as that. Again, you're putting all of Mario's games under one umbrella. You can't do that, each series that they produce under Mario is completely different to the next and has its own audience. I don't really think you're understanding that simple fact, because you can't just blanket it as 17 in 3 years when those games transcend various genres and are aimed at entirely different people. The Halo series only has one audience, whereas if you hate Mario Kart you still might like Mario Galaxy, or if you dislike that, you might like Mario Sports Mix, or something.

 

... Why do they have to be Mario games?

Why does the 'Paper' [Mario] series have to be confined to just Mario, why not expand it to other franchises?

 

Watch the sales drop as soon as they attach a different face that isn't Mario. It's a simple fact, brands sell. Look at Final Fantasy.

 

Or when making a new Nintendo RPG series, or series in general, why not set it on the Starfox/Metroid/F-Zero universe, or better yet a new IP?

 

Why do we have 2 different Mario RPG series?

 

The likes of Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi, Mario vs Donkey Kong, are largely series that only really appeals to us Nintendo fans and not the casual NSMB market. They don't set the sales chart on fire. So why not give the Nintendo fans some differentiation. Why are Nintendo applying Mario to their games in both the hardcore and casual market?

 

I don't really see what you're getting at here. Because Mario can appeal to pretty much everyone and because these games he has appeared in have turned into franchises of their own. He's important because people immediately know (I'm talking everyone, not just the fans) that this is a Nintendo game. It's brand recognition. Why doesn't Sony drop the Playstation name? Because of the branding associated with it. You're severely underestimating the importance of this.

 

WiiFit/WiiSports/BrainTraining... we're clearly looking for very different things from our new IP's.

I enjoy those games, but they don't fill the gap in the market left by Nintendo's character franchises, the likes of which Sony are delivering hand over fist.

 

No, you asked for IPs and I gave you 3 which have appealed to many different audiences worldwide. You won't find 3 more important brands in the last decade. Sony had to go out and create a lot more because they've been behind for the majority of this generation, partly in thanks to those 3 franchises that I mentioned.

[Cube]

I'd say Crash Bandicoot was... and yet Sony haven't even had the need to use him on the PS3!... their original mascot!

 

That's because they can't - they sold him years ago.

[Dcubed]

I know Alpha Dream probably weren't ever going to be working on anything other than Mario & Luigi 4, same goes for whoever's working on Mario vs Donkey Kong and the Super Luigi DLC, but then look at SPD 1 - the geniuses who used to make 2D Metroids. Now they're working on Game & Wario. My gut instinct is that something's not right.

 

Err... They have made all of the Wario Ware titles (alongside IS on most of them) you know...

 

Also they did kinda release a co-developed Metroid game just 2.5 years back...

[Jonnas]

All of these Mario games are fine as long as genre saturation doesn't happen...except it's already happening with the NSMB series. Remember the saturation of Mario Sports titles back in the GC days? Same thing.

 

Also, I share the sentiment that the setting and such could vary more. The Mario RPG series (all of them) and the 3D Marios get this, but the others just latch on lazily to what the latter have done.

 

But all of this has already been said, really.

 

I'd say Crash Bandicoot was... and yet Sony haven't even had the need to use him on the PS3!... their original mascot!

 

Didn't they sell the Crash Bandicoot license to some other company? That's a move that pissed off many fans of the franchise, for various reasons. It's not that they "didn't feel the need" to use them on the PS3, they literally couldn't. I'm betting they would, if they could.

 

How is 8 Halo games in 12 years the same as 17 Mario games in 3?

 

Uncharted is 4 games in 7 years....

3 were full on Home Console games and 1 was a full on Handheld game...

 

8 Halo games in 12 years (actually 6 if we exclude the updated port and the one that's not an FPS), compared to...3 Mario Games that are 3D platforming (4 if you include 3D Land).

If I'm not mistaken Uncharted 1&2 were made by Naughty Dog, then the series continued to exist through other studios, right? That's something Nintendo doesn't do, otherwise, we'd have seen Super Mario 64-3 before Sunshine was released.

 

The Mario name is a brand that transcends genre. You're lumping together Mario Sports titles, the RPG series, the 3D Platformers, Mario Kart and the NSMB series (I'd include Smash Bros, too, Mario is also the face for that one)

 

From a brand marketing perspective, yeah, it's tiring. From a content perspective, it's only the NSMB series that's worrying, and seems to be going the route of "run the formula into the ground".

 

... If that was the way Nintendo treated Mario games, wouldn't that be far better? If over a 7 year console cycle (if it had lasted as long as the PS3) the Wii had had Mario Galaxy 1, 2 and 3 and the 3DS had Super Mario 3D Land... and not loads of Mario spin-off/side series instead... I think that more focused/refined approach would have been far better. And give plenty of time for other franchises between.

 

I, for one, am more than glad that games like Paper Mario and M&L series exist. I'm not sure if they would even receive a greenlight without the brand name.

 

And you know what, Nintendo actually is operating like you say they should. With the 2D Mario series, I mean. And that abomination is pretty much the entire reason we're having this argument in the first place (since, without them, we're where we were back in the GC days). If they had run the SM64 formula to the ground early, Sunshine and Galaxy wouldn't even exist right now.

