KylieDog said:
Senlis said:
I stopped reading when he complained about.
"In the 2d Mario games, you just kept moving to the right. It didn’t matter how you did it. There were many ways to go to the right. Starting in Super Mario World, the goals became more and more puzzle orientated with collect-a-thons. 3d Marios so repel me not so much that they are 3d but because 3d Mario is a collectathon. It isn’t about moving to a flagpole. It is about finding a star and this always results in some stupid ‘puzzle’."
This shows his ignorance. The reason Mario 64 was designed the way it was because of high 3D level development costs. The had to use the "star" system so they could have multiple objectives per level, and therefore save money in the budget. Sonic 3D games tried to keep the "moving to a flagpole" system, and the games paid for it. Sonic games tended to be shorter than they should be and didn't tend to match the quality of their 2D games.
He can not like Mario 64 and likewise games for that reason; I won't fault him for it. But he doesn't mention the cause of the problem and that leads me to believe he doesn't know it and thinks it was a design choice. |
The reason for the design of the 3D Marios does not matter. They are what they are, and he is pointing out those flaws.
Are you suggesting that if a game on a very low budget released and was a bad game that it being bad shouldn't matter because it was a low budget? A Bad game would be a bad game.
(I am not saying Mario 64 is bad game, to be clear)
|
Like I said in my original post, he is free to not like the game if he finds it not fun. I will not fault him for that.
What annoys me is that he makes it sound like a design choice and not a necessity from the change to 3D. It seems clear to me he does not know it was necessary and I am calling him ignorant for it.
