Topic: Why New Super Mario Bros. 2 Cannot Rest on the Original's Laurels

[NWR_Neal]

J.P. - When NSMB games come out every year, then that point will hold a little more water. I get what you mean, though. I see NSMB as delicious comfort food. Madden and Call of Duty are like the cheap beer and potato chips of the gaming industry. NSMB is more like a delectable, sugary pack of cookies.

[NWR_insanolord]

... the New Super Mario Bros. games are like Madden.

 

If you'd actually read and thought about what I said instead of making your kneejerk sarcastic reaction, you'd see that, in terms of what I said, it's a good comparison. It breaks down in a few places, as Neal pointed out, but in those specific ways it holds true.

They're good games that play it maybe a bit too safe because their big sales success makes it risky/unnecessary to deviate too much. I'd love to see a reboot of Madden like the ones EA's done of NHL and FIFA that made them amazing, and I'd love to see a 2D Mario with the creativity and experimentation that we've seen in recent 3D Marios, but we're not going to get those when the current ones continue to perform as well as they do.

[Ian Sane]

I just came to an odd conclusion, and it's that the New Super Mario Bros. games are like Madden. They're good games, which I enjoy playing and continue to buy, but their massive success is causing the developers to play it a bit too safe and preventing them from giving the series the significant overhaul it really needs.

I think this applies to Nintendo as a whole.  They took a big risk with Wii Sports and the Wii in general but once it took off everything was safe.  Lost and lots of sequels and the whole Xenoblade fiasco where NOA didn't want to release it because it wasn't a sure-fire hit.  Aside from Wii Sports and Xenoblade I can't think of any first party Wii game released in North America where there wasn't some sort of established brand behind and thus a pre-existing audience expected to buy it.  Even something that underperformed like Wii Music wasn't really a big risk because it had that Wii Series name on it, already well established by Wii Sports.  Sin & Punishment 2 didn't do too well but the reason we got the game was because the original was surprisingly popular on the VC.  The game bombed but Nintendo thought there was an existing audience for it.  It wasn't a risky title in that they had to hope it would create an audience.  They assumed an audience was there and it just wasn't as they expected.

Everyone wants mainstream appeal.  Once a company has it, they want to keep it and they're incredibly scared of losing it so they become conservative.  That's NSMB and that's Nintendo.  They're playing to not lose.

[Luigi Dude]

I just came to an odd conclusion, and it's that the New Super Mario Bros. games are like Madden. They're good games, which I enjoy playing and continue to buy, but their massive success is causing the developers to play it a bit too safe and preventing them from giving the series the significant overhaul it really needs.

I think this applies to Nintendo as a whole.  They took a big risk with Wii Sports and the Wii in general but once it took off everything was safe.  Lost and lots of sequels and the whole Xenoblade fiasco where NOA didn't want to release it because it wasn't a sure-fire hit.  Aside from Wii Sports and Xenoblade I can't think of any first party Wii game released in North America where there wasn't some sort of established brand behind and thus a pre-existing audience expected to buy it.  Even something that underperformed like Wii Music wasn't really a big risk because it had that Wii Series name on it, already well established by Wii Sports.  Sin & Punishment 2 didn't do too well but the reason we got the game was because the original was surprisingly popular on the VC.  The game bombed but Nintendo thought there was an existing audience for it.  It wasn't a risky title in that they had to hope it would create an audience.  They assumed an audience was there and it just wasn't as they expected.

Everyone wants mainstream appeal.  Once a company has it, they want to keep it and they're incredibly scared of losing it so they become conservative.  That's NSMB and that's Nintendo.  They're playing to not lose.

This applies to most of the videogame industry as a whole though.  Nearly every videogame company when they get a popular franchise, they keep making sequels to it until the series dies then they move on.  The only thing that makes Nintendo different is a lot of Nintendo popular franchises have stayed popular over the last 20 years which is why they keep making sequels to them.  While most other companies see some of their more popular franchises eventually die on them, which leads them to make more major new IP's because they have to instead of Nintendo who invest more in smaller new IP's because their major series are still going strong.

