Topic: Should Luigi's Mansion 2 be an M-rated Survival Horror game?

[EasyCure]

M-rated Mario is the strawman argument used by the "Nintendo is always right" crowd against those that suggest that Nintendo provide more variety by making games that cater more to the tastes of older gamers.

We've already seen them appeal to older gamers, now everybody's whining that 30+ is too old.

QFT

[Mop it up]

Mario characters should appear only in E-rated games, this is something which shouldn't even be joked about. Mario Strikers Charged is a good example of why Mario shouldn't appear in any games which get anything other than an E rating.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Smash Bros.

[Mop it up]

Well, I don't like SSBBrawl because it is gritty, cold, and devoid of life, so it is another example of why any game with Mario in it shouldn't be rated anything other than E.
I think SSBMelee deserved an E rating like the first game got, though I guess it has to count. Of course, even that game I do think should have a been a little more cartoony than it was.

[UltimatePartyBear]

Hey, now.  Let's not derail this into a different old argument, especially one that's less fun to laugh at.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Strikers Charged is a great game.

Luigi's Mansion, not.

[KDR_11k]

YES YES FOR THE LOVE OF GOD YES




Edit: Ahem. I honestly think that it would be a smart business move if Nintendo, not blatantly, but systematically released new franchises the borrows heavily from existing franchises.

Zelda, Metroid, Pikmin, and yes, even Pokemon would have their M-rated counterparts. It wouldn't play exactly like those games, but the underlying structure would be there.

I'd buy em'.

What would be the point? Reducing the appeal of the game?

[UltimatePartyBear]

Strikers Charged is a great game.

Luigi's Mansion, not.

You'd feel differently if your Sunny Delight was in Luigi's Mansion.

[Mop it up]

Hey, now.  Let's not derail this into a different old argument, especially one that's less fun to laugh at.

What would that be? I'm talking about why any Mario characters shouldn't appear in any games that aren't E-rated, that seems like a part of the topic at hand.

A Luigi's Mansion sequel on Wii would be awesome though, despite that it would further solidify that Luigi really isn't a neglected character. Though it probably wouldn't be too practical, an interesting control scheme for the game would be to use two Wiimotes. One pointer would control the vacuum, and the other would be used to aim the flashlight.

[Stratos]

Strikers Charged is a great game.

Luigi's Mansion, not.

You'd feel differently if your Sunny Delight was in Luigi's Mansion.

Maybe the ghosts kidnapped Little Miss Sunny Delight and our green plumber has to rescue her.

[Ian Sane]

Zelda, Metroid, Pikmin, and yes, even Pokemon would have their M-rated counterparts.

M-rated Metroid?  What's the point?  So it looks exactly the same but has swearing and blood in it?  Metroid doesn't NEED to be M-rated.  It already has a mature style and it does it without being exploitive.  A "mature" game doesn't have to mean a game with a literal M-rating.  It just means a game for an older audience and the truth is you could do that with an E-rating.  You know why Resident Evil is full of gore?  Because it fits the subject matter.  I'm sure some people would think it's exploitative but it really isn't.  Metroid's subject matter isn't such that it would really require anything that would earn it an M-rating.

As for the others I think I would prefer to just get new games.  I don't have any problem with those games the way they are.  In fact I love all of them.  I just think Nintendo has a little too many cutesy games and could balance it out better.  I think in Zelda's case they took something that appealed to an older audience as well as kids and overcompensated on making it cuter, thus alienating the older audience.

We've already seen them appeal to older gamers, now everybody's whining that 30+ is too old.

Ah, my least favourite type of argument.  The "THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED ALL ALONG!"  The Wii ____ series is very much like Nintendo's "kiddie games" of the past in that they're technically inoffensive enough that everyone COULD like them.  But the same problem persists - those that want something more specifically tailored to their tastes find themselves disinterested.  I was open-minded enough to play Nintendo's cute "kiddie games" because I recognized that the gameplay was still fantastic.  But I could sympathize with those that were put off by the setting, and I noticed the games that didn't try so hard to be for "everyone" were personally more enjoyable for me - Goldeneye/Perfect Dark on the N64, Metroid Prime games on the Cube.  Non-games take it a step further and the actual GAMEPLAY is designed to be technically appealing to everyone.  For me that was what kept the so called "kiddie games" from being unplayable.  That was the one thing you could rely on with Nintendo games.

