Fungi Forums
Video Games => Mario Chat => Topic started by: Reading on October 12, 2007, 05:10:08 PM
-
Mario's always been the basic example of a video game hero, and that's because he was one of the first. He runs through worlds, saves Princess Peach, beats Bowser, and saves the day every time. He also has lots of spinoffs; golf, tennis, baseball, soccer, basketball, parties, racing games, you name it. And that's because he's popular. People around the globe love playing Mario, and they'll pay for just about anything that contains everyone's favorite hero plumber.
Focus a bit on the Mario's always been the basic example of a video game hero part, emphasis on "basic". Since Mario's that basic model, Nintendo can throw him into pretty much anything, and people will buy it. And because he's that basic model, Nintendo can use the same storyline over and over, and get away with it, because it's Mario, right?
And since Mario's that basic model, he has to be accessible to everyone. That means no overly dark or complicated plots, except maybe in the RPGs, and an easy gameplay style with not-too-difficult levels, right?
And since Mario has to be accessible, the plot of the games can't be too confusing, so each Mario game should be, for the most part, self-contained. Since he's just about fun and not about complex plots, there should be no real continuity linking the games. Right?
I disagree.
The fact that Mario's everyone's basic game hero is why Nintendo tends to keep Mario in a relatively simple, lighthearted environment. He's very "general"-the guy that saves the Princess and all that and can do pretty much anything Nintendo throws him into. Should he be more "specific"-should Mario games have more advanced plots? Should there be a stronger canon? I say yes. Mario's been in the same over-accessible environment for years now. I say it's time we get something of a darker atmosphere and more difficult games.
Of course, doing these things would make Mario less accessible-but not all of the games have to be like this. Some of the RPGs are considerably darker in tone than most of the other games, making them less accessible, but they're perfect for hardcore gamers like myself. And, there's always a brink-Mario shouldn't be too dark or too complicated, but a fair amount so. Super Paper Mario is a prime example of what I'd like to see in more Mario games nowadays, albeit being way too easy for my tastes; it had more in-depth plot, and, me being a big plot enthusiast, I enjoyed it every step of the way.
What are all of your opinions on the subject? Is Mario fine how he is, or should he develop in a more mature direction without going over the brink? Should the games have a stronger canon?
Feel free to disagree with me. Heck, feel free to take apart my argument and point out flaws. I'll gladly accept any agreement/suggestions/criticism/bashing I get (that is, as long as it's polite) so I can improve my argument and better define my position.
-
Your preaching to the choir!
-
Mario doesn't need any canon. Obscure characters dot his history and we can all keep going on without remembering them or expecting them to want to get revenge. Major events stick (Bowser's history of failures, Luigi's Mansion). As long as Peach doesn't kill Mario by accident and he somehow shows up in the next game, it'll all be fine.
Plot and style kind of fit together. The basic, easy-to-understand plot is good for young audiences and not incredibly aggravating for older ones. For the most part, the games themselves can be seen the same way. It's not overpoweringly hard to get to the last fight with Bowser in Super Mario World or Super Mario 64, even for a kid. But there are often extra challenges (like the Star World, or getting all 120 stars) that take a bit more skill to keep more experienced players busy. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door kind of does the same thing with the plot--the basic plot of the game is easy to grasp, but there's a back story to it all.
I like a darker plot, personally, one in which you don't know what's going to happen next. Super Mario Galaxy seems like it might deliver. I only hope it'll be easy enough to beat to not turn off a younger player, but with enough extra things to do to not turn off a more experienced player.
-
A stern narrative kills mascots. See, mascots are there for longivity, and you can't have character degeneration from having to grow from experiences (Jaded, tired, and possibly irritatingly snarky.) For your deeper plot and characters you have a set story line, otherwise you paint yourself into a proverbial corner, hence fewer titles.
Plus, games are expensive, and 'til awhile ago, on sale only when the system is still produced. Some people would be left in the dark.... "who is this guy, and what was he implying...etc"
-
Everything above me is tl:dr.
Basically, nobody plays Mario games for the storyline and thats the way I like it.
-
Horror is one of my favorite genres for a movie, and I would like to see a darker tone in a Mario storyline.
I'd like to see some story that's not that generic, but still being similar to what we've known.
The storyline in Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 is a good example of what I like, since the story is a little different than usual, but it still contains the "Defeat Eggman" part of the story. I really like twists and turns in a story, and it keeps me interested, since I know that I won't be able to predict what will happen next. Seriously, I never knew Shadow Mario would be Bowser Jr.
