Support NeoGAF

[JeTmAn81]

Not so much. But when you go by the Youtube handle 'feministfrequency', you'll have to forgive me for thinking that a person could, perhaps, have an agenda.

I do not say that she is correct, or unbiased. But I'm astonished at the extremes of the negative reaction. She can't possibly have enough influence to warrant that kind of response, so there is obviously something else going on, not with her but with those who are responding.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Yup. I don't see how it's even possible to criticize the work she is trying to do. It's disgusting how adamantly people here are trying to poke holes in every point she makes while missing the bigger picture entirely.

it's unfair to deconstruct the deconstructors

I do not say that she is correct, or unbiased. But I'm astonished at the extremes of the negative reaction. She can't possibly have enough influence to warrant that kind of response, so there is obviously something else going on, not with her but with those who are responding.

perhaps you can show how the reaction on GAF has been extremely negative

if anything, there's been some nice discussion, more productive than you'd imagine given the source material

it's funny when someone jumps in with a one-liner about being 'threatened', which is a standard code word of feminist discourse, of course.

 

[Tom_Cody]

The most significant thing I've learned from Anita Sarkeesian's videos is that a lot of people on GAF, and by extension a lot of gamers, find the open discussion of women's issues to be very threatening.

ITT both sides project nefarious motivations onto to the other-side's opinions.

What the hell does that even mean. Who is threatened by what she has to say?

 

[Alienous]

Rescuing Peach doesn't need to be Mario's motive for jumping on turtles' heads. I think she made a really good point about how Peach was playable in Mario 2 and reverted back to her status of damsel in distress in every other mainline entry. There's no reason why she shouldn't be a playable character in New Super Mario Bros.

This is discussed in the video. She is put in the position of 'DiD' instead. But if not saving Peach, how else would you convey Mario's goals and purpose in the NES era? It's simple, sure. Lazy even. But to change it now would be to change the essence of what drives Mario. Nintendo haven't given newer characters like Olimar or (revamped) Pit this motivation, for instance.

 

[Iorv3th]

All of these media critics who sit around and pick apart other peoples creations pretending like they are being profound and are actually changing something are borderline delusional. Videogames and the rest of media are not that important in a persons development as a human when stacked up against the people around them throughout their lives. Dad treats mom like crap, kid treats wife like crap. Girls sees mom put up with dads crap, girl puts up with boys crap and so goes the circle of life. This so outweighs something like a videogame that it is disrespectful to the subject matter to bring them up in the same conversation.

Bingo!

 

[Justzisguyukno]

I'm sorry that saving a loved one makes for a compelling reason to risk my life saving them?

Does that makes me sexist?

I mean I guess this is a trope, but I just fail to see it as a huge problem, especially how its represented in Zelda and Mario.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

This is discussed in the video. She is put in the position of 'DiD' instead. But if not saving Peach, how else would you convey Mario's goals and purpose in the NES era. It's simple, sure. Lazy even. But to change it now would be to change the essence of what drives Mario. Nintendo haven't given newer characters like Olimar or (revamped) Pit this motivation, for instance.

Do you honestly think that players new or old are going to be lost if Mario's role doesn't consist of rescuing a princess?

 

[Kai Dracon]

Then make the motivation that they stole your wallet. Our your food. Or your watch. The excuse of "oh it's just poor writing" doesn't fly. You can write a shitty story about all your money getting stolen too.

The fact that it was always, constantly a woman is pretty troubling.

To be fair, the Wario games are usually about a dominate female pirate stealing all of Wario's money...

 

[Onemic]

Pandering sells no matter the gender it caters to. Go ask J-Gaf how big is Kuroko no Basket in Japan and what kind of merchandise it sells. I don't think that many people look for screaming damsels flashing their tits in their videogames, but the people who do won't deal with it if you change direction, and a developer has to gauge which one weighs the most when dropping these lecherous people in hope of gaining more female gamers. It's an issue of business, real life vs fiction and political correctness.

Doesn't change the fact that it's still a bullshit negative aspect of the industry.

