The Mario Scale

Introduction

For a while I wanted to write some game reviews and arbitrary "top 10 XXXX games" lists. I felt like I needed to invent a new rating system to go along with these. The "x out of 5" or "x out of 10" scoring systems are too overdone. A percentage system it too broad, what's the difference between an 84% and 85% game rating anyway? I pondered a generic "thumbs up, thumbs down" approach but that brought back memories of that awful movie "Gladiator". Am I the only person in the world who thought that movie was pile of steaming horse flop?

Eventually I came to think "what if I rated games based on how they compare to Super Mario Bros?" It's a simple system really. Take a couple different elements from a game and compare them to Super Mario Bros, where:

Small Mario

=worse than Super Mario Bros
Big Mario

=the same as Super Mario Bros
Fiery Mario

=better than Super Mario Bros

Super Mario Bros is the perfect game to use for a baseline. For starters, everyone has played it. Anyone who thinks "Super Mario Bros, WTF is that?" can go scratch. Everyone basically likes the game but it's not their favorite. If you ranked all the games you've ever played from worst to best, Super Mario Bros would probably end up in the middle. That's not a knock on it at all. Super Mario Bros is better than about half the games ever made, including next-gen titles. For example, Fight Night 360 (or whatever it's called) looks 1,000x better than Super Mario Bros but is a lot less fun to play. On the other hand, I think Adventure for Atari 2600 is an overall better game despite its crude graphics. All things considered, I can't think of a better baseline game than Super Mario Bros.

The Mario Scale ranks games based off the following criteria (in order of importance):

Replay
Plot
Control
Sound
Graphics

This rating can be displayed as a simple summary:


[game title]

..or as a slightly more detailed review:


[game title]
	Despite all the negatives, this game is strangely addictive.


	If Ed Wood suffered a stroke he could write a better storyline.


	The control is clean and easy to learn.


	An intoxicated monkey with a kazoo could have composed a better soundtrack.


	Poking yourself in the eye with a pencil is more pleasant than looking at this game.


	Bad.

Replay

I'll admit, it's hard to top Super Mario Bros in the replay category. Even after beating it you still want another go at it. Maybe you want to try a new route, visiting every level, seeing how quickly you can win, getting 99 lives, finding every secret, or stopping by level -1. There are plenty of reasons to dust off the ol' NES and play a quick game of Mario. Scoring a fiery Mario in this category is tough, but not impossible.

Small Mario

examples:

Superman 64 (Nintendo 64): Let's start off with what might be the worst game ever made. Unlike other "worst game ever" contenders, such as Custer's Revenge, this doesn't even have any comical replay value. It's just plain bad.
Luigi's Mansion (Gamecube): Although a good game, Luigi's Mansion has practically no replay value. It's short, but not short enough that you can play through it in an hour for fun. It also doesn't have enough secrets to make it worth playing until you find them all.

examples:

Super Mario Bros 3 (NES, Super Nintendo): Super Mario Bros 3 has all the replay value of the original. There are tons and tons of levels to play through that you might have skipped the first time. It's also filled with secrets to go back and uncover. The only thing stopping it from earning a fiery Mario is the difficulty of winning. Unlike the original, trying to just quickly play through Mario 3 isn't much fun. The tanks & ships on world 8 somehow manage to combine difficult and monotonous into something you dread to play through.
Simpsons Hit and Run (Gamecube, Playstation 2): I liked the basic idea of Grand Theft Auto, being able to freely explore a large world without being stuck in a series of linear levels. However, I didn't really care for having a game that rewards killing cops and beating women around my kid. Simpsons Hit and Run provides a reasonable alternative. Like Super Mario Bros, there are reasons to keep playing even after winning. At any time you can go back and replay missions, compete in races, or just explore Springfield.

examples:

Tetris (NES, Game Boy): If I was only allowed to play one game for the rest of my life it would be hard not to choose Tetris.
Doom I&II (PC): I never tire of the original Doom games. Any time I need a little mental break I can fire one up and crank through a level in 5-10 minutes. Even while writing this I find the temptation almost too difficult to resist.

Plot

Plot is a tricky element to gauge. "Plot" doesn't necessarily mean the game has an intricate storyline. "Plot" would mean "premise" for most arcade, platform, and shoot-em-up games. Some have a decent enough premise while others are completely absurd.

