| Cerebralbore101 said: |
Yeah ... I think at this point the discussion is done. You're just not representing what you're trying to say well at all. Not only that but I think you're losing track of the conversation ... I didn't say Galaxy was a top-down game (???), I said it was top-down at parts, but even then we already agreed that the camera point was mostly moot a few replies ago ... so why even keep bringing it up? I thought that when you conceded that Galaxy was linear, that you were more or less admitting that Galaxy is more similar in design to the 3D Land/3D World games then the other titles. Apparently, you weren't conceding that, but you really haven't brought up anything against that since, so I'm not sure where you want the discussion to go ... it's actually somewhat ironic, you're criticizing me for using the linearity of course design as my main point because it's "just" one element of game design (nevermind the fact that it's one of the biggest distinguishing factors in game design for 3D Platformers) but you aren't bringing up any substantial arguments from a game design standpoint that would make Galaxy more similar to the other lineage of exploration-based 3D Mario titles. You seem to really want to say that these games are completely different and that Galaxy is more similar to the other games then it is to 3D World, but the only point you're repeating is that I shouldn't take what Nintendo has to say at face value just because it comes from a position of authority, even though that's not what I'm doing ... and you already agreed with Nintendo's assessment on the course layout? Again, stop being lazy. Don't just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. No one is shilling Nintendo and saying that consumers should just listen to what companies have to say all the time and agree with it. That's ridiculous. Making a point out of that isn't constructive because it's so out of reality with the conversation, and it's already been corrected many times.
The irony here is that if you just said that what made Odyssey more like the other 3D games was that it was more creative, or adventurous, or innovative, I would have agreed with you. In fact, I was the one who brought that point up first! I did the work for you! But instead you mostly decided to continue arguing about pointless things. My main point all along was about course design and linearity, because it's one of the biggest facets of 3D platformers. I think an argument can genuinely be made that Galaxy is more similar to the 3D series, even if the 3D series is a gross oversimplification. You kept arguing on these grounds, which looking back on it - I think is the problem. At any moment you could have said "I agree with that but what makes Galaxy more like these games is x, y, and z" but for the most part you didn't do that. I mean, to be fair you almost did, you agreed with me when I said the other titles were more creative than the 3D Series, and that Galaxy was more similar to the other titles in that regard, but you didn't use that opportunity to redirect the discussion ... you continued arguing over points that truthfully I don't think you have much of a counter to. That's fine, but the only reason I kept engaging in discussion on those points is because I assumed you had a counter for them ... but it doesn't seem like you do. It's kind of frustrating because it was such a waste of time. Oh well, guess it was my decision to waste it.
Either way, no harm done. I was genuinely getting pretty mad for a minute there because I felt like my stances were being completely misinterpreted, and truthfully you still misinterpreted them in your last reply ... but I think that comes more from confusion than anything, so it's fine, even if frustrating. Wish you a good day and happy platforming!
By the way ... errr ... I see your thread with the poll. Cheeky 
Just to be clear, I definitely think 3D World is closer to the 2D games than they are even to Galaxy. Also ... I would argue the vast majority of moons in Mario Odyssey are just awful. Most of them. So while I can understand your argument about extra content being extra ... most of the main ones aren't riveting either.
