Fun Club "Mario, Zelda, and _________"

[Ehoavas]

Mario, Zelda, Metroid to the die hard enthusiasts

Mario, Zelda, pokemon to the average Nintendo gamer worldwide

Mario, animal crossing, splatoon if you're a normal Nintendo fan in Japan.

Mario kart, Smash, splatoon if your main thing is multiplayer

Xenoblade, fire emblem, pokemon to the jrgp Nintendo crowd

Mario, donkey Kong and playing dat Nintendo to the grandma's and grandas

 

[AngryAlchemist]

Zelda and Metroid have only 1-2 tops bad games. Mario has tons of mediocre releases. Famicom Detective Club has a more rock solid track record than Mario.

Glad to see someone else who doesn't like 64 and Galaxy!

I'm gonna pretend that's what you were talking about instead of like, hotel Mario or some shit

 

[Zellia]

Pokemon in terms of reach, success, and visibility.

Metroid in terms of history as one of Nintendo's iconic IPs.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

Glad to see someone else who doesn't like 64 and Galaxy!

I'm gonna pretend that's what you were talking about instead of like, hotel Mario or some shit

Zelda has like, 5 bad games at least also

 

[TGB86]

I'm kinda blown away that the question of "what comes to mind for you" so quickly turned into "what series deserves to be in this slot based on sales data or overall popularity and cultural influence and btw people saying niche games come to mind for them are wrong."

Kinda.. dizzying, tbh

A lot of Nintendo fans get weirdly angry over people liking Metroid. I don’t get it either.

 

[Hailinel]

Actually for a time, there was a moment where it was mainly "Mario, Zelda, and Metroid", but the sentiment sort of disappeared around the 3DS/WiiU era...

I stilll dont agree that trio was ever the trio outside of specific circles, but I do have enough...let's call them memorable interactions with Metroid superfans, particularly in that era, that have led me to the conclusion that the Metroid fandom (not individual fans, but the fandom) is one of the absolute worst among Nintendo franchises. And even though that fandom is tiny compared to something like Pokémon (which has its own toxic elements), if you asked me which one is worse, I'd say, per capita, Metroid, perhaps eight or nine times out of ten.

I just do not take Metroid fans seriously when they make claims insinuating that Metroid is on the level of Mario and Zelda.

 

[Kaka]

Metroid in my mind by association of being a long running series that originated on the nes, like Mario and Zelda.
Actually there are not that many Nintendo IP originating on nes still going strong.
Fire Emblem debuted on the gba in the West, Donkey Kong as we know it is mostly based on the rare reboot and mother is dead + we never got the first game on nes.

 

[Weebos]

It's Pokémon, though I respect Metroid as the boomer answer (even though Pokémon is nearly 30 years old).

 

[Kaka]

It's Pokémon, though I respect Metroid as the boomer answer (even though Pokémon is nearly 30 years old).

Is the OP about importance or what first come to mind ? Upon reading the op again I am not sure and that doesn't emply the same thing at all lol

 

[Pierceyonder]

Mario, Zelda, and Metroid are their three most prestigous franchises imo. The ones that, when made right, are a cut above the rest in some way and represent the company's best works.

A lot of the other suggestions are good too, mind you, but I don't think this conversation can be boiled down to just sales figures and public recognizability.

 

[Gartooth]

The three pillars of the NES were actually Mario, Zelda, and Duck Hunt

 

[Raccoon]

Mario, Zelda, and WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!

 

[CyberWolfBia]

It's Pokémon; But I also put Donkey Kong as the fourth pillar in the same breath

not sure where the Metroid answers come from... that's on Star Fox, F-Zero and Pikmin league, imo

 

[Deleted member 4028]

Is the OP about importance or what first come to mind ? Upon reading the op again I am not sure and that doesn't emply the same thing at all lol

I think it’s def very different answers depending on which 1. First that comes to mind is completely subjective and could vary for pretty much everyone. For general popularity/importance in terms of sales, at that point I’d say even Mario/Zelda aren’t guaranteed “big 3” series anymore. I wouldn’t even say there is a big 3 anymore from a sales/popularity perspective, but if it had to be 3 I think it would be:

#1. Pokemon
#2. Mario Kart

And #3 I think is a toss up between Animal Crossing, the main Mario series, and Smash. Zelda I think is almost there, but I don’t think it’s quite on the same sales/popularity level as those.

