Why are we not bored of Mario?

We should be bored by now, but for some reason we can't stop. It's like visual crack, you throw down the controller get pissed and say god D#@N IT MARIO I HATE YOU! 30 minutes later your right back where you were playing and saying to myself why god why..... OOHHH ANOTHER 1 UP YEZZZZZZZZ!

having not read any of this im gonna say personally he has history and hes not an arbitrary character with throw away experiences in most cases.

i think people have grown up with him and have a connection to him cause we have been through so much with him.

my two cents for what its worth now im gonna go read what you wrote like a good little boy in picture #2.

Oh and I've been enjoying the little guy since 1988 when I first played an NES at my friend's house when I was just 3 years old. And I think he loves me more than I love him after 20 years; that is if all the fun is any consideration.

and for my serious post:

I think the thing that has me not bored with the core mario game is the simply skill based nature of the gameplay. Sure, its easy skill by now, but its a skill. You string this move and that move to make insane jump number 254, just like insane jump number 254 from the last game.

And its a high quality experience. after slogging through your Madden game with wicked game breaking glitches, or through the non descript obscure "what the hell am I not doing that you want me to do" gameplay of so many character /story driven action shooters like Splinter Cell, its a comfort to go into a well polished game and own face.

Its kinda like Katamari I think. Everything there is so ridiculous, that you just go with it.

I only play the Mario games to be close to Liugi. He's a man I could never get bored of.

I still like donkey kong.

king3vbo, stfu. Yes we do.

Props to Thornnn: any Futurama reference in the comments instantly makes a post better.

Well, I don’t know, Lauren. To be honest, I don’t have nearly as much familiarity with Mario as many other gamers — the last Nintendo console I owned was the NES (since then, I’ve had a Genesis and then all three PlayStations). While I owned Super Mario Bros. 3 for my NES (correction: own — I still have the original cart in the bright yellow box with the clear “Challenge Set” sticker on it to show that it came with my NES), I never got around to beating it when I was a kid (yeah, yeah, sue me) — and I’ve really only played snippets of Mario games ever since. I did spend a decent amount of time with Super Mario 64, but it always consisted either of me playing it at a store kiosk or at a friend’s house, and never for any extended period of time. As for Galaxy, it’s the same thing; I’ve played it at Best Buy, and I watched my friend play it for an hour or two a few weeks ago.

Even with the short amount of time that I’ve spent with it, I found myself saying, “God, I wish I had a Wii just for this game.” The gravity mechanic is unbelievably well done, and the game is very, very polished. I still have yet to see the game in 480p (my buddy has yet to pick up Wii component cables), but it looks great for a Wii game, and it’s just fun. So I’ll give Nintendo props for that, and along with Mozgus, I love that the common threads between Mario games have been preserved (e.g., “Wa-hah!”, etc.) For me, Mario games have never been about the story, but instead, a highly enjoyable platforming experience replete with time-honored traditions and classic characters.

"It's 'cool' to play Mario games"? Alert the hot freshmen chicks, there's a new cool guy in town for them to swoon after!

Mario changes, yet stays the same... and that's the way it is with any franchise in any form of media. In order for it to be a sequel, you've got to have the same basic idea, but in order to keep it fresh you've got to shake things up. For instance, in each Resident Evil game you're shooting zombies; but this time they're not really zombies, they're people with parasites. In each Call of Duty game you're fighting a war; but this time you're fighting in the near future. In each Mario game you're saving a princess by jumping about; but this time you're jumping about in space. In each Tomb Raider game you're climbing shit to get to places; but this time you can shimmy around the corners to get to those places.

You shouldn't feel detached from Mario just because he's doing what he's always done, you should seek out new experiences in other IPs, and when you get that desire to save a princess, pop Mario in. Or when you get that desire to kill zombies, pop Resident Evil in.

Promote this shit. Lauren is fucking genius.

Well, here's the thing, just to play the Devil's Advocate (specifically, the part of Keanu Reeves), Mario as a brand has been rigorously, consistently good, as games. Given the weakest mario (2, imo) is still better than so many games, it's different than tomb raider.

Whether you are bored of them or not, there are several tomb raider games that have weakened the brand (i.e. chronicles / angel of darkness) and added to a feeling many of them are gimmicky, repetitive updates.

For argument's sake, every iteration of Mario has truly been different, even within the 2d platformers, 1,2,3 feature pretty different pacing, structure, themes, enemies and gameplay elements the keep the series fresh and different.

Can you really say shimmying around a corner is the same as adding a (hated) liquid-fueled rocket jet pack that shoots water, or the addition spherical worlds, altered gravity and motion control?

Good games are good games. Yes, I'm drawn towards Mario games due to the familiarity that I have with the character, but mainly I'm drawn to them because of the series' stellar track record.

Aside from Sunshine, which I personally enjoyed, the main series has been pretty keen, and so when new games in the series come out, I'm compelled to play them.

...You bastards have no soul.

As long as Mario is able to transform into Ice and wall jump up waterfalls I will keep coming back. Not to mention mario games have some of the most memorable music in video game history

The games are good. It's just the fact that it's Mario thats what we dont like. I they released sunshine but with another main character and different enemies, princes, ect. Alot of us might have liked it a whole log more.

Personally, I know the games are good and they're fun to play, but seeing Mario there kind of kills it for me. I'll play SMG, when it can get it for cheap.

Whenyou say that Mario doesn't get a pass, You're wrong. Mario gets a pass because he's one of the oldest franchises there is and everybody has some sort of nostalgia attached to him. That gets him a free pass.

She's right in that people are complaining about `The same gameplay` in games like GTA, Tomb Raider, DMC and the like and then they're jumping up and down like monkeys praising Mario when the core mechanic of Mario games has not changed since Mario 64. And before that, The core mechanic hadn't changed since the first SMB. Talk all you want about adding different parts to the game, but the core game has remained the same.

