***STRAW-MAN ALERT***

I'm not going to name any names but SOMEBODY drove the market so fucking deep into the drooling drivel of lowest common denominator mainstream that this kind of practice is just unavoidable in order to stay in business. Look at ANY top 10 sales chart for Playstation 2 or Xbox (or GameCube once you takes out the Nintendo titles).. what do you see? Shit titles based on Spider-Men, X-Man, Star Wars, A FUCKING 50 CENT GAME, a fucking game based on the fake life of a rapper idolized by stupid white preteen boys, games based on whatever Disney movie is out that week, games based on movies, games based on movies, games based on movies, games based on movies, games based on movies, games based on cartoons, games based on cartoons, games based on games based on something else.. The top selling game of 2003, Enter the Matrix, was almost one of the LOWEST RATED of the year. Nintendo is the easy target because they always use Mario.. but how is that any different than EA's entire library, not one fucking title that isn't based on a movie or sport, or any of the other publishers out there whose entire existence is based upon taking other ideas and making them into games?

So Pixy, tell us how you really feel. ;)

Could Pixy really be Vic Ireland? If you notice you never see them in the same place at the same time.

Something to think about. :scratch2:

I don't have too much of a problem with it - I thoroughly enjoy the MP series. My only gripe with it is that I'd much rather see a REAL Mario game - a true sequel to Mario 64 - one of the best games EVER in my opinion - would be a great start. Instead, we get 94304239702382 Mario sidegames. I don't mind, but I'd rather see them put their efforts into a defintive Mario game.

I have a pro-video game bias. So basically what he is saying is he doesn't own a gamecube, gba, or DS. So he really doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

As much as some say Mario is a whore, nearly every Mario game has been great (with the exceptions of Mario is Missing and Marios Time Machine).

Would Mario Baseball be good without the Mario theme? Yes. Is it even better with the Mario theme? Yes. Should Nintendo waste development time coming up with generic characters that won't be as good as the universe they already have developed? Hell No

So in the end your asking Nintendo to waste extra time to make a game that is just like the stuff that you can get on the other systems. It doesn't really make sense.

And for example the DDR mario game. I already have the PS2 DDRs but since they used the Mario theme and music in the game i might pick up a game that i never would have considered buying if it was just more of the same.

Normally I hold your opinions in high regard, but this statement to me reeks of an unhealthy bias as much as some of the others made in this thread.

While there are tons of shit games, and those sadly sell well, brand recognition does not always equal shit. For example, the X-Men Legends games have been rated well and loved by many, as have some other games based on movies, based on cartoons, or whatever. Simply using brand recognition does not mean the game will suck. Some in fact turn pretty darn good. Maybe those games aren't your thing or genres, but to crap on them just because they are not "Super Twinkle Sparkle Collector Fairies That Only Six People In The World Know About 6" does not automatically make them bad games.

I'm mostly defending X-Men here, and maybe some Star Wars.

I haven't ever really gotten into Spider-Man.

"Super Twinkle Sparkle Collector Fairies That Only Six People In The World Know About 6" might make a cool game. I do enjoy unknown or offbeat titles as much as most here.

Disney titles tend to be simplistic games marketed at younger children, this has been going on since games began.

I wholeheartedly agree about 50 Cent.

Newsweek has said not too long ago that Mario is the most popular character in the world over the likes of Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny. Does Disney and Warner Bros. license out their brands out to millions of companies, yes. If people want it, they should have it. Mario is Nintendo's statement and I think the reason why they are holding out on making a new Mario game like one in every few years now (I guess it has been 8 since Mario 64, most people don't count Sunshine as a true to form Mario game) and Nintendo probably just wants to make the most excellent game ever. I wouldn't doubt the controller for the Revolution was made just in mind for the new Mario game that has been in the works for years for the most part.

I agree with those statements. There are so many good games built off of established franchises, that to group them all into a single category and shrug them off as "shit games" is absolutely ridiculous. There are certainly some clunkers out there; but there are incredibly poor games that try to be "innovative" as well. It reminds me of music fans who tout the virtues of indie music and immediately put up their noses at anything "mainstream."

As for Mario, I don't consider the use of brand recognition as whoring him out. The games are all great, and part of that has been some of the small nuances that the Mario universe includes that make the games a little bit more appealing.

Mario's a pimp. Peach is the whore!

http://www.n-sider.com/media/hearts21peach.jpg

Nobody is questioning the quality of these games, with a few exceptions (Mario is Missing, Time Machine etc). Let's please drop that aspect of this thread as it was never it's intention.


Why does everyone say that the alternative to using Mario is using generic characters? How about new and exciting characters? Mario, Samus, and Link did not start out with the same name recognition as they have now, yet their games flourished and built Nintendo into what they are today. I'd prefer to see new characters and new universes explored.

