List of controversies

The following list consists of details regarding all major controversies relating to the Mario series. This article contains information which may be objective to personal views. As such, reader discretion is advised.

Satanism
An issue arose over the English translation of WarioWare: Touched, specifically regarding Ashley's Song. In WarioWare: Touched, the Turntable souvenir allows various themes from the game to be listened to with similar functions to a record player, which includes the ability to speed up and slow down the music using the touch screen. However, if the record 'Ashley's Song' is spun fast enough with the stylus, it causes the game to skip over large chunks of dialogue in the song and distort the lyrics. A concern was raised with the first solo of the song, which is sung by Ashley herself. When distorted, the first solo is misheard as the statement "I have granted kids to hell." The syllables marked in bold indicate what is heard when the record is spun at a high speed.

Eye of newt I cast a hex on you! Grandma's wig, this will make you big! Kitten spit, soon your pants won't fit! Pantalones giganticus! Oh no, not again.

These words form the sentence "Eye of grand this kitt soo pan", which can be misinterpreted as "I have granted kids to hell." Nintendo and Nintendo Power have both stated that it was simply a coincidence and that the words were distorted due to the game meshing pieces of the song together.

Mario Kills Tanooki
After the release of Super Mario 3D Land, The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) created a website entitled "Mario Kills Tanooki" along with an accompanying Flash game to promote their anti-fur campaign with regard to the live skinning of raccoon dogs or tanukis. The site implied that Super Mario 3D Land was promoting the use of animal furs as clothing by allowing Mario to use the Tanooki Suit as a power-up, despite the fact that power-up originated from Super Mario Bros. 3 back in 1988.

The game, entitled "Super Tanooki Skin 2D", stars the character of Tanooki, a skinless animal who is chasing Mario to get his skin back. The game has the player dodge obstacles in order to catch up to Mario, who is wearing his skin and flying ahead of Tanooki. When the player wins the game a message pops up, stating "The skin belongs to an animal!"

This resulted in strong backlash from Nintendo, who released a statement concerning the issue: "Mario often takes the appearance of certain animals and objects in his games.

These have included a frog, a penguin, a balloon and even a metallic version of himself. These lighthearted and whimsical transformations give Mario different abilities and make his games fun to play.

The different forms that Mario takes make no statement beyond the games themselves."

A spokesperson from PETA later claimed that their allegations were "tongue-in-cheek" and "a fun way to call attention to a serious issue, that raccoon dogs are skinned alive for their fur." Over 250 thousand people played "Super Tanooki Skin 2D" within the first 36 hours of being uploaded. The website is still active as of 2024-August-27.

Racism
The game Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic includes an item with a similar appearance to a Blackface head (called the "Big Face") which can be plucked from tufts of grass to throw at enemies. When thrown, the Big Face slides along the ground until it hits a wall, bulldozing any enemies in its path. To avoid any racial implications that would have hindered the release of Super Mario Bros. 2 in America, the item was re-tooled as a Red Shell (due to the similar behavior when thrown) and renamed the "Turtle Shell".

Mario Party 8
The launch of Mario Party 8 in the United Kingdom was plagued by difficulties. Originally scheduled for release on June 22, 2007, Nintendo announced on June 19, 2007 that the UK version of the game had been delayed to July 13, 2007 due to a production issue.

Furthermore, upon the release on July 13, 2007, the game was immediately recalled. Nintendo gave a reason for the withdrawal in a press release: "[Mario Party 8] was launched in the UK today. Unfortunately we have discovered that a small number of games contain the wrong version of the disk due to an assembly error. We have therefore decided to recall all copies of the game from UK retailers so that this mistake can be corrected. We will re-launch Mario Party 8 in the UK as soon as possible and will announce a new launch date shortly. We very much regret any inconvenience caused." The European retailer GAME confirmed, that the game was withdrawn from shelves because some copies included an offensive line as part of a magic spell used by a Magikoopa in the board Shy Guy's Perplex Express): "'Magikoopa Magic! Turn the train spastic! Make this ticket tragic!'" Due to "spastic" being considered a highly offensive word in the United Kingdom, the game was declared banned and immediately recalled. Mario Party 8 was eventually re-released in the United Kingdom on 3rd August 2007, with the offensive statement altered. Copies without the word "spastic" use the word "erratic" instead.

