And we’re BACK AT THIS AGAIN, yeesh.
Okay, I said I wouldn’t add much to this
whole modern Paper Mario ordeal anymore after
my last video, I did say Paper Mario content
would be a thing still, but I was confident
in that being the end of me discussing modern
Paper Mario for like the next 3-4 years or
so.
But there’s this interview from a month
ago that’s only now making rounds that did
deserve a much smaller video of its own since
it would’ve fit comfortably in Why Paper
Mario Refuses to Change.
For anyone new to the channel or who may not
have seen it, I made a dummy long video talking
about the entire Paper Mario debacle, the
development cycles and research involving
its changes and/or stagnation in some areas.
This interview popping up more lately I’m
covering today answers some questions and
topics discussed in that video.
I cannot stress enough how much I recommend
that video, I spent several days on it and
a lot of research and care was put into it,
FAR more than Why Paper Mario Changed.
Like, I genuinely consider it my best video
on the channel at the moment, I guess my peak,
my apex or magnum opus in “complaining over
Paper Mario,” but I genuinely want that
video to reach to more people.
I’m super proud of it so for anyone who
hasn’t seen it, anyone new to the channel
or Paper Mario, I recommend giving a watch.
If it’s too long, which I can understand
being a turn off, you can watch it chunks,
there are timestamps for a chunk load but
I at least hope the consideration’s there.
Best video on the channel, better than Why
Paper Mario Changed, go watch it, won’t
disappoint.
So, because of that, I don’t want to reiterate
most of what I said in that video.
We’re JUST going to talk about this specific
interview.
It’s not just solely me given an excuse
to milk more Paper Mario content out of me,
this one answers a few questions and topics
pertaining to that video while also leaving
more questions.
This would’ve gone great with that video,
but I didn’t catch it until now.
Better late than never I suppose.
So, the interview itself was released July
21st last month, a little after The Origami
King, comes from Eurogamer and is translated
from German so again, apologies for any lost
translation or mistranslation at play.
It involves Kensuke Tanabe and Masahiko Nagaya
and we’ll cover each bit paragraph by paragraph/topic
by topic here.
It starts with Eurogamer asking Tanabe, and
I quote, “Paper Mario, Kirby and the Rainbow
Paintbrush (aka, Rainbow Curse), Yoshi's Woolly
World and Nintendo Labo - Nintendo seems to
have a real soft spot for handicrafts and
likes to use materials and fabrics from the
real world.
Is that a coincidence or is there a certain
philosophy behind it?
Kensuke Tanabe responds “Back when we started
developing the first Paper Mario game here
at Intelligent Systems, we couldn't commit
ourselves to one graphic style for a while.
One day, Mr. Miyamoto saw a picture of paper-thin
Mario characters designed by Naohiko Aoyama.
He said, 'Okay, let's take this one!' - and
so we had a graphic style.
From then on, 'paper' became the central theme
of the series for both game design and graphics.
In the case of the Kirby and Yoshi titles,
the consideration was different: We recognized
that the new hardware and the associated improved
graphics performance would enable the implementation
of a tinkering concept that would emphasize
the character of the games even more.
At Paper Mario, the approach was different,
as the paper issue was in the foreground from
the start.
With the improved performance of the new hardware,
we are now able to implement the graphics
we envisioned - and that brings us to Paper
Mario: The Origami King.
" Eurogamer also asked, “did the work on
Labo also influence the idea of using origami
as a game idea for the new Paper Mario?
The response from Tanabe was “The first
concept we came up with for The Origami King
was paper mâché.
Mr. Aoyama of Intelligent Systems suggested
creating an environment using pieces of paper
glued to support frames.
We also tried to come up with other elements
that are more familiar and easier to implement.
The team at Nintendo suggested origami as
a concept and based on that we developed the
world of The Origami King.
Nintendo Labo didn't have much influence on
the development.”
These 2 specific parts isn’t a whole lot.
If you saw any of my Paper Mario videos within
the last 3 years, you know that even with
Origami King’s strong presentation, I’m
not a fan of the oversaturation and centralization
of the paper mâché look & influence.
I’m not going to repeat why I feel the paper
within Paper Mario was largely meant and accepted
as an aesthetic and art style specifically,
why it shouldn’t be a forefront for near
every gameplay mechanic, the story, the writing,
etc.
I’ve expressed my two cents enough on that
more than enough already.
This doesn’t add or change a whole bunch.
But THIS, thiiis upcoming piece is a big one
for this interview.
