PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING:

This video was in the workings ever since July, and has taken up to now due to various life problems getting into the way. I thought it would be a great idea to upload it on the date of the 9/14 Direct, but the announcement of the TTYD Remake only throws a massive wrench into this entire video.

We don't know if remakes are an exception to the "mandates" or if there even around anymore, but it is clear there was an IP Team for Intelligent Systems since Color Splash. I hope the mandates are completely gone now for Intelligent Systems, thank you for understanding and please watch with an open mind.

TL;DR : I was making this since July, didn't know TTYD Remake would be announced and that complicates everything in this video. Thanks for understand, and I'm sorry.

I think the real question is, why does Nintendo hate Toadsworth

You know what I think what might have caused the entire “Mario mandate” thing? IP problems. Super Mario RPG was in licensing hell for a while, which is probably why a lot of Mario games ended up feeling “bland and stale”. They didn’t want to lose any IP rights, so decided to stick with what they knew they had the rights for. But with all these new games and remakes coming out, it seems like Nintendo is getting very confident with their licensing and feel confident enough to allow remakes of their more “controversial” games and letting their developers to take more risks with art styles, ideas, stories, et cetera.

I believe that the mandates do (or did) exist because the late 2000 trough the early 2010s feel way too safe and monotoness to have been just a coincidence between all teams working on all Mario games at once, I don't think they were as prominent as we think since stuff like Mario & Luigi Dream Team exists, but it was really noticeable that something went wrong around that era

The mario mandates exists or at least existed at some point after Super Paper Mario. Theres some leak in resetera years ago about how Miyamoto and other devs in nintendo thought second parties were getting too distant from mario in the spin-offs so a IP team was created to supervise it. not sure if its as hard as before but it was certainly a process that existed between 3ds/wii u era and early switch development

Hoping that the remakes of Super Mario RPG and TTYD (alongside Super Mario Bros Wonder) are a success and prove that gamers prefer more creativity in Mario

the only hypothetical thing I can think of with the mandates is that there less of a mandate but more like a guideline intended to keep things under the mario umbrella somewhat consistant to prevent mario from ending up becoming too chaotic and inconsistant. But some games like the modern paper mario ended up taking these guidelines too far with keeping things consistant that they refuse to even use pre existing characters and races for some weird reason. If these mandates were ironclad then something like odyssey or Wonders, or more specifically the mario/rabbids series wouldnt even be allowed to exist at all (Mario/rabbids makes even less sense as if a team in ubisoft can make more liberties than intelligent systems a close 2nd party studio then theres something up with intelligent systems).

I feel that trying too hard have "brand recognition" in Mario goes against the series's identity as whimsical and fun. A lot of games in the 3DS and Wii U era felt like stuff we already got before, if not even worse, and that's on top of series either disappearing (M&L near the end of it) or going on gigantic hiatuses (such as Strikers).

It's a bit TOO easy for the higherups at Nintendo to think that "maybe second party devs are going too far", but imo that's a pitfall they should be actively avoiding; going crazy with characters, worlds, and narratives is fun (both for the devs and for the players), and "fun" is at the root of the Mario series design.
Rosalina's backstory felt written by a child in the most pure and wholesome way, Super Paper Mario's plot is literally a Romeo & Juliet inspired fanfiction, Strikers used to go all out with the gritty and crude aesthetic in everything from character animations to even their stage choices. Hell, Super Princess Peach was intentionally a cute little game with some cleverly-hidden innuendos, and *that's fun*.
That's why it stung when we got things like New Soup 2/U or the "NPC design downgrade" M&L remakes, regardless of whether there's an IP team at fault or not. It takes away that joyous whimsy of discovery that comes with them being Mario games to just say "you wanted more so here's more!". (And if the game sucks on top of it, like Sticker Star, then that's even *worse*)

tl;dr no, even the casuals would still find Mario incredibly fun and charming even if you went wild. Odyssey, Luigi's Mansion 3, and now Mario Bros Wonder and the two remakes of beloved RPGs should be proof of that through how much positivity and good PR they garnered on their own)

22:13 “so am I wrong about all of this? OF COURSE”

that made me laugh way more than it should have

I'm currently taking Media Studies and I admire the amount of research and lack of bias used for this video.

