Paper Mario Producer Says "It's A Necessity" To Change The Combat System In Every Entry

The current system they used for Origami King was awful- dull, repetitive and completely uninspired.

I call BS on this man’s claims...

As much as I enjoyed the ring battle system, I'd like to just see some good old fashioned consistency for each game.

To be fair, if they made it the same each time, people would say they don’t innovate. Look at Pokémon, which does exactly the same things each entry, right down to the story beats. People criticize that for lack of innovation. I think the paper Mario guys are alright, though.

Battle system in Paper Mario (N64) and PM: The Thousand Year Door was far from broke ... and they're still trying to fix it.

I loved Origami King for what it was... But these limitations are hurting the series. They desperately need to return to their roots, or at the very least be allowed to incorporate new characters and more complex stories. Limiting them only hurts the Mario series as a whole. Imagine if every Mario RPG ever made had these same limitations...

@DoktorTotenKopf and so where the battles in PM and TYD. People talk like those systems where not tedious but they were.

I'm mad at the strict rules for the Developers, as it's fine to add in some unique characters here and there.

But it's fine to change up the battle system up, I would prefer a style similar to TTYD and also prefer exp, but I like the ring system in Paper Mario Origami King, so as long as there isn't another S T I C K E R S T A R situation, it's fine to change the elements of every game. I would just prefer consistency.

I'd just like Nintendo and Miyamoto being less restrictive to the developers.

I understand that they want to try new things, but new is not always better. The ring sliding isn't bad persee (and the way they have done this in the boss battles is pure genius), but what comes after is just to simplistic: Hammer for a cluster, jump for a line.

Ah I see, just like they have to change things around with every New Super Mario Bros game, that makes sense.

@jobvd PM & TYD were spectacular and the Mario and Luigi RPG series were stellar as well. Origami King was lazy and devoid of any real innovations.

I would really like it if a demo was available so I could see how the battling feels without spending 60€ only to find out that I do not like the battle mechanics. Currently it is a no-buy because I am not convinced that the game is fun to play in the long run.

@TG16_IS_BAE
Look at Xenoblade Chronicles. Each game has its own unique spin on the same formula (auto attacks + cooldown abilities). The spirit of the franchise is present through all games, but they're not all carbon copies of each other. The first game emphasizes break/topple/daze and chain attacks, X adds ranged bullet weapons for every character so you can auto attack from afar and swap to a melee weapon at anytime. And 2/Torna completely shake things up with the Blade system and Driver combos. Each game has innovated, while still being Xenoblade.

But with Paper Mario, it doesn't feel like that at all. It feels like change for the sake of changing something, rather than actually bothering to innovate. Tanabe has gone on record stating that he dislikes RPGs yet Paper Mario is still turn based. Why? Why not innovate off of Super's gameplay and go for something in real time? This just comes across as empty words. Just because you can change something, doesn't mean you should.

I've enjoyed the ring battle system so far in my experience with Origami King. Most battles have felt fresh by mixing up enemy placement and in that sense I find this system more engaging than the battles present in the rest of the series. I don't think they need to reinvent the battle system with each new entry though. I think they're in a good spot now and hope that they expand upon puzzle elements influencing battles in the future.

I really hate to be so blunt, but maybe he should try acquiring some talent before he tries to innovative. He is without a doubt the worst creator at Nintendo now and has been for years. I'm frankly amazed he still is allowed to work on anything, considering how often his ideas have driven franchises into the ground. He's definitely got a big head and thinks his ideas are better than they are. If you want to have a "People don't actually know what they want, I do" attitude, you'd better have talent to back it up and Tanabe has shown time and time again he does not.

Sticker Star and Color Splash felt like FF VIII to me where the attack commands are stacked like items.

@Tupin I think that's a rather sour perspective. Most of the games he's produced (NOT INCLUDING MODERN PM, of course) have done pretty well.

Let Toad shoot his spores on everything have them all become tiny toads, then he sheds his mycodermis and becomes an actual toad that accidentally infects the tinytoads with warts!!! Then Luigi licks Toad and has a trip out that cures him and so the toads licks themselves for a psychedelic cure .And Toad dies.

@N00BiSH He killed Chibi-Robo, Mario Vs. DK, and Dillon as franchises. He made Federation Force. He added stupid ideas like the slam move to Luigi's Mansion 3 that made what could have been a great game much less good. He wanted any legacy of Rareware and DKC kept out of the new DK games. I'm sour on his involvement with things because I think he is pretty much a hack who has delusions that he's as good of a dev as Miyamoto or something. His work at this point is like if Miyamoto constantly kept trying to make Wii Music or Star Fox Zero work instead of dropping them as the failed experiments they were.

The combat system is why I didn't buy the game. I wanted to try a Paper Mario game, but this one was not for me.

When the reviews came out all I heard was: battle system sucks. Playing the game I found I actually really enjoyed the different ways in which it was spun, it's a simple idea but executed with a lot of creativity around it. Especially having to figure out how to attack the different bosses is a challenging but fun puzzle. In my opinion this is way more enjoyable than a default RPG turn based system.

@JR150 The original Xenoblade Chronicles was a great game. I couldn't stand Xenoblade Chronicles 2. I think I am done with that series.

Translation: You might as well give up on this series if you think we are gonna give you what you want.

@DoktorTotenKopf I still can't believe what Nintendo did to AlphaDream. After four incredible Mario & Luigi RPGs they lumped a forced Paper Mario tie-in on them ... and then had them remake their own games (which were not that old and perfectly fine as they were) to release on the 3DS/2DS which was beyond dead at that point ... and then let them go bankrupt after those games sold poorly (what else did they expect?). How I would love a new Mario & Luigi on Switch!

Look, I'm all for innovation, but if 3 out of 6 games in your franchise are this divisive, you're doing something wrong.

Maybe he should just stop talking about the rules they have for paper mario.

It’s like being told your dog has yet another new medical condition every time you take him to the vet.

I don't think Miyamoto really gets RPGs

@Tupin His gameography is free to see: if you can look at this list and say he has no talent I don't know what you're on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensuke_Tanabe

Over 100 games and like 3 (Sticker Star,
Federation Force and Chibi-Robo Ziplash) people get upset about.

I can deal with every entry being different and even not having the same combat system every game but what i can't figure out is these lame restrictions on characters. Why from 1995 (Mario RPG) to 2004 TTYD was it perfectly okay to have the likes of Geno, Mallow, Bow, Watt, Sushie or that one with the Giant Rack Flurrie?

Those games had the charm and fun that they did because of those made up non Mario universe characters. Suddenly now that's not allowed? Nearly a whole decade of made up not specifically mario characters in these games. I don't get it.

Way to suck the fun right outta paper mario.

I'm in favour of it. With an RPG system even if its a good system there's only so much you can do until you run out of ideas for it. Mario &Luigi had a pretty good system but it got stale as their only ideas were more and more elaborate Bros moves.

In TTYD they were recycling all of Marios and the partners attacks with like 1 new attack effect per partner and the burn status effect. The bosses didn't even really have very creative strategies in TTYD as the N64 game where the bosses were built around your newest partner.

I think Origami Kings bosses are a good showcase of how a new system can make for more interesting challenges. They should be free to make new systems if that's what they have ideas for.

I REALLY don't get the hate this game is getting. It's one of the best Switch games. It's absolutely hilarious, and sometimes quite dark, has a lot of story, a lot of interesting characters (even though they are all Toads and other SM universe characters).

And true, the battle system vs normal enemies gets boring. But that's 100% so in almost EVERY RPG. The boss battles, however, all are different and you really need to have a strategy for each of them. Which makes it better than a regular RPG.

Actually the game fixes one big issue I have with turn based rpgs that use exp points. Most of them change into grindfests after a while. Because you need to be lvl x to defeat a boss. The Origami King doesn't have that problem, and everyone has an equal chance in these boss battles.

@sanderev
It's due to the fact that the game is lacking in various areas compared to previous games in the series. It's not so much "hate" it's criticism from those who have been with the franchise longer.

@JR150 In exactly what is the game lacking? And I've played every game in the franchise except N64 and Color Splash.

I didn't really like the Thousand year door,
Super Paper Mario was more a platformer than an RPG
Sticker Star was really bad.

For me The Origami King is the best one in the series.

I don’t have any problem with the battle system, I’m only about to beat world 2 but so far I’m not bored at all. I’m 36 and have played my fair share of RPGs and I gotta say, I was disappointed at first abt the lack of exp/traditional stuff , but when it’s come down to it I really appreciate that they are trying something new. Almost every battle feels different bc of how they switch up placements and enemies. And the boss battles are some of the most challenging I’ve found in any recent nintendo game.

@JR150 It really isn't though.

