Super Mario Galaxy

[stephenp1983]

I am about an hour into this game and it really is amazing.  I haven't turned my wii on in 2 months, I've been on my 360 almost every day, so this game really is a breath of fresh air.

I never really got into sunshine, because to me it didnt compare to mario 64.  So far this game is just as good as 64 and Im not that far into it.  The level design is amazing, as I thought I would hate not being on a flat surface.

What is everyone else opinions

[lordtodd75]

I have had the game since noon yesterday and I still havent got to play it   

[SavannahLion]

I never really got into sunshine, because to me it didnt compare to mario 64.  So far this game is just as good as 64 and Im not that far into it. 

Argh!! Please don't say that. I thought Mario64 wasn't the best of the Mario's. The game itself was OK, but that atrocious camera moving at the most inopportune times screwed up more than a few key jumps.  Fine control of the camera is neigh impossible. Sunshine wasn't the best Mario game, but the camera was better with fewer failings.

My GF just called me 10 seconds ago and told me she bought it. So I'll see how it plays tonight.

Didn't PA mention something about online multiplayer?

[ChadTower]

Just curious... how old are you?  At the time, popping in Mario 64 for the first time was like the Nazis opening up the Ark of the Covenant.  It was that much better than everything else in the ever of ever.

[SithMaster]

Just curious... how old are you?  At the time, popping in Mario 64 for the first time was like the Nazis opening up the Ark of the Covenant.  It was that much better than everything else in the ever of ever.

What?

64 was pretty good and i never really got into sunshine.

[AtomSmasher]

Just curious... how old are you?  At the time, popping in Mario 64 for the first time was like the Nazis opening up the Ark of the Covenant.  It was that much better than everything else in the ever of ever.

Agreed.  The first time playing Mario 64 was similar to the first time playing Super Mario Bros., at the time it came out, there was nothing even close to it.  Mario Sunshine did improve the camera, but after the first few levels it just got old and tiring, and the water backpack was not a good addition.

I have 12 stars already in Mario Galaxy and so far its a really great game.  It was really disorienting at first, but I got used to it pretty quick.  So far the level design has been amazing, I just hope they keep the quality up throughout the game (and according to the reviews, they do).  The mini games have been a lot of fun too.

[ChadTower]

Sunshine had all of the quality but that backpack thing was annoying.  Just not a top flight concept.

When we first played Mario 64 the awesome hit me so hard I might have a scar on the back of my head.  It was that much of a leap forward in every way.

[AtomSmasher]

I didn't think this warranted a new thread, so I'll just say it here.  I just received two free rubber wiimote jackets from Nintendo in the mail today, and I have to say it's pretty awesome that they're giving them out free.  I know they're just doing it to reduce liability from people throwing their wiimotes and breaking their tv's, but its still very cool.

[somunny]

Bought a copy at TRU just to get the $25 gift card.  Already turned the game over on ebay. 

Between COD4, Mass Effect, Half Life, GH3 and Rock Band, my time is all allocated for gamed for the forseeable future.

[ahofle]

How are the controls?  I hope this really takes advantage of the Wii controls like Wii Sports did (and most other games don't).

[SavannahLion]

Just curious... how old are you?  At the time, popping in Mario 64 for the first time was like the Nazis opening up the Ark of the Covenant.  It was that much better than everything else in the ever of ever.

Chad, in a way that's kind of insulting to me. I'm old enough to actually remember playing Pong variations, Atari Football and Tempest in the arcade. If you really must know my age, look at my profile.

Mario 64 itself, as a game, is good. The game itself is in line with what most Mario fans expected at the time, including myself. However, certain components of that game are less than stellar. The main being the atrocious camera control. You have your "dynamic" camera control and you have your "fixed" control. The camera works so-so in either mode. The camera works fine in some areas. Then there are times when you need to spin the camera around or force it into a fixed position because of whatever and you simply can't do it. hence, the lack of fine control over the camera. It's pretty obvious why Lakitu was included there.

I'm sure many people consider the game pretty fantastic and mind blowing and pretty much established a standard. Even so, it still needed further tweaking and playtesting on that camera. If a game like Super Mario Galaxy was released with the same annoying eleven year old camera control code, then the developers need to be fired, hauled out and their nuts removed.

And no, I'm not talking out of ---my bottom--- here. I've played through the game repeatedly like any fan. I've earned all my stars and looked over that fountain sign for months. I also consider Mario64 a necessary N64 title to anybodies N64 collection. Just because I like a game doesn't mean I have to like everything about the game.

Despite the gameplay in Sunshine, it's pretty clear the camera code in the game is more mature. It does a better job of moving into position relative to what is happening on screen with only a few annoying problems (I'd like to shoot the map designer that chose the camera position in the Pachinko-thing level).

[AtomSmasher]

Despite the gameplay in Sunshine, it's pretty clear the camera code in the game is more mature. It does a better job of moving into position relative to what is happening on screen with only a few annoying problems (I'd like to shoot the map designer that chose the camera position in the Pachinko-thing level).

So you feel Mario Sunshine is a better game then Mario 64 only because it had better camera control, even though you agree (or at least you hint that you agree) that its gameplay is inferior?  Your an odd one.  I'll take great gameplay with an average camera over average gameplay with a great camera any day.  Luckily Mario Galaxy seems to have both great gameplay and a great camera.

[shmokes]

Chad's right.  Mario 64 was about the closest thing I've ever had to a religious experience.  Mario 64 changed everything.  And in spite of coming first, it did pretty much everything pretty much as perfect as it could possibly have been done.

[stephenp1983]

Well guys I won't be playing for a few days, the wife just went into the hospital last night and we are having our baby girl this morning at 8:30

Btw I am 24, nes was my first system, but 64 the system and mario were probably one of my favorite systems/games.  I never had a ps1, so I jumped from an snes to a n64 and I remember how amazaing the 3d was.  THe first game I played on it was Star Wars Shadows of the Empire and then Mario 64

[ChadTower]

Well guys I won't be playing for a few days, the wife just went into the hospital last night and we are having our baby girl this morning at 8:30

 

[ClubNinja]

Mario 64 is certainly excellent, but Super Mario World is obviously the best Mario game ever ever ever times infinity.  Ever.

[shardian]

Mario 64 is certainly excellent, but Super Mario World is obviously the best Mario game ever ever ever times infinity.  Ever.

My wife would agree with you there. I can kick her ass in almost all games in existence, but she absolutely pwns SMW.

[ChadTower]

I can kick her ass in almost all games in existence, but she absolutely pwns SMW.

IIRC, that means sharidan is married to Tammy Sytch.  Nice job!

[shardian]

I can kick her ass in almost all games in existence, but she absolutely pwns SMW.

IIRC, that means sharidan is married to Tammy Sytch.  Nice job!

Wow, that was pretty lame.

[HaRuMaN]

I didn't think this warranted a new thread, so I'll just say it here.  I just received two free rubber wiimote jackets from Nintendo in the mail today, and I have to say it's pretty awesome that they're giving them out free.  I know they're just doing it to reduce liability from people throwing their wiimotes and breaking their tv's, but its still very cool.

Yeah I got those in the mail...  I have to find a way to mod them so that I can still use my Nyko charge stand...   

[ChadTower]

Wow, that was pretty lame.

It was aimed pretty squarely at ClubNinja... anyone else I assume would have to at least follow the link I threw in, and even then might not get it.

[ClubNinja]

Wow, that was pretty lame.

It was aimed pretty squarely at ClubNinja... anyone else I assume would have to at least follow the link I threw in, and even then might not get it.

Yeah.  I had already snorted before even noticing there was a link.  I'd take her 10 years ago, but have you seen her recently?  All yours, shardian.

[ClubNinja]

Actually, she's apparently looking better and healthier now.  I approve.

[shardian]

Wow, she did change a bit didn't she. I remember her best as "Sunny". I assume that the Candido thing hit her pretty hard. Understandable.

[ChadTower]

Not unless Candido is another word for cocaine.

[shardian]

He kinda died on her due to a botched surgery. She tried to get him to go to the doctor, but he wouldn't go until it was too late. You think that might weigh on her mind? I understand she was in to drugs, but cocaine usually leads to weight loss.

[ChadTower]

He died because of a heart that was working on duct tape and drinking straw wrappers after 15 years of... da dum dum... cocaine and steroids.

His leg broke because he was so full of osteoporosis... a side effect of... steroid abuse. 

Trust me, that chick may or may not be clean now, but she was once a walking cocaine billboard, as was her husband.

[slycrel]

I'm another oddity in that I never quite loved mario 64, I think super mario world was the peak.  But it's a bit different gameplay, so it's kind of apples and oranges.  I never could quite get the "feel" down to my liking of super mario world.  IIRC I was hardcore in to PC games at the time though, so that may have been a factor.

That said I'm quite interested in checking out super mario galaxy.  Looks like a lot of fun.

[SithMaster]

dont forget to buy it from toyrus for a 25 dollar gift card and if the cashier doesnt ask if you want batteries you get a 5 dollar one too.

[SavannahLion]

.... if the cashier doesnt ask if you want batteries you get a 5 dollar one too.

What? They're supposed to ask if you want batteries now?   

[hypernova]

So how many impressions have we heard so far regarding "Galaxy?"  I think I saw one in the beginning, then it just tanked into tangents.

[RTSDaddy2]

Well Hyper, I'll try and help bring it back to topic....and yes, Shmokes, once again I jumped the gun too many times on my opnion of early Wii games.  I now understand superior verses just average...my apologies.

Words are just failing me after nearly 45 minutes of non-stop play. Let's start here: my new favorite game to play on the Wii is Super Mario Galaxy. PERIOD, End of discussion - and I've got a feeling it will be for quite some time to come.

Let me try and start with the vibrant, beautiful coloring.  My knowledge of video displays is highly limited, but my god, "videos" online of this game do NOT do it justice.  I have an HD ready TV and got one of those HD cables last year to run from the Wii to the TV.  The coloring is just unreal.  Visual effects on this are just off the chart.

The camera movement is (well, at least to me) is so pinpoint that until I got used to it, I kept bending myself in half, trying to follow Mario's movement as he walked sideways and un and down the first planets.  It gets better after a little while, but I'm still just in shock of being able to walk all the way around the little worlds...exploring every sqaure inch if I choose to.  The use of the Wiimote and Nunchuck together, for whatever reason, make perfect logical sense to me....I cannot imagine trying to play this with a joypad controller.

