Super Mario Maker Sells 1 Million Units Worldwide
Super Mario Maker Official Site
Super Mario Maker Official Site
FAST6191 said:
*sigh*
We all know Lunar Magic is great etc etc, but using it requires a rom in the first place, and surely I don't need to talk about the legal issues surrounding that...
Then there's the simple fact many console gamers don't do PC gaming - this perhaps moreso for Nintendo fans. Then there's the fact that Mario Maker is just so easy to use in the first place - I'm gonna take your point of the gbatemp community as note here, have you seen some of the newbie posts we can get on here? It's a shock some people have figured out how to turn a PC on at times... I can add 'plays well with others' to the ease of use bit too - had my little niece playing it with me a few days back - she can just chuck whatever she wants in then click the play button - I'm sure I need speak no more there...
Then there's the fact this seamlessly switches between 4 different Mario titles.
Then there's the online community - 2.2 million posted levels speaks for itself.
....then there's the Mario Maker level sharing thread on here...
Need I go on?
The title doesn't appeal to you, we can see that, but surely you can see why it appeals to so many other people out there? By all means carry on waffling your 'point' across as if your opinion should also account for every gamer on the planet though....
All this really reminds me of another game that came with a level editor - Jazz Jackrabbit 2. Thing is, that game came with a side of, y'know, an actual campaign of professionally-made levels. And a story. As far as console games are concerned, Mario Maker is fine, but Halo's Forge mode was equally if not more complex. Then there's LittleBigPlanet, a game built around the concept of building levels or altering existing ones. That, and it also had a story mode, unlike this game. Mario Maker's nice, it looks like fun, but it's really just a NSMB level editor packaged as a game and I don't know how I feel about that. Like FAST said, this isn't anything new - it's a tried and true formula, but I feel it'd be better if it came with a Classic Mario and New Mario campaigns already in-game, a bit like Sonic Generations. Tiles could be unlockable in-game, like achievements or trophies, and then used in the editor. Alas, that is not the case - you only get the editor. At least it's robust - can't fault Nintendo for that.*sigh*
We all know Lunar Magic is great etc etc, but using it requires a rom in the first place, and surely I don't need to talk about the legal issues surrounding that...
Then there's the simple fact many console gamers don't do PC gaming - this perhaps moreso for Nintendo fans. Then there's the fact that Mario Maker is just so easy to use in the first place - I'm gonna take your point of the gbatemp community as note here, have you seen some of the newbie posts we can get on here? It's a shock some people have figured out how to turn a PC on at times... I can add 'plays well with others' to the ease of use bit too - had my little niece playing it with me a few days back - she can just chuck whatever she wants in then click the play button - I'm sure I need speak no more there...
Then there's the fact this seamlessly switches between 4 different Mario titles.
Then there's the online community - 2.2 million posted levels speaks for itself.
....then there's the Mario Maker level sharing thread on here...
Need I go on?
The title doesn't appeal to you, we can see that, but surely you can see why it appeals to so many other people out there? By all means carry on waffling your 'point' across as if your opinion should also account for every gamer on the planet though....
Well yeah it's not a game based around story. If it was would you be surprised as to the princess being captured again. Mario Maker is just a simpler way of say Mario Level editor and and even then you're not editing any level if you start from scratch. It's more of a overall 2d mario level editor if anything.
It's not a game, period. A game is something you play - if you have to "make the game" yourself then what you have is "tools". Not that it's a bad thing, I just want it to be categorized correctly. No, I wouldn't be surprised about the princess being kidnapped nor would I expect anything else or even care about the non-existant narrative, I do however require my games to come with levels and some goal or objective at the end - if I have to make my own levels or rely on other users, I'm not going to call the software a game. When I go to the cinema, I expect to see a movie. I don't expect to be handed a bunch of costumes and be told "the stage is there, the camera's on the right, have fun" - I wouldn't call that a movie-going experience, I'd call that an improv class. All in all, I don't object to Mario Maker, I think it's fine, I just don't think it's a game.
