Topic: Is the Wii becoming over-saturated with Mario games?

[Chozo Ghost]

I never bothered with Link's crossbow training because I'm not interested in the zapper AT ALL. Using the Wiimote/chuck on their own works just fine for a gun, and if I really need a gun I have my third party true shot thing which is actually shaped like a gun instead of some ab-flex or god knows what...

But I think Ian might have been referring to the handheld Zelda games such as Spirit Tracks. Unlike Crossbow Training this is actually a real game of sorts, but I for one am not interested in it at all because it seemed stupid to me. Zelda is popular and cool these days, so Nintendo is pushing the franchise a lot harder than it has since its early years. This is both good and bad. Its good because we're getting at least two quality Zelda games per generation, but its bad because we're also getting crap like crossbow training and spirit tracks.

And for what its worth, Spirit Tracks really might be a cool game and all, but I'm just not interested in it for several reasons:

1) It revolves around Trains, which I think is stupid in the Zelda universe.

2) I am far more interested in the upcoming Zelda for the Wii, so these handheld side-quests don't really interest me at all. They are on a tiny screen with inferior graphics and I dunno...

3) I dunno, I guess that's it...

I would be a lot more receptive to Zelda games if there had been a long drought, but we've been seeing a lot of it this gen so when that happens you kinda start taking franchises for granted and like Ian said you don't really get excited about it as much.

See, its just like what happened to the Star Trek franchise. There were too many Star Trek series, so people just lost interest in it and when Enterprise came out people didn't really give a **** so that series ended up being canceled back in 2005 after only 2-3 seasons instead of the 7 seasons star trek series typically get. But then between 2005 and 2009 we didn't have anything new in the way of Star Trek, so when that movie came out in summer 2009 it was a huge deal and did very well. Would the movie have done as well if it came out in 2005 when everyone was burned out on the franchise? I really doubt it.

So Mario (and Zelda and so forth) are in danger of facing the same sort of crisis that plagued Star Trek. Nintendo needs to give them a rest and put them on hiatus for awhile and develop new I.P.s in the meantime. Then after a few years they can dust them off, and put out something that is new and won't be taken for granted the way SMG2 probably will be on release.

[Ian Sane]

Also, you skipped Zelda games? WTF would you do that?

I skipped Crossbow Training because it doesn't interest me and is not really a Zelda game at all and Spirit Tracks because I felt that Phantom Hourglass controlled like **** and thus was not in the mood to struggle with forced touchscreen controls.  Spirit Tracks is a quality issue though.  Being a real Zelda game I would have otherwise snatched it up immediately.  Crossbow Training is more related to the overexposure issue.  It's an unessential Zelda title.
 
Nintendo usually makes quality games so the quality of Mario spin-offs does remain high.  But we have had games like Mario Pinball Land which is widely considered to be junk.  We've had games like Super Sluggers that got criticism for being a gloried port of the Gamecube game.  Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games was financially successful but got pretty "meh" reviews.  If you go on GameRankings you'll see Mario games that have an average rating of less than 70%.  That's TERRIBLE.  Thankfully those aren't as common as the Mario games that get really great reviews but, seriously, there should not be ANY lousy Mario games and there are.  Considering Nintendo can always get at least one Mario game out a year they should never resort to releasing anything subpar.

[Peachylala]

2) I am far more interested in the upcoming Zelda for the Wii, so these handheld side-quests don't really interest me at all. They are on a tiny screen with inferior graphics and I dunno...

Zelda: Spirit Tracks had more charm then Twilight Princess. >=[

[ThePerm]

so Ian, if you had one gold nugget would it be worth more than a gold nugget with a silver nugget? What if there were 3 gold nuggets, 3 silver nuggets, and a couple of brass nuggets? Would that be worth more ore less than just the gold nugget by itself. Dopes having the extra nuggets lower the value of the gold nugget. Does having more than one nugget of gold make each gold nugget quantifiable worth less?

perception

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"I love Mario.  I stuffed him and put him next to the stairs."

[ThePerm]

holy crap animal crossing movie!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AmAX0L2m2M

[ThomasO]

I've had that movie on DVD for the past 2 years. It's an ok movie.

[Ian Sane]

so Ian, if you had one gold nugget would it be worth more than a gold nugget with a silver nugget? What if there were 3 gold nuggets, 3 silver nuggets, and a couple of brass nuggets? Would that be worth more ore less than just the gold nugget by itself. Dopes having the extra nuggets lower the value of the gold nugget. Does having more than one nugget of gold make each gold nugget quantifiable worth less?

