Jump to content

Should the next Mario game take points from SM64 and SS?


dekupk5
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now I love me some 3d Mario, especially with open world levels. In SMG and SMG2 I felt like the games were fun but too linear. What I mean by linear is blasting off to tiny planets like crazy, I mean in SM64 and SMS the levels were beautiful with fully built huge environments such as Delphino Plaza and that was just a hub world. What I want in the next Mario game is more exploration and HUGE open world environments. If your a Galaxy fan, you have ATLEAST respect that its only right to have a big open Mario world environment for once rather than blocks, planets, partial enviorments smashed together. People who have only started out with galaxy may not feel what im saying since they havnt played the other Mario games.

 

Posted Image

You have to admit that this is beautiful!

 

Posted Image

Imagine a Mario game with an even BIGGER environment than this!

 

Posted Image

Maybe a couple of linear levels!

 

Posted Image

Just imagine Npc's!

 

 

 

Do you want a open world Mario? Yes? No? Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate how linear mario games have been lately. I've been waiting since after sunshine came out for a true sequal to super mario 64. That's what I was hopeing super mario 3D land would have since they teased some photos of it back in march, I think. But it was the most linear 3d mario platformer yet :D So yeah, I would like the next big mario 3d platformer to use what made super mario 64 and sunshine so great, the open levels.

(just pointing out, the bottom picture of your post shows a pre-realease pic of SS)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the next Mario 3D game isn't linear because I agree Super Mario Galaxy was indeed linear. The levels in Super Mario Sunshine had a clear objective but the pace the player chose to get there and the path the player chose to get there aren't controlled by the game, and I like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i like the idea. i kinda lost hope on mario when nintendo started recyclng the old games. look at the wii and what it's capable of. Why would nintendo go back to sidescrolling games? SM64 in my oppinion was far from linear, since you can beat the levels in almost any order, you can explore the world and look at the scenery,, and all that cool stuff. even the zelda games are starting to undergo the same downfall. btw, how many times has OoT be rereleased or remade? MQ, OoT3D, Being on gamecube, blah blah blah, where's the creativity and originality in that, Skyward sword seems to be what i call, "Just another zelda game with the same old crap. i don't look at nintendo the way i used too. i'm acctually siding with RARE, just because at least their games have originality. Perfect dark, Conker, Banjo, you know, when they make a new game, it IS new, new as in, not recycling the old shit. when nintendo started doing that, i kinda lost interest and almost quit playing nintendo games completely because of it, with the exeption of the WW, and any other games that predate it due to the fact that , you can't just beat the game in one sitting.

 

I see why you want the game to go back to the old style of open world exploration. That is something that can be original no matter what, even in new games. SM64 revolutionized it's use and now nintendo looks at it like it's an obsolete thing in their games now. RAREWARE FTW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"just another zelda game with the same old crap"

 

I can safely tell you that you have NO idea what the hell you're talking about, at all. Honestly, I cannot even begin to EXPRESS how much BS I gather from all of your post.

 

This was sent from Tapatalk. Jelly?

 

I second every word of this. I salute you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is getting off topic but, SS for me feels like a game that tried to be big, I mean its below 4 gigs, you revisit the same areas so it kind of ruins the sense of exploration, reuses the same enemies over and over again exept they have different forms, skyloft is extremely small and mostly boring, I find MM does better with its civilization then SS does, and they spended like a year experimenting when they could made a bigger game. Im glad Miyamoto is paying special attention to the next game on the Wii U, because I think the team spended too much time with experiments.

 

END OF OFFTOPIC POSTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is getting off topic but, SS for me feels like a game that tried to be big, I mean its below 4 gigs, you revisit the same areas so it kind of ruins the sense of exploration, reuses the same enemies over and over again exept they have different forms, skyloft is extremely small and mostly boring, I find MM does better with its civilization then SS does, and they spended like a year experimenting when they could made a bigger game. Im glad Miyamoto is paying special attention to the next game on the Wii U, because I think the team spended too much time with experiments.

