If you're quoting one user, you don't need to make multiple posts one at a time. Try to put it all in a big reply next time.

Not trying to discourage you, or anything. You've got some great points there about the collision of hardware limitations and artistic choices in days of yore.

Sorry.  I was chastised for presenting my thoughts in a "wall of text" once previously.  So, I thought since I was responding to different points made in different posts (even though they were all from the same user) that it would be better to break up my responses towards each individual post I was quoting from.  My mistake.  Also, I'm at work, so I was rattling off responses here and there where I could, but I hit the unfortunate timing of a lull in the discussion and so all my posts ended up landing back to back to back anyway.  I'll keep it in mind though, thanks.

I just realized that you suffer from the same debating flaws in real-life discussion as you do in Mafia games. When presenting your opinion phrases like "I think that...", "It seems to me that...", "I get the impression that..." are your friends.

As it is right now, your sentence "In so doing, he made Mario (it regressed) alienating to most adults." is stating that the high-pitched voice has made Mario alienating to most adults. It's no wonder you're getting attacked for it because it's a baseless affirmation.

There's also one thing I don't get in your reasoning, first you said this : "I don't see the N64 version emasculating Mario like the newer incarnations does." which implies that you don't have a problem with Mario's voice in Mario 64 then to prove your emasculating/adult-alienating point which you say happened in the newer games you link us to a video where Charles Martinet explains his thought process when he auditioned to be the voice of Mario BEFORE Mario 64.

I've already addressed the "I think that..." segment here for Khuutra. I didn't realize I needed to preface every opinion in this opinion thread with "I think that.." and to be honest I'll try to cater to this need some of you have. To me it was a given that my opinion is up for debate but it appears I was mistaken. For me addressing this already, here is the post. -> http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4735539

@Interview prior to Mario 64. I was aware of that. That's why I mentioned the regression (which I wasn't able to support with evidence, sadly I found none).

@Mafia. The true problem here is that we're finding the same problems as in mafia. Instead of sharing ideas and coming to a greater understanding due to open brainstorming, we get lost into trails that usually lead us in the wrong direction because we are too focused on proving this or that case. That's how mislynches happen. It's the same thing here, I never intended this to be a debate, but rather to be an open topic where my ideas are subject to scrutiny and fair retort, as well as just general discussion of art. Instead, I got the likes of you, Mr Khan, Rol, Khuutra and a few others trying to "prove" that I'm wrong, when that's not even the point of this thread. As such, I become the townie that the townfolk once again get on the case of. Though I may say things that aren't 100% true, it doesn't mean I'm mafia (or in this case completely bonkers). Once you understand that I'm not here to push my ideas on anybody, I'm not here to prove anything but I'm just trying to make sense of a sentiment and thought I have on the matter, and once you let go of the witchhunt, then you'll be able to understand what I mean. It's like when you were kicking my ass at smash, and I finally got in the groove and was able to give you a bit of a fight. It's the same thing here. I.e. Wake up.

So again, I want to encourage you and the others in this thread to enter the convo and enjoy the topic. If this is not a topic you enjoy, it's just best not to participate. I'm just being honest.

The problem here is that you're presenting it like it's fact, and when you present something as fact, you can expect people to pick at the specifics to try to undermine it. If you really didn't want to "push," you would have framed the thread completely differently.

I think that you are looking at the history of Mario through "nostalgic 80's goggles" and misconstruing things to support your argument that aren't really the case.  For example, the level design of Donkey Kong being in a construction site was not chosen to give it a "appeal to adults theme" but instead had a far more practical purpose:

"Miyamoto had high hopes for his new project. He lacked the technical skills to program it himself, so instead came up with concepts and consulted technicians to see if they were possible. He wanted to make the characters different sizes, move in different manners and react in various ways. Yokoi thought Miyamoto's original design was too complex.   Another idea Yokoi suggested was to use see-saws to catapult the hero across the screen; this was too difficult to program. Miyamoto then thought of using sloped platforms, barrels and ladders. "

The choice of colors as well had far more practical purposes than simply to remain neutral so as to appeal to adults:

"Shigeru Miyamoto designed Mario wearing a hat because he found drawing hair difficult. He also drew Mario with a mustache because a mustache was easier to see than a mouth with 8-bit graphics.  Miyamoto designed Mario with overalls that contrast with his sleeves to help in the animation of his arm motions. The sleeves are of the same color of his shirt and without the overalls the arms would disappear during the movements. Overalls: Stylish and practical."

The choices that were made in game design for Donkey Kong or the original Mario games in the 80's were born out of necessity rather than what you saw as a conscious choice to appeal to all ages.