True variety doesn't mean "every game for everyone".  Nintendo has NEVER figured that out and if they wonder why "kiddie" has been replaced with "casual", that's why.  True variety means you have ten games aimed at five audiences and each of those games is very specifically tailored for the target audience so everyone gets two games they REALLY like.  Nintendo's method was and still is ten games for five audiences and they make all ten something that all the audiences COULD like but in the end the only one that is truly satisfied is the lowest common denominator.

What are your tastes in movies or music like?  Do you just listen to top 40 pop music and watch the big mainstream "number one movie in America!" films?  Or do you also have some specific tastes?  Some stuff that's more obscure that you don't expect everyone to like but you really like?  What do you find more rewarding: the mainstream pandering "everyone COULD like this" stuff or the more specific stuff that feels more like it was made for YOU?

[Stogi]

YES YES FOR THE LOVE OF GOD YES




Edit: Ahem. I honestly think that it would be a smart business move if Nintendo, not blatantly, but systematically released new franchises the borrows heavily from existing franchises.

Zelda, Metroid, Pikmin, and yes, even Pokemon would have their M-rated counterparts. It wouldn't play exactly like those games, but the underlying structure would be there.

I'd buy em'.

What would be the point? Reducing the appeal of the game?

No, to make good mature games!

[Armak88]

I don't think that Stogi is advocating mature versions of those franchises, rather, think about what a completely new mature platformer would be like with tight controls and polish like the mario games, or the attention to detail and control of metroid, but a new mature FPS, or a game that feels like zelda, but has a decidedly mature setting. I have to say I'd be interested, because the biggest set back of most mature offerings from any developer is that the gameplay is typically bland and uninspired, which is something Nintendo has never had a problem with. It would be interesting to see the fun of Nintendo gameplay in an unfamiliar (and yes, mature) setting.

[Stogi]

Thank you, Armak. That's exactly what I meant.

[KDR_11k]

Mature platformer sounds like an oxymoron. A bloody, gritty realistic game about a guy jumping extremely high and squshing enemies underfoot? W. T. F.

Ah, my least favourite type of argument.  The "THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED ALL ALONG!"  The Wii ____ series is very much like Nintendo's "kiddie games" of the past in that they're technically inoffensive enough that everyone COULD like them.  But the same problem persists - those that want something more specifically tailored to their tastes find themselves disinterested.  I was open-minded enough to play Nintendo's cute "kiddie games" because I recognized that the gameplay was still fantastic.  But I could sympathize with those that were put off by the setting, and I noticed the games that didn't try so hard to be for "everyone" were personally more enjoyable for me - Goldeneye/Perfect Dark on the N64, Metroid Prime games on the Cube.  Non-games take it a step further and the actual GAMEPLAY is designed to be technically appealing to everyone.  For me that was what kept the so called "kiddie games" from being unplayable.  That was the one thing you could rely on with Nintendo games.

True variety doesn't mean "every game for everyone".  Nintendo has NEVER figured that out and if they wonder why "kiddie" has been replaced with "casual", that's why.  True variety means you have ten games aimed at five audiences and each of those games is very specifically tailored for the target audience so everyone gets two games they REALLY like.  Nintendo's method was and still is ten games for five audiences and they make all ten something that all the audiences COULD like but in the end the only one that is truly satisfied is the lowest common denominator.

What are your tastes in movies or music like?  Do you just listen to top 40 pop music and watch the big mainstream "number one movie in America!" films?  Or do you also have some specific tastes?  Some stuff that's more obscure that you don't expect everyone to like but you really like?  What do you find more rewarding: the mainstream pandering "everyone COULD like this" stuff or the more specific stuff that feels more like it was made for YOU?