“The first two games are the most popular
in series history, and these two have the
most RPG elements.
Origami King is not approaching this again.
Why is that?”
Tanabe responds, “One of our goals in developing
Paper Mario: Sticker Star was to move away
from the traditional RPG style.
Nintendo has another RPG series in which Mario
is the main character.
We wanted to differentiate ourselves from
this by positioning our game as an adventure
game with a focus on puzzle solving.
Even if we have kept this direction so far,
we have not yet decided whether or not we
will change it in the future.
However, my personal opinion is that I would
like to keep making Paper Mario games that
are both innovative and unique.”
Once again, again and again and again, Mario
& Luigi alongside Paper Mario NEVER clashed
with each other.
It was a never a talking point until him and
Tabata brought it up since Color Splash and
even then Mario & Luigi, the entire Mario
RPG genre, as far as we know anyways, is dead.
AlphaDream went under a year ago, Nintendo’s
currently sitting on Mario & Luigi, we have
absolutely zero idea if they’re going to
do anything with that franchise now and especially
when the two never butted heads or went at
odds with neither their existences nor styles,
it doesn’t warrant completely stripping
one of it’s RPG roots when they’re not
the same RPG.
The only similarities they share are they’re
RPGS within the Mario world.
That’s literally it.
That’s like saying we shouldn’t have Zelda
be an action adventure game or Donkey Kong
Country shouldn’t be a 2D platforming because
2D Mario exists and 3D Mario exists and it’s
all ridiculous.
Paper Mario’s level of depth, between the
badges, the partners, the insane variety of
attacks and amount of strategy into the gameplay
is not the same as Mario & Luigi’s faster,
real time focused combat focused strictly
around Mario and Luigi most of the time.
The humor and charm of Mario & Luigi is more
slapstick, visual and cartoony.
Paper Mario’s, the first 3 anyways, focused
more on grounded humor within the dialogue
and character’s stories.
Paper Mario focused more on realistic, natural
writing and storytelling with higher stakes,
focusing on largely completely new characters
and worlds for Mario to interact with.
Mario & Luigi focus on the core Mario cast,
the Mario Bros. themselves especially, in
both new and old worlds with new and old Mario
characters, expanding Mario’s lore and telling
stories serving to strengthen the characters
we’ve come to know and love, whether established
anywhere within the Mario franchise or specifically
within Mario & Luigi.
One is cartoonier than Mario usually is, focusing
on more comedy and slapstick, giving these
classic Mario characters more development
and scenarios to interact in, and with gameplay
centralized on the brother’s dynamic specifically.
Paper Mario is more realistic and grounded
in its world and storytelling, balancing both
natural humor and serious tensions, delivering
grander stakes than most other Mario games,
putting Mario into many more new worlds with
more new characters for Mario to interact
with, and the gameplay’s significantly more
traditional and packed with more strategy
and depth than Mario & Luigi.
I’m so sick of this comparison being made,
especially when A. they never interfered with
each other AT ALL, B. this was never a talking
point or comparison UNTIL Color Splash when
Tabata first brought it up, not even a joke,
no one tried dismissing one over the other,
especially when both were fantastic series,
and C. they’re not 1 to 1 Mario RPGs to
justify completely changing a series’ entire
genre, especially when those changes aren’t
good nor well designed in most cases with
modern Paper Mario.
It did not stop Mario + Rabbids from being
designed as a tactical RPG, Miyamoto literally
went to Ubisoft and approved them making a
Mario and Rabbids RPG crossover, even if it
was a special crossover, no pre-existing Mario
RPG series lead to a contention of it not
being an RPG.
Why must he and other developers insist Paper
Mario must have that contention?
And then they claim they choose to deter from
the RPG genre yet they still bothered bringing
in partners even in a half-assed fashion,
the battles still are turned based, slow and
require thought & strategy, like every RPG
out there, and yet there’s a bigger focus
on puzzles yet not that many people outside
the developers talk about the bigger focus
on puzzles.
It still has those RPG elements, only missing
others, while trying to be an entirely different
genre with being designed after another different
genre for better or worse, and now they’re
unsure whether they should continue the direction
or return to those roots or not, despite everything
fans and I have been saying since Sticker
Star.
Like now more than ever the lack of distinction
or identity of what Paper Mario is or should
be is insane.
You get why I keep comparing to Sonic, the
major identity crisis Paper Mario’s going
through is ludicrously frustrating.
They’d genuinely lose nothing, if not almost
entirely, honest to god, nothing, if they
returned to those roots.
