By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - After stepping away from E3 are you disappointed with Mario 3D World?

 

Super Mario 3D World

Massively disappointed 89 22.03%
 
Somewhat disappointed 82 20.30%
 
Neutral 82 20.30%
 
Somewhat Excited 69 17.08%
 
Very Excited 80 19.80%
 
Total:402
green_sky on 30 June 2013
Cobretti2 said:
green_sky said:

I think Okr summed it up pretty well. Nintendo fanbase is just hard to please. I mean lot of them don't like the new Donkey Kong game either and that is not based on a portable game. It could just be the internet though. 

"Internet rules:

- Nintendo fans, always disappointed for no reason.
- Sony fans, always excited for no reason." okr

People don't hate DK they hate the fact that the top secret game Retro has been working on is DK. Retro pushed the gamecube to amazing heights. People were expecting to get their socks blown of with finally a true HD game from Retro hsowcasing what the WiiU can do.

Since when did Nintendo gamers start to care about getting their socks blown graphically. As far as visuals go Tropical Freeze looks great running in HD. Also the whole top secret hype levels were just generated by fans themselves without Retro Studios hinting at something revolutionary. 



Around the Network
Lonely_Dolphin on 30 June 2013
kopstudent89 said:
Einsam_Delphin said:
kopstudent89 said:
SuperMarioWorld said:
I'm very disappointed. Super Mario 3D Land is by far the worst 3D Mario.


3D Land made a lot of sense on the 3DS, and I disagree it was fantastic. Not a console experience though.


I'd like to hear the explanation for this. The only game I've played that I feel is legitimately better on handheld is Animal Crossing because it uses real world time so accessibility is key.

1. The camera angle made a lot of sense on the 3DS. It really helped the platforming when the 3D was on. Many of the stages were just much better with 3D on and I think that's why it's been quite successful. 

2. It's like 2D Mario on a 3D scale. The stages are quite short which imo suits handhelds as sometimes I just want to play 15-20 min at a time. On consoles most people like at least an hour's play. I'd rather it be a continouous, longer and more fulfilling on the Wii U. 3D Land was quite fun but shorter and quicker levels.

3. The levels are more linear with less space for freedom. Yes Galaxy was more linear than 64 and Sunshine ut it did it smartly. There was still room for a lot of exploration in Galaxy and the whole notion of jumping from planet to planet in itself is liberating. Also you can sway from the main mission to get other stars. 3D Land doesn't have that, it's quite straight forward, it's literally like 2D mario where the goal is to get to the flag. 

Again for a handheld it suits it more but for a console it just feels much more restricted. I want to be amazed when I play a console game not just get through the levels quickly. 

4. Also the name sucks. 3D World doesn't make sense, there's no 3D here. Mario as a brand is strong enough, they didn't need to use the "3D Land" brand and it shows they're going for something quite similar.



#1. I don't see how the camera angle magically becomes worse on console. It's the same camera, nothing changes about it from handheld to console and vice versa except the screen size. Other than that, it's exactly the same, just like 3D Land would be if the same exact game was made on Wii instead. After playing Super Mario Cats for myself, I'd say 3D Land's camera is at the best angle possible for Super Mario Cats with it's multiplayer as it makes it easy to see everyone.

#2. You give your opinion, then your preference, followed by an assumption... lol. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here as there's no rule saying you have to stop playing after you beat a level.

#3. Wait, so you're saying Super Mario Cats is "restricted" as it is right now, but if SMC, as in the exact same game as Wii U just with lesser graphics, were put on 3DS, it would be less restricted? Sense make not this does.

#4. That's because they are going for something similar. Also this is a 3D Mario game so having 3D in the name does make perfect sense. It's what everyone was calling the game before it's unveiling.

kopstudent89 on 30 June 2013
Einsam_Delphin said:
kopstudent89 said:
Einsam_Delphin said:
kopstudent89 said:
SuperMarioWorld said:
I'm very disappointed. Super Mario 3D Land is by far the worst 3D Mario.


3D Land made a lot of sense on the 3DS, and I disagree it was fantastic. Not a console experience though.


I'd like to hear the explanation for this. The only game I've played that I feel is legitimately better on handheld is Animal Crossing because it uses real world time so accessibility is key.

1. The camera angle made a lot of sense on the 3DS. It really helped the platforming when the 3D was on. Many of the stages were just much better with 3D on and I think that's why it's been quite successful. 

