Paper Mario and NSMB Need to Swap Rate of Change

[Lord Carlisle]

Before I begin, let me formally apologize for the abomination of a name I chose for this thread. Couldn't think of a better one.

The last two entries in the Paper Mario series have been a disappointment to the overall fanbase. One game managed to completely change the genre of the game, the other took out what made the turn-based battle system so much fun. It makes me wonder, "WHY can't they just stick to the basics of the first two games?!"

Now, look at New Super Mario Bros. The last four titles are essentially the same thing (it got stale only after NSMBWii), just adding in one or two new power-ups. My biggest complaint with this series is that it has been sticking to the basics and has done nothing to change that. Why not a new way of playing the game, a more original plot, SOMETHING to make it feel like its own game, not just a 60$ add-on(Looking at U, NSMBU).

Which got me thinking... one series needs to stop innovating and just stick to what made it so famous, the OTHER needs to stop sticking to what made it famous and get a dose of innovation! Both series are heading in the wrong directions! Paper Mario is still a relatively new series... I guess it's twelve years old, but they only release a game for it every 3-4 years! So it's not like it had gotten stale after the SECOND game in the series. Well the developers must have thought that, because they've altered the Paper Mario formula since then! That's what Nintendo needs to do with the NSMB games... so that it can actually be worthy of the title, NEW Super Mario Bros. DS was new... all of the rest were rehashes. Although I give kudos the Wii for bringing the Koopalings back. And four player Mario... can't forget four player Mario...

Paper Mario is changing much too rapidly... especially for a series with only four games. I wish the developers would stick to the basics and return to the turn-based battle system, partners, badges, and all. And the plot for Sticker Star was almost as pathetic as NSMB.

New Super Mario Bros. only has four games, but when you consider the fact that it's designed to be fundamentally similar to the games of old... that are over 25 years old, I'd say that it's due for change.

What do you guys think? Agree or Disagree?

 

[Ventus]

I totally agree, NSMB needs to get to true innovation and Paper Mario needs to sit on the slower track.

What's important for both series though is that Nintendo needs to stop releasing a "New" game (btw they're actually "Old with a facelift") every two years, and they need to keep with the pace that htey're releasing Paper Mario. 3-4 years between releases for both is much better if consumers are looking to gain more bang for their buck you know?

 

[Lord Carlisle]

I completely agree... although the reason the pace for NSMB is so messed up belongs to the last two titles... they were released, what, MONTHS apart? As for DS and Wii, the pacing was decent.

 

[DarkestLink]

They were actually going to do that for Sticker Stars, but Miyamoto was bored and decided to screw up the game in every imaginable way.

 

[Lord Carlisle]

I've heard something like that before. Supposedly it was Miyamoto who made the decision for Bowser to be mute (and completely nonexistent until the end), as well as having a more simple plot. No offence, Miyamoto, but people play Paper Mario in large part for the plot... and that is not your strong point.

 

[Zenox]

Let's be honest and think for a second, What is more important to Nintendo: Profit, or Quality?

The answer should obviously be profit. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial and should see a professional whose expertise lies in Nintendo Fanboyism. The New Super Mario Bros series in general is somewhat of a joke. The whole concept of the game itself is to rehash what has already been done. Then they release sequels to the game, put it on a different console and they don't change a thing. They don't even update the graphics when they can. NSMB Wii and NSMBU look identical to me. NSMB2 I think is the biggest failure of the bunch. They tried convincing the community they released a game with something new about it, but putting a ton of coins in the level is really just turning the Coin Battle VS mode into its own game, which if you mentioned that to anyone before NSMB2 came out, they'd laugh at you.

Now on to Paper Mario. Super Paper Mario is a joke, I don't even consider it in the same series as the real Paper Mario games. However, Sticker Star I think is a wonderful addition to the series. The plot is weak, the new Super Mario Bros 3-esque overworld is kinda strange, but overall, I like most of what they put in. Even the new map system grew on me and I started to enjoy it. I haven't gotten very far (my brother prefers to obsess over it rather than me) and I only beat World 1 (but I did beat World 1-5) but I think the new Sticker-Battle system is really fun. Makes you not just use the best move in your repitoire, really makes you have to think of the best opportunity to use them. It's a new spin on the turn-based system that I think really worked out well.