I don't know the exact number, but it does come with dozens of courses on disc. The pre-made levels just aren't the main attraction.It's not a game, period. A game is something you play - if you have to "make the game" yourself then what you have is "tools". Not that it's a bad thing, I just want it to be categorized correctly. No, I wouldn't be surprised about the princess being kidnapped nor would I expect anything else or even care about the non-existant narrative, I do however require my games to come with levels and some goal or objective at the end - if I have to make my own levels or rely on other users, I'm not going to call the software a game. When I go to the cinema, I expect to see a movie. I don't expect to be handed a bunch of costumes and be told "the stage is there, the camera's on the right, have fun" - I wouldn't call that a movie-going experience, I'd call that an improv class. All in all, I don't object to Mario Maker, I think it's fine, I just don't think it's a game.
Well you don't even have to make the levels. The game throws some custom stages at you and you have an option to play totally new and unique levels from other players. Its just as any other mario game with the object slightly different such as go online, create stages and have fun, so saying this is not a game really doesn't hold up well. If it were just a mario editor (say reggie editor)you would have yourself just a tool and not a game which means mario maker isn't wrongly categorized. Just because the game has no overall objective (meaning story) doesn't mean it is one. If it looks like a game, play like a game, it might as well be a game. If however Mario Maker never had its online function I slightly would have agreed with you more.It's not a game, period. A game is something you play - if you have to "make the game" yourself then what you have is "tools". Not that it's a bad thing, I just want it to be categorized correctly. No, I wouldn't be surprised about the princess being kidnapped nor would I expect anything else or even care about the non-existant narrative, I do however require my games to come with levels and some goal or objective at the end - if I have to make my own levels or rely on other users, I'm not going to call the software a game. When I go to the cinema, I expect to see a movie. I don't expect to be handed a bunch of costumes and be told "the stage is there, the camera's on the right, have fun" - I wouldn't call that a movie-going experience, I'd call that an improv class. All in all, I don't object to Mario Maker, I think it's fine, I just don't think it's a game.
Oh? I was unaware of that, it wasn't covered in the material I've read - in this case I detract my statement, I'm glad you get this much. I'd be even more positive if the levels were strung into a cohesive campaign, but I'll take custom levels if that's offered. Not to sound like a broken record, but I'd like a game with a side dish of level editor, not a level editor with a side dish of game.
*sigh*
We all know Lunar Magic is great etc etc, but using it requires a rom in the first place, and surely I don't need to talk about the legal issues surrounding that...
Then there's the simple fact many console gamers don't do PC gaming - this perhaps moreso for Nintendo fans. Then there's the fact that Mario Maker is just so easy to use in the first place - I'm gonna take your point of the gbatemp community as note here, have you seen some of the newbie posts we can get on here? It's a shock some people have figured out how to turn a PC on at times... I can add 'plays well with others' to the ease of use bit too - had my little niece playing it with me a few days back - she can just chuck whatever she wants in then click the play button - I'm sure I need speak no more there...
Then there's the fact this seamlessly switches between 4 different Mario titles.
Then there's the online community - 2.2 million posted levels speaks for itself.
....then there's the Mario Maker level sharing thread on here...
Need I go on?
The title doesn't appeal to you, we can see that, but surely you can see why it appeals to so many other people out there? By all means carry on waffling your 'point' across as if your opinion should also account for every gamer on the planet though....
I have no issue with the game (it seems to be a highly polished game and were I not burned out on the underlying concepts* I would probably be having a great time, assuming I thought the Wii U a viable prospect I would probably point people at this that would enjoy such things as well as it is a nice example of the concept with some added perks), I find many of its ideas interesting and would hope others look into and explore them and I am probably the last person you have to sell on the virtues of being able to tweak things to your taste. Amusingly I actually do not have the greatest deal of respect for the Mario hacking community as a whole (I spoke earlier of signal to noise and though the barrier to entry helps a bit it is by no means a cure, at all), indeed you will sooner find me singing the praises of the pokemon one instead and that would be a turn up for the books.
