How is Mario a rehash series?

I hear this argument all the time and I don't think it holds water and I think it is just another way of trying to bash Nintendo since that seems to be cool these days.

Mario has only had three 3D installments, one in 1996, one in 2002 and one in 2007. So that means that proper Mario games don't release very often and when they do, Nintendo always does something to alter the formula and the environments are always much different. Super Mario Sunshine based the gameplay around the water pack and Galaxy had the unique physics. This is not like Ratchet and Clank where the installments release constantly and always give one a sense of de javu. Mario games always bring something fresh to the table. I know alot of people try to ignore that by employing the ridiculous "you always save teh princess" logic.

Sure, their are lots of rehashed spin-offs, but as long as the proper games are fresh, I don't see a HUGE problem with this. And if people do complain about this, I hope they do the same when Halo sports and party games start to come out. :P

Super Mario Galaxy 2 might bring the series into slight rehash territory (as superb as Super Mario Galaxy is, I hope this is not the case given Mario's excellent track record in this area), but so far,the main Mario serieshas been anything but a rehash series.

You have nothing to worry about with Super Mario Galaxy 2.

[6:31] When designing the first Super Mario Galaxy, they made a ton of levels which did not make it into the final game.

[6:31] However, once the project started, the team really got back into the game, and ended up making a slew of new content.

[6:31] As a result, about 90 percent of the game is all-new content.

[6:32] The game is just as expansive as Super Mario Galaxy, content-wise.Gamespot Article

They're usually referring to the Mario party and Mario sports games when they say something like that. Calling them "Mario games" is just a blanket term.

Mario isn't a rehash but it's being milked. With spinoffs like Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Mario Super Sluggers, etc.

Atleast Nintendo knows how to milk though. Almost all those games are fun and beat the hell out of playing Guitar Hero or Rock Band on consoles and handhelds.

You have nothing to worry about with Super Mario Galaxy 2.

[QUOTE="Gamespot Article"]

[6:31] When designing the first Super Mario Galaxy, they made a ton of levels which did not make it into the final game.

[6:31] However, once the project started, the team really got back into the game, and ended up making a slew of new content.

[6:31] As a result, about 90 percent of the game is all-new content.

[6:32] The game is just as expansive as Super Mario Galaxy, content-wise.Nintendo_Ownes7

Well, I'm glad that most of the content is new, but I hope they throw us a twist of some kind.

They're usually referring to the Mario party and Mario sports games when they say something like that. Calling them "Mario games" is just a blanket term.

dracula_16

Well, if they're refering to Mario sports games and the like, they should qualify their statements, because Mario sports game are Mario franchises, but not THE Mario franchise.

But then again, I know that only some of the people that make the argument are talking about the sports games and etc. because some of them employ the "you save the princess all the time " logic.

Mario isn't a rehash but it's being milked. With spinoffs like Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Mario Super Sluggers, etc.

Atleast Nintendo knows how to milk though. Almost all those games are fun and beat the hell out of playing Guitar Hero or Rock Band on consoles and handhelds.

RobisGodly

Well, just because I'm impressed at their ability to keep the main Mario franchise fresh, I don't care all that muchif they milk. I mean, I'd rather a company milk with spin-offs at the same time keeping the actual franchise fresh instead of not milking with spin-offs, but instead taking the gamer on a annual cruise to Rehash Central ala Insomniac.

mario has to be sinle-handedly, the most MILKED character in gaming history. he has appeared in several rehash titles and spin-offs. to be exact, over 200 GAMES FEATURE MARIO. that kind of milkage could drain a cow dry. here's a list of every game mario has ever been in.

LIST (too damn big for me to post here).

mario has to be sinle-handedly, the most MILKED character in gaming history. he has appeared in several rehash titles and spin-offs. to be exact, over 200 GAMES FEATURE MARIO. that kind of milkage could drain a cow dry. here's a list of every game mario has ever been in.

LIST (too damn big for me to post here).

cowgriller

Holy crap. That's alot of freaking milkage, but as I said earlier, atleast they have kept the main franchise fresh.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

mario has to be sinle-handedly, the most MILKED character in gaming history. he has appeared in several rehash titles and spin-offs. to be exact, over 200 GAMES FEATURE MARIO. that kind of milkage could drain a cow dry. here's a list of every game mario has ever been in.

LIST (too damn big for me to post here).

Tragic_Kingdom7

Holy crap. That's alot of freaking milkage, but as I said earlier, atleast theyhave kept themain franchise fresh.

the main franchise has always been the same. find the princess because she's been kidnapped again. there's really not much nintendo can do for the franchise. essentially what nintendo is doing for the main franchise is giving a rundown house a new coat of paint. sure the paint makes it look a little better, but it doesn't fix the main problems of the house. the house can still fall given enough time or or a strong breeze.

I dunno. Whenever I play a true Mario game (ie: SMG, SM64, even SMS, and of course all the 2D games like SMW, SMW2, SMB, SMB3, and NSMB) it's a magical experience. Those games are so damn good.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

mario has to be sinle-handedly, the most MILKED character in gaming history. he has appeared in several rehash titles and spin-offs. to be exact, over 200 GAMES FEATURE MARIO. that kind of milkage could drain a cow dry. here's a list of every game mario has ever been in.

LIST (too damn big for me to post here).

cowgriller

Holy crap. That's alot of freaking milkage, but as I said earlier, atleast they have kept themain franchise fresh.

the main franchise has always been the same. find the princess because she's been kidnapped again. there's really not much nintendo can do for the franchise. essentially what nintendo is doing for the main franchise is giving a rundown house a new coat of paint. sure the paint makes it look a little better, but it doesn't fix the main problems of the house. the house can still fall given enough time or or a strong breeze.