The only games I think have canon are basically the main games, and I think some of the spin-offs, since they include abilites Mario learned from the main games.
Being accessable to all audiences is what bugs me. Some games are "Hold your hand the whole game" so they appeal to the casual audience, and it's not that good for us Hardcore gamers. While that's fine for spin-offs, I don't think main games should be like that. Mario Party had the option of setting difficulty, so why can't the main games have difficulty options?
-
And since Mario has to be accessible, the plot of the games can't be too confusing, so each Mario game should be, for the most part, self-contained. Since he's just about fun and not about complex plots, there should be no real continuity linking the games. Right?
It's a freakin' game. Everything you just said in that sentence makes perfect sense. Miyamoto never has continuity in mind when making most of the Mario games anyway. If there was, it would severely limit everything Miyamoto could do with the next game. He would have to follow canon when making games (seriously, does Mario follow a storyline? I think not), but since there isn't a canon, he's able to make games without having to worry about continuity .
-
I'm not talking about a continuous storyline. I'm talking about, perhaps we should have a Mario game that's a direct sequel to another, or one that draws heavily upon another. I wouldn't be happy if all the games became one continuous plot. It wouldn't leave room. >_>
Thanks for the comments everyone. I might form a revised version of my original statement sometime based on the input. (I always forget to say something about one of my opinions. Always. >_>)
-
I think the in-depth territory is reserved for Zelda--and with good cause. A guy in overalls can't get too epic... *braces for onslaught of comments to the contrary*
-
I think the in-depth territory is reserved for Zelda--and with good cause. A guy in overalls can't get too epic... *braces for onslaught of comments to the contrary*
Well, I though the opening for SMG was pretty epic.
As for regular Mario games to have huge, complex stories, I think that Mario games could go a bit beyond the whole, "rescue the princess" thing, but for the most part, I'm fine with basic plots. What I think Nintendo could focus on is making new villians; after all, Bowser gets pretty stale after a while.
My belief is that it's not just how rich the plot is that makes a game's story good, but how said plot is presented, as well. Going back to SMG for a second, the basic story is just same old, "Bowser kidnaps Peach" stuff, but where it got me was how it was portrayed; big, epic and very exciting. I, personally, thought that Twilight Princess' story and objectives was pretty basic stuff, y'know, "Collect the pieces of sacred holy item from decades ago to combat evil", but it's huge, Lord of the Rings style epicness combined with it's serious dialogue and tone is why I hold it with high regard. Simply put, how the story is told to you can sometimes mask the shortcomings of the plot. At least, that's what I think.
-
Aw, just my luck... I've never seen the SMG opening (and I don't want to--I'm saving it for when I get the game). But, still, I suppose...
-
The Mario games don't fit together and there is no point in trying to make them do so. Plots within games are fine, but it ends there. Leave massive storylines to stuff like Xenosaga.
-
I say it's time we get something of a darker atmosphere and more difficult games.
I don't necessarily like dark games, and I think his games are getting slightly more difficult. I like Mario how it is now, but if there was something I can change, it would be making a light-hearted game with an in-depth storyline.
-
Aw, just my luck... I've never seen the SMG opening (and I don't want to--I'm saving it for when I get the game). But, still, I suppose...
When I saw it, my desire for the game changed from, "I'm sure it'll be fun, that's why I preordered it," to, "Oh wow, now I want November to come a bit quicker..." It's a pretty epic opening indeed.
-
The Mario games don't fit together and there is no point in trying to make them do so. Plots within games are fine, but it ends there. Leave massive storylines to stuff like Xenosaga.
Yeah, I'm not talking about a massive storyline or anything. I was mainly referring to (gaah, forgot to mention...) inconsistancies within the Mario games; Peach's Castle looking different in every game, Mario supposedly being older but being delievered at the same time as Luigi, etc. These things could use some official explanations without tying the games' storyline too closely. A direct sequel now in then would be nice as well...'Course, that's just my opinion.
Haven't seen the SMG opening (don't want to spoil it for myself) but from what I've heard, it's EPIC. I think I'll really be liking that game.
-
Personally, I think Nintendo wanted a continuity, and we largely rejected it. I think the original plan for Luigi's Mansion was that the ending was not a random Boo operating a Bowser suit, but Bowser's spirit reanimating his own dead body, after having been killed in Paper Mario -- otherwise, we have to deal with a new character talking about "all the trouble you've given me in the past" in his debut appearance. I think this is what that whole "more mature Mario" debacle was about. But that's just my theory.
