The VG Resource

Strangely, Super Mario World isn't as fun as it used to be, but Super Mario 64 is still pretty awesome. But it might because I like 3D Platformers better in general,

Or maybe I wore SMW out playing all those crazy hacks...

(03-08-2015, 03:59 PM)Goemar Wrote: [ -> ]Daemoth this is the stupidest argument I have heard in a long time. Yes 2D and 3D Mario games are completely different. But 3D Mario still distinctively plays like a 3D Mario game and not just a 3D game with Mario in it.

It's like how Zelda OoT, MM and WW are completely different from the 2D Zelda games but they still play like 3D Zelda games. If a game played just like OoT you'd be like "this feels like Zelda"

I get that the 2D ones can be seen as the "true" Mario games as he was 2D first but today's NSMB doesn't feel a damn like classic Mario to me. Every Mario game is going to feel different but that doesn't mean one major Mario title is more or less Mario than another.

Stupidest? cmon mate, theres no need for that.
Let me reiterate, i am speaking about when Sm64 was released, Sm64 had almost nothing to do with the previous Mario games. Not every 3D Mario games released. And its not about the 3d, its the fact that they changed so much: The health and power up system, the unclear goals in level, the controls steep learning curve. The triple jump, the long jump, the wall jump, the back flip crouch, the flip while jumping backward and the slide mechanics made it a lot harder.
 For example, Ocarina of time,  yes, it totally feel like a Zelda games, they didnt change that much compared to Sm64, the health system is exactly the same, even the annoying beep is still there, there are long dungeons, tons of puzzle, tons of equipment to gather, and a world to explore. 
Also, if we check the last game released, Super mario world 3d, the levels are extremely linear, the health system is the same as the original and they bring back the usual power up.
Heres what the wiki says :
"The game plays very similarly to Super Mario 3D Land, being a 3D platformer though with gameplay similar to the 2D games. This game retains its predecessor's similarity to Super Mario Bros. 3 (with colorful blocks, the Super Leaf, Spikes and the Lose a Life theme returning from that game); many elements from Super Mario World are returning as well, such as Chargin' Chucks and Kuribons, now with an official English name, Galoombas. Stages are once again open yet linear, have a time limit, and end by grabbing the classic Goal Pole at the end."

Super Mario 64's athletic abilities were established in 1994's Donkey Kong remake for Game Boy... but besides that, "tap this button three times" isn't all that complex. The athletic abilities made the game harder? No, they made it much easier. They gave the player a greater range of control over their movement, which was needed to allow them to properly navigate in 3D space.

Even though the game has missions (which aren't cryptic at all... "Go Kill the Bob-Omb with a Crown That We Just Showed You" is not even a little bit cryptic), you clear those objectives by... running and jumping from platform to platform on an obstacle course. Just like in every other Mario game. They even brought back a significant number of weight-based platforms, which you might notice are from the original SMB.

Green Mushrooms mean 1up. 100 coins means 1up.

Star Power was limited. The SM64 power-ups are all limited.

Stomp on Goombas to kill them. Stomp on most bad guys to kill them. Don't walk under a Thwomp. Kick a Koopa out of its shell. Stay the hell away from Bob-Ombs and Bullet Bills. Boo chases when you aren't looking. Fight Bowser, save Peach.

It's... It's utterly Mario.

Then again, what was Mario at that point? When Super Mario 64 debuted, there was already the Donkey Kong arcade trilogy, the Super Mario Bros. trilogy, Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2 (Doki Doki Panic), Super Mario World, Super Mario Land 1 & 2, Donkey Kong's enhanced remake, Wrecking Crew, Super Mario Kart, Mario's Tennis, Dr. Mario (three times), the educational Mario games (Mario is Missing, Mario's Time Machine, etc.), Game & Watch Gallery, Mario & Wario, NES Golf (which you may have noticed is the precursor to Mario Golf), three cartoon shows (four if you count the Saturday Supercade segments), a terrible movie, an anime film and an OVA, Super Mario RPG....

...and all of those things are very different and had very different ideas about what it meant to be part of the Super Mario franchise.

(03-08-2015, 06:00 PM)Kriven Wrote: [ -> ]Super Mario 64's athletic abilities were established in 1994's Donkey Kong remake for Game Boy... but besides that, "tap this button three times" isn't all that complex. The athletic abilities made the game harder? No, they made it much easier. They gave the player a greater range of control over their movement, which was needed to allow them to properly navigate in 3D space.
The point i was trying to get to by listing all the ability is fact that its hard to master given the fact there are so many. Especially compared to the oldies. 

