Author Topic: New Super Mario Bros. (Read 36403 times)

Ian Sane · « **Reply #50 on:** January 24, 2006, 06:49:29 AM »

"Other than that I already have my copy of New Super Mario Bros on pre-order, even though that the last mario game, Sunshine and the last one on SNES, Yoshi's Island I hated both."

How can anyone hate Yoshi's Island? Man that game is the best! Though I do personally like Super Mario World better.

That pic Bill posted was pretty "wow neato" though I probably would have liked that linked to so I could avoid the spoiler. Imbedded pics are pretty new so I just assumed if I avoided all links I could avoid spoilers.

"Exactly! Apparently, back then these additions were 'neato', if they tried it now though it would be a gimmick that destroys Nintendo and makes the world burst into flames."

I think there's a subtle difference between a cool feature and a gimmick. A cool feature compliments a great game. A gimmick is something thrown in to attract attention to something that doesn't have enough merit on it's own to attract that kind of attention. I see the Super Mario Sunshine waterpack and Mario Kart: Double Dash two player carts as gimmicks because the games were actually pretty weak and the new featured seemed very forced, like they were designed to make us think these were innovative games. The forced nature I think is what really makes it a gimmick. Innovation isn't forced. You don't sit down and say "I'm going to innovate". True innovation is natural. It just happens as one tries to make a great game. Yoshi seems to have come from Miyamoto planning the game out and saying "hey what if we did this?" Something like the Rev controller to me looks like Iwata told someone "make something innovative" and they all had a meeting to think of something.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #51 on:** January 24, 2006, 07:56:57 AM »

I turned the pic into a link just in case...

A sparkling innovation is something thrown in to attract attention to something that doesn't have enough merit on it's own to attract that kind of attention. I see the Super Mario Sunshine waterpack and Mario Kart: Double Dash two player carts as sparkling innovations because the games were actually pretty weak and the new featured seemed very forced, like they were designed to make us think these were innovative games.

This is just hogwash...The waterpack was an excellent addition that complimented and IMPROVED the level of platforming in the game...Double Dash added strategy in terms of which characters were best to use on each track...

ShyGuy · « **Reply #52 on:** January 24, 2006, 08:01:51 AM »

I liked the fact that I could play Double Dash as coop

toad · « **Reply #53 on:** January 24, 2006, 08:11:26 AM »

ever since yoshi was introduced in smw, he has become a part of the mario team, hes pretty much mario's pet. He was in SMS, not the way i would have liked him to be in it, but it was still freaking cool that he was in it. if yoshi isnt in this game (it will still rock) but i think it will feel as though they took a step back and just a little incomplete

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #54 on:** January 24, 2006, 08:12:48 AM »

I'm going to have to go with Bill on this one. I feel more strongly about the waterpack, which was in no way a sparkling innovation: it was incorporated into the game incredibly well, the controls were flawless, and the applications were amazing. The only weakness in SMS was lack of level and goal diversity. And the plot, but that's another issue altogether.
Mario Kart Double Dash was a great game, and the development of two carts, I can assure you, was approached as "How can we add to this game to make it better?" and not "How can we deceive people into thinking this game is better?"
Personally, I love MK: DD, probably more than the 64 version (which only surpasses it in battle mode), and my friends have played countless, insanely fun hours of Baby Park. And occasionally cup races

Ian Sane · « **Reply #55 on:** January 24, 2006, 08:30:45 AM »

"the development of two carts, I can assure you, was approached as 'How can we add to this game to make it better?' and not 'How can we deceive people into thinking this game is better?'"

I don't think they intentionally want to deceive. I think the thought process is more "what can we add to make this game stand out compared to the other games in the series?" That's quite deliberate. "We're expected to innovate so let's do it." I think that approach hurts games. You can't try to be creative or innovative. It just has to kind of happen. As you make the game and address problems in the design or fix things that didn't work out last time around the ideas should come to you. The deliberate innovation seems like a marketing decision; something designed to help the game sell. The natural innovation occurs when the idea is just to make a great game.

I can't say for sure what the approach to the water pack was but to me it just screamed "Look! We're being innovative!" It's hard to explain but sometimes something just seems so deliberate and forced to me.

vudu · « **Reply #56 on:** January 24, 2006, 08:31:39 AM »

Quote
That pic Bill posted was pretty "wow neato" though I probably would have liked that linked to so I could avoid the spoiler. Imbedded pics are pretty new so I just assumed if I avoided all links I could avoid spoilers.

Actually, I remember when that pic was first put on the Internet and you stated in a thread that you were going to avoid it because you didn't want to see any spoilers. Bill is a naughty boy.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #57 on:** January 24, 2006, 08:57:52 AM »

Ian: You can't just make a sequel by adding new levels and calling it a new game, it does have to play different. They just chose the wrong way to change it.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #58 on:** January 24, 2006, 10:30:23 AM »

"You can't just make a sequel by adding new levels and calling it a new game, it does have to play different."

I know. I hate it when they make sequels like that.

