Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

If you didn't have any responsibilities as a child (which I find hard to believe), you are just remembering a time in your life when you had nothing to better to do than play games all day. That doesn't have anything to do with being a child, only your dissatisfaction with your current life. You might as well be 50 and be looking back at your 30's where everything was swell and no worries.

my current life is pretty amazing. It's just distinct and in no way similar the my life as a child.

 

[beelzebozo]

it's possible to appreciate a game in a wholly different but equally strong way as when you were a child. you just appreciate it in a more intellectual way sometimes, e.g., beginning to understand aspects of level design and art from a conceptual angle which you would not have otherwise noticed as a kid.

 

[robor]

Squeak, stop playing the game, you're never going to win.

 

[TestOfTide]

Sorry, I don't keep a diary when playing a game but I remember on several occasions being very vexed by the camera not being able to swing around for some arbitrary nontechnical reason. If not for any other reason than that it would be nice to be able see and admire all of the level from a given point.
There were several occasions of having to jump into the camera, crossing my fingers. Never so in 64.

Name 1 instance where you had to jump "into the camera" in galaxy in which you were given no way of moving the camera.

The reason your entire argument is retarded is because in the cases where Galaxy needed your beloved 64 controls, you were given THE SAME FUCKING CAMERA CONTROL OPTIONS AS SM64. In parts where there was no camera control, there was no need. But if you were really that obsessed with looking around. there was first person view even in parts where you couldn't (and frankly didn't need to) control the camera.

I could ask you the same thing. Was there ever anywhere in 64 where your progress was truly impeded by the completely free moving camera.
I never ever understood why people took it as a personal insult that they had to adjust the camera. It's part of the game FFS! You have to turn your head in real life too. It's only the slightest flick of your thumb.

1) You can't control the camera and jump at the same time, which is why it's better to have the game give you better camera angles already, so you can focus all of your time on the gameplay instead of dealing with a a shitty camera

2) Like I said, almost everytime I had to walk on a narrow walkway, I was forced to first go in first person, aim the camera at the direction I wanted to go, then exit it, just so I could trust that I was going to walk straight and not move to the side just enough to fall off. This is because your favorite camera controls wasn't even analog, it was a bunch of preset directions you could move latiku to.

3) I know I'm not the only one who found the bowser fights at least somewhat frustrating do to the crappy camera angles making it hard to determine what was the best time/angle to throw bowser at a bomb. It that were in galaxy, the camera would either give a nice birds eye view or given some camera angle to make it much easier to tell the distances correctly.

Having to design the levels around the camera to such a degree as in Galaxy is simply not good game design. The camera dictates how the game should look and not the other way around.

Yeah, that's what it was. It was designing the levels around the camera. I'm sure what everyone wanted, in a game where you were constantly changing gravitational orientation, is to have the camera wildly swinging in every direction instead of making the camera more consistent and steady and where you can e certain that Up on the analog stick translates to up on the screen.

How about we list the camera tricks Galaxy did that SM64's camera couldn't dream of doing:

- that nice tilt you got when going from the fire side to the ice side in freeze-flame's moon
- the smooth circle strafing around round object that made 360 mountain setups much more enjoyable
- the full camera following you from behind as you jumped and orbited around very small objects
- the camera doing a smooth, not nausea inducing, flip when you moved from one side of an object to another or for whatever other reason
- all the 2D sections, both old-school and birds-eye 2.5D

I guess you must have REALLY enjoyed Super Mario Sunshine's crappy camera as well where 1/4 of the time the player was given a blue outline of mario or whatever the fuck that game did when the camera decided to chill inside a wall, forcing the player to waste time controlling the camera instead of jumping. Or how about when that camera decided to make something as simple as pushing a boat to the other side of the lava a fucking nightmare.

 

[xir]

Behold the future.

 

[Prosper]

I just want a New New Super Mario Bros.

 

[Pre]

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money, that those people preferring Galaxy would prefer M64 if the order was reversed.
Some people just completely seem to lack insight into their own mental mechanisms. They continuously think that the last thing that made them happy is automatically the greatest in that category. The same people saying LotR trilogy is their generations StarWars when it obviously doesn't even hold a candle to the original trilogy.
It's going to be fun to see the reactions if Nintendo releases a Mario game with free roaming and free camera and maybe even Pepsi Free.
"Bububu... this was always the way it was meant to be".

Good grief, you are so full of shit. :lol

 

[Squeak]

Squeak, stop playing the game, you're never going to win.

Thank's for the friendly advice. But, what is there to win? o_0

Name 1 instance where you had to jump "into the camera" in galaxy in which you were given no way of moving the camera.

Well as I said I'm not keeping a diary of games, but I remember it happening in that first cloud galaxy and in the galaxy wit the rolling Chain Chomps among many others.

The reason your entire argument is retarded is because in the cases where Galaxy needed your beloved 64 controls, you were given THE SAME FUCKING CAMERA CONTROL OPTIONS AS SM64. In parts where there was no camera control, there was no need. But if you were really that obsessed with looking around. there was first person view even in parts where you couldn't (and frankly didn't need to) control the camera.

It did not have the same controls. There was no zooming and the camera refused to turn at the oddest of times, and also the most inopportune of times.
Fps. mode isn't a substitude in any way. It's a mode you enter and then you can't do sh't.

1) You can't control the camera and jump at the same time, which is why it's better to have the game give you better camera angles already, so you can focus all of your time on the gameplay instead of dealing with a a shitty camera

When you control the camera, you find a good time to do that. It is only half a second to press the button.
On Wii with the pointer, they could have implemented a much better control scheme by using the B trigger to move the camera, just like the globe in the Weather Channel. That would never have gotten in the way of jumping and also gotten rid of the completely useless, inconsistent and gimmicky starbit shooting feature.

2) Like I said, almost everytime I had to walk on a narrow walkway, I was forced to first go in first person, aim the camera at the direction I wanted to go, then exit it, just so I could trust that I was going to walk straight and not move to the side just enough to fall off. This is because your favorite camera controls wasn't even analog, it was a bunch of preset directions you could move latiku to.

That's the most retarded way of playing I've ever heard of :lol and totally unnecessary.

3) I know I'm not the only one who found the bowser fights at least somewhat frustrating do to the crappy camera angles making it hard to determine what was the best time/angle to throw bowser at a bomb. It that were in galaxy, the camera would either give a nice birds eye view or given some camera angle to make it much easier to tell the distances correctly.

No it wouldn't. That was the exact problem with the camera sometimes. In 64 you had the option of zooming out while you were swinging.

Yeah, that's what it was. It was designing the levels around the camera. I'm sure what everyone wanted, in a game where you were constantly changing gravitational orientation, is to have the camera wildly swinging in every direction instead of making the camera more consistent and steady and where you can e certain that Up on the analog stick translates to up on the screen.

