@LordtheNightKnight thats exactly what I was thinking, the way the whole structue of star getting in 64 & Sunshine I didnt take too that much. Its the main reason why I skipped out on Galaxy 1, im happy the say Galaxy 2 doesnt seem like that and is better than those 2 IMO.

oniyide said: @LordtheNightKnight thats exactly what I was thinking, the way the whole structue of star getting in 64 & Sunshine I didnt take too that much. Its the main reason why I skipped out on Galaxy 1, im happy the say Galaxy 2 doesnt seem like that and is better than those 2 IMO.

So even if Galaxy 2 actually flows more like 2D Mario in terms of the levels, having the stars and going through the levels multiple times is still going to make the mainstream think it's like the 3D Mario games that turned them off.

LordTheNightKnight said: oniyide said: @LordtheNightKnight thats exactly what I was thinking, the way the whole structue of star getting in 64 & Sunshine I didnt take too that much. Its the main reason why I skipped out on Galaxy 1, im happy the say Galaxy 2 doesnt seem like that and is better than those 2 IMO. So even if Galaxy 2 actually flows more like 2D Mario in terms of the levels, having the stars and going through the levels multiple times is still going to make the mainstream think it's like the 3D Mario games that turned them off.

I still hold that perception of 3D Mario isn't the problem. The meat of the games is.

It's not going to appeal like 2D mario. It never will. I'm okay with that - the idea of Nintendo producing games that aren't as popular as other games doesn't matter to me.

Though for the record, I recommend picking up Galaxy, particularly Galaxy 2. It alleviates many of the complaints you had about other 3D Marios. It railroads you, sure, but it's extremely and tightly focused with little or non wandering.

"I still hold that perception of 3D Mario isn't the problem. The meat of the games is."

It's the perception OF the meat.

And it's not 3D Mario will never appeal. It's the game flow. Put dozens of levels, not just areas in levels, where the goal is to get to, well, the goal, and cut the gameplay down to jumping and attacking, like the 2D Mario games, then see how it appeals. Even with the changes to Galaxy 2, the game still isn't like that.

LordTheNightKnight said: "I still hold that perception of 3D Mario isn't the problem. The meat of the games is." It's the perception OF the meat. And it's not 3D Mario will never appeal. It's the game flow. Put dozens of levels, not just areas in levels, where the goal is to get to, well, the goal, and cut the gameplay down to jumping and attacking, like the 2D Mario games, then see how it appeals. Even with the changes to Galaxy 2, the game still isn't like that.

The game has something like four dozen levels (or more, I'm not sure), comparable to some (not all) 2D Marios in terms of variety. You only need to revisit a dozen (or less) stages in order to beat the game.

The goal is still getting to the goal, though I admit the requirement of powers does make things different.

And removing the necessity of powers, making it like the purer sections of Mario Sunshine, would not increase the appeal too mcuh. The problem of 3D movement remains.

Again: pick up Galaxy 2. You will like its sense of focus and relative accessibility (compared to 64 and Sunshine).

scottie said: 3d environments require more disk space to store and man hours to create, Nintendo choose to have multiple stars in each world in 3d Mario because it means they can put huge amounts of detail and thought into each world without meaning that the game takes too long or costs too much to make, and I doubt this will change next gen when Ninty are making HD games

I agree about more man hours, but SMG2 is only ~1.5GB.

Euphoria14 said: scottie said: 3d environments require more disk space to store and man hours to create, Nintendo choose to have multiple stars in each world in 3d Mario because it means they can put huge amounts of detail and thought into each world without meaning that the game takes too long or costs too much to make, and I doubt this will change next gen when Ninty are making HD games I agree about more man hours, but SMG2 is only ~1.5GB.

Torrents tend to have much better compression going on...

"The game has something like four dozen levels (or more, I'm not sure), comparable to some (not all) 2D Marios in terms of variety. You only need to revisit a dozen (or less) stages in order to beat the game."

The point is that no 2D Mario requires you revisiting a level. Even the remixes are still classified as new levels. You could say the point is to give the feeling of constant progression, while revisiting even just a few levels gives the feeling of padding. Plus, again, the fact that this has fewer doesn't change the fact that the formula required almost constant level revisiting in the past games.

"The goal is still getting to the goal, though I admit the requirement of powers does make things different."

It's not just the requirement of powers. It's the way the levels work. Let's say the first area in Mario 64 was closer to the 2D Mario games. The only goal would be to get to the top of the hill and then fight the boss to beat the level. Every path to that is an optional way to get to him. Of course the cannon would have to be harder to get to or it would be too easy, but it's all about getting to the goal and moving on to the next level. That first level didn't require any powers, but it obviously didn't flow like a 2D Mario game.

"And removing the necessity of powers, making it like the purer sections of Mario Sunshine, would not increase the appeal too mcuh. The problem of 3D movement remains."

Why are you acting as though I'm only discussing powers? Don't you pretending I'm arguing just X, when I'm arguing X, Y, and Z.

And making the levels better for 3D movement still doesn't matter if you have to revisit them.

"Again: pick up Galaxy 2. You will like its sense of focus and relative accessibility (compared to 64 and Sunshine)."

Why are you thinking I'm discussing how I feel about the game? I'm discussing how the mainstream feels. You can't tell them to just pick up the game and know it's better. You have to make a game they know is better right off the bat.

LordTheNightKnight said: The point is that no 2D Mario requires you revisiting a level. Even the remixes are still classified as new levels. You could say the point is to give the feeling of constant progression, while revisiting even just a few levels gives the feeling of padding. Plus, again, the fact that this has fewer doesn't change the fact that the formula required almost constant level revisiting in the past games.

Boy I would prefer you not make post like this. Effort, man! Efffort!

Moving on.

Past games and brand recognition have shown to have little or nothing to do withauccess or perception in current generations, even for legacy series. Again: current content is all that matters. You call on legacy of a series because it matters to you as a non-mainstream gamer.

You continue to talk about legacy and perception: agian, that really doesn't matter, and it's been proven not to matter in this generation. The meat is what matters. The meat is what matters. 3D Mario could change the perception of it all it wants, but it's not going to matter if it still plays like 3D Mario. Back off. There's a difference between me focusing on what I consider a salient point and me attributing the same focus to you. The former is what's happening here, not the latter. Making them better for 3D movement doesn't matter anyway, because 3D movement can never, ever, ever be as accessible as 2D movement. Revisiting them won't have a ton to do with it, I guarantee. That suggestion has dick all to do with what you're talking about, it's a personal recommendation based on the fact that I legitimately think youo would be pleased with the purchase of the game; a fiendly gesture, rather than an argumentative one.

And you don't speak for the mainstream; neither does Maelstrom. He's a good market analyst, but he's not much of a critical analysis, and any conjecture you have concerning this point is conjecture alone. It's no more correct (though I suppos it can be easier) to point to any aspect of 3D Mario rather than any other.

Your insistence can basically be summed up as "if 3D Mario plays like 2D Mario, it will appeal like 2D Mario". The problem is that it can't play like 2D Mario by necessity of having three dimensions in which to move, and attempting to make it purely progression-based would up its appeal not eenough to make a statistically noticeable difference.

(yes, you can offer I'm arguing conjecture here, but I don't claim to speak for anyone; my conjection is my own alone, and I do not claim to know necessarily what the mainstream wants: I can only operate off of the most fundamental difference between the games as of Galaxy 2, which is the fact of 3D movement)

Wow. So we just now got, THE greatest platformer ever, one of the highest rated games in video game history, and now we have a thread here complaining that "but it isnt teh 2d Mario!!!". Seriously? Really....seriously?


Only hardcore gamers.