Support NeoGAF

[Nemo]

Even as someone who feels Mario Galaxy 2 gets more credit than it deserves and that 1 kicks it in the teeth, this is damn impressive shit.

I wonder how many of those Nintendo didn't know about

 

[The Technomancer]

Mario games are about frolicking, about enjoying the physics of the world and getting to know it intimately. Not about being strapped on to a rail and having to negate ever-changing randomly thought up, gimmicky obstacles.

Really? Because that's what the 2D games always seemed like to me. Well, minus the negative connotations of the words you chose. I'll accept that you like 64 style better, but I'm having more trouble buying that that "open-ended do whatever you want" style was the direction the franchise has always taken. Galaxy's "one obvious path and a lot of other secret ways and stuff to do" seems more like the old style.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

I wonder how many of those Nintendo didn't know about

I don't doubt the tremendous skill it takes to pull those stunts off, but when it's a Nintendo game that's called "shortcuts and tricks," and in any other game it's called "bugs and glitches" or "rushed level design."

 

[Chet Rippo]

The only thing I can say on this whole 64 vs. Galaxy debate is that in Galaxy you can play as Luigi, which automatically makes it better.
Otherwise I rate them about the same.

 

[Nemo]

I don't doubt the tremendous skill it takes to pull those stunts off, but when it's a Nintendo game that's called "shortcuts and tricks," and in any other game it's called "bugs and glitches" or "rushed level design."

Yeah, that's what I was thinking about. It's pretty funny.

If Nintendo knew about it, shortcuts would the appropriate term, if they didn't you can instantly say it's bad level designing

 

[Barrage]

The DS version did amazing numbers as well and that's on a system that wasnt ideal for the game. In fact I think its sold close to 8 or 9 million by now. That matches the sales of Galaxy and that's just a port.

So you would agree that the 2D Marios are far superior to M64, due to selling better?

 

[DaBuddaDa]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking about. It's pretty funny.

If Nintendo knew about it, shortcuts would the appropriate term, if they didn't you can instantly say it's bad level designing

I guess rushed is the wrong word. Poorly/under-tested is more appropriate. That's also not necessarily a bad thing, I like some glitches in games as long as they don't break/crash anything. I just think it's funny that these exploitable glitches in a Mario game are called "shortcuts!" while in almost any other game they'd be "bad, unpolished glitches rawr!"

It's like during hurricane katrina: videos of white people grabbing food from flooded stores are called "families doing whatever it takes to survive!" while videos of black people grabbing food from stores are called "looters."

 

[apana]

Oh FUCK OFF!

I'm outta here. Stupidity levels are reaching dangerous levels. Shit i'd expect at Gamspot of Faqs forums.

Srsl, wtf?!!

:lol Not really, most of the conversation in here has been pretty good with a few exceptions. People seem to be listening to one another at least.

 

[The Technomancer]

I guess rushed is the wrong word. Poorly/under-tested is more appropriate. That's also not necessarily a bad thing, I like some glitches in games as long as they don't break/crash anything.

Well by that standard the Metroid games are some of the most under-tested games of all time.

EDIT: I guess my point for a lot of those glitches is that the dev team has to know exactly the max peak height that Mario can reach, even with all the wall-jump trick and such. If they wanted to close routes off, all they would have had to do was tweak the level design ever so slightly to make those things truly impossible.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

Well by that standard the Metroid games are some of the most under-tested games of all time.

So are 99% of all NES games :lol

 

[apana]

So you would agree that the 2D Marios are far superior to M64, due to selling better?

Uh, no. All I was saying is that its possible that there could be a lot of fans of the Mario 64 style of 3D Mario out there. I'm not trying to say one is better than another because of sales. There are obviously a lot of fans of 2D Mario as well, Nintendo got the hint and finally made a 2D game.

 

[Peff]

That video was actually made by Nintendo...

EDIT: Wait, not that one lol.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

That video was actually made by Nintendo...

The video notes indicate that is not true.

 

[NeonZ]

Look at SMB3, SMW and YI with all their different pathways secrets and different ways to explore the levels.
Miyamoto wanted to do Mario 64 all the time. He just didn't have the hardware and tool to do it.

