I agree. Ease up on Frog, Carter. He just likes the old Mario games better (as do I of course).
Printable View
I agree. Ease up on Frog, Carter. He just likes the old Mario games better (as do I of course).
I can, but your opinion is sounding like an order; you refuse to let us say that we indeed think that Mario 64 is a great game and a great continuation of the Mario series. I don't care if you don't like it. I've seen many people who don't like it. But that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy the game and that I'm not entitled to my opinion on it. You repeatedly keep telling people how they should view Mario 64; I don't give a rat's crapper what you think about the game. If you thought it was the worst game ever, I wouldn't care the slightest; I just get uppity when I'm told, repeatedly, how I should view a game; or how I'm wrong for viewing a game a certain way.
I can see how you'd imagine it to be a departure, and I don't care, it's fine by me; I accepted that when the argument began. But you should also be content with accepting the fact that I, and many others, view the game not only as a landmark title, but one that continues and pushes along, a great series.
The pace and feel were totally different, especially if you played Sonic for A emblems. It was alot of glitz and flash, pretty linear with a few forks in the road. Always moving, always running ahead. Pretty much the same ton a and feel as the old Sonics.Quote:
Originally posted by Kosh_H
There is really not much difference between it and Mario 64.
The old mario games were VERY linear, much more so than even sonic. They were VERY narrow, and focused more on finding the subtleties of the level and working through gauntlets of obstacles than any kind of exploration. There wasn't much of that in 64 at all. It was a really open game with alot of backtracking, and not much real action.
I don't even mean this to say that Sonic Adventure was a better game than Mario 64 (though I did feel compelled to play it more) I just think it captured the spirit of its parent better.
I've been on the defensive here, and you know it. I honestly like Mario 64, I just don't love it. I repeatedly stressed that I don't mean this to sound like anyone should like the game less. And I said that repeatedly. And you still act like I'm a jackass for missing all the core elements of gameplay that we lost in the "transition". I don't care if you never gave a shit about those things, but you know they were there and aren't now, and that I like them, so what the hell is you objection? You say you want me to acknowledge that it's ok to like the game when I said that explicitly no less than 5 times! URGH! I hate how it's all or nothing with alot of Nintendo fans. If I'm not praising every aspect of their games I'm "bashing" them. It seems especially silly when I'm only making a relativistic statement agianst another Nintendo game.Quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
I can, but your opinion is sounding like an order.
My Nintendo "hate" comment was a bit far, sorry about that. It's just seeming like you won't accept the fact that someone loves the game and considers it a continuation. Your comment "If you really think that 64 is a continuation of the gameplay of the original's then I don't think you really "got" the original games to begin with" verifies the fact that you won't accept the fact that I consider it a continuation. I played every Mario game. I "got" them.
Now, I'm sorry if I've made an ass of myself. I don't like to do so. I accept and acknowledge the fact that you do not think that Mario was better than the 2D games; that's perfectly fine, doesn't bother me a bit. I'm just saying that I have the opposite opinion, and you yourself stated that people who do not share your opinion did not "get" the original games. And that is why I made an ass of myself; not a justification, just reason. No justifying for me getting all bent out of shape.
Well let's just say then that if you think the Mario 64 games are a continuation of the original 2D games then you didn't get the same thing out of those games that I did. Is that better? That's really all I meant by that statement in the first place.
Every mario game has had retarded enemies.
Yeah but in the 2D ones you had to actually confront them to avoid them. It's not like mario 64 where they're basically just pylons that you can run around.Quote:
Originally posted by stormy
Every mario game has had retarded enemies.
I just see all the Mario games as platformers. Frog, you seem to focus on the enemy encounters, and I don't think that is what Mario is all about. I beleive the essence of Mario is the great level design and doing your best to jump from one platform to the other. While the enemies in the 2D games do come at you more, they are still in the 3D games to impeed your progress. Comparing the 2D Mario games to other 2D games and the new Mario games to other 3D games, I think they both achieve the same amount of greatness with what they can do.
There is no way EAD could have made a 3D mario game that plays like the 2D ones. It just wouldn't work. Same thing with games like Ninja Gaiden. why do you think the xbox ninja gaiden is going to be more like a beat'em up? Zelda is a different story, because it was always designed with a 3D feel. If you can't appreciate the greatness of Mario 64 because you're stuck on how different it is from the 2D mario's, then thats your loss.
I always felt as though mario was a mixed bag. (just about all the games) A combination of an obstacle course that needed to be negotiated using pixel perfect timing and placement, an adventure because of the sheer size of the mario world and the variety of terrain (mountains, water, icy, cavernous etc), and an action game because of the interaction with objects (shells to throw at rows of enemies, powerups to fire projectiles, capes to fly, dinosaurs to eat, invincibility stars to chain point combos together and finish the level at high speed etc etc)
Along with this, there were always the puzzle elements like trying to get enough of a certain object to complete a non-compulsory task which unlocks a new area and seamlessly rewards you with special items and new levels.(without blatantly having to tell you this on the back of the box or as a sales pitch, of course.)