I see it more like making an impression on someone.  Meeting someone five times and making a great impression each time is more valuable than meeting them 20 times and in between those five great impressions, you sometimes make an okay impression and sometimes make an outright poor one.  I think it's in Nintendo's best interest that Mario be associated with high quality.  This will allow the Mario brand to remain a popular seller for a longer period of time.  To do so Nintendo has to be somewhat selective in regards to what Mario games are made.
 
I consider prestige and reputation to be important selling points here.  Mario cannot maintain that prestige and reputation with average titles being cranked out in between the classics.
 
Plus Nintendo can divert the resources used in making unessential Mario titles to developing new IP that has the potential to become another big money-making franchise for Nintendo.  I understand there's a risk in that but it's an essential one for maintaining longterm success.

[Plugabugz]

Is Mario over saturated? No.

Is Mario over-saturated at the expense of other IP's, both existing and undeveloped? YES.

[Chozo Ghost]

so Ian, if you had one gold nugget would it be worth more than a gold nugget with a silver nugget? What if there were 3 gold nuggets, 3 silver nuggets, and a couple of brass nuggets? Would that be worth more ore less than just the gold nugget by itself. Dopes having the extra nuggets lower the value of the gold nugget. Does having more than one nugget of gold make each gold nugget quantifiable worth less?

perception

Actually, yes. Have you ever heard of inflation? A dollar bill is worth so much, but then when the government prints too much dollars it dilutes its value and that's why stuff seems to cost more and more every year. Decades ago you could buy everything really cheap, but its not really that stuff was cheaper then its just that money had more value in those days.

And gold is kinda the same way. Gold is valuable because it is scarce. Are rocks valuable? No, because rocks are abundant. But if Gold suddenly became very abundant it would not be worth as much. This sort of thing actually happened in events like the Gold Rush and when Spain took over the Aztec/Inca gold. Those events increased the supply of precious metals, and as a result they became a bit less precious.

So does having two gold nuggets make the first nugget less valuable? Yes, actually it does... and then if you have 100 million gold nuggets then it will REALLY make it less valuable.

And franchises probably work the same way. They can experience "inflation" with the more titles that are released.

[ThePerm]

its a matter of perception,

its still the same gold and silver nuggets, its just how you perceive it. Gold is for the most part a useless metal, its soft so it doesn't have many applications other than jewelry. It has been found to be a good conductor for computer chips, but because its rarity it has been so used in jewelry its too expensive to really use.

I don't judge franchises on a whole, i judge game by game. It's like racism.

[Ian Sane]

I think our finite amount of time and money to enjoy games also contributes to why overexposure is a bad thing.  I think we all can agree that too many Guitar Hero games have been released.  Do you know what really makes me disinterested in them?  It's simply the fact that because they come out so frequently I don't have the time to fully enjoy them.  One game comes out while I'm still getting mileage out of the other one.  It becomes apparent I'll have to skip one or, if I want to play all of them, put off getting the next one until I'm done with the one I'm on.  But if the rate is too frequent then I never catch up and the whole thing becomes intimidating and a big chore.

That creates indifference.  Now I have to rationalize which games to skip and which to not.  Now that I realistically can't experience all of the games I can't be fully into the franchise.  Or if I do play them all I may only be able to sample them.  Most of us won't have the time to be engrossed in every detail of a franchise unless it has some sort of space between releases.  I think it would be difficult to know every Mario game inside and out now.  That is a discouragement from being a fan.  Remember when Metroid was only a trilogy?  Yeah, you could be a real fan of those games back then and be totally engrossed in all three.

I like Chozo's example of videogame inflation.  That's a great analogy.

[ThePerm]

those are casual games though

[mac<censored>]

One game comes out while I'm still getting mileage out of the other one.  It becomes apparent I'll have to skip one or, if I want to play all of them, put off getting the next one until I'm done with the one I'm on.  But if the rate is too frequent then I never catch up and the whole thing becomes intimidating and a big chore.

Ok, so that's the obsessive point of view.

I think Nintendo's more concerned with what the average person thinks, though.

[Mop it up]

We've had games like Super Sluggers that got criticism for being a gloried port of the Gamecube game. If you go on GameRankings you'll see Mario games that have an average rating of less than 70%.  That's TERRIBLE.

That's a problem with reviews, many reviews dock points from a game for having similarities or being a port. In the case of Mario Super Sluggers though, it has all new content except for including the same character roster as the first game. If it is a port, then so is Mario Kart Wii.

Since when does 70% (or 7/10) equal a terrible game? It is pretty sad that we've gotten to a point where "hardcore" gamers are so stuck-up that they consider a 7/10 to be a terrible game. My goodness, I don't even want to know what they must think of games that get 6/10 or less. These review scores don't really matter when we're talking about what the general public thinks of Mario games and how much they enjoy them.

