On Remakes and Nostalgia

[Mr. Shoggoth]

Yeah, I think Nintendo should probably stop making Mario games for a year or two. Super Mario Galaxy is officially the best game in the series, so it's hard to go anywhere after that.

On the other hand, Nintendo knows how to actually innovate, it's just that with Mario they really don't. I mean, look at Metroid. It never jerks off with nostalgia. The series is always moving forward and if it can't come up with anything solid and new, it takes a pause.

That makes me wonder...has Yahtzee ever said anything about Metroid? I don't think so. He has reviewed Mario and Zelda, but not one single Metroid. Maybe that's because the latest Metroid came out in 2007. It'd be really nice to hear what he thinks about the franchise.

 

[Pingieking]

In regards to the RPG, why is the Mario RPG franchise so popular? The story is hardly rivetting (though it is funny at times). It certainly wouldn't win a Pulitzer. So why are they heralded as some of the best RPGs ever made? Gameplay. The game is actually fun to play, not necessarily to watch. Stories are fine, but if the underlying interactivity of the game is flawed, the game fails. Because that is what makes games what they are: gameplay. Otherwise, you could very easily have made that a book or a movie.

Sure, a game could easily survive just on gameplay qualities alone, but that doesn't mean that narrative is not important in the medium. Also, I don't even consider Mario RPG to be an RPG. It's a game with gameplay elements usually associated with RPGs, and leave it at that. Same applies to MMORPGs (with the exception of its RP servers). If there's nothing there for me to role-play as, then I don't think it should classify as an RPG.
I still stand by my statement that a game with great narrative can survive despite gameplay flaws. I didn't think that the gameplay of Indego Prophecy/Farenheit was that great, but it's still one of my favorites games. The same will probably apply to Heavy Rain. But if you take the narrative out of Dragon Age: Origins, you basically end up with a game engine tech demo.
Again, the importance of story vs gameplay depends on what the developers want to make. If they wanted to make an interactive movie or interactive book, they can hardly do so without a narrative. If they wanted to make shooter, then the story can be thrown out the window and most people wouldn't miss it.

 

[qbanknight]

true its never been in style, but with the massive numbers of them existing, its hard to argue that its not to them

 

[qbanknight]

Story is and remains equally as important as gameplay

This line deserves a round of applause. You sir are my new internet hero.

I think the idea of the story begin as important as the gameplay to be a load of crap. If it were, then the original Doom games (the games story is almost none) would not have an active community even 16 years after it's release.

Now there are certain games that dont need a story, as you said DOOM is a good example (Painkiller and Serious Sam come to mind as well), but story and gameplay when combined together can be heralded as far more significant that a game with an excellent story and shitte gameply or a fun game with a lousy story. That and it tends to be remembered longer, and most people would rather come back to play that game over and over again

 

[Spelonker]

Something you've said before Yahtzee was "why try to fix what's not broken". I'm not a Mario fan myself (and I do think it's time it died) but releasing any sequel that's barely unchanged since the original and keeping it just as good will please anyone who liked the first one. Be totally honest to yourself now: if they made a new Silent Hill that had the same atmosphere, same length, same difficult, same yadda yadda etc, BUT made it just different enough in looks and plot that it's it's own stand-alone title, would you enjoy it?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It's really lazy, in my opinion, to put down any effort to look at the past and revisit old ideas as nostalgia. 2D Mario works very well as a game concept and for the first time in 20 years the core team has got back together to make a new one. Even if Mr. Croshaw doesn't like 2D Mario we can be sure that his criticism of the game will not put off the millions of people who do love that sort of game. Call that "thick headed conservatism" or "insular forum nerd thinking" if you like but I don't really take that too seriously from a guy who made his name as someone who champions a metric shit ton of conservative forum opinions in his videos.

 

[qbanknight]

*sigh*

First of all, this is not a retread of any sort. You claim that this game is a remake of Mario 3? Mario is far more maneuverable in this title than he is in that game. He can wall jump, butt-stomp, and pretty much do anything he could in 3D in a 2D plane. You might immediately claim that therefore this must be a carbon-copy of the DS game. Again, no. There are many new levels, some new power-ups, a 4-player versus option, a 4-player versus component, motion controlled areas and the Super Guide. This is not the same game.

