Topic: Sonic Colors (Wii, DS)

[Klavier Gavin]

Co-op mode footage;

Dig Underground
Teamwork
Game Land 1: Act 2

[Bueno Excelente]

It actually looks pretty good. It seems like they're trying to do something like the co-op play of NSMBW, only a bit more... you know... cooperative. =P

[Protoman Blues]

Hey, it's not Nintendo's fault that throwing your partner in liquid hot magma is more fun than working together with them! 

[Bueno Excelente]

Hey, it's not Nintendo's fault that throwing your partner in liquid hot magma is more fun than working together with them! 

I dare you to say that while being the partner in question. =P

[Protoman Blues]

I dare you to say that while being the partner in question. =P

Clearly you have no knowledge of my friendship with the Ninja Lou!   

[Phi]

Those combined wisp attacks look especially awesome.

[Shinigami No Tekken]

Breaking the fourth wall is something more games need to do. It's always quite fun.

Oh. Dear. God.

I do believe I have a newfound respect for you.

[Hypershell]

I dare you to say that while being the partner in question. =P

Already done, man.  The occasional co-op dip in a lava pit doesn't mean a whole lot to any Mario player familiar with the bazillion 1-Up tricks.  It's just stuff to laugh about, and to tuck away in the back of your mind for when you find an ample opportunity for revenge.

Co-op doesn't have to be about working together to solve a puzzle.  Sometimes the sheer interaction, and the potential to use it for good or for evil, is the most damn awesome fun there is.

[Klavier Gavin]

1) Orbot’s compatriot is indeed called “Cubot” as some detectives have been able to deduce. He’s a cube shaped robot – ‘Cube-Bot’, much like Orbot is spherical, (quite literally ‘Orb-bot’ and also an anagram of robot if you hadn’t noticed) who is… er… a little defective shall we say.

2) Since you like Orbot so much, here is his character render in high quality PNG format. He has had a bit of a paint job by the looks of things.



3) FOXY FACT: Tails can read binary fluently.

4) Contrary to reports elsewhere, Amy Rose does NOT feature in the story of Sonic Colours Wii. Seriously, unless she’s become an invisible mute post-Unleashed I’ve seen nothing to indicate otherwise.

5) We will see the “consequences” of Sonic destroying a giant robot… in more than one sense. DUN DUN DUUUNNNN!

6) The curly haired Wisp is called Yacker, he is the Wisp Sonic and Tails communicate with to find out what is going on. A silent guide if you like to the world of Wisps.

7) Oh, okay then here’s Cubot’s character render too.




From the Sonic City Blognik

[Bueno Excelente]

1) Orbot’s compatriot is indeed called “Cubot” as some detectives have been able to deduce. He’s a cube shaped robot – ‘Cube-Bot’, much like Orbot is spherical, (quite literally ‘Orb-bot’ and also an anagram of robot if you hadn’t noticed) who is… er… a little defective shall we say.

2) Since you like Orbot so much, here is his character render in high quality PNG format. He has had a bit of a paint job by the looks of things.



3) FOXY FACT: Tails can read binary fluently.

4) Contrary to reports elsewhere, Amy Rose does NOT feature in the story of Sonic Colours Wii. Seriously, unless she’s become an invisible mute post-Unleashed I’ve seen nothing to indicate otherwise.

5) We will see the “consequences” of Sonic destroying a giant robot… in more than one sense. DUN DUN DUUUNNNN!

6) The curly haired Wisp is called Yacker, he is the Wisp Sonic and Tails communicate with to find out what is going on. A silent guide if you like to the world of Wisps.

7) Oh, okay then here’s Cubot’s character render too.




From the Sonic City Blognik

Those are pretty fun designs. I can see Orbot being the trickster intelligent one and Cubot being the big dope who always ends up doing [parasitic bomb] and [tornado fang]ing up his team.

Already done, man.  The occasional co-op dip in a lava pit doesn't mean a whole lot to any Mario player familiar with the bazillion 1-Up tricks.  It's just stuff to laugh about, and to tuck away in the back of your mind for when you find an ample opportunity for revenge.
Co-op doesn't have to be about working together to solve a puzzle.  Sometimes the sheer interaction, and the potential to use it for good or for evil, is the most damn awesome fun there is.

Because everyone who plays Mario is a seasoned player familiarized with all of the tricks, right? I mean, that's the kind of person the Wii is meant for, anyway.