How is it a rundown house? Super Mario Galaxy got superb scores and is #3 on Gamerankings. I mean, I'm open to different opinions, but you're going to have to explain that one. What are the "problems"?

Also, it's funny that Ipointed out the ridiculous "Mario always saves teh princess logic" and you used it. The save the princess thing is just a premise to give the action context. It doesn't factor into the core gameplay or the gameplay mechanics. I guess you're going to tell me that the 2D games are just like the three games because both involve saving the princess.

The main frachise has always had the same basic foundation, but no, the physics in Mario Galaxy are not just a"new coat of paint".

mario has to be sinle-handedly, the most MILKED character in gaming history. he has appeared in several rehash titles and spin-offs. to be exact, over 200 GAMES FEATURE MARIO. that kind of milkage could drain a cow dry. here's a list of every game mario has ever been in.

LIST (too damn big for me to post here).

cowgriller

Some of the games listed 8 times is Mario Bros. (Arcade, NES/Famicom, NEC PC-8801, Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Atari 7800, XE Game System, and Virtual Console.)

I know it is milkage but the person that made that list could've made it shorter by just listing the game and beside it listing the years.

I dunno. Whenever I play a true Mario game (ie: SMG, SM64, even SMS, and of course all the 2D games like SMW, SMW2, SMB, SMB3, and NSMB) it's a magical experience. Those games are so damn good.

BioShockOwnz

I'm really curious to hear cowgriller explain this "rundown house" business. He's the only one I've ever heard actually say something like that.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

mario has to be sinle-handedly, the most MILKED character in gaming history. he has appeared in several rehash titles and spin-offs. to be exact, over 200 GAMES FEATURE MARIO. that kind of milkage could drain a cow dry. here's a list of every game mario has ever been in.

LIST (too damn big for me to post here).

Nintendo_Ownes7

Some of the games listed 8 times is Mario Bros. (Arcade, NES/Famicom, NEC PC-8801, Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Atari 7800, XE Game System, and Virtual Console.)

It's still a really long list even if you eliminate the repeats though.

mario has mustache. all is forgiven. besides, most of his games are greatfunsohng

[QUOTE="funsohng"]mario has mustache. all is forgiven. besides, most of his games are greatTR800

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

Holy crap. That's alot of freaking milkage, but as I said earlier, atleast they have kept themain franchise fresh.

Tragic_Kingdom7

the main franchise has always been the same. find the princess because she's been kidnapped again. there's really not much nintendo can do for the franchise. essentially what nintendo is doing for the main franchise is giving a rundown house a new coat of paint. sure the paint makes it look a little better, but it doesn't fix the main problems of the house. the house can still fall given enough time or or a strong breeze.

How is it a rundown house? Super Mario Galaxy got superb scores and is #3 on Gamerankings. I mean, I'm open to different opinions, but you're going to have to explain that one. What are the "problems"?

Also, it's funny that Ipointed out the ridiculous "Mario always saves teh princess logic" and you used it. The save the princess thing is just a premise to give the action context. It doesn't factor into the core gameplay or the gameplay mechanics. I guess you're going to tell me that the 2D games are just like the three games because both involve saving the princess.

The main frachise has always had the same basic foundation, but no, the physics in Mario Galaxy are not just a"new coat of paint".

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of mario bros., the games formula has always bee the same - explore a world looking for the princess (originally peach but there is also another princess) and defeat Bowser/King Koopa to set her free. nintndo never really tried to change this formula. they never changed the story to a point where peach gets pissed and kills bowser herself and then slaps mario for taking too long. when mario made the transition from 2d to 3d in super mario 64, this formula was still used unchanged. the only thing that changed was the graphics and the addition of new enemies. smg just put mario in space but the formula remains unchanged. that what is meant with the rundown house analogy. they can change the graphics and locations (new paint) but the formula/story remains the same for 25 years unchanged (derelict house). the physics in smg can be considered a new coat of paint unless it changes the story. this however never happens in any game so it's just another nice addition.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

mario has to be sinle-handedly, the most MILKED character in gaming history. he has appeared in several rehash titles and spin-offs. to be exact, over 200 GAMES FEATURE MARIO. that kind of milkage could drain a cow dry. here's a list of every game mario has ever been in.

LIST (too damn big for me to post here).

Nintendo_Ownes7

Some of the games listed 8 times is Mario Bros. (Arcade, NES/Famicom, NEC PC-8801, Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Atari 7800, XE Game System, and Virtual Console.)

I know it is milkage but the person that made that list could've made it shorter by just listing the game and beside it listing the years.

the list, which i didn't make fyi, only shows the games mario has appeared in. it doesn't mean that he was the star. but i can see your point about the multiple consoles and territories, but just like games today, the different systems provide a different experience, evidently enough to call it a different game. there's no way that an arcade game has the same experience as the NES or a PC.

I don't think anyone really wants to see mario go, and if they do - they're crazy.

People really just want to see a new IP and a new character from nintendo.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

the main franchise has always been the same. find the princess because she's been kidnapped again. there's really not much nintendo can do for the franchise. essentially what nintendo is doing for the main franchise is giving a rundown house a new coat of paint. sure the paint makes it look a little better, but it doesn't fix the main problems of the house. the house can still fall given enough time or or a strong breeze.

cowgriller

How is it a rundown house? Super Mario Galaxy got superb scores and is #3 on Gamerankings. I mean, I'm open to different opinions, but you're going to have to explain that one. What are the "problems"?

Also, it's funny that Ipointed out the ridiculous "Mario always saves teh princess logic" and you used it. The save the princess thing is just a premise to give the action context. It doesn't factor into the core gameplay or the gameplay mechanics. I guess you're going to tell me that the 2D games are just like the three games because both involve saving the princess.

