Ironically, I can't take yours seriously whatsoever and you continue to fail to comprehend my point. I've never encountered someone so ignorant in my life, it's laughable.

What does this have to do with war games and Pokemon? I always though we were talking about how Mario has more games released in a year than Call of Duty does in five? It seems that you don't know what you're talking about anymore.

Here let's make this clear for you since you can't seem to understand simple logic. If Mario. Is. In. The. Name. I. Classify. It. As. A. ... Mario game. Mario Kart, Golf, Sunshine, Galaxy, Strikers, Sluggers, rehash, Bros., Land, you name it. If it has Mario in the title, it's part of his franchise.

Wowee!

So? Who cares? It's just a way to sell not Mario games to Mario fans. There's nothing else to it. I mean, sometimes they feel like actual Mario games but in different genres (the first 2 Mario RPGs come to mind) but mostly it's just slapping on a brand name for money reasons. If your point is Mario is overexposed as a brand, fair enough and I at least partially agree, but there's nothing you can do to change that. If your point is that even if they made a new game and slapped Mario stuff on it you still wouldn't be interested just because of that, I don't know what to say. Sucks, but what can you do?

It's just not something worth wasting so much time arguing on.

Incorrect. It also sells Mario games to non-Mario fans. I don't think everyone who got "Mario Golf" bought it because they liked Mario so much. They might've bought it because they like golf.

And just to throw my two cents in there, I agree with @CactusJackson. If it has "Mario" in it then it's a Mario game. Are Warcraft and World of Warcraft both Warcraft games, even though they are different genres? Yes. And I don't understand the big deal about the "cannon" of the Mario games. Even the main games in the series don't even really connect with each other. Super Mario Galaxy 2 didn't even acknowledge Super Mario Galaxy 1. It just made up its own story pretending like SMG1 didn't exist. The Mario games don't even care about the cannon, so why is anyone else?

Because it's a cannon. Gotta be wary of those. Might burn the house down. With explosions.

...it's "canon" okay, "canon"...geez...

GEEZ. Some people.

I know it's not going to happen. That would be like a day without air. But I think it should.

I'm just messing with ya, man. That was too good to resist. 'Why worry about a cannon,' oh God.

1st off, the cannon bit is very simple; You don't see plot or characters from Zelda, Metroid, DK, etc, in a cannon (or at least a core) Mario game, and the same applies with each of Nintendo's own franchises. And no offense, but by your logic none of the Mario games actually seem to connect the core/cannon stories if taken back far enough, with a few exceptions here and there like Super Mario Land 2 and 3, WarioLand.... Bowser's always dedeated without any explanation of why he's back or how his plans got carried on from the previous title. All in all I guess what I really should be saying is that core games tend to tell a story, no matter which character in the franchise it focuses on. Sorry, I don't consider gimmikcs like Party, Golf, Kart, core. Yes, you can kinda call it a "Mario" game, no you can't consider them like sequels or contributing to cannon Mario titles.

I was talking about the gameplay, which let's be honest, is what's mattered in a Mario game.

Well, not sure if that1 was to me, but yeah that's kinda what I'm saying too when I spoke of "core", and I realize I kinda got some of my terms mixed around in there a little. But yeah all I'm saying is core titles pretty much follow plot being involved and generally genre matching gameplay how it should be with as less gimmicks as possible. While titls like Party, Kart, etc may have a Mario theme in mind, it honestly just doesn't present the same type of gameplay that core games offer at all.

Well, this thread is a train-wreck of semantics and personal opinions.

You think I don't comprehend your point? Do you do this every time someone disagrees with you? Just claim they couldn't possibly understand the point you were making because if they did they'd agree with you. I understand your argument alright, I just think it's a ridiculous comparison. The two "sets" are groupings of a different kind which makes it a weak comparison. Any strengthening of the comparison to something which makes more sense ends with reversed result (i.e. there have been more CoD games than Mario)

For crying out loud. My complaint was you comparing CoD and "games with Mario in it" as if that somehow made sense. You're free to keep running around calling all games with Mario in them "Mario games" if you want but that doesn't make them "the same" to the same degree that the various CoD games are. What you "believe" makes a game a "Mario game" is beside the point because no amount of belief will make Mario Golf as similar to Mario Galaxy as CoD:BLOPS2 is to CoD;MW2 or CoD:3.