And isn't not just about puzzle-solving. It's about having more interaction than [tornado fang]ing up each other's games.

[Night]

Tiny robot helpers are always good!

[Shinigami No Tekken]

Tiny robot helpers are always good!

Now FAIRIES, on the other hand.

[Flame]

Orbots paint job now makes him reminiscent of a pokeball.

[Hypershell]

Because everyone who plays Mario is a seasoned player familiarized with all of the tricks, right? I mean, that's the kind of person the Wii is meant for, anyway.

That's what the bubble and super guide are for.  "Inexperienced gamers are at a disadvantage" is a criticism that can be made at virtually any game.  In fact, if you can't, then more often than not the game is considered worse off for it (case in point: Mario Kart Wii).  But for those who have been living under a rock, NSMBWii's in-game videos will give you all the 1-Up tutoring you could ask for.  All it takes is a few Star Coins.

And besides that, the seasoned Mario player is EXACTLY the kind of person the Wii is meant for.  Virtual Console at launch mean anything to you?  This pop-classification of gamers as either "casual" or "hardcore" is naive, it is merely an extension of the same "kiddy" label that's been thrown at Nintendo since the N64.  The gaming press considers the "hardcore" games to be M-rated shooters and annualized sports titles, while virtually ANY sidescroller, much less one that does not feature orchestras and fancy particle effects, is criticized as a poor value.  Casual games, meanwhile, have existed long before the Wii (dare I say, Tetris?), they simply didn't threaten anyone's manhood back then.

And isn't not just about puzzle-solving. It's about having more interaction than [tornado fang]ing up each other's games.

Most multi-player games have the potential to [tornado fang] up each other.  And why?  Because puzzle-solving as the sole basis of interaction comes off as forced.

Think of the classic giants of co-op gaming, such as Contra or Turtles In Time, and never once was it REQUIRED that Player 2 be there, or that Players 1 and 2 hit the same block at the same time, or whatever.  Many times the greatest multiplayer games are great single-player games that just happen to allow bringing a friend along and manage to do so seamlessly (see Star Wars Rebel Strike for a more recent example).  As lovely as the "put your heads together" approach is, it's a distinct style with its own advantages and disadvantages.  Ever try playing Four Swords Adventure in single-player?

[Bueno Excelente]

That's what the bubble and super guide are for.  "Inexperienced gamers are at a disadvantage" is a criticism that can be made at virtually any game.  In fact, if you can't, then more often than not the game is considered worse off for it (case in point: Mario Kart Wii).  But for those who have been living under a rock, NSMBWii's in-game videos will give you all the 1-Up tutoring you could ask for.  All it takes is a few Star Coins.

Of course. Because every single person who casually picks up the game and plays it in a friendly environment is thereby obligated to learn how to play it through a series of videos. That's [tornado fang]ing retarded, son.

And besides that, the seasoned Mario player is EXACTLY the kind of person the Wii is meant for.  Virtual Console at launch mean anything to you?  This pop-classification of gamers as either "casual" or "hardcore" is naive, it is merely an extension of the same "kiddy" label that's been thrown at Nintendo since the N64.  The gaming press considers the "hardcore" games to be M-rated shooters and annualized sports titles, while virtually ANY sidescroller, much less one that does not feature orchestras and fancy particle effects, is criticized as a poor value.  Casual games, meanwhile, have existed long before the Wii (dare I say, Tetris?), they simply didn't threaten anyone's manhood back then.

The Virtual Console is a quick way for Nintendo to make money out of selling roms without having any kind of work offering any of the good options roms offer. Outside of that, aside from recent times, Nintendo has maintained quite a big turn for the casual during alot of the Wii's run. Remember E3 2008? Nintendo has even admitted they's making a console for "everyone". That "for the hardcore" line was very unfortunate coming from you.

Most multi-player games have the potential to [tornado fang] up each other.  And why?  Because puzzle-solving as the sole basis of interaction comes off as forced. Think of the classic giants of co-op gaming, such as Contra or Turtles In Time, and never once was it REQUIRED that Player 2 be there, or that Players 1 and 2 hit the same block at the same time, or whatever.  Many times the greatest multiplayer games are great single-player games that just happen to allow bringing a friend along and manage to do so seamlessly (see Star Wars Rebel Strike for a more recent example).  As lovely as the "put your heads together" approach is, it's a distinct style with its own advantages and disadvantages.  Ever try playing Four Swords Adventure in single-player?