The main frachise has always had the same basic foundation, but no, the physics in Mario Galaxy are not just a"new coat of paint".

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of mario bros., the games formula has always bee the same - explore a world looking for the princess (originally peach but there is also another princess) and defeat Bowser/King Koopa to set her free. nintndo never really tried to change this formula. they never changed the story to a point where peach gets pissed and kills bowser herself and then slaps mario for taking too long. when mario made the transition from 2d to 3d in super mario 64, this formula was still used unchanged. the only thing that changed was the graphics and the addition of new enemies. smg just put mario in space but the formula remains unchanged. that what is meant with the rundown house analogy. they can change the graphics and locations (new paint) but the formula/story remains the same for 25 years unchanged (derelict house). the physics in smg can be considered a new coat of paint unless it changes the story. this however never happens in any game so it's just another nice addition.

I'm going to use bullet points to reply to this.

1) Why are you focusing on the story so much? It's a secondary element that merely gives a premise to the action. You don't seem to mention anything about gameplay when you accuse them of an identical formula. Basically, the premise of the game stays the same, but the installements always bring some new elements gameplay-wise. On the other side of the coin, Ratchet and Clank's story might change, but the actual game is always deva ju-like. I really don't get why you're emphasizing the story so much.

2) Are you really making the argument that nothing changed besides a few new enemies in Mario 64? Seriously? When Mario transitioned to 3D, they had to rebuild the gameplay from the ground up. Any swtich to 3D is going to require a reworking of the platforming elements for platform games. Why do you think Sonic 3D games have been so inferior to 3D Mario games? It's because 3D requires the developers to rethink how the player interacts with the game environment and the Sonic developers couldn't adapt to this as well. 3D is a whole different ballgame from 2D and yet you actually think that nothing changed but a few new enemies? That's nonsense. And it's also quite weird that you can ignore that just because the game was the same in an area that has always been superficial to Mario games.

3) Where is it written that new gameplay elements arejust a new coat of paint if the basic story is not changed? The physics was a rethinking of how the player interacted with space and somehow that's not a new coat of paint just because they used the same basic premise? That's not logical.

Like I said, Ratchet and Clank has a new story everytime but almost no core elements change between the installements. 3D Mario games have introduced new gameplay elements and very different kinds of environments and environmental interaction. By your logic, Ratchet and Clank has put on more than a new coat of paint whereas Mario hasn't. That doesn't make sense.

^ The games play radically different. That's way more than a slap of paint. You've totally ignored the gameplay, which is the most important thing. That's like saying every shooter where you're saving the world is the same because "You're saving the world from a threat." Some of the gameplay differences in Mario games are as big a difference as comparing a shooter like Metal Gear Solid 4 and a shooter like Halo 3 and saying they're just "slapping on a coat of paint" because the story in both is you saving the world. I think you're way off base man. To completely discredit the HUGE differences in gameplay is a pretty big logic error.Senor_Kami

there aren't that may mario games in the main franchise that are all that much different in terms of gameplay. mario 64 was huge in terms of gameplay changes. smg is also big in terms of gamplay due to the physics and the the fact that you could run around entire planets rather than on a flat surface. i'm not downplaying those at all. mario sunshine provided a different game dynamic but was not a part of the main franchise (at least i don't think it was). most devs are guilty of this but they try to add new gamplay elements be it in single player of multiplayer. also, most devs haven't been milking a franchise for the better part of 3 decades.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

the main franchise has always been the same. find the princess because she's been kidnapped again. there's really not much nintendo can do for the franchise. essentially what nintendo is doing for the main franchise is giving a rundown house a new coat of paint. sure the paint makes it look a little better, but it doesn't fix the main problems of the house. the house can still fall given enough time or or a strong breeze.

cowgriller

How is it a rundown house? Super Mario Galaxy got superb scores and is #3 on Gamerankings. I mean, I'm open to different opinions, but you're going to have to explain that one. What are the "problems"?

Also, it's funny that Ipointed out the ridiculous "Mario always saves teh princess logic" and you used it. The save the princess thing is just a premise to give the action context. It doesn't factor into the core gameplay or the gameplay mechanics. I guess you're going to tell me that the 2D games are just like the three games because both involve saving the princess.

The main frachise has always had the same basic foundation, but no, the physics in Mario Galaxy are not just a"new coat of paint".

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of mario bros., the games formula has always bee the same - explore a world looking for the princess (originally peach but there is also another princess) and defeat Bowser/King Koopa to set her free. nintndo never really tried to change this formula. they never changed the story to a point where peach gets pissed and kills bowser herself and then slaps mario for taking too long. when mario made the transition from 2d to 3d in super mario 64, this formula was still used unchanged. the only thing that changed was the graphics and the addition of new enemies. smg just put mario in space but the formula remains unchanged. that what is meant with the rundown house analogy. they can change the graphics and locations (new paint) but the formula/story remains the same for 25 years unchanged (derelict house). the physics in smg can be considered a new coat of paint unless it changes the story. this however never happens in any game so it's just another nice addition.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

How is it a rundown house? Super Mario Galaxy got superb scores and is #3 on Gamerankings. I mean, I'm open to different opinions, but you're going to have to explain that one. What are the "problems"?

Also, it's funny that Ipointed out the ridiculous "Mario always saves teh princess logic" and you used it. The save the princess thing is just a premise to give the action context. It doesn't factor into the core gameplay or the gameplay mechanics. I guess you're going to tell me that the 2D games are just like the three games because both involve saving the princess.

The main frachise has always had the same basic foundation, but no, the physics in Mario Galaxy are not just a"new coat of paint".

