The Super Mario Apocalypse Will Never Arrive

[Jorpho]

Did you forget about Yoshi's Safari? Of course you did.

So what you're saying is they really have nowhere to go?

I'm just saying they did that once before, and considering how badly it came out, they're unlikely to go that way again. But nowhere to go? They'll figure something out.

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

we REALLY need more mario rpgs.....don't get me wrong, I ADORE the Bros series, the paper games...they're all loads of fun. but please...Nintendo...just...dust off the peace gloves..shake hands with square again....and give us a SMRPG2.....or more geno

hey, a guy can dream ^^;;

 

[OldNewNewOld]

The problem with your way to thinking is that you assume that they can't make a 2D Mario with something actually new that wasn't in any way in Super Mario Maker. Now I'm not saying it's easy. I've been thinking quite a while about the same thing and, honestly, if it was up to me, this would indeed be the end of the line. I could add new mobs and stuff, but in the end it would be just the same with some differences. But I believe that Nintendo and their creativity can overcome this and give us something completely new. It wouldn't be the first time they did this.

Nintendo loves to live in their comfort zone, but every now and then when they leave, they throw us some something extremely creative and good that you just can't deny that talent that they have. So they will surprise us once again with the 2D Mario. Whether it's with the next game or the one afterwards, I don't know. I'm waiting.

And to the people saying how the selection of the levels in Mario Maker is bad, well I agree for now, but I think that in the future, we will be getting more and more good and creative levels and less of the bad or auto playing levels.
The people that aren't that good at making levels will slowly move on and find other games, the fanatics and talented people will keep playing it. And every time something creative is found, someone else will use it and make something even better and more creative. Not long ago people didn't know how to make boss battles properly, now we have checkpoints and boss battles through the same mechanics.


Every now and then the 11/10 piece of magic comes out and inspires a lot of new levels, good and bad. But as time moves on, only those really dedicated will stay and they will keep making better levels.

Another way they could raise the stakes would be to foray into a new genre. We have platforming, racing and RPG. Is a Mario shooter/strategy/stealth/survival iteration completely out of the question? How far can you move before Mario stops being Mario?

Splatoon was initially thought to be a Mario shooter. But the team felt it would be better as a new franchise rather than a Mario spin-off.
And Mario stealth sounds interesting. Bowser realized that kidnapping Peach means nothing if he doesn't deal with Mario beforehand so he has stolen all the power up of the kingdom. With Mario being weak, he has no choice but to take the slow and stealthy route through the Mushroom kingdom.
A strategy game would play from Peach's perspective, she would control the Mushroom kingdom's army of mushroom to defend against Bowser's invasion. Thought that ones too violent so not gonna happen. More of a Zelda type of game.

I disagreed with Yahtzee when he said that New Super Mario Bros. Wii was a game that had "no right to exist", but I think that criticism definitely applies to Super Mario Maker, in my opinion it is the very definition of a game that has no right to exist, I just can't fathom why anyone would want to pay 60 dollars for a level editor, it sounds like a waste of money to me.

I think you should thank NoA for that. In Europe the game was like 40 euro, same as Splatoon. Not a full retail price.
Also go on youtube and watch some creative levels and you will see why it has every damn right to exist. People have been asking Nintendo for a Mario level editor for years now. Nintendo delivered (well not 100% as many wanted but still in a pretty good shape).

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I just find it funny how people claim Mario doesn't innovate or experiment enough, when in fact it's clear people have no clue what "innovation" actually means. The problem with that is most "innovation" people claim is merely fixing flaws that were in a series. Mario has never had that problem; like Zelda, Metroid, and Tetris, there was nothing flawed in Mario at the base level thus any "innovation" (i.e. gimmicks to make the game seem more unique than it really was) wasn't needed.

As for Mario Maker being a "natural conclusion" of some sorts, that's a load of crap. Fact of the matter is that it's just what it is: it's Nintendo releasing a level editor. Let's face it, when it comes to Nintendo they've has always lulled into a false sense of security before whacking with a frying pan when we least expect it. But I guess I'm the only one who studies history.

 

[Silvanus]

A strategy game would play from Peach's perspective, she would control the Mushroom kingdom's army of mushroom to defend against Bowser's invasion. Thought that ones too violent so not gonna happen. More of a Zelda type of game.