On Amazon, Mario Super Sluggers has a customer review score of 4 1/2 out of 5 stars, based on 64 reviews. 45 people gave it 5 stars and 12 people gave it 4 stars, leaving only 6 people who gave it 3 stars or less. Based on this, the game scores 90%, or 9/10. Is it a good game? Most who buy it seem to think so.

Now Amazon reviews for Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. This one has a 4-star rank, from 206 people. 96 gave 5 stars and 52 gave 4 stars. That may not be as high as some games, but that's still 80%, or 8/10. Still sounds like a good game to me.

These customer review scores mean much more than professional review scores. These aren't people who are being paid to play a game and view it through a critical eye, they purchased these games with their own money and use their own free time to play them (plus volunteered a rating for Amazon). This shows that the people who are buying these games enjoy them and view them as quality, despite what any self-righteous reviewer thinks. I don't think customers really care about the average review scores for these games, all they care about is Mario games delivering what they promise. By the look of these reviews, Mario games are meeting the satisfaction of consumers.

[Ymeegod]

"These customer review scores mean much more than professional review scores"

Actually I disagree with that statement.  Have you read some of these reviews?  Most people throw up their thoughts by playing the game a couple of hours and not on the whole product.  Some don't even play them, parents mostly.   

And it's depending on who's scoring system you're going by.  5.0 isn't average, most games get above this so it's not an average to go by.  What a 5.0 game means is the game is functional, meaning it'll play without crashing.  6.5-7.0 is an passable grade but that's a D though C- game.  Which means it gets by but chances are there are better games in the genre. 

[TJ Spyke]

7 means the game isn't great, but it's good and more than worth playing. 5 doesn't mean the game is terrible, just sorta mediocre (meaning you may not love it, but you probably won't hate it). 7/10 means the game is good. I feel sorry for idiots who think a game isn't worth playing if it gets less than a 9/10.

[Mop it up]

Actually I disagree with that statement.  Have you read some of these reviews?  Most people throw up their thoughts by playing the game a couple of hours and not on the whole product.  Some don't even play them, parents mostly. 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Consumer reviews have a higher chance of being from a game's target audience, reviewers get paid to play games and must do so within a certain time frame so they aren't the best judge for many game types, especially Wii games.

Review scores are completely subjective so I don't take any score or average of scores to automatically mean that a game is good/bad. I've enjoyed many games that scored 7/10 and below, and I've disliked many games that scored 8/10 and above, so scores are pretty meaningless to me.

[Stogi]

Dude I hate how Nintendo keeps making these bullshit games then slapping Mario on the front of it. It's not fair. If Mario was a real person he would claim that he's been abused.

Worst of all, I don't think Nintendo gets it. Just cuz people buy these games doesn't make them good. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the only reason people buy those games is because third parties make even worse ones.

Nintendos sitting on a cushion. If only some third parties would show them how its done, then I wouldn't have to buy all this drivel.

[Armak88]

7 means the game isn't great, but it's good and more than worth playing. 5 doesn't mean the game is terrible, just sorta mediocre (meaning you may not love it, but you probably won't hate it). 7/10 means the game is good. I feel sorry for idiots who think a game isn't worth playing if it gets less than a 9/10.

I don't know if people really think this way about all games. The context is important. For instance, as a Canadian I expected the Canadian hockey team to win gold at the olympics. Hockey is our sport, and more than half of the players in the NHL are Canadian, I expect that if the Canadian team puts forth a good effort then they will win gold. In this case anything less is disappointing, not living up to their potential. If a new mario game comes out (I'm talking platformer here), I expect the game to get over 9, or at least 8.5, because that is the standard that they have set. Were the game to score lower than that I would wonder what happened. Fortunately I'm patient enough to read the review to find out why the reviewer gave it the score they did, and I don't think that most people do that so the two options they have are to claim the game is crap or the reviewer is crap.

Mostly though, my point is that AAA titles from heavy hitter developers are striving for high review scores and I think that when they don't meet those expectations is when you see all of these old conflicts come out of the wood work. If No More Heroes (for example) scores a 7 on the other hand, it's not that big a deal, people will like it anyways and there won't be a reviewer roast.

[Ian Sane]

Since when does 70% (or 7/10) equal a terrible game?

I didn't say 70%, I said LESS THAN 70%.  You get 69% on a test do your parents hang it on the refridgerator?  In the real world 50% is not average, 50% is ****.  50% in school doesn't get you into college.  50% win-loss record doesn't win you the championship.  If you opperated your job at a 50% level of efficiency you would get fucking CANNED.  It makes no sense why anyone says that a 50% is average.
 
