For every Mario Smash Football (which I passed on, because I already have Sega Soccer Slam and it looks too similar), there's a Mario Power Tennis and Mario Kart, which are fucking AWESOME.

For every Super Mario Sunshine (all 1 of them), there's a New Super Mario Bros. (all 1 of them)

It seems like you're using whatever titles are conveniant to get your twisted point across...

Let's get this train back on the track! How far could Mario evolve without the Revolution? Each game would be basically Super Mario 64 with new levels and twists. You said yourself Elixir, how big a leap Super Mario 64 was. It went from 2D to 3D, that's pretty big. What now? Mario burst out of the limits of 2D graphics in the huge leap of Super Mario 64, now it's time to burst out of the limits of 2D gameplay, which should be an even bigger leap. How else do you propose the next Super Mario game evolves? I'm interested to hear peoples thoughts on that.

EDIT: Wow, Elixir thinks he's tough. Deg must feel pretty owned right now, after you pointed out for the 6th time Mario is in lots of games.

From wikipedia.

"Selling out is a common slang phrase. Broadly speaking, it refers to the compromising of one's integrity in exchange for money or other personal gain. It is commonly associated with attempts to increase mass appeal or acceptability to mainstream society. A person who does this is labelled a sellout."

Super Mario Brothers has sold 40 million copies. And that's just the NES version. Now I would say that's pretty fucking mainstream.

Since your definition of "Selling Out" is simply having a character in another genre, Mario has been "selling out" since 1991 with NES Open Tournament Golf, and possibly sooner. The idea that Mario was created to make money is laughable in its obviousness. Of course he was made to make money. EVERY VIDEO GAME IS, IDIOT.

And then you jump around with the fanboy insults, when I made no specific mention of any kind of fault with any competitive company. I believe it is basically that I disagree with you, and you have weak points supported by weak arguments.

Desperation brings out the true colors.

Like focusing on only one definition? :]

[@ grubdog]

That's not entirely what I was trying to get at. I didn't mention Mario 64 because it was a transition from 2D to 3D.

I mentioned it because the game was huge and everlasting. The DS remake was nothing special, but the 64 game was incredible. Of course we were impressed by the graphics and Mario being in 3D and everything, but the level design and ingenuity was what I found most attractive about the game.

Sure, the ending was pretty basic, and your reward was unlimited lives on top of the castle which you didn't even need anymore, but the game's levels were worth it alone. Alot of games these days lack content, but Mario 64 had some great times.

Sega did sell out Sonic in certain ways. Not as much as Nintendo, but they did manage to have Spinball, Sonic featured in Soleil, along with other games. But Sega are gone from wht they were now, so that doesn't matter. The fact which I'm trying to get at is, Nintendo are still around, and they probably won't stop with making Mario games which are only really childish versions of games.

I'm not saying Mario Kart was bad. I know, Kart was good, but I can't say the same over Dr. Mario, Tennis, or Soccer. Where's the originality in that? Sony went as far as Crash Team Racing, but they didn't sell out Bandicoot. Microsoft haven't done squat with Master Chief on the xbox, aside from the Halo games, and Nintendo is the only one I see still putting Mario into games. Why?

Crash Bash.

Microsoft only recently farmed out Master Chief to Tecmo for Dead or Alive 4.

They are not the only ones putting their franchise characters into other genres.

AGAIN, everybody is guilty of this.

Ofcourse they are, but not to the extent of Nintendo. Wait why am I even posting in the gaming sections. It's made of illogic and masturbation.

You're bringing out quite alot of colors, bud. I remember your old avatar here. It was Mario and you had a "Nintendo fanboy, be proud" signature. Why? Because you're a Nintendo fanboy, so obviously it's only natural for you to defend Nintendo.

What you don't seem to realize is that Nintendo have, indeed, been selling Mario out since 1991. There were worthwhile games such as Mario Kart, Kart 64, and MKDS, but the remake of Mario 64 on the DS, Tennis, and all that - just isn't anything more than cashing in.

I think you're missing my point here. I know video game characters are in there for the money, but that doesn't avoid the fact that Nintendo is lacking originality. Mario Tennis and Mario _____ games aren't true Mario games, they're just pointless games to tie the fans over before something really decent comes out.

If you consider my argument "weak", then you are missing the point entirely. I'll say it again. Mario in a game doesn't represent originality nor creativity in a game, but t's a sell-out cash-in project for Nintendo. It's easy, it works, and people are gullible enough to buy it for it's name. Why? BECAUSE IT FUCKING HAS MARIO IN IT, HELLO.