A strategy game I can really see. It wouldn't need to be violent; could be more like the strategic defence mini-game from FF7. Play as Peach, with Toads, Pink Bob-Ombs and castle defences; or play as the Koopa Troop... man, this sounds great!

 

[1981]

I think it should be "Some of them, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, predicted a traditional religious apocalypse." Because saying "Some of them predicted a traditional religious apocalypse, like the Jehovah's Witnesses" implies that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the disast--- Oh. Oh! I see what you did there.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I'm not sure Mario will ever die at this point. Once you reach a certain level of household name-ness you can never truly die; you just go dormant for a few years at a time, wait for the nostalgia to rebuild and then pick up where you left off

Sonic is the opposite example. A household name that keeps going, but is dead to all who really cared about it.

Not really, Sonic's games still sell pretty well, so he is most definitely not "dead" to those like me that care about the franchise.

They sell well, but they're terrible. I guess I should have specified - people who really cared about it and also have standards.

 

[mrdude2010]

Thing is, there is no cohesion to any of the creations in Mario Maker. Because levels are all self contained you can't really make a complete Mario experience in the game. When trying to place rewards in a level for finding a secret or going the hardmode path, you can only really reward players with a shortcut to the end. There is nothing short of x3 1ups you can take with you between stages.

Not to mention the fact that 99% of Mario Maker levels are utter trash or auto plays. Something tells me Nintendo just made this game to prove to people we still need seasoned game designers to put our world's together. There are great levels out there but you really need to dig deep to find them.

It reminds me a little bit about the community Portal 2 maps: there are a few guys out there creating excellent level progressions, and all it takes to find them is searching the "name, part current+1." I don't think it's been out long enough to draw any definitive conclusions.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I'm not sure Mario will ever die at this point. Once you reach a certain level of household name-ness you can never truly die; you just go dormant for a few years at a time, wait for the nostalgia to rebuild and then pick up where you left off

Sonic is the opposite example. A household name that keeps going, but is dead to all who really cared about it.

Not really, Sonic's games still sell pretty well, so he is most definitely not "dead" to those like me that care about the franchise.

They sell well, but they're terrible. I guess I should have specified - people who really cared about it and also have standards.

No that's not true at all, they're not "terrible" just cause you say so. Plenty of people liked Unleashed, Colors and Lost World.

Just because greater than zero people like something does not mean that something is not terrible, like Unleashed, Colors, and Lost World.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I'm not sure Mario will ever die at this point. Once you reach a certain level of household name-ness you can never truly die; you just go dormant for a few years at a time, wait for the nostalgia to rebuild and then pick up where you left off

Sonic is the opposite example. A household name that keeps going, but is dead to all who really cared about it.

Not really, Sonic's games still sell pretty well, so he is most definitely not "dead" to those like me that care about the franchise.

They sell well, but they're terrible. I guess I should have specified - people who really cared about it and also have standards.

No that's not true at all, they're not "terrible" just cause you say so. Plenty of people liked Unleashed, Colors and Lost World.

Just because greater than zero people like something does not mean that something is not terrible, like Unleashed, Colors, and Lost World.

Those games all have pretty good scores on Metacritic, so clearly a lot more people like those games then you think, so your logic really falls flat.

...Please tell me you're not using metacritic user scores as some kind of actual referendum on quality.

I mean, if you want to use metacritic then let's use metacritic, which shows terrible scores for Unleashed and Lost World.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I'm not sure Mario will ever die at this point. Once you reach a certain level of household name-ness you can never truly die; you just go dormant for a few years at a time, wait for the nostalgia to rebuild and then pick up where you left off

Sonic is the opposite example. A household name that keeps going, but is dead to all who really cared about it.

Not really, Sonic's games still sell pretty well, so he is most definitely not "dead" to those like me that care about the franchise.

They sell well, but they're terrible. I guess I should have specified - people who really cared about it and also have standards.

No that's not true at all, they're not "terrible" just cause you say so. Plenty of people liked Unleashed, Colors and Lost World.

Just because greater than zero people like something does not mean that something is not terrible, like Unleashed, Colors, and Lost World.

Those games all have pretty good scores on Metacritic, so clearly a lot more people like those games then you think, so your logic really falls flat.

...Please tell me you're not using metacritic user scores as some kind of actual referendum on quality.

