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!

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.

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.

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.

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