Really, mario games should never be defined by 1 specific game genre. It's a mixed bag. Saying it's lost what made it so great is saying more about yourself than the mario games.
Which brings me to rayman 1 & 2: This game is overhyped. It's too linear, the physics are too wooden and don't feel dynamic enough to allow for subtle steering or control of the character, (platforming should be about skill, not patience. You have to almost feel connected to your character when you control it and that the character has a wieght to it.) the majority of the levels uses tried and tested platform game formulas. It was also slow. Rayman can't do all the cool things other characters can do like run, jump, duck, slide, and combine these moves together to test your reflexs and ability to react to a dynamic, changing environment with the correct sequence of buttons, like just about every other platformer does.
It was a a case of walking slowly through an area, admiring the scenary and finding the walls that defined the boundary of that level, then just shooting the odd enemy from afar and moving on to the next area. (the areas never interrelated to each other or were interconnected through alternate courses. Eg you couldn't do super lengthy jumps at high speed and velocity to totally avoid an obstacle, you had to go through plod though an obstacle the same way every time using the same method, and using no brain power or creativity to pass it by.)
You couldn't do things differently to get through the levels and there was virtually no replayability of going through it again. I like to be able to test my limits in a platform game world. If I see an ledge which is too high, I like to combine moves together to see if I can make it using skill or brains or technique, not have it predefined or only there because it is part of the sceneary and there's only 1 solution to get to it. (I also like to be rewarded for it. Maybe there is some item hidden on that ledge that I can't quite see the first time, that once discovered, totally surprises me and solves one of my earlier problems. There may even be other goals to consider and more effiecient ways to beat that obstacle, using other means.)
There was virtually no challenge (not difficulty, - although there wasn't that much of that either - , but playful challenge that gets you excited when you get the chance to really play with the virtual playground. I didn't get that with rayman 2. A challenge is like something that tempts your limits to see how far you can take them. eg. -how many enemies you can jump on to get to a higher, hard-to-access platform, without falling or making mistakes,
-how fast can you get though a level, without dying.
-How many enemies/turtles can you kill with 1 shell without getting hit by the object when it rebounds off a wall?
..You know, all these little things that make for a very dynamic and interactive environment that brings some life to the play area and adds a little controlled choas to the game.
The only thing I liked that much about it was the graphical style of the world and the animation of the characters. It was pretty average in gameplay and the design of levels was only ok. You can say it was a fun game that doesn't break any moulds and/or pretend to be something other than what it is, but that's it. Which is probably a good thing for people who only want to get a specific thing out of a game.
But anyway I like my games to challenge a combination of things at once so that you think about them on different levels. This is the key that makes a good platformer so replayable imo. Your not doing only 1 thing at any 1 time, your thinking about what else must be done amoungst all the chaos of trying to reach the end of the level. Although the goals seem like a means to end, you are having so much fun, you often forget about the main exit. A lot of what's lost in platformers is that sense of losing yourself in the world and letting the player adapt his style of play to his interests. Most designers are very greedy and force you through an area for a specific singular purpose, overlooking the fact that the designer can interact with the player through the open-endedness of his level design and treating the player as a freethinking, mischievous little child who just wants to fool around on a virtual playground because of the fun of it. If you start to take platformers too serious and 1 goal-oriented, you distance yourself too much from the element of the game environment's playfullness and it becomes too much like a difficult obstacle course with repetitive gameplay and no self-absorbing qualities or creative empowerment.
Also one of the reasons mario 64 was so easy was because it was the first game to use the analogue stick or something and shiggy didn't want to make the game too hard for people because of the new control method and movment in a 3d environment for the first time. I remember reading this a long time ago in a mag. Anyway isn't SMS supposed to be a bit harder than SM64? Remember mario isn't exactly designed for the hardcore or anything. They want to appeal to as many skill ranges as possible. I reckon it would do well if nintendo made a harder version of a 3d mario game as a quicker follow up to SMS. Kind of like what zelda Majora's mask was to toot in difficulty and strictness in rules. (but then people would complain it was too hard and not fitting of the mario mould and say it was not as fun and shun it or something. :D) Hint to nintendo: we aren't living in the cartridge era anymore so more regular releases and follow-ups to established favourites would be more readily acceptable than in the past. It took 6 years for this, now that the engine is done they could just borrow from SMS and re-use that for the sequel instead of making us wait a whole new console generation. (maybe that's what the gc wario is for. ;) )