I mean, if you want to use metacritic then let's use metacritic, which shows terrible scores for Unleashed and Lost World.

Please tell me you're not actually that naive. Neither of those games got bad scores on Metacritic, just average ones(60 and 63 to be precise, with the PS2/Wii versions of Unleashed having higher scores then the PS3/360 versions), so their clearly far from "terrible" like you say they are.

Uh, anything under a 70 on metacritic means bad. Where have you been the past ten years?

Do you need the 4 point scale explained to you?

 

[Thanatos2k]

I'm not sure Mario will ever die at this point. Once you reach a certain level of household name-ness you can never truly die; you just go dormant for a few years at a time, wait for the nostalgia to rebuild and then pick up where you left off

Sonic is the opposite example. A household name that keeps going, but is dead to all who really cared about it.

Not really, Sonic's games still sell pretty well, so he is most definitely not "dead" to those like me that care about the franchise.

They sell well, but they're terrible. I guess I should have specified - people who really cared about it and also have standards.

No that's not true at all, they're not "terrible" just cause you say so. Plenty of people liked Unleashed, Colors and Lost World.

Just because greater than zero people like something does not mean that something is not terrible, like Unleashed, Colors, and Lost World.

Those games all have pretty good scores on Metacritic, so clearly a lot more people like those games then you think, so your logic really falls flat.

...Please tell me you're not using metacritic user scores as some kind of actual referendum on quality.

I mean, if you want to use metacritic then let's use metacritic, which shows terrible scores for Unleashed and Lost World.

Please tell me you're not actually that naive. Neither of those games got bad scores on Metacritic, just average ones(60 and 63 to be precise, with the PS2/Wii versions of Unleashed having higher scores then the PS3/360 versions), so their clearly far from "terrible" like you say they are.

Uh, anything under a 70 on metacritic means bad. Where have you been the past ten years?

Do you need the 4 point scale explained to you?

Uh no it dosen't, green means good, yellow means average, red means bad. Where have YOU been for the last ten years?

For movies, not for games. See, the metacritic color system was designed around movies because metacritic was originally created for movies, which typically score through the entire 10 point scale. Games on the other hand use the 4 point scale:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourPointScale

Also known as school grading. 60-70 is a D. <60 is an F. So those games are straight Ds - terrible.

 

[KilloZapit]

The thing is, fans have been one upping Nintendo at there own game for years, through romhacking, though fangames, even though entirely new games based on similar ideas. That doesn't make Super Mario Maker pointless or anything, there will always be an advantage to creating a big tool kit and distribution system for levels that makes it easy for the masses to play with. But it does mean the "Can this game be done in Super Mario Maker?" question is a bit silly. What about questions like "Can this game be done with a romhack?", "Can this game be done in one of the many fangames with level editors available to them?" or "Can this game be done by a simple indie game?" that fans have been asking for years?

They aren't really fair questions to ask are they? Fun is fun regardless of how it's made or what it's production values are. The question of "Is this game actually any fun?" is the most important. That said, people probably are probably not going to pay 60 dollars for a game off the same over all quality that they could get for free (or cheap for indies) elsewhere. But that's kind of true with all media isn't it? Why read novels penned by professional writers when people are producing good quality fanfiction or original stories on the net for free (and some are)? Why pay for movies/cable/netflix when people are producing interesting content on youtube for free (and some are)?

Well there are answers to that. It's brand recognition. A brand ideally means a guarantee that what they sell has a particular level of quality, or that you know what kind of product it will be. A brand means it's highly visible and easy to find. The names "Mario" and "Nintendo" mean something, and people who know of them (which is just about everyone) know what to expect from them. You don't need to wade though the crap to get to the good stuff.

Still, I do wonder if old media and traditional publishing and development can keep the trust of the consumer. If people can't trust Nintendo, or any game publisher, or even any media publisher, to sell them what they want, and/or as tools come around that make searching though fan stuff easier and easier, will the entertainment industry as it currently exists slowly shrivel and vanish? Part of me kinda hopes so, because the entertainment industry is kinda filled with jerks. Still, I don't really think Nintendo or Mario are going away unless they really really mess up... like Konami.

 

[nightazday]

It's probably the end of the "New Super Mario" era and 2D Mario games but it's not like they ran out of assets to milk. I mean we still have super mario 3D land/world and all the 3D Mario games

Now if they had a 3D Mario maker