veritassin
Banned
Maybe they ought to put it to rest for awhile and come up with something new...bwahahaha what am I talking about?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What's next for 3D Mario?
- Thread starter CurseoftheGods
- Start date
I know I am super late to this thread, but I would metaphorically give my left nut for a full sequel to SM64. Why did they never do this
They did, it is called super Mario sunshine.
terrisus
Member
Sure - if you were going down a pipe every 15 steps.
what the hell is this some kind of strategy game?
You access a level once per level/life.
You fling yourself between rocks far more often than that.
Supermanisdead
Member
Maintenance
Member
A Mario Mushroom Kingdom with a huge world to explore, no time limits (maybe time limits in some puzzles, like some castles inside the Kingdom), like 64 but bigger, better. With Luigi and Yoshi unlockable as New Game+ incentives.
TheXfactor
Member
this guy
"platforming"
Deputy Moonman
Member
Pfft I beg to differ. Sunshine was centered around that gimmicky water pack. Aside from having mario in it, it might has well have been the spiritual prequel to splattoon. Saying sunshine was the sequel to mario 64 is like saying galaxy was the sequel to mario 64 - completely different games imo.
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
what the hell is this some kind of strategy game?
This is just the world map. You move a little Mario around over those numbered squares, and select one to start a level. You can't pass one until you beat it though.
The game is Super Mario Bros. 3. It was regarded as one of the better Mario games, and dates from the NES era. If you want to play it, I think it is available on Nintendo's eShop.
tiggerkiddo
Member
That they need to give the franchise as a whole, a few years off and develop other series.
Captain Europe
Member
It always gets a few years off.
Saying Sunshine is a sequel to Mario 64 is like saying Galaxy 2 is a sequel to Galaxy.
MisterGrey3000
Member
Oh come on now, they had the exact same level design, objective design, mission structure, and player mechanics.
I get if some of you guys don't like the game (That's perfectly fine), but it is SM64's spiritual successor in almost every way; adding in a water pack doesn't mean much especially when all it did was replace 64's long jump most of the time.
Like...if sunshine had the exact same theme, but only 4 Banjo-Tooie sized stages where the player has to collect 25 stars in each level (The stars are hidden plain sight all you have to do is navigate the playground) under a 3 day time limit I'd see where some of you 64-lovers are coming from.
terrisus
Member
Saying Sunshine is a sequel to Mario 64 is like saying Actraiser 2 is a sequel to Actraiser.
Like...if sunshine had the exact same theme, but only 4 Banjo-Tooie sized stages where the player has to collect 25 stars in each level (The stars are hidden plain sight all you have to do is navigate the playground) under a 3 day time limit I'd see where some of you 64-lovers are coming from.
Yeah, I don't like Majora's Mask either.
Captain Europe
Member
The only difference(gameplay wise) is F.L.U.D.D.
But they didn't have the exact any of those things. That's the problem.
SM64 has a certain size level, with a certain amount of coin collecting, and actual platforming design in every one of its stages. It has a very particular mix of traditional platforming obstacles (moving blocks, etc) and exploration.
Sunshine has things-to-jump-on level design. They didn't design any actual obstacles. It's an astounding misunderstanding of their own game design. We have the geniuses at Rare to thank for this.
The very first thing you do in Mario 64 is run past chain chomps, bomb-bombs, over a tilting bridge, past rolling cannon balls, and face a boss.
The very first thing you do in Sunshine is clean goddamn paint!
Sunshine stays in line with Mario 64 because it keeps the type of hub area and level structure it had. It also kept Mario's varied move sets unlike the later games, so I would say it was a sequel to Mario 64 and tried its best to expand on what it did. Only difference was F.L.U.D.D.
I can agree with this. The actual levels in Mario 64 were good but the obstacle course on the way to Bowser and such were bad. Sunshine is just the opposite. Sunshine went too far with its size which I find to be weird as that's constantly requested for in Mario 64 sequel. It was really not a good idea to do that.
terrisus
Member
To be fair - the first thing you do in Mario 64 is run around outside of a castle, climbing in trees, swimming through the moat, etc., before entering the castle, exploring the initial area, finding an open door, and jumping through a painting.
I could spend all day just running around outside the castle <3
Also, these "Mario Sunshine is basically just Mario 64 with a waterpack" posts are making me sad inside =(
Gotdatmoney
Member
Hopefully something like Galaxy or 3D World. Please no 64 or Sunshine. I didn't find those games fun at all. My least favourite Mario platformers.
Despite my critiques it's still one of my favorite 3D Mario games, don't worry <3. I actually really love Sunshine.