Which multiplayer co-op game EVER, in the entire history of gaming, was tougher in co-op than in singleplayer mode simply because the fact that other players are there kept hindering your progress? There's such a thing as good multiplayer co-op, which is when players cooperate with each other to do something, and bad multiplayer co-op. The simple fact that one can throw another does not make for good cooperation. Good cooperation is when players actively help one, whether it's fighting enemies, protecting each other or solving scenario puzzles cooperatively. That is what cooperative play means. This is just... playing while having some fucks there who might screw up your game.

[Protoman Blues]

Of course. Because every single person who casually picks up the game and plays it in a friendly environment is thereby obligated to learn how to play it through a series of videos. That's [tornado fang]ing retarded, son.

Videos aside, anyone over the age of, I'll say 6-7 who cannot figure out how to play New Super Mario Bros, which is essentially 10x Easier Super Mario Bros, should not be allowed to play platformer games. Period. My 5 year old niece figured it out. Of course, she is MY niece after all!  

The Virtual Console is a quick way for Nintendo to make money out of selling roms without having any kind of work offering any of the good options roms offer. Outside of that, aside from recent times, Nintendo has maintained quite a big turn for the casual during alot of the Wii's run. Remember E3 2008? Nintendo has even admitted they's making a console for "everyone". That "for the hardcore" line was very unfortunate coming from you.

Agreed on the Virtual Console, for the most part. The fact that it does not offer online multiplayer for certain games, Mario Kart 64 being the greatest example, kinda sucks.  Although, that's secretly a blessing, because I'd probably play nothing else! 

As for E3, that's simple PR. Every company does it. Some do it well, some [tornado fang] up at times, others just completely fail. PR is PR.

Which multiplayer co-op game EVER, in the entire history of gaming, was tougher in co-op than in singleplayer mode simply because the fact that other players are there kept hindering your progress? There's such a thing as good multiplayer co-op, which is when players cooperate with each other to do something, and bad multiplayer co-op. The simple fact that one can throw another does not make for good cooperation. Good cooperation is when players actively help one, whether it's fighting enemies, protecting each other or solving scenario puzzles cooperatively. That is what cooperative play means. This is just... playing while having some fucks there who might screw up your game.

LoL, bullshit. Everything you described is 100% dependent on the people you're playing with, not the game itself.  

[Flame]

This pop-classification of gamers as either "casual" or "hardcore" is naive, it is merely an extension of the same "kiddy" label that's been thrown at Nintendo since the N64.  The gaming press considers the "hardcore" games to be M-rated shooters and annualized sports titles, while virtually ANY sidescroller, much less one that does not feature orchestras and fancy particle effects, is criticized as a poor value.  Casual games, meanwhile, have existed long before the Wii (dare I say, Tetris?), they simply didn't threaten anyone's manhood back then.

best description of today's gaming market ever.

Adding to the poor value thing- what you often complain about- that games like that are also considered "not worth putting on discs"

[Gaia]

Again, when Rocket Knight Adventures might've been labled as a Sonic Ripoff back then.. It was a p. damn good one. It was short, containing one of the most unique minecart levels and flying stages, it wasn't quite as long as I remembered it, I even played it in Hard, once I mastered the game. I could just beat it every time now.

It was also a platformer that didin't need much content. The only content it had was the levels that depended in which difficulty you were on. Plus it had momentum. When you want to go fast, then hold the button until the bar is full, if you want to go a short distance, be my guest.

Compare that to today's platformers. Modern Sonic and Mario included. Mario is practically surviving on what's left of SM64's coding. Sonic however.. let's just hope Sonic Colors performs well. Most Shooters today are basically thriving on the Call of Duty (or should I say.. Doody) coding. Sports titles on the other hand.. eh. Let those rot.

What about RPGs? Let's just say they fell into obscurity after that one game.

But I gotta love Cubebot and Orbot's designs. Makes me think of the Gachapon balls that come out of those Gachapon machines in Japan. 

[Bueno Excelente]

Videos aside, anyone over the age of, I'll say 6-7 who cannot figure out how to play New Super Mario Bros, which is essentially 10x Easier Super Mario Bros, should not be allowed to play platformer games. Period. My 5 year old niece figured it out. Of course, she is MY niece after all!  

Agreed on the Virtual Console, for the most part. The fact that it does not offer online multiplayer for certain games, Mario Kart 64 being the greatest example, kinda sucks.  Although, that's secretly a blessing, because I'd probably play nothing else! 