I'm sure in the 50's many white people didn't want anyone but other whites in films and media, would you say that people criticizing such a thing were stupid, simply because the industry panders to racists? There were many who didn't want Brokeback Mountain to even be released because it talked about gay romance, should you say that the industry should listen to them because many viewers are uncomfortable with such an idea? Change never happens with everyone being comfortable. People will get mad, that's how it works. If those people are mad irrationally then you know you're probably doing the right thing, like in this case. If yours and others logic of thinking applied to everything, we'd still be stuck in pre 1900's way of thinking as everything should cater young white males. Voting, jobs, media, you name it.

Just because an aspect of the industry is negative and someone is pointing it out, doesn't mean they're saying the whole industry is a piece of shit along with everyone that supports it, which is what the majority of gaf seems to be thinking based on these very irrational responses.

 

[Eidan]

This is discussed in the video. She is put in the position of 'DiD' instead. But if not saving Peach, how else would you convey Mario's goals and purpose in the NES era. It's simple, sure. Lazy even. But to change it now would be to change the essence of what drives Mario. Nintendo haven't given newer characters like Olimar or (revamped) Pit this motivation, for instance.

No one would give a shit if Mario's goal in the game changed. His goal could be to actually fix a massive clog in the Mushroom Kingdom's plumbing, and people would still play it. As Anton said, people aren't coming into a Mario game for princess-saving.

 

[FlyinJ]

All of these media critics who sit around and pick apart other peoples creations pretending like they are being profound and are actually changing something are borderline delusional. Videogames and the rest of media are not that important in a persons development as a human when stacked up against the people around them throughout their lives. Dad treats mom like crap, kid treats wife like crap. Girls sees mom put up with dads crap, girl puts up with boys crap and so goes the circle of life. This so outweighs something like a videogame that it is disrespectful to the subject matter to bring them up in the same conversation.

So if every game had the protagonist trying to help an ignorant black "savage" instead of a princess that would be perfectly fine as well?

 

[Anton Sugar]

I'm sorry that saving a loved one makes for a compelling reason to risk my life saving them?

Does that makes me sexist?

I mean I guess this is a trope, but I just fail to see it as a huge problem, especially how its represented in Zelda and Mario.

A trope is something that's repeated and (usually) systematically accepted.

The basis isn't that you are saving a loved one; it's that the male is consistently rescuing a woman who happens to be helpless or dependent on the male.

Do you honestly think that players new or old are going to be lost if Mario's role doesn't consist of rescuing a princess?

I am legitimately shocked that multiple people have brought this up as an argument.

 

[Alienous]

Do you honestly think that players new or old are going to be lost if Mario's role doesn't consist of rescuing a princess?

No. But one of the core components of Mario would be lost, and in that sense the character would cease to be the same.

It's nothing other than the status quo for a Mario game. I'm pretty sure the Paper Mario series takes some tongue-in-cheek jabs at the idea of Princess Peach being helpless. It's just a part of Mario, essentially.

 

[Silver_DNA]

Then make the motivation that they stole your wallet. Our your food. Or your watch. The excuse of "oh it's just poor writing" doesn't fly. You can write a shitty story about all your money getting stolen too.

The fact that it was always, constantly a woman is pretty troubling.

Donkey Kong Country?

 

[FieryBalrog]

No one would give a shit if Mario's goal in the game changed. His goal could be to actually fix a massive clog in the Mushroom Kingdom's plumbing, and people would still play it. As Anton said, people aren't coming into a Mario game for princess-saving.

I agree that people would still play it, but let's not act like 'saving the princess' is interchangeable with 'fixing a massive clog'. I don't think it's a trope that is of such great value that we need to repeat it in every Mario game ever, but it obviously has different cultural significance, different historical meaning, and different place in myths and fables than 'fixing a clog'.

 

[JeTmAn81]

perhaps you can show how the reaction on GAF has been extremely negative

if anything, there's been some nice discussion, more productive than you'd imagine given the source material

it's funny when someone jumps in with a one-liner about being 'threatened', which is a standard code word of feminist discourse, of course.

When it comes to the negativity I wasn't so much thinking of GAF as the rest of the internet, the parts that threatened this woman with rape, etc. On GAF I just see more a general trend from people conducting pretty serious analysis of her video, to the tune of 2500+ posts in one day. That tells me that people are taking the video a lot more seriously than they probably ought to.

And then I wonder why it's such a serious issue for some. To me, I just watch it, agree with some points, disagree with others, and go on about my day. I just don't see anything worthy of an epic debate. If someone else had posted a similar video, I don't think it would've received nearly this volume of discussion.