NipplesAndToes23
Member
They need , something new again, but honestly I can't see where they can go from here.
terrisus
Member
That's true. And who can resist. Still the best hub world ever
Yea I don't get it. I wish all those Mario 64 clones were, you know, actually clones. Instead we've got the great Banjo Kazooie systematically eliminating everything that was fun about Mario 64 and adding in a million and one things to collect. One of the puzzle pieces in the first real level is just sitting there on the ground. It's just sitting there. You merely have to walk to that part of the level, mosey on over there, and pick it up. 'Project Dream' they called it. Good grief.
Then, EAD follows Rare down the primrose path to self destruction. Unbelievable
Edit: said note originally, meant puzzle piece
ShironRedshift
Member
No. Sunshine was structured around its story through and through--Shadow Mario, a Mario impostor, was on the loose in Delfino Harbor framing Mario for things you didn't do and you had to stop him. Since the game focused around this story at its core, you have to beat the Shadow Mario level in each world before the final world, Corona Mountain, will open up and you can beat the game. And because of the way the missions are structured, you can only access the Shadow Mario missions after you've beaten the preceding missions. Meaning each time you play through the game, you have to play through those exact same ~50 Shines. You can change which order you tackle each world and go back and forth a bit, but you have to get those Shines each time you beat the game.Oh come on now, they had the exact same level design, objective design, mission structure, and player mechanics.
I get if some of you guys don't like the game (That's perfectly fine), but it is SM64's spiritual successor in almost every way; adding in a water pack doesn't mean much especially when all it did was replace 64's long jump most of the time.
Like...if sunshine had the exact same theme, but only 4 Banjo-Tooie sized stages where the player has to collect 25 stars in each level (The stars are hidden plain sight all you have to do is navigate the playground) under a 3 day time limit I'd see where some of you 64-lovers are coming from.
64, on the other hand, didn't revolve around it's story so much. You were there to defeat Bowser and save Peach as usual, and there was no secondary villain or any other objective. All you needed to do to beat the game was collect 70 Power Stars, and that's it. The game doesn't care which 70 Power Stars those are--as long as you have 70 (and access to the upper floors), the game will open the door to the Bowser in the Sky level and you're all good. Of course, at first, you pretty much have to go after a few stars in places like Bob-omb Battlefield, but after that, the game's your oyster. You don't want to bother with TTC and RR at all? You don't have to and can easily get 70 without ever setting foot into them. Or on you next playthrough, you end up not really feeling much like dealing with Wet Dry World? No problem, don't need its Power Stars anyway. Snowman's Land? Same deal. That's completely different from the way Sunshine is structured, which forces you to visit all of its main worlds and collect the same Shines each and every time. Nevermind skipping entire worlds, their's no skipping missions in that game either.
On top of this, Sunshine is also of course designed around FLUDD and giving the player access to water to refill it. As such, the game is entirely designed around the setting of Isle Delfino and lacks vastly in the diversity of the levels compared to 64. 64 has all your typical level design tropes--water (JRB/DDD), fire (LLL), desert (SSL), ice (CCM/SML), mountain (TTM), ghost house (BBH), etc. Sunshine on the other hand was pretty much island... and more island: an island harbor, and island hotel, an island resort, an island beach, an island hotel, etc. Of course, I'm overplaying it a little here, true, but the point is the amount of variety in the worlds is much lower compared to 64 and the most they really mixed it up in Sunshine was the final world, Corona Mountain, which was disappointing since it was just a few easily timed jumps, propelling a boat forward, and then you were at the final boss--it doesn't even compare to LLL, which was hardly a large level itself (this is something that I definitely admit people blow up about 64--the levels are tiny in that game) and had some pretty pathetic Power Stars itself (8 Red Coins, reusing the Bully idea a few times in the same level).
If anything's a 64 sequel, I'd say it would be the first Galaxy, for giving the player simple freedom over choosing missions as they had in 64 (and in fact, increasing it, as in Galaxy you only have to get 60 Power Stars to access the final battle, as compared to 64's 70) and once again had a large diversity in the settings of the different worlds (granted, it's all in space, but the individual worlds themselves had the same amount of diversity between them as the worlds in 64). Granted, their aren't as many missions in each world in Galaxy as there are in the 64 worlds, but at least to me, factors like player agency and diversity in the themes of the levels matter more in matching the spirit of 64, since those were the type of things that really made me enjoy 64 (and Galaxy) so much in the first place and their absence really lessened my enjoyment of Sunshine.