Even though the game has missions (which aren't cryptic at all... "Go Kill the Bob-Omb with a Crown That We Just Showed You" is not even a little bit cryptic), you clear those objectives by... running and jumping from platform to platform on an obstacle course. Just like in every other Mario game. They even brought back a significant number of weight-based platforms, which you might notice are from the original SMB.
Not cryptic, but a lot more complex than run to the right side of the level.
Green Mushrooms mean 1up. 100 coins means 1up.

Star Power was limited. The SM64 power-ups are all limited.

Stomp on Goombas to kill them. Stomp on most bad guys to kill them. Don't walk under a Thwomp. Kick a Koopa out of its shell. Stay the hell away from Bob-Ombs and Bullet Bills. Boo chases when you aren't looking. Fight Bowser, save Peach.

It's... It's utterly Mario.

Then again, what was Mario at that point? When Super Mario 64 debuted, there was already the Donkey Kong arcade trilogy, the Super Mario Bros. trilogy, Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2 (Doki Doki Panic), Super Mario World, Super Mario Land 1 & 2, Donkey Kong's enhanced remake, Wrecking Crew, Super Mario Kart, Mario's Tennis, Dr. Mario (three times), the educational Mario games (Mario is Missing, Mario's Time Machine, etc.), Game & Watch Gallery, Mario & Wario, NES Golf (which you may have noticed is the precursor to Mario Golf), three cartoon shows (four if you count the Saturday Supercade segments), a terrible movie, an anime film and an OVA, Super Mario RPG....

...and all of those things are very different and had very different ideas about what it meant to be part of the Super Mario franchise.
My point is people expected the main game of this new console, the N64, to be as easy to play as every other Marios entry games.

It was probably the best game they could produce at the time, given the novelty of 3d and exploration. But it had a lot of flaw as a "Mario" entry game.

So Mario having some new moves is changing loads but the whole complete change of combat with Zelda is just "Hey that's not a big change at all" - my point is everyone is going to have an opinion on what counts as a "true" game to a series (hint: 3D Zelda doesn't to me, live with it) and we have this 3D/2D divide the 3D titles can still feel very much like a game in the series, even if vastly different to the 2D ones. There's just that familiarity, how things move, the physics - the feel. The feel of the game. And Mario 64 feels a lot like a Mario game. When I first played Mario 64 as a kid I was amazed it was 3D but there was never a moment where my brain said, "Hey, this doesn't feel very Mario-like" - it simply felt like the next step in the Mario franchise. Now when I first played Sonic Adventure my brain slumped and sighed, "This isn't Sonic, this is something else"

But well, god damn - watch out people, he quoted a wiki, guess he just won the internet.

Anyway, lets move on, I'm tired.

(03-08-2015, 07:51 PM)daemoth Wrote: [ -> ]My point is people expected the main game of this new console, the N64, to be as easy to play as every other Marios entry

Quick side note. I've been playing Mario 64 since I was like... four years old and I never found the gameplay to be that hard to grasp. You're just like, running and jumping and stuff. :I

(03-08-2015, 03:59 PM)Goemar Wrote: [ -> ]It's like how Zelda OoT, MM and WW are completely different from the 2D Zelda games but they still play like 3D Zelda games. If a game played just like OoT you'd be like "this feels like Zelda"

Not that it undermines your entire argument or anything, but I honestly don't think the Zelda franchise is the best example in this instance. I was actually going to make an allusion to it earlier, but then I realized that the 3D Zelda games actually ARE extremely similar to their 2D counterparts. The functions in both are actually extremely similar with just different restrictions based on the player's perspective of the environment. The only real big difference between the two is the targeting-based fighting system. It doesn't really compare to the degree of differences between the 2D and 3D Mario titles.

Well except for 3D World, which honestly feels much more closely related to a Mario 2D title than the traditional 3D ones. It's like they took a NSMB game and slapped a Z-axis on it.

.... Why..... why is almost everyone replying to me? and what with the hostile attitude? Did i insult anyone? Did i say something wrong?? We can argue about something without telling the other he is ignorant or stupid, right? Its the first i post in those kinds of opinion threads and yeah, this is like a slap to the face.
And, um, i didnt know it was wrong, but i quoted the wiki caused i didnt play Smw3d and the paragraph explained my point pretty well?