As for E3, that's simple PR. Every company does it. Some do it well, some [tornado fang] up at times, others just completely fail. PR is PR.

LoL, bullshit. Everything you described is 100% dependent on the people you're playing with, not the game itself.  

Not everyone has the keen interest and newfond dexterity of a child finding new things. I played Alex Kidd in Miracle World when I was 4. I taught my sister how to play some games with me when she was 3. Yet my mother still can't press the [tornado fang]ing "on" button on the net TV box because she's used to the normal antenna instead of a cable fee, and her mind cannot possibly comprehend turning on two separate things to watch television. Different people for different stuff. I do agree that the Mario games are easy and intuitive enough for anyone to play. The point I'm trying to make in the first place, is that more people besides hardcore gamers with time on their hands play them, as opposed as to what Hipershell was saying.

It wasn't just the E3. Nintendo completely shifted their attention for a loooooong time, until they recently found out that they were getting very bad PR amongst game-playing people, so they changed their ways in this last E3, supporting both their audiences. They still did a ton of amazingly stupid choices with the Wii that I can't possibly comprehend, though. (one of which being the lack of hard drive and incompatibility with one)

And Jesus Christ, my point is getting trouble making it across... what I'm saying is that New Super Mario Bros has poor co-op play because playing the game cooperatively doesn't help you in progression, it merely hinders you. Taking into account more people on the screen at the same time and having to constantly check who jumps to what platform first and who stays where was a stupid thing to take into account with everyone bumping with each other in the game. To play the game efficiently, there needs to be a level of synchronization which doesn't really apply to the usual "get together, have some fun and play games for a short while" environment that most co-op games can supply.

Compare that to today's platformers. Modern Sonic and Mario included. Mario is practically surviving on what's left of SM64's coding. Sonic however.. let's just hope Sonic Colors performs well. Most Shooters today are basically thriving on the Call of Duty (or should I say.. Doody) coding. Sports titles on the other hand.. eh. Let those rot.

I love it when people talk such bullshit. Mario has crossed so many genres it's pretty damn hard to track him, and each and every single one of his new games has been completely different from the other, in both levels, environment, and gameplay. There were more similarities in the first Mario games than the current ones. The current ones keep evolving him beyond what he in, in the good way.

Shooters? You mean first person shooter games and third-person shooter games? You have NO idea what you're talking about. Call of Duty, even within its own iterations, feels quite different from one game to another, as well as other modern FPS games around. Take the Halo series. The reason why so many people like it, it's because it's so damn different from the normal, realistic shooter. It's not realistic at all, it's cartoony, colorful, and it lets you bounce around and do crazy [parasitic bomb] with different crazy weapons. Uncharted and Gears of War? Completely different games, each one thriving on what they're good at, and both having incredible strengths on what comes out of them.

Sports games? Go to hell, seriously. Sports games are meant to either give you an accurate simulation of a sport using a good control scheme for a great competitive environment, successfully improving little by little on the accurate system with each iteration, or to give you a more different way to play a certain sport. Both of those niches are quite well filled through the years.

And RPGs have not only been trying to mix quite alot of their formula recently, but they've been trying new stuff, having more and more content, and being enriched with tons and tons of story, details and backgrounds to stuff. Look at Bioware's current stuff, it's awesome and very detailed. Or Bethesda's stuff.


Currently, we live in a new golden age of gaming where there's something for everyone, and companies keep trying to evolve their own standards in order to be better and better than the competition. Compare this to years ago, where the competition was a bit null and pretty much everything, good or bad ended up on a single console. Quality THRIVES, independent games are getting attention, there are games which go beyond regular concepts and abstract plots and go the extra mile to please people, artistic games, competitive games, fantastic games which give us amazing experiences...

People bitching about the current age are pretty much living through nostalgia. Gaming is as good as it ever was. It's just evolved.

[Gaia]

...I really do live in Nostalgialand, do I?  >.>

[Hypershell]

Nintendo has even admitted they's making a console for "everyone". That "for the hardcore" line was very unfortunate coming from you.

Not responding to your entire post because PB has most of it covered.

But on this, your logic fails.  I said the console was ideal for Mario veterans, that by no means implies that non-Mario-veterans should not be playing it.  Never, anywhere, did I state who the Wii excludes, so your arguing as to what other groups the Wii includes disproves nothing I said, and is thus irrelevant.