Metroid and Zelda show that the tools and hardware were there. Yet, the Mario games didn't focus nearly as much on exploration until 64.

Yes, they had optional locations and secrets, but so does Galaxy. The focus of the game still is in traversing diverse regions and getting through obstacles, not getting stuck somewhere and running around in circles.

There was only seven or so stars per level AFAIR, so "over and over and over" is a bit much isn't it?

7 stars + 100 coin star, which sometimes wasn't possible to get in every version of the stage. Aside from that, most stars didn't change the stage significantly, so the player had to go through certain places a rather large amount of times to get anywhere. Compared to Galaxy, there was much more reused content due to that design choice - which was obviously created to hide the actual lack of content of the game.

I can think of levels in Galaxy that felt very much like very thinly spread butter on wayyy to much bread

If you say that about a Galaxy level, how can you defend the 64 ones? They had good parts, but they were all placed throughout a bunch of recycled set pieces that were reused multiple times. Galaxy streamlined the experience by removing the unnecessary areas.

Sometimes you just went back to a level for the fun of it. Not so with Galaxy.

How is that not so? Really, for many people, just the addition of Luigi in the second playthrough was incentive to replay the first Galaxy completely. Considering how the players haven't exhaustively gone through every location multiple times, going multiple locations only once even, replaying Galaxy's stages is generally a funner experience than replaying Mario 64's levels.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

Seriously?

I've always thought the obvious appraoch would be to create a huge streaming world ala Oblivion only "Mario-fied".

Plus Prince of Persia style platforming of course!

 

[DaBuddaDa]

How is that not so? Really, for many people, just the addition of Luigi in the second playthrough was incentive to replay the first Galaxy completely. Considering how the players hasn't exhaustively gone through every location multiple times, replaying Galaxy's stage is generally a funner experience than replaying Mario 64.

I don't think this argument is really about M64 versus Galaxy, it's about "Gaming was more fun when you were 10 and could spend 8 hours a day immersed in the game than it is when you're 25!"

 

[Peff]

The video notes indicate that is not true.

Yeah, I confused it with the ones in the European/Japanese DVD, my bad.

 

[Boogiepop]

I don't doubt the tremendous skill it takes to pull those stunts off, but when it's a Nintendo game that's called "shortcuts and tricks," and in any other game it's called "bugs and glitches" or "rushed level design."

It's worth noting that at least some of the "shortcuts/tricks" in Galaxy 2 at the very least are blatantly intentional, having 1-up mushrooms and whatnot placed there. Not sure if they're any of the ones you're thinking of, but... there are some pretty out there things that are clearly intended to be possible...
(Not at person quoted
Oh, and much as I love 64, I have to mention that it's: a: Waaaaay too easy to get stars (some taking all of about 30 seconds), and b: It has Dire Dire Docks as one of only 15 "real" levels, and really... it's just a tunnel and a submarine. That level is pathetic, and had no right being one of the full courses.
(Oh, and the guy mentioning the 64 DS sales, it's worth mentioning that game's sales were also in all likelihood highly impacted by being the one worthwhile game in what was a very, very crappy launch line-up.)

 

[apana]

It's worth noting that at least some of the "shortcuts/tricks" in Galaxy 2 at the very least are blatantly intentional, having 1-up mushrooms and whatnot placed there. Not sure if they're any of the ones you're thinking of, but... there are some pretty out there things that are clearly intended to be possible...
(Not at person quoted
Oh, and much as I love 64, I have to mention that it's: a: Waaaaay too easy to get stars (some taking all of about 30 seconds), and b: It has Dire Dire Docks as one of only 15 "real" levels, and really... it's just a tunnel and a submarine. That level is pathetic, and had no right being one of the full courses.
(Oh, and the guy mentioning the 64 DS sales, it's worth mentioning that game's sales were also in all likelihood highly impacted by being the one worthwhile game in what was a very, very crappy launch line-up.)