2.2 million levels, I would certainly enjoy reading the in depth stats (or at least the analysis of them at the level I would probably take such a thing to) but at the same time there have probably been 2.2 million tweets and in relative terms probably about as much literary merit. The first level of NES super mario is held as a master class in teaching by play, if people can not explain why I hold out so very little hope of them being able to produce anything of great merit beyond that. History would also seem to bear me out on that one, indeed the only times any kind of mass user influenced design has been seen to work from where I sit has been for stateful MUDs or the MMORPGs that took their cues from them and neither of those have particularly high levels of change that they make for. Taking a step to the side have any of the "second screen" games really worked yet? I quite liked some of the combined RTS and FPS games (things like Savage: The Battle for Newerth) so the concept is not impossible but it does seem to have its own version of the uncanny valley (at least as far as broaching the other side is going to take a lot of time, effort, skill and money). Alternatively the old phrase "those that can, do; those that can't, teach", the same seems to apply to level designers and games like this. Doubtless we could probably find many a random designer waxing poetic on a games blog somewhere about how they had fun with it, and maybe even allowed them to rapidly prototype something; I would treat that in much the same way that I still play with lego and sprinkle some cinnamon on a pie I got in Asda despite being able to go far beyond that.
*people say things like COD are the same game and as such are likely to dismiss it, and also say things about the state of modern games. This may be so but the pap for the masses is about as refined as it has ever been and that is not a bad thing from where I sit.
On legal issues with the ROM then I will say some of the things I have seen there have been amusing (these people might never download a 2 gig iso but will download a youtube video to put on their music player and by similar token will download a few hundred kilobyte file to play with without it so much as tripping an alarm in their head). That said bringing things to the masses/new audiences is not a bad thing and removing barriers to entry is not a bad thing either. That said if Minecraft is the game of this generation, perhaps similar to NES mario being that for ones not too far either side of our own (though I will also have to mention Lode Runner as we are in a discussion of level editors), then being able to build things in Mario does lose a bit of its sheen.
None of that has really been my point though. Likewise I am not really a fan of "do it first", unless I am dissing patents anyway, as it pales mightily before "do it well" and I would hold the high skill stuff which produces the best results is hobbled at best and outright shut out at worst*. I think I just like to temper enthusiasm, or at least see any enthusiasm be for the right reasons and fairly minor sales in the modern world and things done similarly well before (little big planet was probably not as refined here but definitely goes to the same parties) being considered new would not seem to be one of them.
*I once saw a mario random level generator paired with a mario solver. I tried to find the video the other day but could not. Anyway the a mario genetic algorithm is probably a bit far off but the lesser version of that where rapid refinements are made by means of iteration is something very special from what I have seen and a lot of good stuff has come out of that, especially when they can alter for certain skill levels.
Anyway I am waffling now. The short version would be you probably have my measure but have misread me in this instance.
Just a quick poll, how many people in this thread are actually playing this game right now? Not trying to be troll, but it seems like very little of you guys have played or are playing it. I feel like you can't give a fair judgement without actually trying it.
I was able to get a hold of from my roommate this morning and have been playing it all morning. It's actually rather enjoyable, even if I tend to suffer from writer's block most of the time.
It does feel a bit like just a standard level editor, but unlike most level editors, still feels like a solid game. They give just enough to really bridge between game and level editor, but keep it just enough to enjoy.
I was able to get a hold of from my roommate this morning and have been playing it all morning. It's actually rather enjoyable, even if I tend to suffer from writer's block most of the time.
It does feel a bit like just a standard level editor, but unlike most level editors, still feels like a solid game. They give just enough to really bridge between game and level editor, but keep it just enough to enjoy.
And I---- helped!
