Author Topic: Super Mario Galaxy (Read 24507 times)

Kangum · « **Reply #40 on:** November 17, 2007, 10:10:07 pm »

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 · « **Reply #41 on:** November 17, 2007, 10:23:04 pm »

Quote from: ChadTower on November 17, 2007, 08:21:35 pm

Quote from: shmokes on November 17, 2007, 03:58:51 pm
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 · « **Reply #42 on:** November 17, 2007, 10:24:25 pm »

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 · « **Reply #43 on:** November 18, 2007, 12:29:20 am »

Quote from: shmokes on November 17, 2007, 10:23:04 pm

Quote from: ChadTower on November 17, 2007, 08:21:35 pm
Quote from: shmokes on November 17, 2007, 03:58:51 pm
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 · « **Reply #44 on:** November 18, 2007, 12:40:30 am »

Quote from: ChadTower on November 17, 2007, 08:21:35 pm

Quote from: shmokes on November 17, 2007, 03:58:51 pm
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 · « **Reply #45 on:** November 18, 2007, 04:19:47 am »

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 · « **Reply #46 on:** November 18, 2007, 09:29:22 am »

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 · « **Reply #47 on:** November 18, 2007, 11:45:51 am »

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 · « **Reply #48 on:** November 18, 2007, 01:37:27 pm »

Quote from: shmokes on November 18, 2007, 11:45:51 am

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 · « **Reply #49 on:** November 18, 2007, 01:58:52 pm »

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 · « **Reply #50 on:** November 18, 2007, 09:28:20 pm »

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 · « **Reply #51 on:** November 18, 2007, 10:29:28 pm »

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 · « **Reply #52 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:02:08 am »

Quote from: slycrel on November 18, 2007, 09:28:20 pm

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 · « **Reply #53 on:** November 19, 2007, 05:52:10 am »

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 · « **Reply #54 on:** November 19, 2007, 07:05:44 am »

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 · « **Reply #55 on:** November 19, 2007, 08:46:41 am »

Quote from: pointdablame on November 19, 2007, 07:05:44 am

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 · « **Reply #56 on:** November 19, 2007, 09:45:01 am »

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 · « **Reply #57 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:21:25 pm »

Quote from: ChadTower on November 19, 2007, 09:45:01 am

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 · « **Reply #58 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:22:44 pm »

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

tommy · « **Reply #59 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:27:57 pm »

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

tommy · « **Reply #60 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:30:58 pm »

Quote from: Xiaou2 on November 18, 2007, 04:19:47 am

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 · « **Reply #61 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:38:14 pm »

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 · « **Reply #62 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:41:01 pm »

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 · « **Reply #63 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:42:39 pm »

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 · « **Reply #64 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:44:51 pm »

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 · « **Reply #65 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:48:43 pm »

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 · « **Reply #66 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:52:09 pm »

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 · « **Reply #67 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:01:41 pm »

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 · « **Reply #68 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:04:36 pm »

Quote from: tommy on November 19, 2007, 01:52:09 pm

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 · « **Reply #69 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:14:10 pm »

Quote from: tommy on November 19, 2007, 01:52:09 pm

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 · « **Reply #70 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:18:59 pm »

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

versapak · « **Reply #71 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:21:25 pm »

Quote from: tommy on November 19, 2007, 02:18:59 pm

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 · « **Reply #72 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:24:08 pm »

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

versapak · « **Reply #73 on:** November 19, 2007, 02:29:20 pm »

Quote from: ChadTower on November 19, 2007, 02:24:08 pm

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

heheheh

tommy · « **Reply #74 on:** November 19, 2007, 03:50:23 pm »

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 · « **Reply #75 on:** November 19, 2007, 04:46:08 pm »

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 · « **Reply #76 on:** November 19, 2007, 05:44:17 pm »

Quote from: tommy on November 19, 2007, 01:30:58 pm

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 · « **Reply #77 on:** November 19, 2007, 06:06:27 pm »

Quote from: AtomSmasher on November 19, 2007, 05:44:17 pm

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 · « **Reply #78 on:** November 19, 2007, 06:33:20 pm »

Quote from: tommy on November 19, 2007, 03:50:23 pm

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 · « **Reply #79 on:** November 19, 2007, 06:54:58 pm »

Quote from: shmokes on November 18, 2007, 10:29:28 pm

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.

Quote from: tommy on November 19, 2007, 02:18:59 pm

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.


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news

Author Topic: Super Mario Galaxy (Read 24507 times)

Guaranos

Guaranos

tommy

tommy

tommy

tommy

tommy

tommy

tommy

tommy

Guaranos