@naznatips

Oh I completly agree with you. I was just asking questions not giving my opinions.

Also I actually quite liked Super Mario Sunshine :P

 Well I disagree a lot, and my bro does it too, Is the only MK which are we still playing, and we play it a lot, we are waiting for the real MK:64 succesor, but once again is only OUR opinion...

I actually have to agree with Rol that MK64 was the worst. MKDS is probably my favorite honestly, but MKWii is looking like it can take that crown. 12 player online races and online battle mode plus motorcycles is going to be hard to beat.

MK64 doesn't look great, but i thought it played much better than double dash.

MKsnes also played great.

And yes, i think mario gives a title instant credibility assuming it's from nintendo.

You can say it's the worst, and perhaps I only feel the way I do because I don't feel like learning Double Dash or the SNES game...

I do think Mario Kart DS is the better game technically...but all I'm saying is I have the most fun playing Mario Kart 64, mainly because that's just what we play.

Super Smash Bros Melee is better than Super Smash Bros...sure...but it's kinda lame to call it or Mario Kart 64 the "worst" games...they're still grade A games...and if I get stuck playing either one, I'm still fine with it.

Well I was saying it's the worst in my opinion. Still, it's not a bad game.

Mario stands for quality, that's probably the reason Mario-games sell.

Wow, Ben took the words right outa my mouth.

Part of the enjoyability of Mario games is actually the nostalgia of Mario himself. So while I definitely think these games get more consideration than the exact same game without Mario or Mario themes there are some good reasons for it.

The important thing to note for me is that Mario being in a game makes the game more fun if for no other reason than the nostalgia. But the standard of quality Nintendo sets forth for all of its games, especially Mario games is something they quickly and easily convey to consumers simply by putting "Mario" on the box.

And that is what mascots are for really. Building your brand image because people can associate a vast amount of feelings, information, and memories to a brand and you can make them associate all of that to your game with your brand label. So Mario is most certainly a well built marketing tool, but I don't think that takes away from the fact that it had to be good in the first place to build that sort of instant brand recognition. And I don't think brand loyalty is guaranteed once built up, I think it must be maintained. And Mario does that.

Anyways, enough rambling on, I'm sure you get my point...

And it's not like Mario's an infallible name.

Lots of people were disappointed with Sunshine...and he'll be held to that game for some time...Mario 64 was great, Sunshine wasn't as much, so now there's a fair amount of fans who aren't as sure about Galaxy, though each video and screenshot surely wipes away many fears.

If by some divine act Galaxy sucks, fans will DEFINITELY be cautious about the next Mario game...as well as Nintendo games in general. So it's not some untouchable franchise...Nintendo does well at making new, good games.

Ya, Mario games sell well because they are good. Do you think that people would buy them if they were not good? No, they wouldn't! Games sell if they are good, not just because of their mascots.