Somewhere in an online review one thing criticized was the voice acting - that there's not enough of it.  I will have to concur with that....looks like they could have done more than they did....HOWEVER, if doing so would have comprimised ANY of this game as it currently exists, I'm glad they left it out.  This is Mario, after all.    I also wish it saved star bits when you go back to the observatory, but again it's such a moot point.  Gives me a reason to "re-explore" the previous planet.

The soundtrack is every bit as stunning as the visuals.  I found myself at one point just letting Mario stand still while I listened intently to the bright, vibrant score (I'm a musician, so scores really impress me). Just unreal.  Don't believe me...turn the volume down and play it with no sound and find out just how much this soundtrack enhances the game play.

If it's not a 10, it's damn sure a 9 to 9.9. My wife is not a hardcore gamer, but I can't wait for her to try this one out.  She loves games that are just plain fun, and this one slap out is the most fun you'll have with your Wii this year. Replay value seems to be really, really high for me too in that by the time I get to the next galaxy I may have forgotten half of what I've already seen.   For all it's glory, not even Metroid Prime: Corruption can touch this one. Forget whatever nonsense I may have spewed about other games, this is THE one and was worth all the wait (and god knows we waited long enough).  This one has my vote for Wii game of the year.  WHAT A GEM.

[AtomSmasher]

So far it is fast becoming my all time favorite Mario game.  Its definately better then Mario Sunshine and Mario 64, but I think I may like it better than Super Mario Bros. 3 and even Super Mario World.  But then I only have about 40 stars, so it's still too early to say for sure (there are 121 stars total).

[Guaranos]

I for one didn't like Mario 64 at all.  The only time I played a Nintendo 64 was when it was first in the stores and they had the demo kiosk setup.  I walked up, tried Mario 64 for about 5 minutes, and walked away.  I don't know if it's the game that I hated, the controller, or both.

I've never played Mario Sunshine either.  Nobody I know bought a GameCube.

That said, I have a Wii, and this game looks intriguing.  Would it appeal to old-school (non-3d) Mario fans like myself?

[AtomSmasher]

I for one didn't like Mario 64 at all.  The only time I played a Nintendo 64 was when it was first in the stores and they had the demo kiosk setup.  I walked up, tried Mario 64 for about 5 minutes, and walked away.  I don't know if it's the game that I hated, the controller, or both.

I've never played Mario Sunshine either.  Nobody I know bought a GameCube.

That said, I have a Wii, and this game looks intriguing.  Would it appeal to old-school (non-3d) Mario fans like myself?

If you didn't like Mario 64 at all, then you probably won't care much for Mario Galaxy either, since the control scheme is very similar to Mario 64.  Although, you should definately rent it and try it for more then 5 minutes just to make sure.  For you, I would highly recommend Super Paper Mario since it has a lot more in common with the 2-d mario games.

[ahofle]

If it's not a 10, it's damn sure a 9 to 9.9.

Gamespot seems to agree with you.
http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/supermario128/index.html
Man I can't wait until Xmas. 

[bishmasterb]

I've been playing Galaxy for a few hours now and it is an incredible game. One of the few games I start playing where I'm sure I'll be finishing the entire game.

As others have stated, Mario 64 was a religious experience for me as well, a truly revolutionary game playing experience. Galaxy is a great game indeed, but the experience for me isn't quite equal to Mario 64. Much of that of course has to do with the fact that Galaxy is mostly an evolutionary step from Mario64 and has had 12 years to build on the gameplay of that title, but some of is fundamentally attributable to the brilliance of Mario 64, regardless of when it was released.

[shmokes]

No . . . Chad's right.  Your position is like someone saying they hate air or water.  Disliking Mario 64 isn't just an opinion . . . it's a character flaw.   

[RTSDaddy2]

I'm going to jump back in with one quick thing that I didn't notice last night...POTENTIAL MINOR SPOILER....
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
Those of you already to the Green Egg Galaxy may have seen this, but I didn't notice it until this morning.  On "sandy" worlds such as the peanut shaped one that is central to getting the first star in the Green Egg galaxy...if you look, you can see Mario's tracks where he's walked around in the soft dirt. 

That kind of attention to details just makes me drool. Ok...LONG way to go - 2 stars down, what is it -118 to go? 

[ChadTower]

No . . . Chad's right.  Your position is like someone saying they hate air or water.  Disliking Mario 64 isn't just an opinion . . . it's a character flaw.   

Character flaw... pssh... IMO it may be evidence of a developmental disorder.  Especially with only 5 minutes' play time.  The game is so deep, varied, and innovative that 5 minutes' play time isn't even enough to see if you like the color of Mario's hat.

[Kangum]

You are not allowed to write reviews like this after I have just givin up on my wii. Had not played it for months so i bought a 360 along with halo 3, cod 4, assasins creed, and burnout 4.


now after this review it makes me wanna go out and buy smg and play my wii after i spent all that money. 

[shmokes]

No . . . Chad's right.  Your position is like someone saying they hate air or water.  Disliking Mario 64 isn't just an opinion . . . it's a character flaw.   

Character flaw... pssh... IMO it may be evidence of a developmental disorder.  Especially with only 5 minutes' play time.  The game is so deep, varied, and innovative that 5 minutes' play time isn't even enough to see if you like the color of Mario's hat.

I'll go with the developmental problems, but I think you're going easy on that last bit.  The game is deep, but it's pretty clear within five seconds that it's near perfect.  After five minutes it should have occurred to any right-minded person that it actually IS perfect.

[versapak]

Got rid of my Wii to fund the ridiculous amount of other games that hit the 360 one after the other.

Seeing the raving on SMG definitely makes that decision suck a little, but really... The Wii was getting no play for a loooooooong time. It was fun with other people, but so much of the Wii really is just novelty.


I figure I will eventually score another one, once Nintendo actually starts making enough. By then there should be a decent enough library to make it worth keeping.

[Guaranos]

No . . . Chad's right.  Your position is like someone saying they hate air or water.  Disliking Mario 64 isn't just an opinion . . . it's a character flaw.   

Character flaw... pssh... IMO it may be evidence of a developmental disorder.  Especially with only 5 minutes' play time.  The game is so deep, varied, and innovative that 5 minutes' play time isn't even enough to see if you like the color of Mario's hat.

I'll go with the developmental problems, but I think you're going easy on that last bit.  The game is deep, but it's pretty clear within five seconds that it's near perfect.  After five minutes it should have occurred to any right-minded person that it actually IS perfect.

Sorry, man.  Blocky 3d graphics never did much for me, and that N64 controller was created by the devil himself.

[Guaranos]

No . . . Chad's right.  Your position is like someone saying they hate air or water.  Disliking Mario 64 isn't just an opinion . . . it's a character flaw.   

Character flaw... pssh... IMO it may be evidence of a developmental disorder.  Especially with only 5 minutes' play time.  The game is so deep, varied, and innovative that 5 minutes' play time isn't even enough to see if you like the color of Mario's hat.

So now the guy who had to ask how to put sheets of MDF in a truck is commenting on my mental abilities.  Keep throwing stones in that glass house of yours.

[Xiaou2]

Rant / On


 Mario 64 was crap.

 It was blocky, ugly, and controlled like a car that just came out of a demolition derby.
3d really Kills the true Mario experience...  much like its killed almost any other game
besides driving and flight games.   And when I say killed - I mean  Sucks the fun
and challenge right out of the games. 

 Playing most 3d games is a matter of being able to deal with an out of control
camera,  and to try to judge 3d depth without 3d vision.   Its basically an interactive movie.

 The 2d Mario's take much more skill to complete.   Which is why some people hate
them - cause they basically suck at game skill,  and give up well to early.   They prefer
to wander unchallenged..  and if all possible,  desire a cheat to enable 'god' mode so
that any little challenge there was,  is completely eliminated.

 Why are 3d games so easy and skill less?   Because of the nature of the beast.   
In 3d, one can simply walk around a challenge.    In 2d, one is limited, and has
to deal with countless challenges immediately on the fly.   There is no easy
escape.   

 Because of the way 3d works,  they generally tend to need to keep a game like
that slow and uneventful.    As you wouldnt want people getting motion sick hopping
repeatedly up at block filled with coins, like in the original 2d series.    You also
dont want to be cheap to the player - by having things like turtles fly from behind you,
where you couldnt sense nor see them to react accordingly.   And finally,  many 3d games
are slow because of hardware constraints.   The only way to get around it, is to limit
details and object counts.   No more hyperspeed action in the mario game.  Now its
like mario is an out of shape and overweight athlete, who is Way past his prime.. 
(and needs to be retired)   Well, his enemies have also aged with him.. as they are
slow as snails... attack with no intelligence,  and attack like they have given up the
will to fight.  What a sad battle, and empty victory.

 Yeah,  theres a lot of people who love slow games that have major camera issues,
and have almost zero challenge..    But dont count me in on that crap.   Ill play
Robotron or Spy Hunter over those any day of the weak.   I dont like falling asleep
at my games...  and if I want to relax and not be challenged,  Ill actually watch a movie.


 Rant / Off

[stephenp1983]

I kinda see what your saying about the difficulty level, but I still enjoy new generation games that are 3d.  I've been playing since the nes days, and the games that were on it and the SNES etc are so much more difficult than alot of the games out now.  I've been playing my 360, and some of the stuff isn't even that challenging.

[shmokes]

That's ridiculous!  Games may be, and probably are easier today than they were twenty years ago, but that has nothing to do with the inherent difficulty in playing two-dimensional games.  It has to do with the demands of the market, plain and simple.  Videogames used to be primarily played by videogame geeks.  Geeks liked the near impossible challenge of a Gauntlet or Ghosts and Goblins.  Regular Joes don't.  They don't want to spend 70 hours  working on one game.  That kind of difficulty frustrates them. 

The games industry is not the same thing it was twenty years ago.  It is a bigger business than Hollywood now in terms of dollar signs.  Publishers force developers to play to the lowest common denominator to give games their widest possible appeal. 

Any game, whether presented in 2D or 3D is EXACTLY as difficult as the developer wants it to be.  Xiaou's contention that 3D allows you to simply avoid obstacles is retarded.  You can avoid an obstacle if the developer wants you do, and you can't if he doesn't.  It's that simple, and it's the same in both 2D and 3D.  In Super Mario Bros. you could get on the ceiling in 1-2 and run right past all the obstacles.  In SMB 3 you could hold the duck arrow and transfer into the background, running right past all the obstacles.  It's all up to the developer.

