I think it's fine really. I mean it's old, but it if ain't broke, don't fix it.
If you can be creative, why stay repetitive?
If it ain't broke
Meaning if it sells games.
Then don't fix it.
Meaning don't change it.
Didn't think I need to explain that, but ok. I mean I'm sure they have lots of creative ideas, but what it boils down to is money. From my 10 months of working, that's what I've learned. Everything is about money.
The Mario games sell well because of the gameplay. They need to keep the core gameplay the same because that's what people want but there's no reason not to go nuts with everything else (
Like they used to!!! [keep that in mind for a bit]).
People don't care as much about the story as they do about the gameplay but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
It's kinda like when you make an action movie you need to make the action scenes good but you can't just have the rest be shit. Who'd want that? People don't like ice cream sprinkled with shit (
metaphor!).
That's what happened to Sticker Star. Nintendo thought the gameplay was the only thing that mattered
and they were wrong.
The game itself was kinda fun but it didn't leave an impression.
If you make a game with great gameplay it will entertain people while they are playing but if you don't have anything else to offer along the way it won't be a memorable experience. They will turn off the game once they're done but they will have forgotten almost everything about your game by the time they talk about it again. I can speak from experience.
And for a game to be memorable you
need the game to have
- a unique story (even if it's simple)
- memorable characters (even if they have tiny roles)
- creative settings (even if they are mostly shown through the background)
- fresh, varying elements like enemies, obstacles, items, etc.
- a catchy, expressive soundtrack (not a reused one -.-)
- etc. , depending on what kind of game you make
(M&L:Superstar Saga hass all of those. That's why it's so memorable.)
Right now I can't even
remember what the heck the story for NSMB2 was. Sure, the Princess was kidnapped but I can't recall HOW it happened. Frankly I don't give a damn but the point is I COULD GIVE A DAMN. If there was just something unique happening I could maybe get into it but it's just the same thing again and again......the intro cutscene would even be the perfect place to give each character a little characterization (which most Mario characters desperately need).
Remember this?
"Oh, it's terrible!
The King has been
transformed!
Please find the
Magic Wand so we can
change him back."
That was memorable. That was unique. It had never been done before. It worked. It has become a classic.
Remember when I said they used to go nuts with theit content? They tried out new settings, new characters, unique gameplay mechanics, new plots, etc. but all of those games are remembered as classics. Have you ever heard anyone complain about Super Mario Land 2 not featuring Bowser? No, because that would be rediculous. The game was still just as much fun because it also focused on good gameplay. (much better gameplay than the predecessor, if you ask me) Not to mention it introduced Wario!
For me to really enjoy and remember a game there need to be some "Wow, that's awesome" or "Woah, that's so cool!" moments.
The little touches. The things that you will remember.
Okay now... know this, Dark Young Link, I totally understand where you're coming from. Videogames are a business and you don't want to disappoint your fans. That makes perfect sense. But answer me this with all honesty:
Do you really think people wouldn't wanna buy the latest Mario game because Bowser does something different than kidnapping Peach? Or do you think lots of people will think "Wow, they are doing something different for a change. How cool!"
Jeez, I'm such a rambler...
