If Nintendo didn't own Mario...

Remilia Bloody Scarlet said:
How about coming up with a more valid retort rather than nitpicking terminology?
Click to expand...
Okay, I got one, although I agree with you. What about the companies that strictly focus to shooting gore-fests? What if Mario was with one of them, not like the companies you listed?
 
People have made way too many comments about that situation as is; that's what me post was about, to end the constant "Mario would be a bloodbath!" posts. But whatever, they've mostly been stupid so I'll bite, but first I want to mention that not all shooter games are hypermasculine gore-fests with an arrogant fanbase; there is blood and violence in almost all of them, yes, but some developers use it for realism, however loose (some better than others, like Red Dead Redemption and Modern Warfare), some use it for horror effect (like in Silent Hill and Condemned) and some use it for shits and giggles (like in Team Fortress 2 and Serious Sam). So I want to see an end to all this generalization of the shooter genre, because ye're talking about a massive genre with a wide variety of different styles and premises (this comment isn't directed squarely at ye, Doofen-whatever, I just thought it was a good chance to set the record straight).

Now, if Mario were hypothetically owned by a company focused primarily on shooter games, then it could have been anything, really. It could've been grounded in real Italian history, such as the Italian Wars or, more likely, World War II. It could've been a space marine series built on Italian-American stereotypes. It could've been a mafia sandbox-style shooter set in the 1920s. It could have been set in a downright silly and gleefully inaccurate alternate history version of Italy or a fantasy world based on Renaissance art. If it were more stealth-based, it could have been something like Assassin's Creed II, perhaps.

I'm kinda tired right now, so I can't think of more silly Mario shooter possibilities. But hopefully that satisfies yer curiosity or whatever it was ye wanted from me response.
 
Remilia Bloody Scarlet said:
People have made way too many comments about that situation as is; that's what me post was about, to end the constant "Mario would be a bloodbath!" posts. But whatever, they've mostly been stupid so I'll bite, but first I want to mention that not all shooter games are hypermasculine gore-fests with an arrogant fanbase; there is blood and violence in almost all of them, yes, but some developers use it for realism, however loose (some better than others, like Red Dead Redemption and Modern Warfare), some use it for horror effect (like in Silent Hill and Condemned) and some use it for *bleep*s and giggles (like in Team Fortress 2 and Serious Sam). So I want to see an end to all this generalization of the shooter genre, because ye're talking about a massive genre with a wide variety of different styles and premises (this comment isn't directed squarely at ye, Doofen-whatever, I just thought it was a good chance to set the record straight).

Now, if Mario were hypothetically owned by a company focused primarily on shooter games, then it could have been anything, really. It could've been grounded in real Italian history, such as the Italian Wars or, more likely, World War II. It could've been a space marine series based around Italian-American stereotypes. It could've been a mafia sandbox-style shooter set in the 1920s. It could have been set in a downright silly and gleefully inaccurate alternate history version of Italy or a fantasy world based on Renaissance art. If it were more stealth-based, it could have been something like Assassin's Creed II, perhaps.

I'm kinda tired right now, so I can't think of more silly Mario shooter possibilities. But hopefully that satisfies yer curiosity or whatever it was ye wanted from me response.
Click to expand...
That's actually a very good answer. And it's Doofenshmirtz.
 
Besides, the majority of companies that are not Nintendo are not focused on shooters
 
Baby Luigi said:
Besides, the majority of companies that are not Nintendo are not focused on shooters
Click to expand...
Nintendo like to take different areas of types of games so there is something for everyone not like those shooter and Driving games for XBox 360 or Playstation 3.
 
Dr. Eggman said:
Baby Luigi said:
Besides, the majority of companies that are not Nintendo are not focused on shooters
Click to expand...
Nintendo like to take different areas of types of games so there is something for everyone not like those shooter and Driving games for XBox 360 or Playstation 3.
Click to expand...

Again, Nintendo is not the only producer that makes different games. The Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have plenty of games that aren't shooters or driving games. Fighting games for example are pretty much exclusive to those consoles. The Wii only has Super Smash Brothers Brawl and fighting game spin-offs. Sega produces Sonic games and other popular family games on every console, not just the Wii. Also, many people (me included) would disagree with the Wii having different types of games on it. Most people consider the Wii to have casual games on it, so it lacks content for the more hardcore gamers. And before someone says it, a game does not have to be violent and "realistic" to be hardcore.
 
To this day, I still question the meaning of "hardcore" and "casual"
 
Hardcore is Platform, Shooter, RPG, Racing, Sports, and other stuff like that.
Casual is mainly Puzzles, but some other gerne's should fit in that as well.
 
Dr. Eggman said:
Nintendo like to take different areas of types of games so there is something for everyone not like those shooter and Driving games for XBox 360 or Playstation 3.
Click to expand...
Did ye not pay attention to me long rant at all? There are so many different genre styles on non-Nintendo consoles (and some barely touched by Nintendo at all, such as fighting games, as Leonyx mentioned earlier), not just "shooter and driving" games (even tho many are actually quite good and interesting, although it seems ye'd rather not admit that); that was one of the many points I was making, but ye seem to want to ignore them all completely!

Your implication that Nintendo are the only ones with a wide variety of genres on their consoles (which isn't even the case with the bland Wii) is hilariously ignorant. Are ye even trying anymore?