Why is Mario so popular?

[QUOTE="ESPM400"]Okay, I was hoping that this thread would die, and that I could hold my tongue, but it didn't, and I can't. Being as I'm someone who has actually been alive for every Mario release, I can say unequivocally that development of the series peaked at SMB 64. Every single game after that is Nintendo cashing in on sheep buying a product that hasn't changed in any significant way in almost 30 years. I may be a cynical asshol*, but I can't abide their business strategy. Mario, Zelda, and Metroid have all been around since '85, '86, and '87 respectively (longer for Mario if you count Donkey Kong). Stop milking a franchise like it's your only form of sustenance and come up with something new. All the Mario series has brought to the table in the last decade is some graphical updates and some gimmicks. Although I've said it before, and it will be a sad day when it actually happens, Nintendo is going to go the same way as Sega in the next five years or so if they don't pull their respective heads out of their own posteriors with due haste. EDIT: @Vickman178, since his inception in Donkey Kong, Mario has been featured in almost 200 games. If you don't call that 'milking it,' I don't know what you can.Bigboi500

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="ESPM400"]Okay, I was hoping that this thread would die, and that I could hold my tongue, but it didn't, and I can't. Being as I'm someone who has actually been alive for every Mario release, I can say unequivocally that development of the series peaked at SMB 64. Every single game after that is Nintendo cashing in on sheep buying a product that hasn't changed in any significant way in almost 30 years. I may be a cynical asshol*, but I can't abide their business strategy. Mario, Zelda, and Metroid have all been around since '85, '86, and '87 respectively (longer for Mario if you count Donkey Kong). Stop milking a franchise like it's your only form of sustenance and come up with something new. All the Mario series has brought to the table in the last decade is some graphical updates and some gimmicks. Although I've said it before, and it will be a sad day when it actually happens, Nintendo is going to go the same way as Sega in the next five years or so if they don't pull their respective heads out of their own posteriors with due haste. EDIT: @Vickman178, since his inception in Donkey Kong, Mario has been featured in almost 200 games. If you don't call that 'milking it,' I don't know what you can.ESPM400

[QUOTE="ESPM400"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]If you're going to use terms like "sheep", take your comments to System Wars.

Bigboi500

Probably due to a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

It's a casual game

It's polished

It's from Nintendo

Nostalgia

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="ESPM400"] Just because I think Nintendo's current focus is a damningly broken one and saying that those that follow said focus are wantonly throwing money at a broken train of thought, doesn't mean my comments belong in 'System Wars.' I still harbour much love for some of the Nintendo systems of yester-year. I just believe that if they keep going in their current direction, they'll end up as third party publishers (hence the Sega comment), rather then a console producer, and as I said, that would be a shame. Also, I've said it before, but how is 'damningly' in GS' forum spellcheck, yet 'internet' is not..?ESPM400

Feel free to dislike a company and their policies, but refrain from calling people names based on the system/company they prefer, at least here on PGD.

[QUOTE="ESPM400"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]What I meant was those fanboy labels are not allowed here.

dvader654

So people following one of the most consistantly excellent franchises in gaming history means they are mindless... yeah ok.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="ESPM400"] Just because I think Nintendo's current focus is a damningly broken one and saying that those that follow said focus are wantonly throwing money at a broken train of thought, doesn't mean my comments belong in 'System Wars.' I still harbour much love for some of the Nintendo systems of yester-year. I just believe that if they keep going in their current direction, they'll end up as third party publishers (hence the Sega comment), rather then a console producer, and as I said, that would be a shame. Also, I've said it before, but how is 'damningly' in GS' forum spellcheck, yet 'internet' is not..?ESPM400

Ah Mario.

The only franchise in gaming where fans are ok with spin offs instead of new IPs. Nintendo's found a way to make these low risk and cheap spinoffs with existing characters like Mario and everyone just eats them up. Want a new fighting game? How about one with an existing roster of characters? You know instead of coming up with new fresh characters and settings, stuff that every other developer does, stuff that costs money and requires talent. Want a racer? samething. Want a new 3D platformer? Let's get Mario and have him go after that f*cking princess again. No need to come up with a new story, new characters, new universe. You know all the things that everyone else has to deal with when creating a new IP. Things that move the industry forward.

Imagine if Sony revealed an FPS with Nathan Drake made by Guerrilla Games. A traditional third person Uncharted game starring Nathan Drake made by Naughty Dog. An arcade racer starring everyone's favorite Nathan Drake made by Evolution Studios, The Last Guardian starring a younger Nathan Drake who gets sucked into a parralel universe and comes around to love this mythical beast. A new God of War spinoff where Kratos along with his sidekick Nathan Drake take down greek gods for the 99th time, much like Mario & Luigi saving our lovely princess time and time again. Heavy Rain 2 starring Nathan Drake in an adult plot where he plots the murder of his Wife Elena to save his kids from their terrible crackwhore of a mother. That's how absurd the milking of the mario name has become.


