Players embark on an epic journey to restore order as Cursa, a mysterious and malevolent entity, twists the planets with its evil influence.

Mixing turn-based tactics and real time action, Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope’s innovative combat system will have players use their Heroes to dash at enemies, team jump on allies, hide behind covers, or take advantage of their special abilities in order to get the most out of every turn. With its innovative gameplay, Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope will be a fun tactical adventure for new players and experts of the genre alike.

We recently sat down for a chat with Xavier Manzanares, the lead producer on Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. The following interview has been edited for clarity.

WorthPlaying: There are lots of players who are familiar with Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, but for those who are new to the series or just hearing about it, can you summarize the concept of Mario and Rabbids? How did the idea of bringing these two disparate franchises together come about? And how did you convince Nintendo this was a good idea?

Xavier Manzanares: I remember very dearly the first meetings we did in 2014. First of all, we're big, big fans of Mario and Nintendo franchises, as players and as devs. We were thinking about the ways we could bring something surprising to the table. If it's just a concept that exists already, it's not going to be accepted. We were working at Ubisoft, so we said, "Hey the Rabbids, they've been there for some time. We have a vision of what the Rabbids could be, a bit different from, maybe what we did in the past. So what about we put them together?"

So the first concept, first ideas, were just this relationship between the two. We had one Rabbid looking like Mario and said, "Hey, this is funny. This could be cool, but we need something a bit more. I mean, we need something, a concept." So we started to work around turn-based elements, saying maybe this could be interesting to see, etc., and then we came up with the tactics and tactical gameplay. We love games like XCOM, for instance. So we said, "Hey, what about we do this? This could be a surprise and at least we tried to do something different." So we went and discussed it with Mr. Miyamoto, Nintendo, the whole team.

I think it was unexpected, but when they saw what we did with Mario, and the Rabbids, and the graphics, but also the gameplay, they said, "So OK, they're serious about that," and that's it. That's when we started to work on prototypes, pre-production, and then production. It was all about getting trust. This was 2014-15 and then the new concept now, while it's this tactical adventure game that we're trying to do here, a mix between exploration and combat. We think it's a smart system for those who have never played tactics. It's smart to do those choices, and at the same time it's fun, and this time, we even added more action because we felt it was great to change up with that.

WP: You mention tactics and tactical games. XCOM is one of them. Final Fantasy Tactics was obviously something for those who grew up on PlayStation, but as a genre, it's not as big as it used to be. How are you introducing the concepts of tactics games to players who maybe have never seen them before, or even never seen them?

XM: We were big fans originally of those concepts. Instead of having turns and then making a decision on the battlefield, we thought, "Hey, this is smart, this is fun." When you make good decisions, you have great rewards. So what about we go and we go full-on?

Then we started to see a difference between trying to do like other games were doing, in Kingdom Battle we tried to do our own stuff, but it was based on a lot of learnings we got from other games. For Sparks of Hope, we said, "Hey, if we want to go in a direction like removing the grid and cursor, maybe other games are not really doing this, but now it's fine. We want to go and do this bet, to see what it brings on the table."

So, I would say that for those who have never played those kind of games, it's about giving you the liberty to make those decisions during your turn, without being stressed. And at the same time, then when it's the enemy's turn, to see how your strategy evolves and how the choices you made have done. That's why we think that's super interesting. Again, if it's a way for players to then play other tactical games from the past, or in the near future, I don't know the new games that will be out, that's awesome as well because it becomes like this community of tactical games, and we think that would be just amazing.

WP: For those who did play Kingdom Battle, what improvements and new features can they expect to see in Sparks of Hope? What makes this more of a step up versus just more levels?

XM: It was an early decision. I remember in 2018, we finished Donkey Kong Adventures and the first discussion was, "Should we do a Kingdom Battle 2? Some evolution from what we did in the past? Or should we go in a different direction, but keeping the same elements that made the series?" We decided to go in a different direction.

Removing, for example, the grid and the cursor makes things more approachable. It's less scary. If you look at the screenshot, and never played those kinds of games, maybe you'd be more attracted when you see these kind of screenshots. At the same time, it's just a different system. It's not an evolution. It's just a different direction that we decided to take. Overall, I think all the decisions we've made so far, the combat, the exploration, even the Sparks. Sparks are a fusion. Yeah, it's really funny itself, but for the battles, it's all about having more options, active and passive bonuses.

