Mario RPG legend of the seven stars character inquiry

[RemyC]

So i was talking with my cousin, and we both had the revelation: none of the original characters in this game are heard from...ever again. They dont even get trophies in any of the smash bros games.
I find it awkward for a Mario game to do this. the Mario series is normally huge on recycling characters and throwing them into their racing, sporting, partying games. Then with Smash Bros where the trophies you collect come from obscure titles across the nintendo history....but noone from Legend of the Seven stars.
Anybody have any insight on this?

[Ack]

Yeah, I do. Square partially owns the rights, so Nintendo isn't legally able to use those characters for anything, even as trophies in Smash Bros., without their permission. And what with Nintendo and Square's relationship over the years...yeah.

[MrPopo]

Clearly we need Mario RPG 2: Now with more Mallow.

[ZeroAX]

and geno. man I hate it that they broke up. yeah square rpgs on the psone are good but there was no reason for them to have bad relations. they are supposed to be grown up businessmen. not small children having a school yard fight

[Ack]

Well, if you ever play Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga for the GBA, you can get a Geno doll at one point, though the end credits feature this line: "Regardless of the above-mentioned, the copyright of Character "Geno", reserved by SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD."

Keep in mind that at the time Square decided to stop working with Nintendo, there were quite a few other companies that had decided on the same thing. Nintendo's policies and actions in the '90s pissed off quite a few people.

[RemyC]

This whole feud thing is new to me. What happened?

[Ack]

Official reason? Cartridge format. Limited texture formats, difficulty to program for, poor quality memory system.

Then there was the censorship Nintendo tended towards, as well as licensing that they controlled. For instance, Nintendo only allowed five games per company per year, controlled the number of cartridges a company could produce, banned licensees from releasing the same game for another console until two years had passed, required licensees to order a minimum number of carts(even if they couldn't afford it)...

Here's a nice little paragraph: Konami wished to produce more games for Nintendo systems yet the last rule restricted them. As a result, Konami formed both Ultra Games and later on Palcom in order to produce many more of games.[14] This was a disadvantage to smaller or beginning companies, as they could not form additional companies at will. Also, Square (now Square Enix) executives have suggested that the price of publishing games on the Nintendo 64 along with the degree of censorship and control Nintendo enforced over its games — most notably Final Fantasy VI — were factors in moving its games to Sony's PlayStation console.

Plus, as the console transitions occurred, Nintendo would drop some titles from production, driving some game manufacturers to look elsewhere for help.

I think I should also mention that many of these companies went to Sony because they actively competed with Sega on the arcade scene, especially in Namco's case at the time. Hence why the Saturn didn't get much love.

[RemyC]

Wow. Nintendo runs a tight ship. Geez.

[fastbilly1]

Give me more Geno.

[MrPopo]

Wow. Nintendo runs a tight ship. Geez.

It was almost necessary, considering the mess that things were in during the Atari era. The original measures were a tad on the draconian side, but the whole "Nintendo Seal of Approval" did help ensure that we got at least halfway decent content on the system.