 

Why have two Mario RPG's?...

Why not integrate the story and humour from the Mario&Luigi series into the main Mario Home Console games?... by doing so wouldn't you make the main series even stronger, perhaps increasing it's sales, and at the same time free up the Mario&Luigi developers to work on something new. [as an example]

 

Are you seriously suggesting adding long cutscenes to the 3D Mario games? Like a plot twist where the villain thinks he's Peach's son, or Mario goes on trial for a silly crime?

 

And this suggestion that humour can be "transferred" in the first place... After all, you're suggesting that Alphadream work on something else, but their writing and brand of humour somehow appear in the 3D Marios at the same time.

 

Instead of being a game that even the biggest fans of the series had complaints with.

 

Not "even". "Only".

 

The games seemed to have been well received by people who weren't expecting anything. From what I've heard, Sticker Star seems to be quite a fun game, as long as you don't expect it to be like the previous games.

[Retro_Link]

@Fierce_LiNk, why not see what you make of the post I replied to Serebii with as well as I expended there.

Nintendo had plenty of stuff left over from the development of Galaxy. If they were going to go for more than one flagship for the Wii, it may as well be one of the best games of its generation.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here?... are you saying it's OK to do Mario Galaxy 2, because it carried over and expanded upon the ideas used by Galaxy 1 and went on to be one of the best games of the generation? If so you could say the same about Uncharted 2. But I don't really see what this has to do with anything.

It doesn't really work as simple as that. Again, you're putting all of Mario's games under one umbrella. You can't do that, each series that they produce under Mario is completely different to the next and has its own audience. I don't really think you're understanding that simple fact, because you can't just blanket it as 17 in 3 years when those games transcend various genres and are aimed at entirely different people. The Halo series only has one audience, whereas if you hate Mario Kart you still might like Mario Galaxy, or if you dislike that, you might like Mario Sports Mix, or something.[/Quote]No I understand, but I thought this thread was about the over-use/reliance on Mario?... therefore you do group Mario games under one umbrella, just as you included Halo Wars, and would have included games in other Halo genres had there been any.

 

(Also, not every Mario series is completely different and has it's own audience, I'd say Mario&Luigi and Paper Mario have the same audience.)

Watch the sales drop as soon as they attach a different face that isn't Mario. It's a simple fact, brands sell. Look at Final Fantasy.

What other games does Final Fantasy attach it's name to in the same way?

 

I'm actually pretty stunned that you're happy to just see Nintendo use Mario over and over.

I don't really see what you're getting at here. Because Mario can appeal to pretty much everyone and because these games he has appeared in have turned into franchises of their own. He's important because people immediately know (I'm talking everyone, not just the fans) that this is a Nintendo game. It's brand recognition. Why doesn't Sony drop the Playstation name? Because of the branding associated with it. You're severely underestimating the importance of this.

You can't suddenly compare the Playstation brand to the Mario franchise, because Nintendo has the Nintendo name to put to thing to sell it's products in the same way Sony has the Playstation brand. Are you saying the Nintendo brand isn't strong enough to sell games therefore they need to use Mario? That's not the case.

 

Nintendo are over relying on Mario, there's no two ways about it.

Sony is releasing new IP left, right and centre... they don't know how well they will sell, but they're still doing it.

 

That's because they can't - they sold him years ago.

So in actuality they had to progress with out him and they've done so.

 

Are you seriously suggesting adding long cutscenes to the 3D Mario games? Like a plot twist where the villain thinks he's Peach's son, or Mario goes on trial for a silly crime?

 

And this suggestion that humour can be "transferred" in the first place... After all, you're suggesting that Alphadream work on something else, but their writing and brand of humour somehow appear in the 3D Marios at the same time.

No I used that as an example. There's no reason why two different Mario RPG's needed to have been created in the first place; one of them could have been applied to a different franchise or a new IP.

 

And why not?... Because heaven forbid they try and do something different in a Mario game? Like make it into a beautiful Pixar style adventure, as well as it being all about the gameplay the series is known for. The Ratchet and Clank series manages to combine the two... Mario could do it even better. I loved the Mario World Cartoon and seeing the adventures in the Mushroom Kingdom! :p

Edited February 17, 2013 by Retro_Link
Automerged Doublepost

[Fierce_LiNk]

I don't think I've typed this much in years. :p

Just for the record, this is a really interesting discussion. I'm enjoying it.

 

 

And yet Sony is constantly taking chances on New IP.

 

And why don't they sell well?... maybe Nintendo needs to push them more and dedicate more time to them.

 

Why have two Mario RPG's?...

Why not integrate the story and humour from the Mario&Luigi series into the main Mario Home Console games?... by doing so wouldn't you make the main series even stronger, perhaps increasing it's sales, and at the same time free up the Mario&Luigi developers to work on something new. [as an example]

 

They have 2 because they set out to do 2 completely separate and different things, for different audiences. Nintendo make F Zero and Mario Kart, 2 racers which are almost complete opposites. Also, I'm not sure how the fans of Mario & Luigi would feel if they knew that their series was being "lumped" with another. It's unfair when both are very good at what they do. There is more than enough room for both.