I'm sure a bunch of Nintendo fanboys didn't even know Dance Dance Revolution existed before Mario Mix arrived. I'm sure a bunch of people sit on their ass and play soccer games instead of participating in a real soccer game -- or playing a real soccer video game.

It's pretty obvious when you look at it. Most companies have a leading character, and once they find that it's become popular, they sell it. But Kojima hasn't sold out Snake, Sony hasn't sold out Crash, and Microsoft haven't sold out Master Chief like Nintendo. Nintendo have repeatedly and continually exploited Mario for all that he's worth and they're continuing to do so.

Now, I'm not a Nintendo hater. I'm not a Sony, or a Microsoft fanboy. Actually I'm a Sega fanboy if anything, specifically a Megadrive fanboy. Feel free to trash me and have the nerve to insult a pretty much dead company, but that's irrelevant. I've supported Nintendo in the past, I even own a japanese Mario Kart. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to want to rush out and buy things like this, please note the price because I feel like it.

If Nintendo put half their effort into their games as they did their franchising, they'd actually have games worth playing on the Gamecube. That is why I'm uncertain about the future of Nintendo and this "Revolution is revolutionary" rubbish.

Alright so you liked Super Mario 64 mainly because of the level design and everything, fair enough, it WAS awesome in that respect, the game did almost everything right. I'm hoping Super Mario Sunshine was a one off, a "vacation" for the Mario team (I wonder if Miyamoto is sick of Mario...), the levels lacked variety, and while there was some solid gameplay and I did enjoy the game, I thought overall it lacked that special something thats required in a game like that.

Personally I think the Jungle Beat developers should work on the next Mario game, now there's some inspired folk.
Well... I don't see Luigi and Daisy driving around on a motorcycle with double machine guns.
Actually they LITERALLY sold out Crash Bandicoot, now he's on about 20 different systems. :D

Solid Snake also featured in Konami Crazy Racers. Because he's fucking crazy.

LOL Isn't Labeling Theory fun?

Didn't I just fucking say that?

LIKEWISE, Metal Gear Acid is cashing in, as are the numerous games Solid Snake has been in where he is not sneaking around, and as is the Tekken beat em up and as is Dante being in Viewtiful Joe for no reason. You are unfairly labeling Mario as a Sellout while acting as if the three series you anticipate for the PS3 are somehow not glass houses from which you are throwing stones.

I don't remember ever takng issue with you saying they aren't "true" Mario games... whatever that means nowadays. I think I basically took isse with you listing three sequels, some of which are the SIXTH in their series and then jump onto Mario for "rehashing." And Nintendo lacking originality is.. just basically laughable. Really. They get shit for being TOO Original nowadays.

Once again, the same can be applied to Metal Gear Acid. The fact that simply bearing the same name is meant to entice buyers. Metal Gear has been sold out for a damn card game of all things. I bet everything who bought it for the PSP is feeling pretty gullible,

I'm sure this has a point, but I can't seem to find it.

I'm not sure what the point of this is either.

Solid Snake has been sold out, unless you weren't paying attention, to a card game on the PSP. Sony actually literally sold out Crash, both by having him genre about and then they really just sold the rights to Vivendi Universal. That's why he's multiplatform now. Hell, Sony sucked what they could out of him before just throwing him away.

and AGAIN MS had farmed out Master Chief to Tecmo to be in a fighting game. From an FPS.

Ahh but you end with the "like Nintendo" modifier. Bascially, this is an admission that some of the companies mentioned besides Nintendo sell out, but since they haven't been doing it for as long, they are exonerated of the same crime. This is a double standard.

Alleged fanboyism is irrelevant. Check.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I don't own Mario DDR. I don't really like DDR that much. I think the point is missing from here.

Ahhh, and here we come to the crux. You don't think the Gamecube has any worthwhile games. And that is bascially a subject for opinion, as I find many games on the Gamecube worthwhile, particularly Pikmin, a devilishly clever original game from Nintendo.

Your opinion aside, the lineup of a current console is not sufficient evidence to judge the lineup of a future console. The Xbox had some worthwhile games on it, and it does appear that the 360 seems to have failed in this regard, as it's highest rated and best selling game is Call of Duty 2, which is multiplatform.

It's funny that you deride the game quality of the Mario games but basically the critics and most people disagree. The lowest rated game with Mario in it this last generation was probably Mario Pinball Land, which got mixed reviews as opposed to generally positive like most of the other Mario games get.