Although I would have preferred Mario with a plunger in Soul Calibur 2 as opposed to Link as that would be just too funny.

I don't see why people are bashing the Mario games. Nintendo is still putting out titles like Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Cubivore, and tons of other titles that have nothing to do with Mario. Nintendo doesn't put Mario into every single game, and they still promote creativity in their other titles, so why should it matter if they use Mario to market a tennis game?

I mean, look at Dead or Alive. You've already got the Ninja Gaiden guy in it, and then they made DOA Volleyball. How is that any different?

I don't think Pixy is saying that ALL games based upon pre-existing franchises are bad. He's just saying that the brand recognition, no matter what brand it is, is how a lot of games are sold. You say you love the X-men titles of late as many others do. Do you think you would have looked into these games as quickly or as seriously if they just made up some new, generic heroes? Maybe you would, but I guarentee the majority of people who bought, say, X-Men legends did it purely because they get to run around as Wolverine and cut things up. If Battlefronts didn't have Boba Fett, Stormtroopers, Han, Luke, Qui Gon, Tie Fighters, the Death Star, yadda yadda yadda, I'd pretty much guarentee it wouldn't be at the top of everyone's to-get list even if it was a good game. Mario is no different.

Dave: wait I think I know what's going on here, you are confusing a Man-Whore with Mario.<br><img src="http://thor.mirtna.org/oddities/lookalikes/pics/mario_-_ron_jeremy.jpg">

rotfl

I agree with you if your talking about new adventure games but most of these are little side genre games. Do really need new characters for a virtual board game, a cart racing game, or a wacky sports game?

I think there is definitely a bit of overkill in some cases. The Mario Party franchise is getting nearly as bad as the various sports franchises which pump out a new one every 12 months which a dubious amount of "improvements".

I certainly would never buy a game just because Mario or Character XX was in it, but I can be swayed slightly. For example I bought DOA: XBV, but I probably wouldn't have bought it without the DOA association. Also, one of my favourite all time games is Mario Kart, which is an outstanding kart game on it's own, however the use of the Nintendo characters here really add some charm.

Some crossovers I think are a bit naff, like Link in SC2 and Spartan in DOA4. These don't really add anything to the game for me.

I think the Mario Party games are still great and each contains new minigames so people who like to party hard with videogames. The latest one has microphone games (which I think was on the last one) and now 8 people can play with 2 on each controller. Also, Mario Party games still retain value after releasing new ones unlike sports games which drop to 5.99 used usually.

I am defending sports games because people want to have completely updated roosters and all that jive stuff. I wonder if people would still buy new sports games just because of that and not because of new graphics or whatever.

Actually, Link is one of the best all-around fighters in SC2, and he's got some powerful alternate weapons. He's fast and strong, and his reach is pretty good. Now, he's not as good as say, Ivy when you know all of her moves, but he was always a good backup. Now compare that to Spawn in the Xbox version who had, what, a floating move? Man, that sucked. He'd have to float to set up the next move, and in the time it took him to float up, the enemy would knock him down.

Link in SC2 made perfect sense to me.

But there was no reason that the fighter had to be Link. You could have just added another sword and shield fighter with the same moves to give you the extra character to play with. The Link tie in within the context of the game makes no sense. Of course it probably sold a few more copies on the GC version but it doesn't mean I don't think it's dumb.

I thought Link was a cool addition. I love Soul Calibur, and I love Zelda, so it was a cool added bonus.

Guess I'm one of those mindless sheep that likes recognizable characters. :D

Link fits in well to the SC world. And the whole point of SC2 on each system was to have a tie-in character that is unique to each system. I don't see what's dumb about it. He fit, he's a good fighter, and it was a little perk for Link fans, myself included.

As I said before, at least Nintendo still encourages new, original titles. Take a look at Lucasarts. They used to make tons of great games like Full Throttle, Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, and Sam And Max (based on a comic, but still great), as well as that game where you find aliens on the moon (I think it was called The Dig, but I'm not 100% sure). Go to their website now, and what do you see? Star Wars, Star Wars, Star Wars, Mercenaries, Star Wars, Star Wars, Star Wars. That is a real travesty. A company that used to make tons of great games in a variety of genres is now making Star Wars games almost exclusively. To me, that's much worse than Nintendo putting Mario in a tennis game or Link in SC2.


Just to mention, I loved Battlefront II, but I also loved those other games they used to make, and I wish we could see more like that.

Ape Escape monkeys in MGS3. MGS3 didn't need it, but it's all in good fun. Isn't that what games are about? I think it's fun to interact with characters you recognize, but that's just me.

Ok, at first I thought this was three pages of discussion about why Mario dumped Daisy for Peach. Guess I was wrong.

Mario as the lead in Killer 7 would've been interesting, to say the least.

