A no for me. Though I generally don't care about the length of games (In fact it has always baffled me when people complain about a game being too short. I have more often been annoyed by games that dragged on too long and in a way that was clearly done to appease such people).

But do you mean that each "episode" directly carries on the story from the last one? Because wouldn't that alienate casuals/newcomers far more? As they would feel that they would need to have played the previous one/s to understand what's going on and in the end just wouldn't bother, thinking that it's probably completely impenetrable if you haven't been there from the start. At least as it is (and with Nintendo games in general) they know that each game is a complete, self-contained story and therefore totally accessible to everyone regardless of whether they've played a previous game in the franchise.

I remember playing a game that was a direct "episodic" sequel within a group of games (of which I hadn't played) with a continuing story and it made it very hard to understand/care.

It looks even bigger (certainly in terms of width). Was hoping they'd make it smaller... Oh well. Looks cool though.

Perhaps the importance of launch line-ups is overstated. In the short-term each new console seems to become the fastest-selling ever regardless of the launch line-up and in the long-term the two most successful consoles of all-time, the PS2 and DS, didn't have what would generally be considered strong launch line-ups.

Personally I've never been too fussed. If there's one killer app at launch; great. If there's multiple killer apps; great. But if there's none, then it just means I'll buy something a bit more obscure that I probably would've missed out on if there were more obvious choices available.

I also think that for the past three Nintendo launches (DS, Wii, 3DS) Nintendo has wanted the focus to be on the console's specific feature/gimmick (touch screen, motion controls, 3D), so they can use that as the killer app at launch and save Mario for later (particularly as Mario would both overshadow and not really use said features).

@Shiryu
Indeed. I would have loved to have played the two Lost Planet games. It would be awesome if they released Lost Planet 3 on Wii U in a special box-set with 1 and 2 as well for the Wii owners who missed out.

@BeatOli
Mario isn't mainstream?! I don't think Nintendo would be too happy about that...

Anyway, as I said, the issue is with the 3DS in the UK. Mario is very successful in the UK, as shown by the all-time best-selling games list that was posted the other day: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/feature-uk-s-top-ten-single-skus-of-all-time/095012

Well considering the article just the other day showed the top 10 best-selling games of all-time in the UK (single SKUs) with Mario Kart Wii at number 1 and New Super Mario Bros. at number 7, then I think the issue is more about the 3DS in general in the UK, rather than Mario in the UK.

@TrueWiiMaster
In the whole spectrum of video game genres is a 2D Mario platformer and Mario 3D Land (which many say is the most "2D" of the 3D Mario platformers) really "extremely different" from each other? That their only shared characteristic is the titular character's presence? I would say platforming is at least one other shared characteristic for a start.

As someone who complained on the previous article, I should clarify that I absolutely love the New Super Mario Bros. games. NSMB Wii was perhaps the most fun I've had this gen and during a time when I was down on the Wii, almost single-handedly reminded me why I'm a gamer and a Nintendo fan. If it weren't for the unwritten rule that something current can't possibly be better than something from the past, then the NSMB games would rightly be considered among the best games of all-time alongside SMB, SMB3, SMW, etc. So I'm not against another NSMB at all.

However, I don't really get why they'd want to potentially bury 3D Land (which has only just come out) by releasing the next Super Mario so soon afterwards, particularly when it's sold so well and has itself boosted 3DS sales so high (not to mention the fact that there may be a Wii U launch Super Mario immediately afterwards as well). Why not hold NSMB2 back for a little bit (save it for a rainy day) and give 3D Land a bit of breathing space. They risk a) completely cutting off 3D Land's legs in its prime and b) not selling as much NSMB2 because they've released it too quickly and people haven't built up a hunger for another Super Mario yet. Instead of having two huge-selling Marios, you may now have two decent-selling Marios. They don't want to risk cheapening/devaluing the brand in the public's eye by going to Sonic levels of churnage and thus sales.

Note: I used the words "risk" and "potentially", I'm not saying this will happen, before the fanboys jump down my throat.

I could understand them wanting to rush out another Super Mario game on 3DS if 3D Land (which came out just 5-6 months ago!) had bombed, but it sold incredibly well. I don't see why they'd want to risk cutting off its legs so soon. Why not hold it back for a bit, give 3D Land (and indeed the franchise as a whole) a bit of breathing space. The Vita doesn't seem to be posing a serious threat after all, so it just seems a bit unnecessary.

@grumblebuzzz
Exactly.

People who are complaining about the "complainers" (who feel that Super Mario games are being released too frequently at the moment) are like kids who think they want ice-cream for every meal of every day. They don't get it...

