The Mario Paradox

The most famous video game of all time is arguably Super Mario Bros. Mario as a brand is up there with Coca-Cola, David Beckham, Microsoft and Manchester United, it's one of those things that everyone has heard of. It's also a game series that causes me rather unhealthy amounts of frustration. It isn't that the game is bad. It's the fact that Nintendo have been releasing essentially the same game with a new coat of paint for the last 20+ years. This is inarguable. New Super Mario Bros. Wii, in addition to being a rather unpalatable title, is still fresh in the mind as the most recent reincarnation of that original classic, the only difference being a few different power ups and the addition of one of the more frustrating multiplayer modes you are likely to come across. And yet... people continue to buy it. This is a phenomenon that has perplexed me for some time. It should be clear that nintendo are just cashing on the brand name, beating a dead horse and any other cliche you can think of in order to make as much profit for as little effort as possible... but people still buy it. It's clear that the original hasn't gone anywhere, hell you can download an old SNES emulator online and play it totally free... but people continue to fork out the £40 hard earned pounds that Nintendo asks of them in order to play a game that they have probably already completed five different iterations of. This is a social phenomenon that I have dubbed: The Mario Paradox. My question? Why? It's a fair question, in my view, but it's never one that I've gotten a satisfying answer to. And I think I have a decent idea why. It's because nobody knows. No one has quite cracked the riddle of why, in these very difficult economic times, people would pay to buy a game that is almost identical to one they already have. So I will attempt to give it a shot.

I think the main reason, ironically enough, is that the current economy is actually the spur to buy these games, rather than the deterrent. Let's say you have two choices. You can buy New Super Mario Bros. Wii (henceforth known as NSMBW) or you can buy, just because it's a game I am familiar with, Mass Effect. Let's assume for the moment that they cost the same price, and that our hypothetical customer hasn't played either of them, and has no preference between platformers and RPG's. Chances are, she's not got a lot of spare change, and wants to take the purchase option with the least risk involved. Few people are going to argue that Mass Effect is the superior title, it has much more depth, great writing, superb characters and a wonderfully gripping story, taking your hero from a small human colony to beyond the furthest stars. But that doesn't matter. In fact, let's assume our customer knows all this, knows how critically well received the Mass Effect series has been. NSMBW is still the less risky choice. Why? Because she's already played it. She sees the Mario name attached to it, she knows she'll enjoy it, because, really, she's already played it. In the short term, we have one happy customer. In the long term... we have complacency. Game developers, like Nintendo, will continue to pump out the same game in a new suit over and over because they know it will make them money. What does this mean? It means we have fewer and fewer developers trying to push the boundaries of what gaming is, fewer developers trying to create a truly unique and creative experience, because... they don't need to.

The same is true of films. Did you know there is ANOTHER Resident Evil film coming out? Yeah, there is. The metaphor of the customer can be applied to the studio producing Resident Evil (don't know what studio that is, sorry) Supposing you are the studio. The Resident Evil guys come to you with another film in mind. Another instalment from a bankable, moderately successful franchise with an in-built fan base who will be happy to lap up another RE just to switch their brains off for a few hours. Now, supposing a small time director comes to you with a pitch. He's written a smart, engaging original screenplay, and he has come to you for financial backing. The film could be a beautiful story, centred around a wonderfully creative cast of emotionally engaging characters, something that will resonate with people, something that will make them sit up and take notice. Which one would they pick to finance? Resident Evil, every time. Why? Because the second film is a risk that they don't need to take because people will pay to see brain junk food, like Resident Evil.

In the end, humanity continues to be it's own worst enemy. Our art is what our descendants, hundreds of years from now, will remember us by. And for as long as we continue to accept mediocrity, mediocrity is what we will get. That is the word that will define this artistic period in human period. The age of mediocrity. Sure, there are a few diamonds in the rough that will stick out, and shine all the brighter next to the dross standing beside them. Mass Effect, Inception, Let the Right One In, The Dark Knight trilogy... but these are few and far between. In the end, we are far more likely to be held up to our descendants as an example of how things shouldn't be done. We will be remembered, not for our successes... but for our shortcomings.