​

Nintendo has just announced Super Mario Maker has sold 1 million units worldwide:

For the last 30 years, Super Mario fans have proved to be some of the most passionate, loyal and dedicated video game fans on the planet. Traditionally that fervor has been most clearly measured by unit sales, and with more than 310 million units sold and counting in the Super Mario franchise, that fervor is historic. And now, with the recent release of the Super Mario Maker game for the Wii U console, Nintendo has a new way to measure fan engagement: level creation.

Today it was revealed that more than 1 million units of Super Mario Maker have been sold around the world since its launch on Sept. 11. The addition of 1 million new "fan" developers has led to the creation of more than 2.2 million Super Mario courses, which combined have been played nearly 75 million times.

"For Mario fans around the world, including myself, Super Mario Maker was a dream 30 years in the making," said Nintendo of America President and COO Reggie Fils-Aime. "The game has captured and unlocked the imaginations of gaming fans of all ages and brought their dedication to Nintendo to a whole new level."

Super Mario Maker Official Site

 

[The Catboy]

See? More proof piracy is killing Nintendo /s

Halo is on PC..

Halo 1 and 2 is, but the rest aren't though, but that's not the point of my post.
Edited my point to clear things up

 

[TeamScriptKiddies]

Hardware sales are going to go through the roof now between Super Mario Maker being out and the recent Loadiine release XD.

 

[FAST6191]

Hardware sales are going to go through the roof now between Super Mario Maker being out and the recent Loadiine release XD.

That poor Nintendo lean-to.

 

[Taleweaver]

Okay, I'll admit it: I was wrong. I never thought it'd sell anywhere near as good as other games nintendo produces (that is, assuming you'll call the editor a game). What's next...will people buy wiiu's to play mario maker?

It's an honest question. I don't even dare to be sarcastic anymore...

 

[TeamScriptKiddies]

???

That poor Nintendo lean-to.

 

[the_randomizer]

That poor Nintendo lean-to.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

 

[osirisjem]

will people buy wiiu's to play mario maker?

Small boost in sales I bet.
Not a ton.
Not after the NX was announced.

 

[Bimmel]

Not surprising. Sadly this Maker is missing some essential features. Hope this will get patched soon, but I doubt it.

(For those who got a question block over their heads what I mean: Checkpoints and more then the maximum of 2 worlds to create in 1 level would be very important for example)

 

[grossaffe]

WTF is that supposed to mean?

he's saying that the roof that sales are going through isn't very high.

 

[sporkonomix]

I agree, I just don't see people outside of major* mario fans playing hacked mario games. (*If I can give a rating on people who are mario fans from 1-10, I don't see people who aren't 7 and above playing hacked mario games)

The people who are playing Mario Maker must be around a 2 or 3; I'm dead serious, I've made some of the most easiest Mario levels that the risk of death to me, my brother, sister, friends is minimal (some of which who haven't even played Mario). I'm looking at the stats of this level, 8 people played, 3 of those 8 have cleared it (15 plays, 3 clears). Either children or people who haven't played Mario that much are playing these levels (a large part of the population is like this). Which is why I'm saying there are a ton of people who are playing Mario Maker and are not playing the hacked Mario games.

I've seen similar things happening. You'll either get an automatic level, a music level, an "I'm just fucking around" level, a level that's clearly someone's first, a level that's too easy, or a level that's ready to bend you over and take you without lube.

I strive for the middle ground. I want the player to work for their completion of the level. I want to challenge their assumptions and get them to explore the game mechanics. The last level I published was a maze. Honestly, it's a pretty simple level. There's a pit in the level, though, where you're forced to jump out of Kuribo's shoe if you're going to make it. There's no other way past. But that's okay, because I added another route through the maze that doesn't require a "leap of faith". It is, however, another sub-level's worth of content and a fair bit harder than just jumping out of Kuribo's shoe. So the level rewards knowledge of game mechanics.

Honestly, I made what I wanted to play.

