If Nintendo didn't own Mario...

Remilia Bloody Scarlet said:
How about coming up with a more valid retort rather than nitpicking terminology?
Click to expand...
Okay, I got one, although I agree with you. What about the companies that strictly focus to shooting gore-fests? What if Mario was with one of them, not like the companies you listed?
 
People have made way too many comments about that situation as is; that's what me post was about, to end the constant "Mario would be a bloodbath!" posts. But whatever, they've mostly been stupid so I'll bite, but first I want to mention that not all shooter games are hypermasculine gore-fests with an arrogant fanbase; there is blood and violence in almost all of them, yes, but some developers use it for realism, however loose (some better than others, like Red Dead Redemption and Modern Warfare), some use it for horror effect (like in Silent Hill and Condemned) and some use it for shits and giggles (like in Team Fortress 2 and Serious Sam). So I want to see an end to all this generalization of the shooter genre, because ye're talking about a massive genre with a wide variety of different styles and premises (this comment isn't directed squarely at ye, Doofen-whatever, I just thought it was a good chance to set the record straight).

Now, if Mario were hypothetically owned by a company focused primarily on shooter games, then it could have been anything, really. It could've been grounded in real Italian history, such as the Italian Wars or, more likely, World War II. It could've been a space marine series built on Italian-American stereotypes. It could've been a mafia sandbox-style shooter set in the 1920s. It could have been set in a downright silly and gleefully inaccurate alternate history version of Italy or a fantasy world based on Renaissance art. If it were more stealth-based, it could have been something like Assassin's Creed II, perhaps.

I'm kinda tired right now, so I can't think of more silly Mario shooter possibilities. But hopefully that satisfies yer curiosity or whatever it was ye wanted from me response.
 
Remilia Bloody Scarlet said:
People have made way too many comments about that situation as is; that's what me post was about, to end the constant "Mario would be a bloodbath!" posts. But whatever, they've mostly been stupid so I'll bite, but first I want to mention that not all shooter games are hypermasculine gore-fests with an arrogant fanbase; there is blood and violence in almost all of them, yes, but some developers use it for realism, however loose (some better than others, like Red Dead Redemption and Modern Warfare), some use it for horror effect (like in Silent Hill and Condemned) and some use it for *bleep*s and giggles (like in Team Fortress 2 and Serious Sam). So I want to see an end to all this generalization of the shooter genre, because ye're talking about a massive genre with a wide variety of different styles and premises (this comment isn't directed squarely at ye, Doofen-whatever, I just thought it was a good chance to set the record straight).

Now, if Mario were hypothetically owned by a company focused primarily on shooter games, then it could have been anything, really. It could've been grounded in real Italian history, such as the Italian Wars or, more likely, World War II. It could've been a space marine series based around Italian-American stereotypes. It could've been a mafia sandbox-style shooter set in the 1920s. It could have been set in a downright silly and gleefully inaccurate alternate history version of Italy or a fantasy world based on Renaissance art. If it were more stealth-based, it could have been something like Assassin's Creed II, perhaps.

I'm kinda tired right now, so I can't think of more silly Mario shooter possibilities. But hopefully that satisfies yer curiosity or whatever it was ye wanted from me response.
Click to expand...
That's actually a very good answer. And it's Doofenshmirtz.
 
Besides, the majority of companies that are not Nintendo are not focused on shooters
 
Baby Luigi said:
Besides, the majority of companies that are not Nintendo are not focused on shooters
Click to expand...
Nintendo like to take different areas of types of games so there is something for everyone not like those shooter and Driving games for XBox 360 or Playstation 3.
 
Dr. Eggman said:
Baby Luigi said:
Besides, the majority of companies that are not Nintendo are not focused on shooters
Click to expand...
Nintendo like to take different areas of types of games so there is something for everyone not like those shooter and Driving games for XBox 360 or Playstation 3.
Click to expand...

Again, Nintendo is not the only producer that makes different games. The Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have plenty of games that aren't shooters or driving games. Fighting games for example are pretty much exclusive to those consoles. The Wii only has Super Smash Brothers Brawl and fighting game spin-offs. Sega produces Sonic games and other popular family games on every console, not just the Wii. Also, many people (me included) would disagree with the Wii having different types of games on it. Most people consider the Wii to have casual games on it, so it lacks content for the more hardcore gamers. And before someone says it, a game does not have to be violent and "realistic" to be hardcore.
 
To this day, I still question the meaning of "hardcore" and "casual"
 
Hardcore is Platform, Shooter, RPG, Racing, Sports, and other stuff like that.
Casual is mainly Puzzles, but some other gerne's should fit in that as well.
 
Dr. Eggman said:
Nintendo like to take different areas of types of games so there is something for everyone not like those shooter and Driving games for XBox 360 or Playstation 3.
Click to expand...
Did ye not pay attention to me long rant at all? There are so many different genre styles on non-Nintendo consoles (and some barely touched by Nintendo at all, such as fighting games, as Leonyx mentioned earlier), not just "shooter and driving" games (even tho many are actually quite good and interesting, although it seems ye'd rather not admit that); that was one of the many points I was making, but ye seem to want to ignore them all completely!

Your implication that Nintendo are the only ones with a wide variety of genres on their consoles (which isn't even the case with the bland Wii) is hilariously ignorant. Are ye even trying anymore?
 
