Why do some people judge games based off the merits of the previous entries?

#21xellos667Posted 11/12/2012 11:30:06 AM
FAT____MAN posted...
xellos667 posted...
Personally, after Super Paper Mario (which weirdly enough I enjoyed more than the previous two, mind you) and now this one, I indeed took the whole "Paper Mario" series to be stand-alone titles. And I really enjoy them that way. The "Paper" concept is there, everything else is its own thing. Quite frankly, I know I'm in the minority here, but I always found TTYD to be really overly long for no reason (the dialog, which was fun at first become a big drag as the game goes by). I like how SS just get to the point, and let me enjoy the gameplay...Even more, I like how they removed the RPG element (GASP) so I can focus on stage by stage exploration.

It may not be my favorite Paper Mario game (because again, I will be hated here since my favorite is Super Paper Mario for its good mix of 2D and 3D platformer), but I find it rather excellent, and I'm having as much fun if not more than playing the first 2 games, if only because I don't feel like the game is becoming a chore like the first 2 (TTYD in particular).

Now, everyone, hate me for my totally personal opinion. And don't hesitate to tell me your opinion is right and mine is wrong :)


Here's the thing about Super Paper mario

Super Mario bros.>Super Mario Bros 2> Super Mario bros 3> Super Mario World>Super Mario world 2.

From the title alone, you can infer that Super Paper Mario, is Paper Mario with Super Mario Bros. elements.


Though, following your own logic, Super Mario Bros 2 (well only if you consider 2 as the US one, not the JP one of course), and Super Mario World 2 (which this time is cannot be confused) are totally DIFFERENT things in the whole "Super" branding.....pretty much like PM:SS is to the PP brand.

In any case, same name or not, I was not expecting anything, and was rather surprised by the changes, for the better in my case. But if it can make everyone happy, I would agree with those saying that a different name would have have caused less rage on Gamefaqs at the very least :). But with or without the different name, it's still a wonderful experience for me and doesn't need any change in the game itself...only the name maybe.
---
My collection of 3DS digital games (and slow progression of beating them):
http://backloggery.com/drac_mazoku
#22Northern_RosePosted 11/12/2012 11:31:38 AM
DemiseEnd posted...
So, lets say if they called it Mario Paper Adventure it wont be as bad as it is right now ?


No, because of how all the other Paper Mario Games were sub titled, adding more words wont change it. Paper Mario was an RPG, calling anything Paper Mario people will expect that again. Call it Sticker Mario, or Mario Sticker Star, leave out the "Paper Mario" part and no one will compare it to Paper Mario. They might say its like it, but thats about it, but no one would expect it to be an RPG then. If the past games were called Paper Mario 1, 2, 3, then they made this and called it Paper Mario Adventure, people would know to expect something different then.

I honestly think Calling it Mario Sticker Star would have been better, people would have played it and thought "hey thats cool its sorta like the Paper Mario games but its not, its different". Call it Paper Mario and people play it and think "Hey WTF? this isn't Paper Mario"

Look at Star Fox Adventures, ya that worked out for Nintendo. No ship or shooting in a Star Fox game. Fans sure loved that game.

Zelda has been the same style game play except for the 1 game they changed completely, Zelda II (NES) People didnt like it too much then. Every game after is back to the same style game play.

Paper Mario was an RPG, they announced it on a system starving for RPGs, 1 RPG, 1 SRPG, 1 ARPG. Finally people thought we were going to get a new RPG and did we? Nope that part was removed from the game. We just got the name of an RPG series put on a game that wasn't.

Nintendo knows better, these are lessons they learned in the NES era. Ok maybe they don't know better I just remembered the last 2 systems they made. The Wii and the WiiU ya sure people will know they are 2 completely different systems. Hell most people think the 3DS is just a new model DS with 3D, they have no idea its a new system.
---
"I am bad and that's good. I will never be good and that's not bad. There is no one I would rather be, than me." ~ Bad-Anon
#23TerotrousPosted 11/12/2012 11:39:08 AM
Northern_Rose posted...
I honestly think Calling it Mario Sticker Star would have been better, people would have played it and thought "hey thats cool its sorta like the Paper Mario games but its not, its different". Call it Paper Mario and people play it and think "Hey WTF? this isn't Paper Mario"

Except that it is still Paper Mario because it still uses that art style. With 4 games in the franchise, two of which are RPGs and two are not, I don't see why anyone thinks this is exclusively an RPG franchise.


Look at Star Fox Adventures, ya that worked out for Nintendo. No ship or shooting in a Star Fox game. Fans sure loved that game.