2. It's like 2D Mario on a 3D scale. The stages are quite short which imo suits handhelds as sometimes I just want to play 15-20 min at a time. On consoles most people like at least an hour's play. I'd rather it be a continouous, longer and more fulfilling on the Wii U. 3D Land was quite fun but shorter and quicker levels.

3. The levels are more linear with less space for freedom. Yes Galaxy was more linear than 64 and Sunshine ut it did it smartly. There was still room for a lot of exploration in Galaxy and the whole notion of jumping from planet to planet in itself is liberating. Also you can sway from the main mission to get other stars. 3D Land doesn't have that, it's quite straight forward, it's literally like 2D mario where the goal is to get to the flag. 

Again for a handheld it suits it more but for a console it just feels much more restricted. I want to be amazed when I play a console game not just get through the levels quickly. 

4. Also the name sucks. 3D World doesn't make sense, there's no 3D here. Mario as a brand is strong enough, they didn't need to use the "3D Land" brand and it shows they're going for something quite similar.

 


#1. I don't see how the camera angle magically becomes worse on console. It's the same camera, nothing changes about it from handheld to console and vice versa except the screen size. Other than that, it's exactly the same, just like 3D Land would be if the same exact game was made on Wii instead. After playing Super Mario Cats for myself, I'd say 3D Land's camera is at the best angle possible for Super Mario Cats with it's multiplayer as it makes it easy to see everyone.

 

#2. You give your opinion, then your preference, followed by an assumption... lol. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here as there's no rule saying you have to stop playing after you beat a level.

 

#3. Wait, so you're saying Super Mario Cats is "restricted" as it is right now, but if SMC, as in the exact same game as Wii U just with lesser graphics, were put on 3DS, it would be less restricted? Sense make not this does.

 

#4. That's because they are going for something similar. Also this is a 3D Mario game so having 3D in the name does make perfect sense. It's what everyone was calling the game before it's unveiling.


You're really not talking much sense. 3D Land levels were not the same as Galaxy. Galaxy had more exploration jumping from planet to planet, it definitelyallowed more freedom. 3D Land is not as restricted as 2D levels but not as open as tradional 3D Mario games. I don't think it pushes the system.

Plus the 3D in 3D Land was because oft he use of 3D on the 3DS not because it was a 3D game.



jonathanalis on 30 June 2013

im not desapointed.
they are disapointed cos they expect all games from the generation in a once E3.
They expected a galaxy/64/sunshine mario, a metrid, and a new zelda.
But those games will eventually come to wii U.
Now they have to make wii U sell.
NSMB wii sold a lot more than galaxy.
DKCR sold a lot more than metroid.

If Nintendo had working in a traditional mario 3d or metroid, they would never bring them at end of year. mario 3d world and DK could be made so fastly, and are more probable to sell well than the games we espected most.



Lonely_Dolphin on 30 June 2013
kopstudent89 said:
Einsam_Delphin said:
kopstudent89 said:
Einsam_Delphin said:
kopstudent89 said:
SuperMarioWorld said:
I'm very disappointed. Super Mario 3D Land is by far the worst 3D Mario.


3D Land made a lot of sense on the 3DS, and I disagree it was fantastic. Not a console experience though.


I'd like to hear the explanation for this. The only game I've played that I feel is legitimately better on handheld is Animal Crossing because it uses real world time so accessibility is key.

1. The camera angle made a lot of sense on the 3DS. It really helped the platforming when the 3D was on. Many of the stages were just much better with 3D on and I think that's why it's been quite successful. 

2. It's like 2D Mario on a 3D scale. The stages are quite short which imo suits handhelds as sometimes I just want to play 15-20 min at a time. On consoles most people like at least an hour's play. I'd rather it be a continouous, longer and more fulfilling on the Wii U. 3D Land was quite fun but shorter and quicker levels.

3. The levels are more linear with less space for freedom. Yes Galaxy was more linear than 64 and Sunshine ut it did it smartly. There was still room for a lot of exploration in Galaxy and the whole notion of jumping from planet to planet in itself is liberating. Also you can sway from the main mission to get other stars. 3D Land doesn't have that, it's quite straight forward, it's literally like 2D mario where the goal is to get to the flag. 

Again for a handheld it suits it more but for a console it just feels much more restricted. I want to be amazed when I play a console game not just get through the levels quickly. 