It is a double standard to regard Mario as a "Sell out" and yet somehow vindicate Metal Gear and others (ESPECIALLY Final Fantasy) just because they do it with less frequency. And Furthermore, they seem to suck at it, Death by Degrees sucked, So does Metal Gear Acid. And Crash Bash. And whatever spinoffs are excused just because Mario ISN'T in them.

And basically my point is this, you deride Nintendo and their creation, Super Mario, although some of the companies and game series you love the most have been guilty of it as well, and they totally suck at it.

The same could be said for the other franchises. Why else do designers not just make an entirely new game instead of a sequel? The name WILL sell games. This isn't selling out, its just good buisness. The games you mention have "sold out" already, and the only reason it hasn't been done as much as it has with Mario is because A) They aren't nearly as old as the plumber and B) They aren't as recognisable.

Another hole in your argument is that you're acting like Mario Tennis or Soccer or whatever is just a generic game with nothing different other than name. Well, the Mario sports titles offer a more arcade-like gameplay that is rare in sports titles today.

- WraithTwo -

I had better not be reading what is essentially an argument about whether it's okay for Mario to star in non-platforming games. Mario can be the star of every Goddamned game in existence as far as I care as long as the game is good. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who you're controlling in Grand Theft Mario, as long as the game itself is good.

Me, I don't plan to buy any of the next-gen consoles because it looks like all three companies have gone seriously awry. Sony and Microsoft are having this graphics pissing match, and Nintendo is banking on ridiculous gimmicks, and nobody comprehends that gameplay quality is what sells titles. Tetris sure didn't sell by dint of its awesome graphics. GTA3 wasn't a best seller because you kill hookers in it. And Halo wouldn't have sold for shit without Xbox Live.

Everyone is looking at entirely the wrong aspects of top selling games, anything to avoid having to put work into a game.

That's because the Revolution has no lineup.

I think peeack said exactly what I've been trying to say, but in a less complicated way. Nintendo have picked Mario up and rung him out like a wet towel, and that's what they're going to continue to do.

And it's people like you, who buy the games.

Have you not played Winning Eleven? Captain Tsubasa J? You know, soccer games which are actually fun, and aren't Fifa 2000-2006.

Anyway, I'm not going to quote every fucking thing Deguello just said, because endless quotations of eachother in a thread really kills it. Deguello's post is a good indication of that! Let's refrain from doing so in the future. Smiley face.

Sorry, I'm really not trying to sound like a jerk here, but you must realize that Nintendo has and will continue to sell Mario in anything and everything. It applies to other companies, and them selling out their own characters as well, but they haven't done it to the extent of Nintendo.

Um, what? I've never played Tennis and Soccer, but Dr. Mario ROCKED, and it's not a Tetris clone either. It's BETTER than Tetris.

Anyway, aren't those Mario spin-off games made by different developers anyway? How are they ruining the quality of the real Mario games?

Isn't this the moment when we're supposed to say, "If you don't like it, don't buy it?" I mean, WHO CARES if Mario is in lots of different genres. If you don't like them, just ignore them and just buy the real games. I don't buy any of these games either due to lack of friends, but I don't condone Nintendo for wanting to give Mario more star power.

Just curious, which game has Deg wrongfully bought?

Yeah, that's the problem. Nintendo are so busy shoving Mario into everything that they lose focus on their primary subject - a real Mario title. It's all Nintendo's doing. I can understand titles like SSBM, but the rest is just uncalled for.

I don't like them, and I don't buy them, but people must realize that if Nintendo stopped all this we would of had a real Mario title by now. I haven't played past 3 hours of Wind Waker, and I haven't even bothered with Sunshine since playing it originally, but I think I can clearly say that neither of them were as large as what Mario 64 was.

Perhaps they just managed to get lucky with Mario 64, but I don't see why adding an extreme amount of levels to another Mario title would harm them. I mean, they've cashed out on Mario, so why not have Super Mario Revolution with the amount of levels as what Mario 64 did?

What, Grubdog is american now?

Why does every single game that Nintendo creates have to be vastly original? Can't some of them be just, y'know, fun?

I see more innovation coming from Nintendo than from any other developer. Even with the spin-off Mario games. They're not brimming with innovative new gameplay mechanics, but they're not normal sports games. You can play normal tennis, or Mario Tennis. There's a distinction between the two, because you have the option of more diverse gameplay in the latter.

As for other developers, let's think of their franchises. And not just the one convenient one they have where there are only a few off-shoots.