Nintendo always makes the big for everyone stuff because they've got a system to carry and only so much manpower to do it. Realistically I'd say these games cover every audience to some degree but not 100% so their appeal is still much, MUCH greater than that of a game aimed at a single audience (and hell, aren't many popular core games also aimed at different audiences by allowing different play styles like stealth, driving and shoot everything?). The new games cover a substantial part of the gamer audience and a huge market that no other games cover. However I'd say the games were specifically designed for the new market audience so you can't say there wasn't an audience focus there. That they still appeal to many gamers is pretty much automatic, a good game is a good game and many gamers don't demand more than that so they'll enjoy a good new audience game just as much as a good gamer audience game. What you complain about is that no game specifically caters to your tastes but I have no idea what kind of game actually DOES. What kind of game would anyone have to make to actually satisfy you? And how much of his output would have to be focussed on you to make you happy? You whine that there are 4-5 non-core games on the Wii when Nintendo has put out at least twice as many core games, I don't think you'd stop whining if 2 out of 10 games were aimed at you and the other 8 were designed to not appeal to you at all.

If you want games for your niche you'll have to buy third party but you don't seem to be willing to do that.

[Chozo Ghost]

Mature platformer sounds like an oxymoron. A bloody, gritty realistic game about a guy jumping extremely high and squshing enemies underfoot? W. T. F.

What if there were blood and gore every time he stomped? And what if the enemies didn't disappear once stomped, but later on you might come back to that area and the enemies would reanimate themselves as ghouls.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Mature platformer sounds like an oxymoron. A bloody, gritty realistic game about a guy jumping extremely high and squshing enemies underfoot? W. T. F.

Ah, my least favourite type of argument.  The "THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED ALL ALONG!"  The Wii ____ series is very much like Nintendo's "kiddie games" of the past in that they're technically inoffensive enough that everyone COULD like them.  But the same problem persists - those that want something more specifically tailored to their tastes find themselves disinterested.  I was open-minded enough to play Nintendo's cute "kiddie games" because I recognized that the gameplay was still fantastic.  But I could sympathize with those that were put off by the setting, and I noticed the games that didn't try so hard to be for "everyone" were personally more enjoyable for me - Goldeneye/Perfect Dark on the N64, Metroid Prime games on the Cube.  Non-games take it a step further and the actual GAMEPLAY is designed to be technically appealing to everyone.  For me that was what kept the so called "kiddie games" from being unplayable.  That was the one thing you could rely on with Nintendo games.

True variety doesn't mean "every game for everyone".  Nintendo has NEVER figured that out and if they wonder why "kiddie" has been replaced with "casual", that's why.  True variety means you have ten games aimed at five audiences and each of those games is very specifically tailored for the target audience so everyone gets two games they REALLY like.  Nintendo's method was and still is ten games for five audiences and they make all ten something that all the audiences COULD like but in the end the only one that is truly satisfied is the lowest common denominator.

What are your tastes in movies or music like?  Do you just listen to top 40 pop music and watch the big mainstream "number one movie in America!" films?  Or do you also have some specific tastes?  Some stuff that's more obscure that you don't expect everyone to like but you really like?  What do you find more rewarding: the mainstream pandering "everyone COULD like this" stuff or the more specific stuff that feels more like it was made for YOU?

Nintendo always makes the big for everyone stuff because they've got a system to carry and only so much manpower to do it. Realistically I'd say these games cover every audience to some degree but not 100% so their appeal is still much, MUCH greater than that of a game aimed at a single audience (and hell, aren't many popular core games also aimed at different audiences by allowing different play styles like stealth, driving and shoot everything?). The new games cover a substantial part of the gamer audience and a huge market that no other games cover. However I'd say the games were specifically designed for the new market audience so you can't say there wasn't an audience focus there. That they still appeal to many gamers is pretty much automatic, a good game is a good game and many gamers don't demand more than that so they'll enjoy a good new audience game just as much as a good gamer audience game. What you complain about is that no game specifically caters to your tastes but I have no idea what kind of game actually DOES. What kind of game would anyone have to make to actually satisfy you? And how much of his output would have to be focussed on you to make you happy? You whine that there are 4-5 non-core games on the Wii when Nintendo has put out at least twice as many core games, I don't think you'd stop whining if 2 out of 10 games were aimed at you and the other 8 were designed to not appeal to you at all.