I'm not really sure whether I would prefer that Mario or the one we have now. A continuous story is very attractive to me, but I've also grown very attached to Bowser, especially over the last six years after Luigi's Mansion. However, I do like the compromised continuity that Nintendo seems to be bringing in lately: having Toad Town come back in Partners in Time, with Shooting Star Summit -- referred to by its original SMRPG name, Star Hill -- behind it, and now Toad Town appearing outside a very SM64-style castle in the Galaxy opening. It's not as big, but I'm very eager to see how far they take this over the next five years.
-
Miyamoto does not want a continuity. So, yeah.
The Mario games contain recurring elements that are very loosely tied together with a thin string throughout the games. This is sufficient.
-
In all honesty, I could care less what Miyamoto wants. Of everyone whoa actually puts their sweat into making today's Mario games, he cares the least and probably does the least for it. I like the idea of a continuity, and I really can't understand why people seem to hate it. All the development teams who make the Mario games like it, the localization teams who write the dialog like it, and even the official distributors in each country like it (such as Nintendo of Europe), so why can't the rest of us want a continuity? You act like it's illegal just because of what Miyamoto said, Chup. Miyamoto is not the Jesus of gaming. Even he makes mistakes. All the man does is just oversee the projects. He ain't the one designing, coding and coming up with the plotlines for each game. As far as I'm concerned, he barely even about Mario as much as us and the rest of the guys at Nintendo. His word should not be taken as law. I know I don't take it that way.
-
In all honesty, I could care less what Miyamoto wants.
That means you do care.
Anyway, that is one heck of a lot of inference for one sentence. I was replying to CrossEyed7 saying he thought Nintendo wanted a continuity. I see no evidence to support this anywhere, and decided to mention that Miyamoto, you know, the guy who created Mario, doesn't feel like a continuity is necessary for Mario games.
-
Well, I really didn't have anything against what you said specifically, Chup. You just reminded me of the many people who thinks Miyamoto decides everything that had to do with Mario and thus it's againt the laws of nature to even think about Mario having a canon. It's been bugging me for a while.
-
Should the games have a stronger canon?
Yes, the games should have a stronger canon, so as to shoot Mario to the dark side of the moon! (oh wait.. PM2 already did..)
I kind of like having the canon the way it is now: the RPG's have recurring locations/elements (Star Hill, Shooting Star Summit), RPG areas are appearing outside of the RPG games (DryDry Desert in MKDD, ToadTown in SMG) and there are references to past adventures in all of the games (Luigi's Mansion tracks in MK, Luigi's diary in PM1, Luigi's adventure in PM2, the whale calling Mario a doctor in PM1..)
I think the canon the way it is now is fine, as it leaves room for things that fans want to make up.
As for having a darker storyline, PM2 was a step in the right direction, and SMG seems to continue along those lines. I am very much looking forward to seeing where the games go.
-
I think the original plan for Luigi's Mansion was that the ending was not a random Boo operating a Bowser suit, but Bowser's spirit reanimating his own dead body, after having been killed in Paper Mario -- otherwise, we have to deal with a new character talking about "all the trouble you've given me in the past" in his debut appearance.
Well, King Boo appeared in Super Mario Sunshine and other games, so I don't think he's Bowser's spirit. He might have been referring to how Mario and Luigi have defeated his Boos in earlier games by "trouble you've given me in the past".
-
It was a suit. Bowser does not die.
What King Boo said didn't make a lot of sense... Why would he want revenge on the Mario Bros. if Boos are rarely even killable (and they claim in SM64 that GHOSTS... CAN'T... DIE!). Nonetheless, the red-eyed blue-tongued villain was awesome, until he was turned into a drunk slobbery thing in Sunshine and then a marshmallow in Mario Kart...
-
Those are his relatives!! Please!
/me cries
-
Obviously, King Boo is no longer intended to be Bowser; my theory is just that that was the original intention, but they changed it when it didn't get as good a reaction as they'd hoped for.
As for Miyamoto's wishes, he works with gameplay, not plot. The Zelda games, for instance, were clearly created with complex and, often, continuous, interweaved plots, yet Miyamoto knows less about how they fit together than the average gamer, because he only focuses on making the games fun, not on making them non-paradoxical.
-
Eiji Aonuma is the Zelda guy these days. Miyamoto barely works on games at all. And you're incorrect, because Miyamoto's idea, if you remember, was to not have Mario tied down in a complex backstory.