Universal Studios
Approximately nine months after the original Donkey Kong game was marketed in 1981, Universal Studios sued Nintendo and their production companies alleging that the Donkey Kong name, character and story were similar to that of the character King Kong (the rights to produce another King Kong film had been recently won by Universal in 1976).

After seeing the success of Donkey Kong in Japan, Universal attempted to enter the gaming industry by producing a video game with Tiger Productions that starred King Kong and featured similar game play. However, in 1981, Nintendo exported Donkey Kong to the west where it became famous, sold 60,000 arcade units and earned Nintendo $180 million in profit (from both arcade systems and console ports). This prompted Universal to terminate all contracts with Tiger and threaten to sue Nintendo and various producers of Donkey Kong-related material because [their] "actions falsely suggest to the public that [its] product originates with or is authorized, sponsored or approved by the owner of the King Kong name, character and story."

Coleco and Atari, the producers of the game's cartridge and Atari 5200 port promptly settled and offered to pay three percent of all profits made from the game and its production. Nintendo, however, refused to settle. On June 29, 1982, Universal officially sued Nintendo. In 1983, Universal ordered 'cease and desist' letters to all of Nintendo's licencees, ordering that the companies stop production and obtain licences from Universal before resuming. Nintendo later agreed to appear in court and was represented by John Kirby, whereas Universal Studios opted to be represented by a New York law firm. The trial lasted for one week, and was overseen by Judge Robert Sweet.

During the trial, Universal alleged that based on surveys of amusement arcades (conducted by Universal itself), at least eighteen percent of people believed that Donkey Kong was related to King Kong. Universal believed that the similar appearance and the use of the secondary name 'Kong' was the basis for the confusion. Among other claims, Universal also protested that the game's similar story was a direct infringement of the movie's plot.

Nintendo debunked these claims by vouching that Universal had won the rights to produce a sequel by claiming that the 'King Kong' series was in the public domain and that the likelihood of confusing Donkey Kong with King Kong was low. Nintendo had also discovered the attempt by Tiger and Universal to create a King Kong video game, and claimed that it was an infringement on Donkey Kong.

The district court ruled in favor of Nintendo, indicating that Universal did not own the King Kong franchise, and that the two franchises were hardly similar. Judge Sweet stated that the cease and desist letters sent by Universal allowed Nintendo to receive compensation, and that Tiger's King Kong video game was a direct infringement of Donkey Kong. Nintendo opted to receive compensation, and was awarded $1.8 million dollars.

New Super Mario Bros. Wii piracy
Before the official release of New Super Mario Bros. Wii on November 12, James Burt, a 24-year old Australian gamer, purchased a copy from a local game retailer that had sold the game early on November 6. Before playing the game, Burt uploaded it to a file-sharing network so that other Australians could also play the game before the official release. Upon discovery of this action, Nintendo sued Burt, claiming that the distribution of the game was a direct copyright infringement, and pushed to receive compensation for the loss of revenue. "Upon the game being uploaded to the Internet, Nintendo was able to employ the use of sophisticated technological forensics to identify the individual responsible for illegally copying the file and making it available for further distribution On 23 November, 2009, Nintendo obtained a Federal Court search order in respect of the individual's residential premises. This led to the seizure of property from those premises in order to gain further evidence against the individual." On February 9, 2010, the federal court ruled in favor of Nintendo of Australia and ordered Burt to pay out a total of $1.5 million AUS dollars to Nintendo as compensation, as the hack was claimed to have been downloaded at least 50 thousand times before being removed. After the case, Burt advised others not to 'do what he did', stating that "It's something I'm going to have to work through for the rest of my life."