 

[sporkonomix]

I like and support your idea - that'd actually be cool. Players would be able to not just create levels, but whole cohesive level packs with some form of a goal beyond just "going right". I think it's an excellent idea.
Beyond the fact that I think you're wrong, meaning the "twins" have enough defining features of their own (Touchpad, SIXAXIS and PSEye versus Kinect 2.0 and robust media functionality provided by the HDMI In, the TV add-on etc.) and they're certainly not "stripped-down PC's" any more than the N64 was a stripped down SGI Indy, the SNES was a stripped-down Apple IIGS or the Xbox 360 was a pair of PowerMac G5's stuck together with duct tape etc., seeing that they're based on customized CPU/GPU/Memory designs used exclusively in them (there are no octocore Jaguar CPU's on the market nor are there any PC's equipped with GDDR5 memory as RAM, or memory shared in a HSA scheme for that matter) just like any other console before them (technology does not live in a vacuum - every single chip used in a console is derrivative from the general pool of computing), I disagree completely with the premise of your argument.

A video game console is unlike any other "toy" - toys have to be unique from the outset since what you see is what you get. A console's primary purpose is to support video games, unique solutions for the plastic you play the games on come second. The Wii has shifted the focus of console gaming from the games onto the gimmicks and I hate that. Some of the best video game consoles of all time had zero gimmicks out of the box and nobody batted an eye, why? Because they played video games and they did it well. All they had to do was be efficient at their intended purpose, be equipped hardware that will remain relevant and supported throughout their lifecycle. If you're building a console on technology that's obsolete Day 0 and the support dries up before you even get a foothold, especially when you had a headstart of a year, you know mistakes were made at the design stage - that's the harsh reality of it all. The second screen is neat, but you know what's neater? Having games to play.

From a gimmicks perspective there was nothing differentiating the SNES from the Mega Drive/Genesis - they were boxes you put cartridges in and they came with gamepads - shocking development. Despite that, they both have amazing libraries of exclusives and a hefty library of cross-platform games to boot. I can totally imagine the great majority of Wii U games working perfectly fine without the gamepad because I'm familiar with the concept of pop-up windows and menus - the chief example of that is ZombiU, now re-branded and re-released as Zombi. Nobody could even imagine this game working on anything other than the Wii U and yet here it is, re-released with improved graphics on PS4, Xbox One and PC. Admittedly a cash grab title, but it demonstrates that the gamepad, although neat, is completely optional 99% of the time.

Anywho, the tl;dr version of what I'm saying is that I don't think the Wii U has any more right to be on the market than the PS4 and the Xbox One just because it's "different" - different doesn't mean better. Sometimes you can be innovative to your own detriment, and the Wii U is a great example of that in motion. That's not to say that I don't like innovation, it's all nice and dandy, but it's a gamble - sometimes it pays off, like in the case of the DS, sometimes it doesn't, like in the case of the Wii U. I think Nintendo tried to copy-paste the DS experience into the home console market and failed for very obvious reasons - while on the DS the screens are separated by about 1 cm and constantly in plain view, in a home console environment you have to actively look away from the TV if you want to see the gamepad, so your immersion is immediately broken and you're prone to screw up since you can't see what's going on. That, and the gamepad increased manufacturing costs by a huge margin which led to a hefty entry price point for hardware that was ultimately obsolete and deserved retirement before it even left the assembly line. I mean, PPC7xx? Really? C'mon. It was fine on the GC, it was funny when you stuffed it into the Wii, but in the Wii U? The console that was supposed to be Nintendo's comeback to the mainstream audience? Well that panned out great.

You tend to have the same bad habit other non-Nintendo people have had for over a decade: call anything they don't like that Nintendo does a "gimmick".

