| Cerebralbore101 said: |
"The problem with this is that the camera in Galaxy changes wildly to suit whatever the developers intend for the player. If they wanted to do a Ball guiding level they made it top down. If they wanted to have an underground zone that made it from the side. But it is mostly in a similar view to Sunshine, and 64, for the majority of the game. The main difference is that the camera is just farther away. The camera in 3D World is almost always from an Isometric view, or a NSMB-like side view. 3D World is just a traditional 2D Mario game with the addition of being able to move along the Z axis in a very limited fashion. I would point out all the similarities, between 3D World, and 2D Mario games, but I think you are smart enough to see them for yourself. "
I would guess that the top down view actually represents a pretty large portion of Galaxy. Either way, the only reason we got to talking about cameras is because you were making a point that Galaxy is closer in design to Odyssey, Sunshine and 64, which you more or less have already conceited to ... at least from a gameplay standpoint, so this is kind of besides the point.
"Instead of defeating the bosses in the same old manner you are now doing something different each time you face a boss."
? Quite a lot of the bosses in Odyssey have nothing to do with possession. Not only that, but 3D World does have varying activities in bosses - like shooting back projectiles, scaling a massive tower and then using a pow block, or dodging a collapsing floor while a boss tries to crush you. But yes, on a moment to moment basis the bosses are more generic and Odyssey's are generally more varied. Not sure why you said "dynamic" though, because that's what I was arguing against. The bosses in pretty much any of these games aren't dynamic in the slightest, maybe there is an exception or two, but generally they all come down to repeating an obvious pattern - usually three times. Try to understand what you're arguing before you improperly communicate it.
"Right, so we've established that Nintendo saying something is true about one of their games doesn't always make it true. I love Nintendo, but they are very often full of BS. "Switch won't replace 3DS!" "3DS won't get an XL model!" "
This is incredibly disingenuous and honestly just lazy. You don't bring up a point in a discussion, find no way to tie it back to the main point, and then sloppily try to repeat it as if it's profound. No one said anything about always trusting Nintendo, your original stipulation was incredibly misguided because what I was referencing was a statement from Nintendo that made complete and total sense in terms of the games - something you even acknowledged.
"Putting 3D World onto Wii U, and trying to pass it off as a mainline console Mario was not fine, because it was lazy. "
Not any lazier than 85% of the moons in Odyssey.
"It is generally accepted that 3D Mario is better than 2D Mario. 3D World has more in common with 2D Mario than Odyssey, 64, Sunshine, or the Galaxy games. This makes it inferior to all those games. I assumed that everyone would be able to read between the lines here. Somebody not understanding, this implied argument, immediately was just something I could not have possibly imagined.
Your failure to grasp this, implied argument, comes off as clueless. But maybe it isn't clueless. Are there any other users out there that didn't get what I said? I'd like to know. "
Keep being condescending while you can't even grasp most of the points you're trying to make and have to backpedal about how you haven't played in 11 years or how you meant this completely other thing
Again, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that I can't see how you'd dislike a game that takes more from the 2D styles, it doesn't matter whether or not you think 2D Mario is worse than 3D Mario, because what I was commenting on was how unsubstantial your original reply was. If you said "3D World was more like 2D Mario and I don't like 2D Mario as much, therefore 3D World is not a great 3D Mario game", that would mean something. But just saying 3D World is not a proper 3D Mario game tells me nothing. It's not an argument, it's just a statement without anything supporting it. And it could mean many things, not just that it's too similar to 2D Mario to be a "real" 3D game, it could mean it isn't creative enough, or that it's too buggy, or that it doesn't have enough levels - because the statement again isn't specific and presents no real arguments. What is a "proper 3D Mario game" varies from person to person and people have different criteria, so it tells me nothing.
Besides, this isn't even true. I mean, I suppose that 2D Mario games certainly haven't gotten the acclaim of the 3D ones in a long time, but that's mostly because of a shift in priorities at Nintendo. The NSMB series is cheaper to produce, sells a lot, and for a while was a big driver of systems - there wasn't much reason to put the effort into those titles that the 3D games got because they sold on nostalgia and simplicity. But if you talk about 3D Mario games vs 2D Mario games and just ignore stuff like Super Mario Bros 3., Super Mario World, Super Mario Bros., The Land Series, or even SMW2: Yoshi's Island (if you include that) ... then you're just purposely being ignorant. Sure, maybe the amount of 2D titles that have stood the test of time, or have gotten the same level of acclaim as the 3D games is limited (arguably just 2 games, maybe 3 if you include SMW2). But then again, Sunshine/3D Land and 3D World are nowhere near as acclaimed as 64, Galaxy 1-2 or Odyssey ... but by your own criteria you couldn't even include Galaxy 1 or 2, leaving us only Odyssey and 64. And again, the reason the 2dgames have not gotten that attention to detail has a lot to do with technology and priorities - 2D has only been the king for 2 Nintendo home console generations. I've never heard it implied, as you just did now, that 2D Mario games are just inherently worse than 3D Mario games. Seriously, that just sounds really ignorant. I've heard people say they prefer the 3D ones, or that there are more top tier 3D games, but not that 2D Mario, or the inspiration it provides, is just inherently worse.
Not only that, didn't you literally just admit a second ago that Galaxy was very similar to the 2D games in terms of design? And you have been speaking highly of it this whole time ... so ... doesn't that disprove your own point completely?
Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 08 September 2019
