CoD vs. Mario

[Jakub324]

While watching the MW3 gameplay footage that came out recently, I noticed a great deal of comments saying "it looks exactly the same as MW2" and the like. To me, a Mario game from 2005 looks exactly the same as one that came out last year, so why is not much changing OK in properties like Mario but not CoD?

 

[Gennadios]

Mario games are more complex than they seem. Each Mario game with a multiplayer mode has to have levels balanced for both MP and SP, then we have the 2D and 3D games, not to mention new/long unseen power-ups for each level that need to be balanced for only those powerups.

It's some extremely complex stuff, and really, there are only so many ways you can draw Mario, and only o many ways in which the Mushroom Kingdom can look like the Mushroom Kingdom.

With MW3, it's basically balance tweaks and new maps, except for the SP campaign the whole thing would be done as DLC for MW2.

Edit: My MW3 comment assumes people only buy it for the multiplayer. Is there anyone out there that really cares about the campaigns?

 

[Tsukuyomi]

Interestingly enough, what you're asking about, OP, is something I've been thinking about these last few weeks, especially after seeing all sides of the COD debate start yelling at eachother.

There is indeed only so much you can do with Mario. and to be honest? I think he falls into the 'if it's not broken, why fix it?' category. Mario is Mario. He's always been simple, kinda plain, just friendly gaming in general. Always been easy enough for outsiders to pick up, but he packs juuuust enough depth to let a veteran sit down and loaf for a bit and have the smallest of challenges while smiling in memory of happier days when Mario blew his or her little mind.

The thing with CoD is that it's a current-gen brainchild. Noone EXPECTS Mario to be mind-blowingly different. Noone expects big-time gameplay changes. Not to mention it's basically a known fact that with a few exceptions, Mario games simply are just solid. Again, if it ain't broke, why fix it? If there's ONE THING Nintendo knows how to do, it's make a Mario game. They may not know when to take your money if you're offering it, (*cough*Rainfall*cough*) but they know how to make a Mario game and make it pretty well.

Modern Warfare? To my knowledge, and it seems the general opinion, the quality of the games can sometimes be in flux. One CoD game may be amazing, another may just be awful. Then it may go back to amazing, or it may just go into the middle-grounded purgatory of mediocre or okay. IW hasn't gotten CoD down to a science just yet. Without a solid gameplay experience to back it up, let's face it: visuals, it 'looking the same', is going to count.

Sure, in a perfect world NOONE should care about graphics/visuals. If the game is good the game is good. That's the bottom line. Minecraft shows us that much. Older graphics or a weaker overall Aesthetic can be countered or even negated by good gameplay. CoD doesn't always have good gameplay, apparently. Therefore, I guess in some minds, the least it can do is look good and be shiny.

 

[Magicmad5511]

Nintendo have been surviving off of none changing franchises since they first release Mario, Metroid, Legend of Zelda. They did it first so no one questions it.

CoD on the other hand I really don't see why it gets a free ride. Maybe they always change just enough so the fans will buy the next and then they drag in others. The basic plan of guns and shooting people with the cannot be changed massively.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

Nintendo tend to do a consistently good job and changing up the main series Mario games, hell even the rpgs too, so I've no idea where you're getting this from. It seems to be the same blind bashing they get from people who clearly haven't played the actual games. But then, I guess everything that is popular must be evil, right?

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Mario DOES change however! They always add something new to the table in a major way!

Super Mario Bros. introduced unbelievable side scrolling gameplay with simple power-ups and secrets. Super Mario 64 shown off 3D gameplay that was almost unheard of at the time! Super Mario Sunshine had a water pistol... but it was a cool addition. Super Mario Galaxy shown us space based gameplay as we walking around bending planets and their gravity. That's why people attacked Mario Galaxy 2 when it's only new addition was being harder and Yoshi. We had Yoshi before in the 2D mario games, so their new idea was an idea that's been done many times before.

If you compared this to, say, Zelda, this argument would have more weight, but even then, Zelda really changes what it does in most games, whether it's standard save the princess, stopping the moon using Masks, sailing on a boat to different lands, the Dual World that Twilight Princess had and Skyward Sword is optimising itself for the Wii controls and power, which makes it fairly different from "Mash Sword until everything is dead". Now it's "Get tennis elbow until everything is dead."

Call of Duty just has shooting people. There's not a lot else it can do, I understand that, but people are complaining to how similar it looks to MW2. Personally, I see a graphical upgrade that makes it look a bit more realistic (I found MW2 to look a little cartoony, in my view) so that's something different, and I'm seeing several new things in the multiplayer.

Are we really justified in shouting at IW for not changing much though? I mean, think what they went through. That would have shaken up the company huge amounts so that they wouldn't have time to overhaul the engine. I want to cut them some slack and just help those left at IW. I mean, look, Morale must have hit the floor by the time the shake-up happened, and now they're producing a game that they HAD to have assistance to make. No ifs or buts, they needed help making this game.

