Super Mario Galaxy

[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)