• 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.

Has Odyssey been the SM64 successor fans of the game have been waiting for?

ajim

Member
I love odyssey. But I definitely prefer the more deliberate and specific approach to obtaining stars in m64 than in odyssey.

A lot of silly moons just floating around everywhere.

I also found more value in doing things like collecting all red coins etc than the purple ones.

Amazing game tho
 

ubiblu

Member
64 is in a different league. 15 full, real worlds

Wow, that's some nostalgia glasses if I ever saw it. Mario 64 worlds felt massive as a 10 year old, but by modern standards they were absolutely tiny.

I'm finding it really difficult to have a mature, thoughtful discussion about the merits of Mario 64 vs Odyssey because the playing fields are so uneven and utterly biased.

I don't think anyone doubts Odyssey failing to live up to the genre-defining nature of Mario 64 in terms of graphics, exploration, platforming, length, and cultural impact; that's never going to be outdone in a world of diminishing technological returns. Even BotW can't reach those heights despite near-universal acclaim.
 
I still feel super mario 64 is the best 3d platformer because its just so epic.

Odyssey has a lot of great ideas, but still comes across as a bunch of mini games like the galaxy and 3d world/ land games.

I think i need to replay super mario 64!
 

Haganeren

Member
Not at all. Odyssey is far too random and has tons of filler. 64 is much more tight, cohesive design. It's a good stepping stone... I trust Odyssey 2 would be a huge improvement, just like 3D World was a massive leap over Land.

Galaxy was kind of the other way around for me though... They knocked it out of the park on their first try where the sequel, while still good, kind of left something to be desired.

Wow, that's actually exactly my opinon !

I don't see how can you improve that much on Odyssey without changing mechanics , i expect a harder sequel, and more inventive cappy captures.

Plus 3D World was coming from 3DS to Wii U, its gonna be comparable to Super Mario Galaxy and Galaxy 2

No no, the philosophy changed with the Wii U since it supports multiplayers. It tends to make a plateformer blender to my tateste but not this time. The camera makes it easier to see what's ahead and simply how much the environnement is more memorable. The plateforming ideas are far less basic (thanks, infiltration goomba cap) but on the other hand,t hey play less with the camera. (well those top down "Zelda-like" levels were only two.. and the only levels i remember despite playing it entirely not too long ago)

So no, it's not "just" power,t hey just had way better idea in the sequel for me.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Sunshine seems to be experiencing a renaissance over the last couple years in people's minds, like it's a sort of Majora's Mask of the mainline Marios.

Its controls are just so bad I struggle to understand this. Odyssey from the word go is so buttery smooth with its 60fps response that to me it's simply more fun to play in every way.

Tons of players enjoy DOOM on Switch, an FPS, at 30 Hz with proper motion blur (object and camera based)... maybe, like Mario 64 and Sunshine plenty playable at that framerate, SMO could have tried to wow people graphically even more at 30 FPS instead of all the optimisation and graphical smart hacks they did to keep framerate up?
 
Probably. It depends on what you value from Mario 64 but it'd be hard to be disappointed with Odyssey if you're a fan of it or even haven't played it in a long while.

I do think the two games are quite different from one another however, and personally I prefer Mario 64's more variable physics and platforming (Mario's momentum changes a lot more and it's harder to predict where he'll go without a lot of experience with the controls and terrain) and long-form star challenges where you're expected to explore the entire level each time.

But Odyssey's newer approach - which provides quick thrills in the context of exploring an entire level - is completely valid as well. And overall I think Odyssey is better at encouraging all types of players to master it, even if 64 is 'purer' as a game (i.e. there aren't an abundance of rewards littered about each level to encourage exploration)
 
I'd also like to hear some more elaboration on Odyssey being a Banjo spiritual successor. No skepticism or doubt here; I grew up on the Banjo games and I believe I prefer their emphasis on open-world exploration and "everything and the kitchen sink" gameplay over the no-nonsense, laser-guided focus on platforming of the linear 3D Marios. On a superficial level I know the obvious similarities (Capturing being akin to transforming, for instance) but not much else. I'm currently eyeing Odyssey but don't want to watch too much footage so I can keep the experience fresh if/when I do get it.
So far it's either a drive by reply searching to instigate and maybe also satisfy inner Banjo's die hards desire to keep the series relevant or a set of very superfical similarities that have been rebutted. i mean there's a post in the very 1st page of the thread that adressed the comparisons yet some insist in considering Odyssey Banjo inspired without anything of merit added to the debate.

"Capturing being akin to transforming". Does the people making the comparisons have a decent historical grasp of power ups and items through out the series?

The 85 Mario side scroller back in the day made a hughe deal of the character taking a Mushroom and transforming into SUPER Mario. Mario 3 had the Suits, this transformed the character apperance and gave him a set of new abilities to help traverse and explore the levels, we even see nods to them in Odyssey (Frog, Hammer/Fire Bros, Tanuki). Land (and 3 to some extent) had vehicles. Mario 64 had the ability Caps (Metal, Vanish,flying). And so on.