What it all comes down to is Nintendo does a much better job of handling their IP's which is why they remain popular each gen vs most other studio's that kill their franchises.  In the case of NSMB, it's remained strong because Nintendo only released one per console and before this year spaced out the releases.  There was a 3.5 year gap between NSMB DS and NSMB Wii, and almost a 3 year gap between NSMB Wii and NSMB 2.  Now there will only be a 3 month gap between NSMB 2 and NSMB U, which is very close, but like I've said before, they'll be at least a 5 year gap between NSMB U and the next NSMB, so it'll balance out in the end since anyone that won't buy one of the NSMB this year will eventually buy the other a few years later.

[Chocobo_Rider]

NSMB : Madden :: Nerf Ball : Bullet

[NWR_Neal]

Madden doesn't kill people.

[Kairon]

NSMB : Madden :: Nerf Ball : Bullet

MarioParty : Madden :: Bullet : Bullet ?

[NWR_Neal]

I knew it! Mario Party IS Madden! Or is Madden a Bullet Bill? Mario Party is Banzai Bill? Is there a Bullet Bob?

[tendoboy1984]

For those of you who expect more from handheld Mario games...

Have you ever played any of the Mario Land games on the old Game Boy? Super Mario Land 1 is basically a dumbed-down version of Super Mario Bros., with shitty physics and even worse graphics. Super Mario Land 2 is like a weird hybrid of Super Mario World and Super Mario Bros. 3, with bizarre level designs.

And to be more specific:
Super Mario 3D Land is basically a dumbed-down version of Super Mario Galaxy, without the cool gravity effects and creative level design.

All of the handheld Mario games have paled in comparison to their console counterparts. The console games have bigger budgets and bigger development teams, so of course they seem more impressive. Just look at all the PSP versions of PS2 / PS3 games...


I rest my case.

[Kairon]

You take back what you said about Mario 3D Land you... you... You big meanie!

[Pixelated Pixies]

And to be more specific:
Super Mario 3D Land is basically a dumbed-down version of Super Mario Galaxy, without the cool gravity effects and creative level design.

I don't think I agree. Of course handheld games are less expansive and maybe a little less complicated, but that's because they should be. What I want from a handheld game is something which is snappy, easy to pick up and play, and which keeps in mind the control limitations of the system and is, therefore, designed around them.
 
For me Super Mario 3D Land was an almost perfect handheld Mario game. Does it share some DNA with the Galaxy games? Well, yes, at least aesthetically; but I certainly don't think of it as being dumbed down. I think the people behind 3D Land showed a great amount of intelligence. They managed to take the essentials of a 3D Mario game, marry it to some of the mechanics normally only seen in a 2D Mario game, and in the process created something which can fit comfortably into neither category. More important than any of that though, the game is packed with delicious little levels which are just as smart and fun as anything we've seen on a home console.

For me Super Mario 3D Land is as successful at being a handheld game as the Galaxy games are at being console games.

[tendoboy1984]

And to be more specific:
Super Mario 3D Land is basically a dumbed-down version of Super Mario Galaxy, without the cool gravity effects and creative level design.

I don't think I agree. Of course handheld games are less expansive and maybe a little less complicated, but that's because they should be. What I want from a handheld game is something which is snappy, easy to pick up and play, and which keeps in mind the control limitations of the system and is, therefore, designed around them.
 
For me Super Mario 3D Land was an almost perfect handheld Mario game. Does it share some DNA with the Galaxy games? Well, yes, at least aesthetically; but I certainly don't think of it as being dumbed down. I think the people behind 3D Land showed a great amount of intelligence. They managed to take the essentials of a 3D Mario game, marry it to some of the mechanics normally only seen in a 2D Mario game, and in the process created something which can fit comfortably into neither category. More important than any of that though, the game is packed with delicious little levels which are just as smart and fun as anything we've seen on a home console.

