We often think of the narrative of Mario Mandates as basically 2000s Mario had some crazy shit in it, the Wii was a massive success and so Nintendo could became very conservative with the property.But I had an idea, what if a contributing factor to the Mario Mandates was NoA impositions upon Mario? In the 2000s we got angry mario, often had stern faces, with more masculine poses for boxarts and promo materials. The minimal appearance of angry Mario within actual games at the time makes me think this was an idea from NoA, could it be that part of the Mario mandate was Japan basically getting control over NoA's interference with the aesthetics of the brand?I think it make a lot of sense, the success of the N64 in America and it's failure in Japan would of moved power towards NoA, and then you have the Gamecube which semi flopped in both and you can see how NoA would of gained influence enough to push stuff like this on the Mario brand. The success of the Wii then allowed NoJ to basically bitchslap NoA into place on Miyamoto's baby.I really hope one day we get leaks of internal discussion on the mandate, was it mario party 8, super paper mario or partners in time which upset the company? It's interesting to think about
LOOK HOW PISSED HE IS