And that sheep comment is 100% accurate in this context. Nintendo fans FOLLOW their favorite franchises like sheeps. Nintendo knows it. They know they dont have to take risks. They know their fans will buy anything as long as it's got Mario's stupid f*cking face on it. They have conditioned a good portion of their fanbase to ignore everything else. Eternal Darkness? Flop. Red Steel? Flop. Madworld? Flop. And no, if you picked up any of those games you aren't a sheep or part of the problem. This doesn't neccesarily apply to anyone on this forum. Hardcore gamers did give those games a chance but the casual nintendo fan doesn't give a f*ck. Where as the casual Sony and Xbox fan bought risky new IPs like Uncharted, Borderlands and Heavy Rain and turned them into successful franchises.

Ah Mario.

The only franchise in gaming where fans are ok with spin offs instead of new IPs. Nintendo's found a way to make these low risk and cheap spinoffs with existing characters like Mario and everyone just eats them up. Want a new fighting game? How about one with an existing roster of characters? You know instead of coming up with new fresh characters and settings, stuff that every other developer does, stuff that costs money and requires talent. Want a racer? samething. Want a new 3D platformer? Let's get Mario and have him go after that f*cking princess again. No need to come up with a new story, new characters, new universe. You know all the things that everyone else has to deal with when creating a new IP. Things that move the industry forward.

Imagine if Sony revealed an FPS with Nathan Drake made by Guerrilla Games. A traditional third person Uncharted game starring Nathan Drake made by Naughty Dog. An arcade racer starring everyone's favorite Nathan Drake made by Evolution Studios, The Last Guardian starring a younger Nathan Drake who gets sucked into a parralel universe and comes around to love this mythical beast. A new God of War spinoff where Kratos along with his sidekick Nathan Drake take down greek gods for the 99th time, much like Mario & Luigi saving our lovely princess time and time again. Heavy Rain 2 starring Nathan Drake in an adult plot where he plots the murder of his Wife Elena to save his kids from their terrible crackwhore of a mother. That's how absurd the milking of the mario name has become.


And that sheep comment is 100% accurate in this context. Nintendo fans FOLLOW their favorite franchises like sheeps. Nintendo knows it. They know they dont have to take risks. They know their fans will buy anything as long as it's got Mario's stupid f*cking face on it. They have conditioned a good portion of their fanbase to ignore everything else. Eternal Darkness? Flop. Red Steel? Flop. Madworld? Flop. And no, if you picked up any of those games you aren't a sheep or part of the problem. This doesn't neccesarily apply to anyone on this forum. Hardcore gamers did give those games a chance but the casual nintendo fan doesn't give a f*ck. Where as the casual Sony and Xbox fan bought risky new IPs like Uncharted, Borderlands and Heavy Rain and turned them into successful franchises.

S0lidSnake

I don't think you should be held up on such superficial things as what your character looks like. Nintendo has made a ton of new IPs, but they never sell. So can you blame Nintendo for essentially using famous characters people know to sell their games?

They essentially create new IPs now under the disguise of their well known IPs (Kirby Epic Yarn, Kid Icarus Uprising). Even new installments in Nintendo's 20+ year old franchises tend to be more original than many of the "new" IPs that sony or microsoft release. New IP=/=originality. I look at uncharted, resistance, Killzone and see very little creativity or originality. I see Ratchet and Clank, God of War, and Halo and see almost no change between each iteration.

Then I look at Mario which changed drastically from Mario World to Mario 64 then again when it changed to sunshine then again it changed things up greatly with the Galaxy games. I look at Super Metroid which got reinvented with Prime and drastically changed with Other M. I look at A Link to the past that changed drastically in Ocarina of time then again with Majora's Mask and again with Wind Waker and finally there was a great change in Skyward Sword. Nintendo is constantly making new and creative experiences. It's a shame you can't look beyond the name.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Ah Mario.

The only franchise in gaming where fans are ok with spin offs instead of new IPs. Nintendo's found a way to make these low risk and cheap spinoffs with existing characters like Mario and everyone just eats them up. Want a new fighting game? How about one with an existing roster of characters? You know instead of coming up with new fresh characters and settings, stuff that every other developer does, stuff that costs money and requires talent. Want a racer? samething. Want a new 3D platformer? Let's get Mario and have him go after that f*cking princess again. No need to come up with a new story, new characters, new universe. You know all the things that everyone else has to deal with when creating a new IP. Things that move the industry forward.

Imagine if Sony revealed an FPS with Nathan Drake made by Guerrilla Games. A traditional third person Uncharted game starring Nathan Drake made by Naughty Dog. An arcade racer starring everyone's favorite Nathan Drake made by Evolution Studios, The Last Guardian starring a younger Nathan Drake who gets sucked into a parralel universe and comes around to love this mythical beast. A new God of War spinoff where Kratos along with his sidekick Nathan Drake take down greek gods for the 99th time, much like Mario & Luigi saving our lovely princess time and time again. Heavy Rain 2 starring Nathan Drake in an adult plot where he plots the murder of his Wife Elena to save his kids from their terrible crackwhore of a mother. That's how absurd the milking of the mario name has become.


