Acquire, devs of Mario and Luigi: Brotherhood wanted an "edgy" design for Mario. Nintendo said "no".

Video Games Chronicle/Nintendo (Ask the Developer)

Yeah, I'm gonna let the in-articles quotes do the talking...

“Our challenge was to develop 3D visuals that would bring out the unique appeal of the Mario & Luigi series and differentiate it from other Mario games. I’m ashamed to say it, but we weren’t conscious of that when development started, which led to us making a huge detour.

“And in our search for a new Mario & Luigi style, at one point we ended up trying to present an edgier, more rugged Mario instead. Then we received feedback from Nintendo that we should aim to make the art direction identifiable by fans as belonging to the Mario & Luigi series.

“After that, we were able to narrow down our focus to how we could combine two things: the appeal of illustrations featuring, for example, solid outlines and bold, black eyes, and the charm of pixel animations depicting the two characters moving around comically in all directions. I think that’s when we finally started to develop an art style that’s unique to this game.” -Hitomi Furuta, Acquire designer

Someone at Nintendo remembers the "dark times" of everything needing to be "edgy".

From current rivals at Sony...

...third party partners at Ubisoft...

...and former rivals at SEGA (although it did kickstart the career of the Sonic movie director and at least seems to be inspiring something promising for the upcoming third movie).

(And the games above remind me that the "kiddy" reception of the GCN at the time, let alone Nintendo as a whole, was/is in reality, insecure BS)

I kinda like the first picture. What they went for in the end was pretty standard, boring stuff. Cool animations, but not the most fun artstyle ever.

Considering how awful the game runs, they really should've done something differently with the visuals.

It could have looked good in those styles. I don't mind the one they ended up with.

The style Mario should not have is the one in the CG movie. I don't buy the explanation that they need it to look that way to work as a movie. What they did in the movie looks like a**.

:P

What's wrong with the movie design?

@Jag85: It looks like bootleg Mario. It looks off and bad.

@girlusocrazy: What's the difference?

@Jag85: Between bootleg Mario and official Mario? One looks off model and uncanny valley and one looks like you'd expect.

Some people broke it down before

Thank God for Nintendo 😂

@girlusocrazy: I didn't even notice the difference until now. Movie Mario looks younger than official Mario... or at least official since Mario 64. Prior to that, Mario had different art styles.

Yeah, I’m going to have to go with Nintendo on this one. Don’t think I’m at all interested in an “edgy” Mario.

@Jag85: Some fit well some don't, movie looks terrible IMO

Brothership looked good and so do these concept pieces in the OP

They should've go with the Lario and Muigi route.

Why is the first instinct to make things edgy? I understand going for a different art style, but it doesn't have to be edgy (or edgier). Can't it still keep that same adorable design, but in a different art style?

@adsparky: Or Malleo and Weegee.

Also, not sure what's "edgy" about these designs.

Their clothes are a bit busted up on the second pic. Is that edgy?

The first pic is cute if anything.

Mario is the most whored out franchise in gaming history, forget edgy they need an "adult" Mario 🤣

That's kind of what I was thinking. I don't see anything edgy about it. different style yeah, but there's nothing edgy about those drawings.

@Jag85: Not gonna lie, I 🤣🤣🤣

Well, it worked for Epic Mickey, didn't it?

Also, for your nightmares:

Forgot about this.

@last_lap said:

Mario is the most whored out franchise in gaming history, forget edgy they need an "adult" Mario 🤣

Cringe

@luxuryheart said:

@last_lap said:

Mario is the most whored out franchise in gaming history, forget edgy they need an "adult" Mario 🤣

Cringe

Cringe is making the same game for 40yrs, whoring out Mario in just about everything you can think of, Mario Tennis, Golf, Karts, Doctor etc, and having kids who were playing the games when they were children still playing them when they're middle-aged.

@last_lap said:

@luxuryheart said:

@last_lap said:

Mario is the most whored out franchise in gaming history, forget edgy they need an "adult" Mario 🤣

Cringe

Cringe is making the same game for 40yrs, whoring out Mario in just about everything you can think of, Mario Tennis, Golf, Karts, Doctor etc, and having kids who were playing the games when they were children still playing them when they're middle-aged.

What would change about your complaints if Mario were edgy?

@luxuryheart said:

@last_lap said:

@luxuryheart said:

@last_lap said:

Mario is the most whored out franchise in gaming history, forget edgy they need an "adult" Mario 🤣

Cringe

Cringe is making the same game for 40yrs, whoring out Mario in just about everything you can think of, Mario Tennis, Golf, Karts, Doctor etc, and having kids who were playing the games when they were children still playing them when they're middle-aged.