 

Why release half-asses games based on other franchises like Donkey Kong Barrel Blast/Kirby's Air Race?...

It devalues the property in the general public's eyes.

Both looked like they needed longer in development/are hampered by their control scheme...

 

Funny enough, these started off as GameCube games. Not sure why they were kept and released for the Wii, maybe too late in the GCs lifetime?

I agree with you here, if you're going to make a DK racing game, do it properly.

 

... Why not develop a second Nintendo racing series as strong as Mario Kart, like Diddy Kong Racing was, and then alternate their releases, creating less monotony, and a different experience year on year.

 

You make it sound so simple. Make a racing series that can come and rival Mario Kart. It's...really not that easy. It takes years to build up brand recognition, to develop, to market, to create, to release. It takes a very, very long time and even then you're never guaranteed a success. What I would like are more Nintendo racers, but more variety. We had ExciteTruck and ExciteBots (looked amazing) but even more would be great. Maybe that serious Nintendo racing game that some have craved for so long?

 

Also maybe the likes of Skyward Sword underperformed because of Nintendo's reluctance to develop the franchise, in line with other games on other console around it. OK Nintendo now say they have realised this and will be addressing it, but it's two Zelda's later than it should be.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Nintendo took big gambles with Zelda and, for some, it paid off. For others, it didn't. A lot of people seem to assume that Zelda didn't try to be different when I would argue that at times they seemed to change a little too much without improving the whole package.

 

And maybe the constant Mario's wouldn't be as bad if Nintendo would take risks with them either... if anything they feel like they're being dumbed down.

 

Why wasn't the last Paper Mario something as creative as Tearaway for example?...

 

Instead of being a game that even the biggest fans of the series had complaints with.

 

From what I've seen of Sticker Star, Nintendo have changed the formula, ironically to some disapproval from fans. Yes, it's brave changing things, but you can very easily and very quickly destroy a whole series with one bad choice. If things are working and the games are selling, what is the incentive for Nintendo to change it up? It seems like we're talking about change for the sake of it when that is utterly wrong. Change should come from a drive to drastically improve things that are either wrong or broken, or because of the need to further improve it.

 

@Fierce_LiNk, why not see what you make of the post I replied to Serebii with as well as I expended there.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here?... are you saying it's OK to do Mario Galaxy 2, because it carried over and expanded upon the ideas used by Galaxy 1 and went on to be one of the best games of the generation? If so you could say the same about Uncharted 2. But I don't really see what this has to do with anything.

 

I'm saying that because Mario Galaxy was that exceptional, it gave Nintendo leeway to create another one for the fans. If it was Sunshine and we got a Sunshine 2, I think the fans would have been much less forgiving. If anything, I took this as a positive response from Nintendo and a positive use of the Mario name. How many of us really moaned about another Galaxy?

 

No I understand, but I thought this thread was about the over-use/reliance on Mario?... therefore you do group Mario games under one umbrella, just as you included Halo Wars, and would have included games in other Halo genres had there been any.

 

It's really not the same thing. Halo itself is its own franchise and/or series whereas Mario has its own subdivision. Mario Kart is its own series, as is the Super Smash Bros. series and so on. Does Halo Wars have its own series, as I was under the assumption that it is a continuation of the Halo series/franchise? Its not a sub-division.

 

(Also, not every Mario series is completely different and has it's own audience, I'd say Mario&Luigi and Paper Mario have the same audience.)

What other games does Final Fantasy attach it's name to in the same way?

 

I would disagree and say that they don't. That would be like saying that all RPG fans will like all RPGs when in fact there are various differences between each "type of RPG". Mario&Luigi offer different things to Paper Mario, not including the whole unique graphic style that is associated with Paper Mario.

 

 

I'm actually pretty stunned that you're happy to just see Nintendo use Mario over and over.

You can't suddenly compare the Playstation brand to the Mario franchise, because Nintendo has the Nintendo name to put to thing to sell it's products in the same way Sony has the Playstation brand. Are you saying the Nintendo brand isn't strong enough to sell games therefore they need to use Mario? That's not the case.

 

Where did I say that I was happy for Nintendo to use Mario over and over? All I said was that if you took his name off something like Mario Kart, the sales would drop...which they would. He's part of his own brand. If Nintendo were to create something alongside Mario Kart, another racer, then that would be best for all. They're good enough to do that.

 

You're also making a lot of assumptions from what I'm saying. You CAN compare the Playstation brand to Mario because my argument was about brand recognition. Consumers know exactly what they're getting when they see those names. I didn't say anything or allude to "Nintendo not being strong enough without Mario", and I'm not sure how you're getting that idea from what I typed. Branding, especially in this day and age, is essential.

 

Nintendo are over relying on Mario, there's no two ways about it.

Sony is releasing new IP left, right and centre... they don't know how well they will sell, but they're still doing it.

 

So in actuality they had to progress with out him and they've done so.