But I recognize that my opinion may not exactly be the norm on this issue and I'm fine with that much. My main point is that there definitely are huge differences between 64 and Sunshine and while at the same time they certainly do share a lot in common, I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with actually calling Sunshine 64's spiritual successor due to that, especially with how rigid Sunshine is with its requirements for accessing Corona Mountain (beat all Shadow Mario levels and the preceding missions needed to access them) compared to 64's for Bowser in the Sky (70 Power Stars, beat Bowser in Bowser in the Dark World and Bowser in the Fire Sea). That makes a tremendous difference (or at least it did for me) since I could skip up to 50 Power Stars no problem in 64 if I didn't like them, but if, say, I absolutely abhorred the FLUDD-less levels in Sunshine (minority opinion, yeah, I know, but I just couldn't stand the things), it doesn't matter at all, and I have to beat them eventually each time I want to beat the game. Galaxy just seems much closer to maintaining that kinda spirit and it's no surprise that I tremendously enjoyed it, but not Sunshine as much.
I'm sorry if that doesn't really make much sense or anything, but yeah, those are definitely differences between them which significantly affected how much I enjoyed either of them and perhaps its just my own biases and preferences or whatever, but all the same, it's due to that that I really do just kinda hesitate to actually call Sunshine a spiritual successor to 64.
Loving the debate that's going on in here. There's merits to each of the 3D Mario games. Personally, I'd rather EAD do whatever they hell they want. If it's a kickback to Mario 64, I think it'd be better off with a different character or maybe a totally new one. With a different name other than Mario X, the ratio of platforming : exploration could be changed since it wouldn't be bound to the expectations of that series. That way we still get a game with 64-style mission structure/hub/exploration and a separate new 3D Mario. Get a group of younger devs to cut their teeth on something like this with supervision from a vet or 2. First priority would be to completely overhaul the 64 moveset into something that is actually good and the expand it. Maybe make the character have the ability to walk on any surface at any time. That throws a whole new dimension on the level designs. My vote is for P.P. Tom the Newt. The charming new character that can walk up the side of buildings to steal glances inside windows, to watch you being naughty.
Captain Europe
Member
That's true. And who can resist. Still the best hub world ever
Yea I don't get it. I wish all those Mario 64 clones were, you know, actually clones. Instead we've got the great Banjo Kazooie systematically eliminating everything that was fun about Mario 64 and adding in a million and one things to collect. One of the puzzle pieces in the first real level is just sitting there on the ground. It's just sitting there. You merely have to walk to that part of the level, mosey on over there, and pick it up. 'Project Dream' they called it. Good grief.
Then, EAD follows Rare down the primrose path to self destruction. Unbelievable
Edit: said note originally, meant puzzle piece
It was just a puzzle piece to show you how to open levels, you are looking way too into it lol.
Captain Europe
Member
MisterGrey3000
Member
SM64 had smaller stages because they were working with the N64; I'm sure if they made SM64 on the NGC the courses would be way bigger.
Sunshine also has plenty of traditional platforming obstacles in it's action-adventure style worlds, but both of those games lack any sort of complex and tightly designed platforming outside of the linear levels they forced the player to complete ("Bowser In The____" in the case of SM64 and the secret fluddless courses in the case of Sunshine)
I appreciate all the time and effort you put into your post, but it could basically be summed up with "SM64 has a few optional courses and is a little more free form in it's overall design than Sunshine is."
Your points really don't discredit the idea that the two games share major similarities, and that Sunshine is SM64's spiritual sequel.
Really? I felt like 64's levels (outside of the Bowser ones) had very little platforming challenge in them. Most of the platforming was really basic, I assume because players back then were new to running around in a 3D space and they didn't want to challenge them too much. Most of the objectives were based around exploring the levels, not overcoming obstacles.
Galaxy felt like the first real 3D Mario platformer to me. The levels were linear and they focused on platforming challenge rather than exploration. They continued this design in 3D Land and 3D World so I think this type of 3D Mario is here to stay.
I've been spending way too much time watching Sunshine videos lately, and it really seems to have very little in the way of typical obstacles in the main stages. I mean something like Lethal Lava Land has platforms that sink, spin, tilt and move. If you happen to find something that's not moving, odds are you're about to be burned by a flame thrower, or knocked into the lava by the little bullies. It's got a boss, a collapsing bridge, a rolling tree trunk, and then a bunch more stuff inside the Volcano.
I'm not saying it's the equal of Galaxy's scenarios, but at least they bothered to design something. Sunshine seems totally barren to me. One of the beach levels has almost no environmental features. It's got a small wall and some trees. 6 years in between games and one of seven levels they came up with is an empty beach. Of course, then the hotel shows up, and the level with nothing manages to get even worse.
Captain Europe
Member
My beef with open world platformers is that you have to platform over the same area over and over again, just with a slightly different goal.
In Bomb-omb Battlefield you have to climb up the mountain to beat King Bomb-omb first. Then you race the Koopa Troopa by climbing up to mountain... then you collect 8 red coins by climbing up the mountain. I'd much rather have a few linear levels that are totally different over that.
Edit: This wasn't as much of a problem in BK, yet another reason why it's the better game.