 

[Kazerei]

I'm sorry that saving a loved one makes for a compelling reason to risk my life saving them?

Does that makes me sexist?

I mean I guess this is a trope, but I just fail to see it as a huge problem, especially how its represented in Zelda and Mario.

No, everyone wants to protect the people they love.

The sexism comes into play because the people getting kidnapped are usually women, and they're completely helpless and useless.

 

[Anton Sugar]

So basically, what I am saying is that fixing sexism and misogyny through media criticism is like trying to stop homelessness by giving a bum a dollar. The sentiment is fine but you aren't changing anything because the root of the problem has gone untouched.

What? No, that comparison makes zero sense. Children are constantly bombarded by all forms of media. IMO I think it's even a bit ignorant to think that, no matter what the media tells your children, it has little to no influence if you are a good parent.

 

[FieryBalrog]

When it comes to the negativity I wasn't so much thinking of GAF as the rest of the internet, the parts that threatened this woman with rape, etc. On GAF I just see more a general trend from people conducting pretty serious analysis of her video, to the tune of 2500+ posts in one day. That tells me that people are taking the video a lot more seriously than they probably ought to.

And then I wonder why it's such a serious issue for some. To me, I just watch it, agree with some points, disagree with others, and go on about my day. I just don't see anything worthy of an epic debate. If someone else had posted a similar video, I don't think it would've received nearly this volume of discussion.

It's not the video that's such a serious issue; it's just an interesting topic. (not even gender in games, just gender in society).

 

[Delusibeta]

Drinky isn't banned.

The argument isn't "people can't distinguish between media and reality", it's that media influences our attitudes and cultural norms. Violence in media doesn't make us violent, and sexism in media doesn't make us sexist. But surely it has some effect, more negative than positive.

I dunno, he looks banned to me.

The thing is, violence and sexism in media is resolutely old hat. For example, the damsels in distress trope originated in Ancient Greece (Anita mentioned that in the video), and violent stories is almost certainly older than that. Ultimately, since we're discussing topics within entertainment that have been around nearly as long as the concept of civilization, I have to question whether there is an effect.

 

[GetemMa]

So rather than look at how each individual is shaped by the life they live, the medium they consume, and the male-female relationships they've observed, you've just made an arbitrary list that puts all fictional content at the bottom?

Here, let's boil this down. True/false: Video games are a legitimate subject of the same sort of criticism that is given to books and movies.

Not just at the bottom, but totally out of sight of from the reality that the people around a person and the influence their behavior has on that person absolutely dwarfs the influence that media has on the same person.

My 5 year old nephew could play Mario, DK, Zelda for a year straight and none of it would have even close to the same impact as if he saw me treating his aunt like dirt for 30 seconds. That would imprint his behavior for life.

And to answer your question: True. So what. I never said otherwise. But there is a reason that Sigmund Freud is deemed a more important person than Roger Ebert.

 

[Alienous]

No one would give a shit if Mario's goal in the game changed. His goal could be to actually fix a massive clog in the Mushroom Kingdom's plumbing, and people would still play it. As Anton said, people aren't coming into a Mario game for princess-saving.

"how else would you convey Mario's goals and purpose in the NES era"

Again, Mario is a creation of a particular time period. So I'll ask, would you have given him a different purpose? Do you think that how Mario stands now is offensive enough that you would change what is already there? If so, fair enough. Otherwise, like myself, you think that this is something to pay attention to for the future of gaming. It's a trope. It's lazy. But it is fundamentally Mario.

 

[cubicle47b]

So if every game had the protagonist trying to help an ignorant black "savage" instead of a princess that would be perfectly fine as well?

If every game had a protagonist saving a king it would be perfectly fine.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

A trope is something that's repeated and (usually) systematically accepted.

The basis isn't that you are saving a loved one; it's that the male is consistently rescuing a woman who happens to be helpless or dependent on the male.



I am legitimately shocked that multiple people have brought this up as an argument.

Would you argue that it would be just as wrong to inverse the trope? To have a female adventurer saving a prince? Just wondering out of curiosity.

 

[Renoir]

Just watched it, it was alright.

I would've preferred that she laid out facts and left things more open to interpretation and/or dealt with some counterarguments and different opinions rather than just trying to spew ultimate truth for 25 minutes straight. I mean, this really doesn't seem like anything more than the the sort of paper you would see in an undergraduate sociology class, made into video form.

