Question of Interest: How did Mario Party come to be the only series to still have a dedicated Handheld category, unlike other Mario series?

[winstein]

I do not know if anyone noticed it, but I thought it's especially unusual that Mario Party (series) remains the only series here where handheld entries are delegated to a distinct Handheld category, while the console entries are well, the Main category. Currently, this is how it looks like in the Games navigation box:

Conversely, other series don't delegate the handheld games to their own category. Super Mario platformers for example do not designate their handheld games as a separate category, where both console and handheld as equals. In one case, both Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2 may be considered lesser games but were not treated as "lesser" as to be relegated in a different category. Donkey Kong too, do not treat their unique handheld games as outliers either (though they do separate by series name).

Looking at the big picture, even the Mario Party games don't acknowledge the handheld entries. As an example, both Mario Party The Top 100 and Mario Party Superstars specifically call back to the ten numbered Mario Party games, omitting others like DS and Island Tour. With the Super Mario platformers, the handheld entries got duly acknowledged, even if those mentions aren't as grand as the console ones. For one, Super Mario Land's musical reference is in Super Mario Run's Remix 10 theme (speaking of Super Mario Run, that is another game whose status as a mainline platformer is not always accepted).

There is probably a basis on why the Mario Party games has a Handheld category, since the numbered games are all on console, while the ones on handheld tend to have different names to signify that they are not part of the numbering. That might be why Handheld is a catch-all category for the non-numbered games that the series has. Which put those games in an awkward spot: they're not as fleshed out as the console games to be in their level, nor do they get developed externally (e.g.: the arcade games) to be considered an "other" type of game in the series. In fact, the Mario Party games of note came from a succession of developers between Hudson Soft and Nintendo Cube (the sole outlier being Mario Party-e, since the Arcade games are based on the existing Mario Party games).

I get the through line for Mario Party-e and Mario Party Advance, where both of them are handheld entries but they don't have the hallmarks of the series. For example, they forgo the digital multiplayer aspect of the series that they are known for, which means they don't have the structure of boards and minigames played over 4 people digitally. With that said, Mario Party DS, Island Tour, and Star Rush, while also handheld entries, have a structure that is not unlike the console entries so they also have minigames and boards played across 4 players. While it's certainly an objective fact that they are handheld entries, the fact that the games are still in the handheld category can provide the impression that they are lesser, unlike other series with handheld games. Especially since the non-handheld games are labelled as "Main", implying that console games are inherently superior.

When we put the Nintendo Switch into the equation, the games are able to be played on both a console and handheld level (though Super Mario Party is strictly console or tabletop), which probably muddy the waters a bit. If the handheld category is strictly objective, wouldn't the Nintendo Switch games be considered part of it since a hybrid is also able to be a handheld?

I think this is something we didn't question because it's been like this for a long time, and even on Wikipedia the specific games for Mario Party are also mentioned to be on Handheld. When I noticed the discrepancy of having a category based on console/handheld, I can't help but wonder how the decision came to be, and if the Super Mario platformers categorise them by Handheld for a while as well. If Super Mario platformers at that time segregated the games by console and handheld, what was the key event that led to the games not considering the system type?

Sorry it's a bit rambly, but I thought it would be an interesting topic to bring up.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Waluigi Time]

Unlike the other series, Nintendo seems pretty adamant that the handheld entries aren't to be considered part of the main series. The numbering scheme is a big part of that. Also, there's been no legacy content such as minigames from the handheld entries (even in Top 100), even though there's a pretty big presence of that in the series now. (If I remember correctly, Superstars didn't give them as an option for your profile either.) So I would say those are some pretty big clues that Nintendo considers them a second tier of importance, and the wiki naturally reflects that.

I'm not sure if any of the other series were split previously. I don't think the context clues are there for any of them.

 

[winstein]

Unlike the other series, Nintendo seems pretty adamant that the handheld entries aren't to be considered part of the main series. The numbering scheme is a big part of that. Also, there's been no legacy content such as minigames from the handheld entries (even in Top 100), even though there's a pretty big presence of that in the series now. (If I remember correctly, Superstars didn't give them as an option for your profile either.) So I would say those are some pretty big clues that Nintendo considers them a second tier of importance, and the wiki naturally reflects that.