And that sheep comment is 100% accurate in this context. Nintendo fans FOLLOW their favorite franchises like sheeps. Nintendo knows it. They know they dont have to take risks. They know their fans will buy anything as long as it's got Mario's stupid f*cking face on it. They have conditioned a good portion of their fanbase to ignore everything else. Eternal Darkness? Flop. Red Steel? Flop. Madworld? Flop. And no, if you picked up any of those games you aren't a sheep or part of the problem. This doesn't neccesarily apply to anyone on this forum. Hardcore gamers did give those games a chance but the casual nintendo fan doesn't give a f*ck. Where as the casual Sony and Xbox fan bought risky new IPs like Uncharted, Borderlands and Heavy Rain and turned them into successful franchises.

dvader654

Everyone milks franchises a bit, but there are degrees of milking (Nintendo takes things to an extreme few do). Sony's audience is opposed to direct sequels to games they like, but they tend to be welcoming to new franchises and new ideas. The flipside of that is that lack of franchise allegiance is that milking doesn't pay off the same way it does for Nintendo (PSABR and LBP Karting didn't do all that well). I liked both games but the fact they disappointed commercially while original games like Journey, Dishonored, The Unfinished Swan and Papa and Yo did well will hopefully convince Sony that with its fanbase, it should try to sell games on their merits and not hide them behind other franchises.

Also, it makes no sense to blame kids or parents for Nintendo's lack of creativity. The kids market is ever changing and parents go with it because they have no strong preferences, they just want their kids to be happy. What Nintendo's market resembles is not any kid driven market, but the modern superhero comic book industry, whose fans are overwhelming grown men who know exactly what they want and want nothing else.

Look at kid's animated movies. One sees a good amount of sequels, but there are a ton original properties. Disney sits atops the animated movies most of the Western world cares about and has done so since before any of us were born, but buying Pixar was huge for them because Pixar had demonstrated an ability to get kids excited with their movies that Disney had lost (despite Disney having access to ancient, highly recognizable characters).

If Nintendo were like Disney and kids were their primary market, they would have put Mario out to pasture long ago and offered a broad, frequently changing range of characters. Instead they are like Marvel and DC, doing the same thing over and over and again with minor revisions, because that is what their adult fans demand. That conservative strategy has made comic books (kids will get excited about tacking a phone book sized Harry Potter novel, but they have no interest in reading about Batman's 4,392,297th fight with the Joker) and Nintendo increasingly irrelevant to most consumers.

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Ah Mario.

The only franchise in gaming where fans are ok with spin offs instead of new IPs. Nintendo's found a way to make these low risk and cheap spinoffs with existing characters like Mario and everyone just eats them up. Want a new fighting game? How about one with an existing roster of characters? You know instead of coming up with new fresh characters and settings, stuff that every other developer does, stuff that costs money and requires talent. Want a racer? samething. Want a new 3D platformer? Let's get Mario and have him go after that f*cking princess again. No need to come up with a new story, new characters, new universe. You know all the things that everyone else has to deal with when creating a new IP. Things that move the industry forward.

Imagine if Sony revealed an FPS with Nathan Drake made by Guerrilla Games. A traditional third person Uncharted game starring Nathan Drake made by Naughty Dog. An arcade racer starring everyone's favorite Nathan Drake made by Evolution Studios, The Last Guardian starring a younger Nathan Drake who gets sucked into a parralel universe and comes around to love this mythical beast. A new God of War spinoff where Kratos along with his sidekick Nathan Drake take down greek gods for the 99th time, much like Mario & Luigi saving our lovely princess time and time again. Heavy Rain 2 starring Nathan Drake in an adult plot where he plots the murder of his Wife Elena to save his kids from their terrible crackwhore of a mother. That's how absurd the milking of the mario name has become.


And that sheep comment is 100% accurate in this context. Nintendo fans FOLLOW their favorite franchises like sheeps. Nintendo knows it. They know they dont have to take risks. They know their fans will buy anything as long as it's got Mario's stupid f*cking face on it. They have conditioned a good portion of their fanbase to ignore everything else. Eternal Darkness? Flop. Red Steel? Flop. Madworld? Flop. And no, if you picked up any of those games you aren't a sheep or part of the problem. This doesn't neccesarily apply to anyone on this forum. Hardcore gamers did give those games a chance but the casual nintendo fan doesn't give a f*ck. Where as the casual Sony and Xbox fan bought risky new IPs like Uncharted, Borderlands and Heavy Rain and turned them into successful franchises.

dvader654

I don't think you should be held up on such superficial things as what your character looks like. Nintendo has made a ton of new IPs, but they never sell. So can you blame Nintendo for essentially using famous characters people know to sell their games?

They essentially create new IPs now under the disguise of their well known IPs (Kirby Epic Yarn, Kid Icarus Uprising). Even new installments in Nintendo's 20+ year old franchises tend to be more original than many of the "new" IPs that sony or microsoft release. New IP=/=originality. I look at uncharted, resistance, Killzone and see very little creativity or originality. I see Ratchet and Clank, God of War, and Halo and see almost no change between each iteration.

Then I look at Mario which changed drastically from Mario World to Mario 64 then again when it changed to sunshine then again it changed things up greatly with the Galaxy games. I look at Super Metroid which got reinvented with Prime and drastically changed with Other M. I look at A Link to the past that changed drastically in Ocarina of time then again with Majora's Mask and again with Wind Waker and finally there was a great change in Skyward Sword. Nintendo is constantly making new and creative experiences. It's a shame you can't look beyond the name.