Her argument would've been much stronger if she didn't cherry pick the majority of her argument from 2 series, all while neglecting both the historical form of videogame sequels and invalidating related and successful spin-offs. She lambasts Mario and Zelda for being about saving princesses, when the reality is that they're games about saving princesses. Games, especially ones that stem from the 80's and earlier, don't follow the film form of sequels as plot continuation. Game sequels back then were simply the same basic principles and story improved and/or fleshed out. A mechanically improved retread. And once those beloved series come into the 90's? You can't change them. That's called the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" principle.

Additionally, she should've taken the opportunity to move the piece away from the green screen and into the real world. It would've been hugely beneficial if we could've seen someone other than her provide some insight, such as a professional in the industry or an established feminist academic who's knowledgeable about videogames. It's not like she's lacking the resources to do so. As it is, it feels like she's "telling", not "proving" or "making clear". It feels, like I said earlier, like an undergrad-level paper put into video form. It should be so much more.

I cosign on this. video is good but I can't help but think that it could have been much better. I like info graph... I want some info graphs.


also. is it so bad that we want to rescue women?

 

[Eidan]

I agree that people would still play it, but let's not act like 'saving the princess' is interchangeable with 'fixing a massive clog'. I don't think it's a trope that is of such great value that we need to repeat it in every Mario game ever, but it obviously has different cultural significance, different historical meaning, and different place in myths and fables than 'fixing a clog'.

Saving the princess obviously has greater significance. There's this video by a lady called Anita Sarkeesian that discusses the topic at length. My point is that rescuing Peach could be replaced by pretty much anything, and nothing would be lost.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

No. But one of the core components of Mario would be lost, and in that sense the character would cease to be the same.

It's nothing other than the status quo for a Mario game. I'm pretty sure the Paper Mario series takes some tongue-in-cheek jabs at the idea of Princess Peach being helpless. It's just a part of Mario, essentially.

A core component being that Mario must rescue a helpless princess? You think that this is integral to the character? That if the game was simply "Bowser has acquired the power to take over the Mushroom Kingdom, and Mario must stop him," players would be less motivated to play through the fun platforming levels?

 

[polyh3dron]

Drinky doesn't always post; but when he does, he posts.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Doesn't change the fact that it's still a bullshit negative aspect of the industry.

I'm sure in the 50's many white people didn't want anyone but other whites in films and media, would you say that people criticizing such a thing were stupid, simply because the industry panders to racists? There were many who didn't want Brokeback Mountain to even be released because it talked about gay romance, should you say that the industry should listen to them
because many viewers are uncomfortable with such an idea? Change never happens with everyone being comfortable. People will get mad, that's how it works. If those people are mad irrationally then you know you're probably doing the right thing, like in this case. If yours and others logic of thinking applied to everything, we'd still be stuck in
pre 1900's way of thinking as everything should cater young white males. Voting, jobs, media, you name it.

Just because an aspect of the industry is negative and someone is pointing it out, doesn't mean they're saying the whole industry is a piece of shit along with
everyone that supports it, which is what the majority of gaf seems to be thinking based
on these very irrational responses.

The difference here is that no one is trying to stop people from making games about gay romance or powerful women. Nothing is holding them back from doing it except for the assumption that it wont sell.

There is a HUGE difference between
Brokeback Mountain not getting made because there are people that don't like gay people and speak out against it and Brokeback Mountain not getting made because they don't think enough people will go see it to make it profitable.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Saving the princess obviously has greater significance. There's this video by a lady called Anita Sarkeesian that discusses the topic at length. My point is that rescuing Peach could be replaced by pretty much anything, and nothing would be lost.

Let's rescue Daisy instead.

 

[McBradders]

Yup. I don't see how it's even possible to criticize the work she is trying to do. It's disgusting how adamantly people here are trying to poke holes in every point she makes while missing the bigger picture entirely.

I think it is absolutely possible to criticize her work, and that should be encouraged, but the wordy "NO EVERYTHING IS FINE SHUT UP" should not be.

Her videos are a seed for further discussion, it's just hard to have when there is so much noise.