I'm not trying to make a big point with the whole sales issue, there are a lot of factors involved in getting good sales. All I'm saying is that Mario 64 has a lot of fans, its a lot of people's favorite 3D Mario game and that may be due to more than nostalgia. I love the Galaxy games, in all honesty I want to see a mix. I'd be fine with a Galaxy 3 or a Galaxy 3DS if they just included a few of the exploration type worlds in the game. I dont really think that's a lot to ask for.

 

[Schattenjäger]

Regardless of which way they go, the worlds need to have more enemies .. Both mario galaxies and Mario 64s felt empty

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

I'm just going to repost everything I did on page 3 because it somehow became more relevant as the thread went on

Nintendo really jumped the shark with Galaxy, but most people will be perfectly content with a more down-to-earth setting as long as the platforming and world-building is there. As a completely random example, Mario's Toy Box! Bowser has turned everybody into toys, now Mario must traverse Toy Land to save the land... again. The mindspace of "Toy Land" has just as many possible bizzare, fantastical worlds as Galaxy did, and that's just in terms of setting -- think of all the possible gameplay gimmicks "toys" brings to mind.

I mean hell Super Mario 64 had Mario jumping into painting worlds that were less related to works of art than randomly jumbled environs so "how do you out-grandeur Galaxy" is a moot problem.

It's kind of unfortunate that the platformers fanbase has been split between those who like adventure-platformers and those who prefer action-platformers, because to add more characteristics of one type you really have to sacrifice a lot from the other. Hence you can't please everybody no matter what the next 3D Mario game is going to be.

There hasn't really been a AAA adventure-platformer on consoles in a long time, so if you want me to make an arbitrary prediction what the next "Mario game" is going to be I guess it'd be nice if they went that direction?

Well Epic Mickey looks like an adventure platformer to a certain extent. Its definitely an adventure game. I dont see why you couldnt have both in a single game seeing as how in Mario games the "worlds" are separate from one another.

The issue with having both in a single game is that you'll get parts that fans of one type will absolutely hate. See this thread, and the polarization of opinions on the Secret levels in Sunshine and the open-world areas in Galaxy for examples.

It seems like a content issue. If you had the time and resources to create a freeform explorable world in which every direction had challenges the quality of Galaxy...the problem is that if you allow the player to go wherever they want then you don't have the time to make sure that wherever they want to go is a tight fun experience.

Then... don't make challenges the quality of Galaxy in your freeform platformer? I'd wager that making a good pure adventure platformer is a extremely daunting and difficult task for game designers.

Rare did a pretty good job on that end with Banjo-Kazooie and DK64. Some people loved how new areas opened up in old worlds once you acquired a specific ability. I think the games were full of tedious backtracking bullshit. The first two Metroid Prime games skewed in this direction also, while Corruption took more of an action route. The change in focus caused a couple of people to wax philosophical about it on the internet, if you were around to witness that period in time.

 

[stilgar]

I'm just going to repost everything I did on page 3 because it somehow became more relevant as the thread went on

Why?

 

[Lone_Prodigy]

Reboot?

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

Why?

Because people posting within the past six hours of the thread are indicating prejudices in the same way I've already mentioned?

 

[Mabase]

Mario games kept on surprising me over the years, giving me a sense of child-like wonder and joy like no other.
I guess the new one will do that too. Besides that, I have no clue what they might be thinking of. And that's actually good

 

[Emitan]

I prefer Galaxy 2's more linear levels over 64's big open emptiness. But I prefer Mario's moveset and freedom of control from 64. If they'd just combine those two things I'd have my perfect game.

 

[Squeak]

Maybe being the 3D tentpole game of the first 3D gen had something to do with it? Being packed with the system? Being Super Mario in 3D?

How about being the best actiongame ever made? How about sending devs, after seeing it for the first time, out the room shaking their heads, wondering how anyone could make something that great and how they were ever going to match it?
How about Nintendo suddenly with a wandsstroke making a game that in one tight package realized all the fantasies of "how games might one day play and look like"?

Mario 64 was a freaking miracle when it first appeared, and 15 years later the most important aspects of it hasn't been bettered yet, by any other platformer.