Firstly, the SNES *did* have something new that the Genesis didn't: shoulder buttons. An extra face button compared to the Genesis (the Genesis later expanded to XYZ, but how many games actually used those buttons?), it inherited Select from the NES (which brought a quality directional pad instead of a joystick, multiple buttons, etc), and so on. The N64 had an analog stick that Sony scrambled to beat out when they released the DualShock. Also note that Sony wouldn't have entered the business at all if they hadn't been collaborating with Nintendo on an SNES successor. Sony took Nintendo's original shoulder button and analog stick ideas and basically doubled up on them. The controller's barely changed since (DS2 added pressure sensitive buttons, DS3 has gyro; most games use neither). Sega shat the bed for the second half of the 90s, then Nintendo game around with the GameCube, with an attempt at a more ergonomic controller design. MS basically copied the Dreamcast controller wholesale. The GBA brought shoulder buttons to the GameBoy. The GameCube got support for GBAs as controller (for certain games). That was dismissed as a gimmick despite Nintendo supporting the GameBoy in some way or form since the SNES days with Super GameBoy. Then the industry copied them when the PS3 came out with PSP support. The Wii launched with motion controls. Sony's EyeToy from the PS2 era wasn't really comparable, so they made the Move and MS made Kinect; both of which didn't originally come with the consoles. I don't know which games you played on the Wii, but a lot of what I played, when it used the motion controls, it was nice. Some games like Twilight Princess were waggley, but once the MotionPlus came out and, particularly Skyward Sword, I was sold on motion controls. They're like any other interface tool, though: they can be used to great or shitty effect. It doesn't make them a gimmick. If you look at the history of gaming since Nintendo revived it, they've been a pioneer. None of what they offer is brand-new technology, but they make it relevant to gaming.

When's the last time you saw some real innovation from MS, Sony, or PC developers? You get conventional controllers and KB+mouse. There's no innovation from them in the interface department whatsoever. It's the same "Cold War": more polygons, more pixels, more space. That's not innovation. It's predictable progress. The closest thing we've seen so far is Valve's attempt at a controller that can mimic a trackpad and the Oculus Rift, owned by Facebook of all companies. I doubt either of those will really take off. Games will need drivers for the new controller and the Rift requires similar dedicated programming. All the demos of it I've seen point to it being cumbersome and prone to making people feel sick. The idea is cool -- don't get me wrong -- but the execution, like most things on PC, is rather ad-hoc and poorly implemented.

Gaming is just as much about the interface as it is the games. Some games do far better with, say, touch controls compared to conventional controls. Some do better with motion controls. And the rest do just fine with conventional. The important aspect is that choice and variety is present. I just know Mario Maker would be shitty on a PC or with regular controls. Having the GamePad to look down at to mimic the feel of jotting down ideas helps the process. Then I can look up at the main screen to get a feel for how it really looks and feels. It's pretty much just the DS applied to the living room, but it works well.

Maybe our difference in perspective comes from what we expect from games. I'm not just looking for a solid game: I'm looking for a complete experience. Creative use of controls, immersive and fun gameplay, design that makes me want more. I can't get creative controls on a standard controller. Most things have already been done before with them. To me, gaming doesn't end at the game. It ends at the controller.

Okay, I'll admit it: I was wrong. I never thought it'd sell anywhere near as good as other games nintendo produces (that is, assuming you'll call the editor a game). What's next...will people buy wiiu's to play mario maker?

It's an honest question. I don't even dare to be sarcastic anymore...

I actually did purchase my Wii U for Mario Maker. Mostly because I had finally saved up enough to get it (and I have quite a list of games to get eventually) and because I couldn't see myself paying full price for it, so may as well have it bundled.

 

[Foxi4]

You tend to have the same bad habit other non-Nintendo people have had for over a decade: call anything they don't like that Nintendo does a "gimmick".

Not really, I just call gimmicks gimmicks, and I'm not a non-Nintendo gamer. A controller is just a piece of plastic - it's supposed to be wieldy and convenient. Games are supposed to be an escape from reality - the controller is the last thing you should be focused on when playing one. As for Mario Maker, it would look and play exactly the same on any modern gaming platform, as illustrated by LittleBigPlanet. Besides, I like the gamepad, I just think the Wii U is a poorly designed system.

