Unpopular opinions about the Mario series

are you sure the slide theme isn't just a cover version of the cool cool mountain theme

keIVk0x.png
 
I think we discussed it earlier but in most Mario games you will find that many songs are similar to each other and that there's a tune that you will find in almost all of them that keeps coming back.
 
That Sticker Star version of the slide theme reminded me of It's a Small World.

What about this version of the slide theme? It's my favourite personally, it's not exactly like the original bu tit shares some similarities.
 
I need a T-rated Mario game. Smash Bros. just won't cut it, even if Brawl is my favorite game of all time.
 
What would want out of that Mario game?

I'd like rock/metal band game, but Mario, with all the lyrics that make it into a T rating.
 
And? It would be fun to break down some of the boundaries the series has created and see Mario hold a realistic rifle or something similar, even if it's just for one game.
 
The popular opinion I have seen is that characters that are not introduced in a main series (aka Super Mario) or a character-specific series (Donkey Kong Country, Yoshi's Island) but instead started from (or regularly found in) a spin-off are considered of a lesser status compared to those that are. Note that I don't know if this is considered popular, but it's something that I have seen a lot, especially as an argument lobbied against regular characters like Daisy and Waluigi. To elaborate, there are so many characters that are introduced in Super Mario but failed to show up as a regular even though they are supposedly more important due to starting from Super Mario, such as the Sprixie Princesses or Lubba. By contrast Baby Daisy is far better because she is used in more than one game, and even had a spot in a Mario Baseball game. Contrast this to Waluigi and Daisy, who not only appeared more often than the examples I mentioned, but they are also included in the wider group shot featuring Mario characters. Another example is despite starting in Yoshi's Island DS, a game that is considered of more importance because it's a Yoshi's Island follow-up, Baby Wario is pretty unimportant.

"Slot filler" is also lobbied against Waluigi and Daisy as an argument against their importance, but I felt that this is a non-issue if people do like these characters. In fact, I think this is an argument used from those who dislike those characters. I mean, several Mario characters that people like are considered slot filler anyway. The character named Toad was created in Super Mario Bros. 2 to fill in for the 4-character roster. Toadette was created to pair with Toad in Double Dash, and managed to still be used. Finally, there is Luigi, who was just created to be player 2 in Mario Bros, but because writers had taken to themselves to flesh him out despite his origin, look where he is now. They were slot fillers but they were also liked so that's really a non-issue.

Leo Luster said:
And? It would be fun to break down some of the boundaries the series has created and see Mario hold a realistic rifle or something similar, even if it's just for one game.
Click to expand...
I felt that, because of Mario's public image as a family-friendly IP, it would be a very bad outlook for the Mario series, and one that would be mocked for years to come unless they came up with a brilliant solution to embrace this that even the public would like. There is a reason that Sakurai of Super Smash Bros. had clarified that the characters you see are not actually the characters from those games themselves. At least, that is his description of the Miis, but I won't be surprised if this is series-wide since the games established that the characters were dolls/trophies coming to life.

Thank you for reading.
 
winstein said:
"Slot filler" is also lobbied against Waluigi and Daisy
Click to expand...
Waluigi shouldn't be considered stupid.
Daisy, on the other hand, debuted in a main-series Mario game (Super Mario Land). I may not care about the princesses, but if you say that Daisy ain't important, then neither is Wario (Super Mario Land 2).
 
I definitely feel the spinoff thing, especially with the RPG characters but I wish they'd even show up in other spinoffs, much less the main series.

On the topic of a T-rated Mario game, I think SPM should have been rated T, or at least above E. It didn't have blood, strong language or explicitly inappropriate visuals but it dealt with heavier subjects that you might not expect from a Mario game (albeit applying humorous terminology in many cases to lighten the mood) and River Twygz Bed definitely doesn't sound like a music track from an E rated game. At the very least, I'm not sure why SPM got an E rating but Dream Team got an E10+ rating.
 
Cartoon violence.
 
River Twygz bed has become REALLY REALLY overrated as a creepy track, so it kinda got old for me. Still I was pretty damn terrified of the dead hands. These fuckers... idk games tend to have creepy hands.

Although most of the time, when you put heavy subject in games that are meant for young audiences... I can't really say if that is true to everyone, or anyone beside me for the matter... but I never took it seriously. I knew all along what the underworld was, yet I was like "Oh, hey, look. I'm in hell now, lol." And even any somewhat dark dialogue you may have, I would usually treat it normally and brush it as if it were any line. That might be because you're so in ocent and careless as a kid that these things actually don't have as much impact as you'd expect. The music in River Twigz Bed never phased me for example. It was just the hands. The somewhat tragic backstory of Count Bleck and Tippi? Well... even if you're a fan of it, there is one thing you can't ever deny... as much as it might just squeeze something out of your eyes, even if slightly, it still feels really... generic. You always see lovers just really wanting to do anything just to be together, which, well... you can find here. And probably because it's so generic, it will seem like old news to any kid playing...

I don't know, that is just my experience. Feel free to disagree, since well... it's me, and I'm me. And that was a big tangent.

I am much more disturbed by dark moments in games now because I can actually think about them and really reflect on what they could mean, imply, and things like that while little boy me would always forget it off.
 
I feel like Disney has done more twisted crap in their films than Super Paper Mario has so...eh
 
Builder Mario said:
On the topic of a T-rated Mario game, I think SPM should have been rated T, or at least above E. It didn't have blood, strong language or explicitly inappropriate visuals but it dealt with heavier subjects that you might not expect from a Mario game (albeit applying humorous terminology in many cases to lighten the mood) and River Twygz Bed definitely doesn't sound like a music track from an E rated game. At the very least, I'm not sure why SPM got an E rating but Dream Team got an E10+ rating.
Click to expand...
I think an E10+ rating would've sufficed, as there are similar games that dealt with subjects like Majora's Mask, which was rated E10+. I don't think those themes are really dark enough for T rating.
 