This is not the point though. Let me put it this way...

If there was a discussion about Warcraft vs Starcraft some people would rightly assume we weren't including WoW. Like for like because they are both RTSes and WoW is not. Likewise when someone says Nintendo is milking Mario games it would be fine to be talking about games with Mario in the title as long as you make it clear that's what you meant. However, even in the same thread of conversation, when someone says Nintendo is milking Mario games more than Activision is milking CoD then it's fair to assume we're not talking about the same "Mario game" as we might have been before.

In a nutshell I think the comparison is unreasonable because it's not like for like. It's an absurd comparison basically. That absurdity makes the whole thing just ridiculous and if I don't understand anything in this conversation it's how difficult that apparently is for some people to understand. That said everytime I've brought up a similar, albeit slightly more ridiculous, comparison as an example of how absurd the comparison is I've been told how absurd my example was. For example

........ although I'm not sure how much comprehension was there given the failure to understand what I was trying to do

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been

Why would anyone be complaining about a saturation of Mario games if they weren't including all the extra Mario games? The Wii had three "canon" games, I think. If you count Galaxy 1 & 2 and NSMBW as canon games. Personally, I think 3 or less per system is doing good, if we're combining the sidescrolling "bros" series with the 3D environment Mario games.
Although, if I'm being perfectly honest, I don't think one game per year in an established series is a bad thing. I could for a new Mario or Call of Duty game each year. These are games that are so good that you play them again and again, but if you play them too much then they get boring. So you have to do something to freshen it up, and DLC can only do so much.

What Nintendo 5really oughtta focus on is maybe 1 or 2 franchise titles each year if they're gonna play it that way because just look at their roster, just too many. Their franchsies need an equivilent balance among 1 another.

When has a Mario sequel ever follow a specific storyline..... Super Mario World 2: Yoshi Island comes to mind?!?! -.- Even most Paper Mario games usually start/end at Mario and Luigi's House, probably even to avoid this. It is foolish for you to even consider to criticize this. Mainly because Shigeru Miyamoto mentioned, when everyone was freaking out about how they thought they figured out the Zelda timeline, that he isnt concerned about a branching storyline. He rather worry about the gameplay.

/unfollows thread... D:

Not my complaint. Feel free to complain about the amount of games with Mario in them and if you must call them "Mario games". Just don't say that there are more "Mario games" than something like CoD (which is a single series not a mascot) and expect me to take the comparison seriously. Because it's a ridiculous comparison.

Anyway, you could just as easily ask why would anyone be complaining about the saturation of "CoD games" if they weren't including Crysis, Battlefield and so on. Which is what people generally mean when they complain about there being too many "CoD games".

@GamecubeMan "foolish"? You're funny.
@skywake Okay.

I was only comparing the number of releases of Call of Duty titled games and the number of released Mario games. Nothing more nor less. And the reason for that is because Nintendo fanboys throw the worn out complaint of "Call of Duty comes out every year! It gets old, man." Yet those same people buy every Mario game that comes every year whether it be New Super Mario Bros. or Mario Kart.

Also, war games do not equal Call of Duty. Call of Duty is a single war game franchise and takes no responsibility for its genre's over saturation.

I don't know how this debate lasted this long. You think Mario games are strictly canon (main series), and I think the opposite.

To be fair, there is an obvious difference between Mario Kart 7, Super Mario Galaxy and Mario Tennis. If someone stated "all these Mario games are the same" talking about those specifically, they'd get laughed at and potentially slapped. Contrastly, it's very common to say "COD, Guitar Hero and Madden are the same with every release!" because those are less distinguishable. (And just to point out, I'm a huge fan of Rock Band and older Guitar Hero, so this isn't an attack on any of those franchises)

Now, if you group all platformer Marios (2D and 3D) and then use that you have a bit more of a point, but still the 3D ones are almost all self-distinguishable (minus SMG2). If you separate them, there are larger gaps then COD.