By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LGF on 21 October 2014
Edit Thread
Experimental42 said:

LGF said:


Up until release Super Mario World 3D was stigmatized as a port of 3D Land, it received critical acclaim but still was colored by it. You also seem to think that bigger is better, but that's not how Mario or the genre works really. Besides, most of these bigger games ended up being bloated messes compaired to earlier iterations and are fairly open when it comes to admiting they'd rather spend money on brainwashing people into liking what they have instead of making it better.

You also missed my point on the Tomb Raider thing. Mario 64 was far more revolutionary than any other game in the 3D era. Every game that uses 360 analog movement or a camera you control with the right stick has lifted that straight from Mario 64. Tomb Raider is a good example of how games in 3D played before Mario 64. So unless you thing RE4, The Last of Us, and CoD would have been awesome with tank controls, you're gonna have to admit that Mario 64 was pretty revolutionary.

None of Mario Galaxy's real innovation comes from the Wii Mote. It was all spherical platforms and gravity tricks. You could remove the Wii Mote and have the exact same game, but remove the two elements I mention and it's just another 3D Mario.

Sonic 3 & Knuckles used perspective to make 2D sprite look like you were on a sphere. That's not the same. Neither is SA2B. Yeah it had spheroids, but they didn't have dynamic gravity effects and required you to wall climb. If you jump from one sphere and come close to another, its gravity doesn't pull you in. It was flagged by an event like a rocket or contact. The rotating tubes in the Sonic levels had their own gravity as well, but if you didn't exit them properly you flew off into space. On top of that, watch the clip you sent and look at that camera and the level of control. Just awful.

As for the naming, Super Mario 3D world has more in common with Super Mario Bros than Super Mario World or Land: Flagpoles from 1, characters abilities from 2, and almost all of the power-ups from 3 most notably. In fact, Super Mario World is the game it seems to have the least in common with. To the best of my memory it's only link to Super Mario World is a few enemy types and a couple stage references. Naming it Super Mario Bros. 4 would have invoked a 2D image in people's minds, and Super Mario 3D World is a 3D game with heavy 2D Mario influence. Nobody would have drawn as many comparisons to the traditional 3D Marios.

I don't think bigger is better. But when I see that the games that received the best scores were ports from the previous generation or steps back (such as 3D World), while really ambitious games (Watchdogs, DriveClub, ShadowFall, etc.) received 70s, I get really upset. I prefer ambitious games with some bugs than the "played it safe" old formulas everytime.

Again, if it wasn't for SM64, it would be for anything else. Sure it had merit to be the first. But it's not because of that, that no other game would have that feature. I think the most revolutionary was actually N64 for having the analog stick. If PS or Saturn had that, you would have games using it like SM64 did.

Sonic 3 & Knuckles applied gravity rules (very simple of course, but still). Also, when I compare SA2 and Galaxy, for me the most revolutionary was SA2. At least, I think it would be easier to create Galaxy looking at SA2, than creating SA2 looking at SA1, for instance. I hear always people complaining about the camara in these games, but for me it was never an issue.

About 3D World's name, SM World also invokes the 2D image in people's minds. The term "3D" just gives the sense of some revolution in the formula. It also suggests that it would be to the 3D Land, like SM World was for SM Land. Calling it SMB4 would be abusing of the SMB name (which had already been used in a Wii U title) and the "4" would suggest even more of the same.