The Sparks could be an option in the menu, but we decided to have characters represent those bonuses. This is very approachable for any players. I think for that reason, many things we did in Sparks of Hope are more approachable than what we did in the past. That was the goal, from the very beginning when we started the project.

WP: You mentioned the Sparks, being a new character, and characters are something that very much stands out with the Rabbids. I don't think I've seen many characters that have exuded that quality, that smartass personality, but there's just something about them that screams fun. From a design standpoint, what is it that makes Rabbid DNA? And how have you conveyed that to the new cast, with the new Sparks?

XM: So I think it's a mix of the Rabbids being the Rabbids. Meaning, they do whatever they want. And in the past, I guess with the party games or what they were with Rayman, was all about being those stupid creatures, having their fun, and we never know what exactly they're doing and what they will do. And I guess when we started to work on the series, we said, "OK, this is fun, but we need to go in the direction where it's a bit more subtle."

If it's always jokes and stuff, it's going to be redundant. As it's a big adventure, many hours and many hours, talking about like a party game, it needs to be physically amusing for players as well. So that's when we start to mold things a little bit differently. The Rabbids themselves being what they are for sure, but then also having their own personalities based on the archetype they have in the game. Also it needs to be fitting with Mario. Nintendo was really interested to know, "Hey, what are those creatures and what will they say to Mario and do with Mario?" So we had to work a lot on who they are so that Nintendo could understand where we were going with those heroes.

For example, Edge is a new character. It took a lot of time because from a design, visual design perspective, but also game design perspective, Rabbids are a bit crazy. Every time we do an archetype, the Rabbid needs to have some sort of a crazy mess in their skill tree or somewhere in their skills, so that people say, "OK, that's a Rabbid character. It's not like Luigi, it's very different." So it's a lot of work. Bowser is a different story. I mean, the Rabbids and like Edge is all about giving this feeling, at the same time as being some of the characters, interesting.

WP: I don't know if they're inspired by them or not, but the Rabbids feel similar to the Minions, in terms of their freedom. I was curious if you've heard that comparison before and what you think of it.

XM: I would say they're quite different. What we decided to do on the production side when we started Kingdom Battle was to say, "OK? What are the Rabbids for us? We do not care about anything else, not even what they were exactly in the party games, in the past, in our own games." For us, it was more important to have characters that players can like and that they find interesting. They have their own personalities, rather than being something similar or not to something else. So my point of view, my personal point of view, I don't really care about comparisons. I mean, whatever people say or do connections with is fine for us. We worked a lot on making them our own so that they fit the concept of a tactical game.

WP: New game, new concept, new worlds. What kind of design freedom did that give you? Or was it more of a design challenge? How do you approach that, as a developer? What goes through your mind?

XM: A lot, because Nintendo is part of the team. So Nintendo wants to see everything we discuss with them, everything, including the worlds. So we have to be good on the way we present. Those new planets for example, they want to know the story as we develop them. We took what we did in Kingdom Battle and said maybe first we won't go in the same direction. We need to find differences, but at the same time if we have, I don't know a place that is snowy, it's fine, even if we had some snowy places in the first game, as long as it fits the narrative.

We started with the narration, the story with Cursa and then we said, "Hey, it's the galaxy! So planets. Oh, planets could be interesting." If Cursa is trying to steal the energy, it could be like storylines we found in other games like Okami, where you really have this difference between when you enter, and then you change your world, making the world different.

We thought, "Hey, this is really interesting to see what you do in terms of a quest." It changes what the planets are. So we started to think about what would be the bad side of the planet, when we solve issues, what would be the good side? What is interesting, from the side-quests, main quests, and then we went on.

The first planet, Beacon Beach, is very sunny, but it's not at the beginning. It's rainy, then it becomes sunny. The quests evolve and you go underground. What is underground? What if it's raining and you see the raindrops? When it's sunny, the feeling should be different. If you go back to that planet, because you can go back if you get new skills, and explore, well, you should see it as a different planet than the one you did at first. A lot of thought went into what each plant is, in terms of biome.