The gravitational thing was also implemented in 64 and YI, but in a much more restrained way. The way it's used in Galaxy is pure gimmick that gets old real fast. There is no real skill or fun to be derived from gravity changing all the time, sometimes in completely unpredictable ways. Only frustration, even with the automatic camera, which agreed, in that case is rather necessary, though only a band aid on an already flawed idea, that would have been better left as special level.
Also you really can't do any other setting than space with that premise, which is very limiting.

How about we list the camera tricks Galaxy did that SM64's camera couldn't dream of doing:

- that nice tilt you got when going from the fire side to the ice side in freeze-flame's moon
- the smooth circle strafing around round object that made 360 mountain setups much more enjoyable
- the full camera following you from behind as you jumped and orbited around very small objects
- the camera doing a smooth, not nausea inducing, flip when you moved from one side of an object to another or for whatever other reason
- all the 2D sections, both old-school and birds-eye 2.5D

Auto camera was also implemented in 64. Esp. in the Bowser levels. There is nothing new about. If that is the case Pandemonium and Klonoa would have been some of the most innovative games ever. Only in 64 you could still adjust and rotate while the camera glided along on the spline.

I guess you must have REALLY enjoyed Super Mario Sunshine's crappy camera as well where 1/4 of the time the player was given a blue outline of mario or whatever the fuck that game did when the camera decided to chill inside a wall, forcing the player to waste time controlling the camera instead of jumping. Or how about when that camera decided to make something as simple as pushing a boat to the other side of the lava a fucking nightmare.

The camera in Sunshine like the rest of the game was really kind of half backed, while it controlled pretty smoothly, there was no collision detection.
The best stickcontrolled camera ever, as I already mentioned, was Wind Wakers.

 

[Lijik]

Where is the plank? Where is the owl? Where is the tower? Where is the grab ability? Where is the good music? etc.
Still, in it's borked incarnation it still has so much more fun an exploration than 95% of the rest of the Galaxy games, that it brings a tear to your eyes.

What a load of nostalgia based bullshit.
I bet if you heard the Galaxy version of the same fucking tune from Mario 64 first you'd like it better ayukyukyuk.

 

[robor]

Thank's for the friendly advice. But, what is there to win? o_0

Exactly.

 

[apana]

What a load of nostalgia based bullshit.
I bet if you heard the Galaxy version of the same fucking tune from Mario 64 first you'd like it better ayukyukyuk.

I dont know, something did feel off about the throwback galaxy and I still play Mario 64 so the problem probably isnt nostalgia.

 

[Squeak]

Squeak, I find it fascinating that you think Mario's game design should be closer to Zelda than to the 2D Marios. Up till I first played Galaxy 1, the Mario experience to me used to be SMB3. I played M64 to death, but it never was as fun to me as 2D Mario was, SMB3 especially. Main reasons being: levels have too few proper platforming compared to 2D Mario and I've never liked how Mario controls in M64; he's too heavy (I feel the same about SMB1, by the way). Galaxy 1 and 2, on the other hand, took SMB3 style of levels, adapted to 3D and doused an absurd amount of delicious crazyness on top of it. They're my perfect Mario games, focused around what truly matters in Mario games to me: fucking awesome platforming.

You could say that I see Mario games as Zelda light. Not light in the bad sense of the word. But light in that it requires less commitment and is more lighthearted and immediately accessible. Read some of the older Miyamoto interviews where he talks about the joy of exploring new spaces, secrets for the attentive and the importance of atmosphere, also with regards to Mariogames. That is the foundation Mariogames was build on, not straight action above anything else.
Mario needs to be heavier when he is in 3d, because stuff is heavier in 3d. Look at how bad classically trained animators do at first when animating with CG. All the movements are to zippy, fast and overdone, something which you need to do in 2d but looks wrong in 3d.

M64 feels truly archaic and outdated to me (and I'm not one to feel this way often about old games... hell, I fucking love the first Metroid and I played it for the first time this year). I like the more linear levels like Rainbow Ride or the Bowser levels, because they actually feel like Mario. But stuff like Dire, Dire Docks or the sand level? Sooo boring.

It's not a single bit more archaic than Ocarina, perhaps less, because it plays so well to the limitations of the hardware its running on.

Sorry for the ramble, but I found it interesting that you think exploration is the main value behind the 2D Marios, instead of straight platforming. I'd like you to elaborate on that.

What exactly do you mean by "platforming"? Jumping from platform to platform is just an action. That would be akin to saying that Zelda is a swordswinging game because that is the thing you do most.
You need an interesting environment to move about in, whether you are jumping, running or swinging a sword. M64 gives you more of that compared to Galaxy.
"Platforming" in Mario games has always been about exploring the level, even in the earliest simplest games. "What happens if I do this, or jump up here, or kill this that way?"

I'm not necessarily against Nintendo branching out and giving some new dimensions to the series. I just think they can do much better than in M64 and Sunshine when trying to focus on exploration (as evidenced by games like A Link To The Past or Metroid Prime).

Mario was never ever meant to be like Zelda, it's meant to be light and accessible. Where Zelda and Metroid takes care of the other needs.

 

[Squeak]

I dont know something did feel off about the throwback galaxy and I still play Mario 64 so the problem probably isnt nostalgia.

Exactly.
The remade music doesn't really seem to recapture the light, tight and fresh feel of the original tune. Instead it feels a big, heavy and bogged down. Almost a tiny bit bigbandish.

But that really goes for the whole of the Galaxy games. There is this slightly ominous, heavy, bombastic feeling about the games, that really doesn't suit the Mario series at all.
No doubt a missguided attempt from Nintendo to appeal to western audiences, with the "epic", "generic vapid dark" fad of late. Something they also tried with bad results in Twilight Princess
Instead they should trust their instincts and rely on that if they do the best, with the talent they have, the audience will come automatically.

You should never take focus groups at face value, especially not if you are looking at a giant focus group like NeoGaf. People don't know what they want, that is the first and most important lessen of product/art design. Give them what they don't know they want, and you'll have their loyalty.

Mario 64 feels like a crystalised vision, where everybody in the team was guided by the same magnetic field.
Galaxy on the other hand feels like a coagulation of many different random and conflicting ideas and interests.

 

[WillyFive]

Exactly.
The remade music doesn't really seem to recapture the light, tight and fresh feel of the original tune. Instead it feels a big, heavy and bogged down. Almost a tiny bit bigbandish.

But that really goes for the whole of the Galaxy games. There is this slightly ominous, heavy, bombastic feeling about the games, that really doesn't suit the Mario series at all.
No doubt a missguided attempt from Nintendo to appeal to western audiences, with the "epic", "generic vapid dark" fad of late. Something they also tried with bad results in Twilight Princess
Instead they should trust their instincts and rely on that if they do the best, with the talent they have, the audience will come automatically.

