MarioWiki Poll Discussion

The Doctor said:

Sure, you won't have as much as the players who spend money on it,

Click to expand...

Therein lies the crux of your argument, and the aforementioned predatory monetization schemes. Weaponizing FOMO and taking advantage of addictive personalities, lots of them belonging to minors, in an attempt to maximize profits. Gacha is a scam.

You don't need to defend Nintendo. They will neither thank you nor care. Nintendo is a for-profit company, not a cuddly, well-meaning friend.

Dr. R. Bushroot said:

Therein lies the crux of your argument, and the aforementioned predatory monetization schemes. Weaponizing FOMO and taking advantage of addictive personalities, lots of them belonging to minors, in an attempt to maximize profits. Gacha is a scam.

Click to expand...

I kinda should've worded that better, I'm sorry.

While I do agree that the monetization schemes seem wack, there are ways to prevent addictive personalities and FOMO. One way is to establish limits on how much you play and blocking in-app purchases. This is a feature that everyone can use so they don't get greedy and spend money on every little item the game offers.

Since we're on the subject of gacha games, I'd like to bring a personal example to my side: I play the game Looney Tunes: World of Mayhem, a free RPG mobile game where you can get characters and level them up to fight in battles. Similar to Mario Kart Tour, the game has events constantly with new characters being added every week.

You can achieve these new characters by playing the game normally. No microtransactions, no cheap tricks, just playing in the event campaigns and doing challenges will allow you unlock the character.

I can honestly say that I have never spent a single penny on the game. My team with 78000 power was built from events, playing the campaigns, and completing challenges.

Do I play the game every day? Yes, but I only play it for a little bit in the morning before I go to school. I don't touch it for the rest of the day. Just today, I unlocked two new characters through events, and even got enough event currency to unlock another character.

If I miss a character, I don't shell out money to get them, I just move on to the next event and keep playing, knowing that the character will be available again in the future.

And this is a free to play game. I haven't spent any real money on it and I'm doing good. I know that this is a Mario forum, but I wanted to share my experience playing WOM so you can get (hopefully) what I was trying to say in regards to the discussion on MKT's (admittedly) horrible microtransactions.

Having a purposefully unfinished at beginning game every now and then isn't bad; it's when that's all any of the new games are that is when it gets much more problematic.

Alright, here is the major surprise I mentioned: A complete updating of the chart I started during my February 'Shroom section on the Poll Committee Discussion, the Unanimity section. This ranks all of the most popular options from polls and all of the least popular options from polls on the 12th Poll Committee, from most popular to least popular and most unpopular to least unpopular respectively. The final poll, based on whether voters had played certain Nintendo franchises, is wonky in terms of using IPs instead of voters, so I will show results both with and without it.

Gonna spoil both because there's quite a bit of course.

The Doctor said:

While I do agree that the monetization schemes seem wack, there are ways to prevent addictive personalities and FOMO. One way is to establish limits on how much you play and blocking in-app purchases. This is a feature that everyone can use so they don't get greedy and spend money on every little item the game offers.

Click to expand...

On a very general surface level sentiment, people should take an effort to try to track and curtail their spending such as general goods, and people shouldn't be spending too much time playing video games to the point of skipping meals and suffering from dehydration, you have to know there's the other side of the equation, and it's how the game is designed to wear down the psychological barriers you have to get you to spend. Always remember the game is designed by people who study general human psychology, and the game itself is extremely calculating. You're up against masters of trickery and deceit, and they know most people would be initially resistant to the idea of spending, but all it takes for people to get involved is to spend ANY amount of money in the game to get people now realize they made an investment and need to make their spending WORTH it, and then try to hook them more with event passes and whatnot.

The convoluted currencies and extremely confusing menus and shops are for a reason (and why our wiki page is a disgusting monster of a page on events and currencies rather than a page about a kart racer), it's to obfuscate and confuse people so they can't figure out the real price of the things they're paying for. It's no accident those ruby bundles, for instance, those aren't random numbers, those are numbers designed to get you spending an optimal amount, but not too much and not actually the amount you need for the most efficient spending.

Even if you're completely unaffected by all those psychological tugs and you still find fun in Mario Kart Tour, keep in mind you are not the target demographic they're trying to prey on. Belgium banned this game not because it's some sort of meanie pants but there are authors of a study who are acutely aware of the gambling tricks, study and research very intensively about the surrounding context of the game, study the design of these mobile games, and found this game running afoul of gambling laws.