If you want games for your niche you'll have to buy third party but you don't seem to be willing to do that.

THIS.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Mature platformer sounds like an oxymoron. A bloody, gritty realistic game about a guy jumping extremely high and squshing enemies underfoot? W. T. F.

Ah, my least favourite type of argument.  The "THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED ALL ALONG!"  The Wii ____ series is very much like Nintendo's "kiddie games" of the past in that they're technically inoffensive enough that everyone COULD like them.  But the same problem persists - those that want something more specifically tailored to their tastes find themselves disinterested.  I was open-minded enough to play Nintendo's cute "kiddie games" because I recognized that the gameplay was still fantastic.  But I could sympathize with those that were put off by the setting, and I noticed the games that didn't try so hard to be for "everyone" were personally more enjoyable for me - Goldeneye/Perfect Dark on the N64, Metroid Prime games on the Cube.  Non-games take it a step further and the actual GAMEPLAY is designed to be technically appealing to everyone.  For me that was what kept the so called "kiddie games" from being unplayable.  That was the one thing you could rely on with Nintendo games.

True variety doesn't mean "every game for everyone".  Nintendo has NEVER figured that out and if they wonder why "kiddie" has been replaced with "casual", that's why.  True variety means you have ten games aimed at five audiences and each of those games is very specifically tailored for the target audience so everyone gets two games they REALLY like.  Nintendo's method was and still is ten games for five audiences and they make all ten something that all the audiences COULD like but in the end the only one that is truly satisfied is the lowest common denominator.

What are your tastes in movies or music like?  Do you just listen to top 40 pop music and watch the big mainstream "number one movie in America!" films?  Or do you also have some specific tastes?  Some stuff that's more obscure that you don't expect everyone to like but you really like?  What do you find more rewarding: the mainstream pandering "everyone COULD like this" stuff or the more specific stuff that feels more like it was made for YOU?

Nintendo always makes the big for everyone stuff because they've got a system to carry and only so much manpower to do it. Realistically I'd say these games cover every audience to some degree but not 100% so their appeal is still much, MUCH greater than that of a game aimed at a single audience (and hell, aren't many popular core games also aimed at different audiences by allowing different play styles like stealth, driving and shoot everything?). The new games cover a substantial part of the gamer audience and a huge market that no other games cover. However I'd say the games were specifically designed for the new market audience so you can't say there wasn't an audience focus there. That they still appeal to many gamers is pretty much automatic, a good game is a good game and many gamers don't demand more than that so they'll enjoy a good new audience game just as much as a good gamer audience game. What you complain about is that no game specifically caters to your tastes but I have no idea what kind of game actually DOES. What kind of game would anyone have to make to actually satisfy you? And how much of his output would have to be focussed on you to make you happy? You whine that there are 4-5 non-core games on the Wii when Nintendo has put out at least twice as many core games, I don't think you'd stop whining if 2 out of 10 games were aimed at you and the other 8 were designed to not appeal to you at all.

If you want games for your niche you'll have to buy third party but you don't seem to be willing to do that.

THIS.

THIS.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Mature platformer sounds like an oxymoron. A bloody, gritty realistic game about a guy jumping extremely high and squshing enemies underfoot? W. T. F.

Ah, my least favourite type of argument.  The "THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED ALL ALONG!"  The Wii ____ series is very much like Nintendo's "kiddie games" of the past in that they're technically inoffensive enough that everyone COULD like them.  But the same problem persists - those that want something more specifically tailored to their tastes find themselves disinterested.  I was open-minded enough to play Nintendo's cute "kiddie games" because I recognized that the gameplay was still fantastic.  But I could sympathize with those that were put off by the setting, and I noticed the games that didn't try so hard to be for "everyone" were personally more enjoyable for me - Goldeneye/Perfect Dark on the N64, Metroid Prime games on the Cube.  Non-games take it a step further and the actual GAMEPLAY is designed to be technically appealing to everyone.  For me that was what kept the so called "kiddie games" from being unplayable.  That was the one thing you could rely on with Nintendo games.

