Poll: Why are people stupid enough to call Mario games "rehashes"?

[itsmeyouidiot]

Okay, so I've been hearing a bunch of people complaining that the Mario franchise, more specifically New Super Mario Bros, are getting repetitive.

Are people here forgetting that the Mario games have spanned across multiple genres, while there are several IPs that have done nothing when it comes to exploring new territories? Yes, the New Super Mario Bros. games are more or less the same, but Mario also has RPGs, Sports Games, Racing Games, and Luigi's Mansion, which doesn't even fit into a clear genre.

Hell, even the games people claim to be repetitive add something new! Mario Galaxy 2, for all it borrowed from its predecessor, at least added new game mechanics such as Yoshi and new power-ups that changed the way the game was played. New Super Mario Bros 2 is essentially changing the goal of the game by refocusing everything on the number of coins you've collected. Do all the subtle improvements and balance tweaks between games also not count?

Modern Warfare 2 and 3, on the other hand, didn't even try to do anything besides the pointing-and-shooting that had been done before.

Yes, the Wii was disappointing. Yes, they were a bit slow getting into digital distribution and online play. But does a failure to embrace modern communications technology give people an excuse to attack their software with faulty arguments? And more importantly, why are people attacking their games when there are hundreds more released every year that are so much more deserving?

 

[lithiumvocals]

This might be a little off-topic, but I'd really like to speak my mind on something.

I've seen many of these "Nintendo doesn't change" threads, both attacking and defending the idea. But one argument never ceases to piss me off. The people who defend Nintendo always bring up Call of Duty. As if to say, "HEY, EVERYONE CRITICIZES NINTENDO, BUT NO ONE EVER CRITICIZES CALL OF DUTY FOR NOT CHANGING!" Here's a crazy idea. Maybe people do criticize Call Of Duty for not changing. Maybe this criticism is being leveled at other games.

As for the topic, most of the criticism is just that the platformers essentially stay the same. The RPGs, sports games, racing games, and Luigi's Mansion aren't really being taken into account. I don't think they should be either. But in the end, I don't really care. I don't really play Nintendo games all that much after I lost my third copy of NSMB. Which was pretty fun, not gonna lie.

Do all the subtle improvements and balance tweaks between games also not count?

Hell, you can even use that to defend Call Of Duty.

 

[Zhukov]

Hell, even the games people claim to be repetitive add something new! Mario Galaxy 2, for all it borrowed from its predecessor, at least added new game mechanics such as Yoshi and new power-ups that changed the way the game was played.

If Yoshi and a few powerups are enough to prevent Mario from being a rehash, so are new game modes, weapons and killstreaks in CoD.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Hazy992]

Are people here forgetting that the Mario games have spanned across multiple genres, while there are several IPs that have done nothing when it comes to exploring new territories? Yes, the New Super Mario Bros. games are more or less the same, but Mario also has RPGs, Sports Games, Racing Games, and Luigi's Mansion, which doesn't even fit into a clear genre.

Here's a question for you; if these games are so vastly different why don't they just make them new IPs? Why do they insist on just tacking Mario onto everything?

'How about Mario...but in space!' 'How about Mario...with a water cannon!' 'How about Mario...but he plays basketball!' Seems like they just stick Mario in it because they know people will buy it and they don't have to do any leg-work.

Hell, even the games people claim to be repetitive add something new! Mario Galaxy 2, for all it borrowed from its predecessor, at least added new game mechanics such as Yoshi and new power-ups that changed the way the game was played.

You mean the really innovative idea of putting in Yoshi that they did 20 years ago?

New Super Mario Bros 2 is essentially changing the goal of the game by refocusing everything on the number of coins you've collected. Do all the subtle improvements and balance tweaks between games also not count?

Why don't those tweaks between COD games count? Why isn't MW3 seen as different to MW2 when it has new game modes?

Modern Warfare 2 and 3, on the other hand, didn't even try to do anything besides the pointing-and-shooting that had been done before.

So adding a Yoshi counts as innovation but a new campaign, maps and game modes doesn't? They're both as bad as each other.