I'm not sure if any of the other series were split previously. I don't think the context clues are there for any of them.

Given how the handheld entries did not tend to get referenced, the question is, on what condition would a rethink of the grouping happen? It's clear that it's not enough that Nintendo puts both the games in "Main" and "handheld" in their Mario Party history section on their portal website. Let's take a scenario: would Nintendo posting a promotional image of Mario Party games that include both console and handheld entries (similar to the Super Mario platformers image) solidify that one category is not superior to the other? And/or, would making references to or deriving material from the handheld entries in a future game elevate their importance?

Perhaps we could take it the other way around and determine the criteria: what is it that make the Super Mario platformers not in need to have a handheld category, when those games tend to be of lesser importance than the console entries also? There are far less references to the handheld entries like Super Mario Land compared to the console ones, yet they are treated as equals to the console counterparts (as in, they are in the Main category as well).

If handheld is strictly a categorisation on how the game can be played, what would make the Nintendo Switch Mario Party games exempt from the handheld category? After all, Nintendo Switch can be played in handheld mode (though only Super Mario Party requires a console setup) and is especially the case for Nintendo Switch Lite, wouldn't it make sense for those games to be included in that category? That is, unless the assumption is that handheld is inherently inferior in importance.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Waluigi Time]

Given how the handheld entries did not tend to get referenced, the question is, on what condition would a rethink of the grouping happen? It's clear that it's not enough that Nintendo puts both the games in "Main" and "handheld" in their Mario Party history section on their portal website. Let's take a scenario: would Nintendo posting a promotional image of Mario Party games that include both console and handheld entries (similar to the Super Mario platformers image) solidify that one category is not superior to the other? And/or, would making references to or deriving material from the handheld entries in a future game elevate their importance?

Perhaps we could take it the other way around and determine the criteria: what is it that make the Super Mario platformers not in need to have a handheld category, when those games tend to be of lesser importance than the console entries also? There are far less references to the handheld entries like Super Mario Land compared to the console ones, yet they are treated as equals to the console counterparts (as in, they are in the Main category as well).

If handheld is strictly a categorisation on how the game can be played, what would make the Nintendo Switch Mario Party games exempt from the handheld category? After all, Nintendo Switch can be played in handheld mode (though only Super Mario Party requires a console setup) and is especially the case for Nintendo Switch Lite, wouldn't it make sense for those games to be included in that category? That is, unless the assumption is that handheld is inherently inferior in importance.

Thank you for reading.

Most likely it depends on how they're presented in promotional material and/or if they decide to get rid of that division altogether and clearly start treating the original handheld entries on equal terms when developing games. Bringing back minigames or boards from the handheld entries would quickly signify that Nintendo doesn't care about the distinction anymore. They might already be taking that step by getting rid of numbering in their titles, maybe maybe not.

(As a related aside, I don't really like how Mario Kart Tour's been shuffled away from the main series for being a mobile game. I get the "let's wait and see if the next game is titled 9 or not" argument and that it's a departure from the usual gameplay, but for a series where legacy content is so important, the fact that so much stuff from Tour appeared in the Booster Course Pass should speak volumes. Meanwhile, the arcade games still don't get anything.)

As a wiki, we also have to ask ourselves if maintaining a distinction in our own organization is still useful or not. (You could probably make the case that the Party distinction isn't useful right now, if you wanted.) For Super Mario, the benefit to splitting off handheld games is... not really anything? For what it's worth, at some point Nintendo didn't even consider Super Mario Land part of that series at all and Super Mario World was developed as Super Mario Bros. 4, but they've reconsidered that since then. Anyway, using references to determine things like this is only useful in context, not as a general rule. Seeing a reused level is pretty rare in the platformers, as opposed to Kart or Party that have made legacy content significant portions if not the entirety of games. That being said, I don't think home/handheld is inherently a split worth making without reason.

The categorization of Switch is probably because it leans more to the home side? Also worth noting that they kept supporting the 3DS with games a couple of years into the Switch's lifespan, whereas the Wii U was immediately phased out. So I think that's a clue that Nintendo considers the Switch to be a Wii U successor more in line with home consoles, while still fulfilling enough of the handheld niche that the 3DS didn't need a true successor.

