Topic: How seriously do you take the Mario characters?

[NWR_pap64]

On another forum that I frequent to I posted the latest Mario Kart Wii scan featuring the infamous statue of Luigi and Daisy in Daisy's track. I personally saw it as a nod of a possible relationship between the two, because one of the reasons Daisy was brought back to life was to give Luigi his own princess in Mario Tennis 64. The Luigi and Daisy thing was only referenced in many fan stuff, but seeing a nod to it in an OFFICIAL Nintendo game is a big deal to me.

So, we continue discussing this and many agree with me that is a very cute nod and homage to Mario's little brother. But then comes another and gets annoyed at the fact that we are discussing Mario characters and that its only OK to discuss relationships when they are in a serious games.

I then tell him that its unfair to say that. Just because the Mario characters were made to be fun mascots in games it doesn't mean that we can't take them seriously as characters and thus discuss potential character development.

So I wanted to ask you; How seriously do you take the Mario characters? Do you see them as just cute characters in cute games or you see them as characters with potential development?

In my opinion, had we still been living in the 8 and 16 bit days then yeah, it would have been silly to believe otherwise. However, ever since the 64 bit days the characters have slowly been evolving, and thus have become even more endearing than they were back in the day.

Take for example, Luigi. Originally, he was just player 2, the same Mario sprite but in green. Over the years, he slowly grew and turned into the cowardly brother we know and love.

Same with Bowser. When I was younger, I thought he was a typical bad guy. Always getting the princess, being defeated by Mario and doing it all over again.  But after the Mario RPGs I look at him differently. In Mario RPG he had a soft side that was endearing when shown. In Paper Mario when you read his diary and learned that he's in love with Peach I was sold. Bowser was no longer a paper cutout of a character.

Hell, even Daisy, who hasn't been used in the main Mario game, has gotten a lot of sass and spunk that makes her more like-able than Peach!

Even if Nintendo refuses to develop their characters many developers HAVE dropped the hints here and there. For example, Bowser's diary in Paper Mario, Camelot's reasoning behind the resurrection of Daisy and even NST's take on Donkey Kong in Mario vs. DK.

So as you can see, I do take the Mario character seriously. Nintendo may not see them as more than that, but many fans (and developers) do. Its a sign of how far these characters have come.

So, what do you think?

[ShyGuy]

Luigi and Daisy were kinda linked in Mario Party 5, there couple title was something...

But Continuity is a dangerous servant and a fearful master, stay away if possible.

[DAaaMan64]

I take Mario characters as is and enjoy the little teases in Paper Mario. 

If Nintendo doesn't take them seriously, then neither do I.

[NWR_pap64]

I take Mario characters as is and enjoy the little teases in Paper Mario. 

If Nintendo doesn't take them seriously, then neither do I.

That's actually a good answer. Although to me, its the lack of development that makes them the more appealing.

[KDR_11k]

I see them as trademarks, nothing else. They aren't really characters with their paper-thin personalities and backstories that get changed every game depending on the needs of the developer (especially in the RPGs).

IMO the Mario characters are only a selling point because they're a seal of quality usually reserved for good games (with some reaching best-game-ever status). For all I care they could be replaced with entirely different characters and I think I'd even prefer that.

I think the same goes for the Zelda characters (or the Zelda scenario in general), they've almost become more of a hindrance than an asset to their games. Often LA is considered the best Zelda although it ditched everything except Link himself (who isn't really a character, just a sprite for the player to push around) from the Zelda scenario.

Nintendo defined most of their characters in the 8 bit days where a character just needed a recognizable shape and a power for defeating foes, not a personality or story. I think trying to retain these anachronisms while at the same time attempting to reach modern standards of storytelling does not work, often even the basic designs for the characters seem ridiculous as they were designed exaggerated to show up as a tiny sprite.

I think you just sometimes need to ditch the accumulated crud and start anew with all options open to you again. At very least to prevent silly things like the Metroid Prime games being sledge-hammered into the continuity.

AFAIK Capcom ditches old characters more readily while still retaining the same game concept, e.g. going from Megaman to Megaman X (which should have been ditched earlier though) or having the Ace Attorney games continue with new characters (at least I think that's what they did, haven't played any other than the first) instead of trying to work Phoenix Wright into all of them like Nintendo would have done. IMO that's the better approach, in the end people play the game for the gameplay and ditching the characters won't hurt that and will prevent overstretching the story you gave the series initially just to fit one more sequel in.

[Ceric]

I see them as trademarks, nothing else. They aren't really characters with their paper-thin personalities and backstories that get changed every game depending on the needs of the developer (especially in the RPGs).