It's really hard to explain what I mean. With Super Mario Sunshine it felt like they ran out of ideas. With other sequels usually there are ideas that didn't make the cut because of time restraints or the technology couldn't pull it off. And then there are fixes to stuff that don't go over well and new conventions that related games have introduced that would make a good fit. And there's new "wouldn't this be cool" ideas. The waterpack to me didn't seem like it spawned out of any of those. It really seemed to me that Nintendo drew a blank regarding new ideas and then sat down to deliberately think of one. Like the goal wasn't to add a cool new feature or improve the game but rather just to throw something new in there to justify making the game in the first place. Double Dash seemed the same way.

It very likely is just when a new idea takes off it seems to be effortless and when it doesn't work too well it seems forced.

Mario Kart DS to me seems like a far more natural sequel. Aside from adding the no-brainer addition of online play they also added that single player challenge mode and combined new tracks with a greatest hits lineup. It's not a straight cookie cutter job but it's not a complete overhaul either. It comes across more as an attempt to just make the best Mario Kart game they could while Double Dash seemed like a really deliberate attempt to change things for no reason.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #59 on:** January 24, 2006, 11:06:13 AM »

I think the driving idea behind Double Dash was "Mario Kart is fun to play with your friends. How can we get more people to join in on the action?" So they came up with the co-op play and lan support. You weren't limited to 4 friends, you could have a lot more people playing at once

In-the-same-room multiplayer always increases a game's fun factor several fold. How else can you explain the appeal of Halo?

Jensen · « **Reply #60 on:** January 24, 2006, 12:54:59 PM »

I don't like the 2 riders on one cart aspect of MK

D. It complicates the game without adding much to it. I'd rather have tougher, more complicated tracks.
I'd play MK

S more if it didn't give me hand cramps.

I like the water pack in SMS. What I didn't like about it is its themes. I like the traditional Water, Fire, Ice, Big/Tiny, Desert and Ghosthouse themes. (one reason I prefer the original Metroid Prime) The enemies and other characters are mostly new... It didn't really have to be a Mario game, it could have used a new main character. Getting Shines is more of a chore than getting stars in Mario 64

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #61 on:** January 24, 2006, 01:10:30 PM »

I must say I did love the tropical theme in SMS, it felt like going on vacation when I played it. My complaint deals exclusively with: blue coins, repetitive goals (namely catching Shadow Mario in every level, and similar repeating Shine Gets), and bad plot.

"You can't try to be creative or innovative. It just has to kind of happen."

Totally not the way it is, especially when you've got things like deadlines. A lot of things do come naturally, and a lot of things don't. Who's to say that the two kart features didn't come naturally? The creative process is a combination of lots of natural talent & inspiration and lots of hard work.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #62 on:** January 24, 2006, 10:10:25 PM »

With Super Mario Sunshine it felt like they ran out of ideas.

I suppose so but would you have been happier if Nintendo just said "We can't think of anything worthwile to make a new Mario game so the Gamecube will have to go without one"?

couchmonkey · « **Reply #63 on:** January 25, 2006, 04:56:07 AM »

On the topic of Mario Kart: Double Dash, I think the two-player karts were a neat addition, but they weren't enough to make up for other portions of the game that weren't improved.

Super Mario Sunshine, though, I totally disagree on the "they ran out of ideas" thing. I really believe Nintendo could have crammed a dozen more ideas into that game, but ran out of time - that's why it had some repetitive goals and tons of coin collecting. Case in point: you can't swim with Yoshi. Do you really think Nintendo left that out on purpose? I say no way...Nintendo would have implemented swimming with Yoshi if it had time. I think Nintendo was running out of time and felt pressure to live up to the 120 stars from Super Mario 64, so dealt with it by throwing in tons of coins and some repetitive objectives.

The game's design was also more deliberate than Super Mario 64. In SM64 there are stars just lying around in plain sight and all you had to do was figure out how to reach them, in Super Mario Sunshine most Shines involve some story or scenario (Petey's sleeping on the hill, there's firey goo everywhere, buddy is running a Blooper Surfing competition, etc.) so Nintendo had to put more effort into coming up with scenarios. In hindsight, that may have been a mistake, although I thought it made for a more action-oriented experience.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #64 on:** January 25, 2006, 06:48:02 AM »

"I suppose so but would you have been happier if Nintendo just said 'We can't think of anything worthwile to make a new Mario game so the Gamecube will have to go without one'?"

That's tricky. From a business perspective they had to release a new Mario. Everyone expected them too. If I was in that situation and couldn't think of some good new ideas I'd probably go for something a little more cookie cutter but would put so much effort into it that it would be the best cookie cutter sequel ever. It is a tough call to make. I imagine someday though there would be a point where Mario really is done and finished and Nintendo just can't make a new game. The ideal thing I suppose is to not announce the new Mario game until you're sure you have a good idea to work with. And don't rely on a sequel to be the killer app for your console just in case you do run out of ideas. Nintendo kind of put the Cube in a situation where Super Mario Sunshine absolutely had to deliver and blow everyone away.

