| Cerebralbore101 said: |
This is honestly a terrible explanation of the difference between course-clear and exploration-based Mario design.
A Mario game isn't automatically an exploration-based title simply because the game encourages you to go back to levels to get more stars. In fact, the only reason you have to go back and redo levels in Galaxy is because the star challenges are almost always completely linear - stars are sectioned off based on what challenge you are doing in the level. Of course, the act of reloading doesn't automatically disqualify games from being exploration based either, but in Galaxy's case that's the exact opposite of "open ended" level design, you're having to reload the level just to get a different objective because the challenges are so linear. I can not believe that you are seriously implying that the mere act of going back to a level to get a star makes a game exploration-based, when the entire point of Galaxy's framework is that you have to load a specific portion of each level to do a very linear challenge. Sure, there are some levels that are more open ended, but they're rare, and guess what ... 3D World had some of those, too.
Heck, Galaxy 2 literally has a world map, just like 3D World. If you unraveled Galaxy's 3D planets and made them into a plane, you could just slightly restructure them and they would be perfectly fine as course levels.
" All four games have the camera follow Mario from behind the back or in some other non-isometric fashion, for the majority of the game."
This is really ironic because the camera in Galaxy is often very different from other 3D Mario games, at times being or almost being a top-down view. If that doesn't mean than Galaxy isn't comparable to 64 or Sunshine or Odyssey, then surely that doesn't mean it's incomparable to 3D World.
"All four games have big dynamic bosses that don't boil down to just jumping on repeatedly to defeat. "
? Honestly the bosses in Mario Odyssey are not much better. You're still following an incredibly linear pattern, it's just that the presentation is more imaginative this time. Instead of jumping on enemies repeatedly, you're possessing a chomp and hitting the boss with it .... repeatedly. Instead of jumping on enemies repeatedly, you're throwing bombs back at them ... repeatedly. Instead of jumping on enemies repeatedly, you're turning their hat upside down, and then using it to jump on the boss ... repeatedly. Pretty much none of the fights are dynamic, at least not that I can remember. I'm sure there's one boss fight that might break the rule, but it's the exception. Either way, imagine sectioning off Mario game design based off boss encounters, LOL.
"If Nintendo said that the cape from SMW and the Tanooki Suit from SMB3 were not essentially the same power up would you believe that too? "
No, I wouldn't, but that's also an outlandish claim. Just like the claim that having to repeatedly go to the same level by loading linear challenges so you can collect new stars, somehow makes your game exploration-based because you're returning to levels, even though the entire reason you're returning to levels in the first place is because the challenges themselves are linear....
Here is a chart from Nintendo themselves. Roughly translated the top portion is "Course Clear 3D" and "Sandbox 3D". I think literally it's closer to "Course Clear Type 3D" and "Miniature Garden Exploration 3D"? But you get the point.
Now, what does make Galaxy more similar to prior 3D Mario games, and Odyssey, is that it's tone is much more adventurous and overall creative. That's hard to deny. Mario 64, Sunshine, Galaxy, and Odyssey all look to try and reimagine what Mario games can be, usually through a filter that is very similar to a grand adventure. But you're kidding yourself if you think that somehow justifies calling Odyssey "a return to form from the Galaxy games", when Galaxy is closer to 3D World from a design perspective than Odyssey ever was.
Either way, what I find funny about all this is that the only reason I cared about the categorization in the first place, is that you made the incredibly ironic statement that Odyssey was a return to form to the Galaxy days, when in reality Galaxy is much closer to 3D World. But, I'm not arguing that being an exploration-based game, or a course clear game, is better.
So when you say something like "3D world wasn't even a proper 3D Mario", it comes off as very pompous and ignorant, because it's not an argument of quality. Being a "proper" or "improper" Mario game really tells me nothing, it's just an argument of categorization. So congratulations, because telling someone who says 3D World is better than Odyssey that 3D World "isn't even a proper 3D Mario game", is basically the easiest way to instantly lose any credibility in an argument. It isn't substantive at all. Then again, neither was me saying 3D World is a better game ... but that's just stating an opinion, not countering someone elses.
Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 07 September 2019