 

Sony have also been very well known to throw money away and make huge losses. Nintendo can't do that because they don't have anything else to fall back on, whereas Sony have their whole electronics divisions. Also, we're talking a very big stretch if we're going to put Crash in the same category as Mario. Sonic is probably the closest we can get.

[Jonnas]

I feel Sonic should be mentioned, too. There's a guy whose name was more recognizable than Mario at one point (though in specific regions).

 

Several spin-offs starring him were released at the height of his craze, and he got so famous that releasing a game with his name nowadays still guarantees recognition and sales. The spin-offs and brand promotion helped achieve this.

Then Sega stops relying on him so much, and the Sega Saturn does so bad to the point that the Dreamcast needed a ton of luck to keep itself on the market.

 

I can definitely see why Nintendo chooses to keep using Mario.

 

EDIT: Also, I should be quicker with my posts. I see that Flinky already mentioned Sonic when I wasn't looking

 

What other games does Final Fantasy attach it's name to in the same way?

 

Final Fantasy Tactics, X-2, the online games, Crystal Chronicles... Not to mention those games that had literally nothing to do with the series, but received the Final Fantasy name when released in the west (like the original Mana game for the Gameboy, or should I say, Final Fantasy Adventure)

 

And why not?... Because heaven forbid they try and do something different in a Mario game? Like make it into a beautiful Pixar style adventure, as well as it being all about the gameplay the series is known for. The Ratchet and Clank series manages to combine the two... Mario could do it even better. I loved the Mario World Cartoon and seeing the adventures in the Mushroom Kingdom! :p

 

My point was that Sunshine already tried doing cutscenes, and it was badly received. It's not "heaven forbid", it's more like "it's been done and it didn't work". The kind of platforming that Mario is famous for doesn't really lend itself to things like good writing and amusing NPCs, either.

 

Also, I've just realized that "why not" is actually responding to my point about Alphadream. Alphadream can't develop two things at the same time, and the people working there have nothing to do with the development of the main series. Coupled with my previous paragraph, that's why not.

[Daft]

Mario's problem is that he is flexible. Nintendo just get complacent and put him in everything. It's so uninspired and unimaginative. For fans who covet innovation so much it's such a jarring contradiction.

[Retro_Link]

I'm not sure how the fans of Mario & Luigi would feel if they knew that their series was being "lumped" with another. It's unfair when both are very good at what they do. There is more than enough room for both.

Why aren't they doing both of these within one Mario RPG franchise though?... sure fans would complain now because both those series are long established, but back when they were both conceived there must have been the option to have either created a new IP from one, or attach it to another franchise.

 

You make it sound so simple. Make a racing series that can come and rival Mario Kart. It's...really not that easy. It takes years to build up brand recognition, to develop, to market, to create, to release. It takes a very, very long time and even then you're never guaranteed a success. What I would like are more Nintendo racers, but more variety. We had ExciteTruck and ExciteBots (looked amazing) but even more would be great. Maybe that serious Nintendo racing game that some have craved for so long?

Actually for Nintendo I think it is relatively simple at least. Nintendo could have an instant hit on it's hands with 'Smash Bros Kart' for example. However, that maybe has too much potential and could actually overshadow Mario Kart.

 

However, I would argue that Rare did 'make a racing series that can come up and rival Mario Kart' in just one single instalment with Diddy Kong Racing. It can be done. And that didn't even have Donkey Kong in it, it had Diddy Kong and a whole host of entirely new characters! But look at how fondly it's remembered! Nintendo could do the same [and with the DK brand too if they wanted]. Yes whatever this second racer was might not instantly have the same draw and worldwide recognition as a Mario Kart... but not every game Nintendo puts out has too! It's equally important to stop a franchise getting stale; Mario Kart is also another series which fans are getting somewhat tired of.

 

How about a Starfox racer, which takes the Arwing/Landmaster/BlueMarine vehicle concept, and has tracks which transverse Space/Sky/Land/Underwater. It would be awesome to be racing through space, and then suddenly dive bomb straight down through a planets atmosphere and straight into the ocean, and then you jump out on to land etc...

 

Or how about Nintendo put the money behind a proper Pokémon racer where you pick from a human character in the series (Ash, Misty Brock, Oak, Team Rocket... whoever else there's been in the series since I stopped watching), and ride on the back of Pokémon, again across tracks of land/sky/sea, or tracks with allow for all like DKR. IMO that could be an instant smash hit!

 

If things are working and the games are selling, what is the incentive for Nintendo to change it up? It seems like we're talking about change for the sake of it when that is utterly wrong. Change should come from a drive to drastically improve things that are either wrong or broken, or because of the need to further improve it.

Maybe this is just me being selfish... but to keep their fans interested?

Mario Galaxy isn't the same game as Mario 64 was, that series has evolved significantly with each console. Yes this is partly because it's often the series used to showcases the new hardware... but why can't other series do this?