Personally, as someone who likely helped normalize the term "mandates," I was just going along with how those breakdown/timeline charts worded it. I felt like those shed light on a lot of interesting stuff and it inspired me to make my own video on it a couple years ago. However, the biggest thing I've learned since then is that the mandates aren't a cut and dry "either they exist or they don't."

Instead, I believe it's a spectrum, and brand recognition is the root of it. I personally am not satisfied with any reality where Toads can't be varied to the degree they were in TTYD or Mario Party Advance, and I think any fear of that "sinking the Mario Brand" is incredibly irrational. There was nothing wrong with the Mario brand in the 2000s. That's the era I grew up in, and I was very into Mario. Moreso than I would've been if it was as sanitized as it was in the 2010s imo.

I don't think original characters in the vein of Antasma or the BFFs are disallowed nowadays, but if they originated in an RPG I do think there is some clause internally that says they aren't on the table for being added to say, a Mario Kart roster (which sadly has existed as long as Mario RPGs have, I really wish it would be lifted soon). I definitely do think something IS actively keeping Toadsworth from making new (non-remake) appearances, as well as other Toads with varying features like hair, body shape, or even gender outside Toadette (who herself in my opinion got lucky by being an established Mario Kart veteran by the time they tightened things, so she slipped through the cracks or they deemed her popular/relevant enough to be granted an exception). And thusly I think that there is still work to be done. There was no reason for Toadsworth to be turned into a "this was blatantly Toadsworth in early drafts" other than brand pettiness. And yes, in that case I do prefer calling it "brand pettiness" over "brand recognition." The movie managed to have FOREMAN SPIKE in it, but Toadsworth is where they draw the line?

20:28 There was no need for that Luigi 😭

Conclusion:
The mandates are real, but not anymore. Ever since shady workings (Super Paper Mario, Galaxy 2, Mario strikers) were created, Nintendo wanted to make sure that they would NEVER make something way too beyond Mario scale, so they created mandates. The mandates make sure that the devs of Intelligent Systems can't modify existing characters, only create VARIANTS. However, Ubisoft, Alpha dream, and Camelot (idk spelling) can make variants, modify existing characters, and make new ones. The mandates have existed from Mario Galaxy 2 to Mario odyssey, when Nintendo became more casual with mandates. Now the mandates don't really exist anymore(my opinion), and any dev can make variants and modifications with Nintendo's permission.

As far as I heard, the mandates really hit the paper Mario series because of Super Paper Mario. But then, it's an art-deco platformer with a rather dark story that barely involves the core cast instead of the rock-solid RPGs that had been released under the name before then. A radical departure like that would obviously provoke a response.

fantastic video, as usual, and props on all the research/work behind this one!

I miss Koopa Kid... 💔

Good conclusion! When you come down to just the solid facts and remove everything that's just speculation, you're left with something that's pretty difficult to refute. I long to see the day where we can have new Mario characters like the TTYD partners again.

Honestly the biggest problem with modern Paper Mario isn’t the lack of original characters or the lackluster story. Those things suck, but the biggest problem is the genre change from classic rpg to a puzzle adventure with some rpg elements. If origami king had a traditional turn based battle system and a leveling system, it would have been 100 times better.

The 'mandates' (could be a better term to use due to our lack of insight) stem from fans' frustration with Nintendo, exactly for what you pointed out as brand recognition. Mario's mainline villains are Bowser (+ Bowser Jr. & Koopalings), Wario, Waluigi, King Boo, Petey Piranha... and not much else. Having a unique big bad is a breath of fresh air and elevates the kind of story that can be told. Not that it's a big deal anymore. Nintendo bringing back Super Mario RPG and TTYD is sign enough that they want to reassess how well the new generation of players respond 'non-Mario series' characters in Mario games.

In my opinion remakes aren't exceptions to the mandates because Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga and Bowser's Inside Story still got sanitized in some areas and I believe Nintendo allowed them to preserve some original characters and designs but not all of them, I doubt it was laziness from Alphadream, it was their Last Stand before bankruptcy. I believe the Mandates were officially dead now and the last game affected by it being Mario Party Superstars in 2021.