You should never take focus groups at face value, especially not if you are looking at a giant focus group like NeoGaf. People don't know what they want, that is the first and most important lessen of product/art design. Give them what they don't know they want, and you'll have their loyalty.

Mario 64 feel like a crystalised vision, where everybody in the team was guided by the same magnetic field.
Galaxy on the other hand feels like a coagulation of many different random and conflicting ideas and interests.

I'm sorry.

What.

The orchestrated versions of Mario 64's themes in Galaxy are the best versions I have ever heard. And of course, the music from Mario 64 was meant to evoke a big band sound. Just like Mario World evoked nursery rhymes and Mario Sunshine evoked Italian music.

Your interpretation of Galaxy's musical vision is misguided at best. Mario never had a set musical style, or 'crystallized vision', but instead brought out the musical qualities of the gameplay. The music for Mario 1 has a different style than that of Mario 3, and a different one of Mario World, which was different from Mario 64, which was different from Sunshine, and is different again in Galaxy, and different again in Galaxy 2.

The heavy, bombastic music nails the rhythm and excitement that should come with playing the levels they are in, such as Melty Monster Galaxy and Bowser's Galaxy Reactor.

Mario now has a wide array of musical material and styles, and that is great.

 

[Mael]

Exactly.
The remade music doesn't really seem to recapture the light, tight and fresh feel of the original tune. Instead it feels a big, heavy and bogged down. Almost a tiny bit bigbandish.

But that really goes for the whole of the Galaxy games. There is this slightly ominous, heavy, bombastic feeling about the games, that really doesn't suit the Mario series at all.
No doubt a missguided attempt from Nintendo to appeal to western audiences, with the "epic", "generic vapid dark" fad of late. Something they also tried with bad results in Twilight Princess
Instead they should trust their instincts and rely on that if they do the best, with the talent they have, the audience will come automatically.

You should never take focus groups at face value, especially not if you are looking at a giant focus group like NeoGaf. People don't know what they want, that is the first and most important lessen of product/art design. Give them what they don't know they want, and you'll have their loyalty.

Mario 64 feels like a crystalised vision, where everybody in the team was guided by the same magnetic field.
Galaxy on the other hand feels like a coagulation of many different random and conflicting ideas and interests.

If they hadn't tried that in TP, Zelda would have been dead by now.
And the reason for the space opera feel is BECAUSE it IS in space.
You can BS all you want on Galaxy but at least try to recall what was said in the Iwata asks interviews.

 

[The Technomancer]

Exactly.
The remade music doesn't really seem to recapture the light, tight and fresh feel of the original tune. Instead it feels a big, heavy and bogged down. Almost a tiny bit bigbandish.

But that really goes for the whole of the Galaxy games. There is this slightly ominous, heavy, bombastic feeling about the games, that really doesn't suit the Mario series at all.
No doubt a missguided attempt from Nintendo to appeal to western audiences, with the "epic", "generic vapid dark" fad of late. Something they also tried with bad results in Twilight Princess
Instead they should trust their instincts and rely on that if they do the best, with the talent they have, the audience will come automatically.

You should never take focus groups at face value, especially not if you are looking at a giant focus group like NeoGaf. People don't know what they want, that is the first and most important lessen of product/art design. Give them what they don't know they want, and you'll have their loyalty.

Mario 64 feels like a crystalised vision, where everybody in the team was guided by the same magnetic field.
Galaxy on the other hand feels like a coagulation of many different random and conflicting ideas and interests.

I think I feel safe in saying

....wat?

 

[Mael]

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/833/833298/super-mario-galaxy-20071107020423368.jpg[ /IMG]
[IMG]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/833/833298/super-mario-galaxy-20071107020427087.jpg[ /IMG]
[img]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/108/1080844/super-mario-galaxy-2-20100331094703469.jpg[ /img]

I think I feel safe in saying

....[b]wat?[/b][/QUOTE]

What do you expect? I mean the guy actually thinks that anything in Galaxy was coming from a focus group research :lol
There's plenty to not like in the Galaxy games (entirely because they're not as fun as their 2d cousins), but seriously even that malstrom guy on crack would have better complains.

 

[apana]

Yeah I thought Galaxy had a lot of varied environments, nothing really felt bombastic about it either. Overall I've reached the conclusion that good level design is good level design regardless of whether its linear or open world. I just want to have fun. An even bigger issue for me is who is gonna handle this series in the future. I sort of want to see Koizumi work on a new ip but is that going to be possible when his team has to make a game for both the 3DS and eventually the Wii 2?

 

[MYE]

Galaxy soundtrack complaints?

:lol

 

[beelzebozo]

god, i love mario galaxy so much. both of them. like i love my hypothetical children.

 

[TestOfTide]

When you control the camera, you find a good time to do that. It is only half a second to press the button.
On Wii with the pointer, they could have implemented a much better control scheme by using the B trigger to move the camera, just like the globe in the Weather Channel. That would never have gotten in the way of jumping and also gotten rid of the completely useless, inconsistent and gimmicky starbit shooting feature.

Elaborate. Are you saying it would be where you click and drag for left and right camera? What about the parts in galaxy where mario isn't right side up?

This isn't Mario 64 we are talking about where a two dimensional, usually single axis camera will suffice. For a game like galaxy in which the fun is being shown new ways to approach what it is to jump and what it is to fall, you need a camera that will know what is the best time for the best kind of angle, because a 3 dimensional, double axis camera can't possibly be controlled well with just a cursor.

Wind-Waker's camera system wouldn't work for half of galaxy. Plain and simple.

But at this point it's clear we disagree on what the better camera is: controllable with the player needing to control it constantly or self-dynamic ones like Galaxy, God of War, Dante's Inferno, etc.

The gravitational thing was also implemented in 64 and YI, but in a much more restrained way. The way it's used in Galaxy is pure gimmick that gets old real fast. There is no real skill or fun to be derived from gravity changing all the time, sometimes in completely unpredictable ways. Only frustration, even with the automatic camera, which agreed, in that case is rather necessary, though only a band aid on an already flawed idea, that would have been better left as special level.
Also you really can't do any other setting than space with that premise, which is very limiting.

Are you honestly suggesting that Yoshi's Island's one time use and 64's walkable steep parts were better use of mario galaxy's gravity mechanic? The gravity mechanics aren't a gimmick. They are only other logical step to significantly expanding the platformer genre. It's either that, or just coming up with new abilities, and we all know how that turned out for Sunshine.

And with that, I am done arguing with someone who would rather we keep platformers in a flat 3D.