-
Apart from the Mario RPG's, I don't get concerned about plots. The platformers don't really need a plot to be honest;- rescuing the princess from bowser is all they really need. As for canon, I assume that bowser kidnaps the princess a short while after she's been rescued, thereby accounting for how mario looks the same, from one game to the next.
-
Even so, a repulsive script can ruin the simple plot.
-
To those who say the plots aren't deep in the Mario games, and that there's no canon: You're so wrong! You just have to dig a little deeper, and settle for conjecture. For example, here is what I think the story behind King Boo is (I did not create this idea; I simply heard it, and it makes sense to me):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember Big Boo from SM64? He was the leader of the Boos, so I think that he just changed his title because "King" makes him sound more powerful. After SM64 comes Super Mario Sunshine. (King Boo is a member of the Koopa Troop; that's important to note.) After King Boo's second loss to Mario, Bowser, infuriated by King Boo's inability to beat Mario, kicks him out of the Koopa Troop. Afterwards, a bitter King Boo kidnaps Mario, partially for revenge, and partially because he believes that if he captures Mario, Bowser would let him back into the Troop. And, to sweeten the deal, he lured Luigi there to capture the brothers in one fell swoop.
So why, then, did King Boo hide in a Bowser suit? I believe that Boo wanted to send a message to Bowser- that he could be a better Bowser than Bowser. That is, that he can stop Mario once and for all; the Bowser suit was meant to get into Bowser's head. As we all know, of course, King Boo failed, and Bowser laughed him off. Since then, Bowser has disasocciated himself with the Boos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I don't think that the Mario games oughta be tremendously harder, or have darker storylines. Remember, Mario is marketed mainly for younger children, so Nintendo isn't going to make a dark, scary story in a game. Partners in Time was about the darkest game, but frequent comic relief kept it from going over the line. You want a darker storyline, play just about any other RPG out there. But let's keep Mario as he is. There's a reason Nintendo is the top-selling video game franchise, you know.
-
...that there's no canon: You're so wrong! You just have to dig a little deeper, and settle for conjecture.
So, in other words, there is no canon unless you make it up...? I don't mean to completely debunk "what you heard" right off the bat, but you kind of contradicted yourself, there.
I'm a fan of the Boos, but the differences in style are just too much for me to believe that a single "King of the Boos" keeps coming back.
SM64: Just really big
SMS: Big slobbery embarrassment
LM: Freaky, red-eyed, blue tongued menace
-
MK:DD!!: Marshmallow with a crown (and not as awesome as King Nimbus, either)
-
The Big Boo in SM64 is an offshoot of the idea of Big Boos in Super Mario World. King Boo was new in Luigi's Mansion. King Boo in SMS is an extension of the idea in LM, although not as cool of a version. That's all the stuff in Mario games is, a collection of ideas, changing from one game to the next.
-
Miyamoto is not the Jesus of gaming.
Actually, he really is.
Jesus, with the backing of the power of God, saved us from our sins.
Miyamoto, with the backing of the power of Nintendo, saved us from the video game crash of 1983.
-
Great analogy, LD.
Hey, wait a moment... I'm gonna throw out a totally random idea for whatever fanfic-writer with block wants.
Maybe King Boo looks like he does in Sunshine because after he lost to Luigi in Luigi's Mansion and was somehow released from the painting, he was so depressed he took to drinking and gambling! That explains everything... But what kind of nut would carry out a story based on an idea like that? Ahahaha...
-
Degradation is always fodder for a great story.
-
Actually, I need to amend my previous post. King Boo and Big Boo are in fact different; that was my error in writing the post. Recall that, in SM64, King Boo captured Luigi, and was defeated by Mario Note that the N64 version was slightly inaccurate, as it did not show that Mario, Luigi, and Wario were captured as the DS version did.
Suffix: OK, I realize that I cantradicted myself there. What I meant is this: "conjecture" is different in "making it up"; what you have to do is take the available facts and use those facts to fill in the details. It's not terribly concrete, but you have to work with what you have, right?
-
Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS are both each as valid as the other. This is why there is no canon and Super Mario 64 DS is not somehow more "accurate" than Super Mario 64.
Conjecture is totally making stuff up. There is no logical way to "fill in the gaps".