YamiHoshi.nl said:
Hardcore is Platform, Shooter, RPG, Racing, Sports, and other stuff like that.
Casual is mainly Puzzles, but some other gerne's should fit in that as well.
Click to expand...
So you don't consider Prof. Layton hardcore?
 
Doofenshmirtz Evil said:
YamiHoshi.nl said:
Hardcore is Platform, Shooter, RPG, Racing, Sports, and other stuff like that.
Casual is mainly Puzzles, but some other gerne's should fit in that as well.
Click to expand...
So you don't consider Prof. Layton hardcore?
Click to expand...
I agree with Brother Doofenshmirtz Evil, Inc. Puzzle is everything both casual and hardcore
 
Brother Love said:
Doofenshmirtz Evil said:
YamiHoshi.nl said:
Hardcore is Platform, Shooter, RPG, Racing, Sports, and other stuff like that.
Casual is mainly Puzzles, but some other gerne's should fit in that as well.
Click to expand...
So you don't consider Prof. Layton hardcore?
Click to expand...
I agree with Brother Doofenshmirtz Evil, Inc. Puzzle is everything both casual and hardcore
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the puzzle game. If it's Ace Attorney or Professor Layton, it's hardcore. But if it's Brain Age or a Sesame Street-licenced game, it's casual.
 
YamiHoshi.nl said:
Hardcore is Platform, Shooter, RPG, Racing, Sports, and other stuff like that.
Casual is mainly Puzzles, but some other gerne's should fit in that as well.
Click to expand...
"Casual" refers to the way games are played. Playing a game "casually" refers to playing them in short bursts, rather than hours on end. You can play games meant to be "hardcore" casually depending on your life.

Casual gamers refer to people who view games as a recreational activity, something that can be used to waste time. Like crossword puzzles or sudoku, or board games.
 
Doofenshmirtz Evil said:
Brother Love said:
Doofenshmirtz Evil said:
YamiHoshi.nl said:
Hardcore is Platform, Shooter, RPG, Racing, Sports, and other stuff like that.
Casual is mainly Puzzles, but some other gerne's should fit in that as well.
Click to expand...
So you don't consider Prof. Layton hardcore?
Click to expand...
I agree with Brother Doofenshmirtz Evil, Inc. Puzzle is everything both casual and hardcore
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the puzzle game. If it's Ace Attorney or Professor Layton, it's hardcore. But if it's Brain Age or a Sesame Street-licenced game, it's casual.
Click to expand...

I've never played Ace Attorney, but I would definitely consider Professor Layton as a casual game. It's very difficult sometimes, but that does not make it hardcore.

I wouldn't call all puzzle games casual though. It depends on the game. Pokemon Puzzle League is a game I'd consider hardcore.
 
I don't categorize games like that. I just call them, "puzzle games" or "RPG".
 
Games would never be like this if nintendo did not make games.
 
Nintendo is basically responsible for a lot of standards we have today... If they didn't stop the door slamming on the video game industry in America, who knows where we'd be. Super Mario Bros. was pretty much the game that made gaming popular again.

So I guess what we should be saying is, what if it wasn't Nintendo that did that?

Then again, Nintendo was created back in 1889, and compared to the rest of its life, it's only been in the gaming industry for a couple of decades. Before that they were a toy-making company, among many other things...

Another thing to consider is that the name "Nintendo" means "leave luck to Heaven". I guess that's why they've been on so many business ventures...
 
Yep, Nintendo was the one who controlled and stopped all the bad quality video games we had back in the Atari days. The video game industry was so horrible, it almost collapsed.
 
If Nintendo didn't own Mario wasn't really the question I was going for, after looking back at this thread. What I believe is a much better question now: What if Nintendo never MADE Mario?
Or: What if Nintendo never hired Shigeru Miyamoto? He revived gaming as we know it. Without that, we wouldn't get many other third-party developers interested in the NES, (maybe) therefore, not getting Kirby from HAL, or Megaman from Capcom, and where would gaming be today without all the characters we know and love? Perhaps id Software could've made a console, (They did make one of the first side-scrolling PC games.) but then, there may not have been Wolfenstein or Doom, which revolutionized the FPS industry. Face it, without Nintendo hiring Miyamoto, leading to Mario, we might've been stuck with 4-bit games, to this very day. Without Mario, SEGA would've never made Sonic...or maybe even a console in general.

Mario brought back gaming. My point has been made.
 
Oh no doubt Mario was massively important to the development of the industry. Games were heading towards a crash until Super Mario Bros. came 'round and allowed the industry a chance to build itself properly. All I'm saying is that Mario is not the only video game series that matters, contrary to the belief of many a fanatic here, and there have been countless other innovative and revolutionary games made that had nothing to do with Nintendo.

(and many, including a tonne of devoted Nintendo fans, would argue that Nintendo are just a shadow of their former self now, but I won't get into that)

Dr. Eggman said:
Games would never be like this if nintendo did not make games.
Click to expand...
The industry was about to crash until Super Mario Bros. saved the day, yes. But for all ye know, someone else could've filled Nintendo's place; Sega and Hudson existed back then, y'know. Perhaps if Nintendo hadn't competed in the market to begin with, one of the 'smaller' companies instead would've risen up and made their own consoles. Literally anything could've happened had Nintendo decided to ignore the games industry, and this is exactly why hypothetical situations are complete bullshit.
 
Mario is what made everything even Call of Duty would not exist without him.
 
Dr. Eggman said:
Mario is what made everything even Call of Duty would not exist without him.
Click to expand...

Now you're just trolling...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back