What would change about your complaints if Mario were edgy?

I don't care about some "edgier" Mario as the character has run its course. Unless Nintendo can do a heel turn (a Hulk Hogan NWO turn if you will) then Mario will remain the most boring overused character in all of gaming, so making him a little edgier means nothing when the character is about as deep as a dried-up puddle to begin with.

On a side note, I will say the devs know that Mario as a character is crap, hence why they wanted to do something a little different, but Nintendo being Nintendo are gonna ride Mario until people get sick of him, and knowing you sheep, you never will.

@last_lap said:

@luxuryheart said:

@last_lap said:

@luxuryheart said:

@last_lap said:

Mario is the most whored out franchise in gaming history, forget edgy they need an "adult" Mario 🤣

Cringe

Cringe is making the same game for 40yrs, whoring out Mario in just about everything you can think of, Mario Tennis, Golf, Karts, Doctor etc, and having kids who were playing the games when they were children still playing them when they're middle-aged.

What would change about your complaints if Mario were edgy?

I don't care about some "edgier" Mario as the character has run its course. Unless Nintendo can do a heel turn (a Hulk Hogan NWO turn if you will) then Mario will remain the most boring overused character in all of gaming, so making him a little edgier means nothing when the character is about as deep as a dried-up puddle to begin with.

On a side note, I will say the devs know that Mario as a character is crap, hence why they wanted to do something a little different, but Nintendo being Nintendo are gonna ride Mario until people get sick of him, and knowing you sheep, you never will.

Mario is from the old school gaming, where there wasn't much story other than getting you from point A to point B. As for a personality, um... He has that, and some quirks that make for great potential. Mario and Luigi do. Mario is a sore loser with anger issues, which can be fun to play around with. Luigi is a ghostbuster that's afraid of ghosts, and he's generally a coward, which could be funny.

Personally, making them edgy AF isn't appealing. Do we really want another Edg, Edge, and Edgy?

And even if it isn't edgy, people get annoyed when you change the personality of the Mario people. Even though the movie was a success, some Mario fans were annoyed that Peach's personality was more similar to Daisy.

@luxuryheart: Mario is boring af, the character hasn't evolved in 40yrs, it's the same 💩 game after game. And I know i'm in the minority here as shown by Mario's sales on the Switch, but even then, the Kart game is the biggest selling in the Mario franchise not the platformers.

But as we know Nintendo get a pass for everything these days as they are seen as the darlings of the industry, and thus nothing will ever change.

Mario is from that old school gaming where the story wasn't a big part of the game. It was just an excuse to get you from point A to point B. So of course Mario's personality wouldn't be emphasized. Though you see snippets of it in certain games. Like in sports games. And honestly, Mario as a character doesn't need to evolve. Only the games do. So long as the games make new designs while being fun, he's good. Mario is a video game character, not a television or book character. He doesn't need character development.

Nintendo literally doesn't get a pass. The N64, GameCube, and Wii U flopped and were heavily slandered. People were practically praying for Nintendo to go 3rd party, because they hated Nintendo consoles so much. Even when the Wii was a success, forum gamers were dragging Nintendo. People in the industry were even making irrational rants about Nintendo ruining gaming and how companies would follow Nintendo. Despite the fact that PC gaming was on the rise, despite the fact that Microsoft and Sony had successful consoles that sold over 80 million each, despite the fact that a ton of hardcore games were being made, etc.

Nintendo is definitely NOT an industry darling.

Edgy concepts can be great. But its nintendo everything needs to be neutered, bland, shit because its what the fans love.

@luxuryheart: Don't want some big drawn out story for Mario, but the character is boring af. he hasn't evolved and neither has Nintendo.

And please, Nintendo are the darlings of the industry. Just about every Nintendo game gets scored highly when its the same dreary crap time and time again.

When Nintendo make good games, they are usually rightfully praised. When they don't, like this game, they get shit.

Then there's really good Nintendo games that people just don't want and sell like crap, for whatever reason, but still get rightfully praised by people who do play them.

Then there's people who don't play their good games, but still feel like telling everyone that they suck.

Only the good Nintendo games get the high scores. Every Nintendo game doesn't get a 9/10. And trust me, they're not. People in the industry have drug Nintendo in the past, and even irrationally. Right now, they haven't been dragging Nintendo as much since they're successful right now and have released a lot of quality games, while also improving their relationship with third party games. The only bad thing Nintendo has really done was their online (which everyone still drags btw), and their shelving of old IP (which everyone drags). So I fail to see how they're the industry darling.