And there's plenty of difficulty to be had in 3D.  A #1, Mario 64 is every bit as difficult as previous Marios (with the possible exception of SMB 2).  But have you played Metal Gear Solid 2?  Metroid Prime (Chad gave up on this game cos it was too hard -- something tells me he's beat every 2D Super Mario game).

[ChadTower]

Metroid Prime (Chad gave up on this game cos it was too hard -- something tells me he's beat every 2D Super Mario game).

Just the Pirate boss, really, but yeah it ticked me off enough eventually that I stopped trying after 100 losses in a row.  I've beaten every 2D Mario game except the ones on the SNES... never really played much SNES.  I was a TG16 guy.

[AtomSmasher]

Wow, I can't believe someone is actually trying to argue that 3D graphics have been bad for gaming.  Thats one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

[slycrel]

From a Game Dev perspective, mario 64 broke some important ground.  It was well balanced for what it was.  But I'd not even come close to saying it was perfect.  It was a good game, sure, even great for the time.  It did arguably many things that no console game did before it.  But from a game development standpoint there's much that could be improved upon.   It's all about making choices and finding a gameplay groove.  Mario 64 did.  Some liked that gameplay, some did not.  Until someone comes out with a popular 3d scroller-esque game with a different gameplay, that's really all we have to go by, we've not seen a serious contender.  That doesn't mean there isn't one out there.

There's plenty of merit on both sides here.  Let's not turn this into a thread about the religion of mario 64.  It's kind of moot since we've got the latest and greatest 3D mario out there now.  I'd much rather hear about that than mario 64.  =)

[shmokes]

By far the most important words in your entire post were "for the time".  This should be a concept etched into the brains of people visiting this website.  If Pac-Man had never been made, and it was thought up and released for the first time in 2007 nobody would even know about it.  If it were released for one of the consoles it would be rated 1.0 out of 10.  Mario Galaxy is likely objectively better than Mario 64.  Hell, Zelda: TOoT is probably objectively better than Mario 64.  But neither of those games are as good as Mario 64.  Some people understand this concept, and some people don't.  But it's an important concept.  Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb.  General Electric just makes it better.  But the 100 watt bulb burning over your head doesn't for one second take away from Edison's greatness.  Frankly, it doesn't begin to even compare with his greatness.  But the bulb over your head, is objectively better than his was.  You see that.

[AtomSmasher]

From a Game Dev perspective, mario 64 broke some important ground.  It was well balanced for what it was.  But I'd not even come close to saying it was perfect.  It was a good game, sure, even great for the time.  It did arguably many things that no console game did before it.  But from a game development standpoint there's much that could be improved upon.   It's all about making choices and finding a gameplay groove.  Mario 64 did.  Some liked that gameplay, some did not.  Until someone comes out with a popular 3d scroller-esque game with a different gameplay, that's really all we have to go by, we've not seen a serious contender.  That doesn't mean there isn't one out there.

There's plenty of merit on both sides here.  Let's not turn this into a thread about the religion of mario 64.  It's kind of moot since we've got the latest and greatest 3D mario out there now.  I'd much rather hear about that than mario 64.  =)

Just to be clear, I can understand someone not liking Mario 64, but what I can't understand is someone thinking 3D graphics are bad for gaming in general.  I guess since this forum is mainly about retrogaming, it's possible he just doesn't like modern games in general and blames 3d graphics for his distaste.  If that is the case, then he should go pick up Super Paper Mario or Viewtiful Joe and see how 3d graphics can be used to enhance classic sidescroller type gameplay, or since he mentioned games with lots of action he'd probably also enjoy the Rachet & Clank games since they are more about killing enemies then they are about slower paced platforming and puzzle solving (not that they don't have platforming and puzzle solving, they're just a lot more focused on action than the mario games)

[RTSDaddy2]

No more spoilers, I swear,  but my wife and I were talking last night (after 3 - 4 hours of on again / off again play) about Super Mario Galaxy and how much fun this is to play.  My daughter, who is five, just loves to watch us play it and has even tried it herself (though some parts are still a bit too hard for her).  My wife is an average gamer at best - though certainly not hard core, she knows her stuff - and has learned a lot more since we built our cabinet...and she too is just in love with this game.

What I simply cannot get over is the desire to replay certain star missions in just the first galaxy alone. Yes, I can't wait to get to the next jaw-dropping planet / story moment / battle scene, but at times I think "Gosh that ended too quickly -  I know I must have missed something - let's do it again!" 

[pointdablame]

If you haven't noticed it yet (don't know if it's mentioned in this thread yet), let your daughter try the 2nd player part.  A second player can take control of your star cursor and help you collect star bits and what not. 

It's a great way to get little kids (or significant others who aren't usually gamers) into the game.

[shardian]

If you haven't noticed it yet (don't know if it's mentioned in this thread yet), let your daughter try the 2nd player part.  A second player can take control of your star cursor and help you collect star bits and what not. 

It's a great way to get little kids (or significant others who aren't usually gamers) into the game.

I always liked playing Sonic 2 that way with Tails.

[ChadTower]

Galaxy will probably end up being the killer app that convinces me to buy a Wii.  I'm playing through Mario 64 again now, though, just because I can... and so that I can introduce its greatness to my kids.

[ahofle]

Galaxy will probably end up being the killer app that convinces me to buy a Wii. 

I think you've said that about at least 3 previous Wii releases. 

[ChadTower]

Possibly... though I only remember potentially saying it about Metroid and Mario Kart... Mario Kart isn't even out yet, is it?

[tommy]

It's ok chad, almost every Nintendo made game is worthy of getting a Wii for.

[tommy]

Rant / On


 Mario 64 was crap.

 It was blocky, ugly, and controlled like a car that just came out of a demolition derby.
3d really Kills the true Mario experience...  much like its killed almost any other game
besides driving and flight games.   And when I say killed - I mean  Sucks the fun
and challenge right out of the games. 

 

I agree, that supports my Nintendo was not ready to go 3D when they did with the N64 and how the games looked like blocky crapiness. I did get many bricks tossed at me for those comments.

[ChadTower]

So by that logic, they weren't ready to go with the GameCube and aren't ready to go now... seeing as how things will be better in a few years than they are today.  That logic also says that the Dreamcast, the PS2, the PS3, the Xbox, and the 360 are all also not ready to go, since in 5 years, graphics will be better than they are today.

The N64 was fully ready to go.  It was the best there was in the year that it was released.

[tommy]

The gamecube and others were ready to go 3D because they looked right. So no, by your logic of my logic that is not right.

[ChadTower]

What defines "right"?  Your approval?

Should Nintendo, then, have not proceeded with the business producing game consoles, until they had your signoff?  A lot of people were very happy with the N64 - we still play it regularly in my house and everyone enjoys it.

[tommy]

It does not need my approval, it just needs to have smooth edges which proves the technology was ready to produce realistic 3D graphics in a console.

[ChadTower]

So that is the criterion?  Who made that up?  You.

Logically, since you made up the only criterion, you are saying it must meet your approval. 

[tommy]

I didn't make it up, Nintendo did. If the N64 graphics were good enough they wouldn't have improved on them, but obviously they found them to be inferior.

[tommy]

We all know they are always going to improve the graphics on new consoles. But GC graphics do not compare to N64 graphics. GC graphics DO compare to XBOX360 graphics in that they still both look like they belong in the same sentence in that they both belong having the right to call them self good 3D graphics because they look good enough, the N64 does not.

[ChadTower]

I didn't make it up, Nintendo did. If the N64 graphics were good enough they wouldn't have improved on them, but obviously they found them to be inferior.

Erm, no, they improved on them because the technology improved.

You made it up.  Millions of people bought N64s and enjoyed them despite their obviously lacking the tommy seal of quality.

[versapak]

I didn't make it up, Nintendo did. If the N64 graphics were good enough they wouldn't have improved on them, but obviously they found them to be inferior.

lol 

Atari should have never made the 2600.

Nintendo shouldn't have ever made the NES.

Sega shouldn't have ever made the SMS.


They were all inferior consoles that were improved on, so clearly they weren't ready to be released. 

[tommy]

No, they were good for what they were, but not if they tried to be something else.

[versapak]

No, they were good for what they were, but not if they tried to be something else.

What the heck are you talking about?


The N64 didn't try to be anything that it wasn't, and for its day, it did what it did pretty damn good.


The only person alive that thinks otherwise is you, which should tell you something.

[ChadTower]

Don't ever eat a donut that tommy offers you.

[versapak]

Don't ever eat a donut that tommy offers you.

heheheh

[tommy]

All i'm saying is that they were not ready to go 3D at the time they did. They could have made a lot better looking 2d console and when the hardware was ready as in the GC they could have made a decent looking 3D console and not a half-ass 3D console.

The look and hard edges don't lie in the N64 graphics.

[shardian]

They were ready for 3d - plain and simple. Now, they could have made a few changes in their hardware that would have made the system easier to program for, and allow for "better" 3d rendering. I just finished reading the wikipedia entry for the N64 - a very interesting read for anyone who is up for it.

[AtomSmasher]

I agree, that supports my Nintendo was not ready to go 3D when they did with the N64 and how the games looked like blocky crapiness. I did get many bricks tossed at me for those comments.

The atari 2600 also looked like blocky crappiness, so I guess they weren't ready for 2D games at that point.   Doom looks like blocky crappiness, so I guess that game should never have been made.  It's pretty bizzare how there is an argument about how inferior graphics can ruin gameplay on a forum dedicated to playing games like frogger or space invaders.  Graphics do not have to be photorealistic to have great gameplay.

[ahofle]

It's pretty bizzare how there is an argument about how inferior graphics can ruin gameplay on a forum dedicated to playing games like frogger or space invaders.  Graphics do not have to be photorealistic to have great gameplay.

 

[Guaranos]

All i'm saying is that they were not ready to go 3D at the time they did. They could have made a lot better looking 2d console and when the hardware was ready as in the GC they could have made a decent looking 3D console and not a half-ass 3D console.

The look and hard edges don't lie in the N64 graphics.

I personally think that a lot of SNES games look better than N64 games.  Like, for instance, I think that Super Mario World is a better looking game than Mario 64.  The graphics, though 2d, just look more appealing to me.  I do think that GC and Wii games look better than SNES games, though, and certainly N64 games.