Great stuff. Funnily enough I was expressing my desire for this sort of thing (though it was regarding the Wii U's menu) just a couple of days ago in the forums. It's like they read my mind!

@Dreadjaws
Actually, I would say the ratio of those in favor and those against (on this article and the "is Nintendo over-reliant on Super Mario" article) is about the same.

I absolutely adore the New Super Mario Bros. games, but if there is a Super Mario game at the Wii U's launch, that will be 3 Super Mario games in the space of 1 year! No wonder people are increasingly unexcited, that's ridiculous. Has there been some sort of Activision merger that we're unaware of...

@19Robb92
"I've wanted a new 2D Mario ever since New Super Mario Bros. Wii. It's been far too long of a wait." What... Two years?

@Kage_88
"Well, LoZ was a game unlike any other at the time, so of course Nintendo provided a guide to help." Well, yes, that's what I'm saying, it DID come with a guide to help. Something that has been forgotten (mainly due to being omitted from the VC release of the game). I think it's a shame that newcomers to the game buying it on VC will dismiss it as an incredibly confusing and frustrating relic when they're not getting the full package (the map/guide that came with the game).

Some of the comments show that the game is indeed being somewhat inaccurately remembered. The "hardcore" posturing and "this game was before guidance/hand-holding/GameFAQs/namby-pamby modern gamers, etc." isn't entirely true. The game came with a map. kyuubikid213 has already linked to it, but here it is again:
http://skoce.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/legend_of_zelda_map_front.jpg
It shows the exact location and order of the first four dungeons. That's some pretty explicit guidance.

Regarding the complete lack of guidance in the game, when Zelda was originally released on the NES/Famicom it came with a map alongside the instruction manual showing the location (and order) of the first four dungeons and other points of interest. I think it's such a shame that the Virtual Console version doesn't include this map within its virtual instruction manual as it was part of the game and gives people playing it now the wrong impression of the game (ie. that it's ridiculously confusing, obscure and badly designed). Obviously they can just find a map online, but they're not seeing/judging the game as it actually was and being needlessly frustrated and turned away because of it. They're not getting the full package on which to base their opinion. It would be like re-releasing a modern Zelda, but completely removing the map from the game's code.

I know because (having not played the original when it came out), I was one of these people!

Super Mario is my favorite franchise, but I agree that the releases have become too frequent this generation (perhaps as a result of 2D and 3D Mario now getting equal billing and perhaps because of the poor third-party support of the Wii, after all, the DS only needed one). I still haven't got 3D Land yet because I've played four Super Mario games in the last five years and I haven't built up a hunger for another one yet. I would much prefer if they went back to their old release frequency. When you have to wait for something it becomes all the sweeter when it arrives. As the article says, a new Mario game isn't an event anymore and it should be. They don't want to turn Mario into Sonic by completely over-saturating the market with game after game in such a short time period, burning the franchise out and completely exhausting and overwhelming the audience.

I said this in the article when Iwata already announced another Super Mario on 3DS. No-one seemed to agree with me, though it seems from this that perhaps they did after all.

I know some people here love the idea of DLC (though strangely were dead against it before Nintendo said they were going to do it...) but I must say I'm not keen on the concept, even if I choose to ignore it. I am perhaps way too much of a purist, longing for simpler times, but I like to see Nintendo games as a complete, finished piece of work, rather than just a load of vaguely connected bits that some people have and some people don't. I also can't understand how anyone could not be satisfied with the amount of content that's in games these days.

I can't imagine Nintendo will make much revenue from DLC. I would imagine the percentage of the Nintendo audience that would buy DLC (itself a percentage of the Nintendo audience that actually uses the online features of Nintendo consoles) will be tiny.

@WaveBoy
But for those who enjoy video games rather than realism the controls will be excellent, as they have been for pretty much every tennis game since Pong.

Also, that NES mini-game looks amazing!

Should just point out that at the 2007 BAFTAS, Wii Sports won an incredible 6 awards and the following year Super Mario Galaxy won the game of the year award. Just wanted to run it past the fanboys with persecution complexes for whom "everyone is biased against the Wii/Nintendo! etc."

Isn't it more newsworthy when a game doesn't get a perfect score from Famitsu these days? Only joking, but still, a lot of people talk about the Famitsu perfect score as if it still carries any where near the same weight as it used to. I think 14 of its 19 perfect scores have come from this gen, with this one being the first of the new gen (not that I'm complaining, I'm not fussed either way. It's inevitable that it's going to change over 30 years).