 

END OF OFFTOPIC POSTS

 

...lolwut

 

What does file size have anything to do with a game's quality?

 

Revisiting areas and enemies is actually a very clever plot device. It gives a sense of progress in the character, showing you either how far you've come, and also giving a surprise sense of exploration or satisfaction ("Oh, so that's what that mysterious ledge is for!"). If anything, it enhances the sense of exploration by covering ground you might've missed before.

 

Upgrading enemy forms is also reasonable, as it gives a clearer sense of progression--where's the fun in fighting the same boring enemies the entire game?

 

I don't see the need of a huge, bulky central hub. Just doesn't seem a huge deal to me. Simplicity is the key to an idyllic homeworld.

 

What is wrong with experimenting? Nothing good ever came without it.

 

Incidentally, please leave the management of off-topic posts to the staff. Blatantly pointing that out rarely works unless it's an administrator doing it.

 

</twocents>

 

Super Mario Sunshine was hands-down my favorite Mario game (well, I haven't played but like three of them, but that's neither here nor there, still thought it was a great game). Non-linearity works great for platformers in general, it gives the players options and workarounds for levels or challenges that are just out of the player's league, potentially allowing a later revisit while still being able to continue the overall game plot. Super Mario 64 also follows this non-linearity pretty well, which is certainly a boon to its success. Of course, there does need to be some hook other than just new levels and slightly better graphics--something, perhaps, with Wii MotionPlus, or if they hold off on Mario until the Wii U, something that really takes advantage of the unique controller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...lolwut

 

What does file size have anything to do with a game's quality?

 

Revisiting areas and enemies is actually a very clever plot device. It gives a sense of progress in the character, showing you either how far you've come, and also giving a surprise sense of exploration or satisfaction ("Oh, so that's what that mysterious ledge is for!"). If anything, it enhances the sense of exploration by covering ground you might've missed before.

 

Upgrading enemy forms is also reasonable, as it gives a clearer sense of progression--where's the fun in fighting the same boring enemies the entire game?

 

I don't see the need of a huge, bulky central hub. Just doesn't seem a huge deal to me. Simplicity is the key to an idyllic homeworld.

 

What is wrong with experimenting? Nothing good ever came without it.

 

Incidentally, please leave the management of off-topic posts to the staff. Blatantly pointing that out rarely works unless it's an administrator doing it.

 

</twocents>

 

Super Mario Sunshine was hands-down my favorite Mario game (well, I haven't played but like three of them, but that's neither here nor there, still thought it was a great game). Non-linearity works great for platformers in general, it gives the players options and workarounds for levels or challenges that are just out of the player's league, potentially allowing a later revisit while still being able to continue the overall game plot. Super Mario 64 also follows this non-linearity pretty well, which is certainly a boon to its success. Of course, there does need to be some hook other than just new levels and slightly better graphics--something, perhaps, with Wii MotionPlus, or if they hold off on Mario until the Wii U, something that really takes advantage of the unique controller.

 

I felt they should of used up every sing byte on the disc as they said it was the biggest game they have done yet. Is that not?

Revisiting the same areas is nice but their are not that many areas to revisit to, thats the problem with only three main areas. I also felt that Groose, Link and Zelda were the only developing characters. The knight Academy more felt like a small class room, and Skyloft felt tiny and not that many things were going on. The islands are even more less interactive than WW's islands. Its nice to have enemy forms but not so nice whens theirs so few of them. MM has more original enemies and that game was done in a year. The game to me lacks content rather than what they promised. The good evens out the bad though.

 

I agree with you on SMS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I don't know about you guys, but more recent Mario games have begun to disappoint me. That may be just because I haven't really invested much time into them, or they are actually bad. Does anyone think so? I think I'm alone on this.

 

Yeah, could of felt like SM3DL could use more powerups and a better hub, cant really comment much since ive been warned, wonder what I can do to decrees the warn level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.