I'm babbling now, so I'll just stop talking.

Calumon: So you can start cooking?

Jack: So I can start ignoring you again until dinner time.

 

[SammiYin]

While watching the MW3 gameplay footage that came out recently, I noticed a great deal of comments saying "it looks exactly the same as MW2" and the like. To me, a Mario game from 2005 looks exactly the same as one that came out last year, so why is not much changing OK in properties like Mario but not CoD?

I actually want to respond to your post, really I do. but it's actually so filled with ridiculousness I wouldn't even nearly know where to begin.

If there's one person not making sense...it's you. Why bad mouth a point but give no reason?

OT: This is a very biased industry we live in, while some companies may get away with churning out the same games time and time again [Nintendo, Valve, Bioware etc.] because they either pander to their fans, or are just "very nice", other's get worse treatment [from the same people no less] when they release the same game, simply because it's "cool to hate them".

In a perfect world all companies would get stick for bringing out the same game, then maybe the industry would be forced to take more risks and actually improve, but sadly this isn't, neither is this community, and fanboy bias will hold us back forever.

So Mario and Cod are both in stages of stagnation, but one is Nintendo, the other is cool to hate. Work it out.

 

[jacobythehedgehog]

Lol Call of Duty vs Mario.

I believe Mario does something with there games that make them different and fun. Example Mario cart is different then Mario Party which is different then Mario Galaxy which is different then The New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which is different then Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door. And even then I missed some Mario games. Hell Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 were 2 of the best wii games of all time. Those are 2 games I actually bought a wii for.

Call of Duty is recycled from Call of Duty 4. The level up system is unique... in Call of Duty 4. But however all Call of Duty games are very similar. Look at how popular Halo 1, 2 and 3 were. Insane how big they were. But now Call of Duty took that place.

So the biggest difference is Mario does not feel like he is getting "Milked to death" Where as Call of Duty, and Halo are feeling like they are "Being Milked to Death"

 

[Zantos]

There are a lot of games that change pretty much nothing as they move through a franchise. Just because CoD does it and still manages to make more money than God it gets picked on most.

 

[Laser Priest]

Did we say that was okay?

I know I didn't.

 

[MarlonBlazed]

I'd defend it saying comparing a fantasy game to a game that's supposed to be realistic isn't fair since fantasy games have no real life restrictions but they went and made an expansion pack into a full priced game...

Plus I hate CoD so F that. I bet they still put there enemy ai spawn points in little rooms down a linear path and they just keep spawning until you move forward.

 

[Ironbat92]

To be honest, all game sequels are going to be the same. People who demand something different are just acting like nit picky pessimists who think everything needs to be like RE4, I.E think that every sequel needs to be completely different from the first and change the face of gaming. There's such a thing called set your standards too high.

 

[Balobo]

Because almost every major Mario main series installment offers a major change.

 

[Phlakes]

No. Just no. I really hope OP is being sarcastic.

I'd explain, but everyone else has covered it all.

 

[Jakub324]

I'd defend it saying comparing a fantasy game to a game that's supposed to be realistic isn't fair since fantasy games have no real life restrictions but they went and made an expansion pack into a full priced game...

The fact that it's fantasy gives it so much room to change.

 

[Ralphfromdk]

I'm actually okay with The CoD series being so much of the same, because the series only really took of at MW1, and that's like..... 4 years ago. That's not a lot of time for a game series to mature in.

Mario has been around for.... 15 or more years i think. (please do correct me if I'm wrong)
So this series is better come up with something new every once in a while, and it has.

Now, if we give CoD 5 more years, I'm sure there's going to be some more variation to it.
For example, Sledgehammer (one of the new CoD teams) are going to make a CoD action adventure game, once they finish helping out on MW3.
So when that comes out in a couple of years time, we will have something new to the series.

I'm not all that worried about the series being all the same, it's nice that I know what I'm jumping into when i buy the next version of CoD.

And, if I happen to get tired of the series, then guess what. I can always play something else.


*edit* I also find it funny that some of the most popular series in the history of First person shooters, has done nothing to renew them selves over the years.
Games such as, Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament, yet they don't get any hate at all for it.

Yes I know, they don't put out new games every year, BUT, I will say that Call of Duty has tried out many more new things over the last 4 games, that Counterstrike ever has since it's first version.

 

[Jakub324]

To be honest, all game sequels are going to be the same. People who demand something different are just acting like nit picky pessimists who think everything needs to be like RE4, I.E think that every sequel needs to be completely different from the first and change the face of gaming. There's such a thing called set your standards too high.

I agree. Make it the same and you'll be castrated by normal people, but change it and fanboys will burn your house down

 

[Jakub324]

No. Just no. I really hope OP is being sarcastic.

I'd explain, but everyone else has covered it all.

Uhhm yes. Mario changes fuck-all and we all just accept it. I'm not saying we should tolerate CoD's idleness, but neither should we take it from Mario.