By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - When will the 4th REAL Mario game release? UPDATED!!!!

 

When will the 4th REAL Mario game release?

Wii-U launch 2012 15 18.99%
 
2013-2015 28 35.44%
 
2015-2020 4 5.06%
 
2020-2031 4 5.06%
 
2032. 23 years after the last one. 27 34.18%
 
Total:78
Khuutra on 31 October 2011
RolStoppable said:

Because the same holds true for other video game series and even other forms of entertainment like TV and movies. People are smart enough to notice when they are served something that is not the real deal. If spinoffs were considered to be same thing than what they originated from, they would have as high of an appeal as the original. This is rarely, if ever, the case.

This doesn't actually answer my question. It explains the mechanism of the appeal, but still assumes that higher levels of appeal are what define "real" entries in a series. I am asking you why you assume that. The way that appeal works has nothing to do with it.



Around the Network
Khuutra on 31 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Khuutra said:

This doesn't actually answer my question. It explains the mechanism of the appeal, but still assumes that higher levels of appeal are what define "real" entries in a series. I am asking you why you assume that. The way that appeal works has nothing to do with it.

You experienced something you liked and see something that has the same name. You give it a closer look and then you can decide whether it's the real thing or something that just carries the same name for the purpose of selling you something different.

But that's pretty much the same thing I previously said, right?

So how about my answer to your original question is simply common sense.

Alternately, just pretend that I've fallen into your trap and post what you have prepared.

No need to be short with me. What you consider common sense is rooted in your own value set. Remember that.

What it comes down to is this:

You insist that the (simple) majority dictate what the "real" series is. What you don't explain is why they get to decide that.



Helios on 31 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Khuutra said:

All the floating platforms are stapled against the background, all the backgrounds are painted on a flat wall. Visual cues to it being a stage production are all over the game, just like how Super Mario 64 was a documentary of Mario's adventures.

There weren't any "plain" Mario adventures - which is to say Mario just running off and saving the Princess in the Mushroom Kingdom without having the paparazzi following him - on consoles between Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. Wii.

It just doesn't make any difference to me. It's just a game anyway and they used a specific style for the presentation. There's no Mario game which takes place on two layers, as in a real adventure and an unreal one.

Well, that's an interesting claim.

I'm sorry if I am intruding on you during your current conversation, but I would like it if you could expand upon your reasoning behind this. The statement strikes me as plainly and patently false, you see, unless your definition of 'adventure' is very different from mine. I suppose you haven't read Juul, though?

I have no words worth sharing about this thread in general, by the way.





Khuutra on 31 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Khuutra said:

No need to be short with me. What you consider common sense is rooted in your own value set. Remember that.

What it comes down to is this:

You insist that the (simple) majority dictate what the "real" series is. What you don't explain is why they get to decide that.

Because they pay for it. Without them, Super Mario Bros. wouldn't have become a hit. Without Super Mario Bros. becoming a hit, none of the spinoffs would have spawned.

Without consumers, a medium like video games cannot exist. That's why consumers get to decide what is and what is not.

All right. I guess you anticipated a couple of questions.

So. They are the financial backers of games. How does more financial backing make one game more "real" than another?

The answer is simple: it doesn't.

More support from a larger number of people does not define what is real. In order to establish that it does, you would need to define why a certain section of the population gets to define reality for everyone.

You can't.



Joe_D_Hoe on 31 October 2011
Pyro as Bill said:
Joe_D_Hoe said:
This is totally off topic, but I'm a bit confused here. I've read some of this thread & another by Pyro Bill involving the difference between toys & games. Now I could have sworn you said single player games are toys because there isn't competition. There can be challenges in single player games, but it doesn't make it a game according to you. There are those that mentioned co-op, but you had an defense for that. My question is why did you say 4th REAL Mario "game"? There's no competition to be had in the REAL Mario series.


Games are multiplayer. Toys are singleplayer. (in general)

All the real Mario games have multiplayer.

It's good that you were paying attention though.


Well when you say multiplayer you mean co-op since two people work together to complete the game? I don't know of any other mode in the original Mario series where two people are in a competition.



Around the Network
Khuutra on 31 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Khuutra said:

All right. I guess you anticipated a couple of questions.

So. They are the financial backers of games. How does more financial backing make one game more "real" than another?

The answer is simple: it doesn't.

More support from a larger number of people does not define what is real. In order to establish that it does, you would need to define why a certain section of the population gets to define reality for everyone.

You can't.

I think you are completely wrong on what the word "REAL" means in the context of this thread. The context makes it pretty clear that it is about what a main series Mario game is and what isn't.

Your argument has reached a dead end, because it missed the point of this thread. Now it's my turn to ask you a question.

What makes you think that Super Mario 64 and its sequels are main series Mario games?

My argument still adheres strictly to the point of this thread, which is the definition of a "real" Mario game. But my argument boils down to this: you absolutely cannot satisfactorily qualify your reason for choosing console-based 2-D Mario platformers as the "real" Mario games. You have not done it yet. I defy you to do it.

To your question:

I never said they were.



Khuutra on 31 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Khuutra said:

My argument still adheres strictly to the point of this thread, which is the definition of a "real" Mario game. But my argument boils down to this: you absolutely cannot satisfactorily qualify your reason for choosing console-based 2-D Mario platformers as the "real" Mario games. You have not done it yet. I defy you to do it.

To your question:

I never said they were.

You know, I am getting tired of your witch hunt. One member I greatly respect agrees with my and this thread's fundamental point and that's good enough for me. If you want to continue hunting a phantom, take the battle to him. Here is his post; read his last sentence. It's all that needed to be said.

We don't agree on this point.

I'm throwing out two options here: either I give a final word on why your insistence on the existence of a "real" Mario series outside of your own experience is wrong, or we both walk away now.

Your call.



coresnake on 31 October 2011

You guys are dumb, the real question you should be asking is "When will there be a SM64 2", because that was easily the best game in the series. And no I don't mean that horrid DS remake.



Khuutra on 31 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Khuutra said:

We don't agree on this point.

I'm throwing out two options here: either I give a final word on why your insistence on the existence of a "real" Mario series outside of your own experience is wrong, or we both walk away now.

Your call.

Khuutra, did you just lie to me?

I asked you a question and you answered by implying that you don't think that Super Mario 64 and its sequels are main series Mario games. Now you say that you do think that they are main series games.

Regarding your two options, I am a fan of your objective arguments, but since the one you offer is bound to miss the point of this thread, it would be a waste of time to have you typing it all out.


You're reading my intent incorrectly. No, I didn't lie. I never said the 3D Marios were mainline Mario games; I actively reject the idea of a "main" or "real" Mario series altogether.

And fine. Part of me wants to be insulted at how you phrased that, but I will respect your wishes.



oniyide on 31 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Khuutra said:

You're reading my intent incorrectly. No, I didn't lie. I never said the 3D Marios were mainline Mario games; I actively reject the idea of a "main" or "real" Mario series altogether.

And fine. Part of me wants to be insulted at how you phrased that, but I will respect your wishes.

Does that mean you also reject the idea of there being a Mega Man and Final Fantasy main series?


ooooohhhh!!! Nice!!!