 

[Eidan]

"how else would you convey Mario's goals and purpose in the NES era"

Again, Mario is a creation of a particular time period. So I'll ask, would you have given him a different purpose? Do you think that how Mario stands now is offensive enough that you would change what is already there? If so, fair enough. Otherwise, like myself, you think that this is something to pay attention to for the future of gaming. It's a trope. It's lazy. But it is fundamentally Mario.

I would have no problem with Mario never rescuing Peach again.

 

[Kazerei]

I dunno, he looks banned to me.

The thing is, violence and sexism in media is resolutely old hat. For example, the damsels in distress trope originated in Ancient Greece (Anita mentioned that in the video), and violent stories is almost certainly older than that. Ultimately, since we're discussing topics within entertainment that have been around nearly as long as the concept of civilization, I have to question whether there is an effect.

LOL ... Drinky isn't banned.

Violence and sexism in media has been around forever, therefore it doesn't have an effect? I would say it's had an effect on us all this time.

I cosign on this. video is good but I can't help but think that it could have been much better. I like info graph... I want some info graphs.


also. is it so bad that we want to rescue women?

No, it's bad that the people getting kidnapped are usually women and they're helpless.

 

[Metroidvania]

Yup. I don't see how it's even possible to criticize the work she is trying to do. It's disgusting how adamantly people here are trying to poke holes in every point she makes while missing the bigger picture entirely.

Really?

It's not even feasible for someone to critique her delivery, choice in games, or her specific feminist approach/belief system (in the context of feminism as a larger whole)

I mean, sure, criticizing her just for doing the work (i.e. the 150k comments and such) is something that obviously has no real bearing on the discussion itself, but ignoring any possible critical analysis of her work at all is just ludicrous.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Would you argue that it would be just as wrong to inverse the trope? To have a female adventurer saving a prince? Just wondering out of curiosity.

I'm not Anton, but I don't think there's any easy binary answer here. Personally, I wouldn't herald it as a good change of pace, though there might be feint praise simply because it's something different. But the crux of the issue here is not "saving a helpless victim is bad, it's always been bad, and it always will be bad." The crux of the issue is the pervasiveness in which "man must save helpless female" is employed as a plot device. By sheer virtue of the fact that we're not focusing on how it's inherently egregious each and every time it's used means that it obviously doesn't follow that "girl saves helpless guy" would be equally as bad. That is unless it was employed cynically (i.e. "Okay, women, we've heard your whining! Here, have a crappy 'girl saves guy' game!").

 

[Burt]

I focused on that because that's the basis of your argument: they're games "about" saving princesses. No one is attracted to Mario or Zelda because they can't wait to play the latest princess-saving game.

No, that isn't the basis of my argument. It wasn't even what I was arguing. I was arguing that Anita shouldn't have chosen two franchises from a single company while invalidating all spin-offs in making a case about tropes against women in videogames.

I did say that they're games "about" saving princesses, because that's exactly what they are and always have been. Anita makes the exact same argument. The formula for a Mario/Zelda game is "Princess gets kidnapped, Hero goes on quest, Hero saves princess". I never said it was the impetus for playing, but it's undeniably the narrative arc of these games. It is purposely kept static, and for that reason makes a poor choice for her to cite.

Going back to my initial "brand suicide" exaggeration, from a business perspective it makes no sense to ever change the traditional (and I'm sure some would argue sacred) formula for these games. The odds of harming the franchise are far greater than any potential benefit, hence "brand suicide", which has been edited to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" to make it clearer. Saying that Nintendo continued the established pattern of videogame sequels being essentially the same game as the first but with mechanical and technical improvements isn't an argument, it's a fact.

 

[GetemMa]

So if every game had the protagonist trying to help an ignorant black "savage" instead of a princess that would be perfectly fine as well?

???

I saw you trot out this argument a while back. I felt it was such an absurd comparison that it didn't deserve a reply but you've gotten it out of me.

Princess Peach being kidnapped by a mutant dinosaur =/= "black savage" portrayal

I hope that clears things up.

 

[Calcaneus]

I would have no problem with Mario never rescuing Peach again.

But then, would it really be Super Mario? It just wouldn't be the same, you know?

 

[Anton Sugar]

Would you argue that it would be just as wrong to inverse the trope? To have a female adventurer saving a prince? Just wondering out of curiosity.

It's hard to give a definitive answer to that.

