How is the Mario series doing?

[Leonyx]

The Mario series isn't going in a direction I would like, but it's still relevant.

What direction do you want it to go in then?

The Mario series has been going in a casual and easy direction. I'm not saying that Mario games were ever extremely difficult or hardcore, but Nintendo has been catering to the casual crowd (that is, the gamers that don't play games too often or gamers that only play easier games) with most of their recent games. Mario is no exception.

Most of us agreed that Super Mario Galaxy 2 was lacking compared to the first because of its linear gameplay and easier levels (among other reasons). It's an example of the way Nintendo is taking its games. I'd much rather Mario go back to his roots and be the platforming giant he used to be, with more freeroaming and exploration. New Super Mario Bros. was a step in the right direction, in some ways.

It isn't lacking that much

I think it was. If you looked at the Super Mario Galaxy 2 thread, many people felt it was much too similar to the first.

 

[yoshidude99]

well it is a sequel

 

[Leonyx]

well it is a sequel

Sequels tend to deviate somewhat from the original. Nintendo pretty much took the linear levels from the first game, and added Yoshi and a few more items.

 

[Toad Eightyfive]

The Mario series isn't going in a direction I would like, but it's still relevant.

What direction do you want it to go in then?

The Mario series has been going in a casual and easy direction. I'm not saying that Mario games were ever extremely difficult or hardcore, but Nintendo has been catering to the casual crowd (that is, the gamers that don't play games too often or gamers that only play easier games) with most of their recent games. Mario is no exception.

Most of us agreed that Super Mario Galaxy 2 was lacking compared to the first because of its linear gameplay and easier levels (among other reasons). It's an example of the way Nintendo is taking its games. I'd much rather Mario go back to his roots and be the platforming giant he used to be, with more freeroaming and exploration. New Super Mario Bros. was a step in the right direction, in some ways.

I kind of agree with you. While i'm not doubting that SMG2 was a good game, it was just way too linear compared to the original (which in itself was kind of linear). Games should have tons of freeroaming, even if freeroaming is not required to beat the level, to keep fans interested.

 

[Leonyx]

I kind of agree with you. While i'm not doubting that SMG2 was a good game, it was just way too linear compared to the original (which in itself was kind of linear). Games should have tons of freeroaming, even if freeroaming is not required to beat the level, to keep fans interested.

Games don't have to be non-linear, but 3D Mario games should be. They started out that way, and I think they're the most fun that way.

 

[Ray Trace]

The most recent Super Mario game (Super Mario 3D Land) looks pathetically linear. I wish there would be a ton more free roaming worlds in that game, especially when it uses 3D models for worlds.

 

[yoshidude99]

Free Roming should of been in NSMBW

 

[Leonyx]

The most recent Super Mario game (Super Mario 3D Land) looks pathetically linear. I wish there would be a ton more free roaming worlds in that game, especially when it uses 3D models for worlds.

That game makes more sense being linear because of the way the game is (a mash up of 2D and 3D). Though, I would like a bit of free roaming myself in it.

 

[Mario4Ever]

Don’t get me wrong, I love Mario and Donkey Kong as much as the next guy, but it can’t be denied that these games are selling gameplay that hasn’t necessarily evolved since the NES and SNES eras, at five times the price of new and original games being released on PSN, Steam and XBLA. These titles don’t have the added bonuses of essential features such as HD graphics, online play, leaderboards, true 5.1 sound and the potential for DLC expansions.

I also believe that Mario should either be retooled or replaced by a new protagonist, as he is too black & white and not edgy enough to be interesting.

Essential features? None of those you mentioned are selling points for any game, and if they are, gamers have become more shallow, and that's a depressing thought. Mario wasn't designed to be interesting; he was designed to be flexible. No one plays Mario games for the engaging storylines or psychological undertones, and on another note, to replace Mario would mean the death of the company. Without Mario, there essentially wouldn't be a video game industry (think video game crash of '83). He has been a video game staple for over thirty years, and I don't know about you, but I prefer that to some new schmuck designed to appeal to the "edgy" crowd. Let's replace Link; his ears are too pointy. -_-

 

[Leonyx]

Don’t get me wrong, I love Mario and Donkey Kong as much as the next guy, but it can’t be denied that these games are selling gameplay that hasn’t necessarily evolved since the NES and SNES eras, at five times the price of new and original games being released on PSN, Steam and XBLA. These titles don’t have the added bonuses of essential features such as HD graphics, online play, leaderboards, true 5.1 sound and the potential for DLC expansions.

