IGN: Mario Kirby and Donkey Kong haven't evolved since the SNES.

I've noticed that in some cases, people look for innovation at the expense of fun. Mario hasn't really evolved much, yes, but the games are so amazingly fun that its a moot point anyway. The same can be said for Kirby and Donkey Kong. Just because a game is innovative and uses a new gameplay paradigm does not mean that it is automatically good and just because a game uses an old fashioned gameplay paradigm does not automatically mean that its outdated or bad because of it.

Let me ask you this question: What is the point of buying a game if it is almost exactly like it's predessesor? Isn't that what people hate on COD for? Especially people on this site.

So what valid reasoning do you have for saying Mario can be rehashed but other games can't? By your definition we could just say any rehashed game is good because it sticks to the original formula.

According to this definition it just depends on what you feel is more fun, which is entire subjective and not concrete.

I won't say Mario games are all rehashes, since many of them do bring something new to the table for those who pay close attention.

But what makes Mario different to COD is that it's refreshing in today's industry. Tell me, how many bring side scrollers do we have every few years? Now how many gun-filled FP Ses do we have every few years that isn't Bio Shock?

Meanwhile, Sonic fans endlessly complain that Sonic 4's physics engine isn't copypasted from Sonic 2...

Co D changes nothing beyond balance and maps though every year, and the core gameplay wasn't good in the first place, and the genre is super saturated even for fans of it. Most of the memorable expansion packs (Night of the Raven, Bloodmoon, Mask of the Betrayer, FES) would be offended to be compared to the Co D sequels.

Even the most similar pair of Mario games in recent years (Galaxy to Galaxy 2) added a lot of features (Yoshi, new powerups, Luigi play during the actual game, fixed MP to not be completely useless), and had creative new map designs, plus were 3 years apart instead of 1.

edited 13th Aug '11 8:01:59 PM by deuxhero

@Proffessor: Because Mario doesn't attract a certain unsavory type of player.

@52: Nobody said Mario can be rehashed, but others can't. I don't think rehashes for anything is a good idea outside of re-introducing the game so they can make more sequels. That's a good idea, since it helps get them back into it.

@51: This, very much this. This is my problem with a lot of Wii games. The innovation isn't fun at all. Look at Sonic And The Secret Rings. Yeah, they used an innovative style, but the gameplay suffered heavily from it. It was completely on rails, and you could barely control anything.

New Super Mario Bros Wii added new items, but one thing to note is that the Wii Remote was completely unnecessarry to the game whatsoever. Shaking to use an item? Just assign a button to it. It was just a waste of batteries for the gameplay. Same with the two Zelda DS games. While the Stylus was great for items, it was beyond terrible for moving around. They had to literally dumb the game down so you could actually beat it.

This is very bad. If you have to make the game easier so "special controls" can work, then there's a problem in general. Twilight Princess' Wii version still allowed you to move around like normal. Yeah, the game was easy, but it wasn't hard to control at times. Albeit, it wasn't perfect, and the Wii Remote Plus helped, but you could move around Link with a Control Stick. This is the formula that works. Trying to evolve the game isn't always a good thing.

To clarify, Zelda doesn't need to evolve with control schemes, it needs to evolve with a new style of story(and not re-use the ALTTP formula over and over again). TP actually came close in some ways, as it tried something new. Unfortunately, throwing in Ganon made it fall flat on its face. I must ask one thing: What did TP have to do with the Triforce? Was it ever important to the game?

edited 13th Aug '11 8:01:59 PM by Hydronix

1. 1. I do not like COD and I am not vouching for it. I'm pointing out that Mario is no better than COD if it never brings innovation.

Now here is a VERY important difference between innovation and tacked on gimmicks.

Innovation makes tiny changes to the core gameplay of a game, making it the sequels better than the originals.