Because your expressing your opinion as factual authority. Instead of "For me the difference in gameplay makes it so Mario 64 isn't what I enjoy in a Mario game" it was all "SMW because Mario 64 is not a true Mario game and could be a game starring anyone so says I, God your lord and master"

When you display opinion as fact it makes you look like a giant penis. Specially when your opinion is actually one many would disagree with.

(03-09-2015, 08:45 AM)Goemar Wrote: [ -> ]Because your expressing your opinion as factual authority. Instead of "For me the difference in gameplay makes it so Mario 64 isn't what I enjoy in a Mario game" it was all "SMW because Mario 64 is not a true Mario game and could be a game starring anyone so says I, God your lord and master"

When you display opinion as fact it makes you look like a giant penis. Specially when your opinion is actually one many would disagree with.

Hum, alright? hum, it was far from my intention and i thought it was pretty obvious this was an opinion and that i was talking for myself? Sorry if it was not that obvious.

...yeah, and it wasn't really that sound of an argument either, lol

Like, the goals in Mario 64 weren't as vague as a Zelda game, but the goals were strewn all over the place. The game really lacked the linearity you'd see in future titles like Mario Galaxy, where it'd have you spawn in a specific area with a very clean-cut task to clear. Frequently, I'd end up clearing all the needed stars in each course in no particular order, and they'd end up being completely different from the missions provided (really, all they were good for was having specific characters or events spawn on the map, like Koopa the Quick or a heightened water level)

Like Super Mario World was linear: "Go from point A to point B."
Mario Galaxy, in the scheme of the 3D Mario games, was a little more lax: "Go from point A to point B, but here's point C, if you want".
Mario 64 was too lax, and was more like "Clear objective A. Oh whatever fuck it here's B C D E F and G do whatever the hell you want oh and there's also H if you wanna play through to completion."

Still my opinion - but that "freedom", while nice, doesn't make it feel very Mariolike.

I think this one might have strayed a bit off from its intended course.

(03-09-2015, 08:45 AM)Goemar Wrote: [ -> ]Because your expressing your opinion as factual authority. Instead of "For me the difference in gameplay makes it so Mario 64 isn't what I enjoy in a Mario game" it was all "SMW because Mario 64 is not a true Mario game and could be a game starring anyone so says I, God your lord and master"

When you display opinion as fact it makes you look like a giant penis. Specially when your opinion is actually one many would disagree with.

i get it, daemoth didnt display his opinion correctly; but, even though this is the case, you arent that much better by flat out insulting him for it. :\

(03-08-2015, 03:59 PM)Goemar Wrote: [ -> ]Daemoth this is the stupidest argument I have heard in a long time.

i mean, come on. was this line really necessary? keep things civil when you want to tell him how to go about it. :I

Mario has always been the fore-runner in seeing what platformers can do. Super Mario World (And to another extent Super Mario Bros. 3) have been pinnacles to what the 2-D Mario games can do. True you have New Super Mario Bros but if I had to be bluntly honest it hardly compares to the original 2D games because it didn't heavily innovate what the 2D games could do aside from adding a few minor elements from the 3D games, and it wore out very quickly to the point where there isn't much re-playability. Hands down Super Mario World in my honest opinion will be the Mario game of all 2-D Mario Games because it focused on exploration in ways that most of the 2D mario games haven't really done at all, and that's not just because of all the secret exits you could find, take a look at the over-world and all the areas you could open up and go to. Nothing felt more real then seeing a path open up after finding an exit.

Then you have the 3D mario games. Mario 64 was a massive change for the Mario series because it focused more on being able to accomplish a set of goals through exploring a level in depth. This wasn't a 2-D Mario game where you had to get to the goal post in a set amount of time. It was an entirely new concept with power-ups that weren't a norm to the mario series (Metal, Wing, and Invisibility caps instead of Flowers, Shrooms, and Stars). This was actually pretty cool at it's time and even the remake does a good job at innovating every factor. However Super Mario 64 wasn't as good as it was made out to be because no one really knew how to really approach a video game in 3d at this time and this kind of led to mixed reactions. That's why I can't really put SM64 ahead of SMW.

Honestly though the only game that could actually beat both of them is probably Super Mario 3D World, I could go on and on about the reasons regarding that but I think the gist of it is that it took everything good from each Mario game for the past 30 years the Mario franchise has been out as a whole and put it into one game, it felt like an actual sequel instead of something that was a sequel just for the sake of being a sequel with more content.

a little late on schedule, but here goes!

Zelda Twilight Princess Vs. Zelda Skyward Sword

(ill promise to not have a nintendo game next time guys, just bear with me...)