 

[Amir0x]

Exactly.
The remade music doesn't really seem to recapture the light, tight and fresh feel of the original tune. Instead it feels a big, heavy and bogged down. Almost a tiny bit bigbandish.

But that really goes for the whole of the Galaxy games. There is this slightly ominous, heavy, bombastic feeling about the games, that really doesn't suit the Mario series at all.
No doubt a missguided attempt from Nintendo to appeal to western audiences, with the "epic", "generic vapid dark" fad of late. Something they also tried with bad results in Twilight Princess
Instead they should trust their instincts and rely on that if they do the best, with the talent they have, the audience will come automatically.

You should never take focus groups at face value, especially not if you are looking at a giant focus group like NeoGaf. People don't know what they want, that is the first and most important lessen of product/art design. Give them what they don't know they want, and you'll have their loyalty.

Mario 64 feels like a crystalised vision, where everybody in the team was guided by the same magnetic field.
Galaxy on the other hand feels like a coagulation of many different random and conflicting ideas and interests.

And yet here the Galaxy games are, the highest rated Mario games of all time, universally loved and adored among fans and non-fans alike. The most colorful, imaginative and all-around best designed of all 3D Mario games.

Seems Squeak you're the outlier. Why are you trying to act like this was a focus-tested factory made play-it-safe affair?

 

[apana]

And yet here the Galaxy games are, the highest rated Mario games of all time, universally loved and adored among fans and non-fans alike. The most colorful, imaginative and all-around best designed of all 3D Mario games.

Seems Squeak you're the outlier. Why are you trying to act like this was a focus-tested factory made play-it-safe affair?

I agree that the Mario Galaxy games are anything but safe, Nintendo really pushed themselves creatively. However I just want to point out that Mario 64 is pretty highly rated as well and gets mentioned on people's top ten videogame lists all the time. A difference of 3 or 4 points in terms of the average of review scores is not a big deal. Also its still the best selling 3D Mario game. Its an open question as to which one of the three highest rated 3D Mario games is most loved by fans and critics.

 

[Squeak]

I think I feel safe in saying

....wat?

I did say "slightly", and there are lots of exceptions to the rule. It just lacks a lot of the feeling of a Mario game to me, as vague as that sounds. Things are slightly to self important and photo realistic. And all the darkness and black holes and bizarre science fair abstract dimensions, isn't really Mario either.
It should by no means be more like Sunshine with the bumbling, almost condescending Barney the Dinosaur-esq universe. The Mario universe is a place, not between the two, but above, in a completely other direction.

If they hadn't tried that in TP, Zelda would have been dead by now.
And the reason for the space opera feel is BECAUSE it IS in space.
You can BS all you want on Galaxy but at least try to recall what was said in the Iwata asks interviews.

Well maybe Mario shouldn't be in space so much.
What did Iwata say in the interviews that counters what I say?
And Zelda would have been dead?! Well that must explain the sharp detour they are taking now. The copycat LotR + goth style didn't win them any new fans I think, at least not loyal fans. If they didn't really get whole heartedly into the style change (how could they) what does it even accomplish?

Galaxy soundtrack complaints?

:lol

It's not a bad soundtrack (there are a few stinkers though) but mostly it just doesn't suit a Mario game. One of the happy exceptions is the Yoshi theme though.

Elaborate. Are you saying it would be where you click and drag for left and right camera? What about the parts in galaxy where Mario isn't right side up?

Just like I described earlier. Mario is the at the center of an invisible sphere and the camera can zoom in and out, and even rotate if that was deemed necessary (remember the wiimote is a full 3d device).

Wind-Waker's camera system wouldn't work for half of galaxy. Plain and simple.

But, as I just said, the whole premise of ever-changing gravity is something better left to a single level for the fun of it. It quickly gets old, and it really isn't possible to get it to work completely well with the controller technology of today. Do you really want Mario to be relegated to space forever?

I'm sorry.

What.

The orchestrated versions of Mario 64's themes in Galaxy are the best versions I have ever heard. And of course, the music from Mario 64 was meant to evoke a big band sound. Just like Mario World evoked nursery rhymes and Mario Sunshine evoked Italian music.

If you call that big band you clearly don't know what that is.

Your interpretation of Galaxy's musical vision is misguided at best. Mario never had a set musical style, or 'crystallized vision', but instead brought out the musical qualities of the gameplay. The music for Mario 1 has a different style than that of Mario 3, and a different one of Mario World, which was different from Mario 64, which was different from Sunshine, and is different again in Galaxy, and different again in Galaxy 2.

The heavy, bombastic music nails the rhythm and excitement that should come with playing the levels they are in, such as Melty Monster Galaxy and Bowser's Galaxy Reactor.

Mario now has a wide array of musical material and styles, and that is great.

Mario and his universe need to be pretty sharply defined to be interesting and have value. Otherwise it'll just be and empty shell with a name on, that you can pour anything into and call it a Mario game.
Mario as I see it exists in a universe of advanced whimsy, that might at first look naive, but on further inspection is still naive/childish but done with a grown-ups intelligence and sense of archetypes and aesthetics. It has a certain tightness, freshness and springiness to it that is completely its own.
Mario himself is a hybrid of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton-esq clown mixed with a little coy boy mixed with an Italian plumper.

Both of those aspects I feel, are countered by a lot of the art and music in the Galaxy games.
Sure, most of it is good and rather beautiful even, but it isn't Mario. It's Mario as a teenage American or European of today would have designed him.

And yet here the Galaxy games are, the highest rated Mario games of all time, universally loved and adored among fans and non-fans alike. The most colorful, imaginative and all-around best designed of all 3D Mario games.

Seems Squeak you're the outlier. Why are you trying to act like this was a focus-tested factory made play-it-safe affair?

Hey, I shouldn't have to tell an intelligent guy like you that the masses are not always right, no?! ;-)
There are plenty of examples of god-awful stuff, much worse than Galaxy, that was a hit sales wise because it appealed enough to many, but didn't satisfy anyone fully (or stuff that just appealed to the lowest common denominator).

Are you honestly suggesting that Yoshi's Island's one time use and 64's walkable steep parts were better use of mario galaxy's gravity mechanic? The gravity mechanics aren't a gimmick. They are only other logical step to significantly expanding the platformer genre. It's either that, or just coming up with new abilities, and we all know how that turned out for Sunshine.

And with that, I am done arguing with someone who would rather we keep platformers in a flat 3D.

Flat 3D? You freaking freeform flew in 64! That's more than what can be said about Galaxy. Either it was on rails or it was in the stupid hubworld.
Do you really want all Mario games to take place in space? Cos that is what you are going to get if Nintendo keeps that gameplay mechanic. There is no other setting where it works.

 

[KevinCow]

Galaxy soundtrack complaints?

:lol

Well Galaxy 2 had some pretty bad music.

