CoD vs. Mario

[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.

If you're talking about the two Galaxy games, then sure, that's what direct sequels in the same generation do.

If you're talking about the entire series, go play 64 and then Galaxy. Maybe 3 or World before that.

By your logic, every series ever is exactly the same in each installment.

You didn't answer the question. Almost nobody raised so much as an eyebrow at Nintendo for bugger all changing between Mario Kart and all the other spin-off series'. However, whenever a new CoD game comes out, it's "nothing's changed," "this one's gonna be shit too," "oh, look, more DLC for MW2... Oh, wait, it's a new game." You get the idea.

 

[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.

If you're talking about the two Galaxy games, then sure, that's what direct sequels in the same generation do.

If you're talking about the entire series, go play 64 and then Galaxy. Maybe 3 or World before that.

By your logic, every series ever is exactly the same in each installment.

You didn't answer the question. Almost nobody raised so much as an eyebrow at Nintendo for bugger all changing between Mario Kart and all the other spin-off series'. However, whenever a new CoD game comes out, it's "nothing's changed," "this one's gonna be shit too," "oh, look, more DLC for MW2... Oh, wait, it's a new game." You get the idea.

 

[Hobonicus]

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.

If you're talking about the two Galaxy games, then sure, that's what direct sequels in the same generation do.

If you're talking about the entire series, go play 64 and then Galaxy. Maybe 3 or World before that.

By your logic, every series ever is exactly the same in each installment.

You didn't answer the question. Almost nobody raised so much as an eyebrow at Nintendo for bugger all changing between Mario Kart and all the other spin-off series'. However, whenever a new CoD game comes out, it's "nothing's changed," "this one's gonna be shit too," "oh, look, more DLC for MW2... Oh, wait, it's a new game." You get the idea.

Mario Kart is one of the only kart racing games still being produced. Every new one that comes out adds something, even if it's minor, and it's arguably the best franchise in the kart racing genre. The Mario spinoffs are never generic, they always have their own unique flavor and style.

Call of Duty is generic (though not necessarily bad). It's a modern military FPS that isn't that much better than it's competitors yet stays amazingly successful because of the name. And it does so on a yearly basis, unlike Mario games, which don't release on a regular yearly schedule and often do try to mix things up.

The only Mario franchise that comes close is Mario Party (which people do groan about) but at least it has more depth in it's mechanics and gameplay unique enough to sort of warrant constant releases.

Did you actually want your question answered or is this a debate?

 

[Nouw]

Look at the list of Mario games, it's quite varied. From Mario Basketball to a Mario board-game!

 

[Phlakes]

By your logic, every series ever is exactly the same in each installment.

You didn't answer the question. Almost nobody raised so much as an eyebrow at Nintendo for bugger all changing between Mario Kart and all the other spin-off series'. However, whenever a new CoD game comes out, it's "nothing's changed," "this one's gonna be shit too," "oh, look, more DLC for MW2... Oh, wait, it's a new game." You get the idea.[/quote]

I won't waste my time getting into an argument about the Mario games, but CoD gets this much hate because it's so popular. If an Angry Birds 2 came out and was too similar to the first, it would get close to as much hate.

 

[Jakub324]

By your logic, every series ever is exactly the same in each installment.

You didn't answer the question. Almost nobody raised so much as an eyebrow at Nintendo for bugger all changing between Mario Kart and all the other spin-off series'. However, whenever a new CoD game comes out, it's "nothing's changed," "this one's gonna be shit too," "oh, look, more DLC for MW2... Oh, wait, it's a new game." You get the idea.

I won't waste my time getting into an argument about the Mario games, but CoD gets this much hate because it's so popular. If an Angry Birds 2 came out and was too similar to the first, it would get close to as much hate.[/quote] And enough hatemail to crush the postman...

 

[natster43]

The reason is there is a lot smaller of a hate-dom for Mario here, as well as there being spin offs and a larger gap between the main games with those games incorporating different and new elements of gameplay, Call of Duty is vilified here for pretty much coming out each year without many changes between each game, as well as not having a balanced multiplayer. Also probably because it isn't by Valve.

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?

I am getting for the campaign, I loved Modern Warfare 2's and really want to see the next part. The Multiplayer on the other hand... I will play that for a bit then get sick of it.

 

[VladG]

You see, MW1 was a great game. MW2 was nowhere near as good. If MW3 seems a lot like MW2, it means it's an inferior game, and that's not cool. If it were a lot like MW1, I don't think so many would complain. I expect it's a similar issue with mario.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

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.

The basic conept is the same in Mario games. Jump on things, find the princess(usually). In CoD you shoot people. The basic concept also stays the same.

The thing that sets them apart is that in Mario there are usually other things that branch from the basics, making it a whole, fun and interesting experience. As far as i've seen the basic premise in CoD is also the ONLY premise and you can't really do much about it if it's all about shooting tons of dudes.

It's just not a concept with a lot of evolutionary material. At least that's what they're making it out to be.

 

[Iron Lightning]

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?

What Mario game are you talking about? Are you talking about how Super Mario Galaxy (which was released in 2007) is pretty much exactly the same as Super Mario Galaxy 2 (which was released in 2010)? If that's the case then I agree with you, Super Mario Galaxy 2 is just a glorified expansion pack. Which is why I didn't buy it.

The rest of the core Mario franchise has been probably the most innovative game franchise ever. See Jack's and Calumon's post for a full explanation of this.

 

[Doopliss64]

Mario hasn't been getting progressively worse with each instalment. Also, phrased more directly, it isn't shit.

