Does Mario need to be so kiddy?

[F0X]

happydolphin said:

F0X said:

Maybe we need to have our priorities in order. Perhaps we should raise our concerns about gameplay primarily, because this is one area we're more than qualified to have out opinions heard. Though it could be said that money speaks far louder. If a series lives and dies solely on its dedicated fans, then I suppose the people in charge should pay very close attention. If a series has a wide, diverse fanbase consisting of people with potentially contradictory opinions, I'd say it may be better for the creators to listen to their own collective guts much more often.

The thing is the gameplay is nailed, and always has been. Super Mario Bothers has never failed in the gameplay department, as far as I'm concerned. Every single Super Mario Bros. game I've ever played, 2D and 3D, was of utmost quality when it comes to gameplay, bar a few very marginal exceptions or minigames.

The truth about the themes and worlds is that it has sadly stagnated, and many have voiced their opinions on  that front. You will tell me "what isn't broken you don't need to fix", but the truth is that it _was_ changed somewhere after Super Mario 64, by the same people that made the earlier incarnations. So, it's a matter of going in the wrong direction by these same creators (Miyamoto, Kondo for 3D Mario and Tezuka for 2D Mario).

The reason I express this need is because

1) I grew up on Mario

2) I see a very different potential for this series, one that taps into deeper emotions, like the underwater level of  Super Mario 64 (Dire Dire Docs).

and

3) This is Nintendo's greatest franchise, and needs to shine in _all_ respects, imho. I want that.

True, the games are fantastic, but I believe there is something wrong with them at the moment to make them the glorious classics they are meant to be.

Here, Jolly Roger Bay / Dire Dire Docs:

From my point of view, if you want to criticize a franchise for lack of originality, then Mario shouldn't even be a consideration, because even a game that is "stagnant" by Mario standards is still more creative in its presentation and design than most other games.

But from here on out, let's talk about personal experience. In Super Mario Sunshine, I loved the then-beautiful look of Delfino Island, especially the Noki Bay area. I remember diving into a deep, underwater pit and hearing "Underwater Exploration" play, yet another beautiful water-themed piece of music. In Super Mario Galaxy, it was amazing to stare off into the vast expanse of space, and deeply satisfying to rocket through its empitness, accompanied by fittingly epic music. And like its predecessors, it had its moments of respite. Of juxtaposition. To the point where some might call it the deepest, most reasonant Mario game ever released (but of course that's very subjective).

I may be wrong, but I think the source of your frustration isn't stemming from the smartly-presented, creatively-charged 3D Mario games. I think we're both concerned about the recent (and upcoming) 2D entries in the series, since unlike most previous Mario games, they stick to a simple aesthetic that doesn't try to evoke much emotion beyond the usual pure unadulterated joy. How did this happen? It could be the change in development teams. It could be because Miyamoto isn't as involved as he used to be. But it's most likely because Nintendo believes that, at the end of the day, it takes much more effort artistically to develop a best-selling 3D Mario game than a successul 2D Mario. I hope that 3D Land's success proves to them that there's an excellent middle ground between the two approaches. I hope that the beautiful backdrops of New Super Mario Bros. U allude to more depth and emotion than previous 2D Mario games. In the meantime, though, I suggest we criticize what actually needs improving, and not squabble over the fine details of Super Mario Galaxy's soundtrack.