And you're really going to emphasize story and gameplay on the same level of importance? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy narrative in games as well. However, you should remember the medium we're discussing. We're not talking about movies, novels, or plays. We're talking about games. Therefore, the gameplay must always take full position of importance. Following shortly thereafter should be level-design that compliments the gameplay, not the story. In fact, narratives in games are rather unimportant in the whole scheme of things. Yes, they may give you a compelling reason to continue playing. But if the game itself is not enjoyable to play, then what's the fucking point?

That's ridiculous to consider that gameplay must take the front for a great game. Great games, the ones that everyone plays and come back to (Uncharted, MW2, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Half-Life, Portal, etc) have a great story with great gameplay. It's not unrealistic to demand in our medium that people make games with great stories. Story is an important centerpiece for many game players, and without it, a game thats fun can be considered good (but not fantastic and deserves retreads).

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It's not unrealistic to demand in our medium that people make games with great stories.

It is, because video games are not the best medium for traditional story telling and a lot of the most enjoyable games have poor stories.

 

[Spelonker]

Now there are certain games that dont need a story, as you said DOOM is a good example (Painkiller and Serious Sam come to mind as well), but story and gameplay when combined together can be heralded as far more significant that a game with an excellent story and shitte gameply or a fun game with a lousy story. That and it tends to be remembered longer, and most people would rather come back to play that game over and over again

Gameplay > story

Hence the name "videoGAME". There can be games without story, but there can't be games without gameplay. Therefore, gameplay is more important than story. Name one game you play JUST for it's story.

But I totally agree with story enhancing the experience, sure, but at the end of the day, we play GAMES not novels.

 

[The Great JT]

This is just me thinking out loud, Yahtzee, but waht's your take on DLC? Additional content with new goodies and ways to play or lazy designers putting in what should've been there from the start?

Yeah, I know he'll never answer, but it's nice to just throw it out there and see what happens (otherwise ZP wouldn't be here).

 

[Cocamaster]

That's ridiculous to consider that gameplay must take the front for a great game. Great games, the ones that everyone plays and come back to (Uncharted, MW2, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Half-Life, Portal, etc) have a great story with great gameplay. It's not unrealistic to demand in our medium that people make games with great stories. Story is an important centerpiece for many game players, and without it, a game thats fun can be considered good (but not fantastic and deserves retreads).

Tetris wants a word with you.

 

[SecondmateFlint]

I guess Nintendo goes with the "why fix what isn't broken" approach to gameplay. Mario is still hugely successful and people keep buying they games, so they'll just keep pumping out the same thing. Very much like the Film Industry.

I'm not sure when Video games became such an art form. I look at video games the same way I look at Films. Did I enjoy myself? Yes, I was entertained, the movie has done it's job. Was this a miserable movie to sit through? Yes, the movie missed it's mark.

Of course that's saying that *I'm* the only one that matters, I'm absolutely not. Films and video games vary by taste, obviously, so what may be a great game to some people is a terrible one to others because of preference. I hate to state the obvious, but that's how I view the game industry. Just a mean of entertainment.

I know I personally love L4D and L4DII but only because of the connectivity with other players. I like the interaction. But if that doesn't float your boat then nothing I say will ever change that.

I hope that was on topic enough, sorry if it wasn't.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

*sigh*

First of all, this is not a retread of any sort. You claim that this game is a remake of Mario 3? Mario is far more maneuverable in this title than he is in that game. He can wall jump, butt-stomp, and pretty much do anything he could in 3D in a 2D plane. You might immediately claim that therefore this must be a carbon-copy of the DS game. Again, no. There are many new levels, some new power-ups, a 4-player versus option, a 4-player versus component, motion controlled areas and the Super Guide. This is not the same game.

And you're really going to emphasize story and gameplay on the same level of importance? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy narrative in games as well. However, you should remember the medium we're discussing. We're not talking about movies, novels, or plays. We're talking about games. Therefore, the gameplay must always take full position of importance. Following shortly thereafter should be level-design that compliments the gameplay, not the story. In fact, narratives in games are rather unimportant in the whole scheme of things. Yes, they may give you a compelling reason to continue playing. But if the game itself is not enjoyable to play, then what's the fucking point?

