By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
d21lewis on 31 October 2011
Edit Thread
Joelcool7 said:
RolStoppable said:
 

Alright, apparently not everyone knows which games I was talking about. Ruby/Sapphire/Diamond/Pearl/Black/White and the third iteration of each Pokémon generation. That's the games I couldn't be bothered to spell out.

My argument holds water because sales numbers prove it. If you compare the sales of Super Mario Bros. games to the 3D Mario titles you will instantly spot a big difference. So either the 3D Mario games are indeed spinoffs (a different kind of game) and that's why they didn't sell better or they were all bad Mario games and that's why they didn't sell better. Personally, I like the 3D Mario games and can't see an objective reason to call them bad, so I am going with the spinoff option, because it makes much more sense.

You make it sound like Mario had to undergo no changes when the step into the third dimension was taken, but that's not the case at all. I hope that I don't have to explain everything in detail, because the differences should be obvious. Likewise, the games preceding Super Mario Bros. do not belong to the series, because the gameplay is vastly different.

As for your movie analogy, you are using it wrong. What it applies to is Super Mario All-Stars, but that doesn't help your point at all.


Sales numbers don't prove something is not a legitamite entry in a series. Plenty of series have a lack of sales depending on the film, song or game. If Rihanna's song doesn't sell as many copies as one of her singles is it any less a Rihanna song? In technology their are products like Virtual Boy or many of the Apple products during their struggling period that failed to deliver large sales. Were those products any less legit?

In fact the 3D Mario's still sold fabulously and the difference in sales does not equal a difference in franchise. I'll use Metal Gear Solid again on the NES it didn't sell well at all compared to its later 4 titles on the last three generations consoles. Does that mean the earlier games were not Metal Gear games?

Another example would be the upcoming Bourne movie, it doesn't feature Jason Bourne but its from the same writer set in the same Universe with a similar plot line. It is part of the same series yet takes the series in a slightly different direction. Does that mean that the new Bourne movie isn't a Bourne Movie?

Also yes I am aware that the Mario franchise has evolved big time ever since DonkeyKong, but every game adds something new and 3D just helped revolutionalize Mario games. It did not change their essense and many aspects remain the same despite any changes. The gameplay while it did change with 3D it still remained essentially the same (Platforming) it didn't go into a different genre.

P.S- I know you don't agree with Pyro's stance so I don't know why you'd make a big deal of it. Fact is Super Mario World is no less a legit Mario entry then SuperMarioBros, MarioBros is a Mario game just as much as any other. If you think 3D is essentially an entirely different franchise (Spin off) I guess that is your personal opinion but by that logic the majority of franchises have spun off. Almost every game that has evolved is a spin off. If you can't evolve a product and improve it without being called a spin-off how could you possibly maintain the core franchise?

Next, you're going to try to tell me that Ocarina of Time is a real Zelda game.

 

...must resist temptation to make parody thread saying that Zelda for the Nes was the only real Zelda.....must.....