Oh FUCK OFF!

I'm outta here. Stupidity levels are reaching dangerous levels. Shit i'd expect at Gamspot of Faqs forums.

Srsl, wtf?!!

I'm sorry, did I hit a nerve? :lol

Metroid and Zelda show that the tools and hardware were there. Yet, the Mario games didn't focus nearly as much on exploration until 64.

Again, the exploration in Mario games was never as deep or multilayered as that of games like Metroid and Zelda. Of course not, these games were meant to compliment each other in Nintendos portfolio.
But, it was always there. M64 was just a natural continuation of the trend. The last 2D game before M64, Yoshi's Island, had plenty of exploration. But again, was held back in the amount by the 2d nature of the game and the requirement that it should feel as heavy and demanding as fx. Metroid.

Basically we have to differentiate between quality and quantity WRT. exploration. And by quality I don't mean "quality" but rather the level of intricacy.

Yes, they had optional locations and secrets, but so does Galaxy. The focus of the game still is in traversing diverse regions and getting through obstacles, not getting stuck somewhere and running around in circles.

I never had a problem with that in Mario 64. You'd have to be really spatially challenged to get lost in that game.
On the contrary, it was an awesome feeling discovering whole new parts of a level. Remember reaching the hidden woodblock city, or the roof of the ghost mansion? Or how about the underground cave?

7 stars + 100 coin star, which sometimes wasn't possible to get in every version of the stage. Aside from that, most stars didn't change the stage significantly, so the player had to go through certain places a rather large amount of times to get anywhere. Compared to Galaxy, there was much more reused content due to that design choice - which was obviously created to hide the actual lack of content of the game.

If by content to you mean quickly thrown together levels, only meant for one sprint, then sure. But the real meat of the M64 was getting intimate with the environment and getting new perspectives on things. There were plenty of linear stuff, like the Bowser levels, the airship level and the slides, all better done than most levels in Galaxy.

If you say that about a Galaxy level, how can you defend the 64 ones? They had good parts, but they were all placed throughout a bunch of recycled set pieces that were reused multiple times. Galaxy streamlined the experience by removing the unnecessary areas.

Recycling is wrong word to use here IMO. Do you complain about your everyday world being recycled? How about racetracks in a racing game?
Sure if the whole game was four levels with thirty stars each, maybe then we could talk. But we are talking about a game with some of the most memorable and diverse locales ever in gaming. Need I mention Jolly Roger Bay, Cool, Cool Mountain, Big Boo's Haunt, Tall Tall Mountain, Rainbow Ride etc.?
I never ever felt cheated one single bit playing the game, and I doubt the vast majority did either.

How is that not so? Really, for many people, just the addition of Luigi in the second playthrough was incentive to replay the first Galaxy completely. Considering how the players haven't exhaustively gone through every location multiple times, going multiple locations only once even, replaying Galaxy's stages is generally a funner experience than replaying Mario 64's levels.

Well that's just what you write, I don't have any proof that that is even what you feel yourself deep down, or if you have other motivations to say what you do...? Before you go balistic, that is quite common on forums and in general even (I do however speak from my heart of hearts :lol ).
But anyhow, fun is something that is very hard to measure and quantify. OCD people playing a game will put crazy amounts of time into it without having nearly as much fun as me just playing M64 for fifteen minutes.
Nevertheless, M64 is undeniably more open to creative/freeform play (frolicking, fooling around).

 

[hatchx]

The DS version did amazing numbers as well and that's on a system that wasnt ideal for the game. In fact I think its sold close to 8 or 9 million by now. That matches the sales of Galaxy and that's just a port.

It was like the only DS launch game.

 

[Squeak]

I prefer Galaxy 2's more linear levels over 64's big open emptiness. But I prefer Mario's moveset and freedom of control from 64. If they'd just combine those two things I'd have my perfect game.

Give me an example of "big open emptiness" from M64. I'd say Galaxy felt very empty at times, with all the "shake wiimote to win or move on".