True variety doesn't mean "every game for everyone".  Nintendo has NEVER figured that out and if they wonder why "kiddie" has been replaced with "casual", that's why.  True variety means you have ten games aimed at five audiences and each of those games is very specifically tailored for the target audience so everyone gets two games they REALLY like.  Nintendo's method was and still is ten games for five audiences and they make all ten something that all the audiences COULD like but in the end the only one that is truly satisfied is the lowest common denominator.

What are your tastes in movies or music like?  Do you just listen to top 40 pop music and watch the big mainstream "number one movie in America!" films?  Or do you also have some specific tastes?  Some stuff that's more obscure that you don't expect everyone to like but you really like?  What do you find more rewarding: the mainstream pandering "everyone COULD like this" stuff or the more specific stuff that feels more like it was made for YOU?

Nintendo always makes the big for everyone stuff because they've got a system to carry and only so much manpower to do it. Realistically I'd say these games cover every audience to some degree but not 100% so their appeal is still much, MUCH greater than that of a game aimed at a single audience (and hell, aren't many popular core games also aimed at different audiences by allowing different play styles like stealth, driving and shoot everything?). The new games cover a substantial part of the gamer audience and a huge market that no other games cover. However I'd say the games were specifically designed for the new market audience so you can't say there wasn't an audience focus there. That they still appeal to many gamers is pretty much automatic, a good game is a good game and many gamers don't demand more than that so they'll enjoy a good new audience game just as much as a good gamer audience game. What you complain about is that no game specifically caters to your tastes but I have no idea what kind of game actually DOES. What kind of game would anyone have to make to actually satisfy you? And how much of his output would have to be focussed on you to make you happy? You whine that there are 4-5 non-core games on the Wii when Nintendo has put out at least twice as many core games, I don't think you'd stop whining if 2 out of 10 games were aimed at you and the other 8 were designed to not appeal to you at all.

If you want games for your niche you'll have to buy third party but you don't seem to be willing to do that.

THIS.

THIS.

You want THAT, RIGHT?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Mature platformer sounds like an oxymoron. A bloody, gritty realistic game about a guy jumping extremely high and squshing enemies underfoot? W. T. F.

Ah, my least favourite type of argument.  The "THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED ALL ALONG!"  The Wii ____ series is very much like Nintendo's "kiddie games" of the past in that they're technically inoffensive enough that everyone COULD like them.  But the same problem persists - those that want something more specifically tailored to their tastes find themselves disinterested.  I was open-minded enough to play Nintendo's cute "kiddie games" because I recognized that the gameplay was still fantastic.  But I could sympathize with those that were put off by the setting, and I noticed the games that didn't try so hard to be for "everyone" were personally more enjoyable for me - Goldeneye/Perfect Dark on the N64, Metroid Prime games on the Cube.  Non-games take it a step further and the actual GAMEPLAY is designed to be technically appealing to everyone.  For me that was what kept the so called "kiddie games" from being unplayable.  That was the one thing you could rely on with Nintendo games.

True variety doesn't mean "every game for everyone".  Nintendo has NEVER figured that out and if they wonder why "kiddie" has been replaced with "casual", that's why.  True variety means you have ten games aimed at five audiences and each of those games is very specifically tailored for the target audience so everyone gets two games they REALLY like.  Nintendo's method was and still is ten games for five audiences and they make all ten something that all the audiences COULD like but in the end the only one that is truly satisfied is the lowest common denominator.

What are your tastes in movies or music like?  Do you just listen to top 40 pop music and watch the big mainstream "number one movie in America!" films?  Or do you also have some specific tastes?  Some stuff that's more obscure that you don't expect everyone to like but you really like?  What do you find more rewarding: the mainstream pandering "everyone COULD like this" stuff or the more specific stuff that feels more like it was made for YOU?