Tragic_Kingdom7

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of mario bros., the games formula has always bee the same - explore a world looking for the princess (originally peach but there is also another princess) and defeat Bowser/King Koopa to set her free. nintndo never really tried to change this formula. they never changed the story to a point where peach gets pissed and kills bowser herself and then slaps mario for taking too long. when mario made the transition from 2d to 3d in super mario 64, this formula was still used unchanged. the only thing that changed was the graphics and the addition of new enemies. smg just put mario in space but the formula remains unchanged. that what is meant with the rundown house analogy. they can change the graphics and locations (new paint) but the formula/story remains the same for 25 years unchanged (derelict house). the physics in smg can be considered a new coat of paint unless it changes the story. this however never happens in any game so it's just another nice addition.

I'm going to use bullet points to reply to this.

1) Why are you focusing on the story so much? It's a secondary element that merely gives a premise to the action. You don't seem to mention anything about gameplay when you accuse them of an identical formula. Basically, the premise of the game stays the same, but the installements always bring some new elements gameplay-wise. On the other side of the coin, Ratchet and Clank's story might change, but the actual game is always deva ju-like. I really don't get why you're emphasizing the story so much.

2) Are you really making the argument that nothing changed besides a few new enemies in Mario 64? Seriously? When Mario transitioned to 3D, they had to rebuild the gameplay from the ground up. Any swtich to 3D is going to require a reworking of the platforming elements for platform games. Why do you think Sonic 3D games have been so inferior to 3D Mario games? It's because 3D requires the developers to rethink how the player interacts with the game environment and the Sonic developers couldn't adapt to this as well. 3D is a whole different ballgame from 2D and yet you actually think that nothing changed but a few new enemies? That's nonsense. And it's also quite weird that you can ignore that just because the game was the same in an area that has always been superficial to Mario games.

3) Where is it written that new gameplay elements arejust a new coat of paint if the basic story is not changed? The physics was a rethinking of how the player interacted with space and somehow that's not a new coat of paint just because they used the same basic premise? That's not logical.

Like I said, Ratchet and Clank has a new story everytime but almost no core elements change between the installements. 3D Mario games have introduced new gameplay elements and very different kinds of environments and environmental interaction. By your logic, Ratchet and Clank has put on more than a new coat of paint whereas Mario hasn't. That doesn't make sense.

1) the story should always be the primary focus of the game. the gameplay i explained in another post.

2) other than the transitioning to 3d, the biggest gameplay element improvements to mario 64 was the triple jump and the ability to moves/carry objects. sure it's something different, but it's still not something to write home about.

3)in some instances minor gameplay enhances are really a fresh coat of paint. now if nintendo makes a mario game where he has the ability to slit a throat or blame someone with a flamethrower, then it's still the same game with some enhancements. nintendo is never going to do this because they want to remain as a family friendly comapny. sure they allow m-rated games on their consoles, but they don't make them themselves. (unless i'm mistaken and you would like to correct me on that.)

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]^ The games play radically different. That's way more than a slap of paint. You've totally ignored the gameplay, which is the most important thing. That's like saying every shooter where you're saving the world is the same because "You're saving the world from a threat." Some of the gameplay differences in Mario games are as big a difference as comparing a shooter like Metal Gear Solid 4 and a shooter like Halo 3 and saying they're just "slapping on a coat of paint" because the story in both is you saving the world. I think you're way off base man. To completely discredit the HUGE differences in gameplay is a pretty big logic error.cowgriller

there aren't that may mario games in the main franchise that are all that much different in terms of gameplay. mario 64 was huge in terms of gameplay changes. smg is also big in terms of gamplay due to the physics and the the fact that you could run around entire planets rather than on a flat surface. i'm not downplaying those at all. mario sunshine provided a different game dynamic but was not a part of the main franchise (at least i don't think it was). most devs are guilty of this but they try to add new gamplay elements be it in single player of multiplayer. also, most devs haven't been milking a franchise for the better part of 3 decades.

Super Mario Sunshine is actually part of the main 3D Mario franchise. It's was the Gamecube's main Mario title.

The 2D games were more similar, but even those had alot of changes. Super Mario Brothers 3 had alot of upgrades from the first Mario game, the use of different power-ups being one of them.

Also, the 2nd Super Mario Bros. gamewas not even a Mario game at first and thus was WAY different.

From Wikipedia:

Because SMB2 is a redesign of a non-Mario game, the game differs greatly from the original Super Mario Bros.. However, despite its status for some fans as the black sheep of the series, the game has sold over seven million copiesWikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._2

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

How is it a rundown house? Super Mario Galaxy got superb scores and is #3 on Gamerankings. I mean, I'm open to different opinions, but you're going to have to explain that one. What are the "problems"?

Also, it's funny that Ipointed out the ridiculous "Mario always saves teh princess logic" and you used it. The save the princess thing is just a premise to give the action context. It doesn't factor into the core gameplay or the gameplay mechanics. I guess you're going to tell me that the 2D games are just like the three games because both involve saving the princess.

The main frachise has always had the same basic foundation, but no, the physics in Mario Galaxy are not just a"new coat of paint".

rolo107

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of mario bros., the games formula has always bee the same - explore a world looking for the princess (originally peach but there is also another princess) and defeat Bowser/King Koopa to set her free. nintndo never really tried to change this formula. they never changed the story to a point where peach gets pissed and kills bowser herself and then slaps mario for taking too long. when mario made the transition from 2d to 3d in super mario 64, this formula was still used unchanged. the only thing that changed was the graphics and the addition of new enemies. smg just put mario in space but the formula remains unchanged. that what is meant with the rundown house analogy. they can change the graphics and locations (new paint) but the formula/story remains the same for 25 years unchanged (derelict house). the physics in smg can be considered a new coat of paint unless it changes the story. this however never happens in any game so it's just another nice addition.

actually i'm 23 and have been playing since the early 90's with the NES. yes i have played mario 64 and have knowledge still of that game. what made the game a huge revolution was that it was the first mario game to be in 3d. the same could be said for starfox 64 (whcih also brought another revolution, the rumble pack.)

