Super Mario 64 (not the DS version)

[tulip]

I see then, I know others (including a whole family of parents and two kids) that haven't played Mario until that title, and enjoyed it extremely.

As some of you know, I almost never play 3D games, and if I have the choice I always prefer the 2D variant over the 3D, so that's not a good start for Mario 64. My favourite Mario titles so far are Super Mario World 1&2.

And I don't know if that's only me, but don't N64 graphics look extremely ugly nowadays? I mean you can count the polygones used for the models on one hand, and many of them seemingly don't have textures.

[Dynamo]

As some of you know, I almost never play 3D games

:(

I can sorta see CKeen's point.
Mario 64 wasn't have the whole feel of Mario. Just partly if you look just at game play. Meaning he runs, jumps, and carries stuff, but everything else was new stuff.

Yes. The gameplay in general has nothing to do with mario. It's not fast paced, I found the controls and movement to be terrible (god, the punching was useless, and jumping over certain enemies was impossible). The level design wasn't fun from what I saw, either.

[DHeadshot]

And I don't know if that's only me, but don't N64 graphics look extremely ugly nowadays? I mean you can count the polygones used for the models on one hand, and many of them seemingly don't have textures.

I always thought N64 graphics were fantastically realistic, but looking back at them now, they haven't aged well. It's all relative I suppose...

[Lava89]

And I don't know if that's only me, but don't N64 graphics look extremely ugly nowadays? I mean you can count the polygones used for the models on one hand, and many of them seemingly don't have textures.

I believe that is because of the cartridges. Even though the hardware of the system was able to handle more model detail than say...the Saturn or Playstation, they were not able to texture as them as well because the cartridges had a very limited storage compacity. And when you have lo-res textures, everything looks very blurry or not even textured.

Kind of a blunder on Nintendo's part. Not only did they create a fiasco with Sony which created a 3rd competitor, but then they didn't even use a CD drive for their next-gen console-- which is what would've mattered. After it was all said and done, having CD games on the SNES really wasn't that important. Both Sega and Nintendo should've realized that, having CD or 32 bit games on the Genesis didn't matter if it was going to affect their next-gen console.

[DHeadshot]

On the other hand, by using cartridges, the N64 had the fastest loading times of any console of that generation! That has to be worth something!

[mortimermcmirestinks]

It's not fast paced,

What are you talking about?! You never even played Tick Tock Clock or Rainbow Ride!

I found the controls and movement to be terrible (god, the punching was useless, and jumping over certain enemies was impossible)

You also, apparently, never mastered the fine art of Triple Jump or the Side Flip.

. The level design wasn't fun from what I saw, either.

Well, some of the levels were hard, but I really don't see what's wrong. And you just can't beat flying around Bob-Omb Battlefield or even the outside of the Castle!

[tulip]

they haven't aged well.

That was exactly my point.

And yeah, leveldesign is by far the game's strongest point.

[DaVince]

It's not fast paced

I'm not usually someone to criticize someone's tastes, but this sounds like plain lying, or at least not remembering the game right. I mean heck, Sonic 1 felt slow, but Mario 64?

[Dynamo]

I mean heck, Sonic 1 felt slow, but Mario 64?

...What?

OK I'll try to be more specific.

Let's take super mario world and super mario 64 and let's see the differences. Since I am an asshole and I need to die, I'll post videos from a super mario world hack (which has better level design than the original). Before people throw in hate comments, most of this mod doesn't use new enemies at all and sticks with the already available in-game resources. Therefore lazer dolphin makes your point invalid. Also I don't care if sonic graphics are used or not, the gameplay still only uses elements available in super mario world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqzZtEMmoCg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiCfAKVBUjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCy74sMwm1w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc2c164FfmE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHS_TC4Rr1M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyLsLOe-gjk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1yze3b1mrw

I think that's enough... The levels speak for themselves. That is mario in all his glory.

Now... for super mario 64. This appears to be some sort of speedrun of bob-omb battlefield. Quite well done too, I must say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHY1-UK-N0U

Where are koopa shells that you throw at other enemies?
Where are Fire flowers and capes or even racoow suits and stuff?
Why is the terrain so boring?
Why does the camera suck? (I know that it does in most 3d platformers but here it is worse than the usual)
Why are the controls awkard? Like, in order to be quick you have to keep doing weird jumps with mario shouting AEYUUU all the time? Really? Not to mention, I found it impossible to jump on certain enemies like bob-ombs (I tried REALLY hard, I really did) and even the punching was terrible, since after mario launches a third punch he does a small break, and that is JUST WHEN a goomba usually hits you. Lame. Not to mention how hard it is to change direction. In games like Spyro, all you have to do is pressing the down arrow, but here, you have to turn around manually. This got me off platforms countless times
WHY does mario take damage if he falls off a cliff? That didn't happen in the original game. Bottomless pits don't count. Spyro had bottomless pits and you died instantly if you fell into one, but you didn't even take damage if you fell off a tall cliff.
Why can Mario drown underwater? Since the first super mario brothers game mario did not have to breath underwater at all.

No no no no no no no NO NO NOOO is all I have to say. This does not feel like mario at all, and on top of that, it wasn't fun for me. Sorry, but this is like Doom without monsters and the BFG 9000. This just isn't mario. Also how is the level design good? I admit I didn't get far in the game (I had no motivation to continue playing it), but the levels were not only confusing and not fun to explore, but there were barely any enemies to begin with.