 

[Rafaelcsa]

You could say that I see Mario games as Zelda light. Not light in the bad sense of the word. But light in that it requires less commitment and is more lighthearted and immediately accessible. Read some of the older Miyamoto interviews where he talks about the joy of exploring new spaces, secrets for the attentive and the importance of atmosphere, also with regards to Mariogames. That is the foundation Mariogames was build on, not straight action above anything else.

Well, I do not see how Galaxy leaves those values behind. Exploring new spaces all the time is perhaps Galaxy's strongest point! Each level is totally different from the last one... Hell, each portion of a level is different from the last portion of the same level. The sense of discovery and awe is really something else, I can't think of many games that have all the time so many wonderful and different things to experience.

Galaxy has no secrets for the attentive? Let me ask this, have you found the little, misterious train in Toy Time Galaxy...? Exactly.

I can't think of a Mario game with more atmosphere than Galaxy, other than, possibly, Yoshi's Island. But are you really arguing that Galaxy lacks atmosphere? It may not be the type of atmosphere you are looking for, but saying it gives no importance to atmosphere is insanity.

This reeks of pure bias against Galaxy.

Mario needs to be heavier when he is in 3d, because stuff is heavier in 3d. Look at how bad classically trained animators do at first when animating with CG. All the movements are to zippy, fast and overdone, something which you need to do in 2d but looks wrong in 3d.

What does this have to do with anything? He is heavier in Galaxy than in the 2D games as well. The point is, he's not as heavy in Galaxy as he is in M64, so I feel he's much easier and more fluent to control. Many times in M64 I feel like I'm struggling to get him to go where I want him to go. That doesn't happen in Galaxy (nor Sunshine, for that matter).

This is a pure preference thing, though, and shouldn't be important to our argument. I even know many people who love Galaxy but prefer how Mario controls in M64 for some reason. It's just preference.

It's not a single bit more archaic than Ocarina, perhaps less, because it plays so well to the limitations of the hardware its running on.

Why did you bring Ocarina into this? My point about M64 feeling archaic had to do simply with the level design and the controls (and the camera as well, now that I think about it). Galaxy (and other games as well) made all of these much, much better.

What exactly do you mean by "platforming"? Jumping from platform to platform is just an action. That would be akin to saying that Zelda is a swordswinging game because that is the thing you do most.

Nope, it's not the same as swordswinging in Zelda, because that series has always been equaly split between 3 areas: exploration, puzzle-solving and, yes, combat. It's what defines the Zelda series and makes it different from all other series in gaming. Even Metroid focuses heavier in one or two of these 3 elements, depending on the game. Zelda has always kept the balance equal between the 3.

Mario, on the other hand, had always been almost one-dimensional. Miyamoto and crew don't even use the term "platformer". They call the games straight "action games". Yes, "jumping correctly" has always been the one main defining characteristic of Mario. That is, until M64 came along.

Exploration wasn't the focus until then, because, unlike Zelda, there was usually no point in going back or in replaying past levels. You wouldn't find a heart piece or an optional item. What was the point of replaying the first level of Super Mario World once you already were, say, near Bowser's Castle? Hell, before SMW you couldn't even replay already completed levels.

I do agree that the "light exploration" (as you call it) of the series increased from entry to entry. In the first SMB, you had optional pipes with coins or the warp pipes. SMB3 had more of these. In SMW the levels had multiple exits. But these things were never the main point. It's M64 and then Sunshine which took the series in a divergent path towards rerunning the same grounds multiple times, looking for colored coins. Do notice that since then, in the NSMB games and in the Galaxy games, Nintendo took the series back to its roots, back to being action-focused, and not exploration-focused. And I do believe they made the right decision. Mario is back to being as relevant as he was 20 years ago.

Mario was never ever meant to be like Zelda, it's meant to be light and accessible. Where Zelda and Metroid takes care of the other needs.

Yes, exactly. That's why exploration-focused Mario makes much less sense than action-focused Mario. You're the one saying Mario should be closer to Zelda.

 

[WillyFive]

Well Galaxy 2 had some pretty bad music.

I think we have to cut back on the sarcasm here. It's getting hard to see who is serious and who is not.

 

[Naruto]

I can understand people missing the open endedness design of Super Mario 64, but what does Super Mario Sunshine have to do with it? What was so open ended about it? The fact that you could do only one specific mission in each world and was deprived of choosing which star you want? I still remember the incredibly lazy design of getting 10 blue coins and exchanging them for a star, instead of, you know, actual gameplay - missions to get them..

 

[nincompoop]

I can understand people missing the open endedness design of Super Mario 64, but what does Super Mario Sunshine have to do with it? What was so open ended about it? The fact that you could do only one specific mission in each world and was deprived of choosing which star you want? I still remember the incredibly lazy design of getting 10 blue coins and exchanging them for a star, instead of, you know, actual gameplay - missions to get them..

That was a really dumb post. The levels in Sunshine were huge and featured a million different ways of getting from point A to point B. People like open ended games because they offer exploration, not because you can choose the order in which you attempt certain missions. Nobody considers the Mega Man games to be shining examples of open-ended gameplay.

 

[Regulus Tera]

The Galaxy games are the most saccharine in the franchise, what the fuck is this shit about them being generic vapid dark?

 

[bridegur]

I love both Mario 64 and the Galaxy series equally, but I do hope the next 3D Mario brings back that "toy" feeling of Mario 64 that just compels you to run around and enjoy the brilliant controls.

 

[TestOfTide]

Just like I described earlier. Mario is the at the center of an invisible sphere and the camera can zoom in and out, and even rotate if that was deemed necessary (remember the wiimote is a full 3d device).

What about for parts where a birds-eye view is ideal? What about transititions from one gravity to another. How would that be handled?

But, as I just said, the whole premise of ever-changing gravity is something better left to a single level for the fun of it. It quickly gets old, and it really isn't possible to get it to work completely well with the controller technology of today. Do you really want Mario to be relegated to space forever?

"ever changing gravity" includes a big spectrum of ideas as proven by galaxy. thats like saying the "use of abilities" is something better left for a single level.

Flat 3D? You freaking freeform flew in 64! That's more than what can be said about Galaxy. Either it was on rail or it was on in the stupid hubworld.

First off, it was freeform gliding, not free-form flying. And it got old a lot more quickly than getting mario to do full orbits around various objects.

What I meant by flat 3D was the fact that just like how 3D allowed for new platforming scenarios so does including more types of gravity than just the usual kind. Not just gravity centered around an object, but all the different kinds of conditional gravity that are possible.

