Slimebeast said:
RolStoppable said:
Slimebeast said:
Same worlds as in "flower world", "ice world" and "mushroom world" (just making names up here) or does he mean something else when he talks about expanding the universe?
Because I thought Malstrom was a gameplay-centric guy, and in the OP quote he seems to imply that Nintendo in fact understands that "it's about game play mechanics".
Btw, what do you think? Is NSMB2 stagnation?
|
Yes, same worlds in that sense.
Malstrom is gameplay-centric as in video games shouldn't try to be like movies and spoonfeed stories to you, but he is also a strong believer in content (as in fleshed out game universes; a game is a journey through an interesting world). In the OP quote he criticizes Nintendo for thinking that it's only about gameplay mechanics. He repeatedly highlights how SMB3 fleshed out the Mushroom Kingdom that was introduced in the original SMB. SMB3 had maps and different lands. Super Mario World took place in Dinosaur Land, a different world.
The NSMB games are just revisits of the Mushroom Kingdom (although they added Jungle/Poison/Mountain areas). NSMB2 doesn't bring anything new to the table, so yes, it is stagnation. Going forward, Nintendo can (or rather must) either expand the Mushroom Kingdom or introduce a new world (like SMW did).
|
He has the same philosophy as me then. And hopefully many others.
I kinda find it strange that Nintendo doesn't expand the universe now that you describe how repetitive the worlds have been, historically. In game design one of the easiest things is to change the setting and just allow the artists to create.
|
Why is it strange?? Putting a less effort as possible and getting max profits isnt that uncommon in the video game world, hell in the world period. Why rake their brains and time on trying to up NSMB themes and what not when they know its going to do gangbusters anyway? Im not saying i like it this way, but its just the way it is