WP: Are we going to see any Easter eggs, tucked in there? References to other Nintendo or Ubisoft games hidden in the background?

XM: Yeah, it's funny because Easter eggs are Easter eggs, but we also need to validate those with Nintendo and making sure if we do them, we do them well. If there's a reference, it should be for a reason. It should be linked to the experience of the game itself. It shouldn't be random. So we do have some Easter eggs. Yes.

WP: The Rabbids have their core fans but there's a large segment of players out there who just look at it and say, "Oh, Mario, Rabbids, looks like a cute kids game." What would you say to those players to get them to realize there is a solid tactics game underneath driving this franchise? Don't judge a book by its cover. It's family friendly, but it's not necessarily a kid's game.

XM: I would say exactly that. I think for Sparks of Hope for example, we put a lot of effort into making the game even more attractive. Whoever you are, if you've never played, yes, give it a chance. I think that's where the tactical gameplay is quite interesting. We took a lot of years, first of all years, not just a year or two. It took more than four years to create. So, a lot of effort in terms of design and how it should be interesting, how the rhythm should be.

Give it a chance because really, there's a lot of thought, in terms of the core loop, not just the game itself. The core loop. Macro loop, micro loop, a lot of effort there. Also, I think, in terms of the choices made by removing the grid, the cursor, and making it more action-oriented makes the game more approachable in terms of the experience you get in 15 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour.

That's where I think the game really shines. Between players who want to just spend a few minutes because they only have a few minutes, and those who want to go deeper, taking maybe a few-hours-long gameplay session. Because it's a Switch game we had to adapt to that "15 minutes" element depending on where you play. I think we've put in a lot of effort, visually and gameplay-wise, but also to be more subtle with the humor, to be more approachable, and not polarizing.

WP: One bit you just touched on there, the time required for a play session. I originally started gaming in grade school, through high school and college, then post-college and suddenly you're working. Those 12-hour, all-night gaming sessions aren't quite as feasible as they once were. As a developer, is it more challenging to design something that's targeting two- to three-hour gameplay sessions, or is it more of a challenge to make something that can be played in 15-minute chunks? "Hey, I've got a lunch break or I've got time between chores. I'm going to play this for 15 to 20 minutes, then go to bed"?

XM: It's a very good question because it was one of the first discussions we had on Kingdom Battle with Nintendo and the devs. If we take it from the Switch angle, it's a console where you can play on your lap, maybe 15 minutes in a train or Metro, or you can play on TV and maybe for a few hours. How can we design a game that fits this?

With Kingdom Battle, that's why we had, let's say corridors. Exploration, combat, exploration, combat, because we calculated everything. Like if you do one battle, it should be less than 10 minutes. If you do two battles, it could be 15 to 25 minutes and then we designed whole worlds like that.

In Sparks of Hope, it's way more open, so it could be a big challenge to have this rhythm. But then we decided to add quests, side-quests, roaming enemies. Not just big enemies waiting for you. That's when we started to see, OK, this is the way the player is going to spend this time. If he only has 15 minutes he could go for a roaming enemy or do a side-quest and then that's it, the session is over. But if he wants to go on, he's going to do more side-quests, leveling up some stuff in the skill tree, then go to the main quest, and then maybe go to the next planet, come back to the first planet, etc., etc.

We kept that philosophy from the first game throughout the design of Sparks of Hope in order to be able to fit these moments. All players have different ways to play. That was really important for us.

WP: If there's anything that we haven't talked about that you wanted to add, feel free to expand on that now because we are running close on time.

XM: Back to your question on, "What can you say about the naysayers or people who didn't play yet and they are hesitating." Understand that the devs are those players from the '80s and '90s that played all those games. We're hardcore fans from all the tactical games, JRPGs, RPGs, and personally MMOs as well. We are players first, and if we put more than four years into the project with Nintendo, and the challenge that it is to create such games, and with Mario, etc., it's because we believe in it and we believe that it can become an experience that is interesting for anybody. Yeah. That's the answer I would give.

WP: Thanks a lot for your time. We really appreciate it.