[/QUOTE Damn it, I could have simply said I agree with this post rather than write that big mess.

In most of the GC era and the entirety of the Wii/Wii U eras, new IPs from Nintendo have been very rare. If one wants to really capture a market, one must make a focused effort. When MS decided they wanted a piece of the rpg market, they funded quite a few games and didn't let the failures discourage them (because they knew that building an audience takes time). You could say the same thing about Sony and shooters. Nintendo releases one original game for which there is only a tiny audience because no one makes original games on Nintendo systems, then says 'It failed, this is impossible!'. Then it waits five more years (long after the people that bought the last game have given up and bought other systems) then releases another original game gets the same results, then says 'It failed this is impossible!' and then the cycle begins anew. To paraphrase, if one wants to move a heavy rock, one won't get anywhere pusing it one second every day, one has to make a sustained push.

I'm not a big fan of franchises radically morphing. If a developers runs out of ideas or fans tire of a franchise, it should be abandoned (assuming a company can't find developers capable of carrying the franchise forward) and something new tried. Nintendo stays out of certain genres because the modern Nintendo has gotten used to hiding behind characters in ways the old Nintendo didn't. In the old days Nintendo wasn't afraid to release sports games (without Mario) and first person shooters, but for the new Nintendo such genres are anathema because they can't be comfortably tied into the handful of franchises Nintendo fans buy.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] OMG this post is amazing. BTW I want Nathan Drake in the Last Guardian. You mention all that whole Sony has made their own smash bros., LBP kart racing. Lets begin with the kart racer, would an original kart racer sell, how was modnation racers, complete failure replaced by LBP why cause that is what people want. NO one wants an original kart racing game, it's a silly version of real racing so having recognizable characters enhances the experience. Let me ask you would having a Nintendo kart game without Mario change anything except be the same game without Mario and sell worse. You are arguing a skin change who cares. Now about the real Mario franchise, super Mario, you want Nintendo who has the most successful and continuously greatest platformer on the planet to Roth it and I stead make a new platformer for NO REASON except that you are bored of seeing Mario in it? How absurd is that. NIntendo has like four platforming series already only one stars Mario, they don't need to make more. Through Mario they explore platforming games, they constantly evolve it and make changes. They don't need a skin change to create change. I see no reason for a new character when firstly story means nothing in a platformer and nothing they can create wi ever be as popular as Mario, so what is the point. And again there are a bunch of other Nintendo platformers without Mario. Paper Mario and Mario and luigi two fantastic RPG series that so happen to put Mario in it. Once again these games continuously evolve, super paper Mario was a big departure and sticker star is quite different as well. The quality is there from game to game, do you really think people play it cause its Mario and not cause its am excellent RPG. And why not have a Mario RPG, it's a cool funny world to explore, instantly recognizable to everyone. But why not make a new world, well Nintendo has done that with Xenoblade, earthbound, fire emblem. Then there is this notion that "Nintendo fans" follow the franchises. Who are these Nintendo fans, who are these people that refuse to play anything else except Nintendo games. They don't exist. Nintendo games sell much more than any franchises on their console cause they are hugely popular, not cause they have a cult. The people that buy Mario and nothing else are usually parents of kids who are only going to buy what they are familiar with. Fans of any franchise follow their franchises, metal gear fans follow metal gear, halo fans follow halo, god of war fans follow god of war, call of duty fans follow call of duty. We are fans of franchises cause we love those games not cause of some imaginary loyalty (while some sure exist it is a small minority) I will never support the death of franchises, in this industry it is pointless. Storylines don't have to be so strict, actors don't age, it doesn't have the limitation of movie franchises. It's more like James Bond, they can go on forever. To me it is totally unnecessary to create a new franchise if you are going to make a game that already fits into an existing one. All the best ideas Nintendo has for platformers fit into Mario. Now of they have an idea for a mature platformer then Mario wouldn't fit, but that is not Nintendo. The most important thing that matters, for all games across all platforms, is that the games remain excellent. not the name on the box. Cell phone post sorry for the weirdness that may cause.dvader654

Everyone milks franchises a bit, but there are degrees of milking (Nintendo takes things to an extreme few do). Sony's audience is opposed to direct sequels to games they like, but they tend to be welcoming to new franchises and new ideas. The flipside of that is that lack of franchise allegiance is that milking doesn't pay off the same way it does for Nintendo (PSABR and LBP Karting didn't do all that well). I liked both games but the fact they disappointed commercially while original games like Journey, Dishonored, The Unfinished Swan and Papa and Yo did well will hopefully convince Sony that with its fanbase, it should try to sell games on their merits and not hide them behind other franchises.

Also, it makes no sense to blame kids or parents for Nintendo's lack of creativity. The kids market is ever changing and parents go with it because they have no strong preferences, they just want their kids to be happy. What Nintendo's market resembles is not any kid driven market, but the modern superhero comic book industry, whose fans are overwhelming grown men who know exactly what they want and want nothing else.