[SavannahLion]

Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb.  General Electric just makes it better.

Not to take away your argument there....

You do know who founded General Electric... right?

I see your point there, it's just kind of weird to pick General Electric as an example.  

No, they were good for what they were, but not if they tried to be something else.

Wow... that's way out in left field there.

That makes no sense.  The N64 was specificially designed with an eye towards 3D games. You don't develop a machine with that kind of hardware and an analog controller and not expect developers develop 3D games for it.

Sure, it's no argument that the engineeers made some mistakes in the overall design. Towards the end, I don't think it was possible to buy a new N64 that didn't include the expansion card. I still can't figure out why Nintendo wants to be so damn cheap with their RAM  It was also considered suicidal by many not to release a disc based N64. It probably was very nearly suicidal with Nintendo's restrictive licensing practices.

No, by the time the N64 arrived, 3D games were well on their way to the home market.

Now, if you were trying to argue 3D games on something like the SNES or Genesis, then you might actually have a decent argument there.

[ChadTower]

Actually, the N64 was specifically designed around Mario 64... the machine's whole architecture was centered around making  that game as great as could be done at the time.  That's why nearly everything else on the system is only half as good as the primary launch title.

[shmokes]

You do know who founded General Electric... right?

Heh . . . Edison presumably.     That's funny.  Okay, substitute Phillips or LG in place of GE.

By the way, Tommy, do you actually believe this stuff?  Cos it's pretty hilarious.  Do you mean to tell me Atari was ready for 2D, but Nintendo wasn't ready for 3D?

[shmokes]

Possibly... though I only remember potentially saying it about Metroid and Mario Kart... Mario Kart isn't even out yet, is it?

The other was Zack and Wikki, the new point & click adventure game that's all the buzz right now.     I'd like to get my hands on it myself.

[SavannahLion]

Actually, the N64 was specifically designed around Mario 64... the machine's whole architecture was centered around making  that game as great as could be done at the time.  That's why nearly everything else on the system is only half as good as the primary launch title.

That just reeks of fanboyism. 

[shardian]

Actually, the N64 was specifically designed around Mario 64... the machine's whole architecture was centered around making  that game as great as could be done at the time.  That's why nearly everything else on the system is only half as good as the primary launch title.

Not technically true. The designers had to take considerable shortcuts on the mario game because of hardware inefficiencies. That is why there isn't alot of detail on the levels - and the trees are 2d  . I'm fine with that though, because what was there was awesome, there was zero load times, and gameplay was pretty sharp. The playstation at the same time had clunky game play, huge load times, and extremely pixelated 3d graphics.

The no-loading is why I went with N64 over playstation. Ever played NFL Blitz on playstation? Have you also played it on N64? If your choice between consoles was based on that comparison, you sure as hell would pick the N64 wouldn't you.

Still, Nintendo was their own worst enemy for the same reasons they picked the no-load cart based platform - it was just easier and cheaper to make games for cd based systems. Nintendo is directly responsible for putting playstation on the map. If the N64 had been cd based, it would have blew Sony off the map in no time. You have to remember, the big PS games like Final Fantasy VII were originally contracted to be exclusive to N64. The whole gaming landscape could be DRASTICALLY different today because of that one decision.

[ChadTower]

Not technically true. The designers had to take considerable shortcuts on the mario game because of hardware inefficiencies. That is why there isn't alot of detail on the levels - and the trees are 2d  .

Which is indicative of a parallel development process.  They tweaked the console several times to get more for Mario 64... and also tweaked Mario 64 several times because they couldn't get quite what they wanted out of the hardware.  When you're designing software to run on a custom, cutting edge platform, that happens.

You have to remember, the big PS games like Final Fantasy VII were originally contracted to be exclusive to N64. The whole gaming landscape could be DRASTICALLY different today because of that one decision.

Yeah, Nintendo saved gameplay.  I can't stand interactive movies like the later Final Fantasy stuff... I want a game that is fun, not a game that looks spectacular but plays like stereo instructions while being mostly passive watching anyway.

[tommy]

That makes no sense.  The N64 was specificially designed with an eye towards 3D games. You don't develop a machine with that kind of hardware and an analog controller and not expect developers develop 3D games for it.

That was after the fact. I know they had to go ahead and now develop 3D games after they made the thing. 
 
It shouldn't have been made with 3D in mind to start with. IMO

[tommy]

As for shmokes, we already had this argument here and I don't feel like reliving it again. I just commented on that one guys comment and agreed.  And yes, i am for real that the N64 sucked ass with it's blurry hard edges.

I'm not talking about 2D games at all here. That was all we knew for the longest time and that is how a lot of good games started out, any 2D game is irrelevant so don't bring it up. I'm talking about the giant leap from 2D to 3d, that IMO did not work out very well with the hardware that they had at that time. That's all, simple.

[AtomSmasher]

As for shmokes, we already had this argument here and I don't feel like reliving it again. I just commented on that one guys comment and agreed.  And yes, i am for real that the N64 sucked ass with it's blurry hard edges.

I'm not talking about 2D games at all here. That was all we knew for the longest time and that is how a lot of good games started out, any 2D game is irrelevant so don't bring it up. I'm talking about the giant leap from 2D to 3d, that IMO did not work out very well with the hardware that they had at that time. That's all, simple.

Well your argument is that early 3D games sucked because they didn't look very good, so it makes perfect sense to compare them to early 2D games which also did not look very good.  I can see why you wouldn't want to talk about 2D games since it does destroy your argument, but it doesn't make a lot of sense how bad graphics can only ruin 3D games and not 2D games.

[tommy]

2D games was the start of gaming altogether and can't be at fault. You can't blame the first cave man for making a ---smurfy--- wheel when he just came up with it and is a genius. But as of today you can blame a ---smurfy--- wheel maker with so much that has been learned since then.

They needed one more generation of 2D games before they made the leap to 3D. That's just me though, i guess.

[bishmasterb]

My god, it sucks that the hardware development team kept lying to Miyamoto, telling him that the hardware would be ready for 3D. If they hadn't, just think of the really mondo bitchin' SuperMarioWorld2 that we could have had instead of SM64.

[shardian]

I'll tell you this much, in 1997 the $200 N64 was playing a hell of a lot better 3d games than my MUCH more expensive pc was.

Even if you could play 3d pc games at higher resolutions then, it was gonna set you back around $2000-$3000.

[SavannahLion]

That makes no sense.  The N64 was specificially designed with an eye towards 3D games. You don't develop a machine with that kind of hardware and an analog controller and not expect developers develop 3D games for it.

That was after the fact. I know they had to go ahead and now develop 3D games after they made the thing. 
 
It shouldn't have been made with 3D in mind to start with. IMO

Are you even understanding this argument? Do you even realize the time frame involved here?

I've read all of your arguments in the past, but this one of yours pretty much takes the cake.

[AtomSmasher]

That makes no sense.  The N64 was specificially designed with an eye towards 3D games. You don't develop a machine with that kind of hardware and an analog controller and not expect developers develop 3D games for it.

That was after the fact. I know they had to go ahead and now develop 3D games after they made the thing. 
 
It shouldn't have been made with 3D in mind to start with. IMO

Are you even understanding this argument? Do you even realize the time frame involved here?

I've read all of your arguments in the past, but this one of yours pretty much takes the cake.

If theres one thing we all should of learned from this forum by now, its that it's impossible to change Tommy's mind once it's set.  That's why even though I feel his response to me doesn't make a lot of sense, I've decided to just let it go.  Of course if you enjoy pointless arguments, then carry on because Tommy is the king of pointless arguments 

[shmokes]

N64 had loads of great games, IMO. 

[versapak]

N64 had loads of great games, IMO. 

Agreed.


3D wasn't only a graphics revolution, but it was very much a gameplay revolution (probably even more importantly).

To say that the N64 shouldn't have been released, because 3D gaming didn't match the visuals of 2D gaming is just plain retarded.

No, you don't really look back at N64 gfx and think, "WOW, those are stunning!", but they sure as heck weren't ugly for the day, and the gameplay experience that 3D brought was what it was all about.

[Wiibound]

I've heard people say that PS1 had better graphics than the N64.. they're on crack. The N64 always looked like it had fuller polygons (if that makes sense), better colors and a much cleaner look.

Anyway SMG = best game ever made

[versapak]

N64 had loads of great games, IMO. 

Name 10.

I'll start you off with Mario Kart, Goldeneye, Zelda, and uh... well....   

I had a Z64, so I pretty much played everything.  The only games I liked were the ones I actually bought.  Go figure...

Mario 64
Pilot Wings
WCW/NWO (and any of the other THQ/Aki wrestling games)
Conker's Bad Fur Day
Mario Party
Wave Race
Star Fox
Beetle Adventure Racing
Banjo & Kazooie
Rayman 2
Paper Mario
Perfect Dark


...and plenty more.

[ChadTower]

Tons more... hell there was even a DDR game for the N64.

[stephenp1983]

Yeah n64 was probably my favorite system for awhile.  I skipped out on ps1 because of the above mentioned reasons, but I loved my n64

[versapak]

Mario 64
Pilot Wings
WCW/NWO (and any of the other THQ/Aki wrestling games)
Conker's Bad Fur Day
Mario Party
Wave Race
Star Fox
Beetle Adventure Racing
Banjo & Kazooie
Rayman 2
Paper Mario
Perfect Dark

Beetle Adventure Racing was actually a decent title, but in the same class as Mario Kart or Goldeneye...?  The rest of this list I'd raise a skeptical eyebrow to.  Conker had a chance until the electric eel part.  It's amazing how one sequence could destroy an otherwise good game.

The Disney DDR game was terrible. 

Who said anything about the same class as Mario Kart or Goldeneye?

There is no system ever made that has more than a few legendary games, and a list of them will always be a small one.


The N64 had a ton of great titles, and those I mentioned were some great gaming experiences, and there were many more.

[hypernova]

Mario Kart 64
Goldeneye

Mario 64
Pilot Wings
WCW/NWO (and any of the other THQ/Aki wrestling games)
Conker's Bad Fur Day
Mario Party
Wave Race
Star Fox
Beetle Adventure Racing
Banjo & Kazooie
Rayman 2
Paper Mario
Perfect Dark

I'd add:

Zelda Ocarina of Time
Zelda Majora's Mask
Super Smash Bros
KI Gold
MK Trilogy
Star Wars Shadows of the Empire
F-Zero X

With regards to many of these games, this system was ready for 3-D.  For Christ's sake Tommy, you can't go from no 3-D to smooth as silk 3-D graphics.  N64 was a beautiful system.  Progress is made with small steps. 