 

[him over there]

I don't really care. I love Nintendo even though most of the Mario games are rehashes. Repetition is a blessing if you're repeating something of quality.

 

[Beautiful End]

Exactly everything that has been said before. It's not like people complain ONLY about Mario games. They complain about CoD, Pokemon, sports games (Madden, FIFA), etc.

As much fun as a Mario game is, you can't deny NSMB2 is probably gonna be the same as its prequel...but with coins! Same platforming, similar character, similar worlds, similar songs, similar everything. And the same applies with Mario Galaxy.

Mario is all about platform games. So let's not pretend those Mario-sports games count. Those are spin offs. But if they counted, then we'd have to talk about Mario Party too, which is basically the same idea repeated, what, 10 times now? Only with...more minigames! Yaaaay!

I'm not against Mario. Hell, most Mario games are good. I liked Mario Sunshine because they at least tried something new with the water cannon. Mario Galaxy was okay what with the space adventures. NSMB was just decent considering they took the idea from the very first Mario games...but in 3D! What I don't like is Nintendo releasing almost identical sequels of a game just because they know they will sell.

Changing little tweaks here and there would work if they would do it successfully. Adding coins to a game and making them your ultimate goal doesn't change the original game much. But adding new Pokemon to catch and train, facing new Gym leaders, adding a different story to the game, all that works for Pokemon. Same concept. New ideas. Great game.
In CoD's case (And mind you, I'm not a big CoD fan), it is the same thing. But they have the online interactivity running for them. CoD is all about playing online with your friends and kicking butt. You know all your friends are gonna buy the newest CoD game and you wanna play with them. So you better buy the game too! Little tweak, massive consequences. Successful game.

So yeah, Mario games are cool but we would expect Nintendo to deliver the same masterpieces they used to deliver us a while back. Remember Mario's humble beginnings? Super Mario(s) for the NES, then Mario World came out and it was completely different, then Mario 64 introduced us to 3D platforming...and then they started following everyone's example of "Eh, let's just release a lazy remake of a game that's alrea...too lazy to finish the sentence". Expect that from CoD or any other game that's just mindless, but great, fun (Not saying its an excuse) but not Nintendo.

 

[dimensional]

Rehash or repetitive there is a difference, Mario is an icon now and not really tied to any particular game but the fact he can still sell games is down to the fact that by and large it seems people still think the games he appears in are good unlike say Sonic who seems to have lost almost all his cred (some believers keep him going) . So yes they may be repetitive (most things are not just games) and I would say some of the games are really just rehashes such as Mario Galaxy 2 with very little new to offer (I was disappointed as I loved Galaxy) but they still tend to be fun and mix things up enough to be different each time because its for want of a better phrase a major rehash not a small one.

I dont know about new super mario bros though maybe people are saying its a rehash because it looks like super mario bros 3 in design and aesthetics only they have added multiplayer, I dont know I havent played it but thats what it looks like to me.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Because people have different opinions.

That was an easy answer, wasn't it?

 

[lucky_sharm]

Because people have different opinions.

That was an easy answer, wasn't it?

But it doesn't leave much room for discussion, now does it? Why have any kind of debate about anything when anyone can just point out "this is my opinion so myeh."

There are such things as bad opinions, you know. Ones that aren't grounded in reality or factual information, for one thing.

 

[Hal10k]

"Rehash" is becoming one of those words that, thanks to the internet, I can only associate with countless stupid arguments. The internet is gradually eroding my entire vocabulary. Eventually I will be forced to communicate solely through different intonations of "marmoset" and "light bulb".

 

[Evilpigeon]

Modern Warfare 2 and 3, on the other hand, didn't even try to do anything besides the pointing-and-shooting that had been done before.

If Yoshi and a few powerups are enough to prevent Mario from being a rehash, so are new game modes, weapons and killstreaks in CoD.

You can't have it both ways.

This in essence, there are plenty of different franchises but so far as I'm concerned the two platforming ones are very repetitive and about as creative as Call of Duty - they make very very similar games over and over again and people keep buying.

