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

Forums - Nintendo - Why do people hate on Mario?

Jealousy is obviously the source of this hate in most cases. For the same reasons people hate on games like Halo, both series just won't stop selling.

Here's what probably goes through their minds: "How can they release game after game each year without actually experiencing a significant decline? Why must we keep coming up with new IP's while they can just re-release the same games over and over again while their ignorant customers keep buying them no matter their content? They were lucky to come up with that specific franchise. Until they have shown that they can create new successful IP's (casual ones such as Brain training and the Wii series obviously doesn't count), they shall forever be known as cowards."

 

Another possibility would be that they really want to love Nintendo for whatever reason but can't given their current existing IP's.



Around the Network
spurgeonryan said:
Because they over kill Mario. Also 2D mario is not what everyone was holding their breath for. I am sure it will be a whole lot of fun, but I do not sit in bed at night dreaming about a 2D mario game. Like I said, I am sure it will be great, but like William D'Angelos article said "Nintendo fans are never satisfied". Then look at the comments below that article and you will quickly discover why.


I'm satisfied but maybe that is because I am insanse with the membrane.



NightDragon83 said:
richardhutnik said:
NightDragon83 said:
Don't hate on him at all... I just hate the fact that for the better part of the 90s and '00s we had to wait an average of 5 years for a proper Mario game (while getting dozens of spinoffs in the process), and now we're getting flooded with copy and paste Mario titles PLUS the neverending barrage of spinoffs.

If it's not one extreme with Nintendo, it's the other.

Would the games they release be better if Mario wasn't in them?  I say the spinoffs.

In regards to the regular Mario games, there is Mario in 2D and Mario in 3D.  Nintendo also has been releasing new consoles and people want Mario for them.  And then, you have success with some of the older franchises, like Mario RPG stuff, so those get new titles.  

Whether or not Mario is in the spinoffs isn't the point.  The point is between 1991-2006 (that's 15 years) we got a whopping 4 legit Mario games (not counting any of the handheld ones).  SMW, Yoshi's Island, Mario 64, and Sunshine.  Then started the Mario renaissance with NSMB and Galaxy a year apart, OK great, we're getting new 2D and 3D Mario games simultaneously, nice!

But then... we get NSMB Wii, Galaxy 2, Super Mario Land 3D, NSMB2 (?) and NSMBU all within a span of 3 years.  We've got more Mario games in 3 years than we did from the entire SNES-GameCube era, and all of them borrow and recycle from previous games instead of innovating and bringing new stuff to the table, especially the NSMB series... it's like the direct-to-video Disney flicks that just rehash the old classics with nothing new or original.

What is the difference this time around?

During this 3 year time period, there has been a release of a new handheld system, that got a 3D title for it, and will be getting a new 2D title for it.  And then add on top of that, since you mentioned NSMBU, that there there will be a new home console released.  End result is a number of new Mario titles, which so happens to correspond with Nintendo deciding to have actual Mario titles on their systems early, closer to launch.  And you had a 2D Mario title released later in the lifecycle of the Wii (a 2D one).

Are you missing the fact that two new systems are part of Nintendo's serving the market here, and they were getting Mario titles early?  



MDMAlliance said:
richardhutnik said:
uno said:
Irregardless is not a word.

Thats why they hate joyful, colorful, jumptastic Mario. Thats why.

If irregardless is not a word, then why does Mirriam-Webster have an entry for it?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless


technically that definition is saying it's a colloquial kind of word.

It is a word, with a definition, that is actually a word.  There isn't some sort of official government department that creates language.  Languages starts out as slang, and then becomes more common usage.  Once it gets to a critical level, it enters a dictionary.  



bananaking21 said:


i been saying this since i first posted on here. in other aspects of the game the franshis barely evolved, actually in some aspects it didnt evolve at all. and thats why a lot of people hate what nintendo did with the franshise 

But those two aspects that you said are indeed evolution. So now you are just stepping on your own toes.



Around the Network
NintendoPie said:
bananaking21 said:


i been saying this since i first posted on here. in other aspects of the game the franshis barely evolved, actually in some aspects it didnt evolve at all. and thats why a lot of people hate what nintendo did with the franshise 

But those two aspects that you said are indeed evolution. So now you are just stepping on your own toes.


no im not, i never criticized that those to aspects. and when i stated that nintendo games didnt evolve i ment didnt evolve in every other apsects (which are a lot pf aspects) 



bananaking21 said:
NintendoPie said:
bananaking21 said:


i been saying this since i first posted on here. in other aspects of the game the franshis barely evolved, actually in some aspects it didnt evolve at all. and thats why a lot of people hate what nintendo did with the franshise 

But those two aspects that you said are indeed evolution. So now you are just stepping on your own toes.


no im not, i never criticized that those to aspects. and when i stated that nintendo games didnt evolve i ment didnt evolve in every other apsects (which are a lot pf aspects) 

Now you are saying Nintendo  Games as a whole don't evolve? I thought we were talking about why people hated Mario not Nintendo?



NintendoPie said:
bananaking21 said:
NintendoPie said:
bananaking21 said:


i been saying this since i first posted on here. in other aspects of the game the franshis barely evolved, actually in some aspects it didnt evolve at all. and thats why a lot of people hate what nintendo did with the franshise 

But those two aspects that you said are indeed evolution. So now you are just stepping on your own toes.


no im not, i never criticized that those to aspects. and when i stated that nintendo games didnt evolve i ment didnt evolve in every other apsects (which are a lot pf aspects) 

Now you are saying Nintendo  Games as a whole don't evolve? I thought we were talking about why people hated Mario not Nintendo?

oh sorry i ment mario. dont know how i wront nintendo games 



bananaking21 said:

oh sorry i ment mario. dont know how i wront nintendo games 

OK, then. 

Mario can not evolve to the point where it's not Mario. There are certain things that need to stay. Level Design and Graphics are perfectly fine for evolution purposes and keeping things fresh. Even changing the music up would be nice. Not much else, though.



NintendoPie said:
bananaking21 said:

oh sorry i ment mario. dont know how i wront nintendo games 

OK, then. 

Mario can not evolve to the point where it's not Mario. There are certain things that need to stay. Level Design and Graphics are perfectly fine for evolution purposes and keeping things fresh. Even changing the music up would be nice. Not much else, though.


in your opinion, but i really think there is much to do, but they arent happening which honestly saddens me. i stated before i love mario, i just explain why people might hate it. honestly i wish the franshice could reach its full potential. i dont think its wrong to critisize i game you like or love even if its critisizing as hard as i critized mario games on this thread, but i nocited some people on here just dont seem to accept that. im not saying you are im just saying the some people on here are like that