|
One Gamer Wrote: Well he's done it. Mario has managed to somehow infiltrate the best game of
all time. After spending hours trying to play as Luigi in Mario64 I smashed
the piece of crap. Let's emphasize on why a picture of Mario is Hyrule castle.
To shoot it as is to say DIE MARIO DIE! hmm. Can't we have one game where
that annoying little obese plumber isn't there? well I say DAMN YOU MARIO!
STAY AWAY FROM OUR GAMES! YOUR KIND IS NOT WANTED HERE!
Video Gamer X says: Well, this is a little extreme, but it does reflect in the most stringent manner possible an older gamer's opinion regarding an over-hyped, depthless video game character. Mind you I enjoyed many of the core Mario Games when I was a wee one, but really in terms of shear reverance I lean towards Link as being Nintendo's, and Shigeru's, best character ever created. This letter does raise the question though, what ever happened to Luigi and why did Nintendo leave him out of so many games where Mario starred? Perhaps the next letter provides an interesting twist to Luigi's submission to his brother and the bitter struggle for supremacy and stature that is endured by the downtrodden character. (Sounds so serious doesn't it)
Mike Kidder Points Out: I would like to point out that luigi, wait... Ingo kicks Mario's/Talon's
ass out of the ranch (this is gamers have wanted Luigi
to do in a long time). You wil also note that Ingo says, while asleep,
thats "Its hard to be a working man". This is correct, since Luigi
had to save M's butt in Mario is missing. And he is taken out of Mario
64 for the sake of more worlds? Wet/Dry World and SnowMan's Land could
have been taken out, cuz they really sucked. In the end, it doesnt
outrage me, although only the luigi lookalike and Malon should have made
cameos, or as you can call tem "appearances".
Video Gamer X puts in: Yeah Wet/Dry World did suck! I remember how bored I got in that one.
Edward Penalosa Ponders: i have no idea why they did this. Mario and his kind do not belong in such a
good game. they should go back to there little kiddy games where they belong.
this isn't even use full. it's like "hey , i see pictures"
Jason Leman Comments: I sort of think that it is also somewhat stupid to announce the Mario
gang in a much cooler game then the Mario Bros. Have... I only think
their either trying to get people to have an interest in their games,
they could be jealous of Zelda, or they're just putting a joke on. I
haven't seen the picture on my T.V. yet, but I saw your pictures and
thought: Who would have pictures of Mario Bros. in their own castle? I
think no one would, and it's just stupid. Later!
DanJaz14 Says: I totally agree with you. Zelda is a game set in the past. With the sorcerers
and magic spells and everything. Mario is more ... how should I say...
CARTOONY! He's fat, he's lazy. The only reason he saves the princess so many
damn times is because the gamer controls him. Leave the joystick untouched
and he falls asleep. He snores like a pig. Don't get me wrong. I really like
Mario. He made Nintendo what it is. But he doesn't belong in Zelda, period!
Link is strong, powerful, wise. He uses weapons, spells, solves puzzles (I
could go on), but Mario is the complete opposite. He's stupid, lazy, can't
solve puzzles, weak. Now try this. Leave Link untouched by the joystick for a
couple of minutes and tell me what he does? What every hero does. Checks his
gear, makes sure that he's ready for combat. But Mario falls asleep (I find
that quite funny). Mario is a cartoony game, not just only for little kids. I
like Mario. He has his own little tweak that makes him special. But Zelda is
a serious game. Of course nothing like that could happen for real. But put
yourself in Link's spot? He has to save the world! The WORLD! Mario has to
save a castle. A CASTLE compared to THE WORLD! Face it. Mario in Zelda was
the stupidest thin EVER! Come on! I'm sure Miyamoto was forced to put Mario
in the game for advertisement. Miyamoto is genius. He wouldn't put something
cartoony in to something so realistic. He was forced.
Now. Mario WAS a good icon for Nintendo. Maybe he still is. But the
new millennia is coming. Time to move on to a new hero. Link would make an
EXCELLENT 21st Century Nintendo icon. Imagine, Link as Mario (except he's 100
times better), Princess Zelda as Peach (Except 100 times prettier, smarter,
and braver), and Epona as Yoshi(Epona kicks @$$!)! That should be the
Nintendo team. You now, Ganon would be like Bowser and on and on. But that
should be the future of Nintendo. Sorry for taking so much of your time, but
I had nothing else to do.
The bottom line is: Link, Princess Zelda, Epona, Ganon should be the
New Nintendo team. And Mario, Luigi, Peach, Yoshi and Bowser should all bow
down on their knees. And beg for forgiveness for being in "The Game of the
Century" as some call it. Thank you.
Video Gamer X says: This does represent a well rounded opinion and appraisal of the situation. Indeed, as this gamer brings to attention, in the next Millienium if Nintendo wants to win back a lot of older gamers who've gone Playstation, then they need to change their Mascot to something a little more prestigious. Mario is Nintendo, don't get me wrong, but he is getting rather passe to us older gamers who need that character we can relate to that seems more like a human being with a real life. He's great for little kids and gaming newbies but other than that it's time we see a new icon for Nintendo, don't you think? I, like this gamer, think Link fits the mold far better than Fox McCloud, or even Samus Aran. (Don't get me wrong Samus is cool, and could be a cool mascot, but she's not as widely recognized as much as Link and the Zelda games are)
Sir Rauru Shows: Dear Video Gamer X, I respect your and others' opinions regarding Mario's appearance in a Zelda
game, but really, what awful harm does it do? Mario certainly has a
presence in Zelda games, and some of you may find it oppressive, but really,
I recognize it as an example of Nintendo's and Miyamoto's way of tying
things together. Sure, Nintendo characters have appeared in a number of
Zelda games: Malon, Talon, and Ingo in Zelda 64; Tarin, goombas, boos,
Kirby, and others in Link's Awakening, and even the Chain Chomps in Link to
the Past. But really, do you all TRULY find it THAT offensive that Nintendo
ties their games together? Don't forget the Zelda references that show up in
Mario games, too: Link sleeping in the Rose Town inn in Mario RPG is just
one of a number of examples, and Super Smash Bros. is the ultimate example
of a Nintendo Crossover. I respect your opinions, but don't run away with
yourselves. Remember that there a vast number of Nintendo fans enjoy seeing
the characters pop up in other games. Honestly, does having little pictures
of Mario on the wall in Zelda 64 or having Mario's Mask on the salesman in
Majora's Mask really interfere with the gameplay in any way whatsoever?
Nintendo intends for their games to complement one another, and the little
tie-ins and brief meetings between characters from different gaming
universes are Nintendo's way of allowing gamers who have wide tastes to
allow the games to flow into one another. Metroids have appeared in Kirby
games, Kirby has appeared in Zelda games, and Link has appeared in Mario
games. Yes, I agree with you that Mario and Zelda are two entirely
different universes, but I don't agree that those differences should prevent
the characters from appearing on a portrait on the wall or enjoying some
Smash Bros. competition. So, if Link wants to join Mario for a cup of tea,
I say let him. There's a great number of fans who eagerly seek out such
interactions and Easter eggs in those games. Just so long as Bowser doesn't
suddenly appear as the final boss in an upcoming Zelda game, I will never
resent--in fact, I'll even welcome--Mario's little appearances in my
favorite video game series of all time.
 Back to the Odyssey of Hyrule
|