This one has a lot of the series strongest writing including all games in the series. Characters like Olivia and Bobby have development and arcs that are more fleshed out than any previous character in the series.

It also features improvements in weaker areas of past games like level design,
World design and story pacing. The worlds locations lead to each other than all being connected to the hub. The mood of each chapter flows into the next rather than a hard reset.

There's a lot of stuff in this game that supposedly people appreciated about the series done its best. Yet there's people acting like it's just Sticker Star.

RPG is fine WITHOUT A STORY!!!!?!?

These people are out of their flipping minds. Some oddball tinkerer who walked into the office one day with a box full of puppets, now he's out of twine and out of his mind. I have no patience for the kingpin methodology that pervades some of these studios. Games should be far, far away from that level of pyramidal rule from the top nonsense.

@Tupin not sure he had that much responsibility for what you’re calling out. His role in most games has been producer?

@OptometristLime If it's fine without a story, that's not saying it can't have one. It implies that it's fine with one too (hence how CS and TOK have them).

Arguably if you think a RPG HAS to have a story that's rule from the top isn't it? No freedom?

@DoktorTotenKopf actually origami king has the most innovative battle system out of the games you mentioned. The other just followed what super mario rpg did.

IF it aint broke don't fix it...what...whats that...there is no such thing! TO THAT I CALL BS.

Nintendo has a dinosaur problem; particularly in the executive side. cough Miyamoto cough

It really isn't.

Having to change from the successful battle system of the first 2 games, yet now limited creatively when it comes to characters.

Really quite spectacular the extent to which they've managed to combine the worst of both worlds.

I completly agree with him. His team has done the ring system once now lets never see it again

@Dr_Lugae
Hey if you liked it, more power to you. I was just explaining to @sanderev why the game gets criticized by people. It's got mainly to due with the overall design and how the aesthetic has been neutered by the removal of unique character designs and focusing too much on "paper/realistic objects" which is what older fans enjoyed because it's what made the series stand out among other Mario games. But if you enjoyed it, that's fine. I'm not saying you can't.

I played 64, TTYD, and Color Splash, however, I don't have an opinion on this game because I have no intention of buying it. Mainly due to Tanabe and Nintendo's creative restrictions regarding the Paper series nowadays. That is something I will never support with my money.

But once more, if you had fun with the game, I'm happy for you. I was just explaining the feelings of the fanbase at large because sanderev was confused. Nothing more.

@TG16_IS_BAE,

So true, people always want change and innovation, while at the same time complaining when things do change.

Dragon Quest seems to be doing fine. MIC DROP!

Innovation for the sake of it gets you Star Fox Zero and Skyward Sword. That's what Paper Mario has become now ... only with creativity restrictions being actively imposed, apparently.

Let's put it this way.

Had all the following Paper Mario games followed the formula of the first two games, how many people would have had problems with it?

I can see many people might have accused the series of getting samey, but at least it would be charming and funny kind of samey with solid gameplay and battles that would actually be worth battling.

@DoktorTotenKopf I actually enjoyed the battle system.
How far through the game did you get, if you don't mind me asking?

As much as Miyamoto is a genius, I hope he did not say do you really need a story.

I not sure what it is with this franchise but with each entry it just loses its appeal.

I didn’t mind the ring system and enjoyed my time with Origami King but Miyamoto sounds backwards on what makes Paper Mario engaging in gameplay. Experience points give the game meaning and purpose and Toads are not a good substitute for good character design.
It’s so arrogant to claim story in an RPG doesn’t “matter”. It does.

@sanderev I don't get it either. I thought the game was excellent and the battles got no more boring than any other rpg out there. Not having to grind at all was a godsend.

I fully agree with him! That is why Final Fantasy will always be over Dragon Quest as Dragon Quest refuses to improve its mechanics

When it comes to the battle system in the Origami King, I find it very interesting and clever, buuuuuuuuuuuuuut such a system basically asks for loot or experience points as battles can be quite long and just a few coins as a reward is just not enough to spend time there. I bet everybody rather avoids enemies in the Origami King.

I realised an interesting fact. After you get stronger, you can smash your opponents in the field to the dust even before the ring battle system happens, and at these moments the game becomes much more enjoyable.

@MrWarner14 The Origami King is not an RPG game, Nintendo never claimed it.

@Incarna This is just a stupid excuse for not evolving further.

@OptometristLime of course an RPG is fine without a story what do you think how first real RPGs looked like? There was no story, no characters, just your party and a final boss you had to kill to save something/someone.

I don't mind it changing so much but it's really not a necessity. It's kind of baffling just how much the higher ups on this team don't understand this IP and its appeal at all.

Here’s my novel on why the battle system is not good: it’s not strategic, it’s not rewarding, and it’s not fun.

You rearrange the enemies on the ring board, but really only in the way the game wants you to.
Example: Koopa troopas, when jumped on, go into their shells, and when hit again, the shell slides back and hits enemies behind it. Cool. Except that the game will never allow you to strategically put a koopa troopa in front of other enemies unless that is the only choice you could make anyway. Let’s say you don’t have the iron boots equipped (which allow you to jump on spiked enemies), and you’re fighting koopa troopas and spinies. You might want to line up the enemies so that the koopa troopa is in front of the spinies, jump on it, and send the shell into the spinies behind it. Strategic, right? No. The game will not allow you to do that, so you have to use your hammer and you can’t hit all of them and you get attacked. Its not strategic or fun - it’s busywork. It could be fixed if you could make as many slides as you wanted within the allotted time limit, but you can’t. You have to “solve” the puzzle the way they want you to solve it.

@Incarna The battle system in Paper Mario has evolved. It is still a turn-based system but they implemented a puzzle element into it

The moves you make tell how much damage you did, but the game doesn’t tell you how much damage you will do or how many health points the enemy has. Example of why that’s not strategic or fun (with made up numbers but it illustrates the point): Let’s say you have two moves. You use a better than standard jump attack item and deal 25 damage. The enemy doesn’t die, so you use your item again, do 25 damage and the enemy dies. Okay. Here’s what could have happened that would have actually been strategic fun to play: The game shows you that the enemy has 30 health points, so you use your best jump and deal 30 damage and then you have another turn to attack a different enemy, or, the game shows you that the enemy has 30 health points and you use two standard jump attacks and 20 damage each and kill the enemy without using any items. That’s called strategy, and it’s fun because you had to think and make a real choice. There is no point in knowing how much damage you did if you can’t tell how much damage it would take to win and or how much damage a given attack can/will do. It’s nonsense.
Imagine if a vending machine worked like that (hopefully this analogy makes sense and correctly illustrates my point): you blindly reach into your wallet, grab a bill (and for some reason you can’t tell the value of it because you have Vaseline in your eyes or something, let’s say it’s a $5 bill, but there isn’t a way for you to know for sure) and you put it into the machine, and hit the corresponding code. The machine tells you you put in $5, but the item you want doesn’t dispense (the machine doesn’t tell you it’s price, or the fact that it wants $7 for it), so again you blindly reach into your wallet and grab a random bill (this time it’s a $1 bill - you think it’s a $1 bill, but there’s no way to be sure. The item is probably around $6 to your best guess, but you can’t tell how much the machine is selling it for). Now your turn is over, and the vending machine punches you. Nice. Now it’s your turn again, and so once again you reach into your wallet without looking and grab a bill (this time it’s a $10 but there’s no way for you to be sure it’s a $10 bill - you know it’s a lot anyway, and there’s no possible way you won’t get the item with this one) and you put it in the machine, and you finally get your item. Cool! Except not cool. You end up paying $16 for a $7 item. Why?? You had the exact $7 in your wallet! That’s the kind of nonsense this battle system runs on. That’s not strategy, and its not fun.

Additionally, battling is pointless. You get coins and confetti from battling, however, confetti can be acquired from just about everything from trees to bushes to rocks etc, and coins are also acquired from just about everywhere from filling holes in the environment to hitting blocks to finding secrets etc. There are expensive items sure, but they’re nearly all trophies that do not affect gameplay in any way. There are also expensive upgrades, but I feel completely confident that if you skipped every battle in the game and made a half hearted attempt to fill in holes and look for secret blocks and whatnot you would have much more than enough coinage to purchase every single upgrade on offer.

Boss battles are awesome, and they actually did do a good job here designing fun and strategic battles in these instances.

Overall, the game is good, but the battle system pulls it down, hard. Battling normal enemies is just as pointless and boring if not more so than in sticker star and color splash. It sucks that such a good game has such a big stain on it and caveat to it’s quality.

@everynowandben Well, i dont think so. You can see the status of the enemies according to how they look in battle. It is very easy to determine whether enemies die after your hit or not.

@BlackenedHalo Unfortunately not true. They do look weakened, but just today I fought some enemies in that state, used the basic jump attack, and they still did not die. I could’ve used a shiny jump, but I didn’t want to waste it, but instead I got attacked. That’s not strategy, that’s guesswork, and it isn’t fun.