The transforming/Capturing mechanics in both games are implemented in vastly different ways, this has been talked enough in the post i linked to in the first page. But the defining aspects of it in Banjo: Transformations are tyed to an specific place within a level and require an ingame currency that also acts as an extra collectible.

In reality, a lot of mechanics in Odyssey are mostly inspired by ones seen through out the Mario series of platformers and within Nintendo's own stable of games. We see some Kirby, some Metroid in Odyssey or even something unexpected like Link Between Worlds Mural mechanic getting a nod. We see this in the retro 2D sections when designers play with transitions between dimensions: from 2D to 3D and back again.
 

Cpt Lmao

Member
No sm64 is better.
Odyssey has way to much bullshit moons.
Its like the spoiled kid that alway picks the biggest boxed gift out of sheer greed.

Sm64 is like a nice meal.
Not a mc d binge.

Yeah man, like that one in 64 where you ground pound a pole three times and get a Star, or when you go down a slide and get a Star, or when you throw an overweight old man with a moustache three times and get a Star.

64 is when gaming was truly at its best.
 
Yeah man, like that one in 64 where you ground pound a pole three times and get a Star, or when you go down a slide and get a Star, or when you throw an overweight old man with a moustache three times and get a Star.

64 is when gaming was truly at its best.

That's not really a fair comparison.

64's Stars may well have been hidden behind simple objectives, like "Beat the Bully" or "red coins on the mushrooms". But that single line of text was the only hint you had to go on before setting out to explore the level. And the way that you could go about getting those stars was far more creative than the goal itself. Even today I never tire of grabbing the red coins in Tall Tall Mountain or traversing tick tock clock, or bringing back the penguin to its mother.

Odyssey has lots of great Moons, but it's obvious a lot of them are put in there as rewards to make players feel good about themselves and keep exploring, rather than as the result of a longer challenge or goal.

Indeed, these are the kinds of Moons that upon grabbing, you're either going to forget entirely about them or you wouldn't want to nab them again. And that's fine. But to compare these Moons with the bulk of the stars that make up 64's challenges misses the differences between the two games.
 
Far from that. I'm currently close to 500 moons and it's more of a chore than me having fun. Not to misinterpret that, I *am* having fun. But not nearly as much as I had expected prior to release.

My two main gripes are:
1.) The way moons are handed to the player evokes an impression of 'this game was made for the youtube-twitch generation' within me. There are hardly any moons that you have to put in any effort to get them, no thinking, and consequently no sense of wonder. Barely goes a minute by without attaining another moon. That's probably great for those gamers with a short attention span and less ambition. But it lowers my own enjoyment when finding moons turns into busy work rather than creative challenge.

2.) Kinda following from the above: the lack of elaborate platforming. My favorite parts in Mario64 were figuring out just how to reach a specific place. And then executing an idea. Odyssey is about running towards the correct spot and that's it. Yes, there are a bunch of challenging moons, but those, too, as far as I've experienced them, create their challenge from time pressure, attacking enemies or one hit-deaths rather than from challenging platforming.

Odyssey is a good game no doubt, but it it fails to offer something fresh. That's why I find comparisons to BotW a bit perplexing whenever those arise in the context of goty debates or whatever: BotW is a truly revolutionary experience that will see many imitators for years to come, and for good reason. Odyssey, meanwhile, is the Mario-game the Wii U should have received. That's why I'm more excited for the next Mario-game, as that should be the one to reinvent the franchise (which is necessary imo).
 

J4K

Member
Tons of players enjoy DOOM on Switch, an FPS, at 30 Hz with proper motion blur (object and camera based)... maybe, like Mario 64 and Sunshine plenty playable at that framerate, SMO could have tried to wow people graphically even more at 30 FPS instead of all the optimisation and graphical smart hacks they did to keep framerate up?

I didn't say 30 fps necessarily always means bad gameplay. I love BOTW, after all.

But if you're honestly saying you weren't happy with Odyssey's graphics, and would have traded 60 fps for more bling, I don't think we're going to agree on very many things.
 

Stouffers

Banned
I love Mario Odyssey, but the way you collect moons through experimenting with the environment reminded me A LOT of Luigi's Mansion.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
I didn't say 30 fps necessarily always means bad gameplay. I love BOTW, after all.

But if you're honestly saying you weren't happy with Odyssey's graphics, and would have traded 60 fps for more bling, I don't think we're going to agree on very many things.

Lol, I like Odyssey a lot and I am happy with its graphics, but you show very little appreciation for Nintendo’s talent if more than doubling the frame time would have just gotten you a bit more bling. We are comparing a game vs an idea and for all we know Nintendo, if they imposed a 30 FPS target on themselves, could deliver something surprising and transformative.
 

J4K

Member
Lol, I like Odyssey a lot and I am happy with its graphics, but you show very little appreciation for Nintendo's talent if more than doubling the frame time would have just gotten you a bit more bling. We are comparing a game vs an idea and for all we know Nintendo, if they imposed a 30 FPS target on themselves, could deliver something surprising and transformative.