ESRB confuses me sometimes. Like, Kirby's Return to Dream Land got slapped with an E10 despite other countries giving it an all-ages rating, while Kirby: Triple Deluxe gets away with an E despite there being two bosses that shed blood. Yikes.

Also, Brawl should have been rated E10 instead of T, Kirby 3 and 64 should have been rated E10 instead of E (Dream Collection was E10 because of them but the individual VC ones were still E). And I don't feel that Dream Team deserved E10 while Partners in Time gets away with E, despite the latter being a much darker game.

ESRB is messed up.
 
Bandana Waddle Dee said:
ESRB confuses me sometimes. Like, Kirby's Return to Dream Land got slapped with an E10 despite other countries giving it an all-ages rating, while Kirby: Triple Deluxe gets away with an E despite there being two bosses that shed blood. Yikes.

Also, Brawl should have been rated E10 instead of T, Kirby 3 and 64 should have been rated E10 instead of E (Dream Collection was E10 because of them but the individual VC ones were still E). And I don't feel that Dream Team deserved E10 while Partners in Time gets away with E, despite the latter being a much darker game.

ESRB is messed up.
Click to expand...
ESRB is messed up? Oh, you don’t know the half of it.
 
HEROWALUIGI said:
Bandana Waddle Dee said:
ESRB confuses me sometimes. Like, Kirby's Return to Dream Land got slapped with an E10 despite other countries giving it an all-ages rating, while Kirby: Triple Deluxe gets away with an E despite there being two bosses that shed blood. Yikes.

Also, Brawl should have been rated E10 instead of T, Kirby 3 and 64 should have been rated E10 instead of E (Dream Collection was E10 because of them but the individual VC ones were still E). And I don't feel that Dream Team deserved E10 while Partners in Time gets away with E, despite the latter being a much darker game.

ESRB is messed up.
Click to expand...
ESRB is messed up? Oh, you don’t know the half of it.
Click to expand...
?
 
Bandana Waddle Dee said:
ESRB confuses me sometimes. Like, Kirby's Return to Dream Land got slapped with an E10 despite other countries giving it an all-ages rating, while Kirby: Triple Deluxe gets away with an E despite there being two bosses that shed blood. Yikes.

Also, Brawl should have been rated E10 instead of T, Kirby 3 and 64 should have been rated E10 instead of E (Dream Collection was E10 because of them but the individual VC ones were still E). And I don't feel that Dream Team deserved E10 while Partners in Time gets away with E, despite the latter being a much darker game.

ESRB is messed up.
Click to expand...

The E10+ rating for Return to Dream Land might have something to do with Magolor's second phase and Magolor Soul, but neither of them shed blood in any way. Brawl's Teen rating likely has to do with the game's more realistic approach, along with the crude humor involving Wario's Wario Waft, and Peach's underwear exposure.

In regards to the older games, E10+ never existed before Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat came to existence, so the way that the Everyone (K-A) and Teen ratings were handled can be questionable at times.
 
Bandana Waddle Dee said:
ESRB confuses me sometimes. Like, Kirby's Return to Dream Land got slapped with an E10 despite other countries giving it an all-ages rating, while Kirby: Triple Deluxe gets away with an E despite there being two bosses that shed blood. Yikes.

Also, Brawl should have been rated E10 instead of T, Kirby 3 and 64 should have been rated E10 instead of E (Dream Collection was E10 because of them but the individual VC ones were still E). And I don't feel that Dream Team deserved E10 while Partners in Time gets away with E, despite the latter being a much darker game.

ESRB is messed up.
Click to expand...
Well,you know, E and E10+ are as useful as G and PG ratings when it comes to measuring violence, as in, they're not useful at all (I read that study, some PG movies actually surpassed R movies in frequency of violent scenes, and bad language was a stronger factor than violence counts in several cases!)

The results of this study reflect the controversy surrounding the CARA rating system and demonstrate its failure to identify clearly violent content in American films. At first glance, it seems that the ratings system makes clearcut distinctions between PG-, PG-13–, and R-rated films with respect to violence, as R films contained more acts of violence than either PG or PG-13. These figures demonstrate that films with a more restrictive rating contained, on average, more violence as well as higher levels of seriousness. However, these basic distributions mask the inconsistencies in the application of its system. For instance, although the average number of violent bodily actions in a PG-13 film was 20, 6 PG films (20% of all PG films) exceeded the PG-13 average. In addition, 3 (10%) of the PG films had more acts of violence than the average for R films (32 per film). Such an overlap in the number of violent acts per rating proves that the ratings system is not consistent in its segmentation of categories. The most striking finding was that more than one quarter of the violence in each of the 3 rating categories was of lethal magnitude (highly serious). On the basis of this result, we believe that CARA has failed to adhere to its definitions of the PG and PG-13 ratings, which state, “horror and violence do not exceed moderate levels” and “rough or persistent violence is absent,” respectively.

In terms of the content descriptors, we found numerous glaring contradictions that were also identified in a recent study by Thompson and Yokota.14 For instance, when objectionable language was identified as the primary factor (which it most often was in PG and PG-13 films), violence levels were as high as those rated for violence. In addition, it was surprising to find that 5 PG films that were rated primarily for language had ≥14 violent acts. Likewise, in the R category, several films that were rated principally for language were saturated with violence. We understand this to mean that for the CARA rating board, transgressions of the norms governing speech decorum are more offensive than violence.
Click to expand...

Sure, this is film content, but I don't think ESRB is that much better honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back