If anything, the industry darling is Sony.

Pretty much this. I don't understand how anyone can think Nintendo is a gaming darling. Nintendo is loved by their fans and some casual gamers. They just happen to have a big fanbase. Though outside of their fanbase, and some casual gamers that like Mario, Pokemon, and Animal Crossing, most people drag Nintendo. Even gaming journalists and devs in the industry.

@luxuryheart: @luxuryheart: You 2 are big Nintendo fans, so it comes as no surprise you think people get stuck into Nintendo, but that's simply not true.

No. We're simply speaking facts. You claim that Nintendo gets high scores, when that isn't always the case. Most people here believe that a score of 80+ is considered solid to great. Anything below 80 is a joke. However, I'll consider 75+ to be good and 60 - 74 to be middling, and anything below 60 to be bad.

The scores are:

• Princess Peach Showtime: 74
• Emio The Smiling Man: 74
• Kirby Star Allies: 73
• Mario Strikers: 73
• Nintendo Switch Sports: 72
• Pokemon Scarlet: 71
• Mario Golf: 70
• Mario and Sonic Tokyo Olympic Games: 69
• 1-2 Switch: 58

Then we get to some of the Wii U scores:

• Mario Party: 66
• Wii Party U: 65
• Metroid Prime Federation Force: 64
• Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival: 46

So um... About those high scores... And these are just the examples that I know of, by doing some quick research. I remembered Amiibo Festival on the Wii I along with the Metroid Prime game that basically forced Nintendo to go back to their roots with Metroid. The other scores were basically games that had over a million sales. But yeah... The industry doesn't give Nintendo free 75+ scoring games.

Nor is Nintendo's press always good. The press mocked Nintendo for losing to Sony during the N64 and GameCube years. Matter of fact, they even mocked Nintendo for losing to a newcomer like Microsoft, during the GameCube era. During the Wii era, they called Nintendo "waggle", and it wasn't meant to be a compliment. There were even game devs trashing the Wii, and being paranoid that gaming was heading towards "games for grandma". Which was stupid since PC gaming (casual and hardcore alike) was on the rise, Call of Duty and other shooters were selling like hotcakes, Xbox 360 and PS3 combined sold over 160 million units, etc. Nevertheless, they were all panicking. Several articles called for Nintendo to go 3rd party, especially during the Wii U era. They even mocked Nintendo for the Wii U's low sales. The even mocked Labo during the Switch era (and some of those kits were rated below a 70 btw). Though Nintendo quietly did away with Labo, so nothing else to say. Even then, Nintendo was roasted for their online offerings. Though outside of the temporary embarrassment of Labo and their online, Nintendo has objectively done well this generation. Improved relationships with third party companies, stopped censoring games, and made some great games. The only thing they need to improve on: make their old games available outside of their trash online, improve online and stop adding old IP to artificially inflate the value, and make sequels for more of their old IP.

@luxuryheart: Notice how I said just about every Nintendo game?

And you present a list of some 10 or so games, from the hundreds and hundreds of games Nintendo has released.

Nintendo are the darlings of the gaming industry, now that doesn't mean they get a pass for everything, just most things.

Again you're a big Nintendo fan, and are happy that Mario hasn't changed in 40yrs, you're happy for the same stuff over & over again. 40yrs ago Nintendo didn't have any adult content, and 40yrs on they still don't.

I've only scrolled the infamous games from memory and the games that sold over a million in the recent years (Wii U and Switch only). I could probably find more if I like at 3DS, DS, Wii, GameCube, Gameboy Advance, and N64 games.

If they were darlings, they wouldn't have gotten those low scores on the two platforms, and the industry would not have insulted the Wii, mocked their N64 and GameCube sales, and wrote articles about how they need to go third party. Heck, even recently the industry wrote articles about Palworld being better than Pokemon and dragging Pokemon (admittedly, it was deserved because Pokemon Scarlet and Violet released as a hot ass mess). They don't get a pass for most things. It's simply the fact that aside from a few misses, they've been great this generation.

Nintendo has a few adult games on their console. Though I personally don't care for actively play most adult games. Most of the games that I play aren't rated M.

Just because they're darlings doesn't mean everything gets a pass. Most Nintendo's main franchises are looked upon fondly with "reviewers" these days, when the only good games are some of the Zeldas, Mario is garbage.