Finally the argument that people need to take steps to just not be addicted reminds me of the arguments that people with ADHD just need to "try harder" and "remember stuff" and "learn good behaviors". It's true that we should always strive to be better, but that argument can easily overstep into "you're not trying hard enough" and overall disrespecting and downplaying the significant struggles of ADHD, that it is something you can unlearn and overcome the struggles. I don't think you truly understand the psychological torrents that run in addiction, and I don't either but I read stories of addicts falling prey and I believe them.

---

I do not like Nintendo's current practice of releasing these inadequate games and then drip-feeding updates later. I want to like Battle League but it's not worth the money. I know it sold well but I can only imagine it'll encourage Nintendo to continue making these half-hearted attempts of sports games. I don't fully buy the HD costs of games argument. I feel it's a grain of truth, but I find it a tough swallow to think developers can plead poverty exactly.

I voted I like it, because regular updates keep the game relevant and people play for longer. (Option 3)

I felt that the trend in updating the game long-term is mainly used for the Mario sports games, if we are only focusing on the Mario series. To which I can understand, because Mario sports titles are typically not strong sellers compared to many of the Mario stuff. With Mario Kart and Mario Party, they have a stronger online presence, so they can justify the one-and-done approach and still have a long-term impact, even if they will eventually have additional content down the line.

Now, it's certainly optimal if a game has all the available content at launch, because that would be more time to explore. But unlike Mario Kart and Mario Party, the Mario sports titles are kind of riskier in that aspect, because if they did not have a high-enough reach, then later-purchasers might have a more difficult time encountering others to play with. I am not sure how easily you can encounter others to play online with Mario Golf: World Tour, but with that game selling less than a million, it might be kind of difficult.

In terms of games where I felt that the long-term update is a good approach, Mario Tennis Aces strikes to mind. The reason being that, being a game focused around 1 vs. 1 matches and a huge roster even from the start, there will inevitably be a need to balance things out so that a character is not necessarily dominant and overused as a result. The updates can help to gradually smoothen out any weaker or stronger parts in the characters, like how Bowser Jr. (and to a lesser extent Waluigi) used to be a dominant force for being too defensive. And then there's of course the Super Mario Maker series, which while is not a sports series, its course creation is versatile that even if there is seemingly not much tools at the beginning, what's currently available would keep players/creators busy.

I am not sure about if this approach fits Mario Strikers: Battle League well, but maybe it could've started things with more content, like I guess starting it with the first update (the one that added Daisy and Shy Guy) alongside.

So basically, I think the approach is not a dealbreaker, and in some scenarios, it is a good way to keep the engagement a bit longer.

Thank you for reading.

If this is discouraged for me to do right now just let me know in a diplomatic manner


Out of the video games you've played recently, how many of them were Mario games?
-I only play Mario games.
-Almost every video game I play is a Mario game.
-I mostly play Mario games, but sometimes I try games from other series.
-I play a good mix of Mario games and non-Mario games.
-I usually play non-Mario games, but sometimes play Mario games.
-I almost never play Mario games.
-I never play Mario games.
-I don't play video games enough to know.

Really close between Option 4 and Option 5 for me but I picked Option 5 because the game I'm predominantly playing right now is Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Justice For All with some EarthBound every now and then, but I'm also playing Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze

Option 5. Mario hasn't really been occupying my gaming sessions that much lately (outside of Mario Party), though I do play Mario sometimes when other games don't have my constant attention.

@Herlock Sholmes, was it intentional to leave the option for Mario Kart: Super Circuit out on the new poll? I'm just asking because twelve options were possible for the Nintendo IP poll, plus Super Circuit seems more important than say the Arcade GP games at least considering it's more main series, so it doesn't seem like there'd be a reason to exclude it.

it's because i think that game sucks dick

no actually it was just an error while copying, it's added now and you can pick it if you want, thanks

I've only played Mario Kart 8 (the original Wii U version.) and Super Mario Kart. I also have Mario Kart Wii, but I've never played it. I'm not a big fan of racing games in general, since I tend to suck at them unless they're in Mario Party, or either Sonic and All Stars Racing Transformed or CNK (specifically the GameCube version.)

I've played every Mario Kart except for Tour and Live:Home Circuit. Some of them I've played more than others for sure but I've still played them nonetheless.