@Incarna ah you despite puzzles ok fine, then I can see why you dont like the system........ If the game was an RPG with loot and XP after battles, it would be much more enjoyable as the time spent in battles would be worth it, however the game is not an RPG and everything you can earn is just coins and confetti, things you can easily earn in the field, so what's the point to have such battles? When you get stronger, you can kill enemies directly in the field with your hammer without the ring battle system and at these moments the game becomes more enjoyable

@everynowandben I see your point, of course, it wouldnt be bad if even basic enemies have their HP displayed.
...but on the other hand, cmon, you certainly did not die after their attacks
...
IMHO there is one thing Nintendo could have presented better and that is the fact that you do not have to place enemies on the correct places in order to win the battle. Or it was just me? From the videos I had seen I thought the only thing to win the battle is to line them up, otherwise I would not be able to hurt enemies. As it was mandatory. But sorting them is just kinda a bonus for you.

New isnt always good.

@BlackenedHalo

You just described a story. How dense are people really?

@Dezzy Miyamoto is a game designer. He wants game designers to create new game mechanics. If you drop the role of the game designer you stop treating videogame as a creative artform by using its specificity. RPG are all about making a game with an excel table. There's no need for a creative game designer when you make a turn based RPG.

Tanabe, you stink!

Change is good. Now "change" it back to TTYD and it'll be better received if the next entry goes the RPG route.

@BlackenedHalo You’re right, I didn’t/haven’t died from it, but my point is that it just doesn’t feel good. In fact, I’m arguing that it actively feels bad.

Hmm.. I didn’t think you had to line them up to win from the trailer, but I suppose it could have been more heavily emphasized? I don’t think that’s really anyone’s problem with the game in any case though.

I personally consider this a dumb way of thinking about game design.

If a football team gets a new manager and that manager decides to change the formation of the players and instead of doing better, the team preformed worst. Then just as the manager would accept praise for doing well, he must take criticism for doing worse.

It seems, listening to criticism, reviews, gamers and my experience, this Paper Mario's battle system is worse, the worst.

Good.

I haven’t tried this one yet, as I fear that the battles are not rewarding and are therefore pointless, but idk, maybe I need to look into it, because the battlesystem looks really interesting to me.

I get bored in jrpgs really easily because of battles, and if the game is very long, I might get bored of its battle system during one game, let alone having to play the damn battle system over several games. If nothing new happens in sequel, I will hard pass it.

@jobvd I just finished the original Paper Mario for the first time a few minutes ago, and yeah, the battle system becomes a little boring, too slow and pointless. TYD was better though, because IIRC the crowd system made battles much more dynamic and fun. But when I think of that game, it's not the battle system I remember, but the unique worlds and its cool stories. So yeah, I'd rather have them mix it up in every game if it means it gives them more interesting ideas to explore.

@BlackenedHalo fair enough. I still stand by my criticisms.

More than the battle itself, the thing that concern me the most is the leveling system. I mean, if you do a battle like this, turn-based, slow, etc., you HAVE to encourage people for doing it. In Super Paper Mario, we wouldn't mind not getting EXP points, but here...? So, either you make the battle system more simple, or you add leveling. That's about it.
It's a real shame that only for this issue the game is getting so many critics, but it's something I understand. The game itself is brilliant, though.

Fun is better than different.

I love the battle system. I’m glad it’s not the same old same old

The combat system is fun. Especially in boss fights. What's annoying is the amount of fights in certain areas.

Im glad they are constantly trying different things.
I see only negative comments here did any of you even play it?
I hadn’t have high hopes for it but it ends up to be my favorite switch game to this date.

The environment is fantastic, like the graphics, the battle system needs to grow on you but if it finally clicks you can’t get enough of it.
Im one of the few that encourages Nintendo to keep exploring with the paper Mario franchise, yes I whould love if they could make new characters as well, but so far in my opinion they did a great job with the 3 games ( I am one of those that likes Sticker star)
If you want a Mario RPG I recommend to play the Mario & Luigi games those are RPGS and one of the best in its genre.

@JR150 I think that while you are making good points, it’s laced with a lot of assumption because you have probably never met the dev to be able to ask him firsthand.

The term “RPG” doesn’t mean turn based. Old RPGs were turn based due to technical limitations. Newer ones aren’t limited by that, as I’m sure you’re familiar with.

That being said, when I see Paper Mario, I don’t think “RPG,” there’s no role play elements in it. It’s more like a story book in motion, than anything else.

How many more bad excuses for bad game design are they going to give us?? You don't NEED to change the battle system each time. You don't NEED to restrict your creativity on character creation. Stop making a fool out of yourself and just do what you can to deliver a quality product, which you certainly did not do since Super Paper Mario.

Yeesh. This series is doomed to just suck forever unless they get their heads out of the sand.

@georgesdandre Mario and Luigi HD on Switch would be terrific indeed; despicable Nintendo let the small company, Alpha Dream die... heartbreaking really.

@jobvd origami king has a terrible battle system and it’s tedious to the point of being boring.

@Slowdive The best feedback Nintendo can receive is in sales, and it seems that so many people are buying this stuff. So why would they change their direction? What they are doing is making them a lot of profit. Just because a couple of games weren’t made for you doesn’t mean they are in a desperate situation when it comes to player feedback.

@Nomad about 32% ish. Even my ten year old daughter was bored with it.

Hmm... is it just me or does it seem like the Paper Mario series is Nintendo's "step child" of sorts? They just use it to experiment with ideas at the cost of our hopes and dreams lol.

@DoktorTotenKopf Then that game wasn’t for you, and wasn’t for your daughter. Your experience does not speak for everyone else’s

@Yosher If you don’t like it, that’s not bad game design. Nintendo has never struggled with design, Wii U being the exception. They’ve been in business probably longer than both of us have. been alive. They know what they are doing in terms of design.

But in terms of appeal? Every good designer knows that universal appeal is impossible. Some people will like it, others will not. If you don’t find PM appealing, that’s totally fine. Just don’t blame their design; they know exactly what they are doing.

What ever the battle system, I’d like them to explore the audience system more! I absolutely loved it in TYD, and thought that it would be fitting element in Paper Mario games. Such a shame, that they didn’t use the audience after TYD!

It could be a fun way to sidestep building an experience system; battles and deeds in game world would increase your fame, and more people would come to watch your battles, and over time the small summer theater stage would become a Royal Theater.

Different theaters would have different props which could be used in battles.

The ticket sales would explain the money, that come from battles, and bigger venues would bring higher income.

Popular enemies would make encounters uphill battles as their fans would boo and disturb the match, and some times one possible strategy for winning a battle could even be in trying to win the crowd first, and thus break the home field advantage of the enemy.

Perhaps stylistic and succesful skill moves and use of comical stunts could make the crowd enjoy the battles and cheer you up.

I think they simply don‘t know where to go with the series. Why not bring back the Mario & Luigi series and make it their mainline RPG so fans are happy? Or make a Super Mario RPG 2 if they are really not willing to make another Thousand Year Door.

I am a big fan Super Paper Mario for the Wii and in my opinion they should have expanded on that formula.

@Shulkalot Why is divisive, wrong? Isn’t that just saying that there is a clearer line between people who love it and people who hate it?

@DoktorTotenKopf In your opinion.

They never needed to change what wasn't broken in TTYD. I'm afraid all this started when they ripped up the format for Super Paper Mario. Sticker Star I can understand utilizing the stickers from the gameplay in the battle system but cards in Colour Splash or this stupid puzzle ring system in Origami King have nothing to do with the gameplay gimmick of their entries. If they want to create something fresh maybe go back to the original format with partners but have a whole party of them in battle rather than just the one. Maybe add an ATB battle system like in other turn based systems. They don't need to reinvent the wheel, just take an established battle system and tweak it for Paper Mario slightly.

@HotGoomba Right? That’s what got us Geno in Mario RPG. It’s nice to see fresh faces in familiar games.

@TG16_IS_BAE you have a point as Pokémon has been criticized by some for this but each entry still pushes big numbers and when it comes down to it that’s how you measure a games success. Paper Mario’s criticisms are far too decisive in comparison to even something as the same old Pokémon. The majority praise paper Mario for its original story but it gets slammed for its battle system. These games could be so much more if they stopped their shaking things up formula.

@TG16_IS_BAE Have you ever heard the phrase ''don't fix what isn't broken'' though? That's exactly what they're doing. They're 'fixing' a series that was never broken to begin with until the 3DS entry came along and now they can't seem to come up with a consistent way to keep the series going and force themselves to change up the combat system for no reason. But heck if they want to change up the characters a little bit these days.