 

[winstein]

(As a related aside, I don't really like how Mario Kart Tour's been shuffled away from the main series for being a mobile game. I get the "let's wait and see if the next game is titled 9 or not" argument and that it's a departure from the usual gameplay, but for a series where legacy content is so important, the fact that so much stuff from Tour appeared in the Booster Course Pass should speak volumes. Meanwhile, the arcade games still don't get anything.)

I kind of understand the feeling of mobile games being treated as lesser, and the disdain from it especially when there are evidences that they are treated as part of the main history. Super Mario Run is somehow treated as a spinoff even though Nintendo let it hang out with the console and handheld Super Mario platformers.

That being said, I don't think home/handheld is inherently a split worth making without reason.

I think that this is why I am kind of curious on what makes Mario Party special in this regard, as in the reason this is considered a good idea, especially when one of the categories isn't console (it's "Main"), while the other is just handheld. Specifically, when did this categorisation start (e.g.: did it start when the wiki was starting out?) and what was the rationalisation for doing this when it was first made (could very well be because of the use of numerals for a long time).

What spurred me to make this topic in the first place was that someone brought up that Time Extension article about the grouping of console generations, which is an interesting topic that can get controversial. Of course Mario Party is not as big as this, but it's something I had to inquire, since it bugged me for some time. I suppose at this point, it's difficult to trace back the origins of the category because again, Mario Party is probably not one of the most important things to care about.

The categorization of Switch is probably because it leans more to the home side? Also worth noting that they kept supporting the 3DS with games a couple of years into the Switch's lifespan, whereas the Wii U was immediately phased out. So I think that's a clue that Nintendo considers the Switch to be a Wii U successor more in line with home consoles, while still fulfilling enough of the handheld niche that the 3DS didn't need a true successor.

I'm not sure that using one console's end to signify the successor of another is useful, since Game Boy Advance still got supported even after the Nintendo DS got released. Yet, the Nintendo DS is still considered the successor of the Game Boy Advance.

Yeah Nintendo Switch is usually treated as a home console but I get the impression that Nintendo themselves consider it to be the successor of both. This is evidenced by how in their Switch presentation, they made sure to highlight the handhelds' features in addition to the consoles', which tells me that it could fall under both categories instead of one. I guess Nintendo Switch Lite felt like it could be the successor of the Nintendo 3DS since it was released when the 3DS was already winding down (and the Switch having a bright future ahead so they didn't need to keep up with 3DS releases), and that is an alternative model to the original Nintendo Switch.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Waluigi Time]

I kind of understand the feeling of mobile games being treated as lesser, and the disdain from it especially when there are evidences that they are treated as part of the main history. Super Mario Run is somehow treated as a spinoff even though Nintendo let it hang out with the console and handheld Super Mario platformers.


I think that this is why I am kind of curious on what makes Mario Party special in this regard, as in the reason this is considered a good idea, especially when one of the categories isn't console (it's "Main"), while the other is just handheld. Specifically, when did this categorisation start (e.g.: did it start when the wiki was starting out?) and what was the rationalisation for doing this when it was first made (could very well be because of the use of numerals for a long time).

What spurred me to make this topic in the first place was that someone brought up that Time Extension article about the grouping of console generations, which is an interesting topic that can get controversial. Of course Mario Party is not as big as this, but it's something I had to inquire, since it bugged me for some time. I suppose at this point, it's difficult to trace back the origins of the category because again, Mario Party is probably not one of the most important things to care about.



I'm not sure that using one console's end to signify the successor of another is useful, since Game Boy Advance still got supported even after the Nintendo DS got released. Yet, the Nintendo DS is still considered the successor of the Game Boy Advance.

Yeah Nintendo Switch is usually treated as a home console but I get the impression that Nintendo themselves consider it to be the successor of both. This is evidenced by how in their Switch presentation, they made sure to highlight the handhelds' features in addition to the consoles', which tells me that it could fall under both categories instead of one. I guess Nintendo Switch Lite felt like it could be the successor of the Nintendo 3DS since it was released when the 3DS was already winding down (and the Switch having a bright future ahead so they didn't need to keep up with 3DS releases), and that is an alternative model to the original Nintendo Switch.

Thank you for reading.

Looks like the split happened at some point in the latter half of 2016 going by edit history. There's no corresponding discussion, at least not on the series page.