As for your view on gaming history, yes, the PlayStation was Sony's revenge after Nintendo broke off the deal they had regarding the SNES CD, but the rest of what you're saying are just perpetuated myths. Nintendo didn't invent nor was the first to use analog sticks, shoulder buttons or motion controls - those were all pre-existing ideas. Their contribution to directional pads was the fact that theirs was a cross, and that shape stuck to this day fue to the popularity of the NES. Not that it all even matters since who did what first is irrelevant, what matters is whose implementation sticks - I don't see a lot of three-pronged controllers around. I could enumerate all the ways in which you're wrong, but I don't want to derail this thread - my point is that Nintendo is not console design Jesus and a lot of things they do are indeed gimmicks designed to grab attention and make everyone think they're the next big thing when they're not or detract attention from the glaring limitations of their systems. They have a long history of throwing a whole bunch of ideas at a wall hoping at least one sticks - that's been their strategy for years. Innovation is nice, but not all innovation is good - some things just "work" as they are.

 

[sporkonomix]

Nintendo didn't invent nor was the first to use analog sticks, shoulder buttons or motion controls - those were all pre-existing ideas.

Right, I said that:

None of what they offer is brand-new technology, but they make it relevant to gaming.

LBP's level editing is more flexible, but using a touchscreen for that would be tons more convenient. Have you played Mario Maker? Lots of people in this thread are passing judgment on the game without even having played it. I've built levels in LBP and Mario Maker respectively, and I think the touchscreen is absolutely the way to go. Hiding elements under menus, using analog sticks to align or resize, etc, are kludgy attempts at creating a robust editor. It's clear Media Molecule did the best they could with the limitations of the controller, but it's still not a very enjoyable experience.

That said, Mario Maker could do with a few additions, like checkpoints, the ability to put water inside a level, and pipes that lead to other parts of the same area. Maybe add more power-ups, too. But as far as a core Mario experience goes, it's great. I've spent more time playing SMM in the past two weeks than I have on Demon's Souls or Ni No Kuni grand total (which are great games, don't get me wrong).

 

[grossaffe]

When's the last time you saw some real innovation from MS, Sony, or PC developers? You get conventional controllers and KB+mouse. There's no innovation from them in the interface department whatsoever. It's the same "Cold War": more polygons, more pixels, more space. That's not innovation. It's predictable progress. The closest thing we've seen so far is Valve's attempt at a controller that can mimic a trackpad and the Oculus Rift, owned by Facebook of all companies. I doubt either of those will really take off. Games will need drivers for the new controller and the Rift requires similar dedicated programming. All the demos of it I've seen point to it being cumbersome and prone to making people feel sick. The idea is cool -- don't get me wrong -- but the execution, like most things on PC, is rather ad-hoc and poorly implemented.

I really don't want to derail this thread anymore, but I do have something I want to say on the subject. For one, sickness from VR will go down as the technology gets better. High latency and low framerate will cause motion sickness, which is why the goal is to reduce latency as much as possible and to get framerate up to 90 FPS. Oculus is going to do well when they do release.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that there has been some other neat innovations in interface on PCs. Look up the Novint Falcon.

 

[goodbytes]

I'm not sure how I feel about this game. I love Mario and bought it on release day, it's an extremely beautiful game and looks well polished. I'm a casual gamer and don't have much time to create levels, I just wanted a bit of Mario Nostalgia so I done a few of the 100 lives thing... I found the levels a little underwhelming (really easy, and some of them over in seconds). I then decided to go online, and this is where it went terribly wrong... I checked down the top 10 and all of them were unplayable in that as soon as the level started the screen is scrolling and you basically don't do anything but watch... or at least how it seems.

I don't have friends to play with so I'm just selecting levels without any real guidance.. each time it's some scrolling rubbish or some crazy 'theme' level. I just want to play Mario.

I've tried several sittings with the game and not played many actual challenging levels at all.

Maybe i'm missing the point or looking in the wrong places?

I feel like i'd have been happier with the original Mario games this game features but in the same HD quality... they should have at least bundled them with this game.