Super Paper Mario is a unanimous disappointment, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that it was a terrible excuse for a game. But I think you're dead wrong about Sticker Star being a bad game.

 

[RegalBryant]

Super Paper Mario was LEAGUES better than Sticker Star. Although the battle system was meh, the plot was great. Sticker Star managed to ruin the battle system, and have 10% of thedialogue. Most of the time anyone did talk, it was a Toad, quite possibly the least comedic race in Mario history! The storyline was "woops star exploded collect pieces yay." The characters were two-dimensional in more than one way.

There's one thing you got wrong, Carlisle. Thqt's a damn good title. :yes:

Also, NSMB is indeed very stagnant.

 

[Lord Carlisle]

Super Paper Mario was LEAGUES better than Sticker Star. Although the battle system was meh, the plot was great. Sticker Star managed to ruin the battle system, and have 10% of thedialogue. Most of the time anyone did talk, it was a Toad, quite possibly the least comedic race in Mario history! The storyline was "woops star exploded collect pieces yay." The characters were two-dimensional in more than one way.

There's one thing you got wrong, Carlisle. Thqt's a damn good title. :yes:

Also, NSMB is indeed very stagnant.

One thing I got wrong? My speculation is entirely opinion, so I'm not sure I'm "wrong". (I'm getting technical over a compliment... I'm also a grammar Nazi, in case you're wondering)

Anyhoo, I agree with you on the point that SPM was a good game... heck, even SS was a good game by itself! But compared to the amazing first two games, they were relatively disappointing.

 

[Hanyou]

Let's be honest and think for a second, What is more important to Nintendo: Profit, or Quality?

The answer should obviously be profit. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial and should see a professional whose expertise lies in Nintendo Fanboyism.

You say this like it's a bad thing, and like quality and profit are mutually exclusive. Every good business makes profit a priority, and it would be very difficult for Nintendo to be as successful as they are in a competitive market without releasing quality titles. Hell, even when the market was less competitive, quality was obviously a priority--it gave us the NES.

I concede that they are not always compatible, either, which may be the problem here.

The New Super Mario Bros series in general is somewhat of a joke. The whole concept of the game itself is to rehash what has already been done. Then they release sequels to the game, put it on a different console and they don't change a thing. They don't even update the graphics when they can. NSMB Wii and NSMBU look identical to me. NSMB2 I think is the biggest failure of the bunch. They tried convincing the community they released a game with something new about it, but putting a ton of coins in the level is really just turning the Coin Battle VS mode into its own game, which if you mentioned that to anyone before NSMB2 came out, they'd laugh at you.

I don't like New Super Mario Bros. because 2D Mario, for the most part, doesn't interest me, but I'd just like to say that every single thing you've said here is empirically false. Each iteration of the series has different graphics from every previous iteration, and, by virtue of having different levels, are entirely different games.

Even if they were exactly the same game, as you allege, it would be, what, a single multiplatform release? What's so bad about that? But as it turns out, they are entirely different games and what you're saying is merely baseless exaggeration. Also, if you don't think there's a visual difference between New Super Mario Bros. Wii and New Super Mario Bros. U, you've probably been watching the wrong youtube videos.

In any case, change is overrated. I wish the New Super Mario Bros. games were more interesting to me in the first place--more like Super Mario World--but stagnation isn't necessarily the basic problem here. As for Paper Mario, I've only played the first and second games, but from what I've heard of the other two, they stray too far from the established genre of the original. Disappointing, but again, not bad in itself. I'm assuming they weren't quality experiences.

Change is not a hallmark of series quality. Quality itself is. Perhaps the studios could invest more time into refining their titles or finding something that works, even without changing the basic structure.