I actually don't recall too many dopes being confused about Star Fox Adventures, because it was so obvious that it wasn't a traditional Starfox game.


Also, compare something like Pokemon Conquest. You don't see people trolling that game saying "why did they go and change it to be an SRPG?!"


Paper Mario was an RPG, they announced it on a system starving for RPGs, 1 RPG, 1 SRPG, 1 ARPG. Finally people thought we were going to get a new RPG and did we? Nope that part was removed from the game. We just got the name of an RPG series put on a game that wasn't.

The system wouldn't be starving for RPGs at all if the ones that were in Japan would get localized. Since they're seemingly not going to, the problem is likely more that companies think RPGs won't sell in the US rather than that they're not being made.
---
http://terosclassicgaming.blogspot.com/ - Watch me beat "GEN Alien Soldier"
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
#24LightHawKnightPosted 11/12/2012 12:08:35 PM(edited)
Lord_Frood posted...
They never promised it to be just like the originals which is why I'm confused about it. People keep comparing it to something it's not, which isn't fair for a grading system. I just think that people are letting the name alone skew their opinion on the game.


Cause it is part of the series, infact it is a sequel, if they wanted a total random change for random reasons, make a spinoff. Just like they did with Paper Mario. It isn't regular Mario, therefore it got its own name! Why the F*** can't this game be done as the same?

Look at a book series, a book in the trilogy or whatever you wish to call it, will one book just randomly be different and change genre's and storytelling at a whim? No. It would flow together, that is the point of a series! They are meant to be simliar and not have drastic changes. If someone wanted those, they would read another book in another series!
---
The Official Odin of the Shin Megami Tensei IV board.
"You know how confusing the whole good-evil concept is for me."
#25emagdnEPosted 11/12/2012 12:08:07 PM
Wow. I really didn`t expect so many rational, thought out answers on this board. I`m impressed. I have nothing to add.

this
---
Note to self: Cannon highly effective against flesh. -Mimiron
#26Northern_RosePosted 11/12/2012 12:12:01 PM
Terotrous posted...
Also, compare something like Pokemon Conquest. You don't see people trolling that game saying "why did they go and change it to be an SRPG?!"


Pokemon has lots of spin offs and stand alone games, each with its own identity. Pokemon, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon, Pokemon Ranger, Pokemon Stadium, Pokemon Rumble and the countless other games that all have a word in the title telling you what to expect. Pokemon Conquest, that says loud and clear its going to be a Pokemon style SRPG. The word Conquest in its title implies this.

Also no one would buy a Pokemon game with only 1 version and expect it to be like the games in the main series. Pokemon main series has always been called Pokemon Red/Blue, Gold/Silver, Diamond/Pearl, Black/White. No one would buy a game called Pokemon Conquest and expect it to have the same game play as the main series.

As far as Paper Mario, yes one of them was not an RPG, It was also titled to let you know it would be different. It was also the worst reviewed of the 3. They made 3 games, 2 of em RPGs that sold really well and 1 that wasn't that not many people liked. Who in their right mind would expect them to make another one with a formula they know wont be well received?

And yes Super Mario Bros 2 was different than the rest but again, notice how they never did that again. Zelda 2 was different and they never did that again. Super Paper Mario was different and not well received just like these other game that all went back to what worked. You cant blame people for thinking they would do it again.

I love Nintendo but how many times do they need the same lesson beat into them before it starts to sink in. 20 years latter and they are still making the exact same mistakes in regards to names.

Its name recognition, brand recognition. When you think Mac and cheese you think Kraft even if thats not what you got in your cupboard. When you think Soda you think Coke or Pepsi.

Either Nintendo has yet to learn a lesson they have been repeating for 20 years, (I'm reminded of words in the Grain Turismo (PS1) manual "stupid is the act of repeating the same action expecting different results") or they called it Paper Mario to cash in on the names fame. It worked for Diablo 3. They Put the name people trusted on the box and it sold millions, it also pissed off missions as well when it was a completely different game inside.
---
"I am bad and that's good. I will never be good and that's not bad. There is no one I would rather be, than me." ~ Bad-Anon
#27TinyTim123Posted 11/12/2012 12:16:53 PM
Northern_Rose posted...
Zelda has been the same style game play except for the 1 game they changed completely, Zelda II (NES) People didnt like it too much then. Every game after is back to the same style game play.