And I agree with Armak in that more is expected of Mario.  Mario games should not be getting anything under 80% let alone 70%.  And I put more clout in professional reviews than cosumer reviews for one simple reason: consumers don't necessarily have any context.  The first game you ever played, at one point was the BEST game you ever played.  A professional reviewer can compare the game to other games in the series, other games in the genre, other games by the same company, and other games on the same system.  This gives one a better picture of whether a game is exceptional or not.  And games are expensive and I only have so much free time so exceptional games are the only ones I will ever pay any attention to.  Life's too short for okay games.
 
Knowing that a game is a port or is too similar to a previous game is important to know if you already have that game.  Again, that's context.

[vudu]

It makes no sense why anyone says that a 50% is average.

Flip a coin 100 times.  The law of averages dictates that approximately 50% of the time it will land heads side up.

[vudu]

Actually, yes. Have you ever heard of inflation? A dollar bill is worth so much, but then when the government prints too much dollars it dilutes its value and that's why stuff seems to cost more and more every year. Decades ago you could buy everything really cheap, but its not really that stuff was cheaper then its just that money had more value in those days.

And gold is kinda the same way. Gold is valuable because it is scarce. Are rocks valuable? No, because rocks are abundant. But if Gold suddenly became very abundant it would not be worth as much. This sort of thing actually happened in events like the Gold Rush and when Spain took over the Aztec/Inca gold. Those events increased the supply of precious metals, and as a result they became a bit less precious.

So does having two gold nuggets make the first nugget less valuable? Yes, actually it does... and then if you have 100 million gold nuggets then it will REALLY make it less valuable.

And franchises probably work the same way. They can experience "inflation" with the more titles that are released.

Having two gold nuggets might make the first slightly less valuable, but in no way, shape or form will you be worse off by having two.  If a gold nugget is worth $100 and suddenly you find a second which makes them each worth $95 you'd be better off with both (worth $190) than you were before.

[ThePerm]

Vudu summed it up pretty well The law of deflation/inflation is meaningless when you account for the law of dissemination. Bill Gates may be the richest man in the world(i don't know if he currently is or not), but just because of inflation doesn't mean he's going to give away all of his riches. He's still better off than all of us.

 Because Mario Galaxy is one of the highest rated games of all time one could say that a large number C level game spinoffs could be approved. Thinking about actual Mario spinoff releases though, i find there to be less off the top of my head than were on gamecube. The Mario party series has ground to a halt after 8, there are two sports games each usually with a B+ rating (baseball,soccer), Mario Kart is an beloved series in its own right (also, fairly well reviewed), Super Paper Mario is a mixed review, and New Super Mario Wii is something most people liked. If anything the Mario party games were dragging down the brand, but there hasn't been a new one since 07.

as far as Zelda goes, i tend to seperate hand held and console offers completely. There have been 2 Zelda games on DS, neither were terrible, maybe mediocre, possibly great depending on opinion. Twilight Princess is either appreciated for its fan service or just plain meat, or despised because of its all too-familiarity. Crossbow challenge is more like some sugar to go with your kool-aid. Its  not meant to be a be-all end all Zelda game just something to do with your gun. If it didn't have the Zelda theme we wouldn't be talking about it, but if it didn't have a Zelda theme it wouldn't be developed at all because they were just recycling assets for a low budget bargain pack-in.  Nintendo should develop some new IPs, but that i easier said than done. For Nintendo developing a new Ip is more than just putting new characters in a game type, its developing a new genre. Each game EAD makes though, they do little experiments, which is see as testing the waters.

[Mop it up]

I don't feel as if videogames should be held to the same standards and expectations as school or work. Videogames aren't people. 50 is the average of 100, it makes no sense to me that anyone wants to claim some other arbitrary number as being average.

Mario platformers both 2D and 3D don't score lower than 80%, rarely lower than 90%, actually. Even with the "laziness" controversy of New Super Mario Brothers Wii, IGN still gave it an 8.9. So I don't think you really have to worry about their quality or image being diluted.

People have different expectations for the Mario spin-off games. They are simple pick-up-and-play games that often offer a twist on a genre, such as Mario Kart. Since these games are designed to be simple, they may not review very well if they are being compared to other, more robust and feature-full games, as they have intentionally low depth. As far as I'm concerned the games deliver what they promise and do so exceptionally well, reviewers who gave them low scores wanted them to become something that they aren't.

That's my problem with many reviews today. Most of them seem aimed at the "hardcore" audience and are largely useless to the average consumer, which I'd say is at least 95% of the Wii userbase. Reviewers don't judge a game based on its own merits and instead feel the need to compare it to every game under the sun, even games on other systems. If that's what you want in a review then that's fine, you have your tastes. I, myself, find little relevance with such comparisons.