And if you like kid's games then more power to you, but Nintendo doesn't cater for anyone but kids or adults with a heavy dose of nostalgia for Nintendo.

Then might as well say everyone is an industry darling, if people can write articles trashing them and they're still considered darlings.

I find a lot of adult games overrated. I don't care to play as white guy kills thing 32524263527

@luxuryheart: And yet I bet you play Zelda right, I mean Links a white male who kills things lol.

Yes Nintendo are the darlings as Mario still scores highly and it never evolves, still the same final.boss in Bowser 40yrs later, and still scores highly, industry darlings for sure.

Every Mario, and Mario adjacent, game doesn't score high though... And looking at the Game Awards, multiple of them, shows that Nintendo isn't favored any more than other gaming companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Game_of_the_Year_awards

• BAFTA: Nintendo has won 4 times since 1998. Take in mind, one of those was for the handheld game of the year section in the 2000s, which was Pokemon Yellow. Nintendo was basically the defacto winner... Nintendo hasn't won BAFTA since Mario Galaxy in 2008...
• D.I.C.E. Awards they've only one 3 since 1997, and two of those were before 2000s. From 2000 - 2024, the only time Nintendo has won has been Zelda: BOTW.
• Famitsu Awards is biased towards Nintendo. Though even Nintendo is the most biased. Capcom and Square Enix are.
• The "official" Game Awards, the one with Geoff: Nintendo has only won GOTY for Zelda: BOTW
• Game Developers Choice: since 2000, Nintendo has only won twice.
• Golden Joystick: Since 1983, Nintendo has won four times. One of those was a defacto win, where they won Game of the Year handheld category in the 90s.
• Japan Game Awards is biased to Nintendo, but not moreso than Capcom or Square Enix.
• New York Game Awards: Nintendo has only ever won for Zelda: BOTW

The others have been discontinued, but even if you explore websites. I'm talking sites like Eurogamer, this site, EGM, etc. None of those sites were Nintendo biased.

The only award shows that are Nintendo biased, seem to be the Japanese Award shows. Even then, I'd argue they're as equally biased for Capcom and Square Enix as they are for Nintendo. Though if talking only platforms, then I'd agree.

And think about something... Nintendo didn't even win the Award for best FAMILY game this year. A Nintendo game wasn't even nominated for Game of the Year, this year. So how is the industry biased to them?

Industry darlings has nothing to do with winning awards?

It's about getting preferential treatment when scoring games to where faults in their games get overlooked or don't get punished but get pointed out in other games and it affects their scores. Sure there are other devs who get that same treatment in Fromsoft and Kojima get treated like darlings also, but Nintendo is the biggest company that gets preferential treatment, hence the darlings.

The Game Awards seem more biased towards Sony, if anything. Out of the ten Game Awards GOTY winners, three were from Sony and only one from Nintendo.

That makes no sense. Forza games have been getting high scores. Does that mean that Microsoft is getting preferential treatment? Most AAA exclusives on consoles get high ratings, which is logical. Most of the budget is spent on those games, and they're usually made with more care. Forza doesn't get a high score because the industry is biased to it. It's because, despite there being multiple Forza games, Microsoft is obviously going to put more effort into that series compared to other games.

Nintendo has gotten low scoring games, and Nintendo got docked some points for having too much water in a game. Let's be honest...

And what other measure is there for industry darlings, if not awards? Every company gets high scoring games, even Microsoft (who you imply the industry is biased against). The only measure is the different awards, since they're stacked next to each other.

People not hating Mario as much as Last Lap means that Nintendo is favored apparently. It's irritating to Last Lap since he wants Nintendo to make mature games. If you ever wonder why people make edgy, scary, and mature stuff when they get their hands on kid friendly IP, point to Last Lap... People don't like kids having fun things I guess...

@luxuryheart: Awards mean nothing, it's the preferential treatment certain drvs get with reviewers, Nintendo is definitely one of those.

As for your post to jag, hyperbolic much?

Nintendo can still make kids games fir you while making more mature content for adults, they're not mutually exclusive. But you just wanna complain whenever someone asks for mature content from Nintendo.

Over 40yrs and still making nothing but kids games, have not evolved even a tiny bit.

Every company gets high and low scores. So every company must be favored by your logic.

You don't think The Game Awards are biased towards Sony?

...Am I reading this right, a Lemming defending Sony?!

Basing evolution of game making on game ratings seems like a very weird thing to me.