I have Wii, 7, and 8 (not Deluxe). Also played the original SMK once on NSO and it sucked lol

Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe are great, I tried Mario Kart Tour once and did not find it enjoyable. Super Mario Kart is meh and I've only played Mario Kart DS once

I've played all except Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit. (The only Arcade GP game I've played was the one at a Chuck E. Cheese over 10 years ago, I don't remember which installment though)

With both Microsoft and Sony porting formerly console-exclusive titles to PC, how do you think Nintendo should handle other platforms going forward?
-They should port their games on as many platforms as possible.
-They should port their games to other platforms but with a period of timed exclusivity.
-No first-party ports, but I would be okay if third-party developed games (Mario + Rabbids, etc.) came to other platforms.
-No ports, but creating games specific to other platforms (Super Mario Run, Mario Kart Tour, etc.) is fine.
-Nintendo games should remain exclusive to Nintendo platforms.
-I have no opinion on this matter.

Might not be the sexiest option but Option 4 for me; if Nintendo rereleases games on different consoles that could make them seem desperate and hurt sales for their own consoles, though an occasional iOS exclusive release is fine.

Nico di Angelo said:

View attachment 29976
With both Microsoft and Sony porting formerly console-exclusive titles to PC, how do you think Nintendo should handle other platforms going forward?
-They should port their games on as many platforms as possible.
-They should port their games to other platforms but with a period of timed exclusivity.
-No first-party ports, but I would be okay if third-party developed games (Mario + Rabbids, etc.) came to other platforms.
-No ports, but creating games specific to other platforms (Super Mario Run, Mario Kart Tour, etc.) is fine.
-Nintendo games should remain exclusive to Nintendo platforms.
-I have no opinion on this matter.

Might not be the sexiest option but Option 4 for me; if Nintendo rereleases games on different consoles that could make them seem desparate and hurt sales for their own consoles, though an occasional iOS exclusive release is fine.

Click to expand...

Option 5. Nintendo doesn't deserve to release games on platforms that aren't mobile. And they should always strive to not be like Sonic (who went 3rd party after Sega left the console market) and Crash (who went multi-platform ever since Wrath of Cortex released.)

Option 6. I don't have any non-Nintendo consoles and I'm not too big on PC gaming, so I'd rather just play the games on the console they're originally developed for. I don't see my personal preference as a reason for Nintendo not to port at all (though let's be honest this isn't very likely).

I'm... not going to touch this particular poll discussion with a ten-foot pole, I'll see you guys on the next poll.

DarkAdorable said:

I'm... not going to touch this particular poll discussion with a ten-foot pole, I'll see you guys on the next poll.

Click to expand...

Option 3, Nintendo should keep the big hitters exclusive to their system, but it wouldn't hurt them if they did port a few third party titles.

I'm a hardline Option 1, not because I feel like everyone should be able to play their games, but because the Switch hardware is profoundly terrible and I would rather play games on literally anything else

New poll, this time discussing different character playstyles in the mainline Super Mario series.

Do you enjoy when platformers such as Super Mario 3D World feature playable characters with unique abilities?

• I enjoy it, but would prefer if there was more focus on characters having unique abilities and mechanics.
• I enjoy it, as long as all of the characters have a relatively similar playstyle otherwise.
• I enjoy it, as long as there are no characters whose abilities are much better or much worse than the other characters.
• I enjoy it, as long as any player can choose any character that they want, even in multiplayer.
• I enjoy it, as long as players aren't forced to play as characters that make the game much easier (i.e. Nabbit in New Super Luigi U).
• I do not like it and would prefer all playable characters to have the exact same abilities.
• I do not like it and would prefer games to only have one playable character, with recolors of them for multiplayer modes.
• I care more about which characters are included than their abilities.
• I have no opinion.

Personally, a lot of the games I enjoy feature characters with playstyles that makes them stand out from the standard default, especially in cases where it makes level design and enemy design shine by allowing characters with different mechanics to traverse them in unique ways. I also enjoy having a "challenging" option, such as a character that is sort of weird to play but rewarding if you learn their mechanics.

It's option 1 for me, boys.

Option 1 for similar reasons. I think it would be neat since it's not really something that's been done much in the franchise, barring maybe Donkey Kong 64 I guess? There's also Super Mario 64 DS but I don't think that game really takes advantage of it well, since the maps for the most part were originally designed for just Mario, and they justified the existence of the other characters more by splitting up Mario's original powerset and doing things like "yeah let's just drop a Wario block here". So I think a game designed with multiple characters with different playstyles in mind could be pretty cool.

Options 4-5. I like having a wide array of characters to play as, but people shouldn't be forced to play as characters they have no empathy for/don't like at all.

One thing I've noticed is that there's a bit of overlap on this one. For example, one could think either Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3, and still think Option 4 or Option 5. Any person voting Option 4, wanting players allowed to choose any character they want would also think Option 5 too, being against forcing players to use easier characters. In fact this might be one where I'm not sure I can vote as just one choice considering I definitely think each Options 3-5, and would say I think Option 1 as well.