Also, Wii U ain't dead, I'm looking at my shelf right now and realizing that I have probably bought more games for the Wii U, all of which being exclusives than any other system in the past. (Sans PC.) If it were as dead as some people claim it is, it wouldn't be worthy of the solid stream of titles consistently being released. If it could be considered dead on any level, it's dead to third-party developers, which franky: I don't care. I didn't buy a Nintendo system to play games that my PC/PS4 could have played better, I didn't buy it for the gimmicks, I bought it for the first/second-party titles, which have remained consistently good over the last 30ish years now.
Also, Wii U ain't dead, I'm looking at my shelf right now and realizing that I have probably bought more games for the Wii U, all of which being exclusives than any other system in the past. (Sans PC.) If it were as dead as some people claim it is, it wouldn't be worthy of the solid stream of titles consistently being released. If it could be considered dead on any level, it's dead to third-party developers, which franky: I don't care. I didn't buy a Nintendo system to play games that my PC/PS4 could have played better, I didn't buy it for the gimmicks, I bought it for the first/second-party titles, which have remained consistently good over the last 30ish years now.
...what stream of titles?
The crux is that you shouldn't have to buy several systems (meaning your PS4) to enjoy gaming. If all you bought the Wii U for are Nintendo games then the Wii U has no reason to exist - you want the games, they might as well come out for a different platform. It's like a hostage situation with games as hostages. Ideally a general consumer wants a platform that will play the majority of games each generation, not just a narrow slice of exclusives.
Well for the on-disc stuff, they have different challenges that make use of these levels, but I'm not quite sure how it all works; I've only played around with it a little at my brother's place at this point.Oh? I was unaware of that, it wasn't covered in the material I've read - in this case I detract my statement, I'm glad you get this much. I'd be even more positive if the levels were strung into a cohesive campaign, but I'll take custom levels if that's offered. Not to sound like a broken record, but I'd like a game with a side dish of level editor, not a level editor with a side dish of game.
As for what I'd like out of it, I'm more than happy to have it as primarily a level creator with some pre-made stuff to go with it, but to go with your point on the cohesive campaign aspect, I'd love to have the ability to create an overworld to package together your titles much like you were actually making a full-fledged Mario game rather than one-off levels. Bring in branching paths and secret exits and such.
I'd argue the Wii U has more reason to exist than the twins because it actually does something different with the hardware while the Twins are essentially stripped-down PCs. How many games on those consoles would be fundamentally different if played on a PC with a controller versus how many games on the Wii U would be fundamentally different on a platform without the gamepad functionality integrated into its design?
Last edited by grossaffe,
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.
With the classic consoles, they were something quite a bit different from PCs. For one, games were actually programmed to the metal back then. Everything about the hardware was ingrained in the game development process whereas now it's all done with APIs and OSes and such. You no longer get that bang-for-your-buck aspect as before. Game controllers were hardly standardized for PCs back then, too, as you had to install a 15-pin game port card into your PC and use their custom drivers rather than modern day where you just plug'n'play a USB controller.
And those defining features for the twins you listed... well touchpads have been around on PCs long before the PS4. Quite standard on any remotely modern laptop, actually. Perhaps not on a controller, once the Steam controller drops, that'll change. PSEye and Kinect? Neither of those are integrated into the console as a guarantee users have it. PCs have Kinect, too, should developers choose to use it. And Sixaxis is just a hasty attempt at a Wii rip-off that never took off. None of that brings an experience that you won't get on a PC except MAYBE the Sixaxis, but I don't see anyone clamouring for it. But in terms of games that couldn't be made for PC without fundamentally changing the experience... I just don't see it. If the Xbone kept the Kinect as an integrated part of the system, it would have a legitimate argument, but they cut and run from that strategy and it no longer holds much value as there's no guarantee to developers that a potential customer has it, which puts it in the same boat as the multitude of optional peripherals available for PC.
I don't see how that changes anything - many games of that era were also programmed for specific hardware because API's like OpenGL or DirectX didn't even exist yet - standardization in the graphics field was yet to come in future generations. Games that looked one way on one PC looked vastly different on another depending on hardware (Hercules versus EGA versus CGA versus VGA etc., although admittedly that was more of a worry in NES/SMS days as by the time the SNES/Genesis rolled in we mostly settled on VGA). This disparity was especially prominent in the audio field - no MIDI sounded "the same" on vastly different setups (the battle between Sound Blaster, Roland, Gravis Ultrasound and AdLib, among others, was raging on well into the generation).