@ThomasBW84
I remember seeing this a little while ago. I think it's the sort of thing that Highwinter was referring to: http://kotaku.com/5520937/do-not-trust-this-magazines-review-scores

I wish they could put a Gears of War trilogy box-set on Wii U (having only played the first one and loved it). But I guess its Microsoft ties would make it impossible.

@grimbldoo
"The EyeToy was not used for extensive gaming, only small mini-games, which knocks it out." I don't see why it should (in fact some cheeky wags might say that makes it exactly like the Wii! But I wouldn't of course). As I said it's "a different kind", but it (and all the motion controls that came before the Wii) is still motion control regardless of whether we move the parameters to favor Nintendo.

@TheDarkness
A lot of Nintendo fans say that "Nintendo introduced motion controls to video games with the Wii", even execs like Reggie have said that without ever getting pulled up on it. Also, as I said "many video game companies (including Nintendo) have done motion controls before the Wii". The GBA gyro games were among the sort of things I was referring to with Nintendo. Though the Power Glove was actually made by Mattel and PAX, not Nintendo.

As for motion controls in general, I'm not too keen.

I can totally see why people like the pointer functionality, but generally I find all the miming and flailing to be quite annoying and tiresome. I don't find them more intuitive because to perform a quick, simple action in a video game it's more intuitive to do a quick, simple button press than having to do some clunky charade. I don't find them more immersive because motion controls put the focus on actions you're performing outside of the game environment, rather than the actions taking place within the game environment. When you can see your arm flailing about in front of you with a bit of white plastic you're not immersed in the game world, in fact you're very much taken out of it. Also, whereas button controls are exact and precise and reliable, motion controls are just too vague and ambiguous and inconsistent. It's like you have to perform every action twice because it didn't register the first time.

I can't deny that I've certainly had fun with them and they definately have their place in video games. But generally I'm not really a big fan of motion controls being tacked on to everything. When I get home at the end of the day I just want to relax, don't really care for wacky, zany controls all the time, but they're good fun in certain situations.

As Itagaki said "The reason video games are fun is because you get a big output from a small input. You push a single button and the character does something amazing on screen, but the Wii philosophy is to make input as big a part of the experience itself... The output is reduced... It could potentially be disastrous."

Regarding the statement "with Nintendo's competitors also joining the scene" and to some commenters who are claiming that the Wii invented motion controls (and seemingly that Nintendo invented every piece of technology in history...), there have been many motion control devices before the Wii. Sony for instance had a motion control device on the market before the Wii was even announced; the PS2 EyeToy (may be a different kind, but by accusing Kinect of copying the Wii, then you've dug yourself a hole there). Many video game companies (including Nintendo) have done motion controls before the Wii. Nintendo are indeed highly innovative, but it's annoying how fanboys completely re-write history...

I could never get into this game in its original form. It seems completely impenetrable. I enjoyed the Zero Mission remake though, it made it a lot more playable.

@kurtbro900 and @kkslider5552000

OK, fair points, I've ammended my comment, but still, 5 home console games and 3 handheld games in one generation is serious milking.

And I also complain just as much about the milking of my favorite franchises.

Assassin's Creed "3"... I love it when they do that to milked franchises. It seems to have come record-breakingly early for this one. It usually comes about 15/20 years in when a publisher sticks a really low number on the sequel despite the fact that it's probably like the millionth entry in the franchise.

Edit: I've been corrected that as the two previous AC games were "direct sequels" that the numbering issue makes more sense. Though I still stand by my general milking point.

@WaveBoy
Yeah I totally agree. While the Mario Party boxart style is probably a bit busy for other games, I've also found the recent "white background" Mario Kart boxarts to be quite bland.

@JimLad
Yeah, the Mario Party boxarts are always reliably awesome. Just because they're so chock full of bright, colorful Nintendo goodness. They don't do minimalism that's for sure!

Considering many people complain that the genuine Pokemon sequels aren't any different from the previous ones, direct sequels seem pretty unnecessary.

I really don't get franchise whoring. When publishers milk franchises with too many games in a short period of time it doesn't help the long-term prospects of the franchise.

I think that's the first time I've ever seen Iwata say something angry.

@Radixxs
I agree, I wish the recent forum post box was back at the top.

The tracking on the body text seems a little tight. Makes it quite hard to read.

As long as Nintendo remembers not to alienate their core market (both kids and casual gaming adults) with all this sort of stuff and continues to adhere to their philosophy of simplicity and accessibility. A huge part of the Nintendo market isn't the average tech-savvy 20/30 year old PS3/360 gamer. We (at the more hardcore end of the Nintendo market) may understand this stuff, but many won't and may be overwhelmed and put off. The DS didn't outsell its competition because of its multimedia capabilities (until the DSi, it had none, apart from Pictochat).