Also, I think of Mario Kart as a separate series from main Mario, it’s really its own completely unique, distinctive thing from the main Mario games imo.

 

[TGB86]

Is the OP about importance or what first come to mind ? Upon reading the op again I am not sure and that doesn't emply the same thing at all lol

The question as phrased is specifically about what title comes to your mind when you read that phrase. There is no criteria defined beyond that. It’s completely subjective, which makes the myriad posts complaining about the Metroid picks obnoxiously out of place.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Pokémon is not a unanimous pick here. It’s primarily targeted at children, and on an enthusiast forum of older gamers, there will inevitably be a contingent of people more invested in Metroid that is disproportionate in size with the sales discrepancy between the two franchises. Additionally, Pokémon is its own brand, distinct from Nintendo’s. Nintendo doesn’t make the games and doesn’t wholly own the IP. Pikachu is a mascot for Pokémon, not for Nintendo. Regardless of its pop culture presence, I think it’s reasonable for people (particularly on a Nintendo fan site) to gravitate towards a franchise more closely associated with the Nintendo brand when completing the phrase in the OP.

 

[Deleted member 4028]

A lot of the other suggestions are good too, mind you, but I don't think this conversation can be boiled down to just sales figures and public recognizability.

The thing is that if not talking about popularity/sales, it’s basically just saying which series are better/higher quality which is completely subjective.

 

[Pierceyonder]

The thing is that if not talking about popularity/sales, it’s basically just saying which series is better/higher quality which is completely subjective.

You're right, but that is also a much more interesting discussion than whichever games sold more copies. Personal anecdotes and perspectives are always going to be more fun to talk about than sales figures.

 

[Deleted member 4028]

You're right, but that is also a much more interesting discussion than whichever games sold more copies. Personal anecdotes and perspectives are always going to be more fun to talk about than sales figures.

That's fair, although I feel like it can also lead to negativity if people start saying their favorite series is "objectively" better than others. But sharing perspectives on favorite series and why they're peoples' favorites, I agree is more fun than talking about sales.

 

[Jahranimo]

Pokemon lol

 

[Hailinel]

The question as phrased is specifically about what title comes to your mind when you read that phrase. There is no criteria defined beyond that. It’s completely subjective, which makes the myriad posts complaining about the Metroid picks obnoxiously out of place.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Pokémon is not a unanimous pick here. It’s primarily targeted at children, and on an enthusiast forum of older gamers, there will inevitably be a contingent of people more invested in Metroid that is disproportionate in size with the sales discrepancy between the two franchises. Additionally, Pokémon is its own brand, distinct from Nintendo’s. Nintendo doesn’t make the games and doesn’t wholly own the IP. Pikachu is a mascot for Pokémon, not for Nintendo. Regardless of its pop culture presence, I think it’s reasonable for people (particularly on a Nintendo fan site) to gravitate towards a franchise more closely associated with the Nintendo brand when completing the phrase in the OP.

Pokémon is absolutely associated with the Nintendo brand. It's managed by a separate entity in TPC, sure, but it's still a Nintendo franchise. If you want to go by this logic, Metroid would also only half-qualify since the Prime games were made by Retro, Samus Returns and Dread by MercurySteam, Other M by KT, and Federation Force by a pre-merger Next Level Games. Even the original NES Metroid, Metroid II, and Super Metroid have credits for Intelligent Systems staff, to my understanding.

 

[TGB86]

Pokémon is absolutely associated with the Nintendo brand. It's managed by a separate entity in TPC, sure, but it's still a Nintendo franchise. If you want to go by this logic, Metroid would also only half-qualify since the Prime games were made by Retro, Samus Returns and Dread by MercurySteam, Other M by KT, and Federation Force by a pre-merger Next Level Games. Even the original NES Metroid, Metroid II, and Super Metroid have credits for Intelligent Systems staff, to my understanding.

This isn’t a Nintendo purity test. Pokémon is obviously part of the Nintendo brand, but it’s unique in the way it extends beyond that brand. It’s a multimedia empire, with massively popular components to it that Nintendo has absolutely nothing to do with. And even with the video games themselves, Nintendo’s involvement is minimal. As such, with the question posed, it’s unsurprising to me that a lot of people are picking an iconic franchise created and largely developed by Nintendo themselves. I’m not admonishing those picking Pokémon here, I’m just explaining the partial reasoning for why not everyone shares that choice.