And really the best thing about Galaxy is that it doesn't always rely on the 3D planetoid set-up. Sometimes it does regular old 3D with new abilities and obstacles. Sometimes it does pure 2D to show how the new abilities and obstacles would work in 2D. Sometimes it's 2D planetoids. Sometimes it's a crazy gravity set-up that makes you continuously fall while circling a cylinder. And we know for a fact that there are numerous combinations of gravity set-ups, dimensional freedom, and set pieces that haven't been tried yet.

Do you really want all Mario games to take place in space? Cos that is what you are going to get if Nintendo keeps that gameplay mechanic. There is no other setting where it works.

Depends on what you mean by "in space".

If by "in space" you mean we keep the whole premise of mario going from galaxy to galaxy instead of jumping into liquidy images cleverly placed in single setting, then frankly I don't give a shit. All that matters is that the settings and design vary as much as galaxy did. Just as I don't give a shit about the storyline of a platformer.

If you mean as a theme to the game. Galaxy didn't have "space" as theme in every part and Galaxy 2 had space as even less of a theme. Just because it's got seperated planets doesn't mean it has space as a theme. Gusty garden isn't space themed. puzzle plank isn't. the ghost galaxies aren't. The list goes on because galaxy was just a term used to allow for the inclusion of just about everything.

If you mean in terms of how disconnected each piece of the level is, then as I said earlier in this topic, I think they should make a game with Galaxy style levels as well as 64 style exploration levels and a hybrid of the two.

Let me flip it and ask you a few question: Do you really give a shit about the plotlilne? Do you really care if it is space themed when there is constant diversity in the levels and goals where even the starting point changes in the same level depending on the goal?

 

[Squeak]

Well, I do not see how Galaxy leaves those values behind. Exploring new spaces all the time is perhaps Galaxy's strongest point! Each level is totally different from the last one... Hell, each portion of a level is different from the last portion of the same level. The sense of discovery and awe is really something else, I can't think of many games that have all the time so many wonderful and different things to experience.

Exactly. There is no opportunity to explore, as everything is new almost all the time.
It's a breathless staccato way of playing a game that might suit some franchises, but not Mario. You don't discover anything, it's all smacked in your face and controlled from behind the scenes.
What's more, when designers have to come up with that much content, it can not, not affect the quality of the output. Mario 64 had fewer but much more elaborate and well designed and interesting levels.

Galaxy has no secrets for the attentive? Let me ask this, have you found the little, misterious train in Toy Time Galaxy...? Exactly.

It's not as jampacked with secrets as the other games. It's almost as if the designers thought it was waste of time, because their audience never would notice.

I can't think of a Mario game with more atmosphere than Galaxy, other than, possibly, Yoshi's Island. But are you really arguing that Galaxy lacks atmosphere? It may not be the type of atmosphere you are looking for, but saying it gives no importance to atmosphere is insanity.

Most of the atmosphere feels kind of mechanical, calculated and unoriginal. Space and what's connected to it, will always invoke certain emotions. Just like Gregorian monks singing, a beautiful woman moving in slowmotion to soothing piano music etc. etc. There are parts of the Little Prince, Tron and Gulliver's Travels Beyond the Moon etc.
It uses cheap, cliched surefire ways to evoke “emotional responses”. Not original environment and ideas like in the other Mario games.

This reeks of pure bias against Galaxy.

And you reek of bias against 64. So there!

What does this have to do with anything? He is heavier in Galaxy than in the 2D games as well. The point is, he's not as heavy in Galaxy as he is in M64, so I feel he's much easier and more fluent to control. Many times in M64 I feel like I'm struggling to get him to go where I want him to go. That doesn't happen in Galaxy (nor Sunshine, for that matter).

This is a pure preference thing, though, and shouldn't be important to our argument. I even know many people who love Galaxy but prefer how Mario controls in M64 for some reason. It's just preference.

AFAIR you brought it up, so I answered. And yes it is a minor thing, that I wouldn't have mentioned if not for that.
But it is irritating that they had to kinda break something that was as perfect as the controls in Mario 64.

Why did you bring Ocarina into this? My point about M64 feeling archaic had to do simply with the level design and the controls (and the camera as well, now that I think about it). Galaxy (and other games as well) made all of these much, much better.

Because it is a Nintendo game from the same period in time and therefore it is a good reference point and way to compare.

Nope, it's not the same as swordswinging in Zelda, because that series has always been equaly split between 3 areas: exploration, puzzle-solving and, yes, combat. It's what defines the Zelda series and makes it different from all other series in gaming. Even Metroid focuses heavier in one or two of these 3 elements, depending on the game. Zelda has always kept the balance equal between the 3.

“Platforming” is the action of jumping from one platform to the other. It's not a game in itself. Just as sword swinging isn't (or pushing boxes). Mario also has and always have had all 3 elements and more. Just in different measure than the other series.

Mario is back to being as relevant as he was 20 years ago.

So you're saying he was irrelevant during the N64 days?

The Galaxy games are the most saccharine in the franchise, what the fuck is this shit about them being generic vapid dark?

The most saccharine is Sunshine. It should never be saccharine, but apart from possibly certain character designs, I don't see anything saccharine about it.
There is a huge difference between saccharine and cute.

What about for parts where a birds-eye view is ideal? What about transititions from one gravity to another. How would that be handled?

Are you even reading what I'm writing? It shouldn't be there. It doesn't work with the current setup. And it will always be a needlessly confusing way to play a Mario game. It takes focus from the important stuff.
That said with the scheme I'm suggesting, you could do any camera move swiftly and seamlessly (rotate, zoom and rotate around the cameras own view axis).

"ever changing gravity" includes a big spectrum of ideas as proven by galaxy. thats like saying the "use of abilities" is something better left for a single level.

Not at all. There really isn't that many variations possible. Reverse or manipulate the gravity to surprise the player, or let Mario demonstrate two or three body physics. That really is it.
Changing gravity is akin to modes in productivity software, IE *a bad thing*. Unless it's the only thing you focus on, gravity is not your locus of attention and is quite invisible (unless marked with giant arrows and flashing colours, but even then it's easy to forget in the heat of action, and pretty, uninteresting as more than a gimmick, or universally applicable, it ain't).

First off, it was freeform gliding, not free-form flying. And it got old a lot more quickly than getting mario to do full orbits around various objects.

And how is that interesting in the long while? That's just a simple gravity sim. Gets pretty irritating in the long run in fact.

What I meant by flat 3D was the fact that just like how 3D allowed for new platforming scenarios so does including more types of gravity than just the usual kind. Not just gravity centered around an object, but all the different kinds of conditional gravity that are possible.

Define “all kinds” and how you would use it in a game?

And really the best thing about Galaxy is that it doesn't always rely on the 3D planetoid set-up. Sometimes it does regular old 3D with new abilities and obstacles. Sometimes it does pure 2D to show how the new abilities and obstacles would work in 2D. Sometimes it's 2D planetoids. Sometimes it's a crazy gravity set-up that makes you continuously fall while circling a cylinder. And we know for a fact that there are numerous combinations of gravity set-ups, dimensional freedom, and set pieces that haven't been tried yet.