Konami makes Metal Gear. How many iterations of Dance Dance Revolution are there? How many more do you think there'll be before they stop? Hell, they made a Mario DDR. Sell outs, right?
I've also been informed that they make the Yu-Gi-Oh games. It doesn't get much worse than that.

Namco. Pac-man. What should have been one game now includes Mrs. Pac-man, which is essentially the same, and I believe Pac-man Jr. as well. Then there's the 3D versions, which are absolute crap, and it's beyond me why Namco doesn't get a different mascot. Pac-man is also in the Mario Kart arcade game.
The only decent (and original) Pac-man game made since the original is the Gamecube connectivity game, made by Miyamoto.

Square-Enix. Final Fantasy. We've got all twelve games, plus Final Fantasy X-2. They've also released a movie (wait, make that two, though one wasn't even based on the series), they're making so many FF7 (the most popular one) spin-offs it's ridiculous. And not even good ones. Shit like a Vincent Valentine game and cell phone games and God knows what else.
They also made Kingdom Hearts, which aside from being a shitty game is obviously a sell out by including Disney.

Capcom. How many damn Megaman games are there? How many dozens of Resident Evil remakes? Christ, they're hardly even making new games anymore.

I won't do Sega or EA or Ubisoft or Atari or any of those, too easy.

I could go on, but I think this is sufficiently long already.
I'll just finish up by citing a few Nintendo franchises that don't have spin-offs (aside from inclusion in SSBM, which is a Nintendo character game):

Animal Crossing
Pikmin
Fire Emblem
Earthbound
Zelda (Four Swords is the only one I can think of)
Advance Wars
Metroid (only one, Metroid Pinball)
Starfox (the shitty games made by Rare and Namco aren't spin-offs, they're just shitty)
1080
Wave Race
Punch Out
Golden Sun
F-Zero
Excitebike
Pilotwings
Star Tropics

Those are all franchise games. I could name single games that they didn't feel the need to expand upon, but the list would probably double.

How does Mario tennis have "more diverse gameplay"? You have a bunch of characters whacking a ball around. It's the same thing.

Bemani titles are a whole other story, though. There's something like 12 beatmania titles and 14 Pop'n Music titles out, right now. I'm big on the music scene and while they do have a large amount of titles, I don't consider porting an arcade game to the PS2 just to sell it to be cashing in. I've been playing Pop'n Music for a few weeks and I should be getting Pop'n 11 soon. Each one has a new array of songs, and once you've mastered whatever device it is you need to play it, whether it's a Pop'n controller or a Beatmania controller, it can be really fun after you've mastered it.

Why did you type this, then continue to type as if people are going to read what you're writing? I don't understand man, that's not cool. Ms. Pacman was a great game, and the levels were different. 31(or is it 32?) levels which are all different, depending on which mode you select. You can't tell me that Nintendo actually enhanced Pacman.

...oh yeah, I stopped reading there.

The problem with that theory is that Camelot (Mario Tennis, Golf), Namco (Mario Baseball), Konami (Mario DDR), Next Level Games (Mario Smash Football), Hudson (Mario Party) etc. have nothing to do with the real Mario games. They make those games, while Nintendo can focus on things other than Mario. So in a way, those games help Nintendo bring more originality to the table, because they don't take up their time. Miyamoto is a creative guy, and I personally think maybe he wants to move on from Mario, restrictions aren't healthy.

This thread might as well be moved to the Warp Room now.
Have you played it? You can't stop time, fill the court with water and then swim to the ball in any other tennis game. :D

If all these companies are working on games involving Mario(of course, with the permission and hassle of getting Nintendo's okay), how do you explain Sunshine and Wind Waker?

I'm not saying that they're bad games, Wind Waker was actually quite enjoyable. I didn't play it for very long, mind you, but Sunshine was just horrid in my view. The only reason I bought a Gamecube was to play an obscure shooting game called Shikigami no Shiro II, and now that I have it my Gamecube sits there, collecting dusts.

I mean, my Gamecube isn't even black, like my PS2 and my xbox. What the hell, Miyamoto?

This sort of puts DDR Mario in a precarious position. So.. Konami... making it... is not milking or selling out... but Nintendo being a part of it... is?

You've got the power-up dynamic, and in soccer there seem to be a variety of items or attacks not in normal soccer games. I believe these are optional. I don't know, because I don't buy most Mario spin-offs (only Mario Kart).
My point is, the Mario sports titles are strong, fun games that add a little, tiny extra to the mix. If you want it.

Ms. Pacman was essentially the same game. It didn't add enough to warrant a new game. They should have called it Pacman 2.
Also, I didn't say that Nintendo enhanced Pacman. I'm saying they made the only good version in about twenty years.