It's not the core Mario games being rehashed. It's the fact the Mario character itself, is being milked to the end of days.

I believe there was an interview recently(EDIT - Below), with one of Nintendos new people, and she basically said "Well, we love Mario, can you ever have enough Mario? At Nintendo, we don't think you can, so we like giving you a lot of him" I just find it a wee disappointing that Mario is shoved everywhere and anywhere that's to do with Nintendo. He's a gaming icon, so it makes sense, business wise.

Denise Kaigler said...

DK: We can't imagine that anybody could have too much of Mario. That's our thinking. Can anyone core, expanded alike ever have too much Mario? Within Nintendo's walls is a resounding no. We can't imagine that it can be. I can tell you from the response and you were there, you heard it, from both Super Mario Galaxy 2 and New Super Mario Bros. Wii, huge round of applause. So that tells us that we did the right thing. Then of course the DS Mario games. We don't think we can give our consumers too much Mario.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]^ The games play radically different. That's way more than a slap of paint. You've totally ignored the gameplay, which is the most important thing. That's like saying every shooter where you're saving the world is the same because "You're saving the world from a threat." Some of the gameplay differences in Mario games are as big a difference as comparing a shooter like Metal Gear Solid 4 and a shooter like Halo 3 and saying they're just "slapping on a coat of paint" because the story in both is you saving the world. I think you're way off base man. To completely discredit the HUGE differences in gameplay is a pretty big logic error.Tragic_Kingdom7

there aren't that may mario games in the main franchise that are all that much different in terms of gameplay. mario 64 was huge in terms of gameplay changes. smg is also big in terms of gamplay due to the physics and the the fact that you could run around entire planets rather than on a flat surface. i'm not downplaying those at all. mario sunshine provided a different game dynamic but was not a part of the main franchise (at least i don't think it was). most devs are guilty of this but they try to add new gamplay elements be it in single player of multiplayer. also, most devs haven't been milking a franchise for the better part of 3 decades.

Super Mario Sunshine is actually part of the main 3D Mario franchise. It's was the Gamecube's main Mario title.

The 2D games were more similar, but even those had alot of changes. Super Mario Brothers 3 had alot of upgrades from the first Mario game, the use of different power-ups being one of them.

Also, the 2nd Super Mario Bros. gamewas not even a Mario game at first and thus was WAY different.

From Wikipedia:

Because SMB2 is a redesign of a non-Mario game, the game differs greatly from the original Super Mario Bros.. However, despite its status for some fans as the black sheep of the series, the game has sold over seven million copiesWikipedia

thanks for the info. btw, this is second one of these as i accidently deleted the original rather than clicking edit in the drop down box. hopefully you or someone else had time enough to quote it.

screw it, i'll rewrite it:

thanks for the info. i thought that marion sunshine wasn't part of the main franchise because of all the hate it got.

there aren't that may mario games in the main franchise that are all that much different in terms of gameplay. mario 64 was huge in terms of gameplay changes. smg is also big in terms of gamplay due to the physics and the the fact that you could run around entire planets rather than on a flat surface. i'm not downplaying those at all. mario sunshine provided a different game dynamic but was not a part of the main franchise (at least i don't think it was). most devs are guilty of this but they try to add new gamplay elements be it in single player of multiplayer. also, most devs haven't been milking a franchise for the better part of 3 decades.

cowgriller

there aren't that may mario games in the main franchise that are all that much different in terms of gameplay.

How can you say that and then in the next few sentences you talk about the last 3 main franchise games and say how big the gameplay changes are? On top of that, none of those games play at all Like Super Mario World 2 or Super Mario World (the two console installments before those) and SMW2 and SMW don't really share anything in common at all, even by your definition that story is the only thing that can seperate a game.

I think you're way off. You're entitled to your opinion but I think anyone who even just glanced at main franchise Mario games (Mario 1, Mario 2, Mario 3, Super Mario World, SMW2, Mario 64, Mario Sunshine, New Super Mario Bros, Mario Galaxy) would say that there are major major gameplay difference even after just watching someone play them for like 2 minutes.

The closest to being similar is Mario 3, Super Mario World and New Super Mario Bros. One of those came out like 15 years after the previous one. Even with those, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that there hasn't been major additions added each time. I can't think of another non-Nintendo game series where the sequels honestly shake up the game play as much as those 3... and those aren't even 3 that shake things up the most.

You could say that Nintendo makes alot of Mario games. That's undeniable. Where I feel you're way off is saying that Nintendo is basically making the same game. I don't even feel that's something you could say subjectively. There's actual facts and games to play that prove that wrong.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of mario bros., the games formula has always bee the same - explore a world looking for the princess (originally peach but there is also another princess) and defeat Bowser/King Koopa to set her free. nintndo never really tried to change this formula. they never changed the story to a point where peach gets pissed and kills bowser herself and then slaps mario for taking too long. when mario made the transition from 2d to 3d in super mario 64, this formula was still used unchanged. the only thing that changed was the graphics and the addition of new enemies. smg just put mario in space but the formula remains unchanged. that what is meant with the rundown house analogy. they can change the graphics and locations (new paint) but the formula/story remains the same for 25 years unchanged (derelict house). the physics in smg can be considered a new coat of paint unless it changes the story. this however never happens in any game so it's just another nice addition.

cowgriller

I'm going to use bullet points to reply to this.