 

[StarEye]

I have absolutely no nostalgia factor when it comes to Mario. I was an Amiga fanboy (still is) up to '96 or '97 - when I bought a PS1. I didn't give a damn about Mario until later when I found out I was going to collect consoles and try out games I missed on these consoles over the years. I have tried them in the store, but I didn't really look at them like they were special or anything - Mario was just another game to me. Eventually, I got to thoroughly try Mario 64 - after getting used to Crash Bandicoot, and some other games in that genre that weren't quite as good. I really liked it, but I didn't really fall in love with Mario then, and I don't really care all that much about Mario today even. What the Nintendo consoles offered that I actually loved were the Zelda games.

Since then, I bought Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy. Not yet tried Galaxy 2. While I haven't completed any of them due to me not being that fond of the series (on PS1 I preferred Crash, PS2 I preferred Jak and Daxter + R&C, on PS3 I prefer R&C and I'll be getting Sly Cooper HDmakes), I have enjoyed Mario 64 the most of them. Sunshine was just annoying. Mario 64 is by far my favourite in the series.

Interestingly, I also preferred Super Mario Bros. over Super Mario Bros. 3 and World. I guess I just like my Mario games very basic and to-the-point. I just don't think have a lot of additional moves or powers suits Mario. He's a simple character, so I prefer the game simple as well.

 

[Squeak]

I don't think this argument is really about M64 versus Galaxy, it's about "Gaming was more fun when you were 10 and could spend 8 hours a day immersed in the game than it is when you're 25!"

That card is just way to easy to play. It's a stealth screen for a lot of shitty games to slip under. Is it really that impossible that old games can be better than newer?
I play Mario 64 every five years or so to see if it still holds up, and it does. Sure you can see it's running on simpler hardware and sure you can see a few places that could be added to or improved. But that goes for all products of culture. As a whole, the game still holds up very, very well.
I am quite capable of removing my rosetinted classes and on top the game can't have the advantage of novelty anymore. So I'd say, that the fact that Galaxy couldn't make me love it as much as M64 even with the advantage of surprise and technical wow factor, tells me that Galaxy and 2 isn't even in the same league as 64.

 

[Emitan]

Give me an example of "big open emptiness" from M64.

That was a bit of an exaggeration, but look at Lethal Lava Land. The map is huge, but most of it is a deathtrap. It's wasted space.

I'd say Galaxy felt very empty at times, with all the "shake wiimote to win or move on".

I'm not very familiar with Galaxy 1, but I don't think Galaxy 2 felt like that at all. There were some levels (the lava one where you just grab those blue things to move), but most involved actual platforming and traversal.

 

[Regulus Tera]

http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2010/11/02/3ds_mario_games/

Nintendo has been releasing two general lines of Mario games over the past generation: 3D games along the lines of Super Mario Galaxy and 2D games along the lines of New Super Mario Bros. The latter type sells far better.

So what do these sales trends mean for a 3DS version of Mario? During a Q&A session at Nintendo's earnings briefing last week, investors asked Shigeru Miyamoto to comment on just that.

Miyamoto first explained the general merits and demerits of 3D (the current polygon-based 3D). 3D visuals give players a greater sense of being part of the action and gives more freedom and choice, said Miyamoto. At the same time, some are turned off from 3D games because they appear too complex.

"When Super Mario became Mario 64, the range of players narrowed greatly," Miyamoto admitted. While he feels that Nintendo's developers were able to make use of the strong points of 3D to deliver new game experiences, they were also advancing work on games that, while 3D, can be played by everyone. This resulted in Super Mario Galaxy. Even this doesn't solve the dilemmas, though, so they also made the New Super Mario Bros. series.

Turning to 3DS, Miyamoto said, "When asked 'what will we do on 3DS,' the answer is, of course, we'll make both. They both have their own appeal."

He outlined how the 3DS's 3D display effects could help both types of Mario.

For the 3D type of Mario game -- and this includes Zelda, he said -- it can be difficult to perceive depth, for example if you multiple floors stacked up on top of one another. However, if you have a similar situation on the 3DS with the 3D effect turned on, you can more clearly see what's closer to you.