The fact it’s been so heavily requested
for a treasure trove of reasons yet is ignored
is the annoying thing about this.
The classic formula can still innovate and
be unique.
Once again, Bug Fables takes TTYD’s formula
and creates new ideas and mechanics that make
it unique and innovative of that style.
Stands on its own, even beyond not sharing
the Mario brand, because of it.
Super Paper Mario, didn’t ditch it’s RPG
roots even when it was a platformer, still
introduced everything else the other 2 games
had and was unique and innovative because
of it’s platforming hybrid creation along
with the scope and story of it all.
TTYD was a literal innovation of 64’s entire
foundation.
More attacks, new partners with new abilities,
new characters, a bigger, more epic story,
like there are many ways they can still make
that OG formula innovative and unique and
stand out from old Paper Marios without compromising
the genre, game design and relationship with
consumers and fans.
It builds from there unfortunately.
From Eurogamer to Tanabe, “Following on
from that: How do you develop a series further
when so many fans want a return to familiar
elements?
Talk about how Origami King is an advancement.”
“The game development philosophy that I
inherited from Mr. Miyamoto aims to develop
innovative and unique game systems.
I am not against the opinions of the fans.
However, I consider my game development philosophy
to be independent of that.
If we kept using the same game system that
the fans want, we wouldn't be able to surprise
them or offer them new gaming experiences.
We always try our best to find new ways to
surpass expectations in surprising ways.
At the same time, however, there is no guarantee
that we will always succeed - so this is a
real challenge.”
There’s one fatal flaw with his philosophy
he inherited from Miyamoto.
It’s that he DOESN’T HAVE THAT PHILOSOPHY
ANYMORE.
For like the 3rd time, Miyamoto’s involvement
on a majority of games this past decade has
been ridiculously little, I sourced an interview
in Why Paper Mario Refuses to Change where
Miyamoto outright states he’s TRYING to
make Mario less rigid and more accessible
& varied for many different experiences, the
lack of story, RPG gameplay and all that stuff:
Miyamoto literally does not envision that
rigid, basic ideal anymore.
Tanabe prioritizing his development philosophies
as well confirms that essentially, ‘yeah,
screw fan feedback and criticism if it doesn’t
align with my ideals,’ which is again unhealthy
and destructively frustrating.
One of the most basic relationships businesses
establish is with their consumer, based on
that feedback.
The information, insights, reviews, critiques,
and whatnot give your community their experiences
with your company, product, or services.
This feedback guides improvements of the customer
experience and, regardless of whether it’s
positive or negative, can empower positive
change in any business and product.
You’re severely hampering that relationship
with consumers and fans and the potential
& quality in doing this.
It’s BAFFLING, ridiculously frustrating
they continue to do this and reason with claiming
they wouldn’t surprise people by revisiting
styles and wanting to create new experiences.
Super Mario Odyssey revisits 64 and Sunshine’s
sandbox style but is a completely new experience
in so many different ways.
Zelda Breath of the Wild reuses so many ideas
from the first Zelda while pertaining to 3D
Zelda’s core formula and redefining it in
multiple ways without changing the style or
genre to the detriment of its design or identity.
Almost no Mario Kart feels the same despite
how much their formula recycles thanks to
the physics, mechanics, modes, characters
and tracks they offer.
They all offer new experience in spite of
recycling old formulas.
That’s what TTYD was to 64 and that’s
all we want a proper Paper Mario RPG 3 to
do after TTYD.
That’s literally it.
They claim to want to continuously make new
experiences and not retread ground when Color
Splash was for all intents and purposes, in
almost every single sense, Sticker Star 2.
It was not new in almost any capacity, for
better or worse.
The Origami King does do new stuff and ideas,
but most of the same ideas and flaws, between
restrictions and gameplay, of those last 2
games are still in Origami King.
It’s not done the series or fans any favors
at all with these constant desires to make
the series different from what it was constantly.
Reminder there is such a thing as a “bad”
change.
I don’t know why that’s ridiculous hard
to fathom for some, but nothing in this world
is inherently good for the sake of either
existing or changing.
Context matters.
Opinions, feedback and criticism exist based
on those changes.
No one experience will match anyone else’s
completely and there will be different feelings
and conclusions to those based on that, which
could involve game design, writing, music,
gameplay, story, anything.
Just because it changes for the sake of it
doesn’t exempt it from any criticism nor
does it make it instinctively good.