I know there's plenty of people who are enjoying these newer games and I apologize if I did seem harsh, but as a big fan of the first three Paper Mario games, I just can't help but be massively, massively disappointed in the direction the series is headed ever since Sticker Star. They feel more stale to me than the New Super Mario Bros series have become despite them trying to 'innovate'.

I'm happy there's people who are still able to enjoy these games, but I still think it's bad game design personally just because they force themselves to change the wonderful things this series once had going for it, which are now all lost in a pile of unnecessary battling and unmemorable NPCs and lame 'haha we're paper funny' jokes.

Really. As far as I'm concerned, this series has lost its soul. But as said, I'm happy there's still people who can enjoy what the series has become. I'll keep on hoping for a return to form, personally, or at least a remake/remaster of one of the first two/three games. But considering they absolutely loathe any form of story in Mario games these days I think they'd much rather forget those games ever existed in the first place so I don't see that happening anytime soon.

@TYRANACLES Did PM sell poorly?

@Yosher It’s not broken. It doesn’t appeal to you.

It really doesn't matter how clever your battle system is if it simply doesn't have any connection to the game whatsoever.

I said it in another thread already. Since Sticker Star, their combat systems existed in their own loop (Fight > use resources > win coins > buy resources) which makes them completely pointless and entirely avoidable.

It's a completely optional minigame that quickly loses its novelty and becomes tedious busy work without any payoff.
These games would have greatly benefited from using Super Paper Mario's approach of foregoing a separate combat screen to keep the flow going.
They are so reliant on exploration and overworld gimmicks, constantly interrupting that gameplay loop is a really bizarre design decision, especially since said interruption has no benefits to the game as a whole.

It's two entirely disconnected gameplay loops somehow daisy chained together.

This is why I'm not supporting this game.

@TG16_IS_BAE No I’m not saying any game in the series sold badly. Each had its charm. I do believe they could have sold better by sticking to the rpg battling and progression system and also the limits that have been set on developing characters seems to be another constant complaint. Just a missed opportunity again and again. At this point going back to the original design would be a breath of fresh air.

@OptometristLime I'm just questioning the outrage.

I think the idea that a RPG doesn't need a story isn't actually restrictive. If someone shows up and says "OFCOURSE IT NEEDS A STORY!" then they must be the ones who think RPGs should only be a certain way.

Nintendo are quite big on innovation and most of the time its done by breaking conventions. Like Mario RPGs action commands/timed hits were breaking JRPG conventions.

@TYRANACLES So, you said that a games success is based on its sales, and you also said it sold well, so..?

I loved the battle system in Origami King. I didn't feel it was "disconnected" or anything like that - so much of the game revolves around shapes and shape folding and manipulation. As you get stronger you can skip some of the lower-level baddies if you want, but the battles remain important throughout the whole game, which was nice. And the boss battles are pretty awesome nearly across the board.

I really do wonder how many people who trash this game have actually played it, and this website is mild by comparison. There should be some sort of verification system kinda like Steam has where if people are gonna post stuff about a game, good or bad, there's some way to see if they've actually played the game and for how much time. It shouldn't bar anyone from posting (imagine the outrage, dear goodness), but simply put an icon next to their name with hours played. Maybe have people link to their Switch accounts and it could automatically check.

@rallydefault That would be interesting. I would like to know from people who actually played it for at least 90 minutes. By then, you pretty much get what a games about.

@TG16_IS_BAE Why settle tho. You can’t make everyone happy sure, but the first two games didn’t receive this much backlash and I know not everyone who was at first interested in this game ended up actually buying it because they’ve been burnt time and again by these shake ups. You’re lying to yourself if you think their battle system actually drove their numbers. Just about every reviewer has claimed that as a sticking point.

@Dr_Lugae How exactly is "Make an adventure game without telling a story or without creating new, unique characters" not restrictive?

I'm a big, big fan on self restriction. It's what gets creative juices flowing and drives innovation. And you're absolutely right. It's one of Nintendo's big fortes.
But what's innovative about these games? What new ground did they break?

Like you already mentioned, Super Mario RPG played with the basic JRPG formula, Mario & Luigi as well as Paper Mario had the philosophy of "What if we made a turn based platformer" but ever since Sticker Star, what did they innovate on?

Combat relying on resources? Something SaGa did from the start.
And overworld filled with little puzzles? That's a Zelda thing.
And having limited, non distinct characters is, at least in my opinion, not really what i'd call innovative.
I'd even go so far as to say the design decision of "Only use characters found in XY" is the exact opposite of that.
It's not reinventing anything, it's not pushing anything forward.
These characters serve the same purpose they did in previous entries, only without having recognizable features.

I wish there was a demo for OGK because I don't think I will like the battle system, and want to try it before I use 60 bucks on something I might not like.

At this point I just want a remake of TTYD on switch.

@rallydefault What exactly makes the battles feel important to you?`
And that disconnect happens, when a system, in this case the combat system, only serves itself.
Without any kind of growth or reward you can't otherwise get (Since coins are also gotten on the overworld), battles against regular enemies become disconnected.
If you don't fight, you don't need the coins you get from them to stock up on moves for these fights (or in Origami Kings case, use them for the time and audience gimmick), since everything you find along the way is more than enough for its mandatory encounters.
They are self contained and don't serve a purpose outside of themselves.

@Einherjar There's never been a Paper Mario game where they've not created atleast 1 new character. But one big thing is that they've started to used the characters who do appear in creative ways.

Take Wiggler in Sticker Star. They have Kamek break his segments up and run amok, they have him undergo metamorphosis into Flutter to help you reach the final battle. They took into account aspects of the the characters design to create interesting scenarios where what the character is, is more important.

Contrast to the way NPC characters were used in the older games. Essentially the NPCs were basically eye candy. If an NPC was a certain race it was incidental to their role. If you made Wiggler blue, gave him some different shoes and had him be a background NPC called Bluggler in TTYD. There would be people arguing that it was more creative than Sticker Star's Wiggler.

I disagree with the rhetoric that they "serve the same purpose" because the NPCs in the latter games tend to be a lot more active/action orientated (see the Rescue Squad in Color Splash) to the older ones where they mostly served an expositional role. It's like anything the new games do that the old don't gets ignored, like if it's not NPCs with hats and hair, then it's automatically less creative?

@TYRANACLES There are people that like it though. I saw some in this comments section, and if it sold well it must be good right?

@rallydefault I've been wondering about the same thing. It seems like there's a tonne of people who have written the game off who haven't even played it.
I was on the fence about buying it originally because of all the negitivity surrounding it but I'm glad now that I did because it's a great game and in my opinion it's up there with TTYD.
It seems to me that a lot of people are going to miss out on one of the best Paper Mario games so far because of the toxicity of the internet.

@Einherjar I’m pretty sure you’re over thinking this Paper Mario thing.

@Dr_Lugae Fair and very good point! Consider me more convinced

@TG16_IS_BAE If analyzing mechanics and design decisions/philosophies in a videogame, a hobby i've been part of for ~25 years now is "overthinking", well, so be it
¯(ツ)/¯

@Nomad Well, the reason is 60 bucks in times where money is in short supply for many and two predecessors that already turned many people away from the series due to very similar design choices.
"Giving it a choice" at full price is a very unlikely gamble.

Like many here said, a demo would have been a great choice here.

@Einherjar Cool, I do get the where the arguments come from against the character restrictions.

But I'm wary because there's so many places and ways that a game can be creative. That Paper Mario doesn't fall into a pit where people think the games are or are not creative purely based on character designs alone.

Do we need a #freepapermario campaign or something?
Even though origami king is excellent, these restriction as so incredibly stupid! Free paper Mario from these restrictions.

I wonder if the developers feel the same way, that’s why we are getting a lot of these interviews talking about it. Maybe they don’t like them either!

@Einherjar If you were doing that, I wouldn’t have poked you for it

@Einherjar yeah I think if any game needs a demo it's this one. Still, it doesn't really help when a lot of people are negitively criticising a game they haven't played. A demo would certainly fix that.

@TG16_IS_BAE Well, poke away if you think i've done anything other than looking at exactly that.
Whatever floats your boat ^^

@Nomad I don't think that it would outright "fix" it, as it still adheres to the same design choices that put people off from Sticker Star and Color Splash.
But it would give people on the fence the opportunity to look past the "love it or hate it" discussions and see for themselves where they fall on the matter.

A demo wouldn't change the opinion of someone who made up their mind about the direction the series took 8 years ago, but it would certainly appeal to newcomers who now have to deal with a very clearly split fanbase.

@Priceless_Spork Now THAT'S innovation!

Might kill the franchise, mind you, but no one could ever accuse you of rehashing the same old, same old.

@DoktorTotenKopf I hear you and understand that you and you’re daughter don’t enjoy the game, but I don’t think calling the game lazy is a fair description.