Now that we have API's that allow more leeway and relatively similar results on vastly different hardware, we use them across the board to provide a seamless experience. This doesn't negate the advantage of consoles - their hardware is standardized and as such their API's are shorter than on PC - every PS4 and every Xbox One are exactly the same, thus you can cut out a lot of peripheral nonsense, gaining a lot in performance.
The only other controller I know that has a touchpad is the OUYA controller - it's hardly a standard.
They're not integrated, but they're available. As for SIXAXIS, it was unveiled on the same E3 the Wii was unveiled on and it was released before the Wii, I can't quite see how it'd be a rip-off. There are certain gameplay elements where it's useful (steering wheels in racing games or balancing in platformers), but to be fair it's mostly gimmicky and I pay little attention to it.
The fundamental problem in your reasoning is that you want a system that offers an experience different than the PC instead of just wanting a good system. I'll define "good" as a system that supports gaming first and foremost and is a good marriage of relevant hardware, strong software support and a good price point.
On a PC you can attach any peripheral you want out of the gate, you can play on 15 monitors if you so deem fit, so the dual screen point is somewhat moot.
The uniqueness of control only goes so far - if Nintendo releases a console that's controlled with a buttplug, you won't see gamers bursting in through windows to get one on launch day - the innovation you crave so much has to be practical, and the second screen turned out to be impractical because it jacked up the price point by $100 which made improving the console's specs to an acceptable degree unfeasible even if Nintendo wanted to do so (which they didn't). Not all innovation works out to be good innovation.
The Wii U is an attempt at making a DS that's a home console and it just didn't work out - I like the concept of having a screen on my controller and I quite enjoy the Wii U gamepad, I don't think it's a bad idea to add a screen to a controller and I don't think that's why the Wii U is failing - the Wii U is failing because it's "different" to its own detriment - it runs on obsolete hardware that's vastly different than the competition's machines and developing games for it would require watering down software assets that are almost cross-platform otherwise.
That being said, I think the Wii has a lot to do with why the Wii U isn't doing so well - I think that the 100-million-dollar-dust-collector disappointed many so-called "core gamers" who bought it expecting all-around coverage, became disappointed and moved on to either the PS3, the Xbox or the PC camps. By the time the Wii U came along, nobody really expected it to deliver a well-rounded gaming experience, so only Nintendo hardcore fans pulled out their wallets to buy one - very intuitive, but also detrimental to the platform as third-party support is hard to obtain on a platform that doesn't sell very well. I really do think the Wii did more harm to the Wii U than the Wii U itself.
Marketing is not about an "ideal world," it's about one-upping your competition. You are trying to sell a product that gets people to buy your product over the others. If Mario existed on all other systems, then there would be no point Nintendo, well there would be no point to marketing. The entire video game market would just grow stale because would be no point to entire gaming market. The same can be said of Halo being on all systems (I know Halo 1/2 are on PC, but this I mean on the Wii U/PS4) or God Of War, ect. Without exclusives, there's no point to owning any gaming system.
Marketing can't exist on one market alone, that's just not how marketing works. That and without competition, there would be a monopoly and with a monopoly can come some horrible effects. Just look at Cable providers, they can put any price they want on their services and treat their customers like shit. Why? Because where else are you going to go? No where because in every area, there is only one cable provider and that's all you get or settle for less. Think about gaming market if it started acting like Comcast.
Last edited by The Catboy,
See? More proof piracy is killing Nintendo /s
Halo is on PC..
Last edited by Margen67,
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
By the power of Florida Man, I have the power!!! *Lifts up meth pipe* Meth Man!!! lol -
@
BakerMan:
Guys, I just learned my little brother is in the hospital because he had a seizure last night. -
-