To be clear: I don't think there is anything wrong with a game centered around saving a helpless loved one who happens to be a woman. There is something wrong when it becomes an accepted as the norm and ends up contributing or defining a gender as "helpless".

 

[Tom_Cody]

And then I wonder why it's such a serious issue for some. To me, I just watch it, agree with some points, disagree with others, and go on about my day. I just don't see anything worthy of an epic debate. If someone else had posted a similar video, I don't think it would've received nearly this volume of discussion.

I think this accurately describes 98% of the posters in this thread.

Most of the posts in this thread seem to be about the debate itself and not about the subject matter of the videos. For this reason I am going to stop posting here.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Is there any game where you have to save a granny?

 

[Alienous]

A core component being that Mario must rescue a helpless princess? You think that this is integral to the character? That if the game was simply "Bowser has acquired the power to take over the Mushroom Kingdom, and Mario must stop him," players would be less motivated to play through the fun platforming levels?

Well, having been the story of pretty much all Mario games, I would say that the kidnapping of Princess Peach is a key element of Mario games. Maybe it isn't important, but it is still an evident truth.

So yeah, I suppose people wouldn't be any less motivated without Princess Peach being kidnapped. Maybe they don't even need a story at all. Princess Peach's kidnapping has always been the equivalent of a contextual opening statement; it isn't necessary, but it does give insight. It relies on a trope that precedes Mario & Nintendo entirely.

So what now? Do you change what already exists in search of gender role equality, or do you mantain the trope that Princess Peach's kidnapping represents? I've never felt offended, and I just attribute it to lazy and sometimes self-deprecating ("Oh, hey look, Bowser kidnapped her again") humour.

 

[Eidan]

But then, would it really be Super Mario? It just wouldn't be the same, you know?

Yes it would.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Well, having been the story of pretty much all Mario games, I would say that the kidnapping of Princess Peach is a key element of Mario games. Maybe it isn't important, but it is still an evident truth.

My problem here is that this is just a lazy appeal to tradition for the sake of tradition.

I've never felt offended, and I just attribute it to lazy and sometimes self-deprecating ("Oh, hey look, Bowser kidnapped her again") humour.

I've never been offended either. But I think part of the point of the conversation is to exercise empathy. Honestly, outside of discussions like this, I wouldn't give the stupid plot in a Mario game a second's thought, and am usually just frantically pressing the A or Start button hoping to skip past it. But, I'm a guy who has been inundated with Mario games for 25 years now. Maybe "it seems fine to me" isn't the best reaction to hang my hat on, as this really isn't just about me and what I want.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I'd like Peach playable in more games, as long as she can float.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I've always thought make up was a stupid thing. I'm sure she can simply prefer to wear make up, and that's fine. But there is NO way she can try and say "What, a woman like myself can just happen to like wearing make up" without anybody else being able to say that any particular game using a trope exists for it's own reason and without any social pressure causing it.

I agree, but it's a bit off topic.

 

[casabolg]

It's hard to give a definitive answer to that.

To be clear: I don't think there is anything wrong with a game centered around saving a helpless loved one who happens to be a woman. There is something wrong when it becomes an accepted as the norm and ends up contributing or defining a gender as "helpless".

The issue I find is that Anita considers that the gender is being declared helpless when what is happening is it's men who want to be the hero for their love. The role of the man as the protector and performer in courtship doesn't show his beliefs of the weakness of females as much as chivalry isn't there because men believe women incapable but rather are told to treat women and their love with greater respect by default. The helplessness is shown to enhance the drive of the need be hero and is there regardless of the sex of the victim.

That doesn't make the overuse of the trope any better on women though. Like I said much either - the issue is the lack of catering to the female market.

 

[koolaroo]

I belive this is why comments as disable for the video.

 

[Mesoian]

I'd like Peach playable in more games, as long as she can float.

Word. I always hate that Nintendo seems to divorce SMB2:US from the canon. You made that decision, stick with it. Why Peach doesn't get to do more is beyond me; I used her almost exclusively when I played SMB2 as a kid.

 

[Lv99 Slacker]

But then, would it really be Super Mario? It just wouldn't be the same, you know?

And, I'm sure, if you removed the naked and bound woman at the finish line of every level of General Custard's Revenge, it wouldn't be the same either. No, the two aren't quite the same, but the point is, change happens. I don't see anything terrible about changing this trend of DiD.