There is a ton of creativity in the design, writing, and art direction. Ive found the game to be a lot of fun. And they did develop an entirely new type of battle system. The boss battles are very well done. That said it could be SO much more and I was hoping the system would be more fully developed in a later entry. After reading this article... i guess that wont be the case.

@Einherjar True.

@TG16_IS_BAE what older RPGs were turn based? Dungeon Master? Eye of the Beholder? Ultima?

@BlackenedHalo Wizardry, 1981, one of main inspirations behind Dragon Quest

Why tho. also I'm not so fussed about the lacklustre battle system but rather the framerate, why make a beautiful game to then ruin it with 30fps.

I'm all for transparency, but releasing these statements while a certain corner of the fandom is so volatile was a mistake.

@BlackenedHalo Everything that was an RPG on the NES, pretty much up to the PS2 era. You can read about it on Wikipedia if you want.

Mario & Luigi! All five games had some form of CONSISTENCY! Can Intelligent Systems not get a hint on how to make a good combat system?

They should be innovating, but they should also maintain consistency the way AlphaDream did with the Mario & Luigi series.

This is possibly the worst excuse I've heard. As much as I still enjoy The Origami King, I find this reason to be very inexcusable considering there was literally ANOTHER NINTENDO RPG series that maintained a consistent system, and it worked!

@Varkster No, there are tons of people who like the game. The people complaining are whining that this thing isn’t appealing to them.

I found the game to not appeal to me, so I didn’t buy it. Simple! Lol

@NathanTheAsian Dude, one of the games creators is telling you exactly why they made the game. That’s not an excuse, they are trying to reason with all the crazy people who think every game has to appeal to them lol.

@Einherjar It’s all good, just been in the mood for a bit of a tease.

I'm three banners in. I mean......it's fine. I'm not hating it. I just think some of the battles are utterly impossible to get right on the first try.

@jobvd Not really? I've played through Paper Mario and TTYD several times each, and never got bored of combat. There's a ton of ways to experiment when it comes to that system.

Anyways, I'd be satisfied with an upgrade on Super Paper Mario's combat. It's clear IS hates turn based combat, so why don't they just abandon it entirely?

Wel, I don;t like that these games are phoned-in and I am sick of these amateur experiments and will not be buying them anymore - which is too bad since it started out as a really great series.

Bye bye paper mario

WELP who cares about polishing and refining possible good ideas when we can have new and clunky ones each time i guess. i hate the new philosophy paper mario has now

C’mon, at least it’s not as bad as when Sonic Team does it 😂

what makes current paper mario so divisive is how it started off as a grand RPG with in-depth gameplay, mechanics, and story. but theyve essentially dumb downed the game for the sake of pretty graphics and gimmicks.

no one praises the gameplay or story anymore, and thats what brought in fans for the series. now it appeals to no one, because now they do something diff each game that it only gets attention from its branding. these games arent made to stand the test of time anymore, theyre settling on one-and-done experiences, who the heck would play this game a 2nd time with how linear everything is. and i think the series deserves better than that when we already SAW how incredible the series can be

I am not buying Origami King, the creative restrictions Nintendo puts on this series are ridiculous. The direction this series has taken is sad. I would have been more excited for a Paper Mario, and Paper Mario TYD HD remaster.

@Fearful-Octopus Be careful what you wish for, I wouldn’t call the 3DS remakes of M&L improvements over the original games, they removed a lot of stuff with this “we’re not allowed to create unique characters” philosophy.

@rushiosan I meant remaster not remake no way in the world would I want the current development team ruining the first two games that would be devastating...😬

There are lots of interesting ways they could implement combat in a turn based Mario rpg. But mario rpgs seem to be a thing if the past now.

@sanderev the game is lacking the compelling and engaging gameplay and story the early games had. stuff like badges adding gameplay variety and interesting challenges for replay value. more collectables like recipes, star pieces, and again badges that all actually affected gameplay better (cool trophies, TOK). the battle system being more strategic and rewarding with actual variety in attacks and mechanics (partners, the audience, stage hazards, star power). the stories being more complex and interesting, with characters and bosses that actually tie into a theme (office supplies bosses do nothing for the story except be at the very end, vellumentals are just cop out ELEMENT monsters that dont even talk). characters and partners with unique designs and motivations each chapter. the games actually being consistent so ONE mechanic doenst bog down the rest of the experience (constant battle system changes)

the games not just divisive, its inconsistent. everything is so dumb downed and simple its why people always bring up the graphics and writing, cause the gameplay isnt interesting anymore. ive played through TOK and its a fine enough game, but its not great. and when we already saw how in depth and daring the games used to be its just sad to see that this is what they settle on now

I can see their reasoning for wanting to try something new each game since just refining the exact same battle system every time can eventually put you in a box from a design standpoint. If the next paper marios battle system is entirely different its simply because they felt there was nothing else that could be done with Origami King's system

It's really a shame he feels that way cause I feel like the characters and the story are what made the first 2 games great. As for the combat system oragami king is at least bearable but it certainly isn't fun. Plus since I don't really need coins I usually just avoid them because they feel tedious. At this point I'd rather see them release the first 2 for switch then keep heading in this detection.

This is completely unnecessary. The battle style from the first two Paper Mario's was fantastic. This is why even Mario & Luigi came with their own adaptation of it.

Honestly, I could tolerate a lot that's wrong with Paper Marios today (because this one actually looks like it has a lot of character) if they'd just go back to traditional Paper Mario battles and level up systems.

Have to disagree here with the man. As it not necessary to chance the combat system in every game. Keep what fans like, and replace what they don't with something new

@Tupin The slam mechanic in Luigi’s Mansion 3 is amazing. The only problem is it makes the game a bit too easy, but they didn’t do anything to fix it. If they gave all ghosts double health, damage and made hearts rarer it wouldn’t be a problem and even without that it isn’t a problem. Also Star fox zero is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. The controls are a bit odd, but it’s a really cool idea. I think that it was originally intended for the 3ds, but they put it on the Wii U instead. Everyone would have loved it if it was on the 3ds because the screens are right there. It was just a bit clunky with the game pad and tv screen, but still very good.

Ahh so this is why I no longer like Paper Mario

@Harmonie I agree that they should go back to the xp system, but the battle systems in the first 2 games sucked. It made it where you had to pay attention to supper boring battles that had no strategy whatsoever. If they were to make it similar to Mario rabbids where you have a few different characters with different abilities and you could have 3 characters in the battle at the same time and they all were equal with Mario then it would be good, but that old battle system was awful. It also had WAY too much random stuff involved in it.

I don't understand this idea. You can innovate a combat system without completely changing it and alienating longtime fans. This is coming from someone who actually enjoys the combat in The Origami King.

I did not buy origami king and played thousand year door on the gamecube instead. I want the traditional rpg with experience points. If they can't have original characters in the the mario universe then stop putting mario in there and make something new.

@sanderev what exactly didn’t you like about ttyd? It was the best entry in the series by most fans. If you didn’t like it then you wouldn’t get why some of us didn’t enjoy this one. N64 version was close to TTYD and is also held in high regard. The battle systems, party members, and exp progression is what made it for me. Origami King’s battle system is wonky to me. Since the game lacks true rpg progression, I find no real appeal in battling enemies. Someone told me that they didn’t REALLY implement partners into this one either. So before I could even dive deep into the game, I retired from it. Doesn’t feel like the rpg I fell in love with.

I’m going to catch some flak for this, but i have played every entry in the series, except for Color Splash and OK, and I have always found them to be some of the most boring games Nintendo has released. They’re funny, yes, but I’ve never found them to be as fun as they could be.

I enjoyed The Origami King for its writing and soundtrack, but as many stated the series needs to return to its roots. It was fine for me the first two titles (three, if SPM is included) of experimentation and such, but come TOK I was simply over the whole thing. Yes, I enjoyed the adventuring aspects and some of the puzzle elements, but the first steps of the series show that Paper Mario was far more than that. And it's fine to change things up every now and then...just give people a statistical reason to engage in battles than just coins.

Paper Mario needs a "Sonic Mania" very badly, in my opinion.

@Henmii I was skeptical of the whole system until the boss battles. I LOVED EM. The enemy battles definitely got repetitive (thank you cheering Toads for helping avoid them). I read an article somewhere saying to get the RPG out of Paper Mario and just make it a pure adventure game and this one definitely made a case for that.

I've played the game, and I really disliked it. It was painful to go through the whole thing.

Okay I've begun to respect their creative decisions at this point, and I know Origami King has a lot of love put into it but,

why keep the same lack of incentive for battles then for 3 games in a row? seems to cancel out their aim to change it up if the same flaw plagues the series since Sticker Star.