 

Do you remember when we were all dreaming about what Paper Mario on the 3DS might be when it was first announced. How you might use the slider and switch from 2D to 3D for puzzles. OK maybe this wasn't achievable I don't know... but I don't really see what Paper Mario 3DS did for the series. It didn't really take advantage of the extra power or capabilities of the hardware. How about trading stickers through street pass at the very least to unlock new areas in the game.

 

Where did I say that I was happy for Nintendo to use Mario over and over?

I don't know if you've said it out right, but you're saying it's alright for Mario to be used over and over in so many games because they are different genre's. I get that. But the over reliance on the Mario brand is tiresome IMO.

All I said was that if you took his name off something like Mario Kart, the sales would drop...which they would. He's part of his own brand. If Nintendo were to create something alongside Mario Kart, another racer, then that would be best for all. They're good enough to do that.

Of course it would, because that's a long established franchise, and one which was built on Mario. You couldn't take the Mario out of Mario Kart without stopping the franchise. What you could do however is when creating a new concept, not apply the Mario World to it in the first place.

Also, we're talking a very big stretch if we're going to put Crash in the same category as Mario. Sonic is probably the closest we can get.

Did I do that?

You're also making a lot of assumptions from what I'm saying. You CAN compare the Playstation brand to Mario because my argument was about brand recognition. Consumers know exactly what they're getting when they see those names. I didn't say anything or allude to "Nintendo not being strong enough without Mario", and I'm not sure how you're getting that idea from what I typed. Branding, especially in this day and age, is essential.

How do you compare them? Mario isn't a brand.

 

What is it you think consumers know they are getting when they see the PlayStation brand?... is there something? And if so, how is it different to whatever consumers might know what they are getting with the Nintendo brand name? Surely then the Nintendo name should be able to sell a New IP.

 

Nintendo used to have the 'Nintendo Seal of Quality'... if you saw the name Nintendo, you knew the product would be fantastic, and that was enough for all of their franchises back in the NES/SNES days to sell. People saw the Nintendo name associated to a game and therefore they bought F-Zero, Ice Climbers, Metroid, Kid Icarus etc... It didn't have to be Mario.

 

Maybe that is something which has been lost over time. Consumers these days associate the Mario name with Quality, and not the Nintendo name itself?

 

---

 

@Jonnas Mario Sunshine didn't really try and do anything! It was a laughable attempt, with absolutely no plot and terrible voice over work... you can't compare it seriously to anything. With the Mario name, Nintendo could seriously aim for Pixar levels of quality if they wanted too. It also didn't help that Sunshine took place outside of the Mushroom Kingdom where all the charm and the characters of the Mario universe are.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Retro_Link

[Fierce_LiNk]

I'll make this my last post, because there's not really a lot more I think I can say on the subject, and I fear we're making it into a conversation with only a few people. Best to open it out.

 

Why aren't they doing both of these within one Mario RPG franchise though?... sure fans would complain now because both those series are long established, but back when they were both conceived there must have been the option to have either created a new IP from one, or attach it to another franchise.

 

You've said it right there, they are both established, and for good reasons. These are good games that we are talking about here. If we were talking about proper shovelware, then I'd agree with you. But, these are good games and consistently good games, so I can't agree. Why just get rid of a series when the games are good, it doesn't make a lot of sense. For the sake of it not being Mario? That's not being innovative at all, that's forcing change for the sake of being different, rather than actually trying to make something better.

 

Actually for Nintendo I think it is relatively simple at least. Nintendo could have an instant hit on it's hands with 'Smash Bros Kart' for example. However, that maybe has too much potential and could actually overshadow Mario Kart.

 

If they made a Smash Bros Kart or something, it would be interesting, but then it's cannibalising its own market. If they're going to do a racer, it needs to be different. F Zero, ExciteTruck, Wave Racer, 1080, Mario Kart are all different. That's the beauty of gaming, you can have one genre but so drastically different games.

 

However, I would argue that Rare did 'make a racing series that can come up and rival Mario Kart' in just one single instalment with Diddy Kong Racing. It can be done. And that didn't even have Donkey Kong in it, it had Diddy Kong and a whole host of entirely new characters! But look at how fondly it's remembered! Nintendo could do the same [and with the DK brand too if they wanted]. Yes whatever this second racer was might not instantly have the same draw and worldwide recognition as a Mario Kart... but not every game Nintendo puts out has too! It's equally important to stop a franchise getting stale; Mario Kart is also another series which fans are getting somewhat tired of.

 

You're probably speaking to the wrong person about Diddy Kong Racing, as I hated it. But, I appreciate that it did try to do something similar but different. In this case, this is where Nintendo need to be talking to the likes of Monster and Retro and asking them to create racers, like Rare did with DKRacing.

 

How about a Starfox racer, which takes the Arwing/Landmaster/BlueMarine vehicle concept, and has tracks which transverse Space/Sky/Land/Underwater. It would be awesome to be racing through space, and then suddenly dive bomb straight down through a planets atmosphere and straight into the ocean, and then you jump out on to land etc...

 

Or how about Nintendo put the money behind a proper Pokémon racer where you pick from a human character in the series (Ash, Misty Brock, Oak, Team Rocket... whoever else there's been in the series since I stopped watching), and ride on the back of Pokémon, again across tracks of land/sky/sea, or tracks with allow for all like DKR. IMO that could be an instant smash hit!