4. Also the name sucks. 3D World doesn't make sense, there's no 3D here. Mario as a brand is strong enough, they didn't need to use the "3D Land" brand and it shows they're going for something quite similar.

 


#1. I don't see how the camera angle magically becomes worse on console. It's the same camera, nothing changes about it from handheld to console and vice versa except the screen size. Other than that, it's exactly the same, just like 3D Land would be if the same exact game was made on Wii instead. After playing Super Mario Cats for myself, I'd say 3D Land's camera is at the best angle possible for Super Mario Cats with it's multiplayer as it makes it easy to see everyone.

 

#2. You give your opinion, then your preference, followed by an assumption... lol. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here as there's no rule saying you have to stop playing after you beat a level.

 

#3. Wait, so you're saying Super Mario Cats is "restricted" as it is right now, but if SMC, as in the exact same game as Wii U just with lesser graphics, were put on 3DS, it would be less restricted? Sense make not this does.

 

#4. That's because they are going for something similar. Also this is a 3D Mario game so having 3D in the name does make perfect sense. It's what everyone was calling the game before it's unveiling.


You're really not talking much sense. 3D Land levels were not the same as Galaxy. Galaxy had more exploration jumping from planet to planet, it definitelyallowed more freedom. 3D Land is not as restricted as 2D levels but not as open as tradional 3D Mario games. I don't think it pushes the system.

Plus the 3D in 3D Land was because oft he use of 3D on the 3DS not because it was a 3D game.



lol why are you talking about Galaxy? I never even mentioned it, as it has nothing to do with whether or not Super Mario Cats would be better on Handheld than on Console, which is what I thought this debate was about.

Around the Network
DevilRising on 30 June 2013
F0X said:
To repeat myself from earlier in the thread, I have yet to hear anything particularly negative about the game from anyone who has played it, and the one true way to disappoint me is to simply make a bad game.


Not really possible, I think. Even Sunshine, which to me was the "worst" Mario game, was still a good game. It just wasn't what I wanted in a Mario title. But a bad game? Not at all. I don't think Nintendo would ever make a BAD Mario game. In general, they don't tend to make much of BAD anything.



keroncoward on 30 June 2013

Only thing im disappointed about that mario game is no online multiplayer. Everyone knows its going to be a good game.



Cobretti2 on 30 June 2013
green_sky said:
Cobretti2 said:
green_sky said:

I think Okr summed it up pretty well. Nintendo fanbase is just hard to please. I mean lot of them don't like the new Donkey Kong game either and that is not based on a portable game. It could just be the internet though. 

"Internet rules:

- Nintendo fans, always disappointed for no reason.
- Sony fans, always excited for no reason." okr

People don't hate DK they hate the fact that the top secret game Retro has been working on is DK. Retro pushed the gamecube to amazing heights. People were expecting to get their socks blown of with finally a true HD game from Retro hsowcasing what the WiiU can do.

Since when did Nintendo gamers start to care about getting their socks blown graphically. As far as visuals go Tropical Freeze looks great running in HD. Also the whole top secret hype levels were just generated by fans themselves without Retro Studios hinting at something revolutionary. 

It is not so much that they care about the gfx but the fact that Retro can prove to developers the the little Wii U has some grunt in it they can exploit shouldthey put the effort into it.

Also nintendo fans alone will not keep the Wii U sustainable. If games look barely better than Wii games or old PS360 ports then no one outside of Nintendo fans will buy the console.



 

 

green_sky on 30 June 2013
Cobretti2 said:
green_sky said:Since when did Nintendo gamers start to care about getting their socks blown graphically. As far as visuals go Tropical Freeze looks great running in HD. Also the whole top secret hype levels were just generated by fans themselves without Retro Studios hinting at something revolutionary. 

It is not so much that they care about the gfx but the fact that Retro can prove to developers the the little Wii U has some grunt in it they can exploit shouldthey put the effort into it.

Also nintendo fans alone will not keep the Wii U sustainable. If games look barely better than Wii games or old PS360 ports then no one outside of Nintendo fans will buy the console.

Yes because people bought Wii as graphics were big improvement over gamecube. Right? Can't believe you Nintendo fans are saying stuff like this. It is more hard to defend Nintendo with them than Sony/Microsoft crowd. 



TripleMMM on 30 June 2013
RolStoppable said:
I don't remember a poll with five different options that had votes distributed so evenly. This means that Nintendo is doing it right and wrong at the same time.

LMAO ROLF



 And proud member of the Mega Mario Movement!