Super Mario Galaxy is a failure and Nintendo is to blame

[Kenryoku_Maxis]

RolStoppable said:

Kenryoku_Maxis said:

noname2200 said:

scruffybunny said:
2d platformers gives the impression of simplicity, because you are limited to Top, Right, Bottom and Left screens to move about in, left doesn't even count if you can't move backwards.

But open world 3d games, you can move in any direction, so exploration is an inherent part of the game play, the idea of exploring about fruitlessly or getting lost is probably not attractive to many.

But that doesn't explain the tremendous success of titles like the original Zelda and the original Metroid, which were in many ways even more "open world" (as we're using the term here) than games like Galaxy.

Well, the original poster was complaining more about 'cutscenes' but claiing Mario 64 was better than Mario Galaxy because it just allowed you to 'just play the game'.  Yet both have the similar HUD level design where you jump into levels indavidually (one connected to Peach's castle, the other connected to Rosalina's Starship).  In essence, its just like past 2D Mario games where you select a level and then play it.  But all levels are centralized into one area instead of 'worlds'.

Mario Galaxy just added more graphics and some story on top of that interface.  And frankly, aside from making the game better looking, there'snothing really bad about it aside from your own personal discomfort.  In fact, even if you took away the cutscenes and such, you'd find that Mario Galaxy has far more content than Mario 64.

The main issue with Mario Galaxy is that it is not inviting to new players. Too many cutscenes and an awful start of the game. Super Mario 64 gave you control almost immediately and the garden of Peach's castle did let you fool around and get used to the controls until you were ready to go into the castle. Galaxy doesn't give the player the same level of control over the game, because he/she is forced through an extensive tutorial.

Overall the content isn't the problem of Galaxy, but the way how it is introduced. I wouldn't blame people if they would put the controller down and move on to another game. The same goes for Twilight Princess which has probably the worst introduction to the game's world of any Zelda game ever made.

There are of course other reasons why Galaxy hasn't reached 10m yet, but the first couple of hours of the game can definitely be a major turn off for people who don't have much time to spend on video games.

First of all, the first thing that happens right after you start off Mario Galaxy is you are plopped right in front of Peachs Castle (like in Mario 64) and you are allowed to run around and do whatever you want.  Jump around, talk to toads, kick the walls, etc.  Following this, you go watch a VERY short cutscene (nowhere near 15 minutes) and then you are plopped into a short tutorial mode of chasing bunnies (again, that takes like 5-10 minutes).

I will grant you that the intro to Twilight Princess was abysmal, but that game was Nintendo trying to market Zelda more towards those who liked 'story' and 'deep, rich experiences' (aka games like Uncharted and such with long cutscenes).  Mario Galaxy doesn't have this at all.  There's hardly any breaks in the gameplay and only about 4-5 major cutscenes in the whole game aside from 'storytime with Rosalina' (and even those are optional).

And tts pretty bad to claim Mario Galaxy is this horrible game filled with cutscenes when other games are being praised for having cutscenes.  Again, like games like Uncharted 2.  Or how about stuff like Resident Evil.  Or Halo 3.  I mean, why is it so bad for Mario Galaxy to have maybe 15-20 minutes of total cutscenes when other games have hours of cutscenes and are patted on the back for it and people claim they are 'better games' for it?