Eh, this is just regular business at Nintendo. It seems pretty obvious they have a rule about changing new entries in series to not become stale. It's the same reason old PS1 games sold bad while the SNES Classic and NES Classic sold incredibly. The difference being Nintendo doesn't upgrade it's newest iterations, they make different games entirely. Like the Mario series is always innovating, or Zelda as well. It would have been easy to take the first game in those series and make some graphics updates and give it a new story and levels and release a new one every year but that gets very boring and predictable after a while. So I'm glad that they innovate for innovations sake, we wouldn't have such great games if they didn't.

I honestly never minded that they wanted to make a new battle system every single game. I like the idea of a series that completely reinvents itself every entry. So I don't have a problem with the fact that they haven't returned to the 64/TTYD battle style. But I do have a problem with the fact that every battle system since Sticker Star has been so poorly thought out and just ruined the games for me. They all have a good concept, but they don't build on it nearly enough so it gets old fast. I just can't enjoy a game where the thing you do over half the time is just not interesting and you constantly want to avoid it.

Why does nl need to try to fan anti miyamoto flames by referencing a decade old interview about an early 3ds game and trying to use people's lack of reading comprehension to link that to every paper mario criticism ever?

That aside, it's very clear that the corporate branding rules that apply to the mario brand at NEW Corporate Nintendo are so strict that Mario RPGs are not really possible anymore. What they really need to do too escape the companies stifling branding restrictions is to stop making paper mario/Mario rpg games entirely and create a new ip (that can be a thematic spinoff of Mario as long as it escapes the restrictions)... It's clear the games we think of as "Mario rpg" are no longer permissible to make under corporate branding policy.

The ring system would be a fun Reoccurring gimmick with rpg elements in a traditional Paper Mario game but not every battle

No it's not, that's just stupid

@JereJK To me TTYD was just a simplified RPG and not really fun to play (other RPGs were 100x better) The Origami King is not an RPG, and doesn't try to be an RPG, which allows me to actually enjoy the game. Devoid of any grinding.

@sanderev I don’t think you would’ve liked 64 either then

Uh... No, Nintendo. It really isn't.

I don't think that innovation and switchup is needed in every iteration. If people are fan of a series or a game many parts play a role in this, change too many too radically of those and the fans will leave. It's simple.

If Paper Mario had stayed on track through each of it's iterations, it would most likely rank as one of my top series. TTYD is such an incredible game, and 64 is really well done. Super is alright, but really the first 2 should have set the ground work.

Keep the partners going; more Boo types, Blooper, Chain Chomp, Bullet Bill, have a Koopa that can change shell color to do different things, Bobombs.

Make custom power up moves to use with each partner, like a flame hammer hitting Blooper oil and it ignites or something.

There's so much that could be done with this series as an RPG, I really hate that all these rules are in place. I caved and bought Origami King, so we'll see how this ring battle goes.

Counterpoint: No, it isn't.

@sanderev

I don't remember any grinding in TTYD

@Nintendo_Thumb

I don't really follow; Mario games innovative? They barely change anything between each iteration, and sell like hotcakes. Zelda? The 2d all play similar and the 3d did up until BoTW. Pokemon, Mario Kart, 2D Metroid, they all stay rooted in what they are. Paper Mario is one of a very short list of games (that I can think of) where they try to change it's core each time.

Them getting rid of RPG elements and changing the battle system each game would be similar to them taking Mario Kart and getting rid of the racing, and making it a card game. And then the next one they make it puzzle racing. And then every racer is mario or a toad.

@everynowandben I think really hit the goomba on the head about what exactly is wrong with this new battle system. Puzzle combat isn't necessarily bad in and of itself, but they've completely removed any type of strategy. I've been trying to figure out what it is about this game that just isn't clicking for me, and I think your explanation finally cleared it up.

*** except of course the boss battles. There's a fair amount of specific strategy for each of those battles that is a nice mix of infuriating and fun.

Nintendo is one strange company when it comes to some of their franchises, like Paper Mario.

@TG16_IS_BAE People may criticize the Pokemon franchise for that but... I mean... Compare the Pokemon franchise to the Paper Mario franchise and let me know which one is FAR MORE successful.

People will always criticize everything. But consistency is better at times.

“Creative restrictions”

More like laziness and refusal to research the Mario universe.

Also, after reading this, I've decided I'm staying away from the Paper Mario franchise until this guy is no longer at the helm of it.

Origami King was ok but it could have been so much better.

@Classic603 those are my feelings on the series exactly

@Orgalorg4077 The battle system definitely had potential, but in the end, unfortunately, it’s just not interesting or fun. At least the boss battles are good!

@Retrowire Pokémon was awesome 15(?) years ago for me (Fire Red/Leaf Green) but I got tired of the copy/paste treatment. With each new gen, it just felt like I was replaying fire/leaf, just different names/faces. That being said, it doesn’t matter to me how either game performs, as I’m not in that demographic.

I'm currently enjoying Paper Mario Origami King, so that'll be my main focus for gaming. I might mess around with Tetris 99 a bit, and maybe ARMS. I wanted to try and enter that online ARMS tournament for fun, but a root canal among other things kind of killed my mood for that, so I'm just taking it easy.

@BanjoPickles You should try Color Splash; it’s like Sticker Star but actually good. Replace OK’s confetti with paint and you’ll get an idea of some of the gameplay.

Something I find eerie about this whole interview is that Tanabe keeps talking about these things like HE'S the one directing the game. I'm aware that the producer has the most power in these situations, but it does make me wonder: what do the other devs of the game have to say about these choices?

@N00BiSH I sort of have the impression that based on how unfocused TOK is (Is it an action-adventure game? Is it an RPG? Ar the battles turn-based or real-time? Is it a hidden object game? Is the gimmick origami or is it confetti/office supplies/drawings?) that once he got in his idea for the Rubik's Cube-style battles, he was incredibly hands-off with the game. It in general lacks any sort of cohesion and doesn't know what it wants to be. It feels like it was designed by committee and EVERYONE got a bit of what they wanted in it.

The ring combat would have been a fun mini-game, but I'm gonna throw my comment on the pile of "bring back the way it was in Thousand Year Door".

Or at least, if you insist on taking the risk of innovating which leaves the possibility of an underwhelming and (judging by the majority of comments/articles/reviews) undesired core mechanic of an otherwise solid game, then at least port the game(s) we DID enjoy better to the current console.

I admire the desire to innovate, but they should have done more thorough playtesting, because while some people do seem to enjoy the ring battles, it appears that a majority of us did not, and that just doesn't seem like a sensible call to me.

@Tupin I love how everything bad on those games you put under Tanabe, even though he's just one person on a team of hundreds of employees and many other leads. Do you have any idea what a producer does? Even more a producer from a publisher?

@Nemesis666 My point is that TOK is rudderless, or as Yahtzee would describe it, "A dog's breakfast of ideas." There was no one at any point, whether it be Tanabe or someone else, that actually tied up all of the ideas the game had and made them work together. It's a bunch of ideas thrown together with no regard for how it actually plays. Also yes, in general Tanabe has come up with many bad ideas (Slam mechanic in LM3, Zip-Lash's level select spinner, no Rareware in the new DK games, the awful gameplay loops of SS/CS/TOK) so I think it's fair to blame him.

You could sall the bs you want but matter of the fact is that the new papermario titles are sorry excuses of the first three. They had best seller emblems and now they don't, that tells you that you're screwing up! Get someone else in charge of paper Mario ASAP it's pretty much being driven to the ground. We want to see better story and a return to the mysterious and expansive style of the first three.

The Mario &Luigi Games managed to do interesting things with combat without stripping any of the RPG elements out of the game. I actually liked the ring puzzle system. What I didn't like is the lack of a leveling system or any meaningful customization. I don't really need new mechanics to find combat enjoyable. I need challenging battles, well developed party members and interesting abilities. Origami King is good but it could've been great if they had returned to the roots of the series.

Papa Miyamoto won't allow the same game twice. Even though Paper Mario 64 and TTYD's combat was hardly different from each other.

You know what it really feels like to me? It almost feels like Tanabe wants to make a Zelda game but is stuck with Paper Mario, and thus has to put in trappings of Paper Mario (the humor and the turn-based battles.) Why not let him make a Paper Zelda game?

Kensuke Tanabe: "Nothing good about the previous game matters."

Masahiro Sakurai: "Characters that resonate with me are more important than characters that resonate with others."

What is this the year of the ego?

Ok, so change it back to its roots just once and then move on from there

Since the last good paper Mario game was on the GameCube I absolutely disagree.

@Expa0 FLYING SQUIRREL MARIO HYPE!

@DoktorTotenKopf "Origami King was lazy and devoid of any real innovations."

Only except The Origami King had one of the most unique battle systems ever made. What other game plays like that?