Super Mario Bros is a good baseline for plot in this regard. OK, a plumber that has to rescue a princess from a giant lizardish thing is a little goofy. However, it manages to work out pretty well. It's not so over-the-top or stupid that it's rendered unplayable. It gives the game a distinct flavor that separates it from just being "some dude running across a never-ending series of bland screens".

Small Mario

examples:

Shadow War of Succession (3DO): The premise for Shadow War of Succession is simple - here are a bunch of criminal stereotypes fighting each other for some reason. There's camouflage guy, leather jacket guy, long-haired guy in a suit, ski-mask guy, old-fashioned mobster guy, Asian chick, and Russian chick. They're all fighting to be the next king of the streets or maybe to star in a Michael Jackson video.
Plumbers Don't Wear Ties (3DO): Guess it's "pick on 3DO day". Back in my loser phase I played this game after work with a couple other Electronics Boutique employees. Not even the promise of partial nudity could get us to play for more than 5 minutes. Trying to recount the storyline makes my frontal cortex hurt so I won't.

examples:

Shenmue (Sega Dreamcast): What's that you say? Shenmue has way more plot than Super Mario Bros. This is a classic example of more!=better. If you consider "I must avenge my father's death, after I pet this kitten" or getting a job hauling crates between warehouses to be solid storyline elements then you have issues. It's lucky not to get a small Mario in this department.
By default, any sports game with a season mode: I figured there has to be some way to rank sports games in this category. After about ten seconds of thought I decided that games with a season mode would earn a big Mario, ones with a franchise mode a fiery Mario, and the rest would be tagged with small Mario.

examples:

Baldur's Gate (PC): Yeah, yeah this is a no-brainer. I put this (and the next game) on just to go on about how great open-ended games are. The main storyline in Baldur's Gate isn't spectacular - bad guys are trying to kill you for an undisclosed reason. What gives it a great plot is the detailed world filled with side quests that you can explore at your leisure.
Starflight (PC, Sega Genesis): Starflight also has a main quest that you're supposed to follow to win the game. However, it has a seemingly infinite number of galaxies and planets you can catalog and strip mine instead. If you choose to go along with the plot you'll be ensnarled in mystery that spans millions of miles.

Control

The way I see it, the more minimalist a game's control is the better. Can you control the game with a d-pad and few buttons or do you need the flight deck of a Boeing 747? How about the precision, does it feel like you're really driving a car or whatever? Is the character motion smooth and accurate and so on..

Of course by this definition, Super Mario Bros would would be almost perfect. It has one of the cleanest, simplest controls imagined. The only hitch being the well-documented bugginess.

Small Mario

examples:

Spelunker (NES): This is possibly the most infuriating game I've ever played. In this Montezuma's Revenge knock-off your character dies if he falls more than 2 millimeters. The old woman of "I've fallen and I can't get up!" fame is more durable than Mr. Spelunker.
Oracle of Seasons/Oracle of Ages (Game Boy Color): Again I'll pick on games I really enjoyed just to show fairness or something. The flaw with these two games is that you have about 8 items you can use but only 2 buttons to work with. You spend more time in the item selection menu than you do playing the game.

examples:

Metroid (NES): It's unbelievable how much you can do in Metroid with just the little NES pad disposal. You can quickly toggle from the beam , to missiles, bombs, screw attack, ball-mode (heh heh, I said "screw" and "ball") without needing a menu. Like Mario, the control is clean and easy to learn with a few minor bugs here and there.
Phantasy Star II (Genesis): The play control is a tad on the slow side but good nonetheless. The menus are simple to learn and navigate. The battle system is also intuitive.

examples:

Mortal Kombat II (Arcade): Still my favorite fighting game to this day, the control is a big part of that. It has that "minute to learn, lifetime to master" thing going on. Picking up the basic mechanics and special moves are easy. Working out all the combos and fight strategies takes a couple rolls of quarters.
Burnout 3 (Xbox): Although not a Xbox fan, I'll readily admit that the controls in Burnout 3 are nearly perfect. Each vehicle has a unique, yet accurate, feel. OK, I've never driven a real fire truck off a bridge but it just feels like I'd expect it to.