In Bomb-omb Battlefield you have to climb up the mountain to beat King Bomb-omb first. Then you race the Koopa Troopa by climbing up to mountain... then you collect 8 red coins by climbing up the mountain. I'd much rather have a few linear levels that are totally different over that.
Edit: This wasn't as much of a problem in BK, yet another reason why it's the better game.
I think something like Whomp's Fortress has a very nice mix of different elements. It's got a 'spine' of platforming running up through the center of the stage, and even adds a little buoy base type tower and spinning platforms at the very top on the stars after the Whomp King. I like the two hidden stars (in the wall, and the one on the little platform on the cannon side of the stage). The red coins make sure you don't take the easy way out and force you to deal with the platforming in the beginning.
I think it has enough platforming to be viable, at least for me. Something like Tall Tall Mountain is more modest, but you get cannonballs, tree trunks, a couple balance beams, that cloud guy, and some aggressive enemies. Nothing that's gonna set the world on fire today, but I think they can incorporate better scenarios into the open world concept.
CaptainGyro
Banned
openworld 3D superpapermariokartmakersmashbros
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
A return to the semi-open nature of Super Mario 64 is long overdue. Galaxy had wonderful moments but at other times felt like Sonic Adventure (jump off this spring...er, star-thing and watch Mario run fast...er, fly through space for 6 seconds).
Nintendo tried to blend 2D and 3D Mario in 3D World, which worked to a certain extent, but I want that exploration and mystery from SM64 brought back.
I'll just come out and say it: Mario has been just as much about exploration as it's been about platforming mechanics. Consider how you could run on the top of the map in SMB and use vines to reach the sky. SMB2 allowed you to enter doors, go down into vases, go into the Alternate Dimension, climb vines, etc. SM3 was all over the place and there were tons of secrets hidden in areas beyond the "main" screen view.
I can somewhat relate to those who enjoy Mario's solid platforming mechanics. Those are really good and I like them. But Mario's exploration has been neutered. Bring it back.
Nintendo tried to blend 2D and 3D Mario in 3D World, which worked to a certain extent, but I want that exploration and mystery from SM64 brought back.
I'll just come out and say it: Mario has been just as much about exploration as it's been about platforming mechanics. Consider how you could run on the top of the map in SMB and use vines to reach the sky. SMB2 allowed you to enter doors, go down into vases, go into the Alternate Dimension, climb vines, etc. SM3 was all over the place and there were tons of secrets hidden in areas beyond the "main" screen view.
I can somewhat relate to those who enjoy Mario's solid platforming mechanics. Those are really good and I like them. But Mario's exploration has been neutered. Bring it back.
MisterGrey3000
Member
fixed
Captain Europe
Member
What? Sonic Adventure and Mario Galaxy are NOTHING alike lol.
terrisus
Member
This is a very good post. While I feel there's even more to it than this, this does a very good job of outlaying many of the major differences between the games. And, with so many differences, it should come as no surprise that someone could love Mario 64, and not care for Sunshine, and as a result want a game which is more like Mario 64 again, as Sunshine did not meet what they were expecting.
The fact that there's a post replying to this still basically saying "Sunshine is the sequel to Mario 64 with minor differences" as if that tosses aside all of the good points of this post, and reasons that someone may have loved Mario 64 and been disappointed with Sunshine and want a game more similar to Mario 64, just boggles my mind.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
I said sometings it feels like Sonic Adventure. Instead of pure platforming (one of the things people praise Galaxy for, it seems) there are plenty of parts when you're just hitting a spring (or in Galaxy's case, one of those star hoola-hoops) and zooming to the next spot with no skill involved. In other cases, you're flying through space "touring" the level. How's that any different than when Sonic would be all "gotta go FAST" and hit those loop-de-loops and basically show off for 20 seconds while the player was simply holding Down on the control stick?
Captain Europe
Member
Sunshine has some differences, but it has more similarities. I feel most people just hate F.L.U.D.D and the tropical theme of it. Other than that, it really follows the same design.
None of those lasted for 20 seconds. They're much more comparable to the green pipes, except just a flashier version.
None of those lasted for 20 seconds. They're much more comparable to the green pipes, except just a flashier version.
NipplesAndToes23
Member
Can you elaborate; also why is that in spoilers? It spoils nothing.
Mario 64 was genre defining, so much of what followed in Banjo & Kazooie (Fantastic game) and other 3D games came directly from lessons that were taught to people by Mario 64. There are many games that I love and many Mario games that I love but for me there isn't another game anywhere that works as a whole in the way that Mario 64 does.
For me there's never been as good a match as Mario 64 and the N64 controller as were a single entity and worked perfectly together. I wasn't a fan of the N64 controller but there was no separating it from this game.
Should add that I'm a major fan of the 3D Mario games, probably controversial but for me Mario has always played better in 3D where as Zelda always played better in the 2D games for me.