Part of the reason I'm more than satisfied with 60 fps is already an appreciation for Nintendo's talent. I'm sure they evaluated what they could do at 60 fps vs what they could do at 30 fps and found they could meet their design goals while delivering the optimum response time.

I trust their process to deliver the best result, and I believe they succeeded at that with Odyssey. You're the one doubting the design decision they made.

(I'm actually even surprised we're having this conversation, honestly. Thought it was pretty well accepted in these times that if you can get 60 fps out of game and still deliver on your vision... you damn well do it.)
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Part of the reason I'm more than satisfied with 60 fps is already an appreciation for Nintendo's talent. I'm sure they evaluated what they could do at 60 fps vs what they could do at 30 fps and found they could meet their design goals while delivering the optimum response time.

I trust their process to deliver the best result, and I believe they succeeded at that with Odyssey. You're the one doubting the design decision they made.

(I'm actually even surprised we're having this conversation, honestly. Thought it was pretty well accepted in these times that if you can get 60 fps out of game and still deliver on your vision... you damn well do it.)

Hypotheticals can be fun too :). I think that the decision to go with 60 FPS came without saying, long ago they switched Mario to 60 FPS and they are not looking back and their audience would not be as keen with it as they are accepting DOOM ported down from Xbox One and PS4.
 

CD'S BAR

Member
Really liked what I played of it, but it feels like its own game, which I appreciate. I don't think they wanted to make a successor to Mario 64 with this one.
 

ehead

Member
I've been hit hard by nostalgia after reaching
Mushroom Kingdom
; it made me wish we had more of that. Alas, I came to accept that this is not what should be done, Nintendo knows better. Remembering my reaction on the first scene alone, and using Cappy in different ways are enough to agree that this is the proper evolution of 3D Mario.
 

L Corleone

Neo Member
I prefer the scarcity of stars in 64 to the abundance of moons in SMO, each star is an achievement whereas moons almost just felt like mandatory 'collectibles'

World hub gave 64 a great fleshed out feeling, such a small and pretty irrelevant feature which had such a big impact on the feel and atmosphere of the game, SMO would've felt a lot better with one imo even if it was just for nostalgias sake (which is likely a huge part of most peoples opinions when making this comparison)
 

tassletine

Member
Can't tell if they go nuts because they're fanboys or they're going nuts because the game looks like a good platforming game.

People went nuts for that absolute garbage Zelda trailer. I still have no idea why.



There's a ton of platforming, but there's a whole lot of other things from what they wanted me to see in that trailer. Taking control of tanks, enemies, riding around on a scooter, starting with some stupid t-rex opening. How can I think that it's a game that harkens back to the Mario 64 days?

Take away all those unnecessary clutter, then they might have a shot at being called the Mario 64 successor.

Don't let them fool you. There's some good platforming, but that's not the focus of the game. I've spent more time trying to figure out where moons are, than platforming.

The levels usually follow the simple formula of introducing you to an easy to understand mechanic, then hitting you with one actual challenge during the platforming level. This makes for some plain level design, because you always tend to die only during that one challenge, with the rest of the level being pretty easy. There are almost no levels that keep you continuously on your toes, like past Mario's. And when those levels do appear, you're likely to just give up because they are tough and stick out like a sore thumb.

The game designers have clearly gone with the idea that showing you new things, or presenting you with new concepts is now a substitute for gameplay. That's not to say the game doesn't have great gameplay, it does, but this game prioritises the ideas ahead of any actual platforming. You'll spend more time trying to find things and figure things out, than any platforming, especially towards the end game.
 

Shifty

Member

King Bob-omb

320
 

ape2man

Member
i dont get Mario Odysseus, like design wise its all over the place. realistic people, a big realistic dino, then some design island. Its like every small team got free reign on a mario area and after that they just put everything together.

game done and finished
 

Wamb0wneD

Member
Can't tell if they go nuts because they're fanboys or they're going nuts because the game looks like a good platforming game.

People went nuts for that absolute garbage Zelda trailer. I still have no idea why.



There's a ton of platforming, but there's a whole lot of other things from what they wanted me to see in that trailer. Taking control of tanks, enemies, riding around on a scooter, starting with some stupid t-rex opening. How can I think that it's a game that harkens back to the Mario 64 days?

Take away all those unnecessary clutter, then they might have a shot at being called the Mario 64 successor.
"Clutter" lmao. Those are actually interesting gameplay mechanics, with hundreds and hundreds of different scenarios, lots of them including platforming. And lol @ Mario 64 being a pure platformer. Except when you're under water, or when you're in Bob-Omb Battlefield and barely have to jump at all to progress, etc.

I never get people talking about a game they didn't even play.
 

Aztorian

Member
SMO was alot of fun but SM64 just hasn't been beaten by any SM game yet. I loved SMS and I really like Odyssey too, but idk man.. For some reason I like SM64 more than any other entry after that.
 
Top Bottom