 

See, I don't agree with any of those ideas at all. Gamers don't want a Starfox Racer, just like they didn't really want a Starfox Adventures type game. Lylat Wars and Staring were incredible for a reason, and we've not real sequels to that. The last thing I'd want to see if Starfox's name getting dragged through the mud (again) and getting put into a game that isn't suited to it.

 

Not really a fan of that Pokemon idea either. But, speaking of Pokemon, why not do that Pokemon MMORPG that has been talked about for years? That would be worth looking into because its keeping the franchise true to its roots whilst also evolving it naturally and expanding it in a fun and creative way.

 

Maybe this is just me being selfish... but to keep their fans interested?

Mario Galaxy isn't the same game as Mario 64 was, that series has evolved significantly with each console. Yes this is partly because it's often the series used to showcases the new hardware... but why can't other series do this?

 

Do you remember when we were all dreaming about what Paper Mario on the 3DS might be when it was first announced. How you might use the slider and switch from 2D to 3D for puzzles. OK maybe this wasn't achievable I don't know... but I don't really see what Paper Mario 3DS did for the series. It didn't really take advantage of the extra power or capabilities of the hardware. How about trading stickers through street pass at the very least to unlock new areas in the game.

 

I've not played it yet, neither has @Eenuh. It seems interesting, but I wouldn't rule out another one in the future that does something much differently to this one. Also, the problem with your idea with Street Pass is that you're then making it fundamental to the gameplay, which would make certain areas of the game unachievable for a lot of people. (ie, if they can't street pass, they can't progress). It's quite a dangerous tactic to do that.

 

I don't know if you've said it out right, but you're saying it's alright for Mario to be used over and over in so many games because they are different genre's. I get that. But the over reliance on the Mario brand is tiresome IMO.

Of course it would, because that's a long established franchise, and one which was built on Mario. You couldn't take the Mario out of Mario Kart without stopping the franchise. What you could do however is when creating a new concept, not apply the Mario World to it in the first place.

 

I don't mind the Mario brand being used for it as long as the games are good and it "fits". Honestly, that's what we all want. The only problems in recent years have been the New Super Mario Bros. games, which I think everyone agrees on. Mario isn't really the problem in Mario Kart, he's not the reason the games are getting stick, they're getting bad press because they lack certain features, are not evolving enough, have un-interesting track designs, etc. So, as far as I'm concerned, Nintendo have other problems. Like Zelda, Link isn't the problem in that series, the story-telling and exploration need looking at.

 

Did I do that?

How do you compare them? Mario isn't a brand.

 

That's where I disagree. I would consider Mario a brand, and a very powerful one.

 

What is it you think consumers know they are getting when they see the PlayStation brand?... is there something? And if so, how is it different to whatever consumers might know what they are getting with the Nintendo brand name? Surely then the Nintendo name should be able to sell a New IP.

 

The Nintendo name will help to sell new IPs, but to get to Mario's level of sales and recognition takes years and years of hard work, it's not something you can easily replicate. Plus, that has been going on for decades now.

The consumers know with a PlayStation console that they are getting a certain level of quality. They know it's not some other new competitor, they associate it with their experiences which they had with the previous PlayStation consoles. They know that with the PlayStation you are getting more than a console, you're getting a media system (with features such as the Blu-ray player, like PS2 had DVD).

 

Nintendo used to have the 'Nintendo Seal of Quality'... if you saw the name Nintendo, you knew the product would be fantastic, and that was enough for all of their franchises back in the NES/SNES days to sell. People saw the Nintendo name associated to a game and therefore they bought F-Zero, Ice Climbers, Metroid, Kid Icarus etc... It didn't have to be Mario.

 

There are still plenty of people out there who will see the name Kid Icarus and go ballistic. But, it doesn't really have a mass-market appeal. None of those games you mentioned have it. By mass-market, we're thinking stuff like Fifa, which just sells and sells. F Zero will never do that unless something drastic happens. Back in the NES/SNES days, gaming didn't have the huge appeal that it does now. Nowadays anyone can game, it's different, and Nintendo has adapted to that. They've used certain franchises in accordance with that (Animal Crossing being a massive, massive one)

 

Maybe that is something which has been lost over time. Consumers these days associate the Mario name with Quality, and not the Nintendo name itself?

 

If that were true, the Wii would have sold millions less. It's not true, with the Nintendo name, you still have that idea of a quality gaming company. But, what we have to understand is that not every person out there who plays games will be interested in a game like Metroid. Can you imagine the first casual gamer you find on the street picking up something like Metroid Prime and loving it? Or playing Kid Icarus: Uprising and playing that on their Friday night? Certain games have mass appeal, certain don't.

[Grazza]

Re: Skyward Sword, I'm pretty glad it wasn't as big a hit as the others, to be honest. That would send the message it was the way forward (which I don't think it was). Pleasant-enough game for the most part, yes, but shouldn't be the future.