[versapak]

I'd add:

Zelda Ocarina of Time
Zelda Majora's Mask
Super Smash Bros
KI Gold
MK Trilogy
Star Wars Shadows of the Empire
F-Zero X

Well, Zelda he already had in his post (the one I was replying to), but the others...


Yes, I would definitely add those. I could have swore I actually did list Super Smash Brothers, but obviously not. That was one that got a HUGE amount of play at my house.


Between the Saturn, PSX and the N64, the N64 was hands down easily my system of choice.

[hypernova]

Well, Zelda he already had in his post

It didn't specify which, so I figured I'd list them both.

And Howard, if you're reading, I used "MK" on the proper game.

[AtomSmasher]

107 stars and counting 

[ahofle]

I just played SMG tonight for the first time at a friend's party.  Man, what a religious experience.  I'm so pissed I missed the $34.95 sale at Circuit ---smurfy---.  

[SavannahLion]

I'd question Conkers there. I have the title and even got the promo T-shirt with it. Not exactly one of the best N64 titles to own. I'd shuffle in a DK or a Zelda instead.

Between the Saturn, PSX and the N64, the N64 was hands down easily my system of choice.

Oddly enough, now that I think about it, despite buying more titles for my PSX, I probably spent more time playing N64 games. Must be that Pokemon Snap!

Even weirder, my ex spent way more time playing N64 games than I ever did, yet the ---smurfette--- took nearly half my PS* titles when she left. WTF?  Of course, she made off with the Gamecube and left me only one title, so I guess she considered a GCN for a N64 a fair trade.

[HaRuMaN]

I dunno... Conkers was a lot of fun... in multiplayer mode.

[danny_galaga]

N64 had loads of great games, IMO. 

and it looks like i have most of em! being a newcomer to the N64 i just went for genres i liked and that others have said were great. im playing goldeneye now, but it sounds like mario64 will be next (this is super mario64, right? thats what i have). and from the sound of it, i will definitely have to get a wii next year and get super mario galaxy.

N64 had loads of great games, IMO. 

Name 10.

I'll start you off with Mario Kart, Goldeneye, Zelda, and uh... well....   

top N64 games

[ChadTower]

Conker is a great game for platform lovers... I don't like overly violent games, so stuff like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark do little for me.  Gotta say they did get tons of play in the group of friends, though, and they really did do things that couldn't be done before that on a console.

[versapak]

top N64 games

Perfect Dark is #2 on that list and that game is a big, big, BIG "uhmm.... no".

I enjoyed my N64, I enjoyed my Z64, I enjoyed playing games months before they hit retail... 

But, again, the only games worth playing on that system were the ones I actually bought.

Until this thread, I wasn't aware there was a distinction between 'great' and 'legendary' games.    Majora's Mask was unplayably bad, IMO, and I was modding Jet Force Gemini carts to play the Japanese ROM, so I'd say I gave that title its fair chance! (you had to put a different chip on the Jet Force Gemini PCB to boot the rom and be able to save it)

For every 'legendary' game on this system, there were 20 others that involved 'run the generic character around a foggy room until you find the switch'.

I was more a Sega Saturn guy myself.   

Of course there is a difference between great and legendary.


Mario 64 changed console gaming, as did Goldeneye.


You say make a list of only games that are that good, and it doesn't matter what system you choose, the list is going to be very small.


I too had a Z64. I still do, and it has long had a hard drive installed in it. I am no stranger to N64 gaming either.


Then you bring up Saturn... Go ahead and name ONE game on Saturn that is in the same league as Mario 64 or Goldeneye.

Yeah, there are some great games on the Saturn, but there isn't a single one that has changed console gaming.

Those titles are legendary. Tastes differ, and maybe you find a different list of games great, but when all is said and done, to say that N64 only had about 3 is pretty ignorant and just plain stupid.

[patrickl]

OK, I finally got the Super Mario Galaxy too. Maybe it's all the hyping, but i was quite underwhelmed. The colors and graphics are cute, the worlds look nicely detailed and the music is nice (although kinda over the top now and then). It's just feels like a bit of a bore and a tad childish to me.

[AtomSmasher]

Then you bring up Saturn... Go ahead and name ONE game on Saturn that is in the same league as Mario 64 or Goldeneye.

Yeah, there are some great games on the Saturn, but there isn't a single one that has changed console gaming.

The games Nights into Dreams, Daytona USA, and Virtua Fighter come to mind.

[ChadTower]

Virtua Cop and House of the Dead, though arcade ports, are far better than any console light gun games to that point.

Panzer Dragoon Saga ushered in a whole new type of RPG as well.

[versapak]

All of those games were great games, and that is my point.

There are definitely great games, but none of those games changed console gaming like Mario 64 or Goldeneye did.


The list of games that did is always going to be extremely small, and for him to expect some gargantuan list of games of that caliber is just silly.


[EDIT]

Panzer Dragoon Saga was a different kind of RPG, but it didn't usher anything.

[AtomSmasher]

Nintendo, IMO, has always been good for about 5 amazing games per system.  With Sega, you always had a couple dozen.  None of them were quite as awesome as the Nintendo Top 5, but they were close.

All of those games were great games, and that is my point.

There are definitely great games, but none of those games changed console gaming like Mario 64 or Goldeneye did.

So I'm confused.  Everyone seems to agree that a few games on the N64 were better then anything on the Saturn, which would be those couple of "legendary" games your talking about, so why are you asking for games on the Saturn that compare to those?  Both systems have great games and while the N64 easily had the top 3 or 4 games of that generation, I agree that the Saturn had a higher quantity of great games.

On a side note (and I'll put my flame suit on), I never liked Goldeneye.  I didn't see the game until around a year after it was released, but at the time I was playing half-life and tribes, and Goldeneye just seemed like crap compared to those.  I know it's considered a revolutionary game, but it must have just been revolutionary on the consoles because it was nothing compared to the PC shooters of the time.

[SavannahLion]

On a side note (and I'll put my flame suit on), I never liked Goldeneye.  I didn't see the game until around a year after it was released, but at the time I was playing half-life and tribes, and Goldeneye just seemed like crap compared to those.  I know it's considered a revolutionary game, but it must have just been revolutionary on the consoles because it was nothing compared to the PC shooters of the time.

I'm the same as you. I've never understood the appeal of Goldeneye myself. I've been playing Half-Life for a while before I picked up Goldeneye. I snagged a copy of it as part of a lot bid at eBay. Popped it in, played for a while, then tossed it on the pile of games to be cataloged. This is coming from a James Bond buff.

[Howard_Casto]

Goldeneye was more fun in multiplayer.  This is why the truely hardcore (like myself) were never impressed by supposed system sellers like halo.  Quite frankly rare did a better job of the multi-player fps all the way back in 97 and on the console end, at least, the only improvment for 10 years has been online play and the lack of split screens. 

Just to add to the list....

Mk Trilogy (no 10 minute load screens and pixelated edges like the ps1 version and no crippled morphs).
Star Wars: SOTE  (The game you can thank for every decent star wars game that has come out since)
MK4  (Not as good as the dc version, but at the time, the dc wasn't out yet.)
Mark Kart (Arguably the best multiplayer game ever.)
Mk Subzero (Highly under-rated... set the ground work for shaolin monks). 

[versapak]

Nintendo, IMO, has always been good for about 5 amazing games per system.  With Sega, you always had a couple dozen.  None of them were quite as awesome as the Nintendo Top 5, but they were close.

All of those games were great games, and that is my point.

There are definitely great games, but none of those games changed console gaming like Mario 64 or Goldeneye did.

So I'm confused.  Everyone seems to agree that a few games on the N64 were better then anything on the Saturn, which would be those couple of "legendary" games your talking about, so why are you asking for games on the Saturn that compare to those?  Both systems have great games and while the N64 easily had the top 3 or 4 games of that generation, I agree that the Saturn had a higher quantity of great games.

On a side note (and I'll put my flame suit on), I never liked Goldeneye.  I didn't see the game until around a year after it was released, but at the time I was playing half-life and tribes, and Goldeneye just seemed like crap compared to those.  I know it's considered a revolutionary game, but it must have just been revolutionary on the consoles because it was nothing compared to the PC shooters of the time.

You need to read my first post, and what I was replying to, because you seem to be looking at what I said out of context.



I responded to someone that was saying that someone couldn't name 10 great games on N64.

I gave a list of more than 10 great games.


He then said they weren't in the same league as Mario and Goldeneye.

I then said... Of course they aren't. No system ever made has a huge list of legendary games.

He then said... What? There is a difference between legendary and great games?

I said... Of course. Mario 64 and Goldeneye changed console gaming. They were legendary. There are however many many GREAT games. Games that offer great gaming experiences. Games that may not go down in history as changing actual gaming, but were excellent experiences all the same.

The same guy mentioning how the N64 didn't have very many great (his definition of great being that it had to be the same league as Mario and Goldeneye) games, then goes to say how he was a Saturn fan instead.

I found that pretty funny, because even though there were many great games on Saturn, there were actually NO games on the Saturn that changed gaming's future at all. None that I would say hold the same esteem in gaming as Mario or Goldeneye.





[EDIT]

I just want to add, after reading above...


Goldeneye was amazing for its day.

It had some great objective story based single player, as opposed to red switch blue switch crap, and it had some excellent multiplayer.

It was proof that a FPS could be done very well on a console.


That being said... The gameplay has not held up over time. The controls, which were great for the day, have long since been surpassed in a big way by more modern controllers.

You can't really go back and play it after having played more modern stuff, and get a true feeling for what it was.

[ChadTower]

I own a whole stack of Saturns and N64s... and most of the domestic libraries for both systems... I love the Saturn and have had mine since it's massively overpriced launch day...

...but there is no way the "high quality games list" on the Saturn is as big as it is on the N64... the Saturn had some great games, but the list of them isn't all that long, and there was a LOT of third party garbage on the Saturn.

[AtomSmasher]

You need to read my first post, and what I was replying to, because you seem to be looking at what I said out of context.