I also believe that Mario should either be retooled or replaced by a new protagonist, as he is too black & white and not edgy enough to be interesting.

Essential features? None of those you mentioned are selling points for any game, and if they are, gamers have become more shallow, and that's a depressing thought. Mario wasn't designed to be interesting; he was designed to be flexible. No one plays Mario games for the engaging storylines or psychological undertones, and on another note, to replace Mario would mean the death of the company. Without Mario, there essentially wouldn't be a video game industry (think video game crash of '83). He has been a video game staple for over thirty years, and I don't know about you, but I prefer that to some new schmuck designed to appeal to the "edgy" crowd. Let's replace Link; his ears are too pointy. -_-

Um...

I'd like to post another rant, but Glowsquid pretty much covered my opinion.

Spoiler

you know I was being sarcastic, right.

Anyways, actually many of the points he mentioned are selling point for a good amount of gamers, and they actually have been for a while. People used to buy and play games that looked and sounded new (HD graphics, 5.1 sound), that they could play with their friends (online play), or that they could compete against others in (leaderboards), and apparently they still do. They certainly aren't essential, but they do help. Why do you think all the people who have bought Black Ops did so?

 

[Mario4Ever]

Don’t get me wrong, I love Mario and Donkey Kong as much as the next guy, but it can’t be denied that these games are selling gameplay that hasn’t necessarily evolved since the NES and SNES eras, at five times the price of new and original games being released on PSN, Steam and XBLA. These titles don’t have the added bonuses of essential features such as HD graphics, online play, leaderboards, true 5.1 sound and the potential for DLC expansions.

I also believe that Mario should either be retooled or replaced by a new protagonist, as he is too black & white and not edgy enough to be interesting.

Essential features? None of those you mentioned are selling points for any game, and if they are, gamers have become more shallow, and that's a depressing thought. Mario wasn't designed to be interesting; he was designed to be flexible. No one plays Mario games for the engaging storylines or psychological undertones, and on another note, to replace Mario would mean the death of the company. Without Mario, there essentially wouldn't be a video game industry (think video game crash of '83). He has been a video game staple for over thirty years, and I don't know about you, but I prefer that to some new schmuck designed to appeal to the "edgy" crowd. Let's replace Link; his ears are too pointy. -_-

Um...

I'd like to post another rant, but Glowsquid pretty much covered my opinion.

Spoiler

you know I was being sarcastic, right.

Anyways, actually many of the points he mentioned are selling point for a good amount of gamers, and they actually have been for a while. People used to buy and play games that looked and sounded new (HD graphics, 5.1 sound), that they could play with their friends (online play), or that they could compete against others in (leaderboards), and apparently they still do. They certainly aren't essential, but they do help. Why do you think all the people who have bought Black Ops did so?

I assume it's because they are familiar with the franchise and want a new experience, or at least as new as a FPS can get. Those things GS listed are things I view as reasons why people might want to buy a specific console, not specific games, as they don't add anything that makes a game or games more worthwhile than games that lack those features. I wouldn't have as much of a problem as I do if top reviewers didn't use the aforementioned criteria to judge Nintendo's games (I can't tell you how many times I've seen excellent games get crappy reviews because they're not in f***ing HD or have online play when both aren't needed). Nintendo's always been about producing quality software, whereas its competition seems to focus on producing eye candy or shoving as many features as possible into a game, resulting in the features rather than the game being memorable.

 

[Leonyx]

I assume it's because they are familiar with the franchise and want a new experience, or at least as new as a FPS can get. Those things GS listed are things I view as reasons why people might want to buy a specific console, not specific games, as they don't add anything that makes a game or games more worthwhile than games that lack those features. I wouldn't have as much of a problem as I do if top reviewers didn't use the aforementioned criteria to judge Nintendo's games (I can't tell you how many times I've seen excellent games get crappy reviews because they're not in f***ing HD or have online play when both aren't needed). Nintendo's always been about producing quality software, whereas its competition seems to focus on producing eye candy or shoving as many features as possible into a game, resulting in the features rather than the game being memorable.

