Mario has a little trouble being the same story from many points of view, given that some of the major characters in the story change. Still, if you ignore King Koopa becoming Donkey Kong or Bowser or Wario every once in a while, it’s the same basic game, just with different levels and special abilities.

That said, I think your basic premise is also a little harsh. You don’t have to think about the Mario-verse as a continuous timeline where the princess gets captured several hundred times and Mario rescues her each time. You can think of it as several retellings of the same tale with better graphics and expanded game universe. Nintendo clearly thinks that way. Why would they jeopardize their cash cow by drastically changing the overall premise of the franchize?

Nice man.. that is it!!

Or slight variation on that, same scenario, but she can’t come rescue Mario cause he told the bitch to stay in the kitchen.

As many a prequel has shown, a back-filled story often contradicts and/or wholly renounces the original storyline, as if it was originally intended to be oblique. So Wikipedia be damned!! She had a plan all along! His unwitting participation in her shenaniganry makes him a tool. If he knowingly participated, he’s a fucking idiot… unless he was getting royalties from Nintendo, which is highly suspect, and supremely doubtful, but then I’d have to say good job playa’!! We all played along anyway so maybe we are all as guilty as he… I never got any royalty checks… I’d probably have bought a SuperNES if I had..

it’s kind of pedantic of me to mention, but in this game, that familiar character wasn’t yet named Mario, but was in fact Jumpman, and he is rescuing either “lady” or Pauline, not the princess he rescues in later series.

So yes, “Mario” is seriously enabling the Princesses’ abduction-rescue fetish, but neither of those characters are in this game.

Aargh! Thank you wikipedia for turning me into a jerk!

@Tyger42: True.