By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Never on 12 May 2014
Edit Thread
spemanig said:
Never said:
spemanig said:
DevilRising said:
spemanig said:
cusman said:
Real / Serious Mario game what?

I can't think of a better "Mario" game in the history of "Mario" games than Super Mario 3D World. I and whole family enjoyed that one. I don't care about what your idea of a "serious" or "real" "Mario" game is.


3D World is isometric, not 3D. This is not a topic of quality, it's a topic of catagorization. Calm down.


No. Ultima is isometric. Sonic 3D Blast was isometric. Diablo is isometric. Mario 3D World is not. It changes camera angles, but it is 3D.


...No. It's isometric. If follows isometric game design. That's why Mario follows a grid. Obviously it's rendered in 3D, but it's not a "3D platformer." It's an isometric platformer rendered in 3D.

Could you clarify why you classify SM3DW as isometric rendered in 3d but not Mario 64? Is it due to Mario being limited to 12 directions of travel?

Surly isometic is just a way of visually representing a 3d object. Render an isometric game using full 3d graphics it effectivly becomes full 3d? 

By contrast render a 2d side scrolling platform game in 3d and it is still mechanically 2d because it's still limited in dimensions of travel. 

If mario 64 was patched to give SM3DW style camera angles and limit mario to 12 directions would you consider it isometric?


No, it's literally the level design. Have you never thought about how literally every platformable surface in the 3D Land/World series is cubic in shape? Almost everything is a perfect box or a perfect circle. Rarely will you see an irregular platformable shape. Ever wonder why literally every single level in the game is seen in a default 3/4 isometric POV remeniscent of a diorama/musical stage/shoebox, you know, like literally every other isometric game ever made?

Mario 64 wouldn't world with those modifications because the level design is structurally different. Isometric is not "just a way of visually representing a 3D object." It's a very specific type of game design, exactly the same way 2D is not "just a way of visually representing a 2D object." It's a fundumental type of game design not restricted at all by how a game is rendered.

That's why retarded terms like 2.5D don't make a lick of sense. Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze isn't a "2.5D" game; at a 2D game rendered in 3D 3D specific spectical. The fundemental game design is entirely 2D. Super Mario 3D World/Land are the 2.5D of isometric game design. People think that just because the game is rendered in 3D and you now have controll of the camera sometimes, that the entire rest of the game design, which 100% is isometric, is null. It's not. That doesn't make it bad. That makes it different. It's a different type of Mario game. A different catagory. A different subgenre.

-------

Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze = 2D Platformer Rendered in 3D

This could be rendered entirely in 2D with literally no sacrific to it's gameplay. It would be 100% playable. 2D Game design.

-------

Super Mario 3D World = Isometric Platformer Rendered in 3D

This could be rendered entirely in 2D with literally no sacrific to it's gameplay. It would be 100% playable even with the mandatory fixed camera inherent of games rendered in 2D. Isometric game design.

-------

Super Mario Galaxy = 3D Plaformer obviously rendered in 3D

If this were rendered entirely in 2D, it would 100% unplayble. The three dementional movement and 3D camera is a fundemental part of the game's core game design. 3D game design.

-------

Capisci?



I see what you mean. It's got isometric style level design where they intentionally restrict what they built to stay within the limitations of what you could do with isometric graphics.
A 3d rendered isometric game and a full 3d game with stylised isometric inspired level design is probably the exact same thing.