Oh, I agree that those features aren't necessary, and for the most part don't add anything significant to a game. Sometimes they can enhance a game or even be a major feature (I'm of the opinion that people mainly get Call of Duty for the multiplayer, and because almost everyone has the game), but it doesn't have to be in the game. Honestly, I buy certain games for the online gameplay.

Reviewers are a whole different story. There's a bunch of factors as to why some reviewers do that, and none of them are good.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

I wouldn't like spending extra on something I would rarely use, like...oh... a Blu-ray/DVD player. I think Nintendo has a point in their philosophy: people buy video game consoles for the games. If I want to watch movies, I would get something else. Besides, I never watch TV or DVD or Blu-ray anyway, so the extra money I shell out for Xbox and Playstation just isn't worth it.

When I get a game, I try to make the most out of it. No online? Well, I'll play locally against the CPU. No multiplayer? I'll watch my sister.

Reviewers get paid to do this stuff, which IMO, they should consider irrelevant to how well they rate the game.

 

[Leonyx]

Actually, many people (me included) considered buying a PS3 for the Blu-ray alone. It was a cheap way to have a Blu-ray player at the time. Also, according to some websites, the iPod/iPhone is now the most popular gaming platform. Most people do not buy those kind of products for the games.

 

[Mario4Ever]

Actually, many people (me included) considered buying a PS3 for the Blu-ray alone. It was a cheap way to have a Blu-ray player at the time. Also, according to some websites, the iPod/iPhone is now the most popular gaming platform. Most people do not buy those kind of products for the games.

But the iPod/Phone is not designed as a gaming platform, so it doesn't count.

 

[Leonyx]

Actually, many people (me included) considered buying a PS3 for the Blu-ray alone. It was a cheap way to have a Blu-ray player at the time. Also, according to some websites, the iPod/iPhone is now the most popular gaming platform. Most people do not buy those kind of products for the games.

But the iPod/Phone is not designed as a gaming platform, so it doesn't count.

But if people use it as a gaming platform, does it really matter whether it was designed as one or not?

 

[Mario4Ever]

Actually, many people (me included) considered buying a PS3 for the Blu-ray alone. It was a cheap way to have a Blu-ray player at the time. Also, according to some websites, the iPod/iPhone is now the most popular gaming platform. Most people do not buy those kind of products for the games.

But the iPod/Phone is not designed as a gaming platform, so it doesn't count.

But if people use it as a gaming platform, does it really matter whether it was designed as one or not?

Yes, if it's considered to be competition. The 3DS has a camera, but that doesn't mean it's competing with camera manufacturers.

 

[Yoshiwaker]

True, but the 3DS's camera is not so good, while on the other hand, the iTouch/iPhone are great gaming platforms.

 

[Ray Trace]

The iTouch and iPhone are made to be phones, not to be competing with games.

 

[Leonyx]

Actually, many people (me included) considered buying a PS3 for the Blu-ray alone. It was a cheap way to have a Blu-ray player at the time. Also, according to some websites, the iPod/iPhone is now the most popular gaming platform. Most people do not buy those kind of products for the games.

But the iPod/Phone is not designed as a gaming platform, so it doesn't count.

But if people use it as a gaming platform, does it really matter whether it was designed as one or not?

Yes, if it's considered to be competition. The 3DS has a camera, but that doesn't mean it's competing with camera manufacturers.

But people aren't using it as a camera (at least, not from what I've heard). Some consumers (apparently a lot of consumers, actually) do use the iPhone as a gaming device, and it is competing with other portable game platforms. If you're perfectly fine with playing games on an iPhone, why get a 3DS?

 

[YoshiMonsta]

I think it is doing great, even though it is kinda stereo typical and Bowser is all evil and you don't even meet him until the end of most games.

 

[Lily x]

They need to put stories in Mario games, SMG was a start. But they cannot go to mad on emotive stuff as it aint' Zelda.

 

[Pokemon DP]

You think Zelda games have deep, emotional stories? That's adorable.

 

[Mario4Ever]

I've always thought that the Metroid series was the most story-based out of Nintendo's franchises (particularly Other M).

 

[Pokemon DP]

Pokemon, Fire Emblem and especially Mother are far more story-oriented.