That seems kind of confused and noncommittal to me. Even the bowser levels in 64 had the same controls and general rules as the rest of the game.
And the “regular” 3d levels are usually just smaller, mediocre 64 like levels.

Depends on what you mean by "in space".

If by "in space" you mean we keep the whole premise of mario going from galaxy to galaxy instead of jumping into liquidy images cleverly placed in single setting, then frankly I don't give a shit. All that matters is that the settings and design vary as much as galaxy did. Just as I don't give a shit about the storyline of a platformer.

Story or storyline is even though it is usually thought of as one concept, really a lot of concepts merged into one. It all has to do with how the human brain prefers it information served.
With regards to an interactive action games, it is more correct to talk of a premise or a background or a set of rules, protagonists and antagonists. But I digress.
Yes, the premise matters a lot. In fact it is pretty much all that matters. Without premise there would be nothing. It is that which sets the atmosphere and frames the game with rules and world.
And variation for variations sake becomes as monotonous as monotony itself.

If you mean as a theme to the game. Galaxy didn't have "space" as theme in every part and Galaxy 2 had space as even less of a theme. Just because it's got seperated planets doesn't mean it has space as a theme. Gusty garden isn't space themed. puzzle plank isn't. the ghost galaxies aren't. The list goes on because galaxy was just a term used to allow for the inclusion of just about everything.

Space was undeniably the theme for most of the game, unless we are talking the halfhearted 64esq levels.

If you mean in terms of how disconnected each piece of the level is, then as I said earlier in this topic, I think they should make a game with Galaxy style levels as well as 64 style exploration levels and a hybrid of the two.

They already did. It's called Super Mario 64.

Let me flip it and ask you a few question: Do you really give a shit about the plotlilne? Do you really care if it is space themed when there is constant diversity in the levels and goals where even the starting point changes in the same level depending on the goal?

See above.

 

[robor]

You know what I could never understand about Super Mario 64? The massive exploitation of the long jump. It completely renders Mario's running void and useless.

 

[Anth0ny]

You know what I could never understand about Super Mario 64? The massive exploitation of the long jump. It completely renders Mario's running void and useless.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

When I was a kid, I barely long jumped because I couldn't hit those three buttons consistently. Now, I am able to get through levels with long jump and dash attack (running forward and hitting b) alone. Shit is super fun.

 

[robor]

You say this like it's a bad thing.

I do indeed. When I look at courses like Bob-Omb Battlefield where there are large flat spaces for Mario to run around, knowing that long jumping it through such empty spaces is much more useful/beneficial really exhibits how functionally trivial running is in that game. I could never do a speed run for 64:

"YAAAHOOOOO YAHHOOOOO YAAHOOOOOOO YAAAHOOOOOOOO YAAHOOOOOOOOOO".

 

[Mael]

Well maybe Mario shouldn't be in space so much.

If Mario wasn't in space so much the game wouldn't have been made AT ALL.

What did Iwata say in the interviews that counters what I say?

The game(and especially the music) was never focus tested.
Heck for the music the composer went with 3 types of compositions for the game and the one that Kondo (you know the head music guy responsible for all classic Mario music) found that the space opera was the best.
Read the Iwata asks on Galaxy1.

And Zelda would have been dead?! Well that must explain the sharp detour they are taking now. The copycat LotR + goth style didn't win them any new fans I think, at least not loyal fans. If they didn't really get whole heartedly into the style change (how could they) what does it even accomplish.

Again another Iwata asks, after WW failed to to do what it had to do (push GC sales and actually manage decent sales) they didn't know how to proceed for the next Zelda.
Japan was losing interest and the new style was met with hostility in the west (at least that's what NoA told them).
So they went with a more adult Link akin to OoT and went from there.
The game was lost in dev hell and had many tables upturned and we got the game we got.
Japan regain interest in zelda again with PH because they actually tried something new, they went to far with Zelda on trains and failed big time here.
The goal of Tp was never to win new fans (that was what PH was all about), the goal was to stop the erosion of the Zelda fanbase. It succeed in that much more than WW.
If you ask the bean counters, Tp is a way more profitable project than WW.
And then we have Zelda : SS which is basically a mix of what the audience want (adult Link) and what the devs actually want (the semi cartoon artstyle), we'll see how it fares.

If you think for one second that any part of focus group is made on the internal design of Nintendo's biggest franchise you have less understanding of how they work than Michael Pachter.

 

[WillyFive]

No. Robor, no.

Jumping around in Mario 64 is awesome, because it fits what Mario is all about, jumping. In the 2D games you also wanted to jump everywhere.

What you are saying would make more sense for Link rolling. Now THAT annoys me. Rolling around everywhere.

 

[robor]

No. Robor, no.

Jumping around in Mario 64 is awesome, because it fits what Mario is all about, jumping. In the 2D games you also wanted to jump everywhere.

What you are saying would make more sense for Link rolling. Now THAT annoys me. Rolling around everywhere.

Yes. Willy105, yes.

Mario isn't just about jumping, it is about using an array of twitch mechanics that get you from point A, to point B. In Super Mario Bros. 3, you used the power run, you used the item powers, you also jumped. The entire game was designed to push the player into executing all of it's mechanics to surpass a level.

If there is one particular feature Galaxy got right in 3D, it was the above.

 

[Regulus Tera]

The most saccharine is Sunshine. It should never be saccharine, but apart from possibly certain character designs, I don't see anything saccharine about it.
There is a huge difference between saccharine and cute.

The Galaxy games have levels designed around pastry, candy, toys, and include the friendliest sidekick design Nintendo has ever conceived (Luma). Sunshine doesn't come close at all.

 

[Squeak]

The Galaxy games have levels designed around pastry, candy, toys, and include the friendliest sidekick design Nintendo has ever conceived (Luma). Sunshine doesn't come close at all.

I think you misunderstand what saccharine means? It's cloy, overtly, vacuously family friendly sweet (not as in the taste, but analogous to the feeling you get from artificial sweetener). Think Lion King.

 

[MYE]

Well Galaxy 2 had some pretty bad music.

Maybe not very inspired but bad?

Unless i'm forgetting something

 

[ntropy]

You know what I could never understand about Super Mario 64? The massive exploitation of the long jump. It completely renders Mario's running void and useless.

yea, and i hate Tick Tock Clock for the massive exploitation of walking!

 

[Squeak]

Yes. Willy105, yes.

Mario isn't just about jumping, it is about using an array of twitch mechanics that get you from point A, to point B. In Super Mario Bros. 3, you used the power run, you used the item powers, you also jumped. The entire game was designed to push the player into executing all of it's mechanics to surpass a level.

