Do you think the RPG remakes will change the series' again?

[Dell Conagher]

That is correct: technically Daisy is not in the same group as RPG characters, but there is a vibe by many people who thinks that she is a spinoff character because of how frequently she appears there. A bit similar to Wario to an extent: he's introduced in a Super Mario platformer but he's more common in spinoffs (though he's got the benefit of appearing in his own games, so he lacked the spinoff stigma that Daisy and Waluigi are frequently accused of).

Because of how often she is accused of appearing in spinoffs, there is a vibe by some fans that she should stay there, and perhaps relatedly, the Mario Awards even labeled Daisy as a supporting character. More or less admitting that she is not as "main" as the major characters (where Toadette, Kamek, and Diddy Kong are included, the former even first appearing in a spinoff). Though I should point out that I disagree with the opinion (that a character predominantly appearing in spinoffs can only exist there): she can appear in other Super Mario platformers or any other RPG game or a Peach/Luigi game without any issue.

The gist of my post isn't that I feel that there is no downside for RPG characters to appear there. But it's that a less-frequent character can still appear in more games because they don't necessarily have the imaginary baggage that makes them somehow forbidden. Hence I mentioned how it's a "similar feeling" to the one above.

Thank you for reading.

This might sound kinda pretentious, but honestly I don't think it matters if the vibe among most people is that Daisy or Wario are spin off characters, because the truth is more important than public perception. If most people perceive Daisy or Wario to be spin off characters, then most people are wrong. I'm 100% open to changing my mind if someone can convince me otherwise, but that's how I see it.

However, I will concede that the definition of mainline Mario characters isn't very easily definable. Defining anything as "mainline" in this franchise is hell. You're absolutely correct that Toadette for example was introduced in a spin off but clearly became a "mainline" character afterwards. Perhaps the definition could be expanded to characters created in-house at Nintendo, including ones created in spin offs? Double Dash was made by Nintendo EAD, which was the team behind mainline Mario (before they merged with SPD to create EPD). So I think a good definition would be that any Mario character created in-house at Nintendo is considered a part of the main cast, regardless of what that Mario game is.

Going by this definition, I do not consider Waluigi to be a mainline character. He was created by a 3rd party company so I don't think he counts, even if he is prevalent in the spin offs.

I feel that there needs to be a distinction between "mainline characters" and "spin off characters" because that helps explain why Nintendo uses certain characters in the way that they do. I think the folks at Nintendo generally prefer to work with the characters they created, and not ones created by other people. This explains why they use Mario, Luigi, Peach, and Bowser for practically every mainline game, while they hardly ever (if at all) use characters like Waluigi, Fawful, or Dimentio.

Spin off characters appearing in Nintendo-developed Mario games aren't an impossibility of course. Goomboss is a Paper Mario (spin off) character who was put in SM64DS and MKDS. Even though those 2 aren't considered mainline by Nintendo, they were still developed by them. My theory as to why this happened is that someone working on those games just really liked Goomboss and wanted to put him in.

And that's what determines who gets to be in the mainline games. There aren't any "rules" against putting characters like Dimentio into Odyssey 2 (or whatever), there just needs to be someone on the team who likes Dimentio and wants to bring him back.

 

[winstein]

I think that segregating characters to "mainline" and "spinoffs" would be too limiting, especially for a series that doesn't have a "canon" like Mario. It's part of why I am reticent on saying "mainline games", and would prefer to say Super Mario platformers because it is clear that this is what people meant by "mainline games" yet at the same time is what I am most comfortable calling them.

So like Waluigi. It's mentioned that he's not a mainline character. Is he created by a third party company? That is undeniable. But the circumstances behind his creation is different from the rest. Third party characters tend to be made specifically to tailor the game's theme. For example, the Rabbid versions of the Mario characters were created to fit the crossover thing they were going for, or Mario Golf's various sportspeople with their golfing attire were created because they needed more golf characters. Waluigi on the other hand? He was not created to be a tennis athlete (otherwise he would dress like one on his creation). He was created to be a partner for Wario where no other character back then fit the framework. It's not like he's alone on the "partner for another character" justification nor is it inherently a bad thing, since Luigi and Toadette were created for similar reasons (for Mario and Toad respectively). Besides, Waluigi doesn't belong to that third party, otherwise we would be seeing Camelot's crediting in non-Camelot games and he would likely see less appearances. From what we can infer, he belongs to Nintendo.

Moreover, I think Waluigi is a very big exception from most spinoff characters, and should not be an example of them. I would say that he's a main character in spirit, even though physically he didn't appear in a Super Mario platformer. Spinoff characters tend to not have:

• Major playable status across multiple series
• Appearance in the wider merchandise, especially beyond the year they were created on (e.g.: Playing cards, controller themed after the character, amiibo)
• Taking part in the character group that represents the franchise (Note: this isn't the main characters group, which only includes Mario, Luigi, Peach, Toad, Bowser, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, and Bowser Jr.)
• An exclusive character bio on the Mario portal

Thus, I would not put Waluigi in the same group as Fawful and Dimentio, since it downplays many things that spinoff characters wish they could get (e.g.: amiibo and official character profile).