Notable Examples: Super Smash Bros->Super Smash Bros Melee, Battlefield 1942-> Battlefield 2, Uncharted-> Uncharted 2, Infamous-> Infamous 2.

If the new things are just new maps or gimmicks like motion controls, it's not really innovation.

Just a rehash.

That's an important distinction when discussing these topics.

There were plenty of mechanics that wouldn't have been possible without the remote in New Super Mario Bros Wii. In fact learning the difference between a shake and a tilt became pretty crucial to not dieing. Not assigning it to a button didn't really matter, does motion sensitivity really waste more battery than button pushing? It's not as if the spin jump was any less responsive than Super Mario World and don't say otherwise, I played the two back to back. The innovation wasn't the shake to spin jump, it was the stage elements that couldn't be done on previous consoles and the multiplayer.

And plots are nice but if they aren't bringing interesting game play developments along with them what's the point, I could read a script.

The only real important thing regarding the Triforce in Twilight Princess was that it allowed Link to become a Wolf in the Twilight Zone rather than a Spirit, allowed Midna to live in the World of Light and Zant's powers came him the Triforce of Power, since Ganon is the source.

Admitedly, Ganon's presence didn't surprised me at all; on an old EGM Mexico interview (when the game didn't had the subtitle yet) Aonuma, without hiding it, said that Ganon was coming back. So yeah.

And I preffer Bunny Link over Wolf Link, but eh.

Thank you for answering that. As for wasting batteries, it is when a Gamecube Controller(wired) does the same job just as well. Which it wouldn't of in this case, of course.

So it really is more a quick excuse for a gimmick to work. Ganondorf was not needed, then.

Okay, but the question is: Why does Mario need more innovation in general? It's mostly rehash after rehash at times. Or atleast the sequels seem to have that problem these days.(as in many different series, not Mario so much)

And that's mostly what I mean, I'm not interested in the same gimmicks. I want something new more often. May I note how often they rehash Street Fighter? This is the type of thing that's a problem.

Ganondorf is the big constant in Lo Z games after he appears. As long as he tries a new scheme each time he doesn't subtract from the experience at all.

Might as well say we need a new protagonist other than Link or a Zelda that isn't the princess of some Hyrule.

I wouldn't mind variation on Link (female?), as long the outfit and mute stats stay.

Good thing the Zelda in Skyward Sword isn't the princess of some Hyrule then!

Something tells me that's as true as the Wii U being tailor made for U...

Correction, Recon 5, Ganondorf is only a Big Bad where the Triforce is concerned. The thing is, the Triforce was barely important to TP as a whole. Which means he really was barely needed. To say the least, there's no reason Zant couldn't have gotten his powers from somewhere else. It was purely a convenient was of shoehorning Ganondorf into the storyline, nothing more.

I think nintendo has the creative talent to make new refreshing I Ps instead of endlessly reusing Mario and others.

We need more Pikmins

They're coming out with a 3rd, but I thought you just said you didn't want too many sequels? *

You honestly have to ask yourself what you think the public reaction will be if they announce that they're dropping one of their main pillars for a new IP, even temporarily (since most of their top talent is working on those franchises). Operation Rainfall will be a tiny speck in comparison.

edited 13th Aug '11 11:19:07 PM by Recon5

Why would they drop an old IP to make room for a new one? He didn't say that.

Thorn 14 means they need to work on new IP's a bit more, not to drop old ones.

There's tons of choices, and Pikmin is already a great one.

I think Mario can survive a year off.

I think Miyomoto can do so much more instead of just "Mario Kart with more stuff" and "Mario 64 In Space" or "Normal Mario with more stuff"

This.

edited 13th Aug '11 11:26:29 PM by Thorn14

I think what Thorn meant by more Pikmins was "more new I Ps".

Yeah, thank you IGN I haven't noticed in 17 years.

I'm a bit late, but...

This makes it sound more like innovation = games you like getting sequels, while tacked on gimmicks = games you don't like getting sequels.