The 3DS's 3D effect also "gives a great feeling of existence to Mario, Link and others," said Miyamoto. He feels that this is important for his games, as they're made with character "weight" in mind -- that is, making the player feel like the character has weight in its movement.

For 2D Mario games, Miyamoto pointed out that we already see depth-based effects in many of the games. For example, a Wiggler (Hana-chan in Japanese) or Bullet Bill (Killer in Japanese) will fly at the the screen from afar. "It's difficult to tell when they will hit the player, so we were only able to use these lightly. However, we'll be able to use this type of thing quite a bit on the 3DS."

Following Miyamoto's response, Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata said, "You went more in-depth than I'd been expected. This is the first I've heard of this." Miyamoto joked, "No good? Don't tell any game magazine people."

Well, there you have it. Confirmation from the man.

 

[Boney]

So you like running around better than jumping. Therefore Mario 64 is an objectively better game than both Galaxies that boil down to "shake to win".

Gotcha.

 

[Anticitizen One]

I want the next mario to be more like Super Mario 64 where it had more of an open world feel. Galaxy felt extremely linear. 64 had a sense of exploration that I haven't seen in other Mario games.

 

[The Technomancer]

I want the next mario to be more like Super Mario 64 where it had more of an open world feel. Galaxy felt extremely linear. 64 had a sense of exploration that I haven't seen in other Mario games.

That's basically what this argument is coming down to. Some of us feel that that kind of open-world gameplay is fun, but perhaps for other IPs or characters to explore, and that the tight linearity with explorable side-rooms and paths is what defines Mario.

 

[teeny]

Personally, the only way I can see Super Mario getting any better than the Galaxy and NSMBWii is high definition and 3D.

Luckily, I am not paid by Nintendo for coming up with fresh ideas

Galaxy was perfect, for me. I replay 64 every year or so, and every time I get more frustrated at the camera and the semi open world design. I love it, but I prefer the newer games.

 

[beelzebozo]

is anyone making SM64-esque games these days? i'm curious if that's just a style of game that has passed into obsolescence.

my gut tells me it is.

 

[Squeak]

That was a bit of an exaggeration, but look at Lethal Lava Land. The map is huge, but most of it is a deathtrap. It's wasted space.

That's the whole challenge, you have to jump! I think that is a general evil in media today, the extreme horror vacui. both spatially but also temporally.

I'm not very familiar with Galaxy 1, but I don't think Galaxy 2 felt like that at all. There were some levels (the lava one where you just grab those blue things to move), but most involved actual platforming and traversal.

There was a few pretty good levels in both of the Galaxy's, but not as satifying as M64s and still too few.

So you like running around better than jumping. Therefore Mario 64 is an objectively better game than both Galaxies that boil down to "shake to win".

Gotcha.

There was a fcktonne more jumping necessary in 64 than either of the Galaxy games. Most of the vertical movement, was just stand under a star and shake. The enemies could also be shaken if you were lazy or beginner.

 

[apana]

Well, there you have it. Confirmation from the man.

Yeah there will be a game on the 3DS, but we dont know if it will be galaxy 3, combo of galaxy/64, or something entirely different altogether. Honestly I just want to see some pop out. :lol

 

[KevinCow]

is anyone making SM64-esque games these days? i'm curious if that's just a style of game that has passed into obsolescence.

my gut tells me it is.

Nope. It's pretty much a dead genre.

 

[apana]

Nope. It's pretty much a dead genre.

Isnt Epic Mickey sort of like Mario 64 or Banjo Kazooie? I think Spector said he was inspired by that game.

 

[apana]

The pop out isn't as pronounced as movie theaters, no, but they can pop out.

One idea I had was that when Mario jumps off a planet and is orbiting around the planet, if for part of that orbit he just comes out of the screen and then goes back into it. I think that sort of pop out should be possible right? Someone said in the ocarina demo, Epona like jumped out of the screen for a second.

 

[Kard8p3]

Isnt Epic Mickey sort of like Mario 64 or Banjo Kazooie? I think Spector said he was inspired by that game.

It seems to be following in those footsteps.