 

[EAD Ninja]

It's Pokémon; But I also put Donkey Kong as the fourth pillar in the same breath

not sure where the Metroid answers come from... that's on Star Fox, F-Zero and Pikmin league, imo

Mario, Zelda, and Metroid are the three IPs that I think embody the root game design philosophies of Nintendo. They've obviously created more IPs since that have joined that pantheon, so you can add a 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. that the sentence stem does not allow for.

Pokémon is absolutely associated with the Nintendo brand. It's managed by a separate entity in TPC, sure, but it's still a Nintendo franchise. If you want to go by this logic, Metroid would also only half-qualify since the Prime games were made by Retro, Samus Returns and Dread by MercurySteam, Other M by KT, and Federation Force by a pre-merger Next Level Games. Even the original NES Metroid, Metroid II, and Super Metroid have credits for Intelligent Systems staff, to my understanding.

Mario, Zelda and Metroid are about the root design philosophy of Nintendo. Those were the first three notable IPs to really stamp a legacy.

By the way, IS was a sub programmer for only Metroid 1 and 3 - not 2 - but it’s no different than SRD being a sub programmer for Mario and Zelda. They operated under Nintendo and their designers.

Which holds for several other Metroid games developed by subsidiaries or agencies under the design philosophy of Sakamoto or Tanabe.

 

[Robert]

Apart from sales/popularity/cultural impact, Pokémon makes sense as number 3 (realistically it should be number 2 but whatev) because it represents Nintendo's handhelds. Pokémon was the reason for many people to pick up a Game Boy or DS, over everything else Nintendo put out, and it arguably gave the original Game Boy a shot in the arm as public interest in the device was waning. Heck, for many the handhelds were solely Pokémon machnes.

 

[CyberWolfBia]

Pokémon for Nintendo is like Star Wars for Disney.

Sure, it was already a huge multimedia empire before Disney acquired (in Pokémon's case, it was always part of Nintendo, since its debut), but doesn't make it less Disney than Mickey Mouse.

in fact, I'd say people immediatly associate Pokémon with Nintendo much more, than some would Star Wars with Disney, because there was never that period where the brand wasn't theirs.

 

[Yavga]

Kirby, I went for the appeal of a mascot and I associate Pokémon not exclusively with Nintendo as long as Pikachu's design is not just property of Nintendo.

 

[Raccoon]

Sure, it was already a huge multimedia empire before Disney acquired (in Pokémon's case, it was always part of Nintendo, since its debut), but doesn't make it less Disney than Mickey Mouse.

yes it does??? Star Wars is absolutely "less Disney" than Mickey fucking Mouse

 

[CyberWolfBia]

yes it does??? star wars is absolutely "less Disney" than Mickey fucking Mouse

buying a Mickey Mouse plush or a Star Wars bluray set, money goes for the exact same pocket;

Microsoft is acquiring studios ever since they started the video game business; and I don't see DOOM or The Elder Scrolls less of Microsoft franchises than Halo or Blinx the Time Sweeper;

 

[Raccoon]

buying a Mickey Mouse plush or a Star Wars bluray set, money goes for the exact same pocket;

Microsoft is acquiring studios ever since they started the video game business; and I don't see DOOM or The Elder Scrolls less of Microsoft franchises than Halo or Blinx the Time Sweeper;

wow, that's so foreign to me

I'm largely disinterested in corporate ownership for questions like these; Mickey Mouse is Disney

 

[Serif]

It shouldn’t be surprising that Pokémon is not a unanimous pick here.

I have much more nostalgia for Pokemon than any of the other options but even I didn't pick it, because the prompt was not a question of popularity or even brand association. I just feel Metroid has more in common with Mario and Zelda than Pokemon does, with respect to history and game design. Mario Zelda and Metroid feel like archetypal 'real time action adventure'. Mega Man and Castlevania too, but those obviously aren't included in this conversation about Nintendo series.

 

[anderson64]

If you asked me in 2002, it’d be Metroid. Now, it’s Pokémon. But, I think Nintendo trying to make Metroid a thing again (finally).

 

[Mr_No_U]

Stinky Horse

 

[SiG]

A lot of Nintendo fans get weirdly angry over people liking Metroid. I don’t get it either.

I've seen people get angry over Fire Emblem.

Fire Emblem...a franchise that barely made it out of Japan, and somehow managed to skyrocket in terms of its popularity in the pantheon.

Pit is crying right now...