 

Maybe people just didn't want to play it? Every Zelda fan I meet in real life loves Ocarina of Time, and they bothered to play Twilight Princess (GameCube version), but they just will not entertain anything that uses motion control, and I can't blame them. That's actually the sensible thing to do - not buy something you don't like.

 

The point here is that Skyward Sword does not prove "hardcore" or "real" Nintendo fans no longer exist, and the only people left just want Mario. The real fans do exist, but will only buy the games and systems if the quality is there.

 

Err... They have made all of the Wario Ware titles (alongside IS on most of them) you know...

 

Also they did kinda release a co-developed Metroid game just 2.5 years back...

 

You're only telling me things I know. For one thing, I said 2D Metroid. Secondly, I know they always make Wario games, but they make far more of them than 2D Metroids. We haven't had one of those since the GBA. That's the whole point of this discussion - everything has to relate to Mario nowadays.

[Cube]

The spin-offs and brand promotion helped achieve this.

Then Sega stops relying on him so much, and the Sega Saturn does so bad to the point that the Dreamcast needed a ton of luck to keep itself on the market.

 

It wasn't thought choice. They simply couldn't work out how to so Sonic in 3D - the biggest problem being the speed. When they did come up with something, someone forgot to ask the guy who created the game engine they used (Nights) permission to use it, and the game got cancelled due to that.

 

There's also an explorable hub in Sonic Jam - this was going to be the big Sonic game for the Saturn, but they decided to quickly move to the Dreamcast. As a result, this unfinished game was used in a compilation of older titles. The idea was used for Sonic Adventure.

 

Still, one thing about Sonic spin-offs: Most of them are terrible. Sonic Spinball and the recent kart games stand out, but most - Sonic R, Sonic the Fighters, that hoverboard one - are downright awful. At least the Mario spin-offs are usually pretty well made.

[Dcubed]

You're only telling me things I know. For one thing, I said 2D Metroid. Secondly, I know they always make Wario games, but they make far more of them than 2D Metroids. We haven't had one of those since the GBA. That's the whole point of this discussion - everything has to relate to Mario nowadays.

 

So what's weird about it? It's perfectly normal.

 

They had to develop MOM with Team Ninja because they don't have the necessary experience in making 3D games. They've always primarily been a studio who makes 2D games, or games with basic 3D graphics and mostly 2D gameplay - though with the recent restructuring that combines SPD and EAD under one roof, perhaps that'll finally change?

[Grazza]

So what's weird about it? It's perfectly normal.

 

I didn't say it was weird. My point is it's not very good. Nintendo has a team that was excellent at making a certain type of game (2D Metroid), but now they don't get a chance to make that type of game and instead mainly make games that relate to Mario (ie. Wario).

 

If you can't understand that, you're overcomplicating things for the sake of it.

[Dcubed]

I didn't say it was weird. My point is it's not very good. Nintendo has a team that was excellent at making a certain type of game (2D Metroid), but now they don't get a chance to make that type of game and instead mainly make games that relate to Mario (ie. Wario).

 

If you can't understand that, you're overcomplicating things for the sake of it.

 

They just made one though! (Or are you really going to try and say that MOM doesn't feature 2D style gameplay?) They've also made plenty of other non-Wario games recently like Rhythm Heaven, RHF, Kiki Trick, AR Games and Tomodachi Collection.

 

They also collaborated on Xenoblade, Sin & Punishment 2 and co-ordinated with Monolith on Skyward Sword.

 

Seems to me that they've done quite a few "core" titles that aren't Wario related recently

Edited February 17, 2013 by Dcubed

[Grazza]

They just made one though! (Or are you really going to try and say that MOM doesn't feature 2D style gameplay?)

 

It is absolutely not a 2D game.

 

They've also made plenty of other non-Wario games recently like Rhythm Heaven, RHF, Kiki Trick, AR Games and Tomodachi Collection.

 

They also collaborated on Xenoblade, Sin & Punishment 2 and co-ordinated with Monolith on Skyward Sword.

 

Seems to me that they've done quite a few "core" titles that aren't Wario related recently

 

Well done. You've just proven that they've been helping out on various games, rather than sitting there twiddling their thumbs. Who'd have thought?

[Dcubed]

It is absolutely not a 2D game.

 

 

 

Well done. You've just proven that they've been helping out on various games, rather than sitting there twiddling their thumbs. Who'd have thought?

 

It still features the same type of acrobatic, 3rd person gameplay, just translated into 3D space (and with plenty of 2D sidescrolling sections)

 

It also proves that they do still make those kinds of games, so Game & Wario is hardly the only type of game they make these days...

[Jonnas]

Why aren't they doing both of these within one Mario RPG franchise though?... sure fans would complain now because both those series are long established, but back when they were both conceived there must have been the option to have either created a new IP from one, or attach it to another franchise.

 

Mario&Luigi, as a concept, kind of depends on both Mario brothers. Or at least two characters with similar, yet distinct personalities.

Paper Mario is a bit harder to say, considering the first game was all about transferring the usual Mario formula to the newfound "Paper RPG" genre.

