I believe that this is what he was trying to say.

I'd try but my brain wants to melt right now.

Hmmm.... I don't think others have done a good job of explaining it correctly to you and I know you are reasonable so I'm going to try. Don't look at it as a "platformer" video game, and just look at it as a video game, and you'd get your answer much easier if you've played Mario games. Look at how the mentality of gamers work when they play the game instead of concentrating on what the genre the game is in, and you'll see why Inafune said what he said.

1.) Tutorial design, most people wouldn't even know it's there.

2.) Character design, old but not hateful, the same concept behind iconic character like the Mickey Mouse band, and even more well known in the world these days compared to Disney characters.

3.) Refined gameplay, lets face it, Mario wasn't the first platformer that has ever existed, but they refined it at every point of the way and created good games based on it so they all seemed different while still being the same in the same way that everything is trying to be CoD on consoles now. (Creative power ups etc, input-wise, no other platformer feels that good, not Raymen, not LBP, one that came close in mind is Super Meat Boy on KBO ironically.)

4.) Non-confusion non-convoluted fucktard story lines, simple to understand, easy to follow, no bullshit and very clear (Remember the original FF story line? Warriors of Light, out to beat the boss, done. Unlike FF13's WTF if you don't read the logs, you don't know what the hell is happening, which is stupid as they should have worked that into the story to start with.)

5.) Level design, making shit that works, applies in every game no matter the genre.

So yeah, hopefully that makes more sense now. It's the basic priciples.

Why does it pain so much for certain people to admit the importance of Nintendo. Why every praise made to their products or their people has to be replied with rants and undermining.

If if bothers you so much, why do you even bother to enter the thread. How bad do you show people how wrong they are, even if you are basing your arguments in your personal opinion!

*sigh*

OT: As rol said, very interesting coming from this guy, but one has to give credit where it's due.

Why is the concept of Mario not being Holy Grail of all game design so complex for some of you? Nobody is saying that there's nothing to learn from them, but I would really love to hear what game designer that creates tactical war games, or submarine sims, or tactical shooters, or P&C adventures, or construction and managment simulations, or.....I could go on.....has to learn from Mario games?

Seems that some people are either too young, too fanboyish, or simply don't know much about history of computer games (vs console games) to realize that Mario, while having big influence on video games industry (specially its console part), is nowhere near as important or influential for game design in overall as people like to believe.

I think you misunderstand.  It's not about the genre.  It's about making games, regardless of genre.  I would assume that you would agree that there is a common element that separates video games from other forms of entertainment media.  Also, mentality can be another thing a game designer could learn from Mario games.  If you try making a game without knowing the basic mentality you should have while making a game, your game can lack some of the basic mechanics you need to make the game enjoyable.

I agree that PC games, particularly Ultima, are often overlooked in terms of influence on the industry. But I think you're underestimating Super Mario Bros. It's not all about platforming mechanics; it's about level design, sound and music, difficulty curve, narrative logic, character design, interactivity, value, etc. These are things that infiltrate all genres.

No, I understand it perfecty, it seems that some of you are not undertanding it. It IS about genre...there's no unified "making games" regardless of genre...game designing for some genres is so different to some other genres, and draws from completely different ancestry, that only very loose definiton of what video game is can put them in the same basket.

That said, and as I stated before, there's lot of things to learn from Mario games, but Inafune's statement is just plain silly, and does not recognise wild diversity of what we today call "game".

Is that you, David Cage? 

Oh... a whole whole lot.  Most developers wouldn't find Infune's comments scandolous.  Maybe a little bit heavy on the praise... but in general, there is a reason why when you poll best game developer, among developers, the answer is a lot more uniform then you'd expect.  Seriously, tweet a game developer the article asking their thoughts.

As for literally every single game you listed?  To start with.  Tutorial design.  Mario Brothers is known for having one of the best tutorials in the history of games.  Largely because you don't realize it's there.

For example, the very first Goomba in the very first stage is perfectly positoned, so that the average person playing it for the first time will hit the ? Block forcing the Mushroom to come out of it.

There is a very good book on this, on game design that more or less explains the whole thing, but for the life of me, I can't remember the book title. (and it's god damn hard to find thanks to all the mario stuff that's sold everywhere.)

if you study game design... you'll find his statement really standard and widely accepted.  Game design ISN'T widely different.  You may think it is, but that's because you aren't looking at it from the very core basic levels... and instead are looking at it from the mechanics.  Which aren't actually the bottom level of design.

Tweet your favorite designer... chances are they'll agree with Infune.