LordTheNightKnight said:
The point is that no 2D Mario requires you revisiting a level. Even the remixes are still classified as new levels. You could say the point is to give the feeling of constant progression, while revisiting even just a few levels gives the feeling of padding. Plus, again, the fact that this has fewer doesn't change the fact that the formula required almost constant level revisiting in the past games. |
Boy I would prefer you not make post like this. Effort, man! Efffort!
Moving on.
Past games and brand recognition have shown to have little or nothing to do withauccess or perception in current generations, even for legacy series. Again: current content is all that matters. You call on legacy of a series because it matters to you as a non-mainstream gamer.
It's not just the requirement of powers. It's the way the levels work. Let's say the first area in Mario 64 was closer to the 2D Mario games. The only goal would be to get to the top of the hill and then fight the boss to beat the level. Every path to that is an optional way to get to him. Of course the cannon would have to be harder to get to or it would be too easy, but it's all about getting to the goal and moving on to the next level. That first level didn't require any powers, but it obviously didn't flow like a 2D Mario game.
You continue to talk about legacy and perception: agian, that really doesn't matter, and it's been proven not to matter in this generation. The meat is what matters. The meat is what matters. 3D Mario could change the
perception of it all it wants, but it's not going to matter if it still plays like 3D Mario.
Why are you acting as though I'm only discussing powers? Don't you pretending I'm arguing just X, when I'm arguing X, Y, and Z.
Back off. There's a difference between me focusing on what I consider a salient point and me attributing the same focus to you. The former is what's happening here, not the latter.
And making the levels better for 3D movement still doesn't matter if you have to revisit them.
Making them better for 3D movement doesn't matter
anyway, because 3D movement can never, ever,
ever be as accessible as 2D movement. Revisiting them won't have a ton to do with it, I
guarantee.
Why are you thinking I'm discussing how I feel about the game? I'm discussing how the mainstream feels. You can't tell them to just pick up the game and know it's better. You have to make a game they know is better right off the bat.
That suggestion has dick all to do with what you're talking about, it's a personal recommendation based on the fact that I legitimately think youo would be pleased with the purchase of the game; a fiendly gesture, rather than an argumentative one.
And you don't speak for the mainstream; neither does Maelstrom. He's a good market analyst, but he's not much of a critical analysis, and any conjecture you have concerning this point is conjecture alone. It's no more correct (though I suppos it can be easier) to point to any aspect of 3D Mario rather than any other.
Your insistence can basically be summed up as "if 3D Mario plays like 2D Mario, it will appeal like 2D Mario". The problem is that it can't play like 2D Mario by necessity of having three dimensions in which to move, and attempting to make it purely progression-based would up its appeal not eenough to make a statistically noticeable difference.
(yes, you can offer I'm arguing conjecture here, but I don't claim to speak for anyone; my conjection is my own alone, and I do not claim to know necessarily what the mainstream wants: I can only operate off of the most fundamental difference between the games as of Galaxy 2, which is the fact of 3D movement)
