Printable View
I'll say this much Andy, at this point at least I am trying to discuss and I find my ideas more interesting than your one line replies. Do you know this guy who hangs on the click forums named Recap? You'd get along famously with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
haha OK, Hal9000.Quote:
My idea is not to use your idea. This is a better idea.
From your POV, a better course of action. Not an idea. Ideas come from a personal thought process.
You want me to write paragraphs about your idea's not being good? There's no need to get pissy because I don't like your idea's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan1CC
Hal was a better speller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan1CC
Right. I thought about your idea, looked at the outcome and had an idea not to involve your idea about the targetting system (I didn't say anything about hot spots or whatever else you had cooked up).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan1CC
No, it just might help not to be such a smart ass just making repeated mundane replies like "The reason it is not a good idea is because it is not a good idea. The fact that I don't like your idea and would not have chosen your idea makes my idea a better idea."Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
EDIT: Oh yeah, and using spelling as a defense, that is SO Johnny Cochrane/Star Jones. ha
Here are the reasons why, as posted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
This isn't a serious issue to me, Dylan, I'm not defending myself against your silly comments because you making them is defense enough. I didn't like your idea, I said so, and now you're angry. That's all there is here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I'm not angry, just wanted a deeper discussion than "My idea is better than your idea." Sorry but I guess I misintrepreted the tone of your replies. But yeah, I liked Seth's reply because his was detailed and interesting to reply to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Who knows, maybe a new control scheme on the Rev controller will encourage chain jumping of some kind somehow. I don't disagree it's harder to pull off than we know and don't disagree that lock on wouldn't be a good 100% quick fix.
No, people are not saying this. I'd like for you to point out where someone did, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan1CC
What people are saying is that, while locking on can work for Zelda, it wouldn't work for Mario. Tank controls work for Tomb Raider, but they don't work for Mario. Holding a button to go foward works for racing games, but it doesn't work for Mario. Using a bunch of statistics upfront to determine damage works for RPGs, but it doesn't work for Mario.
Mario is a platformer. Accurate jumping is supposed to be the entire challenge. Adding a lock-on for the jumps eliminates the entire point (jumping accurately due entirely to skill), and takes away the one thing that makes Mario, Mario.
And that was already addressed a decade ago when Miyamoto decided to make the worlds large and open-ended, with multiple goals spread around them rather than a single goal at the end of a linear level. Thus, the third dimension was added with little trouble, and the central focus of Mario (challenge via accuate jumping) remained intact.Quote:
The old games were in a fixed environment, the new games are 3D, so there has to be some sort of midddle ground introduced to balance it out is all I am saying.
I admire your idea sharing, I just didn't think you took criticism well. Everyone has their ideas to make a game better and I think it's alright to share them.Quote:
While platforming is the core of the Mario games, someday they could re-add chain jumping, who knows, maybe a new control scheme on the Rev controller will encourage it somehow. I don't disagree it's harder to pull off than we know and don't disagree that lock on wouldn't be a good 100% quick fix.
I'm not sure if there is a fix. The very nature of the 3D platforming beast dictates that chain jumping isn't that viable. The trajectory issue is the main problem. The best thing about a 3D platforming Mario game is the way the levels are designed to be used as a weapon, and not just an obstacle in the way. You can climb and jump off/on every wall to get to a higher place whereas something like a Sly Cooper uses the weapon as an obstacle course you can only solve in a logical order. This is why I still like Sunshine more than Cooper.
But in the end Mario 64 was about platforming, not chaining shells for combos and that's what Nintendo focused on. This control combined with the amazing level design is why the game is so adored.
That didn't come out right, what I meant was "people are saying lock-on belongs in games like Zelda.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
In any case, you make some good, detailed points.
Fair enough, sorry if I sounded cranky, I just got done with a whopping 14 hour shift of trying to get hicks to understand the 'net which might have rubbed off a bit into my posting tone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Anyways, the point you made on trajectory was really interesting.
And 64 is my fave in the series next to SMB3 and SMW2. It's not so much a blind jones for jump chaining in a new game, if not just something that makes the levels feel more "busy" like the old games. Sunshine had amazing, beautiful levels and the platforms are there, but there are still too many vast, empty spots so 64 is still the winner.
I should have been faced with enemies on at least a few branches in Pianta village's giant tree, ya know? And the chain chomp puppies don't count, they were cool but a different kind of enemy.
Yeah, I agree, but that was a result of bad level design rather than any fault of the mechanics.
Mario 64 was fine.
Mario 64 was fine again on the DS.
Mario 64 on the Revolution will not be fine.