Look at kid's animated movies. One sees a good amount of sequels, but there are a ton original properties. Disney sits atops the animated movies most of the Western world cares about and has done so since before any of us were born, but buying Pixar was huge for them because Pixar had demonstrated an ability to get kids excited with their movies that Disney had lost (despite Disney having access to ancient, highly recognizable characters).

If Nintendo were like Disney and kids were their primary market, they would have put Mario out to pasture long ago and offered a broad, frequently changing range of characters. Instead they are like Marvel and DC, doing the same thing over and over and again with minor revisions, because that is what their adult fans demand. That conservative strategy has made comic books (kids will get excited about tacking a phone book sized Harry Potter novel, but they have no interest in reading about Batman's 4,392,297th fight with the Joker) and Nintendo increasingly irrelevant to most consumers.

So you are taking the sales figures of Sony games to represent the taste of Sony fans, so LBP Karting which nobody wanted sold poorly that means Sony fans are opposed to whoring out their characters. Or maybe its that Mario Kart is better and the grand majority of people only want one kart racer and it might as well the best one. What do you mean Sony fans are opposed to direct sequels, if God of War continues to evolve it will continue to sell. What about GT, that game regressed this gen and it remains Sony's biggest franchise because of name and legacy alone and it will continue to be(as long as they fix their GT5 misstep) cause it is the king of racing.

What I am saying with the kids is that there is not some giant cult of people that only play Nintendo games. That is absurd, if you enjoy video games odds are you play a wide variety of games. The problem you and others seem to have is that you can't comprehend why Nintendo games sell so much better than anything else on their consoles. Ok let me ask you this then why dont other games on the 360 sell as well as Call of Duty? Or as well as GTA? Where did all those gamers go? Are there some people that only buy like two games a year and those are CoD, yeah. Just like I bet there are some people that buy one or two Nintendo games a year but I guarntee the average age of those doing so is way way way younger than those with CoD. But the real reason for the huge discrepancy is because they are games that are universally loved and captured the attention of the general gamer more so than other franchises. This is what Nintendo games do, they sell on the merit of their quality and yes the legacy they have built, they go hand in hand. If the major Nintendo franchises stopped being of high quality the sales would eventually drop. But that is not the case cause they continously evolve and make the best games in their respective genres.

You have a really warped view of this. If there are a massive group of grown 20+ males that ONLY buy Nintendo games, please point them out to me. This unicorn you invented does not exist. The games sell better than anything else on the console because of the exact same reason games like CoD, GTA, GT sell so much more than their closest competitor.

I meant to say Sony fans aren't opposed to direct sequels, but they don't seem to have much of a taste for spinoffs and the yardstick I used was all games, not just first party ones. Also, to further clarify, my arguments hold true for Xbox owners (Halo is massive, but nobody cared about the Halo themed strategy game). Sorry for the careless error.

As for popular franchises on other platforms, fine, let's look at them. Call of Duty is huge, but so is Halo and their popularity didn't stop games like Borderlands and Gears of War from becoming big hits (6 million sales is noting to sneeze at). Among core games, there are no such successes on Nintendo consoles (handhelds yes, consoles no). GTA is massive, but other open world games like Red Dead Redemption, Saint's Row and Infamous have put up strong sales numbers.

By way of contrast, Mario being popular (NSMB sold 30,000,000 copies) didn't translate into sales for Rayman, Zelda being popular didn't translate into sales for Okami, etc, etc. In modern times, Nintendo has a lot of franchise fans but very few genre fans, so unlike every other current platform (and unlike Nintendo platforms in the NES, SNES and even N64 days) core games outside the favored few franchises don't find success.

Nintendo made a bunch of new IPs last gen, its just a bunch of crap us gamers dont care about.

dvader654

How many new core IPs (the casuals aren't the problem) did Nintendo introduce last gen?

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

So you are taking the sales figures of Sony games to represent the taste of Sony fans, so LBP Karting which nobody wanted sold poorly that means Sony fans are opposed to whoring out their characters. Or maybe its that Mario Kart is better and the grand majority of people only want one kart racer and it might as well the best one. What do you mean Sony fans are opposed to direct sequels, if God of War continues to evolve it will continue to sell. What about GT, that game regressed this gen and it remains Sony's biggest franchise because of name and legacy alone and it will continue to be(as long as they fix their GT5 misstep) cause it is the king of racing.

What I am saying with the kids is that there is not some giant cult of people that only play Nintendo games. That is absurd, if you enjoy video games odds are you play a wide variety of games. The problem you and others seem to have is that you can't comprehend why Nintendo games sell so much better than anything else on their consoles. Ok let me ask you this then why dont other games on the 360 sell as well as Call of Duty? Or as well as GTA? Where did all those gamers go? Are there some people that only buy like two games a year and those are CoD, yeah. Just like I bet there are some people that buy one or two Nintendo games a year but I guarntee the average age of those doing so is way way way younger than those with CoD. But the real reason for the huge discrepancy is because they are games that are universally loved and captured the attention of the general gamer more so than other franchises. This is what Nintendo games do, they sell on the merit of their quality and yes the legacy they have built, they go hand in hand. If the major Nintendo franchises stopped being of high quality the sales would eventually drop. But that is not the case cause they continously evolve and make the best games in their respective genres.