"Everyone" includes all manners of gamers.  If it were designed solely for casual gamers, it would by definition, not be a console for everyone.  I think using "everyone" in any such context is complete marketing bullshit, mind you, but I'm just saying.  You're making an effort to exclude/segregate gaming classes where no need for such actually exists.

what I'm saying is that New Super Mario Bros has poor co-op play because playing the game cooperatively doesn't help you in progression, it merely hinders you

Not responding to your entire post because......eh screw it, I got nothing.

My oldest brother said the same thing about SMB3, due to sharing items (and about Contra, due to stealing lives).  And in fact, in that regard, NSMBWii is superior in helping you in multiplayer, because not only do map items apply to all players, but in mid-stage you have the opportunity to get high-level power-ups even while your entire group is small.  Further, you can create Toad Houses (all varieties: stars, lives, or item-matching) at will with flagpole timing, which in single-player requires revisiting a stage you already cleared and carrying an NPC through the entire stage.

Videos aside, anyone over the age of, I'll say 6-7 who cannot figure out how to play New Super Mario Bros, which is essentially 10x Easier Super Mario Bros, should not be allowed to play platformer games. Period.

Quoted for truth.  Mario is not rocket science.  As sad as this is yes I have known people who celebrate clearing the first level and can progress no further (this was SMB3, my childhood friends sucked at gaming), but I also know plenty of non-gamers who can do a decent job of pulling their weight in NSMBWii.  One, in particular, who can't even grasp the concept of a freaking charge attack.

...I really do live in Nostalgialand, do I?  >.>

You're on a MegaMan board, remember?  We ALL live there.  In this corner of the internet, Batty is the odd one.

[Flame]

You're on a MegaMan board, remember?  We ALL live there.  In this corner of the internet, Batty is the odd one.

So Batty... is-
Batty?

*shot*

[Protoman Blues]

Not everyone has the keen interest and newfond dexterity of a child finding new things. I played Alex Kidd in Miracle World when I was 4. I taught my sister how to play some games with me when she was 3. Yet my mother still can't press the [tornado fang]ing "on" button on the net TV box because she's used to the normal antenna instead of a cable fee, and her mind cannot possibly comprehend turning on two separate things to watch television. Different people for different stuff. I do agree that the Mario games are easy and intuitive enough for anyone to play. The point I'm trying to make in the first place, is that more people besides hardcore gamers with time on their hands play them, as opposed as to what Hipershell was saying.

That's precisely my point. My mom could never handle Super Mario Bros. either. So she doesn't play it. She sticks to puzzle games and is quite content with it. My mom is a puzzle gamer, that's it. But for the average, every day gamer not to be able to handle NSMB is absurd.  If the other people besides hardcore gamers with time on their hands can't figure out what could arguably be considered the most simple of platformers, which gives you enough lives for damn near immortality, then that's just not the game for them.

It wasn't just the E3. Nintendo completely shifted their attention for a loooooong time, until they recently found out that they were getting very bad PR amongst game-playing people, so they changed their ways in this last E3, supporting both their audiences. They still did a ton of amazingly stupid choices with the Wii that I can't possibly comprehend, though. (one of which being the lack of hard drive and incompatibility with one)

Or another way to look at it is that Nintendo focused on a completely untapped market, grabbed a hold of it, and pretty much monopolized it to the point where I don't think Kinect or Move will do all that well with the crowd they are trying to get from Nintendo (at this point I think Move has much more of a chance than Kinect).  The fact of the matter is, despite the "very bad PR amongst game-playing people" they made an Nintencredible fuckton of money, and that's all that matters. Plus, they're not stupid. They know that 95% of the same game-playing people that complain will flock back to them once a game that tickles their addictive gaming fancy comes out.

Once it stops making that fuckton of money, they'll release a new system, and like the good gamers we are, we'll buy it, hook line & 3DSucker!

And Jesus Christ, my point is getting trouble making it across... what I'm saying is that New Super Mario Bros has poor co-op play because playing the game cooperatively doesn't help you in progression, it merely hinders you. Taking into account more people on the screen at the same time and having to constantly check who jumps to what platform first and who stays where was a stupid thing to take into account with everyone bumping with each other in the game. To play the game efficiently, there needs to be a level of synchronization which doesn't really apply to the usual "get together, have some fun and play games for a short while" environment that most co-op games can supply.