The topic was drifting from talk of the number of great games to the number of "legendary" games and I wanted to bring it back to the original post of this sidetrack which said that nintendo made better games then sega, but just not as many.  Pinballjim was drifting as well (and possibly the cause of it), so I was trying to get both of you back to what you were originally debating.  I guess it serves me right for trying to keep a conversion moving in a linear progression 

Besides, this seems to be a purely subjective topic on which games are considered great and which console had more of these "great" games since I don't believe the records are well kept of the review scores from way back then (gamerankings seems to only have 1 or 2 reviews for most of the saturn games), so there seems to be no way to prove it one way or the other.  With no real evidence other then us just listing the games each of us consider to be great, I've decided I'm done with this conversation and am going back to play Super Mario Galaxy, but many here seem to love these pointless arguments, so carry on.   

As for the multiplayer in Goldeneye, it also must have just been revolutionary on consoles because Team Fortress on the PC was released around a year before goldeneye, and I think it had far superior multiplayer.  But this is why I mentioned putting on a flamesuit before, I know I'm in the minority and don't expect a lot of people to agree with me.

[SavannahLion]

Besides, this seems to be a purely subjective topic on which games are considered great and which console had more of these "great" games since I don't believe the records are well kept of the review scores from way back then (gamerankings seems to only have 1 or 2 reviews for most of the saturn games), so there seems to be no way to prove it one way or the other.

I kept every gaming magazine I subscribed to up until 1996 or so. That means I've captured some of the N64 and PSX reviews, unfortunately, it means I probably didn't capture any of the Saturn reviews. Should be interesting to find the boxes and see some of the reviews from that era.

[versapak]

As for the multiplayer in Goldeneye, it also must have just been revolutionary on consoles because Team Fortress on the PC was released around a year before goldeneye, and I think it had far superior multiplayer.  But this is why I mentioned putting on a flamesuit before, I know I'm in the minority and don't expect a lot of people to agree with me.

Ummm... Yes, of course it was only specific to consoles.


Console vs PC debate is you drifting the topic even further. Way to keep it on track.




Goldeneye was both a great single and multiplayer experience, but it was that it was a great playing FPS on a console that made it go down in history the way it did.

The single player at the time was pretty spectacular as well, as even on PC, FPS were more about red switch blue switch than they were about a story or objective.

[versapak]

These threads are always funny, especially when people argue about what I said.

But hey, let's continue the navel gazing.  The weather sucks here today anyway.  :/

Basically, I was trying to say that Nintendo was always a good choice for about 5 'legendary' games, but that the Sega systems were always good for a couple dozen 'extremely good' games.  These couple dozen weren't as good as the 'legendary' games, but you at least had more choices.

Here, let me put it this way.

Take 100 games and break them down like this:

Nintendo: 2-5 LEGENDARY games, 5-10 good games, 80+ junk

Sega: 20 GREAT games, 10 good games, 70 junk

Think about it.  ~800 NES games and everybody plays SMB1, 2, 3, Punch-Out, and Zelda and nothing else. 


The companies had, and still have, very different approaches to their first party stuff.  The Sega stuff, to me, was always much more arcade oriented.  I always bought Sega systems to play the Sega arcade games at home.  I also always felt like the Sega games were better oriented towards an older audience, so they matched up better with my interests as I was growing up.  In hindsight, they're all pretty kiddy but I think some here will agree with me.

Anyway, hoping to go play some more Super Mario Galaxy.  It's growing on me.

You are just over all crazy in the head.


Nintendo 64 certainly had just as many great games as Sega Saturn did (N64 had more IMO, and I did own both).

In that generation, it is my opinion that Nintendo actually had the highest ratio of good to bad.

By your comments, I would think you somehow thought the PSX was the N64, because if you want to see tons and tons of shoveled out crap, that is where you would find it.

The PSX had some great games as well, but there were soooooooooooooo many PSX games, that the ratio of good to bad was skewed toward the bad in a major way.

Either way... You said make a list of 10 great games, and I did, and others have agreed with and added to.

[versapak]

Either way... You said make a list of 10 great games, and I did, and others have agreed with and added to.

Well, I wanted 10 that were better than anything comparable on the other systems, and I still haven't seen that list.  4 or 5?  Yes.  10?  No. 

Never cared for Playstation.  The first time I picked up a controller, it felt 'laggy' to me.  Just the slightest detectable amount of lag between button press and action.  And, besides, $150 got you a Saturn with VF2, Daytona, and Virtua Cop.

Put another hour on Mario Galaxy.  Great game.   

Why would anyone need to make a list of anything better than any other system?

I had all 3. I enjoyed every single one of them.


There wasn't anyone making the claim that N64 was better than everything else (unless I totally missed a chunk of the conversation in here), so asking for proof of such a claim doesn't even make sense.

[shardian]

I would bet that the majority of people couldn't even name 10 games for the Sega Saturn. Even less if you discount the arcade ports.

[AtomSmasher]

I would bet that the majority of people couldn't even name 10 games for the Sega Saturn. Even less if you discount the arcade ports.

Well I can name a lot more Saturn games then I can N64 games, but your probably right since the N64 has maintained a relatively high popularity through the years and the Saturn has been largely forgotten.  Give the Dreamcast a few more years and it will probably be the same way.

[ChadTower]

The run of best Saturn games came WAY too late in its lifecycle.  Many of the very best were after the "death" of the system at retail and had to be preordered and hunted down to get a copy.  House of the Dead, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Magic Knight Rayearth, Burning Rangers, and a few others were all like this.

[Howard_Casto]

I think I can put a nail in the coffin of this discussion right here.  Although many people still speculate as to why the dreamcast, a console very much ahead of it's time with high quality games sold so poorly one theory seems to decidedly be the most popular.  Basically, the theory is that Sega's previous hardware (read the Saturn) was so horrible that they totally alienated their fanbase and nobody trusted the company anymore.  Everyone waited to see what the other systems would be like and by the time everyone got back to the dreamcast, it was too late.  Well that and the fact that sega's never had a console software hit that wasn't a total copy-cat of a nintendo title. 

So while you can certainly argue that there werent 10 great games on the n64 (you'd be wrong, but anyway) there's no way in hell you can say the saturn was a better system when it indirectly ruined sega and put them out of the console business!

For that matter if we are talking about super-de-dooper system seller titles, I challenge you to name 10 on ANY system EVER!  With that being said, you usually have 3 to 5 on every nintendo system, twice as many as any non nintendo system. 

Don't believe me?

Ok going down the list.......

Master System: NONE
Genesis:  Sonic... umm maybe madden?
Saturn: NONE
Dreamcast:  Ready 2 Rumble, Space Channel (And those are arguable)


PS1:  Twisted Metal 2, Final Fantasy 7, Metal Gear
Ps2:  God of War, Guitar Hero, Metal Gear, GTA3


Xbox:  Halo, Halo 2


NES: SMB, SMB2, SMB3, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Zelda, Duck Hunt (Yes as crazy as it sounds it was a console seller... shades of the future wii titles)
SNES: SMW, Super Metroid, Zelda, Mario Kart, Starfox
N64: Mario64, Goldeneye, Mario Kart  (I'm going to omit further games on this one for the interest of fairness as I know for certain that these games sold really well.)
Gamecube: Zelda, Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2, Resident Evil 4, Smash Bros., Mario Sunshine (even the turd of the mario series is still good), Mario Kart


I'm not saying that any of the other systems aren't enjoyable, far from it, but if we are going to get into a discussion of which company's consoles churns out the most system sellers then the list is generally:

Nintendo  (Note that depending upon your opinion these two can be swapped around for 1st and 2nd place). 
Sony
Microsoft
Sega

While I'm very fond of sega's arcade efforts, looking back they really are a poor software company, and an even poorer console company.  They were really a third-party quality company pretending to compete (and for a time they were very successful) with nintendo.  Eventually the public caught on and now they are demoted to (gasp!) a third party developer.  Sony is a wierd animal, they ended up with console sellers, it's just they didn't make the games or really have anything to do with it other than convincing developers to make games for their systems.  M$ tried very hard to make their own stuff, but have about a 50/50 success rate.  Nintendo is the king of software, with nearly every in-house title being a major hit.

[AtomSmasher]

I've been waiting for that post ever since the Nintendo fanboy came back   

For the most part I actually agree with what you said, except you seem to be talking about something different then what everyone else is talking about.  System seller games and how well a system sells is not the same thing as how good a game or a system is.  Would you say Shadow of the Colossus was a horrible game simply because it sold horribly?  No, of course not.  And even you said that Mario Sunshine was "the turd" of the series, so why would it be considered a "legendary" game?  We both know it wouldn't.  Most of us have agreed that there are more "legendary" games on Nintendo systems, so you agree with us on that point, you just disagree on which systems had more "great" games, which is fine because which games are considered great seems to vary from person to person.  And just to be clear, I'm not saying the Saturn was a better system then the N64, I'm just saying I enjoyed more games on the Saturn then the N64 and it had more games that I consider to be great.

[ChadTower]

Maybe they're trying to attract huge chicks.

[shardian]

I think I can put a nail in the coffin of this discussion right here.  Although many people still speculate as to why the dreamcast, a console very much ahead of it's time with high quality games sold so poorly one theory seems to decidedly be the most popular.  Basically, the theory is that Sega's previous hardware (read the Saturn) was so horrible that they totally alienated their fanbase and nobody trusted the company anymore.  Everyone waited to see what the other systems would be like and by the time everyone got back to the dreamcast, it was too late.  Well that and the fact that sega's never had a console software hit that wasn't a total copy-cat of a nintendo title. 

I'm sure the Saturn had a little to do with the failure of the Dreamcast, but the main reason was two things: PS2, and XBOX.

Dreamcast got a 6 month or so jump on those two, thinking they could solidify their place in the market. They did well for that 6 months, but they were simply ran the ---fudgesicle--- over by the juggernaut of the other two superior systems.

They sold plenty to early adopters, out of the loop parents and such, but most people simply held onto their denero for the coming systems.

[SavannahLion]

I think I can put a nail in the coffin of this discussion right here.  Although many people still speculate as to why the dreamcast, a console very much ahead of it's time with high quality games sold so poorly one theory seems to decidedly be the most popular.  Basically, the theory is that Sega's previous hardware (read the Saturn) was so horrible that they totally alienated their fanbase and nobody trusted the company anymore.  Everyone waited to see what the other systems would be like and by the time everyone got back to the dreamcast, it was too late.  Well that and the fact that sega's never had a console software hit that wasn't a total copy-cat of a nintendo title. 