You have a really warped view of this. If there are a massive group of grown 20+ males that ONLY buy Nintendo games, please point them out to me. This unicorn you invented does not exist. The games sell better than anything else on the console because of the exact same reason games like CoD, GTA, GT sell so much more than their closest competitor.

dvader654

I meant to say Sony fans aren't opposed to direct sequels, but they don't seem to have much of a taste for spinoffs and the yardstick I used was all games, not just first party ones. Also, to further clarify, my arguments hold true for Xbox owners (Halo is massive, but nobody cared about the Halo themed strategy game). Sorry for the careless error.

As for popular franchises on other platforms, fine, let's look at them. Call of Duty is huge, but so is Halo and their popularity didn't stop games like Borderlands and Gears of War from becoming big hits (6 million sales is noting to sneeze at). Among core games, there are no such successes on Nintendo consoles (handhelds yes, consoles no). GTA is massive, but other open world games like Red Dead Redemption, Saint's Row and Infamous have put up strong sales numbers.

By way of contrast, Mario being popular (NSMB sold 30,000,000 copies) didn't translate into sales for Rayman, Zelda being popular didn't translate into sales for Okami, etc, etc. In modern times, Nintendo has a lot of franchise fans but very few genre fans, so unlike every other current platform (and unlike Nintendo platforms in the NES, SNES and even N64 days) core games outside the favored few franchises don't find success.

And why is Nintendo to blame for that? Rayman, Okami, etc are all multiplatform games, what does Nintendo has to do with their success or not? I dont understand what you are trying to say?

Now with the Nintendo console itself the problem is that it doesnt have the support the other two do, thats it. Yes the reason for that is because of Nintendo. Now being a gen back in graphics, poor online, weird controlers (even the GC controller was missing a button making ports a mess). The only good reason to buy a Nintendo console is to play Nintendo games, any other exclusives are a bonus. Why would I ever by a third party game on a Nintendo console when the majority of times that same game is much better on another console. Devs know this. The wii was a huge hit cause it sold to people outside the bubble of people who just want to play Nintendo games, but that crowd which we now call the "casuals" dont really play that many games. They introduced people to gaming but did fail to direct them to play more traditional games, but they had little help from other companies because the Wii was a gen behind. If the Wii had modern graphics, an excellent online setup and got all the same third party games as the other two I could see it lead in software cause it simply had the largest install base. Everyone had a wii, people that didnt want a wii had a wii, so it was already convinently in everyones home and if that had the same features as the others it would have been the system of choice for most. Of course that would mean it wouldnt have cost $250 meaning it wouldnt have sold so much so yeah...

Nintendo's problems in hardware and third party relations is totally to blame for their issues. Nintendo's software is not, in fact it is so strong its one of the few companies that can make an entire console simply to play its first party titles.

How to explain? First parties set the table, leading by example in order to create and/or prove the existence of a market. Like I said, rpg fans didn't naturally or quickly gravitate towards the Xbox, but the continued and successful effort of MS to attract rpg developers to their platforms drew them. The same can be said for shooters on the Playstations. After the first year of the Gamecube, Nintendo has failed to make the same effort in any genre or for any type of game. Instead Nintendo reinforced the natural inertia of its audience and let third parties do the heavy work of expanding the appeal of their systems among core gamers (in the GC era, Capcom was the one seeking to broaden the appeal of the GC, in the Wii era it was Sega). Inevitably, such efforts faltered because the job of third parties is to sell games, not hardware (shareholders asked Capcom why they were ignoring the platform where there games could sell the most copies and Capcom stopped indulging Mikami).

With the exception of last year, Nintendo has always made dumptruck loads of money, but it has just celebrated the profitability of its rut rather than trying to expand the core appeal of its consoles.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

Nintendo made a bunch of new IPs last gen, its just a bunch of crap us gamers dont care about.

dvader654

How many new core IPs (the casuals aren't the problem) did Nintendo introduce last gen?

They innovate in the casual arena, but in the core arena they've been extremely conservative.

Instead of discussing what made Mario popular has turned into a Nintendo discussion? :?

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

And why is Nintendo to blame for that? Rayman, Okami, etc are all multiplatform games, what does Nintendo has to do with their success or not? I dont understand what you are trying to say?

Now with the Nintendo console itself the problem is that it doesnt have the support the other two do, thats it. Yes the reason for that is because of Nintendo. Now being a gen back in graphics, poor online, weird controlers (even the GC controller was missing a button making ports a mess). The only good reason to buy a Nintendo console is to play Nintendo games, any other exclusives are a bonus. Why would I ever by a third party game on a Nintendo console when the majority of times that same game is much better on another console. Devs know this. The wii was a huge hit cause it sold to people outside the bubble of people who just want to play Nintendo games, but that crowd which we now call the "casuals" dont really play that many games. They introduced people to gaming but did fail to direct them to play more traditional games, but they had little help from other companies because the Wii was a gen behind. If the Wii had modern graphics, an excellent online setup and got all the same third party games as the other two I could see it lead in software cause it simply had the largest install base. Everyone had a wii, people that didnt want a wii had a wii, so it was already convinently in everyones home and if that had the same features as the others it would have been the system of choice for most. Of course that would mean it wouldnt have cost $250 meaning it wouldnt have sold so much so yeah...