Oh yeah, that's a valid point you're making. Brilliant argument.
I like how you blatantly ignored all the best examples, which you couldn't argue with. Nice technique you've got there.

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/9...65867612an.gif

Yes, because the closest thing to music you're getting in a game is the music genre, not the fancy OST tracks you hear.

Putting Mario in a game clearly is intended for it to gain more sales. It's like sticking your favorite baseball team's mascot on a mug. People will buy it over regualr mugs, except it'll cost an extra $3 just for some logo.

You haven't played Ms. Pacman, have you? It had 31 levels which were DIFFERENT FROM EACHOTHER, and it had modes such as Strange, Big, Crazy, Weird which had another 31 mazes each.

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/753...80590259by.jpg

Ok, let's do it your way, then:

Mario Tennis, Mario Soccer, Mario DDR etc etc are not "fun."

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/6...tendogs6pe.jpg

As said before, you can play generic Mario rehash soccer, OLYMPIC edition, or you can play a proper soccer game like Winning Eleevn.

As for other developers, let's think of their franchises. And not just the one convenient one they have where there are only a few off-shoots.

Hang on, Konami don't make Metal Gear. Hideo and his own crew do that, which is only party of Konami. The Yu-Gi-Oh games aren't selling out, they're doing their purpose. Not everybody wants to buy the cards, and that's why people like Nintendo made a card game for Pokemon, so it cuts both ways.

You know this isn't true.

Square is known for quality. Alot of their games are worthwhile, bar a few. Sure, you can complain about VIII as much as you like, but you can't complain about any of the others for any length of time. VII mostly gets complained about because of it's rabid fanboy database and stereotypes which seem to revolve around the internet like aids on a platter, but that isn't Square's fault.

Kingdom Hearts happens to be a good game. I completed it and managed to get everything - trinity marks, puppies, everything. If you don't like it, that's fine. This is Square's only real notable selling out point.

Why do you think Resident Evil games are on the Gamecube? It needed games, after all. What better than to release an entire series on a single platform? Win for capcom, profit for Nintendo.

Sega and Atari hardly make games, and when they do, it's either absolute shit or incredible. I can give you examples.


Snowboarding and water racing which came out of Nintendo must be original somehow I guess?

What you're saying really doesn't make sense. You've seen original games come out of Nintendo, and there are a couple, but you've managed to disregard your own care for words. Wave Race is just another sports game, it's nothing revolutionary. If that's the case, Jet Moto for PS1 is revolutionary. Where's the common sense in that?

The games are generic sports games. What you're forgetting is that when something original comes out of Nintendo, it usually is 1-2 years apart per game. I definitely can't be satisfied with playing a single game for half a year or more, and that's what Nintendo think you're going to do.

I remember when Viewtiful Joe was released for the Gamecube. It was, at the time, the only actual game worth playing aside from SSBM. So you have 2 games, and nothing came along for a LONG time. Why? I don't know, ask Nintendo, they were probably trying to come up with something more original.

But you said for yourself that it sells. You said its popular and that it works. We LIKE Mario. Surely using his face isn't what sells it all that much but the fact that "Hey cool, there's a gameplay style I like that happens to use the most popular video game character!"

And the ports of games to the PSP are okay, though, because its not Nintendo?

Oh Lord you win...ooooooooooh man I love you.

Elixer....don't post so much. You're letting plenty of good fanboy/hate fodder get by. We can only quote and disprove so much! :(

So at this point we have from him:

-Mario needs to be in ORIGINAL Mario games only
-Mario sucks in any non-original game (despite profits, reviews, or gameplay)
-Said games with Mario (Tennis, Kart, etc.) suck since they are not "real"
-Franchises are okay, unless its Nintendo

Please let me know if I missed anything REALLY important

Err, let me just throw my two cents into this little machine here. Honestly, the graphical gains we're getting from next-gen aren't all that great... if you don't have an HDTV that is. They often look like nothing more than souped up Xbox games in screens and on regular televisions.

The Revolution is essentially banking on a gimmick to keep it's fanbase interested as well as any new gamers. The leaked specs from way back make it an overclocked Gamecube at best, with a new controller interface. Needless to say, even with the minimal improvements in graphics in Microsoft and Sony's machines, it'll still look pretty bad in comparison.

Honestly, this generation is more of a lateral movement, a stop-gap until there's enough new technology available to make a considerable jump in all areas.

BTW, I've heard there are something like 90 Megaman games. Is that true?