I'm sure the Saturn had a little to do with the failure of the Dreamcast, but the main reason was two things: PS2, and XBOX.

Dreamcast got a 6 month or so jump on those two, thinking they could solidify their place in the market. They did well for that 6 months, but they were simply ran the ---fudgesicle--- over by the juggernaut of the other two superior systems.

Both of you are touching upon the truth of the matter. I think Saturn had more to do with Dreamcast's failure than shardian is letting on... Or to put it more accurately, everything Sega did up until that point had more to do with Dreamcast's failure. By the time the Saturn was killed off, Sega's regional divisions were all doing entirely different marketing campaigns in their respective regions. Sega U.S. was still stinging from their MegaCD and 32X campaigns when Saturn hit the U.S. market. SMS support was still available in Brazil until 2000 or so. Sega Japan was supporting both Saturn and Dreamcast for a time. It's safe to say that too much of Sega's global resources were spread too thin between so many different consoles across so many regions. Dreamcast did very well before the announcement of the PS2. When Sony dropped the ball so early, store isles literally changed overnight. I remember walking into a CompUSA before the announcement and seeing an entire isle dedicated to the Dreamcast. Other consoles at the time shared a different isle space. After the announcement, Playstation titles occupied an entire isle and Dreamcast was relegated to a small corner.

I also remember the distinct feeling amongst my local gaming community at the time. By the time Dreamcast arrived, Sega was typically frowned on. The attitude was generally something along the lines Sega's console wasn't going to have long to live, so don't spend too much money on them. Even amongst my diehard Sega friends, Sega wasn't the poster child under-dog to love anymore.

[tommy]

I don't think the downfall of the Dreamcast had anything to do with the actual console itself or a console before it. I think Nintendo was so strong with It's characters as in Mario and Zelda and that alone killed Sega. Nintendo's characters were always strong even to this day but at that time people really wanted to play video games with well known and established characters and nothing could take the place of Nintendo's own at that time. Mario was the trademark of video games at that rime and anything without these characters was going to fail.

It doesn't matter how good or bad the console is but coming up with recognisable and fun to play games with well known established characters is everything for a consoles success.

[versapak]

I don't think the downfall of the Dreamcast had anything to do with the actual console itself or a console before it. I think Nintendo was so strong with It's characters as in Mario and Zelda and that alone killed Sega. Nintendo's characters were always strong even to this day but at that time people really wanted to play video games with well known and established characters and nothing could take the place of Nintendo's own at that time. Mario was the trademark of video games at that rime and anything without these characters was going to fail.

It doesn't matter how good or bad the console is but coming up with recognisable and fun to play games with well known established characters is everything for a consoles success.

Nah.

Sega ruined their reputation with the Sega CD, 32X and Saturn.

I almost didn't buy a Dreamcast, and had many friends who didn't buy one. All because the thought was that SEGA wouldn't support it, and would abandon it early.


People avoided the Dreamcast, because it was Sega, and their reputation was crap. By the time that the Dreamcast was proving that it was a great system, the PS2 hype machine/dreamcast smear campaign from Sony hit. People then avoided the Dreamcast for nearly a year just in anticipation of the way overhyped PS2.


Then, lo and behold...

Sega did indeed abandon it, and did not support it. I bought 2 broadband adapters the day they came out. Sega didn't support them in a single one of their freaking games (PSO doesn't count, as you had to set it up with a Japanese web browser to get it to work). Meanwhile game after game after game came out with support for dial-up. Seriously... How hard would it have been to also support the broadband adapter in those same games already designed for online play?


[EDIT]

I forgot about Outtrigger. That one was indeed a Sega title that supported the broadband adapter. That still only takes the count to one though.

[versapak]

I forgot about Outtrigger. That one was indeed a Sega title that supported the broadband adapter. That still only takes the count to one though.

And you can sell that adapter today for more than you paid back then, so quitcherbitchin.

Your point?



My bitching has very little to do with me having 2 dreamcasts with broadband adapters. I happen to like my broadband adapters. Thank you very much. 

Sega habitually did not support their hardware. They had great ideas, but no ability to properly sell those ideas. When they weren't able to sell them, they gave up on them. They abandoned them, and burned a lot of customers in the process.

They didn't just do this once, but had a long history of burning customers.


Yes, that did have a lot to do with the failure of the Dreamcast.

[ChadTower]

I'd disagree there.  Nobody bought a 32X or a SegaCD anyway. 

Many of my friends bought both the SegaCD and the 32X.  None of those same friends bought a Dreamcast or a Saturn as a result.

I did buy a Saturn and was happy with it but had never owned a Genesis to that point.

[shardian]

I knew plenty of people who got a segaCD, but noone who got a 32x. I got a 32x myself when a department store was going out of business. I think I paid $20 or so for it, and got Doom and Mech Assault for $5 or so apiece. Unfortunately, I couldn't find games anywhere for the 32x after I got bored with those two.

[versapak]

I'd disagree there.  Nobody bought a 32X or a SegaCD anyway. 

Saturn =! 'long history'

That was my whole point. Sega has major problems selling their great ideas.

When they don't sell, they abandon them.

Nobody wants to support a product that the company making it doesn't even want to support.

[SavannahLion]

I'd disagree there.  Nobody bought a 32X or a SegaCD anyway. 

Saturn =! 'long history'

That was my whole point. Sega has major problems selling their great ideas.

When they don't sell, they abandon them.

Nobody wants to support a product that the company making it doesn't even want to support.

The issue is a little more complicated than a company simply having problems selling their ideas.

What happened was that Sega was pelting the U.S. market with too many, "consoles," at the same time. Sega U.S. was largely left in the dark about the Sega CD for too long from the Japanese division.

Couple that with how difficult it is to convince your average consumer to spend $250+ on an add-on to their console that doesn't really showcase any significant new technology, sports too much shovelware (who the hell wants to play a Marky Mark game? Or some crap FMV game already developed for a still born console from ten years prior?) or too many cartridge rehash titles. Then try to do the same with the 32X that has its own complete set of problems. After that, start launching completely new console revisions introducing a different set of problems and you have a recipe for disaster.

Globally, Sega was really pooching themselves. The company was rife with miscommunication, information blackouts, and each region trying to do their own thing.

Nobody wants to support a product that the company making it doesn't even want to support.

It's kinda funny hearing this argument about Sega.  I usually hear it as the reason for Atari's collapse in the early 80s.

The console market collapsed at the time due to over-saturation, not lack of support. A company doesn't mass produce more Pac-man cartridges than there are consoles then bury a bunch of carts in a landfill and hide the rest in a salt mine if they don't want to support a console.

[SavannahLion]

The console market collapsed at the time due to over-saturation, not lack of support. A company doesn't mass produce more Pac-man cartridges than there are consoles then bury a bunch of carts in a landfill and hide the rest in a salt mine if they don't want to support a console.

Uhh... you need to get your Atari legends straightened out. 

The point about Atari was they kept releasing a new system and the games from older systems weren't compatible.  They also kept releasing the same games over and over for their systems. 

It seems I know my Atari quite a bit better than you. You must be referring to the 5200. However, like most of your postings, yours is just free food. ;P

The 5200 is not the reason why the collapse occured. The collapse occured due to a severe glut of video games in the market. There was a vast number of games hitting the market for the different consoles. The 5200 didn't seem to receive support from Atari because most of the company's attention was dedicated to dealing with the glut and the problems it presented. In short, the 5200 was a victim, not the direct cause, of the collapse.

The destruction of carts in the landfill and the hiding of thousands (millions?) of other cartridges in the salt(?) mine is not indicative of a company not supporting a respective console. It's indicative of a company that screwed up and is trying to fix the glut.

The point about Atari was they kept releasing a new system and the games from older systems weren't compatible.

Later consoles such as the 7800 did have support for the 2600. The 5200 eventually received support for the 2600 via a peripheral (despite the 5200 being more akin to the 400/800 lineage). Given the generally accepted lineage, this is about on par with what other companies have done.

Taking a sampling of NES->SNES->N64->GC, there is zero first party backwards compatibility anywhere in that lineage. Is it necessary with you to highlight how other companies supported BC?

[ChadTower]

What killed the 5200 was mostly the fact that it cost so damn much and didn't present enough of an improvement.  I remember this.  Many of those people who were inclined to pay that amount for a second game system (and remember, back then it was a novel concept to upgrade the console) bought the Atari 400 or 800 instead... just as good for gaming but was also a computer.  No one back then wanted to pay hundreds to replace a gaming system they just paid a couple hundred for 2-3 years ago.

The 5200 wasn't a victim of the console collapse in '84.  The 7800, ColecoVision, maybe the Intellivision, but not the 5200.  The 5200 was a victim of high price and the upgrade concept being too new for people to swallow.

[SavannahLion]

What killed the 5200 was mostly the fact that it cost so damn much and didn't present enough of an improvement.  I remember this.  Many of those people who were inclined to pay that amount for a second game system (and remember, back then it was a novel concept to upgrade the console) bought the Atari 400 or 800 instead... just as good for gaming but was also a computer.  No one back then wanted to pay hundreds to replace a gaming system they just paid a couple hundred for 2-3 years ago.

I believe that's mostly correct. But my recollection of general attitudes of the time was radically different. No one wanted to buy a 5200 because of the damage from the 2600. Too many people lost interest in the 2600 and was trying to offload them faster than they could disconnect the 2600 from their TV. I'm still kicking myself for it, but I remember going to garage sales and flea markets and seeing 2600 carts for $1 to $5 a pop (by 1986 or thereabouts, people couldn't give away boxes of 2600 carts and a few years later used XEGS carts could be had for around $2.50 a piece. If I knew about the possibility of the Internet then....  ). Buying a 400 or 800 was a sort of insurance, giving them more flexibility with their systems than what the 2600 could offer them. I don't believe cost was the sole reason, it was disenchantment or disinterest with the consoles due to the '83 collapse. Something along the lines of "I spent this much on a 2600 and all I got were all these crappy games and the market sucks ass, why go through the same thing on the 5200?" Of course, I remember that sentence with far more  words.

Pre-'83 was bad. I remember some truly ridiculous store set ups. A furniture store my father frequented sold 2600's. I remember Sears sold their systems right alongside vacuums. A local drug store sold 2600 games (did the same stupid thing years later with the SNES/Genesis). I even remember a plumbing store that sported a console in one of their demo halls. 