 

[42]

How can anyone possibly think recent mario games are innovative? they have been following the same model since the first one which is hold left (or whatever direction that goes forward) until you hear the victory music. oh and they're are bits where you press jump. and you could accuse CoD of the same thing, but in actual fact at least CoD adds shit to change and vary up the gameplay a bit. and no I'm not talking about weapons or set pieces, I'm talking about gameplay. Zombies, Spec Ops, it always tries and do something different asides from the multiplayer. Mario? its always the same fucking game getting released.
Mario: Same story, same levels, same enemies, same gameplay with 1 new feature.
CoD: Same story Structure (theft of nuclear or gas weapons), Same levels, same enemies (well in defence, a military shooter theirs not much in varying up who your killing) Same Weapons, same multiplayer.

So yeah both are the same but i'd pick CoD over Mario anyway because at least shit is changed in CoD enough to warrant me to buy the next one. Mario it's the same fucking thing every time. Princess peach gets kidnapped from Bowser and mario must go on a journey to rescue her from the castle in which she's always in another one.

wow i really do hate Mario.

 

[henchman4life]

Mario.

 

[Hollock]

Moviebob has a great show on this very topic. Check it out!
http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-A-Tale-of-Two-Games

 

[Chalacachaca]

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

He's been around since 1983 ('81 if you count Donkey Kong).

And Mario VS CoD? Mario, as far as I know, CoD has not saved saved the industry from any crash.

 

[SoulSalmon]

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.

Metroid? non-changing??

It's not even the same GENRE anymore o.0
Saying Metroid hasn't changed is like saying CoD is a clone of Castlevania!

Mario has a lot of non-platformer games to itself, and most of the pltform entries have something new to them so I don't really see the argument...

On the CoD side we have 3D shooter, 3D shooter, 3D shooter and 3D shooter (Not saying sticking to the same genre is a bad thing, just setting up my next point)
on the Mario side we have 2D sidescrolling platformer, 3D explorative platformer, 3D sidescrolling platformer, Tennis game, Kart Racer, Party Minigame compilation, a fighting game, games where Mario isn't the main character, RPGs, Puzzle games and whatever you;d class Galaxy as...

Yes Marios platforming games TEND to have samey releases in the end, which I believe is your point, but you can't BEGIN to compare it to the sameyness of CoD considering aside from the graphic changes, EVERY release of it could have been packed in as DLC...

Every Mario game has had new powerups, fresh game modes, completely different level design, usually a different theme/style entirely (2d sidescrolling of the SNES Mario games, the 3D exploration of Super Mario 64, then 3D sidescrolling with New Super Mario Bros, that planet setup in Galaxy, etc).

You would have been MUCH closer to the mark by arguing that the Zelda franchise wasn't changing anything... you'd still be wrong, but WAY less so, Mario is probably the series that has changed the MOST out of ANY OTHER SERIES over time...

 

[_core]

Mario Kart... The Mario spinoffs are never generic, they always have their own unique flavor and style.

I hate to jump in, but I have to say, the spinoffs are all VERY generic. Nintendo basically went and said "Hey, you know what would be a cool game? A racing game. BUT WITH MARIO."

Lots of "Oooh's" and "Aaah's" were had.

And then - "Hey, you know what would make ANOTHER cool game? A board game. BUT WITH MARIO."

Ad infinitum. It's been the same "Let's take something Mario would never do and slap Mario's generic template on it" since.

I'm not saying they aren't fun, but I really hate it when people pretend it's the pinnacle of innovation every time a fat red plumber is applied.

Of course, this is excluding gems such as Mario Galaxy.

(Not Paper Mario, though.)

 

[Baneat]

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.

CoD is as much fantasy as mario. Depends on your perspective.

 

[_core]

Mario Kart... The Mario spinoffs are never generic, they always have their own unique flavor and style.

I hate to break it to you, but EVERY spinoff has been incredibly generic. You know what happened? Nintendo went and said "Hey, you know what would be a great game? A racing game. BUT WITH MARIO."

Lots of "oooh's" and "aaah's" were had.

And then, "Hey, you know what would ALSO make a great game? A board game. BUT WITH MARIO."

Ad infinitum. It's been the same "slap generic Mario template onto item x" since.

Not saying they aren't fun; they're a good time, most of the time. But I hate it when people claim it's the pinnacle of innovation every time the fat red plumber is in a new game.

This is all, of course, excluding gems like Mario Galaxy.

(Not Paper Mario, though.)

 

[MartialArc]

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.

Two different studios develop CoD titles. After infinity ward made CoD 2 activision decided they really really liked money. So they brought in this other studio Treyarch figuring that even though its different devs if they churned out something it would sell on name recognition.

So then Treyarch makes CoD3, while IW makes CoD4:MW. After this Treyarch sets out to make World at War, while IW makes MW2. Treyarch starts on Black Ops, IW starts on MW3.

The pattern is pretty much IW >> Good, Treyarch >> Bad.

The general opinion is shite and a result of nobody seeming to understand the nature of the series. Although in a way they are right, acti bringing in another studio to work independently on the series just to double the number of titles is a naked cash grab, its totally a case of a company turning an iconic series into a cash cow in a soulless way. But if you limit it to just IW titles I haven't really heard anyone claim a decline until MW2, most of the bad titles were Treyarch.

IW got raped staffwise, so activision may have very well killed the golden goose for a quick snack by not paying those bonuses a few years ago. MW3 has those two extra studios working on it to help shore up IW's staff. Time will tell if they improve or wreck it.