Now to give my opinion on this 3D Mario debate I prefer the linear level design of the galaxy games to M64. It was when I got to the throwback galaxy that I realized just how much more I preferred the level design of the galaxy games. I still love M64 but as a platformer it's weaker than the galaxy games to me. The best stages from 64 are the bowser stages and those are linear.

 

[Emitan]

Isnt Epic Mickey sort of like Mario 64 or Banjo Kazooie? I think Spector said he was inspired by that game.

The 2D levels look interesting but I haven't seen any real footage of the 3D sections besides the E3 demo where it was just a hub area.

 

[Squeak]

Galaxy was perfect, for me. I replay 64 every year or so, and every time I get more frustrated at the camera and the semi open world design. I love it, but I prefer the newer games.

The camera is the best 3rd person camera ever on a console bar Wind Waker. There is nothing to be frustrated with compared to other attemps. It's awesome and customisable.

That's one of the things I really, really miss in the Galaxy games. IE. being able to swing the camera around freely and have all the different views of the scene that you want. First of all to see where you are going, or want to go. And secondly to judge distances.
Jet Rocket on Wiiware, is generally a pretty mediocre game, but the completely free camera really reminds me what a giant missed opportunity the Galaxy games was.
Often there is absolutely no reason why you can's move the camera, you just can't! To me that really detracts from the believability of the world and the general enjoyment.

And that you are "frustrated with semi open world design" just smacks of cantankerousness. What's not to like? You are free to do what you want OR follow the objective. Does that mean that you disliked the few world in Galaxy that had a bit of "semi open world design"?

is anyone making SM64-esque games these days? i'm curious if that's just a style of game that has passed into obsolescence.

my gut tells me it is.

What is that "style" of game? You mean the 3d platformer? Well they were never really that popular on other platforms than Nintendos, though there where excellent examples like Psychonauts and Ape Escape elsewhere and to a certain extent Epic Mickey and Okami are also examples of this very wide genre.
But really, Mario 64 is pretty much in a genre of it's own. I'd even say that the contemporary Rare games that copied so many elements from it was very different when you look under the hood.

That's basically what this argument is coming down to. Some of us feel that that kind of open-world gameplay is fun, but perhaps for other IPs or characters to explore, and that the tight linearity with explorable side-rooms and paths is what defines Mario.

If it was even true, why couldn't Mario be allowed to change if the games are better for it?

 

[redbarchetta]

7 stars + 100 coin star, which sometimes wasn't possible to get in every version of the stage.

*cough* Six stars + 100 coin star

If you say that about a Galaxy level, how can you defend the 64 ones? They had good parts, but they were all placed throughout a bunch of recycled set pieces that were reused multiple times. Galaxy streamlined the experience by removing the unnecessary areas.

Unrequired =/= Unnecessary. If you removed the "unnecessary," you have removed much of what made Mario 64 unique, hence the varying opinions in this thread. And I'd argue your premise is entirely mistaken. Most of the levels allow you to go after any star you like (hence the "open" statements made by many), thus no part of the level is ever unused--it all exists for your exploration at any time.

Also, that is the one of the more liberal uses of the word "recycled" I've seen. The specific challenges within each level were not recycled. Instead, the stars added a sense of depth and density to each level that Galaxy lacks. There was always more than meets the eye in Mario 64, and that's almost never the case in Mario Galaxy.

How is that not so? Really, for many people, just the addition of Luigi in the second playthrough was incentive to replay the first Galaxy completely. Considering how the players haven't exhaustively gone through every location multiple times, going multiple locations only once even, replaying Galaxy's stages is generally a funner experience than replaying Mario 64's levels.

Your opinion. I thought both were very fun to replay.

That was a bit of an exaggeration, but look at Lethal Lava Land. The map is huge, but most of it is a deathtrap. It's wasted space.

The lava was no more a "waste of space" than the gaps you have to jump in the original Mario Bros. They existed as a hazard.

That's basically what this argument is coming down to. Some of us feel that that kind of open-world gameplay is fun, but perhaps for other IPs or characters to explore, and that the tight linearity with explorable side-rooms and paths is what defines Mario.