1) Why are you focusing on the story so much? It's a secondary element that merely gives a premise to the action. You don't seem to mention anything about gameplay when you accuse them of an identical formula. Basically, the premise of the game stays the same, but the installements always bring some new elements gameplay-wise. On the other side of the coin, Ratchet and Clank's story might change, but the actual game is always deva ju-like. I really don't get why you're emphasizing the story so much.

2) Are you really making the argument that nothing changed besides a few new enemies in Mario 64? Seriously? When Mario transitioned to 3D, they had to rebuild the gameplay from the ground up. Any swtich to 3D is going to require a reworking of the platforming elements for platform games. Why do you think Sonic 3D games have been so inferior to 3D Mario games? It's because 3D requires the developers to rethink how the player interacts with the game environment and the Sonic developers couldn't adapt to this as well. 3D is a whole different ballgame from 2D and yet you actually think that nothing changed but a few new enemies? That's nonsense. And it's also quite weird that you can ignore that just because the game was the same in an area that has always been superficial to Mario games.

3) Where is it written that new gameplay elements arejust a new coat of paint if the basic story is not changed? The physics was a rethinking of how the player interacted with space and somehow that's not a new coat of paint just because they used the same basic premise? That's not logical.

Like I said, Ratchet and Clank has a new story everytime but almost no core elements change between the installements. 3D Mario games have introduced new gameplay elements and very different kinds of environments and environmental interaction. By your logic, Ratchet and Clank has put on more than a new coat of paint whereas Mario hasn't. That doesn't make sense.

1) the story should always be the primary focus of the game. the gameplay i explained in another post.

2) other than the transitioning to 3d, the biggest gameplay element improvements to mario 64 was the triple jump and the ability to moves/carry objects. sure it's something different, but it's still not something to write home about.

3)in some instances minor gameplay enhances are really a fresh coat of paint. now if nintendo makes a mario game where he has the ability to slit a throat or blame someone with a flamethrower, then it's still the same game with some enhancements. nintendo is never going to do this because they want to remain as a family friendly comapny. sure they allow m-rated games on their consoles, but they don't make them themselves. (unless i'm mistaken and you would like to correct me on that.)

1) Well, it is your opinion that the story should always be the primary focus of the game. This opinion of yours does not change the fact that there has been pretty substantial gameplay differences between the Mario games. And even if you think that the story should always be the primary focus on a game, the story is not the primary focus in Mario games and thus it not fair to judge growth and evolution solely by looking at the story.

2) You treat the transition to 3D as if it's no big deal or something. And even if we go by your "it's was just in 3D premise", you're still wrong. In the 3D Mario games, the player collects stars in a 3D playing field by completing certain goals within the level. In the 2D Mario games, players simply made their way to end of a linear sidescrolling level. That in itself is a monumental shift.

3) Why would Nintendo make an M-rated Mario game? That'd be dumb.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

there aren't that may mario games in the main franchise that are all that much different in terms of gameplay. mario 64 was huge in terms of gameplay changes. smg is also big in terms of gamplay due to the physics and the the fact that you could run around entire planets rather than on a flat surface. i'm not downplaying those at all. mario sunshine provided a different game dynamic but was not a part of the main franchise (at least i don't think it was). most devs are guilty of this but they try to add new gamplay elements be it in single player of multiplayer. also, most devs haven't been milking a franchise for the better part of 3 decades.

cowgriller

Super Mario Sunshine is actually part of the main 3D Mario franchise. It's was the Gamecube's main Mario title.

The 2D games were more similar, but even those had alot of changes. Super Mario Brothers 3 had alot of upgrades from the first Mario game, the use of different power-ups being one of them.

Also, the 2nd Super Mario Bros. gamewas not even a Mario game at first and thus was WAY different.

From Wikipedia:

Because SMB2 is a redesign of a non-Mario game, the game differs greatly from the original Super Mario Bros.. However, despite its status for some fans as the black sheep of the series, the game has sold over seven million copiesWikipedia

thanks for the info. btw, this is second one of these as i accidently deleted the original rather than clicking edit in the drop down box. hopefully you or someone else had time enough to quote it.

screw it, i'll rewrite it:

thanks for the info. i thought that marion sunshine wasn't part of the main franchise because of all the hate it got.

Did it really get alot of hate? If anybody gave it hate, that's going overboard.I though it was just seen as not achieving the perfection of Mario 64, which I'd agree with. Super Mario Sunshine was easily the worst 3D Mario game. It's an excellent game, but not nearly as good as 64 or Galaxy.

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of mario bros., the games formula has always bee the same - explore a world looking for the princess (originally peach but there is also another princess) and defeat Bowser/King Koopa to set her free. nintndo never really tried to change this formula. they never changed the story to a point where peach gets pissed and kills bowser herself and then slaps mario for taking too long. when mario made the transition from 2d to 3d in super mario 64, this formula was still used unchanged. the only thing that changed was the graphics and the addition of new enemies. smg just put mario in space but the formula remains unchanged. that what is meant with the rundown house analogy. they can change the graphics and locations (new paint) but the formula/story remains the same for 25 years unchanged (derelict house). the physics in smg can be considered a new coat of paint unless it changes the story. this however never happens in any game so it's just another nice addition.

cowgriller

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of football games, the games formula has always been the same - try to take the football from one end of the endzone to another while also trying to prevent the opposing team from doing so. they never really change the story so john madden can go on an epic adventure through the deep dark forest, across the seven seas and all the way through space in an attempt to save his daughter from death. instead its just the same ol keep winning football games so you can get the super bowl trophy.

hint: some games aren't story focused.

When I say Mario is a rehash, I mean Mario himself, not the main Mario games. Mario is they single most over used char in gaming history.