IMO the Mario characters are only a selling point because they're a seal of quality usually reserved for good games (with some reaching best-game-ever status). For all I care they could be replaced with entirely different characters and I think I'd even prefer that.

I think the same goes for the Zelda characters (or the Zelda scenario in general), they've almost become more of a hindrance than an asset to their games. Often LA is considered the best Zelda although it ditched everything except Link himself (who isn't really a character, just a sprite for the player to push around) from the Zelda scenario.

Nintendo defined most of their characters in the 8 bit days where a character just needed a recognizable shape and a power for defeating foes, not a personality or story. I think trying to retain these anachronisms while at the same time attempting to reach modern standards of storytelling does not work, often even the basic designs for the characters seem ridiculous as they were designed exaggerated to show up as a tiny sprite.

I think you just sometimes need to ditch the accumulated crud and start anew with all options open to you again. At very least to prevent silly things like the Metroid Prime games being sledge-hammered into the continuity.

AFAIK Capcom ditches old characters more readily while still retaining the same game concept, e.g. going from Megaman to Megaman X (which should have been ditched earlier though) or having the Ace Attorney games continue with new characters (at least I think that's what they did, haven't played any other than the first) instead of trying to work Phoenix Wright into all of them like Nintendo would have done. IMO that's the better approach, in the end people play the game for the gameplay and ditching the characters won't hurt that and will prevent overstretching the story you gave the series initially just to fit one more sequel in.

I thought the minimally broke continuatity with how Prime was put in but, being a bounty hunter it easy to slide things in.  Though what still gets me is at the end she always switches her Uber-Powerful suit to go back to the the original.

[Bill Aurion]

I think it's silly to say that just because a game doesn't have much of a story that the characters don't have personality...Even if they speak very little (or not at all), their actions and abilities help fill in those gaps...

And personally I would find it very difficult to play a game where I couldn't fill in the gaps, because even if a game is fun, if I can't find a means of connection to the character I'm playing as in the game, then all I'm doing is pressing buttons...That's no way to immerse yourself...

[UltimatePartyBear]

So, we continue discussing this and many agree with me that is a very cute nod and homage to Mario's little brother. But then comes another and gets annoyed at the fact that we are discussing Mario characters and that its only OK to discuss relationships when they are in a serious games.

The correct answer is that shipping is inherently ridiculous, and it doesn't matter in the least how "serious" the subject matter is.

That's not an attack.  I'm just saying it's not something that's capable of being serious in the first place, although a lot of people do take it way too seriously.  (He was probably an InuYasha fan, anyway.)

[animecyberrat]

I am with Pap here but I am kinda the opposite really. I grew up on Mario games for the most part. I remember back in the old NES days I would read the instruction manuals to get the story and my sisters and I fell in love with the Mario story right off the bat and would re-enact it as often as we could until it eventually developed into a bigger adventure that we are currently turning into a book and hopefully a movie.

I stopped taking Mario games seriously with Mario Party 1. I love the Mario Party games but they killed the characters for me. It was like the games no longer were serious and there was no longer any danger to them. I remember being terrified and my heart was racing when I got to World 8 for the first time, and that feeling stuck with me till I beat the game.


It was the same with Mario Bros 2, 3 and World. Especially Mario 64 when you walk into that room for the first time and a now GIANT sized Bowser is staring you in the face, your heart skips a beat and you start to get into the game.

Then along came Mario Party and the Spin offs and I think of those spin offs as not just different characters but different universe altogether. I think of it like this, Mario Kart, Part, Golf, Tennis, etc those are like the Super Mario Bros. Movie, true Mario story and characters, just in a diferent mythos than what I put the "real" Mario games in. I lump Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros, SMB3, SMW, Mario RPG, Mario 64 and the GB Mario games into that universe. I put the spin offs into an "Alternate Universe" category and that is how I can still take the characters and story seriously but not the other stuff.


Also Nintendo kinda sorta made the Luigi-Daisy thing official with the movie that they deny exists.

[Ian Sane]

I'm a stickler for consistency.  Nintendo really doesn't take the Mario franchise seriously.  It does bug me because it comes across that Nintendo just treats Mario as a brand to hand off to whoever developer has some game concept that can have Mario shoehorned in.  Typically I can however just avoid the spin-offs that contain no real narrative.  Super Mario RPG works remarkably well.  The Paper Mario games fit together well.  The Mario & Luigi games fit together well.  If you take the different spin-off series as seperate continuities then it works okay.

Stuff that does bother me is Baby Mario co-existing with Mario in Mario Kart.  Yeah it's just a racing game but it just reaks of Nintendo not giving a f*ck because it's just product.  They're the SAME CHARACTER.  How the hell do they co-exist? Am I just taking it too seriously?