This.

Well, unless the story is truly excellent, but since Yahtzee hate JRPGs that's pretty much irrelevant as there have been no western RPGs or shooters (no, Half Life's story was NOT that good) that are on par with some of the better JRPGs.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

That's ridiculous to consider that gameplay must take the front for a great game. Great games, the ones that everyone plays and come back to (Uncharted, MW2, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Half-Life, Portal, etc) have a great story with great gameplay. It's not unrealistic to demand in our medium that people make games with great stories. Story is an important centerpiece for many game players, and without it, a game thats fun can be considered good (but not fantastic and deserves retreads).

Tetris wants a word with you.

Lol, to be fair gbanknight destroyed his/her own point by mentioning Uncharted, MW2 and GTA as examples of games with great story. The rest have good stories but not great.
If you want a game that's all about story, play an adventure game or decent rpg, but if you're expecting an epic story from every platform game or shooter you play then frankly you deserve to be disappointed.

 

[Stabby Joe]

If you want to get nostalgia you simply just play whatever old game you have fond memories of... if they're fond whats stopping you?

And the whole "Mario God notion" doesn't stop there. While that is the case for many gamers, including veteran, there seems to be a similar habit with certain Wii games now, the worst offenders being "Wii This" and "Wii That", that families will flock out to buy even though it really is the same thing... so with some Mario games you're doing exactly what they are... feel dirty?

As for New Mario, adding 4 player was the only thing they added. Its not a far-fetched notion but the level design could of used a bit more originality. Theres no reason you can't keep the classic gameplay and have more originality and variety. After playing New Mario, the level design is weirdly the same as those before it.

 

[Monkeytacoz]

that god comment was lame.... try harder next time

 

[RatRace123]

Sure Nintendo continually brings out their key franchises all the damn time, but that's because when Nintendo makes an in house Mario, Zelda, Metroid game its always good. Nintendo is smart enough to know what to tweak and what not to remove, Mario is always the epitome of platformers. Besides Nintendo seems to not be so good at bringing out new stuff that isn't complete crap (I'm mainly looking at the "Wii" series of games)

 

[SupaMechaDeathChrist]

This is why I only buy the old Mario games online for the Wii, because so far the mario franchise has been suck for one reason, and I know Yahtzee said this, IT JUST KEEPS RE- RELEASING THE SAME GAME WITH A FEW MORE SPRUICE UPS! or they just try and fix what isn't broke and cock the whole thing up.

I guess Yahtzee can get away with religious comments like that simply because nobody dares question him. Or because he is in fact, God.

"Hands out brochure"
ALL WHO WANTS TO JOIN ME AND MAKE OUR OWN RELIGION WITH YAHTZEE AS OUR GOD!
GIVE ME A HOLY HELL YES!

 

[pigmy wurm]

Here is my issue with your whole, Nintendo should stick Mario in a museums and make new stuff argument. On one hand I agree with you, Nintendo really should come up with a new franchise, I know they have really good game developers and should be able to come up with an idea that wasn't rooted in the late 80's. But your point of "people will by anything with the Mario name stamped on it" has another side to it. Think of 2 quality mainstream videogame franchises started in the last 5 or so years that are not excessively violent or realistic and have a strong memorable central character. I can think of little big planet and then my list comes up short. Mario brings to me two flavors of nostalgia, the first is nostalgia for Mario games in particular, but it also feeds my craving for the late 80's early 90's mascot centered platformers. Producers feel that the "Mario Aesthetic" doesn't appeal to people any more so, and I think it is largely the case. If someone made a game about a cartoon alien frog they could put a ton of effort into it and really tie up all the gameplay nicely but their is still a good chance that the general gameplay audience would pass on it. Their is an exception, games like this are being made with flash online, for wii ware and the like, and occupationally for the DS but their is a feeling that none of them are "modern" games, and they are all 2D. I like 2D sidescrollers but what about a new Banjo Kazooie type game done with top level graphics and a full design team?

Basically what I am saying is that they couldn't do what they do with Mario with a new character and he fills a gameplay niche that me any many others really enjoy.

P.S. Oh, I thought of another Mario-esc franchise, mushroom men, and it was largely passed over from what I have seen.