The 5200 wasn't a victim of the console collapse in '84.  The 7800, ColecoVision, maybe the Intellivision, but not the 5200.  The 5200 was a victim of high price and the upgrade concept being too new for people to swallow.

I flat out disagree on this point. The 5200 died during or shortly after the collapse. I recall the cost issues, but I don't recall anyone ever complaining about the upgrade concept. 7800 was struggling in the aftermath. I definitely recall the 7800 coming out after the release of the NES. Well after the collapse. I checked Wikipedia and I'm partially right, 7800 was tested in Southern CA in '84 and enjoyed broad release in '86. With that, it's pretty clear Nintendo and Tramiel murdered the 7800.

[ChadTower]

If you had ever spent $50 for a copy of Sorceror by Mythicon you'd know why the crash happened.  There were tons of companies turning out one week GARBAGE games and still getting $50 for them.  There were no returns on opened games at all back then... so you were basically screwed out of your $50, and a bad game back then was pretty much unplayable to even people who really wanted it.  Considering how much more money $50 was in 1982, a lot of people got burned once or twice and just gave up on the concept.  That was the major cause of the crash... people just didn't want the product anymore and there was 25x more supply than demand.

[SavannahLion]

No one wanted to buy a 5200 because of the damage from the 2600.

Something along the lines of "I spent this much on a 2600 and all I got were all these crappy games and the market sucks ass, why go through the same thing on the 5200?"

Right... all the same games and it couldn't even play the 2600 games that everyone had a pile of. ... 

 

Congratulations on your small victory. Would you like a cookie now? 

If you had ever spent $50 for a copy of Sorceror by Mythicon you'd know why the crash happened.  There were tons of companies turning out one week GARBAGE games and still getting $50 for them.  There were no returns on opened games at all back then... so you were basically screwed out of your $50, and a bad game back then was pretty much unplayable to even people who really wanted it.

I remember that. Even if you didn't open the package, you still had to have a receipt, the return window was short, and you have to have a convincing reason for the return. The store I frequented during this time often had their returns area clear in the back of the store, down a seedy hallway, and you had to deal with a Russian(?) woman by the name of Ulga. She was my Soup Nazi. 

I lucked out on Sorcerer, it was one of the many games people couldn't give away during the late 80's.

Considering how much more money $50 was in 1982, a lot of people got burned once or twice and just gave up on the concept.  That was the major cause of the crash... people just didn't want the product anymore and there was 25x more supply than demand.

I concede your point here. You're right, people simply gave up on the 2600.

[ChadTower]

I concede your point here. You're right, people simply gave up on the 2600.

Until you tried to buy it from them... that's when they remember it was a hot commodity they paid $250 for so they should get $100 back... 20 years after the fact.

[SavannahLion]

Burn everyone real good on one system, and then release a marginally better one that isn't compatible and requires you to buy a completely new library of games? 

You write that like it was all Atari's fault. Blame it on companies like Mythicon trying to capitalize on a market situation with almost no consumer protections in place. Why do you think Nintendo moved in with their insanely restrictive licensing contracts?

I'm flipping back and forth between finishing Godhand and trying to chase down some of the hidden stars in Galaxy.

[SavannahLion]

BTW, I didn't bother with reading the directions. Do the little crowns signify a completed "planet"? I got them on the bonus and boss planets, but none on the others.

[SavannahLion]

BTW, I didn't bother with reading the directions. Do the little crowns signify a completed "planet"? I got them on the bonus and boss planets, but none on the others.

Yeah, means you've gotten all the possible stars (regular and hidden) in a Galaxy.

Damn it. That's what I figured. Looks like I'll be ---smurfing--- with the Yoshi planet for a while.

[AtomSmasher]

BTW, I didn't bother with reading the directions. Do the little crowns signify a completed "planet"? I got them on the bonus and boss planets, but none on the others.

Yeah, means you've gotten all the possible stars (regular and hidden) in a Galaxy.

Damn it. That's what I figured. Looks like I'll be ---smurfing--- with the Yoshi planet for a while.

*very small spoiler, so don't look if your sensitive*





A little advice so you don't go looking too hard, I don't think there is more then one hidden star in any galaxy.  Every galaxy (except the bonus and boss galaxies) have 3 regular stars, one hidden, one comet of varying color, and one purple comet, which comes to 6 stars total per galaxy.

I haven't played in a few days, but I currently have 110 stars with only purple comets left.  I'm having a really tough time with some of the timed purple comets, so I don't know if I'll be able to get all the stars   

[RTSDaddy2]

Question:  When I have 11 - 12 Marios and quit, it always restarts me with 4 or 5.  Am I doing something wrong, or does it not save the total number of Marios when you finish?

Very small spoilers below...skip it if you don't wish to see it...




Nowhere near some of you, I'm sure, but just collected my 25th star tonight...opening up the third dome and library.  This game is just chock full of surprises and is the first Mario game I've fought this hard to earn as many stars as I can in.  I don't know if I'll get them all or not, but dang this is fun.  My wife LOVES the penguins and eels!

This after FINALLY beating Bowser at the Reactor galaxy at the fountain observatory. I've never been a great gamer when it came to platformers, so all this is major accomplishment.  More importantly, I haven't grown tired of it yet...I can't wait to see what lies ahead!

[AtomSmasher]

Question:  When I have 11 - 12 Marios and quit, it always restarts me with 4 or 5.  Am I doing something wrong, or does it not save the total number of Marios when you finish?

No, its like that for everyone.  Lives are fairly meaningless because if you run out of them you just have to restart your save game.  Lives are mainly just so you can continue a couple of times from the midpoint of a level instead of having to completely restart it everytime you die.  I believe Mario 64 was the same way.

[ChadTower]

I believe Mario 64 was the same way.

It is... was just playing that last night.  Had stopped previously with like ten Marios... started this time with three.

[patrickl]

you can also get 5 extra lives from the mushroom with the mail and there is one extra live in a box. So if you want you can get 6 extra lives when you start. not that you need it though. You get so many extra lives while playing that it's almost silly.

[RTSDaddy2]

Depends on whose playing Patrick, I suppose.  You might do fine with five....me, I relished those 20 Marios I picked up on a side galaxy (by having to do it several times)  before taking on the 2nd big boss. 

Edit / Added: Yep,  had discoverd the thing with mail toad and the box at the garage.  Just wanted to make sure that was part of the game design and not a flaw on the disc somewhere (didn't see how it could be, but thought I'd ask).

[patrickl]

Depends on whose playing Patrick, I suppose.  You might do fine with five

Well it's 10 actually. You start with 4 and you can collect 6 extra.

But yes, I was surprised about losing all the lives I had too.

[JCKnife]

***SPOILERS***

Okay, after getting 120 stars I can play as Luigi. What happens if I get 120 stars with Luigi? Anything worth it?

[RTSDaddy2]

I'm going to ask one of my infinitely famous stupid questions here.  Let's say you collect enough stars to complete the game, but not all of them....can you go back and finish getting stars after the finale?  I'm almost halfway through the game (got the final lower observatory open but not complete)...just kind of curious.

For example, let's say I find 80 stars and finally say ok, I want to take on Bowser in the final fight.  Once I beat him, can I still go back and try for the other 40 stars? or will credits roll and that will be it?

I think I know the answer, but please enlighten....

[AtomSmasher]

I'm going to ask one of my infinitely famous stupid questions here.  Let's say you collect enough stars to complete the game, but not all of them....can you go back and finish getting stars after the finale?  I'm almost halfway through the game (got the final lower observatory open but not complete)...just kind of curious.

For example, let's say I find 80 stars and finally say ok, I want to take on Bowser in the final fight.  Once I beat him, can I still go back and try for the other 40 stars? or will credits roll and that will be it?

I think I know the answer, but please enlighten....

Yes you can.  I beat the final bowser at around 70 stars and am now at 115 stars.  I agree with pbj that the final bowser level wasn't great (it wasn't bad, it just wasn't great), but then from the beginning I was treating the game like it wasn't over until I got all the stars, so it was just another level to me.  Some levels are great, others are only good.

[RTSDaddy2]

Thanks Atom, it's good to know that.  I figured that you couldn't, so I'm glad you can.  I've never played one of these where I wanted to get all the stars / whatevers  before, but I understand your take on the game not being over until all 120 are within my grasp.  Rescuing Peach  is also a goal of mine, but not the ultimate one with this game....at least not right now (time that I have to play it may change things) 

[hypernova]

I'm going to ask one of my infinitely famous stupid questions here.  Let's say you collect enough stars to complete the game, but not all of them....can you go back and finish getting stars after the finale?  I'm almost halfway through the game (got the final lower observatory open but not complete)...just kind of curious.

For example, let's say I find 80 stars and finally say ok, I want to take on Bowser in the final fight.  Once I beat him, can I still go back and try for the other 40 stars? or will credits roll and that will be it?

I think I know the answer, but please enlighten....

Yes you can.  I beat the final bowser at around 70 stars and am now at 115 stars.  I agree with pbj that the final bowser level wasn't great (it wasn't bad, it just wasn't great), but then from the beginning I was treating the game like it wasn't over until I got all the stars, so it was just another level to me.  Some levels are great, others are only good.

Also seems to be the only way to unlock the purple comets.

Plus, some stages have 7 stars.  Three regs, two comets, and two hidden.  There's only a couple of these, however.

I've got 105 right now.  All purples left.

I also agree on the final level...it was a bit disappointingly easy.  I only had slight trouble on his first form because my trial and error hits on him apparently weren't hitting (I won't go into detail, so as to not give it away.)  What makes it hilarious is there's a 1-up in plain view every trip up the stairs before the fight, essentially making it impossible to ever lose all your lives on him.

[AtomSmasher]

Zero Punctuation just put up his review of Mario Galaxy.  For those who don't know, ZP gives highly entertaining reviews while finding faults in every game.

*warning-foul language in the review*
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2768-Zero-Punctuation-Super-Mario-Galaxy

[skim36]

I'm watching my son play it....great game....and at almost 7 he's really good at it!  I think I'm picking one up for myself.  I was holding off buying a wii....but now I think I'll make the jump.

[skim36]

Today, while my boy was playing...he took a bathroom break and I actually picked it up and started playing.  After never holding the controllers in my hand, I was surprised by how intuitive it was.  I was playing, running around, trying to catch this invisible plant thing, I think....upside down and backwards and never looked at the controllers.  That's the sign of a great game.