Nintendo's problems in hardware and third party relations is totally to blame for their issues. Nintendo's software is not, in fact it is so strong its one of the few companies that can make an entire console simply to play its first party titles.

dvader654

How to explain? First parties set the table, leading by example in order to create and/or prove the existence of a market. Like I said, rpg fans didn't naturally or quickly gravitate towards the Xbox, but the continued and successful effort of MS to attract rpg developers to their platforms drew them. The same can be said for shooters on the Playstations. After the first year of the Gamecube, Nintendo has failed to make the same effort in any genre or for any type of game. Instead Nintendo reinforced the natural inertia of its audience and let third parties do the heavy work of expanding the appeal of their systems among core gamers (in the GC era, Capcom was the one seeking to broaden the appeal of the GC, in the Wii era it was Sega). Inevitably, such efforts faltered because the job of third parties is to sell games, not hardware (shareholders asked Capcom why they were ignoring the platform where there games could sell the most copies and Capcom stopped indulging Mikami).

With the exception of last year, Nintendo has always made dumptruck loads of money, but it has just celebrated the profitability of its rut rather than trying to expand the core appeal of its consoles.

Ok and all that is on the business side of Nintendo has had some stumbles. Maybe they should have paid for more exclusives. Support more third parties. Just be generally more like a partner than some stoic giant. All MS did was throw money at the RPG problem, they bought companies and said make an RPG for us, I dont see how that promoted anything outside the companies that got the money. How many exclusive JRPGs did they get outside of those deals, none. Meanwhile Sony has Valkaryia, Demon's Souls, and a bunch of others I know nothing about and they did NOTHING in terms of RPG first party support.

I all agree with Nintendo's faliures in that regard but again their software has little to do with that. Nintendo's success in games does not hinder others from the same. The situation is more about creating a system where you have the best version of the games and the best online to support them. The age of third party exclusives is almost over, now its about what can your system offer that the others dont.

Sony published and promoted FF7 in the US (with a very lavish ad campaign). Even at the time of release, FF7 wasn't the best jrpg ever made, but the fact it was a quality game with superb production values mainstreamed the genre in the West (which translated into more jrpgs coming over and the localizations being stronger). Also, Sony of Japan helped Level Five (who now handles the venerable Dragon Quest games and recently made the brilliant Ni No Kuni) rise to prominence. Its not a matter of how many exclusive jrpgs Sony funded, its that Sony's efforts got the snowball rolling down the hill. Also, Sony of Japan funded Demon's Souls.

Nintendo hasn't tried to prove the existence of/build an appetite for different genres, they spent years cultivating an audience keyed on a handful of franchises. Yes, the age of third party exclusives is over, but third parties still need to be convinced that X platform is one of the range of platforms they should support.

Eternal Darkness? Flop. Red Steel? Flop. Madworld? Flop. And no, if you picked up any of those games you aren't a sheep or part of the problem. This doesn't neccesarily apply to anyone on this forum. Hardcore gamers did give those games a chance but the casual nintendo fan doesn't give a f*ck. Where as the casual Sony and Xbox fan bought risky new IPs like Uncharted, Borderlands and Heavy Rain and turned them into successful franchises.S0lidSnake

I don't think you should be held up on such superficial things as what your character looks like. Nintendo has made a ton of new IPs, but they never sell. So can you blame Nintendo for essentially using famous characters people know to sell their games?

They essentially create new IPs now under the disguise of their well known IPs (Kirby Epic Yarn, Kid Icarus Uprising). Even new installments in Nintendo's 20+ year old franchises tend to be more original than many of the "new" IPs that sony or microsoft release. New IP=/=originality. I look at uncharted, resistance, Killzone and see very little creativity or originality. I see Ratchet and Clank, God of War, and Halo and see almost no change between each iteration.

Then I look at Mario which changed drastically from Mario World to Mario 64 then again when it changed to sunshine then again it changed things up greatly with the Galaxy games. I look at Super Metroid which got reinvented with Prime and drastically changed with Other M. I look at A Link to the past that changed drastically in Ocarina of time then again with Majora's Mask and again with Wind Waker and finally there was a great change in Skyward Sword. Nintendo is constantly making new and creative experiences. It's a shame you can't look beyond the name.

Pikminmaniac

OMG this post is amazing. BTW I want Nathan Drake in the Last Guardian.

You mention all that whole Sony has made their own smash bros., LBP kart racing.

Lets begin with the kart racer, would an original kart racer sell, how was modnation racers, complete failure replaced by LBP why cause that is what people want. NO one wants an original kart racing game, it's a silly version of real racing so having recognizable characters enhances the experience. Let me ask you would having a Nintendo kart game without Mario change anything except be the same game without Mario and sell worse. You are arguing a skin change who cares.