-
Heheh. I decided long ago that making sense out of the different Mario games was a tiresome and ultimately futile effort. It's fun when you do see references to other games, though. (like SPM and previous Paper Marios)
-
Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS are both each as valid as the other. This is why there is no canon and Super Mario 64 DS is not somehow more "accurate" than Super Mario 64.
Conjecture is totally making stuff up. There is no logical way to "fill in the gaps".
I disagree. There is a way to fill in the gaps; you just have to use your imagination to fill in details that make sense with what facts are given.
And how can SM64 and DS be as valid as each other? in 64, neither Luigi nor Wario are present, but they both are in DS. Unless, of course, Bowser executed the same exact plan twice, but that doesn't make sense at all.
-
And when someone else fills in a completely different piece of randomness that makes sense to them, what then?
Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS are the same story, executed somewhat differently. It's like the multiple versions of the first Castlevania game. Just because the DS version came later doesn't make its revisions more correct than the original version of the game. Super Mario Advance remakes are the same.
-
The thing that would please me the most if the series had a stronger continuity would be that maybe then some of the characters introduced in the spin-offs (namely the RPG's) would have a chance of returning in later games. I recently cleared Super Paper Mario, and almost as soon as i had finished it, i got a bit sad thinking about how the events and characters in that awsome game (with its awsome storyline) will probably never be refered to again.
I would be immensely happy to see Dimentio come back in a future game, with new nasty tricks up his sleeve. But i know that, in reality, that simply wont happen, and he and the other characters from that game will never be seen again. Never, ever again. EVER. :'(
-
The thing that would please me the most if the series had a stronger continuity would be that maybe then some of the characters introduced in the spin-offs (namely the RPG's) would have a chance of returning in later games...I would be immensely happy to see Dimentio come back in a future game, with new nasty tricks up his sleeve.
I have the same opinion, and I felt the same way after beating Super Paper Mario. The RPGs have lots of brilliant new characters. Why throw them away after one game?
Not to advertise, but I felt that way so strongly I decided to create this (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=10641.0), which is definitely something you'd be interested in (if you haven't already seen it, that is).
-
Why reuse the same old characters time and time again?
-
A really good character will make you miss him/her.
Speaking of which, why use the same old enemies over and over again? I'd say it's for a similar reason.
-
The only thing I look for in Mario games is old environments, items, etc. put to use in a new way, and if they can keep the geography of Mario's world connected in a way.
What I mean is, hearing old music, seeing ? blocks everywhere and old rolling hills with eyes is awesome. Take MK:DS for example! The SMB3 blocks and colored blocks with the screws or whatever made it and the Sun from that World 2 level!
Coming back to the locations of stuff.... I kind of don't like when the Mushroom Kingdom or the castle changes with every single game. Like with Mario Kart, Golf, and Tennis. Seeing the castle at every track with "Mario" or "peach" in it was annoying, like seeing a road going around the castle, then that same spot being home to Toadstool Tour's 18th hole on whatever the mario course was, then that same spot being home to the Mario & Luigi tennis courts. Then in SSBM the castle has water and rolling hills behind it, then with Paper Mario, Toad Town is right in front of the castle. I mean, crap, do they have Toad contractors that build whatever Peach or Mario want every year? I liked it in the first smash when the background to Mario's place was the castle as it appears in SM64, and in MK64, when the castle appears just as it is in 64 just with the track in front of it. That kinda tells you they were wanting to chill for a bit before going crazy. When are they gonna keep one thing or just modify the existing?
And also, a big question.. since you can see Mario's world in Galaxy... is it home to Nintendo's whole array of folks? Or are they living on different planets nearby that are near each other or visit earth for games such as brawl and the Olympic games? I mean, where in Mario's world is Delfino? Yoshi's island? Why in the world was Mario's world reduced to a chain of islands in SMRPG? Where is Toad Town, and Keelhaul Key and Rougetown in relation to everything else? Where's Mario's house and Luigi's Mansion? Where was the location of World 1's first level in SMB1? Was it next to SMB3's World 2? Standing from Vista Hill, can you see the Shine Gate in the distance?
-
(Psst! The castle in Mario Kart was a cardboard cut-out.
Don't forget what I told you!)
-
Trainman:
I agree that there are too many inconsistencies with Peach's castle, but other than that, everything is fairly consistent. Rogueport is clearly near the sea, and you can probably access all of those islands (Yofhi's and Delfino) from the port here. The SMRPG map is not the map of the whole world, just the sections that are pertinent to the game. Ninetndo could not fit a map of the whole Mushroom Kingdom in one game; it would just be too large.