I also never liked Bowser Jr. because it always came across to me as Nintendo lazily making a mistake.  There are 8 Koopa Kids and yet for some reason there's this ninth kid we've never seen before.  Bowser has also named his YOUNGEST son Jr. which is a little weird.  These were okay but the annoying thing is that Bowser Jr. looks exactly like Baby Bowser in Yoshi's Island.  That's could be incredibly lazy character design but it seems more likely like Nintendo f*cked up, threw the character from Yoshi's Island in, and then came up with this Jr. stuff to explain it when someone pointed out "hey that's Baby Bowser".

Oddly enough Nintendo has kept Yoshi's continuity straight despite Yoshi's Story ruining the character.  If there was a time for a retcon the fans would like that would be it.  Yet cutesy baby Yoshi remains.  Go figure.  Krystal from Star Fox is the same way.  If it sucks Nintendo will maintain it in the continuity forever.

I think though I just have a very different point of view for creating a fictional universe.  You know how the Mushroom Kingdom in Super Mario RPG and Toad Town in Paper Mario are presumable the same place but look completely different?  That doesn't hurt either game but if I made a fictional universe I would forbid stuff like that.  Games can add new areas to the world but cannot just change them with no explaination.  I would be very watchful of crossovers so that things make sense.  Donkey Kong obviously exists in the same universe as Mario.  Therefore I would make sure that anything added to a Donkey Kong game ALSO fits within the Mario universe.  Ditto with Wario.  According to Diddy Kong Racing, Banjo and Conker would also be part of the Mario universe but they belong to a competing company.  Ooops.  I would however allow fun little cameos like Link in Super Mario RPG as one-off gags.  And of course SSB exists with some alternate explaination like the toys in the first game.

But I'm thinking like a creator and an artist.  Nintendo obviously thinks like a corporation.  Hey let's have Mario and Sonic compete in the Olympics because it will make money!  My first thought would be to think of a reason why two characters from different fictional universes are competing in the real world Olympic games.  But I'm not thinking like a business man.  It wouldn't just be a product to me.

[Bill Aurion]

Oddly enough Nintendo has kept Yoshi's continuity straight despite Yoshi's Story ruining the character.  If there was a time for a retcon the fans would like that would be it.  Yet cutesy baby Yoshi remains.

Yoshi has always been cutesy, it's just in Yoshi's Story they gave him a more high-pitched voice (and a real personality)...

[Smoke39]

Yoshi has always been cutesy, it's just in Yoshi's Story they gave him a more high-pitched voice (and a real personality)...

Yeah, a real stupid personality.  I miss Yoshi's Island Yoshi.

[ShyGuy]

You know what bugs me? The fact that Donkey Kong was Donkey Kong Jr. and Donkey Kong is now Cranky Kong.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Daisy covered in ORANGE MARMELADE is to be taken seriously seriously.

Get serious.

[vudu]

The only character I take seriously is Rosalina.  The rest are just for fun.

But the day I see Rosalina driving a go-kart is the day I die a little inside.

[DAaaMan64]

The only character I take seriously is Rosalina.  The rest are just for fun.

But the day I see Rosalina driving a go-kart is the day I die a little inside.

That is kinda weird.  Rosalina is a little more serious for me...

[Bill Aurion]

Yoshi has always been cutesy, it's just in Yoshi's Story they gave him a more high-pitched voice (and a real personality)...

Yeah, a real stupid personality.  I miss Yoshi's Island Yoshi.

You're a real stupid personality... >=|

[S-U-P-E-R]

I see Peach as my real life girlfriend. I say endearing things to her, and she melts all over me. One day we're going to get married!

[Smoke39]

You're a real stupid personality... >=|

I know you are but what am I!

[Mario]

I take Mario characters as is and enjoy the little teases in Paper Mario. 

If Nintendo doesn't take them seriously, then neither do I.

That's actually a good answer. Although to me, its the lack of development that makes them the more appealing.

Yes because it's about using our imagination

[Bill Aurion]

You're a real stupid personality... >=|

I know you are but what am I!

I am rubber and you are glue, so whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!

[Smoke39]

I know you are but what am I!

I am rubber and you are glue, so whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!

D;

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I take Mario characters as is and enjoy the little teases in Paper Mario. 

If Nintendo doesn't take them seriously, then neither do I.

That's actually a good answer. Although to me, its the lack of development that makes them the more appealing.

Yes because it's about using our imagination

The embargo on HAWTNESS on this forum indicates imagination is outlawed here.

[Darkheart]

I take them as seriously as Nintendo does with their online functionality and content.

[ReverendNoahWhateley]

As a threat, I don't take them seriously at all.  They are all fools!