It's not the core Mario games being rehashed. It's the fact the Mario character itself, is being milked to the end of days.

I believe there was an interview recently(EDIT - Below), with one of Nintendos new people, and she basically said "Well, we love Mario, can you ever have enough Mario? At Nintendo, we don't think you can, so we like giving you a lot of him" I just find it a wee disappointing that Mario is shoved everywhere and anywhere that's to do with Nintendo. He's a gaming icon, so it makes sense, business wise.

Denise Kaigler said...

DK: We can't imagine that anybody could have too much of Mario. That's our thinking. Can anyone core, expanded alike ever have too much Mario? Within Nintendo's walls is a resounding no. We can't imagine that it can be. I can tell you from the response and you were there, you heard it, from both Super Mario Galaxy 2 and New Super Mario Bros. Wii, huge round of applause. So that tells us that we did the right thing. Then of course the DS Mario games. We don't think we can give our consumers too much Mario.

jonnyt61

I think I sort of get what they are saying, but they sound so goofy. :lol:

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

I'm going to use bullet points to reply to this.

1) Why are you focusing on the story so much? It's a secondary element that merely gives a premise to the action. You don't seem to mention anything about gameplay when you accuse them of an identical formula. Basically, the premise of the game stays the same, but the installements always bring some new elements gameplay-wise. On the other side of the coin, Ratchet and Clank's story might change, but the actual game is always deva ju-like. I really don't get why you're emphasizing the story so much.

2) Are you really making the argument that nothing changed besides a few new enemies in Mario 64? Seriously? When Mario transitioned to 3D, they had to rebuild the gameplay from the ground up. Any swtich to 3D is going to require a reworking of the platforming elements for platform games. Why do you think Sonic 3D games have been so inferior to 3D Mario games? It's because 3D requires the developers to rethink how the player interacts with the game environment and the Sonic developers couldn't adapt to this as well. 3D is a whole different ballgame from 2D and yet you actually think that nothing changed but a few new enemies? That's nonsense. And it's also quite weird that you can ignore that just because the game was the same in an area that has always been superficial to Mario games.

3) Where is it written that new gameplay elements arejust a new coat of paint if the basic story is not changed? The physics was a rethinking of how the player interacted with space and somehow that's not a new coat of paint just because they used the same basic premise? That's not logical.

Like I said, Ratchet and Clank has a new story everytime but almost no core elements change between the installements. 3D Mario games have introduced new gameplay elements and very different kinds of environments and environmental interaction. By your logic, Ratchet and Clank has put on more than a new coat of paint whereas Mario hasn't. That doesn't make sense.

Tragic_Kingdom7

1) the story should always be the primary focus of the game. the gameplay i explained in another post.

2) other than the transitioning to 3d, the biggest gameplay element improvements to mario 64 was the triple jump and the ability to moves/carry objects. sure it's something different, but it's still not something to write home about.

3)in some instances minor gameplay enhances are really a fresh coat of paint. now if nintendo makes a mario game where he has the ability to slit a throat or blame someone with a flamethrower, then it's still the same game with some enhancements. nintendo is never going to do this because they want to remain as a family friendly comapny. sure they allow m-rated games on their consoles, but they don't make them themselves. (unless i'm mistaken and you would like to correct me on that.)

1) Well, it is your opinion that the story should always be the primary focus of the game. This opinion of yours does not change the fact that there has been pretty substantial gameplay differences between the Mario games. And even if you think that the story should always be the primary focus on a game, the story is not the primary focus in Mario games and thus it not fair to judge growth and evolution solely by looking at the story.

2) You treat the transition to 3D as if it's no big deal or something. And even if we go by your "it's was just in 3D premise", you're still wrong. In the 3D Mario games, the player collects stars in a 3D playing field by completing certain goals within the level. In the 2D Mario games, players simply made their way to end of a linear sidescrolling level. That in itself is a monumental shift.

3) Why would Nintendo make an M-rated Mario game? That'd be dumb.

1) though it is my opinion that the story should always come first, a game without a story or a poor story gets stale and boring (unless it's action packed and makes you forget the lack of story *cough* gears *cough*).

2) at the time, the shift to 3d was big. the n64 was nintendo's first console to play game in 3d. that was actually the biggest selling point of sm 64. btw, it was more than completing goals in a level. some stars required you to collect a certain amount of red and blue coins in any level to get the star. others you had to look for because they were hidden. if you collected 120 stars, a cannon in the front lawn of the castle would come out of the ground. if you point the cannon in the right location and fire, you can find yoshi on top of the castle. i never got the 120 stars. i got stuck at 117.

3)well nintendo is all for expanding the user-base, why not make an m-rated mario?

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

Super Mario Sunshine is actually part of the main 3D Mario franchise. It's was the Gamecube's main Mario title.

The 2D games were more similar, but even those had alot of changes. Super Mario Brothers 3 had alot of upgrades from the first Mario game, the use of different power-ups being one of them.

Also, the 2nd Super Mario Bros. gamewas not even a Mario game at first and thus was WAY different.

From Wikipedia:

[quote="Wikipedia"]Because SMB2 is a redesign of a non-Mario game, the game differs greatly from the original Super Mario Bros.. However, despite its status for some fans as the black sheep of the series, the game has sold over seven million copiesTragic_Kingdom7

thanks for the info. btw, this is second one of these as i accidently deleted the original rather than clicking edit in the drop down box. hopefully you or someone else had time enough to quote it.

screw it, i'll rewrite it:

thanks for the info. i thought that marion sunshine wasn't part of the main franchise because of all the hate it got.