Now about the real Mario franchise, super Mario, you want Nintendo who has the most successful and continuously greatest platformer on the planet to Roth it and I stead make a new platformer for NO REASON except that you are bored of seeing Mario in it? How absurd is that. NIntendo has like four platforming series already only one stars Mario, they don't need to make more. Through Mario they explore platforming games, they constantly evolve it and make changes. They don't need a skin change to create change. I see no reason for a new character when firstly story means nothing in a platformer and nothing they can create wi ever be as popular as Mario, so what is the point. And again there are a bunch of other Nintendo platformers without Mario.

Paper Mario and Mario and luigi two fantastic RPG series that so happen to put Mario in it. Once again these games continuously evolve, super paper Mario was a big departure and sticker star is quite different as well. The quality is there from game to game, do you really think people play it cause its Mario and not cause its am excellent RPG. And why not have a Mario RPG, it's a cool funny world to explore, instantly recognizable to everyone. But why not make a new world, well Nintendo has done that with Xenoblade, earthbound, fire emblem.

Then there is this notion that "Nintendo fans" follow the franchises. Who are these Nintendo fans, who are these people that refuse to play anything else except Nintendo games. They don't exist. Nintendo games sell much more than any franchises on their console cause they are hugely popular, not cause they have a cult. The people that buy Mario and nothing else are usually parents of kids who are only going to buy what they are familiar with. Fans of any franchise follow their franchises, metal gear fans follow metal gear, halo fans follow halo, god of war fans follow god of war, call of duty fans follow call of duty. We are fans of franchises cause we love those games not cause of some imaginary loyalty (while some sure exist it is a small minority)

I will never support the death of franchises, in this industry it is pointless. Storylines don't have to be so strict, actors don't age, it doesn't have the limitation of movie franchises. It's more like James Bond, they can go on forever. To me it is totally unnecessary to create a new franchise if you are going to make a game that already fits into an existing one. All the best ideas Nintendo has for platformers fit into Mario. Now of they have an idea for a mature platformer then Mario wouldn't fit, but that is not Nintendo. The most important thing that matters, for all games across all platforms, is that the games remain excellent. not the name on the box.

Cell phone post sorry for the weirdness that may cause.dvader654

First of all, you gotta tell me which app you are using to browse Gamespot forums. Because the chrome browser on Samsung S3 is f*cking useless when browsing this forum. I have to continuously zoom in and out, the clicks barely register, it takes ages to load and i cant even copy and paste. The neogaf mobile site is phenomenal. This is pure sh*t. 

Now you two both bring up valid points. And ok, I will concede that Nintendo does reinvigorate these franchises enough to keep them fresh. And that there is nothing wrong with that. Hell, look at my username and avatar. My favorite director in the industry hasnt made anything other than MGS for the past 25 years. But at the same time, I will admit that he has milked MGS. Wouldn't you? Yes the quality of mainline MGS games has been stellar, but wouldn't you want to see Kojima do something other than MGS? Wouldn't you want the Nitnendo teams to tackle something other than Zelda, Metroid and Mario? Why do you think Kojima hasn't made anything other than maybe ZOE in the last 25 years? To me, it's simple. He's afraid of the whole process of starting from scratch. Same goes for Nintendo teams. Yes, the ideas behind these games are different. I get it. Metroid Prime series is entirely differnt than the 2D Metroid. Paper Mario different than Mario Galaxy. But why? Why not start something from scratch? Why settle for another Zelda, another Mario and anther Metroid? What has Nintendo created in the last ten years that is as iconic as Mario? Or Zelda or Metroid? Wii Music? Wii Sports? Do you not see how safe this is? It's not just skins, Nintendo HAS to grow up. Twilgiht Princess came out in 2006 and didnt have voice acting when MGS1 had voice acting back in 1998. You guys might be ok with playing the same franchises and spinoffs with the same characters, but let's admit that Nintendo has been left behind. And most it is due to their lack of courage to try new IPs. They have hidden behind the 'platformers dont need story' excuse for so long that they have no franchise out there that has a great story. They haven't had to struggle to animate humans in video games, to convey emotion, to do something more than just mindless collecting of stars. They have played it safe for far too long.

And vader, just look at the sales of anything non Nintendo on the Wii and Gamecube and finally the Wii U. These are the Nintendo fans who dont buy anything but Nintendo. People like you who do try these core franchises by third parties are so few that none of the third party publishers bothered putting the biggest games of the year on the Wii U. You know this, so why bring it up? It's basically what we were arguing with UIF about... if the PC market is so f*cking huge then why didn't Rockstar port Red Dead to PC? Maybe, just maybe they looked at the awful sales of GTAIV on PC and said f*ck it. Just like how they arent even developing the PC version of GTAV. 

I do appreciate your replies. And I love that Nintendo keeps their franchises fresh, but that's it. They are keeping their franchises fresh instead of coming up with the next phenomenon. 

Why is Mario popular? A number of reasons I guess. He's been around consistently for many years now and his main games are the flagships of one of the companies that people identify with gaming. It's a well recognized character that is always safe and family friendly. Because of that, Nintendo tends to use him in many games spanning several different genres, which increases exposure and allows for him to be introduced to new audiences.

It's a mascot of a very successful international company.

Instead of discussing what made Mario popular has turned into a Nintendo discussion? :?

thom_maytees

To examine a game's success, one has to look at the context. Either NSMB is 600 times more awesome than Rayman Origins or there are other factors at play.