For me Super Mario 3D Land is as successful at being a handheld game as the Galaxy games are at being console games.

But why should Nintendo need to create two different gaming experiences on handhelds and consoles? Why not give handheld systems the same A-team efforts and budgets as console games? It seems handhelds are always treated like second-class citizens.

[Pixelated Pixies]

And to be more specific:
Super Mario 3D Land is basically a dumbed-down version of Super Mario Galaxy, without the cool gravity effects and creative level design.

I don't think I agree. Of course handheld games are less expansive and maybe a little less complicated, but that's because they should be. What I want from a handheld game is something which is snappy, easy to pick up and play, and which keeps in mind the control limitations of the system and is, therefore, designed around them.
 
For me Super Mario 3D Land was an almost perfect handheld Mario game. Does it share some DNA with the Galaxy games? Well, yes, at least aesthetically; but I certainly don't think of it as being dumbed down. I think the people behind 3D Land showed a great amount of intelligence. They managed to take the essentials of a 3D Mario game, marry it to some of the mechanics normally only seen in a 2D Mario game, and in the process created something which can fit comfortably into neither category. More important than any of that though, the game is packed with delicious little levels which are just as smart and fun as anything we've seen on a home console.

For me Super Mario 3D Land is as successful at being a handheld game as the Galaxy games are at being console games.

But why should Nintendo need to create two different gaming experiences on handhelds and consoles? Why not give handheld systems the same A-team efforts and budgets as console games? It seems handhelds are always treated like second-class citizens.

I don't think that handheld Mario games have been treated as being worth less than their console counter parts. I would agree that during the GBA era handheld Mario games lived in the shadows of the console games, but both before and after they did their own thing. I personally think the Gameboy Mario games are pretty cool, as they had their own weird twist on the NES games; and I also think that the DS game and 3D Land were fun.
 
For me, handheld Mario games have been defined by their systems rather than by any second-class treatment. I think they've been given the care and attention that they deserve. Money and resources is another matter, but care and attention is what they've had plenty of.

[NWR_insanolord]

Super Mario 3D Land is the best game in the series, so if anything the console games need to receive the same level of effort as the handheld ones.

[NWR_Neal]

Wasn't 3D Land made by the Galaxy team?

[NWR_insanolord]

Yes. When you think about it, every EAD Tokyo game has been better than the previous one.

[NWR_Neal]

Then it's not the Sony issue of B-teams being on the handhelds.

I think the only original game where you could consider that is NSMB2 (which isn't to its detriment, in my eyes). The Super Mario Land series dealt with heavy limitations but it wasn't by the B-teams. Unless you consider senior developers from Metroid and Kid Icarus as the B-team, in which case, you crazy.

[NWR_insanolord]

They may have been good developers, but they were also guys who had no experience with Mario or anything like it, so calling them the B team isn't entirely unfair.

[NWR_Neal]

So what about New Super Mario Bros.? It was directed by a guy who assistant directed Sunshine and worked on a bunch of the GBA ports. And, as previously said, 3D Land was by EAD Tokyo, who made both Galaxy games!

I'm just finding this PSP/Vita comparison absurd. When I see Naughty Dog make Uncharted Vita, then people can think of making that comparison. Especially now, the line between handheld and home console is blurred. I mean, look at Uprising.

[tendoboy1984]

So what about New Super Mario Bros.? It was directed by a guy who assistant directed Sunshine and worked on a bunch of the GBA ports. And, as previously said, 3D Land was by EAD Tokyo, who made both Galaxy games!

I'm just finding this PSP/Vita comparison absurd. When I see Naughty Dog make Uncharted Vita, then people can think of making that comparison. Especially now, the line between handheld and home console is blurred. I mean, look at Uprising.

Graphically, handhelds are quickly cathing up to consoles, but the gameplay aspects are still a bit outdated compared to what's on the PS3 and Xbox 360.


Sony is trying [desperately] to further bring handheld and home console games together. They have good incentives, but Vita sales prove that no one really cares.