Super Mario Bros. - Revolutionary design or not?

**NeoZeedeater** · 27 Sep 2007, 05:42 PM

Super Mario Bros. is often cited as a revolutionary game yet I have noticed that it almost never gets explained why it was considered revolutionary, at least without referring to its popularity and future influence.

I figured it might make for good discussion. This thread is for analyzing and discussing why you think SMB was or was not revolutionary from a game design standpoint (sales don't factor in) when it was first released or talking about individual parts of its design and their histories.

Here are some aspects:

Genre - There were a handful of side-scrolling platformers before it (everything from Jump Bug (1981) to more direct SMB predecessors like Pac-Land (1984) ) so we can rule out inventing a genre or subgenre. It often gets falsely credited as the first of its kind although that is becoming less common.

Music - I can't think of an earlier video game soundtrack that resembles it much. It seems like a notable departure stylistically but not technologically.

Theme - Saving a girl wasn't a new concept for platform games. Mario had done it before with Donkey Kong (1981). The plumber theme may have began with the original Mario Bros. although Super Pipeline is from the same year (1983). Plus there's Frisky Tom (1981) dealing with pipes but not technically a plumber.

Power ups - Invincibility had been around in platformers since at least the hammer in Donkey Kong. The size increase power up was possibly new (there was some unreleased game (Spectrum, I think) that would have done this earlier but I forget the name. It was mentioned in Retro Gamer a few months ago). I can't think of anything off the top of my head resembling the flower power shooting/throwing power up.

Swimming - Underwater levels in platform games weren't common but they weren't unheard of before SMB, e.g. Jungle Hunt (1982).

Running - Being able vary speed between walking and running wasn't common at the time, either. Pac-Land had it although it was done by double-tapping instead of holding down a button.

Object interaction - This strikes me as the aspect SMB was the most significant in. The way you could break bricks to reveal hidden items, run and slide underneath areas (as opposed to just being able to duck), and were able to step on enemies and send their shells moving and bouncing all seemed new to me. It had a level of physics not seen in the genre before.

So, was Super Mario Bros. a revolutionary game from a design standpoint? I thought so back when it came out and I still do. It's clearly based on many previously existing concepts in the genre so I can see an argument against it but I think it improved enough of them while taking object interaction and player control to a new level. When you add up everything it did, I think it equals a revolutionary game.

There are probably aspects I haven't thought about related to this topic. What are your opinions on it?

**kingoffighters** · 27 Sep 2007, 05:46 PM

I remember prior to playing Super Mario Bros, all the games I played have a very small number of "boards". For example, Donkey Kong has 3 boards just keep getting recycled with faster enemies/higher difficulty.

The fact that SMB has no boards, but a shit ton of levels just blew my mind away. And all the secrets, the power ups, the mystery (the princess is in another castle, keep in mind this is early 80s and I am 12 years old) just all add up to an indeliable impression.

**Frogacuda** · 27 Sep 2007, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by kingoffighters

I remember prior to playing Super Mario Bros, all the games I played have a very small number of "boards". For example, Donkey Kong has 3 boards just keep getting recycled with faster enemies/higher difficulty.

There were a number that didn't before then. Dragon Buster, for one.

Mario is to the platformer genre as Wolfenstein 3D is to first-person shooters. It wasn't nearly the first of its kind, it didn't do anything radically new, but it was the breakthrough commercial success that led to the waves of copycats, and it's at that point that game design becomes a genre.

**kingoffighters** · 27 Sep 2007, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

There were a number that didn't before then. Dragon Buster, for one.

No doubt, there are. But back then, I can only play games that I have (or my friends have). Which is to say, very limited number of games.

**Frogacuda** · 27 Sep 2007, 06:26 PM

Unless you designed Super Mario Bros, I don't see how that's relevant

**kingoffighters** · 27 Sep 2007, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

This thread is for analyzing and discussing why you think SMB was or was not revolutionary from a game design standpoint (sales don't factor in) when it was first released or talking about individual parts of its design and their histories.