Nintendo always makes the big for everyone stuff because they've got a system to carry and only so much manpower to do it. Realistically I'd say these games cover every audience to some degree but not 100% so their appeal is still much, MUCH greater than that of a game aimed at a single audience (and hell, aren't many popular core games also aimed at different audiences by allowing different play styles like stealth, driving and shoot everything?). The new games cover a substantial part of the gamer audience and a huge market that no other games cover. However I'd say the games were specifically designed for the new market audience so you can't say there wasn't an audience focus there. That they still appeal to many gamers is pretty much automatic, a good game is a good game and many gamers don't demand more than that so they'll enjoy a good new audience game just as much as a good gamer audience game. What you complain about is that no game specifically caters to your tastes but I have no idea what kind of game actually DOES. What kind of game would anyone have to make to actually satisfy you? And how much of his output would have to be focussed on you to make you happy? You whine that there are 4-5 non-core games on the Wii when Nintendo has put out at least twice as many core games, I don't think you'd stop whining if 2 out of 10 games were aimed at you and the other 8 were designed to not appeal to you at all.

If you want games for your niche you'll have to buy third party but you don't seem to be willing to do that.

THIS.

THIS.

You want THAT, RIGHT?

YES, THAT.

[EasyCure]

I think he finally snapped...

[Ian Sane]

don't think that Stogi is advocating mature versions of those franchises, rather, think about what a completely new mature platformer would be like with tight controls and polish like the mario games, or the attention to detail and control of metroid, but a new mature FPS, or a game that feels like zelda, but has a decidedly mature setting.

I think with Metroid Prime and non-cel-shaded Zelda we already have a pretty mature setting for that style of gameplay.  But for a platformer, yeah, I think there's potential.  I think anyone thinking too literally about someone jumping around and squashing people is missing the point.  Since when does a platformer have to play exactly like Mario?  Isn't Prince of Persia pretty much a platformer?  Or at least it has enough platforming elements to give one an idea of what a non-cutesy platformer could be like.  And who says a platformer even has to have enemies at all?  What if there was a game where the main character was trapped in a canyon or something and had to ascend platforms to get to the top and get out?  No enemies.  No blood and guts.  No swearing.  No tits.  Just a guy trying to overcome an obstacle.

What you complain about is that no game specifically caters to your tastes but I have no idea what kind of game actually DOES. What kind of game would anyone have to make to actually satisfy you? And how much of his output would have to be focussed on you to make you happy?

Zelda caters to my tastes when it isn't a cartoon, and the gameplay still does even then.  Metroid caters to my taste.  Pretty much EVERY Rare game catered to my tastes back when they were with Nintendo.  F-Zero caters to my tastes.  Pikmin does since I don't see the visuals as aimed at children.  Nintendo has historically been VERY good at making games that feel catered to my tastes when they're not intentionally restricting the game for a lowest common denominator audience like kids or non-gamers.  But it's been OVER A YEAR since they released something like that.  SSB Brawl came out in March 2008 and it's now April 2009!

If you want games for your niche you'll have to buy third party but you don't seem to be willing to do that.

When third parties put their best titles on the Wii I'll buy them.  If the PS3 price ever comes down to something I see as reasonable I'll buy that and then I'll be buying third party.  It's not my fault third parties use the Wii as a dumping ground for their junk.

[Armak88]

Mature platformer sounds like an oxymoron. A bloody, gritty realistic game about a guy jumping extremely high and squshing enemies underfoot? W. T. F.

What if there were blood and gore every time he stomped? And what if the enemies didn't disappear once stomped, but later on you might come back to that area and the enemies would reanimate themselves as ghouls.

I think you're limiting yourself too much. At heart, Mirror's Edge is a mature platformer, it's just from the first person perspective. Think less guns and better 3rd person perspective controls. Hell, think prince of persia. The point is that if Nintendo tried their hand at these games, they could infuse them with the great gameplay they are known for, and provide more variety than their current line up. I wouldn't want to see Zelda any more mature than it is already, that's fine, but imagine a Fire Emblem game where you controlled one person like in Zelda. That could pull off a much more mature setting. It doesn't even have to be a FE game, I'm just putting it out there as an example. It would just be cool to see what Nintendo could do with it.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Majora's Mask and Metroid Primes are matoor platformers.

[ShyGuy]

Mirror's Edge is the new platformer. It's a brave new world.