I would ultimately say that it was very important, influencial, and arguably defined the genre, even if it didn't create the genre.
BUT I don't think I'm comfortable with calling it revolutionary. Revolution implies really changing things, and Super Mario Bros really didn't. It borrowed from Donkey Kong and Mario Bros and coupled it with Pac Land, and made a very good game out of it. There's a difference between being a trendsetter and being a revolutionary.
I'm just saying, why does it matter what we thought then? Kids are stupid. I didn't like Mario at the time because I thought his mustache was stupid, but that's not an interesting discussion. We're smarter now, so let's speak as adults.
He is not looking for facts, he is looking for an opinion why we feel it is innovative/important. That's how I feel then, that's how I feel now. I don't know why you have to so obtuse in regards to how I feel about the game.
Just because it is not the first game to feature multi-scrolling level platformer doesn't lessen its impact any. I seriously doubt the very first one is any good, especially compared to SMB.
Super Mario Bros. was the first game where I really felt the character was an extension of me. The way Mario visually responds to your controller is extremely intuitive, everything from the way you skid to a stop when you're running to the way you "thump" your head on solid blocks and rebound. Previous games felt like more of a mechanical process to me.
By comparison, "Frogger" was the first game I ever played, and it is about as natural feeling as playing around with a calculator.
SMB was the first game that felt "complete" to me. There's a whole world there, there are rules in that world, it's visually unique, and you feel a part of it when you're playing. You are that character. It's exactly how immersion should work in a game. Story (in modern games) is bullshit when it takes precedence over play. Mario is pure play.
If you admittedly know better now, wouldn't your view be different at least in certain ways? Your view now IS relevant, but I don't get why your view then somehow justifies it.
While I wouldn't say that is true because there were obviously long-form adventures and RPGs long before Mario, it might be true that it brought the scrolling platform genre further from it's arcade roots. Though some earlier arcade were starting to get longer and more diverse, Mario was something you could sit down and play for an hour straight, which was cool.
I think Pac Land and Legend of Kage are both very important titles that don't get as much of their due as they should because Mario tends to outshine them.
Last edited by Frogacuda; 27 Sep 2007 at 10:03 PM.
Bookmarks