Anyone with any sense can't deny the importance of the guy but to say that he's relevent to the contemporary medium, and the future of it, is ridiculous.
Time to move on.
Time to move on.
Mario = Charlie Chaplin
- Thread starter JaguarWong
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What was fun in the 80s is still fun now. What was funny in the 30s is still funny now. The fundamental principles that both were based on are still fully relevant. In short, having deciphered the thesis of this thread, I disagree.
Bro... you must have been around here for a while... what are you even trying to accomplish with this thread? This is... ridiculous.JaguarWong said:
So you made a topic to broadcast your opinion? I disagree. I think Mario will continue due to a timeless classical style. He's so odd that he's not really tied to any time period or fashion, he just fits anywhere.
Hilarious.IdealistCommi said:
How is the videogame medium supposed to progress when it's consumers are constantly demanding 'more of the same'?
You may find yourself witty for pointing out a flaw in his critique, of your grammar, but at least you don't have to decipher what the hell he is saying. Which is to say that at least you got the meaning because it had proper context, unlike your OP.JaguarWong said:
People enjoy and still buy games featuring Mario, as long as that's happening, they will continue to make games with him. The best part about Mario is his versatility, I mean holy crap, how many sports/jobs/situations have they put him in, and still managed to make a good game? Platforming/Role playing/Party Game/Racing/Tennis/Soccer/Baseball/Golf/DDR/Pinball. Just some examples I can think of.
What if he is more like Mickey Mouse. You would look pretty foolish then. Oeuvre all over your Zeitgeist, my friend. How does that feel, eh.
You make a fair point with a good analogy (it even carries over for the silent thing), but I gotta say--Every now and they the big N out does itself in its previous endeavors, and that wonderful 'stache comes back like never before, and more relevant than anything contemporary to it. I'd say he's more like that one friend we all have who we see only every few years, and we remember how much of a blast he is, but we know that when he tries to stay too long, we realize why we only see him every few years. He has great ideas, he's always fun, but you can't have him around all the time. Equate it to a comedian at a nightclub who is funny, but he only does one show every two weeks. He needs that two week time to get all his material lined up, but when you try and get him to work five nights a week, he becomes less good, because he's got less to work with. Still relevant, still there, you just have to give him a bit of time to work it out.