By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Frogger on 01 April 2015
Edit Thread
Never said:

We definitly disagree here.

3d world is a clear evolution of galaxy but one that changes the camera to one that will never mess up and allows multiplayer but, as a trade off, confines and limits how the levels are design. Both 3d world and galaxy are linear mario games, where you traverse a range of elaberate obsicals on the way to the goal. Thay play very simalour fashion. A behind mario camera is more emersive and alows for more interesting levels, whilst a isometric style camera of 3d world arguably allows more precise control over mario.

I'm more into the exploration based Marios of 64 and Sunshine, but I don't see how 3d world should get such crit from galaxy fans. Half of what they say against 3d world can apply equally to galaxy. I don't object to two 3d world games as I don't object to 2 galaxy games. Both galaxy 2 and 3d world did enough to justify their existance to my mind and both play in the same linear fashion.

I think it's more likely they'll release a third galaxy game and then we can complain about the galaxy series.


No, 3D World, and Land, are just isometric platformers. It's not an evolution of anything. It's an entirely different concept. They don't play similarly at all. It's more than just a camera angle. One is isometric, and one isn't. There's literally nothing more to it. It's not isometric "to be like Galaxy," it's isometric to be like isometric games. It's isometric level design has absolutely no bearing on being multiplayer, just like NSMBW being 2D has no bearing on it being multiplayer. Nintendo has a gamepad now, and they popularized split screen co-op in the first place. If they really wanted multiplayer in 3D Mario, they could have done it without creating an isometric game. They didn't, because they didn't. 

And I've already said that I'm not criticizing it for being isometric. I'm criticizing it for being unoriginal and almost entirely derivative. I criticized Galaxy 2 for the same reason, a fact I've already reiterated. I also spent most of the OP talking about the first four 2D Mario games when talking about the games with identity, and not the 3D ones like Galaxy. This is not coming from a "Galaxy fan;" this is coming from a Mario fan. SM3DW, SM3DL, Galaxy 2, and the NSMB series all don't deserve to be spoken in the same breath of the other core Mario games, because they boldly reject what makes those games instant classics to begin with. Their individuality. And if they really do make a Galaxy 3, I'll have as little respect for those games as I do for the NSMB and IsoMario series. When Mario World had a direct sequel, it was so unique that it spawned an entire spin off franchise. When OoT got a direct sequel, we got the most unique Zelda game in the franchise. When Galaxy got a direct sequel, it was just a level pack.