Did it really get alot of hate? If anybody gave it hate, that's going overboard.I though it was just seen as not achieving the perfection of Mario 64, which I'd agree with. Super Mario Sunshine was easily the worst 3D Mario game. It's an excellent game, but not nearly as good as 64 or Galaxy.

i think it had more to do with using a water cannon to clean the world of pollution. it just seemed like a huge detraction that didn't payoff. but i do see the irony in it. the first time nintendo tries to make a mario game that isn't centered around saving the princess, the loyalists complain. but when they continue to use the same premise/story, then other people, like myself, call out rehash.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of mario bros., the games formula has always bee the same - explore a world looking for the princess (originally peach but there is also another princess) and defeat Bowser/King Koopa to set her free. nintndo never really tried to change this formula. they never changed the story to a point where peach gets pissed and kills bowser herself and then slaps mario for taking too long. when mario made the transition from 2d to 3d in super mario 64, this formula was still used unchanged. the only thing that changed was the graphics and the addition of new enemies. smg just put mario in space but the formula remains unchanged. that what is meant with the rundown house analogy. they can change the graphics and locations (new paint) but the formula/story remains the same for 25 years unchanged (derelict house). the physics in smg can be considered a new coat of paint unless it changes the story. this however never happens in any game so it's just another nice addition.

Silenthps

let me explain. for the past 25 years, since the introduction of football games, the games formula has always been the same - try to take the football from one end of the endzone to another while also trying to prevent the opposing team from doing so. they never really change the story so john madden can go on an epic adventure through the deep dark forest, across the seven seas and all the way through space in an attempt to save his daughter from death. instead its just the same ol keep winning football games so you can get the super bowl trophy.

hint: some games aren't story focused.

wait, your tring to compare an action/platformer to a sports game? btw, there have been football games that change the formula. NFL Blitz. that was until the EA monopoly.

Anyone who bashes the core Mario games is deliberately being dense.

Mr_Matthews

wow. way to flame me without mentioning my name. how about adding something constructive to the argument or even the topic instead of trolling and flaming?

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

1) the story should always be the primary focus of the game. the gameplay i explained in another post.

2) other than the transitioning to 3d, the biggest gameplay element improvements to mario 64 was the triple jump and the ability to moves/carry objects. sure it's something different, but it's still not something to write home about.

3)in some instances minor gameplay enhances are really a fresh coat of paint. now if nintendo makes a mario game where he has the ability to slit a throat or blame someone with a flamethrower, then it's still the same game with some enhancements. nintendo is never going to do this because they want to remain as a family friendly comapny. sure they allow m-rated games on their consoles, but they don't make them themselves. (unless i'm mistaken and you would like to correct me on that.)

cowgriller

1) Well, it is your opinion that the story should always be the primary focus of the game. This opinion of yours does not change the fact that there has been pretty substantial gameplay differences between the Mario games. And even if you think that the story should always be the primary focus on a game, the story is not the primary focus in Mario games and thus it not fair to judge growth and evolution solely by looking at the story.

2) You treat the transition to 3D as if it's no big deal or something. And even if we go by your "it's was just in 3D premise", you're still wrong. In the 3D Mario games, the player collects stars in a 3D playing field by completing certain goals within the level. In the 2D Mario games, players simply made their way to end of a linear sidescrolling level. That in itself is a monumental shift.

3) Why would Nintendo make an M-rated Mario game? That'd be dumb.

1) though it is my opinion that the story should always come first, a game without a story or a poor story gets stale and boring (unless it's action packed and makes you forget the lack of story *cough* gears *cough*).

2) at the time, the shift to 3d was big. the n64 was nintendo's first console to play game in 3d. that was actually the biggest selling point of sm 64. btw, it was more than completing goals in a level. some stars required you to collect a certain amount of red and blue coins in any level to get the star. others you had to look for because they were hidden. if you collected 120 stars, a cannon in the front lawn of the castle would come out of the ground. if you point the cannon in the right location and fire, you can find yoshi on top of the castle. i never got the 120 stars. i got stuck at 117.

3)well nintendo is all for expanding the user-base, why not make an m-rated mario?

1) I think the fact that you make an exception for Gears and not Mario is kind of weird. I mean, Mario is action-packed in its own way, so why not make an exception for it as well? It makes more sense to excuse both because they both don't focus on story.

2)I know there was alot more to it than simply completing goals in level, but that proves my point. :P

3) An M-rated Mario would be awkward. It wouldn't gel right with Mario conceptually. I don't think developers should make things M rated for the sake of it. It has to make sense.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

thanks for the info. btw, this is second one of these as i accidently deleted the original rather than clicking edit in the drop down box. hopefully you or someone else had time enough to quote it.

screw it, i'll rewrite it:

thanks for the info. i thought that marion sunshine wasn't part of the main franchise because of all the hate it got.

cowgriller

Did it really get alot of hate? If anybody gave it hate, that's going overboard.I though it was just seen as not achieving the perfection of Mario 64, which I'd agree with. Super Mario Sunshine was easily the worst 3D Mario game. It's an excellent game, but not nearly as good as 64 or Galaxy.

i think it had more to do with using a water cannon to clean the world of pollution. it just seemed like a huge detraction that didn't payoff. but i do see the irony in it. the first time nintendo tries to make a mario game that isn't centered around saving the princess, the loyalists complain. but when they continue to use the same premise/story, then other people, like myself, call out rehash.

If loyalists were really hating on it because of the water pack, that only re-affirms my mild dislike of hardcore loyalists in general. I mean, as fan of many things, I have no problem with fans. But hardcore loyalists need to be more open-minded.

Type the word "Mario" into the box.

Click search button.

220 results.

I think the world is just a little bit tired of him at this point.

When people say that they're talking about the sports and party games. The platforming and RPG games are always a blast to play, and really if those games were so stale, they wouldn't be so critically acclaimed now would they?