 

[AngryAlchemist]

buying a Mickey Mouse plush or a Star Wars bluray set, money goes for the exact same pocket;

Microsoft is acquiring studios ever since they started the video game business; and I don't see DOOM or The Elder Scrolls less of Microsoft franchises than Halo or Blinx the Time Sweeper;

To be fair, this isn't the greatest argument either though. All of Star Wars's money goes to Disney, whereas this isn't true for Pokemon. The property is split between multiple different entities and while Nintendo's partial ownership of said entities technically means it has a majority stake, it's not the same as a Nintendo product giving all of its money back to Nintendo.

It's not really the same as Mario, or Donkey Kong, or Zelda, etc. It's not even the same as Metroid or modern DKC, because those companies just get paid up front to develop the game, but don't make royalties off them. So yes, if we're using the money argument, than Nintendo objectively own Pokemon less than they own Zelda or Donkey Kong, and that does make it less "theirs".

Mind you I voted for Pokemon in the poll, I just don't think this point is convincing.

 

[Dizzle]

The reason I didn't pick Pokémon is that it isn't a video game series for me. First and foremost it's a cartoon and a card game. Plus, a pedometer and a "How to Draw" book.

I picked Other, because I think the question was poorly phrased. You see, Zelda isn't actually the name of the main character. His name is Link. The correct answer to the question is Mario, Link, and Metroid.

 

[SiG]

If you asked me in 2002, it’d be Metroid. Now, it’s Pokémon. But, I think Nintendo trying to make Metroid a thing again (finally).

I guess that's the crux of the question haha.

The third game chosen usually seems to be tied with the hottest Nintendo title out at the moment, but it's also heavily dependent on other factors such as the tastes of the person, what they grew up with, etc. Call it the "zeitgeist" answer.

The real question people should be asking is "Why is it always just three titles?"

 

[Yamanoi]

Let's go with our favorite characters from the "top 3" so assume Mario, Zelda, and Fire Emblem (since Fire Emblem rules right now).

My answer would be Cackletta (or Birdo), Urbosa (or Linkle), and Camilla (or Shez).

 

[Hailinel]

Mario, Zelda, and Metroid are the three IPs that I think embody the root game design philosophies of Nintendo. They've obviously created more IPs since that have joined that pantheon, so you can add a 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. that the sentence stem does not allow for.


Mario, Zelda and Metroid are about the root design philosophy of Nintendo. Those were the first three notable IPs to really stamp a legacy.

By the way, IS was a sub programmer for only Metroid 1 and 3 - not 2 - but it’s no different than SRD being a sub programmer for Mario and Zelda. They operated under Nintendo and their designers.

Which holds for several other Metroid games developed by subsidiaries or agencies under the design philosophy of Sakamoto or Tanabe.

I'm not saying that they were independently developed. Only that they had at minimum some measure of programming/design work done by non-Nintendo studios.

But regardless, I don't agree that Metroid exists on the same tier of design philosophy as Mario and Zelda. Nintendo is always experimenting, of course, and the 1980s were nothing but experimentation in an era where most game genres were nascent. It's an era that saw the original Legend of Zelda followed by a side-scrolling action RPG platformer and SMB1 followed by both a SMB2 that was "SMB1, but almost unfairly challenging", and a SMB2 that was literally a modified reskin of a game developed for a TV network's promotional event.

Which isn't to say that Metroid isn't important or influential in any way. It's historically very important for what it influenced. In that context, would I argue that it belongs as the third franchise in this thread's premised tier?

No, because Nintendo had hands in developing many more genres and genre influences in that era than a specific fabled three.

 

[anderson64]

I guess that's the crux of the question haha.

The third game chosen usually seems to be tied with the hottest Nintendo title out at the moment, but it's also heavily dependent on other factors such as the tastes of the person, what they grew up with, etc. Call it the "zeitgeist" answer.

The real question people should be asking is "Why is it always just three titles?"

The hype for Sunshine, Prime and Wind Waker are burned into my brain, I was like 14-15 when the hype cycle started for those three on GameCube. I think Pokemon is the third pillar because it sells damn near 20 million copies every generation. It’s super impressive. I agree it doesn’t have to always be three but for the purposes of this exercise, it’s Pokemon as the third pillar.

 

[CyberWolfBia]

To be fair, this isn't the greatest argument either though. All of Star Wars's money goes to Disney, whereas this isn't true for Pokemon. The property is split between multiple different entities and while Nintendo's partial ownership of said entities technically means it has a majority stake, it's not the same as a Nintendo product giving all of its money back to Nintendo.