There's actually three styles of play, the 2D, the 3D like Ocarina of time, and then Zelda II, the Adventures of Link. When Zelda II came out, it could get away with the change, because there was only one game, and the pattern wasn't yet well established. Only people picking the game up afte they have played the other 2D games in the series for the first time tend to be WTF?!
To be fair, that was how I felt when I picked up Ocarina of Time 3D and tried playing. I have played solely 2D Zelda games before (and Link). The change... man, I hate that change. I know I need to learn to play it at some point, and give OoT a second chance, but I just couldn't play it. It was too different from what I was accustomed to.
Resident Evil, for example... you have the original, 2 which built on the original, but maintained the same play style, then 3, then Code Veronica, then Zero, then RE:Make, all played the same, or very similar way. Suddenly, out of left field comes 4, and I couldn't beat that game. I was a classic Resident Evil pro, but couldn't adapt to the new shooting style. I was much worse on 5. I go in buying Resident Evil 4 for my GameCube, and expect it to play like Zero or RE:Make, and get, instead, a shooting game, with mechanics I am completely unfamiliar with. Of course I am going to rag on it. As a side note, I did eventually adapt to the controls of RE:velations, and really like the game. I am by no means pro at it, but it is great fun, and may entice me to try 4 and 5 again some day.

Now to me, I have never before played a Paper Mario game. My experience with it will not be colored by past entries, 'cause I have never played them. I can grade this game on its own merits rather than by comparing it to games in the past. But in order to do that, I must remain ignorant to the ones that came before, much like how I was with 3D Zelda games before picking up and hating Ocarina of Time.
I think the problem is that most people have played and enjoyed at least one of the other entries. It is then impossible to grade the game on its own with that kind of experience. Much like I can't play a Resident Evil game without comparing it to the ones I've played before.
---
http://www.explosm.net/comics/657/
#28MarsfordPosted 11/12/2012 12:17:50 PM
FAT____MAN posted...
Scutchington posted...
Something about the previous games setting a standard and people expecting future games to meet that same standard.

"Gamers" have this silly "damned if you do, damned if you don't" mentality, its impossible to please them.


No. No they actually ****ing don't. The only people that demand change for any game, either are trolls, or never really cared for the source material at all. But it is of course welcomed, if at it's core was flawed and needed an overhaul to be improved.


This indeed. People keep saying that we can't be pleased. But I'm pretty damn sure 99.9% of PM fans were pleased with TTYD after 64. That's all sequels need to - keep everything that was good about the original the same, and just keep adding improvements.

Like Pokemon. Which is why I still love Pokemon.
---
Official Marsford of the NDF
People should really learn the difference between a troll and an idiot.
#29esq393Posted 11/12/2012 12:17:58 PM
You can never please people. If Sticker Star or RE5 remained the same, people would be complaining that no changes. Then if you change something, people will whine.
#30TerotrousPosted 11/12/2012 12:22:45 PM
Pokemon Conquest, that says loud and clear its going to be a Pokemon style SRPG. The word Conquest in its title implies this.

Much like how the term "sticker star" implies that stickers will be central to Paper Mario Sticker Star?


Also no one would buy a Pokemon game with only 1 version and expect it to be like the games in the main series.

Mystery Dungeon Time / Darkness / Sky have multiple versions and aren't mainline.


As far as Paper Mario, yes one of them was not an RPG, It was also titled to let you know it would be different.

Not really. "Super" implies platformer now? I guess someone should phone up the Super R-Type guys and let them know that their game needs a rename.

And yes, Super Paper Mario was terrible. But not because it was different from TTYD, because it was a terrible platformer. When you compare it to other platformers it simply doesn't hold up (and it fares even worse if you try to compare it to other RPGs).


And yes Super Mario Bros 2 was different than the rest but again, notice how they never did that again.

Never? One could easily argue Sunshine is much akin to SMB2 for the 3D games. The gameplay is drastically changed to revolve around Fludd rather than the typical platforming.

They also did this for Wario Land, repeatedly. Wario Land 2 is drastically different from 1, and 4 is drastically different from 2 and 3.


Its name recognition, brand recognition. When you think Mac and cheese you think Kraft even if thats not what you got in your cupboard. When you think Soda you think Coke or Pepsi.

And when you think of Paper Mario, you think of the Paper style of the world. That's what separates it from the likes of Mario and Luigi or Super Mario RPG. And it's preserved in Sticker Star.

The thing is, Paper Mario is a series where the games are tied together based on a shared concept rather than shared gameplay. Kingdom Hearts is another franchise that does this, its battle system changes in every game but the concept of the game, exploring worlds based on famous Disney and Square properties, remains unchanged in every game. This apparently throws some people for a loop.
---
http://terosclassicgaming.blogspot.com/ - Watch me beat "GEN Alien Soldier"
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery