padib said:
This definition of mario games is whacked. I agree with Doki Doki panic not being a Super Mario bros game because at its core it wasn't made with that in mind. It's a mod, as you said. But this part is retarded -> "3) 3D Mario game are exactly what rol defined them as.. spin-offs of SMB games. They are great games however, and are unique in all of gaming in that this spin-off was very well received, but still a different game in its core."
By what metric exactly? And even then, by that logic, hey I can argue that Super Mario bros is a spin-off of Mario Bros., because before you always played on one view, but in SMB, they added an extra span of a view via side-scrolling. But I'd be wrong to say that. Why? Because my premise is wrong. Adding depth of exploration doesn't make an entry a spin-off. If you're going to tell me that the 3D mario is a spin-off because it's an adventure, and there's no goal or linearity, well that's a bad metric too. As of Super Mario bros 3 (a "REAL" mario game by your standards), the player was able to go back and forth in a level with no forced direction. Only here and there when you went in a pipe could you not go back, but for the most part the game could be played frontwards and backwards. The map sometimes blocked you from going backwards so true there is a form of forward push in the older games, but in SMW that's totally gone, you can go anywheres in the map, the only ting again are some pipes that you can't go backin you need to progress forward. So yes, there is a limited amount of forward linearity, and less to explore, but that is not a substance by which to consider something a spin-off. Otherwise, by that logic Metal Gear Solid is a spin-off of Metal Gear, Final Fantasy 7 is a spin-off of Final Fantasy 6, Zelda OOT is a spin-off of LttP, Metroid Prime is a spin-off of Super Metroid and on and on and on and on until someone gives you a smack and says "Guys! Wake up! 3D arrived some 15 years ago, and it was awesome. It changed stuff, it threw other stuff out, brought some in. And that's the new yesterday, it's called today." It doesn't stop them from continuing a vintage tradition, but that vintage tradition branch doesn't discredit the current mainline in the direction of 3D. Which one is the main one, which one is more legit. Well, you have two branches, it's up to you to follow the one you prefer, but as for Nintendo, you can be sure Mario 64 was the natural evolution of Super Mario World. And you can be sure Super Mario 3D Land is the natural progression of NSMB DS.
|
Most of my response is far better defined by Rol's. However, I would like to expand in that the addition of 3D took the Super Mario game and did create a new game/genre. The 3D and 2D platformer are not the same.
This is also a reason why many IPs have failed in their switch to 3D. Sonic is the perfect example. Sega, like you, tried to see 3D as a simple continuation of the pre-existing 2D series. However, it failed and completely killed the Sonic IP. Instead, Nintendo realized they were different and didn't even try to handle them the same. Instead they added far more unique gameplay and controls styles to suit the new 3D platforming genre. That is why the Super Mario 3D games all have done well. They recognized the different segment and designed it accordingly.
This why Wii had three Super Mario games. Two were of the 3D genre and one was the fourth intallment of the classic, "Main", series.
Also, Super Mario 3D Land is simply the same thing as previous 'land' mario games. They are rehashes/ports/mods of the existing console versions. Previously it was of SM3/World and now its based on the 3D Mario games like 64/sunshine/galaxy to take advantage of its new 3D visual unique feature combined with successful elements in NSMBWii.
Only one handheld mario game could be argued as potentially main stream, IMO, and thats the NSMB DS game. This can even be seen in its tremendous sales. However, I like the separation between handheld and consoles. But that's purely arbitrary.