Smash Bros. doesn’t get chastised for being
the same game from 20 years ago when it comes
to core formula.
3D Mario and Pokemon continuously become critical
acclaimed super sellers and they almost never
get ridiculed for following the same formula.
No franchise like almost any other Mario subseries,
or Fire Emblem, or Final Fantasy upon dozens
of others fail or are critical bombs because
they use the same formula.
The innovation comes with what they can do
to whatever style they inhibit, they adhere
to the series identity and consumer feedback,
something Paper Mario hasn’t done for a
long time.
When Bug Fables innovates on TTYD’s formula
and multiple other indies are trying to do
the same, it’s unfair & ludicrous to assume
the OG Paper Mario style can’t or would
get stale, especially when these “innovative”
changes fall flat due to poor design.
It becomes more challenging than it needs
to be as a result and all it’s ever done
was both throw Paper Mario in a ridiculous
identity crisis and cause greater friction
among fans and consumers more than ever.
Moving on, they discuss how “The battle
system is about arranging concentric circles
with enemies on them so that Mario deals the
maximum damage.
Can you talk about the reasons for this system
and what was the inspiration for it?”
Tanabe then talks about how Aoyama came up
with the inspiration during Color Splash and
how it was inspired off a Rubik’s Cube.
Then it follows into how characters folded
turned evil, how they touch up on the horror
aspect of Origami King referencing the loss
of ego used in horror movies, how Peach being
folded represented that, and Tanabe expresses
how he tries to make games for all audiences.
Again, nothing new or worth discussing between
both these points.
But here’s debatably the biggest piece of
this interview.
Eurogamer asks Tanabe and Nagaya, “As part
of Nintendo, Intelligent Systems naturally
also feels a certain authorship over the characters
in the Mario universe.
But is there still an exchange and comparison
with the creators behind the main series of
Mario games to determine what works and what
doesn't in the Mario context?
Or does the Paper Mario team have sole control
over the creative direction of the series?”
To which Tanabe replies, “Since Paper Mario:
Color Splash, we as a team have almost complete
control over the creative direction of the
game.
Mr. Miyamoto took a look or two at the game's
development, but there weren't any specific
requests for changes.
However, all character designs have to go
through an examination by our IP team and
this is really strict.
Nevertheless, this time we were allowed to
change the outfits of some Toads in the game.”
Right here, this specific detail.
Now it is officially confirmed, between this,
my Nikkei interview referenced in Why Paper
Mario Refuses to Change and Miyamoto’s lack
of involvement in most games this entire decade,
Miyamoto literally has nothing to do with
Paper Mario, especially after Sticker Star.
Color Splash onward, Intelligent Systems has
almost complete creative freedom over these
games, their directions, their theme, style,
storytelling, gameplay, everything.
It’s all Intelligent Systems.
Tanabe having more influence along with the
others, the directors, writers and other big
developers on the recent games, but it is
Intelligent Systems at the end of it.
What’s more is there is an IP team reviewing
character designs so there are restrictions
that go through an IP team like it was discussed
in the other video.
Nagaya continues with “For control over
the creative direction in relation to the
parts of the game that make the game what
it is, I totally agree with Mr. Tanabe.
We kept checking that our focus wasn't too
distant from the Mario universe.
When developing the game content, we also
made sure not to disappoint the players' expectations
of the Mario universe.
As mentioned earlier, there are strict guidelines
in terms of how to deal with the characters.
It was a challenge to highlight the unique
style of the game while adhering to the guidelines.”
Now there are 2 things about this that still
strike questions with this specific piece.
One, why is this a strict thing when the liberal
character creations weren’t an issue before?
It cements there’s an upper team looking
at these and placing limits, but at the same
time no one complained about the original
designs and characters for older Paper Mario
games.
People still welcome creative liberties with
old and new characters, so the fact they exist
makes them feel unnecessary and not needed,
topped off with Miyamoto expressing how he
doesn’t want Mario to be rigid and limited.
Secondly, where’s that line?
They express limitations, but they still never
explain where that line is.
Super Mario Odyssey, 3D Mario in general,
introduces new characters and modifications
of old ones constantly with little struggle
and intense creative reign, Luigi’s Mansion
3 does the same with the portrait ghosts it
reintroduced, Mario Kart nowadays and Mario
Kart Tour especially modifies old characters
all the time, between baby variants, metal
variants, and Mario Kart Tour with the insane
number of costumes Mario, Peach, Rosalina,
Daisy, etc. wear.