I understand your point perfectly. Again, I still say that what you described depends entirely on the people playing it. If I were to use me playing with Ninja Lou as an example, some of the Star Coins were much easier to get with 2 people than one. Efficiency is based upon how efficient you and your friends decide to be. This is what makes the game so great. If you decide to play it seriously, the co-op aspect of it is perfectly fine, and that 2nd or 3rd person, whether using his skull as a jumping platform, whether using his propeller suit body to fly your powerless form into the sky, whether having him wield the power of ice while you handle the power of fire, or whether having him handle the flood light on the boat or the rising crane of peril, can be extremely helpful in playing the game. Or, with 45 lives each, you can be a complete ass and throw his punk ass into the liquid hot magma.

To me, that's the ultimate beauty of the game. How you co-operate with each other is entirely up to you, and while Lou & I do co-operate well when needed, we're still both pricks!  

I love it when people talk such bullshit. Mario has crossed so many genres it's pretty damn hard to track him, and each and every single one of his new games has been completely different from the other, in both levels, environment, and gameplay. There were more similarities in the first Mario games than the current ones. The current ones keep evolving him beyond what he in, in the good way.

Shooters? You mean first person shooter games and third-person shooter games? You have NO idea what you're talking about. Call of Duty, even within its own iterations, feels quite different from one game to another, as well as other modern FPS games around. Take the Halo series. The reason why so many people like it, it's because it's so damn different from the normal, realistic shooter. It's not realistic at all, it's cartoony, colorful, and it lets you bounce around and do crazy [parasitic bomb] with different crazy weapons. Uncharted and Gears of War? Completely different games, each one thriving on what they're good at, and both having incredible strengths on what comes out of them.

Sports games? Go to hell, seriously. Sports games are meant to either give you an accurate simulation of a sport using a good control scheme for a great competitive environment, successfully improving little by little on the accurate system with each iteration, or to give you a more different way to play a certain sport. Both of those niches are quite well filled through the years.

And RPGs have not only been trying to mix quite alot of their formula recently, but they've been trying new stuff, having more and more content, and being enriched with tons and tons of story, details and backgrounds to stuff. Look at Bioware's current stuff, it's awesome and very detailed. Or Bethesda's stuff.


Currently, we live in a new golden age of gaming where there's something for everyone, and companies keep trying to evolve their own standards in order to be better and better than the competition. Compare this to years ago, where the competition was a bit null and pretty much everything, good or bad ended up on a single console. Quality THRIVES, independent games are getting attention, there are games which go beyond regular concepts and abstract plots and go the extra mile to please people, artistic games, competitive games, fantastic games which give us amazing experiences...

People bitching about the current age are pretty much living through nostalgia. Gaming is as good as it ever was. It's just evolved.

Oh, and not that this has any relevance to my discussion, but I agree with everything said here!  

[Bueno Excelente]

Not responding to your entire post because PB has most of it covered.

But on this, your logic fails.  I said the console was ideal for Mario veterans, that by no means implies that non-Mario-veterans should not be playing it.  Never, anywhere, did I state who the Wii excludes, so your arguing as to what other groups the Wii includes disproves nothing I said, and is thus irrelevant.

"Everyone" includes all manners of gamers.  If it were designed solely for casual gamers, it would by definition, not be a console for everyone.  I think using "everyone" in any such context is complete marketing bullshit, mind you, but I'm just saying.  You're making an effort to exclude/segregate gaming classes where no need for such actually exists.

Last time I saw it, there was no overabundance of new Mario or Mario-like titles on the Wii. Buckets and buckets of old games you need to re-buy for ludicrous prices with absolutely no extra features whatsoever and all of their original regional flaws, but no amazing wealth of new content fit for those people. Although it's slowly formed a good list of titles, most of the games on the Wii are shorter, more throwaway kind of titles. And Nintendo themselves are cashing in on this audience.

Separate gaming classes DO exist. There are people who follow games as fans, and there are people who play games sometimes out of curiosity just for fun, and make no point on finishing them or following any kind of specific series. Yes, they both play games, and yes, games for one or the other may be played by both. But there's absolutely no doubt that although the "casual" and "hardcore" brands are overused, they do exist and they're real. Put a regular just-for-fun guy trying to play Megaman, and you'll see where he'll end up with. I don't really see what's so hard to understand about this. There are the people who like it but don't make a habit out of it, and there are the enthusiasts. Tetris is as much a hardcore game as any other game with high scores and evolving level of difficulty like it. The Wii is the first console marketed for "everyone" because it has games that appeal to both audiences instead of just the hardcore, as other consoles try to bank more in.