I criticize both for it, I really struggle to understand why people continue to buy these series.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Modern Warfare 2 and 3, on the other hand, didn't even try to do anything besides the pointing-and-shooting that had been done before.

If Yoshi and a few powerups are enough to prevent Mario from being a rehash, so are new game modes, weapons and killstreaks in CoD.

You can't have it both ways.

This in essence, there are plenty of different franchises but so far as I'm concerned the two platforming ones are very repetitive and about as creative as Call of Duty - they make very very similar games over and over again and people keep buying.

I criticize both for it, I really struggle to understand why people continue to buy these series.

Because they're fun to play.

Let's turn this around for a moment, and think about the consequences.

Ignoring the spinoffs which are typically in a different genre, let's assume Nintendo never made another Mario platformer ever again.

What then, would you expect to fill that gap?

Let's say you want to play a platformer. Since no new mario games will get made, presumably something else would instead.

For this to be meaningful however, it would have to play substantially differently.
After all, Sonic (when it didn't suck, anyway), would be pointless if it played the same as Mario.

So... Create something substantially different, or... Not.

If something strays too close to being like mario, but not mario, then all that's really happened is someone has taken a mario game and re-skinned it. (See: The Great Giana sisters for an interesting historical example.)

As much as I'd love to see a truly new and unique platformer, if the end result is simply 'mario in a different skin', then why even bother? Why not simply make a new mario game and be done with it?

On top of that, while many variations on a theme are possible, not all of them work. (You only need to look at the history of platformers, or any other genre to see how many failures of one kind or another there have been).

There is of course, one other question you could ask:

If I want to play mario, why don't I just play one of the old games? That's a good question, but the answer to that should be fairly obvious:

Part of the fun of most games lies in trying to deal with the unfamiliar. Once you've mastered it all, repeating the exact same thing again is boring.
That doesn't necessarily mean you're sick of a game's core mechanics though; Just that you've exhausted the content.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 is perhaps one of the most obvious 'rehashes' in the mario franchise. (Though the Japanese Super Mario 2 has it beat hands-down for similarity to it's predecessor).
It does start to show how similar it is to Mario Galaxy 1, but it's still fun in it's own right simply because the levels are unfamiliar.

Can this be handled differently? Sure. If the distribution structure were different, Mario Galaxy 2 could probably have been a level pack. (Although some of the game mechanic additions might've made that difficult)
That would've had a fairly similar effect, but unless you're blind it should've been quite obvious that Mario Galaxy 2 is going to be 'more of the same'.

And what's wrong with 'more of the same' if that's what people actually want?

I'd love a well-designed platformer as good as the mario series. But that doesn't mean I'd trade the Mario games themselves to get it.

And if your 'new' platformer is basically mario with all the graphics and plot (such as it is) subtly shifted around, then that's not innovation, that's just pointless.

New and different isn't automatically better.

 

[Tanis]

I don't really care. I love Nintendo even though most of the Mario games are rehashes. Repetition is a blessing if you're repeating something of quality.

Pretty much this.

As long as the games are fun, and it isn't JUMP FOR JUMP the same damn level...
I'm cool with that.

captcha:
have an inkling

WHY! WHY MUST I HAVE ONE!

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Because people have different opinions.

That was an easy answer, wasn't it?

But it doesn't leave much room for discussion, now does it? Why have any kind of debate about anything when anyone can just point out "this is my opinion so myeh."

There are such things as bad opinions, you know. Ones that aren't grounded in reality or factual information, for one thing.

Because I fail to see much difference between this type of discussion and the half life threads. Everybody has already made up their mind on the subject, and all a discussion would do is make them butt heads and get angry.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Modern Warfare 2 and 3, on the other hand, didn't even try to do anything besides the pointing-and-shooting that had been done before.

If Yoshi and a few powerups are enough to prevent Mario from being a rehash, so are new game modes, weapons and killstreaks in CoD.

You can't have it both ways.

This in essence, there are plenty of different franchises but so far as I'm concerned the two platforming ones are very repetitive and about as creative as Call of Duty - they make very very similar games over and over again and people keep buying.