Definitions can change; I don't think Mario always has to remain the exact same just for the sake of carrying the Mario name.

 

[Squeak]

*cough* Six stars + 100 coin star



Unrequired =/= Unnecessary. If you removed the "unnecessary," you have removed much of what made Mario 64 unique, hence the varying opinions in this thread. And I'd argue your premise is entirely mistaken. Most of the levels allow you to go after any star you like (hence the "open" statements made by many), thus no part of the level is ever unused--it all exists for your exploration at any time.

Also, that is the one of the more liberal uses of the word "recycled" I've seen. The specific challenges within each level were not recycled. Instead, the stars added a sense of depth and density to each level that Galaxy lacks. There was always more than meets the eye in Mario 64, and that's almost never the case in Mario Galaxy.



Your opinion. I thought both were very fun to replay.



The lava was no more a "waste of space" than the gaps you have to jump in the original Mario Bros. They existed as a hazard.



Definitions can change; I don't think Mario always has to remain the exact same just for the sake of carrying the Mario name.

Well put.
Excellent, well articulated post!

 

[beelzebozo]

What is that "style" of game? You mean the 3d platformer? Well they were never really that popular on other platforms than Nintendos, though there where excellent examples like Psychonauts and Ape Escape elsewhere and to a certain extent Epic Mickey and Okami are also examples of this very wide genre.
But really, Mario 64 is pretty much in a genre of it's own. I'd even say that the contemporary Rare games that copied so many elements from it was very different when you look under the hood.

open world platformers, which were once far more prevalent than they are now. in fact, as kevin noted, they're pretty much nonexistent so far as i can tell.

 

[Chris1964]

3DS to Have 3D and 2D Mario Games

Miyamoto discusses possibilities for Mario sequels on 3DS.

Nintendo has been releasing two general lines of Mario games over the past generation: 3D games along the lines of Super Mario Galaxy and 2D games along the lines of New Super Mario Bros. The latter type sells far better.

So what do these sales trends mean for a 3DS version of Mario? During a Q&A session at Nintendo's earnings briefing last week, investors asked Shigeru Miyamoto to comment on just that.

Miyamoto first explained the general merits and demerits of 3D (the current polygon-based 3D). 3D visuals give players a greater sense of being part of the action and gives more freedom and choice, said Miyamoto. At the same time, some are turned off from 3D games because they appear too complex.

"When Super Mario became Mario 64, the range of players narrowed greatly," Miyamoto admitted. While he feels that Nintendo's developers were able to make use of the strong points of 3D to deliver new game experiences, they were also advancing work on games that, while 3D, can be played by everyone. This resulted in Super Mario Galaxy. Even this doesn't solve the dilemmas, though, so they also made the New Super Mario Bros. series.

Turning to 3DS, Miyamoto said, "When asked 'what will we do on 3DS,' the answer is, of course, we'll make both. They both have their own appeal."

He outlined how the 3DS's 3D display effects could help both types of Mario.

For the 3D type of Mario game -- and this includes Zelda, he said -- it can be difficult to perceive depth, for example if you multiple floors stacked up on top of one another. However, if you have a similar situation on the 3DS with the 3D effect turned on, you can more clearly see what's closer to you.

The 3DS's 3D effect also "gives a great feeling of existence to Mario, Link and others," said Miyamoto. He feels that this is important for his games, as they're made with character "weight" in mind -- that is, making the player feel like the character has weight in its movement.

For 2D Mario games, Miyamoto pointed out that we already see depth-based effects in many of the games. For example, a Wiggler (Hana-chan in Japanese) or Bullet Bill (Killer in Japanese) will fly at the the screen from afar. "It's difficult to tell when they will hit the player, so we were only able to use these lightly. However, we'll be able to use this type of thing quite a bit on the 3DS."

Following Miyamoto's response, Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata said, "You went more in-depth than I'd been expected. This is the first I've heard of this." Miyamoto joked, "No good? Don't tell any game magazine people."

http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2010/11/02/3ds_mario_games/