Sound

It's stating the obvious to say that Super Mario Bros has a memorable soundtrack. Although being cranked out of an 8-bit system, it's superior to many of today's forgettable soundtracks. A game's soundtrack goes a long way towards setting the overall tone. Super Mario Bros is a great example of this. From the perky overworld music to the semi-menacing castle track, the audio makes the game come alive.

Small Mario

examples:

Alien vs. Predator (Atari Jaguar): There's about 30 seconds of intro music but that's about it. I suppose they're going for some kind of menacing feel by keeping the game silent. That would be fine except the sound effects aren't so hot either. They have a grainy sound, well, like what happens when digitized sound effects are run through a sound chip.
Shape Shifter (TurboGrafx-16 CD): It's uber-nerdy to admit but I'm a big fan of TurboGrafx-16 CD soundtracks. Shape Shifter would be one of the exceptions. The music is nauseating and repetitive, the voice acting (although not the worst) is comical.

examples:

Outrun (Genesis): Like Super Mario Bros, Outrun's soundtrack is short and sweet. Most racing games abuse the player's eardrums with abrasive metal or techno tracks that drive them insane after 10 minutes. Outrun opts for a more laid back tone with music that doesn't get old after a few loops.
Monkey Island (PC, Sega CD): The music creates a nice tropical atmosphere. It's not spectacular but gets the job done.

examples:

Snatcher (Sega CD): The soundtrack to Snatcher communicates the emotion of the game even better than it's famous graphics. It's powerful and even moving at times.
Every game in the Ys or Final Fantasy Series: It's also stating the obvious to say these two series are famous for their soundtracks. Even on the NES, Master System, and Game Boy these manage impressive musical scores.

Graphics

Yeah, this is ranked last. Graphics have always been the least important factor in deciding the quality of a game to me. I know I'm in the minority on this. They are tons and tons of games that look spectacular but are horrible. The first (and only) time I played Half-Life I thought it was best looking game I'd ever seen. After 30 minutes of running around a lab with nothing happening I quit and never tried it again.

Like the sound category, graphics are rated based on how they establish the tone of the game. Nintendo didn't need 3D-acceleratored polygons to make Super Mario Bros look great. The colors, animation, and scenery were simple yet perfect at the same time.

Hardware capabilities are also factored into this. A game on a pre-NES system can have relatively great graphics if they're used correctly. Practically every game made on post-NES systems has higher color depth and resolution than Super Mario Bros. That doesn't translate to better graphics though. There's no shortage of ugly games on newer systems.

Small Mario

examples:

Doom 64 (Nintendo 64): If you played this game in an underground bunker with no artificial lighting, and max-ed out the contrast on the TV, you might possibly be able to see this game.
Every full motion video game made for the Sega and TurboGrafx-16 CD systems: Nothing like grainy, bland colored, video to ruin an otherwise decent game. Well, most FMV games are abysmal but the ones with a good premise would have been better served by scrapping the cinematography.

examples:

AD&D Cloudy Mountain (Intellivision): This game gets the most it can out of stick figures and 8 simultaneous colors. At the time, the animation was well above average. The overworld map is impressive and one of the finest graphic displays of the era.
Gauntlet (Arcade): Overall nice looking graphics in Gauntlet. The sprites look nice but aren't mind-blowing. The dungeon colors and tiles are very fitting as well.

examples:

Zelda Wind Waker (Gamecube): Duh. OK, I guess some people hate the cell-shaded Link but I whole-heartedly disagree. Everything in this game looks unbelievable, the oceans, islands, towns, and characters are all gorgeous.
Super Mario RPG (Super Nintendo): What the hell, let's wrap things up with a Mario game. I'm a sucker for 3/4 perspective RPGs like Mario RPG, Shadowrun (SNES), or Chrono Cross. Anyway, the graphics in Super Mario RPG are superb. The sprites are detailed with flawless animation. The backgrounds and villages create a living, breathing version of the Mushroom Kingdom for your exploring pleasure.

Review a Great Game Day 2013: Dungeon Explorer II

Review a Great Game Day 2015: Ys for DOS

The Decade in Video Games (2000s)