I criticize both for it, I really struggle to understand why people continue to buy these series.

Snippy

My point is more along the lines of, on the understanding that all they are getting is more of the same, why accept paying so much for what, by rights should be DLC. You do kinda address this at the end.

I understand that people enjoy these experiences, I just don't understand how people willingly pay just as much again for a version of the game that they're going to enjoy less (having already pretty much played it through before) without it leaving abad taste in their mouths because they've been ripped off.

If it were a story based game I'd be more forgiving, changing mechanics mid way through an epic plot is really jarring *cough mass effect cough*

But something like Mario or CoD where most people are in it for the gameplay... No matter how much you love the gameplay itself, how can the same experience again be worth as much money as it was the first time? I understand the desire for more, it just looks to me like people are willingly accepting a very bad deal.

 

[Arakasi]

Bringing up CoD as an example has become the equivalent of Godwining in this situation.

From what I've seen, Nintendo tries very hard to make whatever new version of Mario they bring out to be different.
The problem I have with Mario and many of Nintendo's other stock francises is that Nintendo seems to be afraid to try something new, and move on, yes it is a plummer with a red hat, there is only so far you can go with that.
Move on Nintendo, move on.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

The problem with Nintendo is that they're still pushing franchises that have been in existence for literally longer than I've been alive with very little to distinguish one game in the series from another other than tiny gimmicks. In the meantime they can't seem to come up with a new IP worth shit. And their games have little or no story to distuingish them either, it isn't like there's some big continuing plot spanning between games to keep people interested.
As people have pointed out, saying 'COD does all the same things' doesn't support you because COD gets criticised for all of those things just as much.

All of those little side - games don't really count, for me. You can hardly hold them up as examples of Nintendo being creative when all they've done is take your usual sports/racing game, make it look all cutesy and... not much else?

I get that they keep making mario games because hell, they're fun, people buy them, they're probably not difficult to make compared to something with 'realistic' physics and the like. But what I don't get is how they get away with aforesaid reskinning of racing/sports games, tacking 'mario' on the title and then selling them. Can't they come up with something that isn't freaking mario for once?

 

[144_v1legacy]

Some of the recent IP franchises have had multiple iterations in the last five years alone. Most Nintendo first-party titles are spaced out to roughly 1-2 games per console. There are actually not that many more Zelda's than there are Call of Duties (heheh. pluralization). And, I compare Ocarina and Wind Waker and Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword side by side and see, frankly, different games with similar plots and naming conventions. I look at the GTA series and see similar games with different plots. I look at some other, unnammed (to avoid fanboy confrontation, but you know who) examples which appear to be both similar games and similar plots. Sometimes, these examples are not even in the same franchise.

And then, there are games that are unique in all areas. These games don't have sequels. They don't become franchises, or, if they do, the sequel is often critized for similarity.

And that is what a franchise is. If the games are, to use the blanket nonspecific term, "good" enough, the franchise succeeds. I find that the Guitar Hero games are all very similar in gameplay and appearance. So are the MarioKarts. And thank God, because I'd be pissed if they weren't. Talk to me about Resident Evil, or Gears and God of War, or any fighting game, or any racing game.

Nintendo does seem to get a lot of flack, which is odd. Others do as well, which is starting to even out the playing field. The poster above me talks about creating new IP's, but frankly, most developers have barely more than one staple title, sometimes two. The famous RockStar Games developer has 5 notable franchises (courtesy of Wikipedia) and they are all slightly similar between them, certainly more so than Zelda next to Mario next to Metroid next to Pikmin next to Pokemon. Read the Wiki for Microsoft Studios, or Bungie, or Valve, or Capcom, or Rare, or Square Enix, or EA, or Activision, count the IP's that have franchises, and then read the one(s) for Nintendo.

Franchises within a single IP are innately similar. Some survive and some do not. I can't wait for Pikmnin 3, and hope it doesn't differ from the stellar gameplay and bright, cartoony, safe-for-kids and colorful appearance it's known for and that I love.