@Stolid,

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!

@Stolid: I know! I hate those little douches that drop by to tell you how you are “wrong” and then felt compelled to do the exact same thing! Seriously, I read that wiki entry on a nostalgia dive less than a month ago or I’d never’ve known that (touching on the other great pedantry meme “an ignorant is someone who doesn’t know what I just learned”).

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?

@Stolid:
Of course. I didn’t expect you were being that serious about something so trivial. Still, video game continuity is, if not something to be taken seriously, at least worth a forum discussion on a time-waster website.

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.