Not responding to your entire post because......eh screw it, I got nothing.

You're being (gasp) CIVILIZED? I am officially in Bizarro World!

My oldest brother said the same thing about SMB3, due to sharing items (and about Contra, due to stealing lives).  And in fact, in that regard, NSMBWii is superior in helping you in multiplayer, because not only do map items apply to all players, but in mid-stage you have the opportunity to get high-level power-ups even while your entire group is small.  Further, you can create Toad Houses (all varieties, items or lives) at will with flagpole timing, which in single-player requires revisiting a stage you already cleared and carrying an NPC through the entire stage.

Dear God. You still don't understand. My point is that there is no POINT in playing the game in multiplayer other than making the game harder and having someone to [tornado fang] around with. The game isn't suited for co-op in any way in the gameplay and levels themselves. And the shared powerups further increase the point of non-helping. Having powerups for one person or another contributes for cooperation in games like Streets of Rage, where your health is lower and you tell the other guy he should get the health item. In this game, though? There's no point on ridding the world of enemies unless they're in your way, and there's pretty much no chance to help the other person out of some kind of mess unless you're really lucky or well-positioned, and going through a tough level with someone else doesn't make it easier, it makes it harder. So there's pretty much no point except for screwing off with other people.

Quoted for truth.  Mario is not rocket science.  As sad as this is yes I have known people who celebrate clearing the first level and can progress no further (this was SMB3, my childhood friends sucked at gaming), but I also know plenty of non-gamers who can do a decent job of pulling their weight in NSMBWii.  One, in particular, who can't even grasp the concept of a freaking charge attack.

I did agree with the simplicity of Mario that makes it able to be played by everyone. Why do you consider sad to know people who find it hard? Different people, different ways of thinking, different kinds of excellence in different motor abilities. If everyone could just learn how to be good at something that's exceedingly simple and almost primal, everyone in the planet would be gods of sex. I know plenty of people who suck at Mario, but are good at other games. And example, you lack the ability to master something as sickeningly simple as a dual analog strafe/camera control.

You're on a MegaMan board, remember?  We ALL live there.  In this corner of the internet, Batty is the odd one.

So NOW you make class segregations, huh? Cool double standards, bro.

[Protoman Blues]

Hey, you didn't respond to me! For shaaaame.   

Dear God. You still don't understand. My point is that there is no POINT in playing the game in multiplayer other than making the game harder and having someone to [tornado fang] around with.

Already proved this wrong in my previous post. I'm awesome.

The game isn't suited for co-op in any way in the gameplay and levels themselves. And the shared powerups further increase the point of non-helping. Having powerups for one person or another contributes for cooperation in games like Streets of Rage, where your health is lower and you tell the other guy he should get the health item.

Also proved this wrong with my description of certain situations. But for the sake of my awesomeness... If one person is lower in lives, which can be considered a power-up, you can let the other player or players or playas get one of the many, MANY 1-Up Shrooms that pop up. If one player is limp and small, you let them get the half way flag to give them a taste of cocklicious rising Mango! Having one guy have the power of Fire and another the power of Ice is incredibly helpful and does make it easier especially on certain levels where lots and lots of baddies are falling on your floating raft from above.

The game isn't easier with just single player. It's just an easy game as a whole, cause it's [tornado fang]ing Super Mario Bros.

In this game, though? There's no point on ridding the world of enemies unless they're in your way, and there's pretty much no chance to help the other person out of some kind of mess unless you're really lucky or well-positioned, and going through a tough level with someone else doesn't make it easier, it makes it harder. So there's pretty much no point except for screwing off with other people.

Wait, lemme read that again...

In this game, though? There's no point on ridding the world of enemies unless they're in your way

I REALLY hope you're not referring to JUST this game and excluding all 2D Mario games, because there's NEVER a need to kill enemies in 2D Mario games unless they're in your way. I mean, Raccoon Mario, Cape Mario, Blue Yo oh Oh OH YEAH! I WANT TO GET AWAY. I WANNA FLLLLYYYYYY AWAAAAAAAAAAY! YEAAHH YEAAHH YEEEEAAAAHHHHH! 

But otherwise, I think I covered pretty much everything else, in my sexcellent fashion!