The answer, of course, was in the very first post in this topic: brand recognition. Some are saying that making a good game should be enough, but clearly that is not true in the real world. Even the best games have to have some kind of marketing budget these days to be successful... and how better to market a title than with an already-popularized character/concept?

To me, Mario is not a whore because all the games he appears in are within the context of the character Nintendo has built (ok, maybe NBA Street was stretching it a little). He's not gunning people down in an FPS. He's not driving souped up european imports. He's not swinging a sword in some adventure RPG. Once he starts doing stuff that's out of character just to get him in the game, that's when he's whoring himself out. Otherwise, they're all like extensions of the same universe.

Meanwhile, his popularity allows Nintendo the freedom to explore more niche games, like Animal Crossing or Pikmin, and create new mascots and characters and franchises. Maybe it's frustrating when we don't get a direct Mario 64 sequel with just a few more levels, but that's really Nintendo wanting to really move their main franchises forward instead of just sticking them in gear and producing sequels.

austin powers voice "damn right mario's a man whore baby" "YEAH"

you've got to admit almost if not all mario games are fun as goofy as i think some of them are they're still fun. if you wanna call someone a whore i'd say it'd be ebay.

And yet no less than 5 times while shopping did I hear people asking for Mario Party 7 or Super Mario Strikers for PS2. -ohbfrank-

Yeah, if the Revolution fails I imagine Nintendo easily being the #1 maker of software with Mario niche sports titles smashing the competition of other non-releastic sports titles.

Man I just looked at 1up's Top 10 videogame characters of all time and Nintendo had 4 out of 10 with 3 in the top 5.
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3145545

This seems to be the only redeeming response of the whole thread. No offense to everyone else though. :) My half-assed response will be no better.

I have little to no interest in golf or golf games, but if Nintendo puts out a Mario Golf game I KNOW it is going to be fun. I know what to expect. Not the standard golf you'd expect. I get the whole package. The world, the music, the characters, are a bonus. It is the fun that sells the game. So you can say quality doesn't matter, to me it does because I KNOW if I pick up one of the various Mario clones, even if I didn't like the game/sport it was based on, I am usually going to enjoy it. I don't buy it because Mario is in it. Nintendo brings the quality when Mario is attached. They have a vested interest in protecting their character so they are using quality games to do it. Look at Sega & Sonic. He was whore'd out in a bunch of crappy games and now the Sonic brand doesn't have the same draw it once did.

Or look at it another way. Maybe I did buy Mario Golf because of Mario, play it and love it, and think wow they did a great job with that, and I go and get Mario Tennis because Golf was so great. Not because of Mario.

So, despite the thread's intention, it is impossible to dismiss quality, since it is near impossible to determine why a person is buying a game, be it quality or because it stars Mario. I'm like BigPete, I purchase a Mario based game because of quality not because I can play as Koopa, Peach or whomever. I could care less about the characters, I know it will be a solid purchase and I have zero reservations dropping $50 on a Nintendo first party title.

I only see it as whoring out if they just slap him into a bunch of shitty games for a quick buck like Sonic, but that isn't the case here.

So true. I'd kill for another mario game. Yet we have to wait for a new system debut + a year give or take. It really sucks in my book and has left alot of money on the table.

My daughter is currently going nuts on DDR: Mario Mix.

He is also now a mascot for a department store.
Mario buys his overalls at Parco

A few more copies? I thought I remember the GC version outselling the Xbox and the PS2 combined. That should tell you something. Adding characters such as link have become very profitable. Whats the problem?

Not sure it was quite that extreme, but my argument wasn't really that it was a bad business decision. Just that it does nothing for me. Like if you look at a game like mario kart, the addition of the nintendo stable of characters adds a huge amount to that game and not just in terms of presentation and graphical flair. Items like tortoise shells and mushrooms are significant game play elements (admittedly they don't necessarily behave in exactly the same way as the original mario games).

Now link in SC2 just does nothing for me. I guess the SC games have never been known for their story but you can't tell me that Link fits into the SC story in any meaningful way. And yes, I feel the same way about heihachi, spawn, and the spartan character in DOA4. Of course it wouldn't stop me buying a particular game but it definitely wouldn't provide any additional incentive to buy said game.

Look, obviously there are lots of people out there whose buying decisions are affected by the inclusion of certain characters. If you, as a game company, knew this, wouldn't you utilize this fact? Who's to blame here, really?

Who cares as long as people get to play games that they want to play.

I see what you mean but I'd have to disagree with it being a bad business decision. Business wise, they added "Adult Link" at a time when the gaming world was whining about the Cartoon graphics in the Wind Waker. People complained (god only knows why, WW graphics are amazing), but Nintendo was listening. There were tons of people wanting to play as the realistic link and this was a nice little bonus from Nintendo to their fans in the meantime while it was too early for them to reveal Twilight Princess. And it worked, the Gamecube version outsold both the PS2 and Xbox versions (by leaps and bounds).