I think that if Toadette didn't take the first step and appear in Captain Toad, similar justifications would try to be made on why she can never appear in a Super Mario platformer, with a possible reasoning like "spinoff characters can't ever appear in a Super Mario platformer!". But because she did, the framework is evolved to include extra layer of reasoning (created by Nintendo EAD/EPD, so qualifies). If Waluigi were to appear in a "mainline" game, this framework would then evolve to attempt to justify why he's able to make it in.

Because of this, I think that like Toadette, there is a door open for Waluigi to appear in a game that is part of a "respected series" given the chance.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Dorayakiss]

I think that segregating characters to "mainline" and "spinoffs" would be too limiting, especially for a series that doesn't have a "canon" like Mario. It's part of why I am reticent on saying "mainline games", and would prefer to say Super Mario platformers because it is clear that this is what people meant by "mainline games" yet at the same time is what I am most comfortable calling them.

I do not consider Waluigi to be a mainline character. He was created by a 3rd party company so I don't think he counts, even if he is prevalent in the spin offs.

I think it's more about what the character's general purpose for. Regarding to the main topic, obviously most RPG characters have their purposes that relate to their original stories, altho arguably we do have other main cast who relates to a story so it's technically possible to them out of their origin story to become a main cast. There is Starlow who arguably has appeared in multiple adventures and acts very much like a main cast in heir own perspective.

In Waluigi's case he was obviously designed to be "main cast" based on his general characters settings don't directly relate to spinoff events and subjects, but rather mean to be part of main cast' relationship circle in general. Especially in Mario sport games we already frequently used the sport club characters, like Gene Yuss, to show that their background settings cater to a specific event more precisely.

Nintendo's problem is their opinion on Waluigi is very shallow, They just never think his role or his relationship would have very big use in a specific story outside the typical all-stars games, and we question this kind of characte creation logic.

Besides, it seems illogical to assume there is such a role that can properly explain "spinoff exclusives" when most spinoff sbujects don't relate to each other directly (such as tennis really has nothing to do with RPGs), and there is no real such need for such a role to exist, especially when your roster is supposed to give a better promotion about new major games and you're telling me you want to waste time on "spin-off exclusives"?.
Maybe only unless certain characters like EGadd, Toadsworth, Pauline, Peach (in her damsel era) and maybe Mario's small cousin cannot go on big adventure, so that they have a proper reason to only be playable in sport titles.

Waluigi's other issue is his status is made to be same as Wario and plumber bros, so it'd be illogical to claim that he cannot be in mainline because he doesn't have the big character nature.

 

[Fawfulthegreat64]

I agree with the take that Mario RPGs having many characters that don't appear elsewhere gives them a strong identity, but I also think that using one or two characters from each, basically "this was a very popular character who can represent this game" wouldn't take away from that. If Fawful was in a few spinoffs, it would basically just be throwing M&L fans a bone, not removing Fawful's importance to M&L. And if it's in a game that isn't story driven I don't think it would affect his arc in the RPGs either. It is a strong reason not to use him in a story-driven game unless it takes place before BIS and/or he appears as a ghost/undead. But I really think applying that limitation to games like Mario Kart is a bit too limiting, as despite his arc he is undeniably one of the most iconic characters to originate in that series and for a roster-based game I think that should matter above all else.

The same applies to Dimentio, though he would be a much trickier character to implement well and at this point I think Vivian would be my go-to choice to represent the PM series. But would including a few fan-favorites from those games take away their series' appeal of having many unique characters? I don't think so. Is Goomboss less of a Paper Mario character because he appeared in SM64DS and Mario Kart DS? Let's apply this to mainline Mario. Is Rosalina less of a Mario Galaxy character because she is now a spinoff mainstay? No, she always brings Galaxy theming with her, her connection with Lumas, she will always keep Mario Galaxy's legacy alive as long as she keeps appearing. That's what I think using some of the RPGs characters would do for those games. It would keep them alive even if they have moved in a different direction or went on hiatus, or in M&L's case, had their developer go bankrupt leaving the series in limbo.

I think Waluigi is a poor example because the very idea of a partner for Wario is versatile from the start. He is like Wario himself, who was designed more as an idea for a character (an anti-Mario) than something to fit the theming of a particular game. Waluigi, like Wario, could have debuted in many different games. While Rosalina has Super Mario Galaxy at her core, no matter how often she appears outside it. I think the hypothetical usage of some RPG characters would be closer to a Rosalina than a Waluigi. Their usage would keep their original games' legacy alive. Vivian will always be a TTYD character, Fawful will always be a Mario & Luigi character, Geno will always be a Super Mario RPG character, even if they join the spinoff rosters, to me it would just be a great way to immortalize the legacy of the games they come from. This is also why I don't think Baby Peach counts, her concept was inevitable even if PIT didn't happen. But a character like Princess Shroob would easily keep PIT's legacy alive by contrast.