That's not saying that they can't be good games. They are for people who aren't tired of the formula. And Cyberxion is also right, that regardless of character themes attached, they are good games. But there are also better platformers out there that get the `It's not as good as Mario` slapped on them, Because people are blinded by nostalgia. And it sucks that every platformer gets that kind of treatment because of Mario. Why can't Ratchet and Clank be an amazing game without being compared to the latest Mario? Why can't a game like Gurumin on the PSP get a review without a line that says `It's gameplay is similar to that of Mario 64`?

That's what drives me nuts about Mario. Yeah. I'm bored as hell of Mario, But he doesn't really annoy me until that starts happening.

Haven't played a Mario game since the jump to 16-bit, got bored.

I'm pretty sure I remember corner shimmying in TLR?

@frozenbabylon

Yikes, parallel posted ma' bayd.

I'm apathetic towards Mario. God bless the little fella, he's certainly been influential to my gaming life, but I can take him or leave him. I'd be upset if he was retired, but I'm not really playing his games.

I tend to disagree, but maybe that's just my nature. Mario is not a cool idea, or a story, or a virtual world, or a cinematic experience.

Mario is a vehicle for the evolution of play control over time, as technology allows for new play ideas, usually implemented in one or two major changes per Mario game.

To the extent that you like/dislike those changes in play control, you should like/dislike Mario.

Side rant: When videogames venture outside new aspects of play control, they are some of the most derivative, cliched, unoriginal forms of entertainment I can imagine. I don't think people would still read books if only three interesting, original stories came out each year. This could well change, but it's not a strength of games yet.

Missed this part.
I'm a bit bored of Mario since Super Mario 64.
The controls were sluggish and the gameplay shifted to a item collection game, repeating the same levels over and over again.
I never had that interest in Mario as a character, but rather on his games.

Mario feels like the Mickey Mouse of the gaming world. They both lack a strong multifaceted personality, deep plotlines, character development, and so on. They endure because of their pleasant nature and iconic nature. However, both have a much easier time lasting since they have been always associated with quality products.

The resulting difference between Mario's continued acclaim and calls for Lara Croft to innovate is simply a matter of satisfaction with the gaming innovations introduced in each respective series. Also, Tomb Raider's glut of titles in the late 90's gave it the air of a Madden-esque yearly cash grabs. Between 1996 and 2003, there were 6 TR titles and only 2 major Mario titles (ignoring his digressions into other genres). While it's true someone can easily become far more tired of Mario's continued presence in the vast majority of Nintendo games, the company's commitment to quality keeps his integrity relatively untarnished.

@frozenbabylon

I don't disagree that some people have the nostalgia blinders on when it comes to Mario. However, while the core mechanics of the series have remained the same as logic dictates will happen from sequel to sequel, there have been changes made to the gameplay.

More importantly though, these mechanics are tried-and-true, and backed by games that are legitimately fun to play. Aside from Mario Sunshine, a game which splits gamers down the middle even today regarding its quality, a majority of the games in the core series have offered solid gameplay.
The irony here is that in complaining about how much acclaim the series gets when compared to other games, you're putting yourself into the same category of people who apparently can't appreciate a games for what it is, and instead focus on pointless triviality.

Popularity is in no way a personal indicator of whether or not a game is good, and whether or not other people are playing a game I like doesn't mean that I'm going to shun the popular game in favor of the not-so-popular one. Again, a good game is a good game, and fuck it if some people are too stupid to see beyond a brand name. It doesn't taint the popular game for me anymore than it makes the unpopular one better. I'm not playing games for you or the next guy, I'm playing them for me. I don't care beyond that.

Should more people try things beyond their favored mascot or what have you? Sure. But does the fact that some people don't speak to the quality of the series that they favor one way or the other? No. Once again, a good game is a good game, even if some people aren't playing it for that reason.

Then you bring up the Ratchet and Clank series.
Look, I love the series. It's one of my favorites on the PS2, and I can see myself getting the PS3 game once I dig myself out of this financial hole I'm in and can afford to buy a PS3. However, much like the Mario series you're condemning, so too does Ratchet and Clank rely on common gameplay mechanics that carry over from game to game.
I know this, and still I enjoy them for the solid gameplay they bring to the table, as well as the just plain fun that I have when I play them. I would no more condemn the series for sticking to what it does best than I would the Mario series, as long as the games continue to be good.

All that shit aside though, when you boil what you posted down to its essence, you're angry that Mario gets name-dropped when other games are being reviewed. I think it's just as stupid as you do, but hey man, like it or not, Mario 64 set a standard for 3-D platformers.

I think the flaw in their eagerness to compare Mario 64 to everything lies in the fact that the game doesn't hold up extremely well today. It's still a fun game, but flaws that might have been acceptable in the infancy of the 3-D platformer aren't so easy to accept these days. And yet they compare an aged game to new games, when if they took off the blinders, they'd realize that when held to today's standards, Mario 64 wouldn't be likely to be as well received as it was back at it's release.
So I agree with you on that point, even though I can't understand how a reviewers stupidity should reflect on the Mario series one way or the other. Yeah there have been better games, but the Mario games are still solid, fun platformers, so what's the BFD? Are we only allowed to enjoy one series or what?

Eh, in all honesty, I'm bored of gaming on the whole. There are still a few games that I enjoy, but when I realized that on the whole I've been playing the same games for years just with a slightly different coat of paint, I lost most of my enthusiasm for the hobby. It's all feeling very stale to me, and it's not just a symptom of the Mario series.

At any rate, I'd answer the question "Why are we not bored of Mario", with a question of my own. Do you have something against good games?