Oh boy, hope we won't have to type 10 posts each only to conclude that we're pretty much on the same page this time, charlequin :lol.
charlequin said:
I don't see how that's a contradiction, though. You're talking about decisions made by different people at different times, in different contexts. There are basically two distinct periods of how Nintendo treated "Super Mario" as a franchise:
June 24, 1996 - May 14, 2006: Mario brand is underutilized, misapplied, and generally treated like crap
May 15, 2006 - present: Mario brand is leveraged around its core competencies in multiple subgenres via tentpole releases on both of Nintendo's currently supported systems
(I look forward to the day when I can stop the first category and start the second for the Zelda brand. :lol )
Nothing to add here, except the end: I'm looking forward to it too!
These two periods also closely correlate with something else: the period where Nintendo was squandering and misusing their own brand (by associating it with the problematic N64 and the disastrous GameCube) and the period where their own brand was resurgent (due to brilliant management of the DS and Wii.)
Right. While I was sane enough at the time not to care about all that, ignore the N64 and go with the PS1, in retrospect I wonder how they managed to mismanage their brand so bad that they even forgot about 2D Mario entirely.
Your point basically seems to be that, well, SMG neither sells as well nor appeals to your specific tastes as well as NSMB, so they should just stop making it, but I don't think either is really relevant. There's room for SMG as a supplement to NSMB in a way that there isn't really room for twice as many entries of NSMB (which would risk commodifying it and hurting the brand, as well as stepping on the toes of the previous entries' legs.)
While I can see why you'd think that, it's actually a bit different. I was never that much of a Mario fan (2D or 3D) in the first place, but I actually like SMG1 (and NSMBWii). I just think it'll grow stale more quickly. Also, you're saying "SMG" but I'm looking at 3D Mario as a whole. Assuming Nintendo is trying to make 3D Mario as relevant as 2D Mario (which might or might not be the case), I think they have to take a good, hard look at the formula and change it. If they're fine with it and its sales, good for them, but they have to avoid making too many direct sequels if they want to avoid staleness. I guess one direct sequel (SMG2) isn't too much, but it's just a bit weird to me considering they'd never done it with 3D Mario. This is one of those cases where I think Nintendo has missed an opportunity to take a risk (by having SMG2 developers work on something else, be it an existing franchise or a new IP).
I'm not saying "well, if SMG's getting a sequel so early, then so should NSMB Wii!" That would be stupid and risky for the reasons you cited.
As it is, since Nintendo came around, they've basically done pretty close to everything right with "Mario." They brought back 2D Mario games as one of the biggest franchises in existence, spacing entries out just far enough that each can build up an insane quantity of leg-driven sales before the next one comes out (and thereby ensuring that their second attempt was a huge improvement over the first.) They took 3D Mario (badly tarnished by SMS) and remade it into an absolute critical darling that's still amongst Nintendo's best-selling core games worldwide (and which is probably their single best effort so far to retain the interest of core gamers on the system). And most importantly, they've successfully created a brand distinction between the two such that people know exactly what to expect from either, and it's clear that 2D and 3D Mario are two different types of games, both of which Nintendo intends to support. This way the really dedicated core gamers have been able to get just shy of one excellent "Mario" platformer on average per year since 2006, the casual gamers can all throw in together on the more accessible NSMBW, and Nintendo makes a ton of money.
Oh, I definitely agree that they've done an incredible job with Mario as a whole since 2005. Not only was I not a big fan of 2D and 3D Mario, I also was not a big fan or Mario Kart. The DS and Wii made me like all 3 of them, so I should know
. It's just that this whole tricking/educating thing i.e. the 2D sections, advertising campaign and DVD tutorial doesn't make much sense to me, just as making a direct sequel doesn't make much sense to me either. Except maybe I already hate what I'm oing to say to earn hardcore cred and keep fans happy in the short term.
Inasmuch as there's a problem, it's that the Japanese just plum don't like 3D platformers and so a globally ideal choice (develop SMG1 and 2 to much acclaim and very solid sales in the West) is not also locally ideal. The specific efforts they're making to sell the Japanese on it aren't maybe the best, but I'm doubtful that there's an alternative strategy that would've been more effective, and either way I don't think they can magic that type of gameplay into being as popular as the side-scrolling variety, so they really shouldn't worry about it.
Fair enough. I'm just saying they should try one day, instead of waving accessibility gimmicks at the consumers. Failing that, holding up to the standards they've set themselves would be enough (in this case, making each and every title in the 3D Mario series unique, given its importance. Something they temporarily stopped doing when they chose to make SMG2).
I'll just say this though: Mario Kart, while popular ever since Super Mario Kart, reached its sales and popularity peak with MKDS and MKWii. The base game is the same as before, but the changes Nintendo made, coupled with the hardware phenomena that are the DS and the Wii, allowed it to enjoy 2D Mario-level of success. As far as I know, they didn't educate consumers with DVDs, Cosmic Guides and the like to achieve that, so my outlook is that maybe, just maybe, they could do the same with 3D Mario, but just haven't figured out how to do it just yet.