I don’t doubt there are restrictions at
play with the character creativity, but there
needs to be more transparency with what that
limitation, where that line is.
The age and gender thing makes some sense,
that’s why Toadsworth isn’t around often,
why Toadette is the only female Toad now,
as stupid as these restrictions are, now we
know where they come from.
But when you compare the various Toads of
various attire and background in Paper Mario
64 and Thousand Year Door, or any new characters,
to the ones from Origami King or Super Mario
Galaxy, Odyssey, even Mario & Luigi up until
Paper Jam, it doesn’t feel like it should
be that far off from how creative or diverse
the character list is from the OG games to
where I feel they can do more.
Even then, again, there shouldn’t be a reason
to limit gender and age varied Toads to begin
with upon other similar restrictions placed.
Beyond the new characters and specific scenarios
and interactions, that’s exactly what breathes
so much life and variety into the characters
of Paper Mario.
That’s what people adore Paper Mario for,
it gives these games more quality than otherwise.
It still doesn’t feel like a valid reason
to limit creative freedom on these games as
is, and I still feel like Intelligent Systems
can do so much more with those characters,
new and old, even with these limits.
Like Mario Tennis, Odyssey, Luigi’s Mansion,
& Kart, half of these franchises do plenty
with pre-established characters as is with
these limits that I think they can do much
more with Paper Mario, even under those limits.
I’m assuming Odyssey’s the exception because
it’s made in house at Nintendo, but when
past games have thrived from those creative
liberties and when 3D Mario at least is celebrating
in it, why make those limits to begin with?
Why stagnate and hamper development and creative
freedom when it was not only a non-issue to
many consumers and supporters of these games,
but when it’d benefit the developers and
franchises immensely?
I know you gotta have some limits, like probably
not make Mario M rated, have heavy sexual
themes or graphic violence or anything within
a T rating or above discounting Smash Bros.
before 4, limits like that I can understand,
but the gender and age variation limit, the
unique designs and expressions of original,
new and old characters, is genuinely dumb.
It doesn’t harm the brand nor the consumer
nor developer, it’s expanded these worlds,
it’s made these games so much better than
ever, certain Mario games get away with it
scot free and others have done it prior to
these limits, it has no reason or place being
there in my opinion.
The last thing is Eurogamer asking whether
or not the team had a passion for origami
before or during development.
Tanabe expresses how he and other Japanese
children experienced folding origami growing
up but it was largely the artists and developers
tackling the aspect more.
Nagaya mentioned how they didn’t consider
origami during the planning phase, but during
the concept phase, they considered the best
way to incorporate Origami elements.
The character designers used real paper and
made drafts to experiment with the programmers
putting a ton or work into authenticating
the look and feel, which does genuinely show
in Origami King in my opinion.
And that’s the whole interview.
Pretend this is the very last Origami King
interview I cover in that other video, but
this confirms there is a team of sorts setting
limits and now more than ever, which people
should genuinely stop pretending otherwise,
Miyamoto’s influence on Paper Mario was
ultimately significantly minor and he needs
to stop being put as the blame.
But those limits still have no reason to be
there given they’ve worked and are praised
just fine and the contention of having 2 Mario
RPGS justifying changing an entire genre is
still incredibly misplaced for various reasons.
I’m not going to go a whole lot further
or reiterate more than what I already have
in that video, but the reasons behind why
Paper Mario is the way it is now, no TOK interview
thus far, has made logical sense from a design
and philosophical perspective.
Now more than ever, Paper Mario still suffers
from a major identity crisis, they still do
not want to wrap their heads around that nor
their consumers & feedback as a general whole
and despite how flawed it is for them to stick
to their guns like this, all these changes,
interviews and ideas have done nothing but
both limit the creative direction and quality
design of Paper Mario and creating ridiculous
amounts of friction between the fans that’s
only going to get worse.
It’s still frustrating and baffling how
much worse and worse each interview gets.
But as far as the broader scope of the entire
Paper Mario ordeal in more thorough detail
and thought, I still recommend Why Paper Mario
Refuses to Change for the entire debacle summed
up, researched, explained and argued.
And hopefully that’s the last interview
and I don’t have to talk about modern Paper
Mario and TOK for at least 3 years because
I wanna move on from this.
I do plan on making a series involving just
the first 3 Paper Mario games for the future
regarding each games’ chapter.
That said though, thanks for watching and
you’re welcome to stick around for more
Paper Mario content, Mario content and general
Nintendo coverage and gameplay, including
streams.
Stay super.
