CoD vs. Mario
- Thread starter Jakub324
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I hate to break it to you, but EVERY spinoff has been incredibly generic. You know what happened? Nintendo went and said "Hey, you know what would be a great game? A racing game. BUT WITH MARIO."Hobonicus said:
Lots of "oooh's" and "aaah's" were had.
And then, "Hey, you know what would ALSO make a great game? A board game. BUT WITH MARIO."
Ad infinitum. It's been the same "slap generic Mario template onto item x" since.
Not saying they aren't fun; they're a good time, most of the time. But I hate it when people claim it's the pinnacle of innovation every time the fat red plumber is in a new game.
This is all, of course, excluding gems like Mario Galaxy.
(Not Paper Mario, though.)
Two different studios develop CoD titles. After infinity ward made CoD 2 activision decided they really really liked money. So they brought in this other studio Treyarch figuring that even though its different devs if they churned out something it would sell on name recognition.Tsukuyomi said:
So then Treyarch makes CoD3, while IW makes CoD4:MW. After this Treyarch sets out to make World at War, while IW makes MW2. Treyarch starts on Black Ops, IW starts on MW3.
The pattern is pretty much IW >> Good, Treyarch >> Bad.
The general opinion is shite and a result of nobody seeming to understand the nature of the series. Although in a way they are right, acti bringing in another studio to work independently on the series just to double the number of titles is a naked cash grab, its totally a case of a company turning an iconic series into a cash cow in a soulless way. But if you limit it to just IW titles I haven't really heard anyone claim a decline until MW2, most of the bad titles were Treyarch.
IW got raped staffwise, so activision may have very well killed the golden goose for a quick snack by not paying those bonuses a few years ago. MW3 has those two extra studios working on it to help shore up IW's staff. Time will tell if they improve or wreck it.
It's not. Or at least, it isn't for at least 70% of the people on the Escapist that I've seen posting. Apparently going with a working formula is blasphemy, until someone deviates from the norm then it's "ruined forever."Jakub324 said:
Or it's just a convenient excuse to continue hating on Nintendo. Apparently if it's not a gritty first person/third person shooter, it's crap.
Even if I don't like sunshine I think we'd all rather Nintendo kept pushing and trying instead of new new supermariobros 3, regardless of whether I'd enjoy the clone more. Why? Since they hit the nail sometimes, and make mario galaxy.SixWingedAsura said:
inb4 sunshine was great, whatever, your opinion, doesn't touch my point.
1.) I liked Mario Sunshine.Baneat said:
2.) I agree that I'd rather them make something at least a little different from Mario Bros. 3, but there are a lot of games out nowadays that don't receive as much flak for being the same. Halo anyone? The only reason Nintendo haters can even use such an argument is because Nintendo's been around longer. No one throws a hissy fit that Final Fantasy hasn't changed much for 10 installments! (11's battle system blew, 12 is an MMO and it blew IMHO and 13...well, everyone has their own opinions about that, but I've heard a lot of flak for that too).
All I'm trying to say is that you can't throw a fit about Nintendo making similar games when both PS3 and Xbox have their own Zelda, Marios and Kirbys.
I guess I gotta really disagree with you there. If a franchise has clearly defined mechanics and style unique to it, then it isn't generic basically by definition._core said:
Mario Kart might just be racing with Mario (along with clever maps, powerups, other game types, strong sense of style, etc) but it's almost completely unique to the genre. You can distill any game back to it's base genre, removing all extra mechanics and stylistic additions and claim that it's "just another racing game" but that's such a ridiculously broad perspective and makes any sort of debate pointless.
And I've yet to see a game like Mario Party. Again, I don't get how you can strip away and ignore everything about it just to call it generic at it's core.
The Mario spinoffs are rarely, if ever, innovative in the sense that they rally the genre to move forward, but they certainly do streamlining perfectly which itself is a form of innovation. Nintendo certainly does like it's main franchises, but any "template" they use to make a game was built by one of their own teams, not simply copied in a "Like God of War but-" sort of way. Mario games never just take mechanics used by other games and slap the name Mario onto it. Sure, the sequels to those games may use similar templates as the first, but the franchise still remains unique.
You're right, neither CoD or Mario are very good. Both franchises are very stale and mainly rely on the success of the previous instalments as they copy the formula over and over, the difference being that Mario pulls on some nostalgia strings. And no, that's not a good thing, it's a pathetic excuse for Nintendo games to get a free pass on these things.
Mario changes. Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario bros. 3 are quite different.
Mario Galaxy is a lot more different then Super Mario Bros.
Mario Kart's different.
Paper Mario's different.
Mario changes a lot, sure there's deffinately games that look and feel like the old ones, but they're still changed.
And anyways, since when doesn't Mario take flak for being the same? I've heard plenty of people moan and whine that Mario never changes and that Nintendo just keeps releasing the same game.
Mario Galaxy is a lot more different then Super Mario Bros.
Mario Kart's different.
Paper Mario's different.
Mario changes a lot, sure there's deffinately games that look and feel like the old ones, but they're still changed.
And anyways, since when doesn't Mario take flak for being the same? I've heard plenty of people moan and whine that Mario never changes and that Nintendo just keeps releasing the same game.
I do. I love campaigns. They are my fist stop most of the time. I'll likely not even touch multiplayer until I have the single player in the bag. That's my structure, my routine.
Also I have this terrible paranoia (and intellectually I know it is unlikely) that some cherub faced little fuck stick will just have emerged from the end credits of the single player and proclaim for all the world to know "wasn't it unexpected when character X betrays *Protagonist here* after the riot instance at the end that the bumbling sidekick numbero uno instigated in favor of picking up the bill..?
or something to that effect. Just for the sake of saying something and spoiling the story for me. I will not have it sir. Long live single player!!!
Also I have this terrible paranoia (and intellectually I know it is unlikely) that some cherub faced little fuck stick will just have emerged from the end credits of the single player and proclaim for all the world to know "wasn't it unexpected when character X betrays *Protagonist here* after the riot instance at the end that the bumbling sidekick numbero uno instigated in favor of picking up the bill..?
or something to that effect. Just for the sake of saying something and spoiling the story for me. I will not have it sir. Long live single player!!!