What makes something "innovative" or "uninspired"? Tell me your criteria for both, and how they compare to The Thousand-Year Door and The Origami King.

I think the combat system should change drastically in every Paper Mario game my dude!

@georgesdandre Did you know that people were actually happy when AlphaDream became bankrupt? They thought that the bankruptcy would somehow get them a Thousand-Year Door remake or sequel. Yeah, about that...

@Handsomistic15 Keep dreaming there, it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

@Slowdive You don't sound like you know what you want, I can say that for sure.

@Yosher You got quite salty there, didn't you? I think it's time for you to make peace with Paper Mario and move on.

Origami king ended up being really good y’all

Is Intelligent Systems changing the combat style cuz they want to, or because Miyamoto is pointing everybody with a gun? XD
Definitely the reason Paper Mario is never going to be the same as the first games is Miyamoto's ambition. That can result in a masterpiece, or a forgettable game. At least Origami King did a pretty good (but definitely not perfect) job with the combat system. Let's hope Nintendo continues with the Mario & Luigi saga, I really had a good time with those games

@Dog Yeah. Yeah I probably should. It's hard when you always held the series in such high regard though and it's just being absolutely ruined for you.

It's okay though, there's still plenty other games out there. Thankfully the main Mario series are still really solid, as is Mario Kart. (..not counting Tour.) And there's plenty other RPGs for that particular itch as well.

@boxyguy "now it appeals to no one"

The sales of the PM games say otherwise.

@rushiosan What didn't you like about the M&L remakes?

@NEStalgia

@Liam_Doolan should respond to this comment.

By this logic how has the core Mario experience remained various iterations of jumping for decades?

Is this guy still defending this game? Good lord. I feel like this must be the 3rd or so article where the producer has been whining in some way about this game. It comes off as if he's apologizing. I know the game has a fanbase but as far as I'm concerned, it has failed utterly as a Mario RPG or Paper Mario game. At this rate I think it'd be best to simply rebrand these games rather than continue to use the Paper Mario name. If the title is barely going to play anything like the older games, just rebrand it as something else and drop the Paper Mario from the title. Continuing to use the Paper Mario brand for games that barely have anything to do with the original or TTYD is just going to make people mad.

All of this is assuming I even believe the claims that the old guard is making it this hard to make creative use of the Mario branding. Considering how off the wall Mario Oddy was, I'm not entirely sure I buy the idea that the higher ups at Nintendo somehow forced the development team to fill their more recent Paper Mario games with Toads, removing anything remotely resembling an RPG, etc. Considering how imaginative the games prior to Sticker Star were, I really doubt any of this is true. The more this producer tries to defend the game, the less interested I become in Origami King. Definitely not a good way to get people to buy your game.

@Dr_Lugae Who on Earth has a problem with Chibi Robo: Ziplash?! I enjoyed the crap out of that game! And his Amiibo was awesome.

Turn Based Combat is Extrinsic in nature, meaning the prime motivator are the growth of stats that determine a character's strength.

A lot of Mario games, especially 64, Sunshine, and Odyssey, are Intrinsic, meaning the prime motivator is to enhance your skills at the game, namely mastering Mario's movement.

I think their goal was to make a turn based game driven by Intrinsic motivation, but I don't think Sticker Star, Color Splash, and Origami King are either Extrinsic or Intrinsic games. There are very very light elements of each, like HP upgrades or the time button presses, but neither are core motivators to progress the game itself.

I wonder if the difference between people who enjoy or don't enjoy these games lies in the difference if some people are motivated to progress in a game for the sake of progression. By the same standards, that's technically how reading a Visual Novel works. However, the additional constraint is that Paper Mario's paper thin story might divide this camp even further.

For me, at least. When I play an RPG, I like to see the statistics reflect the experience the characters in the game have while I adjust their equipment, skills, and abilities. When I play a platformer, I like the master a character's movement to overcome challenging obstacles. And when I read a Visual Novel, I just want to experience a good story.

The jokes in Origami King, while enjoyable, isn't enough to motivate me.

@Dog i meant in a sense that no one knows what to expect with a new game anymore since they change it every time now. will it be good? people thought so with sticker star, people hoped CS would do better but its still a mixed bag, and now its happening again with TOK. i dont get why paper mario has to be so different and unrefined now, if they always do something new what will they have time to polish up? i also find it scummy that tanebe waiting until people bought the game to be like "hey guys screw the old formula we're never doing it again"

it all just stems back to the confusion to why the series had to change so drastically in the first place. theyre giving reasons, but not particularly good ones

@DoktorTotenKopf you’re entitled to whatever opinion you want, of course, but to call TOK lazy is just objectively wrong. The amount of completely unique ideas packed into every single area was astonishing and often I’d think a portion of the game was going one way and it’d then completely U-turn.

I don’t even feel it applies to the combat - it’s way more creative than the first two, attempting a genuinely new system in an RPG format. The first two are very close to my heart and TOK will never come close to them, especially TTYD, but this was genuinely a great game that clearly had so much love and creativity poured into it that I couldn’t help but feel it was a stride in the right direction after the unforgivable SS and underwhelming CS.

All opinion aside, I find it wildly unfair to deem this game that’s already being unjustly written off by so many as ‘lazy’ when that couldn’t be further from the truth.

@MajorasLapdog TL;DR.

@JasmineDragon
First off, it seems they and others feel they cant be creative within limited parameters. (like no new characters) In my last post on this topic I said I wanted a Thwomp and Chainchomp game. So I just feel new and fresh can be achieved with a bit of creativity and was trying to give some crazy examples of stuff Id actually like to see that I never saw that they could still do within their parameters if they simply remove the creative block.
However, ya know, Im not sure if Luigi didnt lick a toad or something already. In Mario and Luigi Dream , Luigi's dreams were more of a psychedelic trip than a dream.
And I wouldnt ever kill off the real Toad, he's my favorite.

Nintendo has always been fairly determined to never make the same game twice. It results in powerful innovation and occasional mistakes, but I think it's the reason Nintendo's franchises still feel fresh compared to say, Mega Man, which has been playing the same basic song for 35 years.

@Handsomistic15

I almost picked it up, at one point, but never did. I’ll give it a go. Thanks for the recommendation!

@Pak-Man If in the game mechanics only. Example, Cappy and Super Mario Odyssey, Fludd and Super Mario Sunshine, etc. And as Zelda does with its instruments and items. But when it comes to the core gameplay, that, THAT, shouldn't change.
And that's absolutely the case with Paper Mario. Let us fight enemies, gain experience, and increase our strength and levels. "That's tired." No, that's an RPG. Just because you level up, doesn't mean it has to be played out. That's what Badges, skills, setups, etc. do to keep the formula fresh.

Im all for innovation but innovation doesnt necessarily mean complete change. The ring style nattle stste was ok but incorporating it in to the rpg XP system of TYD would have been my way to go. The problem i have with OriK is the same problem ive had with all PM games since TYD. There is actually no need to battle anything unless required to, ie boss battles. You are getting nothing out of it apart from the same stale animation and it becomes a frustrating chore after a while. The loss of character progression is the worst thing to happen to the PM franchise imo. I mean who would want constant rsndom battles in any classic FF game if winning said battle didnt grsnt points towards character development. Its just crazy.

@kaffepapu I am certain that a demo would hurt the games sales.

@Classic603 By that I have to assume you only are vaguely familiar with the series. First of all, Pokemon is made by the Pokemon company and Game Freak it's not 1st party. Donkey Kong plays nothing like Mario Bros., Mario Bros plays nothing like Super Mario Bros. Super Mario Bros is completely different than Mario 2, and Mario 2 and 1 are both completely different than 3. And then Mario World it's got some similarities with 3, but it's very much it's own game as well. Then Yoshi's Island is original and doesn't play like Mario 64, and Sunshine's water mechanics changed everything gameplay-wise, and then Galaxy is plenty innovative in it's right, and Galaxy 2 is the only place I can think of where you could say they don't innovate as it's very similar to Galaxy 1. But then you've got 3d Land, and then 3D World, which are both kinda similar but way different than Galaxy, and Mario Odyssey plays different than all of those. Then they made the New Series, which all play pretty similar to each other but unlike anything that had come previously, though there's a lot of things that make each one unique, and then Mario Maker is a completely different series to any of those completely unlike anything we've seen before it. Even between Mario Maker 1 and 2, there's a ton of differences that set each one unique from each other. Even all 3 of the Gameboy Super Mario Land games played quite different from each other. And Mario Clash on the Virtual Boy has it's own original gameplay as well.

Changing things up like that is what Nintendo does, always have. Any of those series you listed, Mario Kart, Zelda, Paper Mario, Metroid if you had spent some time with them, you'd see that those games are all quite a bit different from each other. They're not the same old game with a new coat of paint, Nintendo doesn't typically do that.