 

I don't think either series would have lift off without the Mario name, though.

 

Did I do that?

How do you compare them? Mario isn't a brand.

 

What is it you think consumers know they are getting when they see the PlayStation brand?... is there something? And if so, how is it different to whatever consumers might know what they are getting with the Nintendo brand name? Surely then the Nintendo name should be able to sell a New IP.

 

Mario is a brand in the same vein that Mickey Mouse is a brand. Where the mascot manages to have a larger fame and broader appeal than the company that made them.

 

It's about brand recognition, not brand quality (Mickey continued to stay famous even though he barely appeared in any genuinely new material for decades). "Nintendo" as a brand pretty much Mario, Wii and DS in the eyes of the average consumer, and Mario, Zelda & Wii Sports are the recognizable, "you know what you're getting guaranteed" franchises.

 

Basically, when it comes to brand recognition, "Nintendo" is a rather grey area, since it's not always associated with the products they sell. For example, Pokémon is not usually associated with Nintendo. Xenoblade pretty much belongs to Nintendo, but even in this forum there are people that didn't realize it. Meanwhile, games like Mole Mania, Drill Dozer and Mother/Earthbound are pretty much niche. The Nintendo brand didn't do much for those.

 

Nintendo used to have the 'Nintendo Seal of Quality'... if you saw the name Nintendo, you knew the product would be fantastic, and that was enough for all of their franchises back in the NES/SNES days to sell. People saw the Nintendo name associated to a game and therefore they bought F-Zero, Ice Climbers, Metroid, Kid Icarus etc... It didn't have to be Mario.

 

Maybe that is something which has been lost over time. Consumers these days associate the Mario name with Quality, and not the Nintendo name itself?

 

Didn't the Seal of Quality simply refer to the actual quality of the physical product (as in, the guarantee that the game wasn't a bootleg)?

 

Mario Sunshine didn't really try and do anything! It was a laughable attempt, with absolutely no plot and terrible voice over work... you can't compare it seriously to anything. With the Mario name, Nintendo could seriously aim for Pixar levels of quality if they wanted too. It also didn't help that Sunshine took place outside of the Mushroom Kingdom where all the charm and the characters of the Mario universe are.

 

I think you're missing what I mean. I'm not referring to the ridiculous plot or the bad voice acting, I'm referring to the fact that they interrupt the game. Every single time I tried to have a guest play the game, they'd quit due to the amount of times they would have to watch cutscenes and read dialogue. By comparison, Mario Galaxy has a couple of dialogue-less cutscenes at the beginning, and the rest of the dialogue you see are either quick instructions on how the game works, or optional. In Mario 64, everything's easily skippable dialogue. By adding cutscenes, and necessary NPC dialogue, it breaks the flow of the game.

 

They could try something like De Blob though, where Pixar-like cutscenes introduce each level. But I don't think this is Nintendo's focus or expertise.

 

Also, the fact that Sunshine was in a tropical island has nothing to do with this. The Mushroom Kingdom is already wacky and inconsistent as it is.

 

It wasn't thought choice. They simply couldn't work out how to so Sonic in 3D - the biggest problem being the speed. When they did come up with something, someone forgot to ask the guy who created the game engine they used (Nights) permission to use it, and the game got cancelled due to that.

 

There's also an explorable hub in Sonic Jam - this was going to be the big Sonic game for the Saturn, but they decided to quickly move to the Dreamcast. As a result, this unfinished game was used in a compilation of older titles. The idea was used for Sonic Adventure.

 

Interesting, I didn't know about this. I thought Sega was simply trying to broaden their focus and audience during this time.

 

(Also, totally agree with you regarding spin-off quality, since I was also including trite like the Game Gear spin-offs. Still, the guy's overrepresentation helped cement his place in pop culture industry)

[Agent Gibbs]

I can't really add anything much to this discussion as most points have been made

 

There is too much mario, they need to have less of him in games per console (in general) changing types of game doesn't necessarily make it not a mario game and to the average person it seems a deluge of mario

 

I think 2d Mario games need to drop NEW from the title, it was fine for the first NEW game now it needs to go.

They should also be kept to handhelds and preferable be allowed to be played on the wiiu pad, maybe even with a monster hunter style save swapping function to continue the action from one to the other.

They also need to be longer, Super Mario World length basically (they've been a little too short lately, NSMBU was longer but still too short)

 

3D mario need to be on Consoles and/or 1 per generation of handheld.

 

I'd like to see a New Super Mario RPG, done in a 3D world on either a console or handheld, or a 3D Mario and Luigi on a console

 

Paper Mario needs to go away until they fix it (sticker star was a further departure to what people loved...an rpg)

 

we don't need mario:golf,tennis, soccer, wrestling, volley ball etc, those types of games could be done with new characters as a new ip or using the WiiSports brand, changing the character models away from Mario won't ruin the game

 

if were going to have a mario spin off game, let it be mario party

 

how about if they want to use "mario" characters, they do more NEW Yoshi's world games (and not rehashes with new babies) or more Wario Land games - hell lets have a Wario World game

 

I'm getting sick of Mario's smug grin