 

[Ray Trace]

The biggest example of this I feel is Geno. Aside from his cameo in Superstar Saga (which was just the doll, not ♡♪!? himself), he hadn't been seen since Super Mario RPG. I feel that this contributed to Geno's popularity. Him having only 1 appearance made that appearance more special, and helped create the cult following he gained. So when they did bring him back in the remake, it was a huge deal to a lot of people. Look at the comment section of the "Geno comes to life" cutscene, lots of people said they got emotional at this moment. I don't think this cutscene would've gotten this reaction had Geno became a reoccurring character like Waluigi or whoever.

I mean people ping me like crazy whenever Baby Luigi appears in anything new but like, I want him far more recurring to begin with.

Him and Geno are two entirely different characters but I mean, Mario isn't exactly a story-based franchise. They can have someone like Fawful canonically hate Mario and Luigi's guts but you can have him team up with Mario and it would still make sense in a tennis tournament anyway.

But a character like Princess Shroob would easily keep PIT's legacy alive by contrast.

I like the Shroobs but IMO, the strongest way to keep PiT's legacy alive is just having Mario and Luigi and Baby Mario and Baby Luigi have adorable Mario Tennis/Golf-styled trophy cutscenes and the babies remember the adults.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Partner in Time's legacy is elevating Baby Mario and Baby Luigi to co-star status imo, and showing off cute fan art of Mario and Luigi taking care of the two; the rest of the game's plot works but I personally don't think it should be basis of another game nor do I think it necessarily needs to be acknowledged in a new game. It's a standalone game to me, as I said earlier about RPG one-offs, all the characters were created to serve and fulfill the purpose of this game, and they've completed their job. Like, using another game as an example, I don't think Cursa needs to be referenced in a painting in Rosalina's observatory or mentioned in passing dialogue.

 

[Sparkler53]

I feel as if we've reached a turning point. I feel like the next new Paper Mario or Mario and Luigi or something will build off of the original elements of the original games, while still making something new

 

[lordlaharl]

I think we're in something of a period of change for the Mario series, but I also think some fans may need to accept that that doesn't mean that we're going back to the Gamecube days. Just like how during the late Wii/DS through Wii U/3DS period of the franchise a lot of aspects of the series harkened back to the NES/SNES era (2D Mario, Koopalings, returning enemies) I think I can see some aspects of the Gamecube days and maybe even some spinoff material may make a return, but I think people who hope that they'll make a conscious effort to erase stuff like Galaxy or New Super Mario Bros. are going to be disappointed, because like it or not that's part of the DNA of the Mario series at this point. I don't want to seem like I'm picking on the Gamecube kids, but it does seem like enough of them controlled the narrative of the fandom for long enough that they can be a bit oblivious to anything before or after their "golden era", and that especially seems to go for a lot of the RPG fans of that time. For example a lot of the people who hate the Koopalings now probably don't even realize that there was a time that they were the Waluigi of the fandom for a while, the major characters that were unfairly pushed to the side, and even now probably still haven't made as many appearances yet are labeled by some as "overused" for what roles they have gotten.

 

[AgentMuffin]

Now that the TTYD remake is out, I'm more hopeful. Nintendo is showing a lot of confidence in the game in nearly its original form, the graphics artists were free to add even more character to the characters, and the remake seems to be doing well enough for itself to justify all that. The company also seems a decent bit more business-focused, which means holding PR and customer satisfaction and whatnot in higher regard; these remakes seem excellent for all that, and the sensible conclusion is to stay the course. Add on that previous Paper Mario games have been inching back to elements of the original style, and that badges are even in a mainline game now, and, like, I'm expecting notable changes of some sort—or that they've already been happening, and I'll only concretely notice in retrospect.

Then again, they also put out surveys and we all know what those wrought last time

Would that there were recent SMRPG and M&L sequels to factor into the comparison, though! I don't love that the chances of a Mario & Luigi revival are riding on the backs of other series, but BISDX's failure is neither deserved nor a mystery, and I'm almost sure that Nintendo has at least made the same extrapolations

 

[Ray Trace]

If they remade Partners in Time on Switch I will die a happy man.

 

[MartinetIsBestMario]

If there's One thing I Want to be included in Future Paper Mario RPGs;

it's including NPCs and/or Party Members that are Races/Species introduced in Super Mario Odyssey(Like Bonneters, Stretchy Tropical Wigglers, etc), or Bringing back the Whittle from Galaxy 2, or Having Missle Megs come back from Wonder