And you're going to tell me that the clock in Majora's mask didn't change the game completely, or Zelda 2's overworld with side scrolling enemies and towns, or Skyword Sword's 1 to 1 sword fighting? Not everybody likes all the changes, but to say that things just stay the same is disingenous. We've had Mario Kart 8 so long we've forgotten how cool anti-gravity is or having non-Mario characters in it is for a change, or maybe it's easy to forget that Double Dash had 2 characters per kart switching back and forth at the press of a button, still a unique concept I haven't seen elsewhere.

I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way I feel. I didn't buy the game BECAUSE of the combat system!

The game looks gorgeous and apparently the story is brilliant, but a 20h long game (let's face it, an RPG game) with such a dull and repetitive mechanic is unforgivable.

Do they really think the first two installments are THAT inaccessible?

Please Nintendo, take this franchise away from this man 😥

Why couldn’t it just be like paper Mario N64 with new party members. That is all I wanted and that is what I was looking for. I mean I play the origami but not same. 😔

@DoktorTotenKopf you know what, fair enough, ya got me. You deconstructed my argument while elaborating on your original standpoint and completely justifying it. Can’t say anything but job well done.

The only thing I WOULD say is that you have now invalidated any of your future opinions that might pop up on here because clearly you’re just in the market to make dumb sweeping statements with no way of backing them up. Other than that, bravo

@TG16_IS_BAE Which is essentially a double edge Sword and the devs just can't win.

People want the same thing and will complain. Then in a split sec want something different after the 3rd game does the exact same thing.

There are plenty of ways to change combat systems without removing so many of the RPG elements that are preferred by most players and mesh best with the rest of the mechanics that are usually included.

@Dr_Lugae You obviously haven't played many RPGs if you think it's easy to run out of battle system ideas for them. Even if you limit yourself to turn-based systems, there are dozens of decently unique combat variations out there without removing too much of what makes the games RPGs in the first place.

@TG16_IS_BAE No, most Pokémon fans praise the Pokémon series for keeping the main mechanics consistent in the mainline games, which each new generation still adds plenty of secondary innovations. Most complaints about more recent entries in the series are about other unrelated issues like the easy difficulty level, lack of side areas and/or postgame content, disappointing presentation issues, or removing certain Pokémon entirely from the newest games.

Any who do complain about staleness in the main mechanics are a very small minority, while the complaints would be at least a hundred times worse if they did change the formula too much. Heck, the biggest complaint about the "Let's Go!" games is that they simplified the mechanics too much for a remake of a main series game by removing long time important mechanical staples like Abilities and Hold Items.

@TG16_IS_BAE Sales aren't necessarily an indication of quality. Many mediocre games in a popular franchise (such as "Sonic") will still sell well by riding on the coattails of previous popularity and/or success, but the good ones will sell even better and keep up the franchise's general popularity. Eventually, that general popularity is going to drop to the point where too many mediocre releases will indeed be strongly felt in the sales department.

Really enjoyed this new battle system for TOK.

@BulbasaurusRex I agree!

@BulbasaurusRex I wouldn’t brush them off as a small minority. That just makes you sound tone-deaf to their valid criticisms of the franchise.

@liljmoore Precisely this. Same happened with Dark Souls 2 and 3. People complained how different 2 was, so in 3 they basically recreated 1, then people complained it was too much like 1.

Best practice: avoid people altogether 😀

@Nintendo_Thumb

You're honestly going to tell me that adding a second character in double dash compares to removing the RPG elements and the combat style from Paper Mario? Dude I know you felt like this was a big GOTCHA type moment but you proved nothing.

The Mario games are still platformers, the core identity is still there. Zelda adding 1 to 1 sword fighting? What? Haha that didn't change ANYTHING, it was still Zelda. You still had all the core fixings of a 3D Zelda game. You're saying that small changes and innovations compare to sweeping overhauls and core changes. Nowhere in any of your arguments did those games change genre, combat style and remove key ideas (Paper Mario having what are typically enemies join as combat allies). Instead you proved that most games benefit from staying similar and true to their series

and Paper Mario is still Paper Mario, it's very much still the same kind of game it always was, but, I'm guessing you don't own the game so you'd have no idea. When you start playing you're not going to think it's Grand Theft Auto or something, it's the same genre it's always been, Adventure/ARPG-lite

@Pete41608 I disagree. I got what I wanted, a new and fun paper mario game. That you can't have fun with new things or different things is your problem, not theirs.

I think if they just kept doing thousand year door, we'd just be talking about how stagnant the series has gotten

Personally I really like the art and presentation. As someone who started with the Paper Mario series on Nintendo Switch for the first time, so far it is quite relaxing and enjoyable. Coming from playing action games more (than traditional RPGs), the game feels solid and the pacing is good so far. I can see why Nintendo wanted to keep it fresh and remove the complexities of grinding.

This game is great, especially because of its fantastic combat system. You need to be good at using the left side of your brain in order to do well at it. It's a puzzle adventure game, I've never seen anything like it, and it's a success. Usually when a game introduces something new, it's a failure, but this one works well. It's a turn-based system that feels very much like a real-time system, because time is of the essence. It looks beautiful and compares favorably to the rest of the series. This one is a brain-bender!

I bought the game a couple days after launch. I’m scared to play it lol

@Dog The art direction is inferior to the original, lack of 3D effect (which would have justified the Dream Team grahical style), they changed some enemies and NPCs with unique designs (Toads, Lakitus, Koopas, Dry Bones etc) to the generic models, making it look more like a NSMB entry. Music/sound is also hit and miss, some tracks were improved with the new arrangements while others got worse.

In fact, neither of these games needed a full remake.

@TG16_IS_BAE Aside from Dynamaxing being broken, most people's main criticisms of SwSh aren't of the battle system like Origami King's. Even then I'd argue they've tried to innovate it in various ways with different battle types like Doubles & Multies, Mega Stones, & Z-Moves over the course of the series. Even then, they tried to really mix up the formula with Sun & Moon, to less than stellar results. Pokemon's modern problems aren't innovation, it's a severe lack of polish and removing former innovations like the GTS.

@shoeses Perfectly reasonable.

it's disheartening how tone deaf nintendo can be some times. Perfect example in Pokemon . When you are asked if you are a boy or a girl, they should also prompt ask "have you played pokemon before", and that should be the flag to either 1) trim down the tutorial, or 2) let you skip it outright and get going. For paper mario, Nintendo thinks they will reach a new demographic and hook old fans with the nostalgia, but the wacky battle system here was repetitive and no payoff for fighting. Experience points give incentive to battle, which nintendo seems to forget

@Nintendo_Thumb

If this was meant for me, you forgot to hit reply. And assuming it was meant for me, I do own the newest Paper Mario game; I'm not super far in, but I have had time to monkey with the combat and what not.

I can honestly say, it's still a cutesy Paper Mario looking game. It feels like a well made, first party Nintendo game. But the combat is a huge drag, confetti feels shoe horned and useless, and so far it feels like such an RPG lite that I would take RPG out of it.

I haven't made it much further than the first forest area, so maybe things will change, but even the lack of partners feels like a negative. I'm not looking for Paper Mario: Final Fantasy Edition, but I really feel this isn't even close to 64 or TTYD.

All that to say this: no, I wouldn't confuse TOK with GTA. I also wouldn't claim this game, or the last 2, as true Paper Mario. They've cut so much of their identity out that this game, as cute and silly and well written as it is, it feels hollow and a shadow of what it could (and should) have been. So I stand by what I had said; They've changed the Paper Mario series more so than other recent series, and I don't think any of the series you listed have drastically changed the way Paper Mario has.

It's a necessity to change this producer.

I think we were fine as a whole with the original battle system. And the story is one of the most important parts of an RPG, in my opinion. Even Super Paper Mario, which took away the RPG style in the first place, was still fairly decent because it had trumped all the others storywise. But things are different now, sadly, because it seems that these guys just took and took until we had nothing left!

At first, we could've tried to shrug this off and assume that Paper Mario is like a really slow series that is in a phase of "innovating and spinoffs". But where it fails is that:

1. Paper Mario is already a spinoff series.
2. We literally have all the proof that something has been very wrong with the handling of this franchise for a decade (or longer).

Nothing will change if we sit still and blindly accept it. I, for one, enjoyed the Origami King battle system and story very much.

But as a fan of Super Mario RPG and Paper Mario 64/TTYD, it was sincerely painful to hear these words that are trying to confirm that we are being forced to say goodbye to the Paper Mario that we once knew and loved. Seeing that Alpha Dream had gone bankrupt after 2 laughable M&L remakes, and that Geno's cameo had been removed from the Superstar Saga remake, what does that leave us with?

Even less hope than before. It's like your hopes and dreams are sitting on a shelf right in front of you, and you just can't reach it.