@JimLad
If there's third-party support (and let's hope there is) then that shouldn't be a problem.

@battLeToaD
"Ninty for the most part makes games for everyone. Not easily being able to play with someone who has the DLC and a resulting divide of communities is something I don’t like to see. Especially not by Nintendo."

Exactly.

@GrandChaseLover
'And when someone finishes a game, they can't just say, "I'm finished with this game, and I'm gonna get another now."' But isn't that what usually happens?

I don't like the idea of Nintendo following others into DLC at all. Games are long enough, there are far too many games out there anyway. So now games are never going to end? There aren't enough hours in the day. DLC is great for those who only intend to play one game forever, but for those who like to play more than one it's totally unnecessary and annoying (I know it's optional, but it's distracting and you feel you're missing out on the complete game). Nintendo, if someone has finished one of your games, isn't that a good thing? It means they'll now likely buy another one of your games. Why discourage people from doing that?

It also segregates the fanbase of a game as now everyone has different experiences/memories of it depending on which if any of the DLC they got. Instead of a complete game, a finished piece of work, it's now just a load of different bits.

Adding extra fat, complications and confusions to a game seems to completely go against Nintendo's philosophy of simplicity and accessibility. Nintendo is supposed to offer the alternative to all this sort of guff. In fact Nintendo said explicitly only a short while ago that they were against DLC. It makes me yearn for simpler times... Oh well, maybe it won't be as bad as I fear (I'm probably too much of a purist for my own good).

Why do people keep saying that the New Super Mario Bros. games aren't like Super Mario World? Out of the old 2D games I would say NSMB DS/Wii are most similar to Super Mario World. How exactly similar do you want them to be?

@StarDust
But the overwhelming success of the recent 2D Mario games was precisely because they didn't innovate. They simplified and went back to their retro roots. The term "innovation" is very much overused when it comes to the appeal of Nintendo's games.

At the risk of putting a downer on this news (and I'll probably get crucified), I worry that they're releasing too many Mario games of late. Super Mario is my favourite franchise, but I don't want them to churn out too many in quick succession and lead to overkill (Sonic...), burn-out is death for franchises. It seems to have become a yearly release of late (something that other franchises are always criticized for). Having to wait for a new game (like we have for a new main Mario entry in the past) is a good thing, it makes it all the more special when it arrives. I don't have 3D Land yet because I've played a Mario every year for the past four, I've only just played the last one and I haven't built up a hunger for a new one yet (and by the time I do, they'll be another 3DS one and a Wii U one). I could understand if 3D Land bombed, but it's selling really well, so I am surprised by this announcement, particularly so soon. Maybe the financial situation really is bad.

@MeowGravy
There are loads of secret exits/levels in the New Super Mario Bros. games. They have more in common with Super Mario World than they do with say; the original Super Mario Bros.

@Buob
I don't see how the GameCube was underpowered. I believe it was more powerful than the PS2 wasn't it? In any case, all three consoles of that gen had more or less parity.

@Koto
Well I think certain Nintendo fans very much like the idea of a Nintendo console being underpowered (because it gives Nintendo the status of plucky underdog and also suggests that they only have pure thoughts and wouldn't lower themselves to focusing on such shallow and superficial things as graphics and power) and have re-written history accordingly.

@Koto
Thank you, finally someone gets it. Because of the Wii, people now talk about Nintendo as if they're always far behind their rivals in terms of graphics/power (because they're not "graphics whores" like the others or something...) But the Wii is the only Nintendo home console that's been considerably less powerful than its rivals. When it comes to Nintendo home consoles and graphics/power, the Wii is the exception, not the rule.

@Luigi78
Yeah, but the thing is, I don't think they actually did help them sell a lot of product. The period after they started going hell for leather on those sort of aspirational lifestyle/celebrity commercials coincided with the Wii's massive sales decline in the UK. The UK used to be considered arguably the Wii's strongest market, now it's one of its weakest (where it's been outsold by both the 360 and PS3 almost every week for about two years now). I think it was Nintendo UK's relentlessly cheesy marketing of the Wii (this one was typical for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFnZ8q3C-OE) that turned it from the hot new console into the most uncool product around. When their ads were fun and quirky (like their early DS ads) then they appealed to everyone. These just embarrass everyone.

Wish her all the best in her new job, though if she was the one responsible for all those truly cringeworthy Wii/DS UK ads, then I'm not too sad that she's moving on... Maybe she ran out of boybands to use. I think she perhaps translated Nintendo's "expand the audience" message with "market every single Nintendo game as a game exclusively for girls and in the most cheesy way possible."