If there is one particular feature Galaxy got right in 3D, it was the above.

Aha! So you did explore the level ;-D

 

[WillyFive]

Maybe not very inspired but bad?

Unless i'm forgetting something

I thought it was a joke?

 

[Mael]

I think you misunderstand what saccharine means? It's cloy, overtly, vacuously family friendly sweet (not as in the taste, but analogous to the feeling you get from artificial sweetener). Think Lion King.

Or Kirby or Yoshi's Story (that one will give you cavities just by looking at the intro)...
And yet Galaxy is more like that than Sunshine too, it's also a way cooler/better game.
And heck that's not the way Mario should be anyway.
They said as much in Galaxy's Iwata asks....and the public think that way too, since when the games went that way the sales dropped too.

 

[Complex Shadow]

Mario needs to die. Enough.

....

Super Mario Heaven.

:lol

 

[Regulus Tera]

I think you misunderstand what saccharine means? It's cloy, overtly, vacuously family friendly sweet (not as in the taste, but analogous to the feeling you get from artificial sweetener). Think Lion King.

The Lion King is saccharine now? You mean the movie in which the protagonist's father gets stampeded by Nus, the antagonist gets to bang all the female relatives of Simba and gets eaten by Hyenas at the end?

I know you're equating the words with sentimental. Maybe it was my mistake to use it in the first place, but that doesn't mean Galaxy isn't as vibrant and colourful and visually childish at first glance.

 

[Squeak]

The Lion King is saccharine now? You mean the movie in which the protagonist's father gets stampeded by Nus, the antagonist gets to bang all the female relatives of Simba and gets eaten by Hyenas at the end?

I know you're equating the words with sentimental. Maybe it was my mistake to use it in the first place, but that doesn't mean Galaxy isn't as vibrant and colourful and visually childish at first glance.

All the stuff not stolen from Kimba The White Lion was puke worthy. And yep, also sentimental, but in a way that felt like they were following a check-list.

 

[TestOfTide]

That said with the scheme I'm suggesting, you could do any camera move swiftly and seamlessly (rotate, zoom and rotate around the cameras own view axis).

No, you can't, because what is "up" constantly changes, leading to situations where the camera isn't oriented the way it should be. Think of it this way: When you're piloting a jet: you have to take into a account what your orientation is when figuring out whether or not pushing the stick forward will make you go down or to the right.

Not at all. There really isn't that many variations possible. Reverse or manipulate the gravity to surprise the player, or let Mario demonstrate two or three body physics. That really is it.

Here's a quick list of a few things that haven't been tried yet:
- constantly jumping from a bunch of small cube planetoids that are a short distance from each other so that if you fall between them, you end u being pulled to the side
- something like Galaxy 2's free-fall cylinders only instead of a straight cylinder, it's a donut
- Like the pop-up book, only instead of flat becoming blocks, flat becomes a sphere.
- A 3D version of the gravity changing to a beat

But lets hear a real counter argument: How would you propose to make a new 64 type game that feels fresh and exciting without resorting to something like sunshine where you completely throw out core mechanics or like in banjo kazooie games were abilities are constantly stacked on top of new abilities? And I mean in a way that couldn't lead to me using the same reasoning to suggest that nintendo should have just stuck with 2D mario.

Changing gravity is akin to modes in productivity software, IE *a bad thing*. Unless it's the only thing you focus on, gravity is not your locus of attention and is quite invisible (unless marked with giant arrows and flashing colours, but even then it's easy to forget in the heat of action, and pretty, uninteresting as more than a gimmick, or universally applicable, it ain't).

In galaxy it is done by both blatantly telling you with arrows and blackholes as well as one, subtle yet effective signal: How smooth/round an object as. All the parts of the game where there isn't changing gravity or centered gravity show flat objects with rigid edges.

And how is that interesting in the long while? That's just a simple gravity sim. Gets pretty irritating in the long run in fact.

no too long, but it doesn't matter because while 64 has gliding and swimming, galaxy has skating, spring jumping, orbiting, floating (boo mario), swimming, floating (pull stars), etc.

btw, how does it get irritating exactly.

Define “all kinds” and how you would use it in a game?

I already gave you a list of just some of the possibilities. There's many more possible because now that we have mario in all 3 dimensions, the next step would be to include all 3 orientations and then see how we could find something that takes only certain aspects of some of those dimensions and some of those orientations.

I have a feeling though that at this point you just being stubborn.

That seems kind of confused and noncommittal to me.

It's not confusing because stuff like the free-fall cylinder is kept isolated.

Even the bowser levels in 64 had the same controls and general rules as the rest of the game.

So you're complaint is the fact that the game dares to give some variety. Did you get confused when you sank underwater when becoming metal mario?

And the “regular” 3d levels are usually just smaller, mediocre 64 like levels.

I meant "regular" as in the fact that some sections will just focus on usual 3D gameplay with new abilities instead of changing up the gravity. Like when Freezeflame had the big ice mountain or the better half of the buoy base.

Story or storyline is even though it is usually thought of as one concept, really a lot of concepts merged into one. It all has to do with how the human brain prefers it information served.With regards to an interactive action games, it is more correct to talk of a premise or a background or a set of rules, protagonists and antagonists. But I digress.
Yes, the premise matters a lot. In fact it is pretty much all that matters. Without premise there would be nothing. It is that which sets the atmosphere and frames the game with rules and world.[/quo te]

Did you hear about all the people who read the story book in galaxy or did you hear everyone talk about how great it was that it could be completely ignored? NO ONE plays mario games for the premise or story. They play it for the varied and clever platforming.

And variation for variations sake becomes as monotonous as monotony itself.

No it doesn't. I don't go "oh man this is so boring doing different kinds of things" in real life, so why in the fuck would the logic be different in a platformer? I guess if I were some weirdo that gave a shit about the story I would find it monotonous to focus on the gameplay and not give a shit why the levels vary, but who in the fuck actually plays mario games for the story.

Space was undeniably the theme for most of the game, unless we are talking the halfhearted 64esq levels.

Gusty garden was a half hearted level? Was freezeflame spaced themed as well? What about the bowser levels? were those space themed or half-hearted? And what was half-hearted about Beach bowl? Was wall-jumping waterfalls halfhearted or space themed?

They already did. It's called Super Mario 64.

lol no. 64 never had anything like melty molten. It's closest equivalent was a flat lavaland and a single bowser level where once again the lava part is just the flat bottom of the stage.

I'm talking about stages were different goals put you at different starts. And for the hybrid I'm talking about something that has the gravity and level variety of galaxy while retaining the seamless transitions of 64.

See above.

:lol since when did 64 have anywhere near the amount of level variety of galaxy.