Which 3D Mario Style Do You Prefer?

[Frogger]

BillyBlaze said:

spemanig said:

The gameplay was never the problem - the presentation was. People love Mario 1, 2, 3, and World because they have distinct identities and turning. A standard adventure, a dream, a play, and a world. Only SMB had flagpoles. Same with the 3D games. 64 was a castle with paintings. Sunshine was a beach resort. Galaxy was space. Odyssey is clearly trying to feel like a grand and epic journey. If all of those games instead had a bunch of course-clear levels, but left the theming the same, they would have been just as well received, if not more well received because they be better games that don't recycle the same level over and over again. Even Galaxy.

I agree about the identity part, but you can't just say that course-clear levels are better game design in general. That's a matter of taste.

I agree that the course-clear Mario games excel at what they are trying to do, but I am pretty sure I wouldn't have such fond memories of SM64 if it had linear levels with flagpoles.

Of course I can. It doesn't matter if it's a matter is it's a matter of taste. Better is a subjective word. Using it in any context already implies taste.

Linear doesn't mean flagpoles. SMB2/3/World all had no flagpoles. It would have still been stars. You'd just get one per level, and there'd be way more unique levels instead of a few recycled ones, and it would actually have tight level design that actually utilizes interesting platforming gimmicks in challenging and satisfying ways that don't overstay their welcome. But, you know.

And I'm 100% sure you would. Mario 64 wasn't memorable because it had good level design – it was memorable because it was one of the first games that did traversal in a 3-D world well. As long as it did that, you would've been blown away by anything, including something linear. Super Mario World, and people loved that, was what came before it, so the expectation was pretty straightforward.