It's not really the same as Mario, or Donkey Kong, or Zelda, etc. It's not even the same as Metroid or modern DKC, because those companies just get paid up front to develop the game, but don't make royalties off them. So yes, if we're using the money argument, than Nintendo objectively own Pokemon less than they own Zelda or Donkey Kong, and that does make it less "theirs".

Mind you I voted for Pokemon in the poll, I just don't think this point is convincing.

OK, sure.. but I don't think anyone makes less of Kirby of a Nintendo franchise because HAL has a bit of autonomy over it, or IntSys with Fire Emblem.. or Bandai NAMCO/Skip with Chibi-Robo (lol)..

Pokémon is the one that usually goes a bit further with games on PC, mobile, even without the Nintendo publishing, but copyright still remains.. heck, even the SEGA Pico games has Nintendo mentioned;

And for the Star Wars comparison, is what I originally meant, that the brand reached places where Disney wasn't in control over, but the fact, at the end of the day, is that they do own (even if technically more than Nintendo owns Pokémon), so I don't think makes much of a difference if we are talking about Luke Skywalker or ... I dunno... Snow White?;

The very first Pokémon movie was a big deal, as you all know, and Nintendo proudly presented their logo at the start as well;

 

[N 2 Deep]

I consider Pokemon its own standalone IP

It is and always will be Metroid

 

[AngryAlchemist]

OK, sure.. but I don't think anyone makes less of Kirby of a Nintendo franchise because HAL has a bit of autonomy over it, or IntSys with Fire Emblem.. or Bandai NAMCO/Skip with Chibi-Robo (lol)..

Alright, but no one is really picking those options. For a lot of the exact same reasons.

The rest of what you said I don't disagree with, but it's sort of an aside that from the argument you were making, which doesn't work for Pokemon like it works for Star Wars. Again, we're talking about ownership from your "monetary" perspective. I know that Nintendo essentially owns Pokemon, even if they don't own all of it.

Personally I'll always associate Nintendo with Pokemon, even if I recognize the brand is bigger than just being a Nintendo series, and even if a lot of the parts of my childhood with Pokemon ironically weren't very Nintendo-centric. But I don't think it's weird that people wouldn't think it qualifies because it's bigger than Nintendo in terms of ownership.

 

[AtomicZach]

I honestly wanted to add Xenoblade and Star Fox to the survey, but thought "nobody would respond with those questions now..."

I should have known better.

Funnily enough, if you were to ask me "Name the Big 3 of Nintendo" I would have gone with Kirby, Pokemon, and Star Fox.

Also, Kirby, another franchise where it's status on the BIg 3 could be argued. Especially given how hugely popular the dude is outside its games. That dude sells like candy.

 

[Djehuty]

It would be interesting to see what the age demographics are for the listed poll options. As a kid whose first system was the N64 and experienced the Pokemania phase first hand, the answer to me pretty clearly feels like Mario, Zelda, and Pokémon. Whereas I imagine a lot of the Metroid voters had their formulative gaming experiences during the NES or SNES eras.

I didn’t even grow up with it but most people saying Metroid proabably played the GameCube games considering how much better they sold.

 

[Djehuty]

Funnily enough, if you were to ask me "Name the Big 3 of Nintendo" I would have gone with Kirby, Pokemon, and Star Fox.

Also, Kirby, another franchise where it's status on the BIg 3 could be argued. Especially given how hugely popular the dude is outside its games. That dude sells like candy.

That’s also an ingesting metric, while his games aren’t popular (relatively) he’s probabaly the most iconic character after Mario and pikachu. Form what I’ve see it’s similar to Sanrio, people don’t know where he came from or what he does but he’s their profile picture and they have 12 plushies of him and main him in smash.

 

[Serif]

 

[Mr Doggo]

the most based thing one could ever do

 

[Raccoon]

Mario, Zelda, and the Holy Spirit

 

[Nintenbro]

while his games aren’t popular

what are you talking about? Kirby's most recent game sold over 6 million copies?

 

[Raysu Delight]

I feel this is more a question of which era of Nintendo you grew up with for most people. If you grew up in the SNES or even the Gamecube/GBA era, without question Mario, Zelda & Metroid were the 3 top tier games Nintendo made for those systems.

Any other era and it'd be hard to include Metroid with Mario & Zelda, but it's easy to see why people often do despite its low sales figures.

 

[Rampo360]

Metroid.
Pokemon is its own thing.