Caterkiller · « **Reply #65 on:** January 25, 2006, 07:40:59 AM »

I played SMS befor I played M64. Star Fox was my first N64 game and Banjo Kazooie was my first 3D platformer and I was really impressed with it. I never even thought about getting Mario 64, I really don't know why. Now then, when I got Sunshine I was amazed at all the things I could do with him right off the bat. I had sooo much fun just running around jumping off of things. Then I went back and played M64, and I could see why it was such a great thing, but after playing Sunshine I wasn't as impressed as I thought I would have been. Kind of the reverse of what happened with most of you guys.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #66 on:** January 25, 2006, 08:57:16 AM »

I played SMS befor I played M64.

Same here. In fact I think I liked SMS a bit better but neither of them came close to the 2d Mario games. SMS started out great but after 25 shines or so it became unbearably boring (M64 stayed consistently fairly uninteresting). I played until I beat Bowser and shelved the game.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #67 on:** January 25, 2006, 09:27:38 AM »

The funnest part in SMS for me was Delfino Plaza, just running around and finding hidden shines and levels and such in the staging area. I wish that it would have been larger.

Jensen · « **Reply #68 on:** January 25, 2006, 01:59:57 PM »

I didn't like Yoshi in SMS because he severely limited the moves available without adding many. I love the huge variety of moves Mario can do, but the freedom to chose which ones I want to use to complete an objective. (that's why I don't like the new Prince of Persia games, there is only one sequence of jumps that will get you through each level, so I don't feel like I have control)

I don't understand Ian, though... Nintendo releases a new idea/feature, and that is a sign that they are out of ideas? Or did you think the Waterpack is a Bad Idea, and they just used that because they didn't have any Good Ideas left? I though it was a great addition. All the Mario games have been quite different from each other, except for SMB1 and SMB2 in Japan.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #69 on:** January 25, 2006, 03:09:57 PM »

Okay guys, let's all take a moment to remember that the waterpack wasn't the problem in SMS; the level design, variety and camera were. The game deserves better than to fall prey to Ian's revisionist review wiles.

Mario · « **Reply #70 on:** January 25, 2006, 03:34:58 PM »

Pretty much, except I have no problems with the camera, flying around with FLUDD while navigating the camera at the same time makes me feel elite, but in general it's WAY too hard for people. I saw people playing it in store kiosks back when it came out who coudln't get their head around doing so many things at once, which results in the camera being in crappy positions and them walking away.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #71 on:** January 26, 2006, 04:00:20 AM »

I had few problems with the camera, but I agree with Mario that it was probably too much for casual players. I think the same thing goes for aiming with FLUDD...it was a cool idea, but my girlfriend seems to have trouble remembering how to aim with FLUDD and how to just run around while shooting water with it.

Eh, now we're getting down to the personal opinions section. I thought the level design was great (albeit not enough). But one thing I can totally agree on is that the waterpack was not the problem with the game.

nitsu niflheim · « **Reply #72 on:** January 26, 2006, 05:02:23 AM »

I agree with the statement made that Sunshine could have been made with any character. It never felt like a Mario game. it was like the second generation of Super Mario Bros. 2, just not as good. If the secret levels weren't required to advance the game, then the game would have been fine, but Nintendo had to make then required in each level, making sure that you had to play through the game a certain way. In Super Mario 64, you could finish the game after collecting a certain number of Stars, you could collect them pretty much in any order you wanted to, and you could finish the game when you had the right amount. But in Sunshine, regarless of how many Shines you needed, you had to play through each level to a certain point to finish the secret levels, other wise you couldn't finish the game. And to me that is breaking the game. It took away a certain level of individuality that allowed to finish the game at your own pace instead of following along a dictated course.

Just about every Mario game, that I am aware of, all the way back to Super Mario Bros. on the NES allowed to to skip a head and all that and completely bypass levels you didn't want to play if you didn't, but Sunshine took that away, you had to play the game a certain way or you couldn't beat it. I just don't agree with that, especially after the way the previous Mario games were presented.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #73 on:** January 26, 2006, 05:31:28 AM »

The camera in SMS is still less of a desaster than the camera in M64 or OOT but that's not saying much.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #74 on:** January 26, 2006, 06:33:01 AM »

"The camera in SMS is still less of a desaster than the camera in M64 or OOT but that's not saying much."

People have problems with Ocarina of Time's camera? I thought that was one of the best cameras ever made. Only Wind Waker is better. Maybe other people play Zelda in a different way then I do but I never had problems with the camera in that game even once. Meanwhile I've died because of camera issues in every 3D platformer I've ever played.

"I don't understand Ian, though... Nintendo releases a new idea/feature, and that is a sign that they are out of ideas?"

It just seemed forced to me. It just seemed like such a deliberate attempt to be innovative. In my experience forced ideas are usually the result of a lack of anything else. I don't think they would have had such a forced feature if they weren't short on ideas. I agree that Sunshine's problems are more a result of other design flaws but a lot of them are related to the waterpack. I hated the paint cleaning levels and those wouldn't have been in there if it wasn't for the waterpack. The island theme probably wouldn't have happened without the waterpack either.

News:

Author Topic: New Super Mario Bros. (Read 36403 times)