I can name some 3d platformers that noticed what was wrong with this game and decided to fix it. Spyro, Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank. These are 3d platformers done right that are absolute masterpieces of the genre, and the real 3d platformers that should serve as an example. In other words, if one was to make a 3d platformer he should not look at super mario 64 but instead at games like Spyro. The level design is excellent and so is the gameplay, and the graphics, and the music. Remaining on the N64 camp (although I didn't play this game), I watched a little of Banjo Kazooie and it looked 10 times more fun than mario 64. That reminds me, I'll have to play it soon.

But yeah, I am a nazi when it comes to mario. So to speak, I don't like super mario bros 3 and I think it's one of the most overrated games ever. The levels often last less than one minute and don't have anything special in them. The powerups are boring and the music isn't cool. I think super mario bros 2 is the best of the three for its level design.

Of course these are all subjective opinions. I'm not trying to enforce them on anyone. But of course it's easy to come up with stuff like:

<mortimermcmirestinks> And you just can't beat flying around Bob-Omb Battlefield or even the outside of the Castle!

Yeah. (aside for the fact I did beat those, but it's obvious) please come up with better arguments.

<Genius314> Oh man, where is the Rayman reference?!

Here.

[DaVince]

Alright... Half-skimmed over your post, because, well... I tend not to read large posts at all usually.

About the speed... Well, I was never a great player in Mario World, so it plays about as fast for me as Mario 64 does.

I can say that you're looking too much at the 2D Mario games you played and like, and that influenced how you're judging Mario 64. For example, looking for enemies, suits, a certain feel of speed etcetera in M64 where it's a pretty different game from the NES and SNES games. That plus the Mario universe itself is so diverse you almost never see everything they thought up in the games in every game. (Yes, even at this point.)

They changed gameplay mechanics a lot, too. They played around, tried adding value (for example, the underwater breathing thing to add to the challenge). You could say it doesn't play like a Mario game at all. But hey, 3D was new, and Nintendo was experimenting with it. They had all freedom to make the game however they liked for all this new technology. Most people liked it, some may not, and those who expected a more traditional Mario were probably disappointed. Me, I think they did pretty well for one of their earlier 3D games.

I personally never really stood still at these differences with the games before it. I didn't care, because I found the game to be fun and challenging. But that's preference.

Not to mention, I found it impossible to jump on certain enemies like bob-ombs (I tried REALLY hard, I really did) and even the punching was terrible, since after mario launches a third punch he does a small break, and that is JUST WHEN a goomba usually hits you. Lame. Not to mention how hard it is to change direction. In games like Spyro, all you have to do is pressing the down arrow, but here, you have to turn around manually.

About these things, it's just something you have to get a feel for. Something you may actually have to learn from the game:
- Bob-ombs can't be jumped on.
- Grabbing enemies is fairly easy if you do it while running. Especially bob-ombs. I don't think many people actually grab while standing still.
- The C-buttons let you move the camera around. (Speaking of which, Croc had much worse turning around.)

You could say Mario 64 had one of those controls you have to get a feel for and get good at. But then again, so did all the previous games. Now they had the disadvantage of having to deal with a third dimension, though.

Also how is the level design good?

Large, explorable levels. Usually, every section of the level is very recognizable on its own. Many hidden areas, even on the world map. The maps may change during different star quests. While the maps may be confusing sometimes, this is because they are so open-ended and invite you to find the 7 stars on each level. This may cause you to hang around in one level, looking for what you should do, yes, but hints towards where the next star is are always given at the start of the level anyway.

I watched a little of Banjo Kazooie and it looked 10 times more fun than mario 64.

Strange, because it is actually very similar to Mario 64, at least in the controls, camera and speed, your three main complaints. Though it has more moves. And a story. The levels tend to be even larger and interconnected, though, since it's about as much as a "find your way through" thing as Mario 64 is. Maybe you'll like it, but that would seem weird considering you don't like Mario 64... Who knows?

[DHeadshot]

I watched a little of Banjo Kazooie and it looked 10 times more fun than mario 64.

Strange, because it is actually very similar to Mario 64, at least in the controls, camera and speed, your three main complaints. Though it has more moves. And a story. The levels tend to be even larger and interconnected, though, since it's about as much as a "find your way through" thing as Mario 64 is. Maybe you'll like it, but that would seem weird considering you don't like Mario 64... Who knows?

That's something Nintendo seem to do - they release a serious version of their idea and then a fun one: Mario 64 was followed by Banjo Kazooie, Super Mariokart 64 was followed by Diddy-Kong Racing, etc.

[VikingBoyBilly]

That's something Nintendo seem to do - they release a serious version of their idea and then a fun one: Mario 64 was followed by Banjo Kazooie, Super Mariokart 64 was followed by Diddy-Kong Racing, etc.

So what you mean to say is Mario Team makes a revolutionary game, then Rare rips it off

[Lava89]

So what you mean to say is Mario Team makes a revolutionary game, then Rare rips it off

Well I don't know if you could call it "ripping off" being that Rare was 2nd party back then. And it's actually cost efficient in a way to follow the formula of their previous games, especially if they're critically acclaimed and considered revolutionary.

A) Less risk of the design not working out-- it's tested with each game that uses it
B) Not as many game designers to pay
C) Marketing is easier when you say "this plays like a game you absolutely loved"
D) They can focus on fixing design problems in the old design instead of making a new design with a new set of problems.
E) They can polish their previous efforts

The downside is that it's less creative, haha.

[RoboBlue]

Diddy Kong Racing had some pretty awesome innovations, actually. It applied the Mario 64 adventuring and star-collecting gameplay to a racing game, and introduced bosses, something previously thought to be impossible for a racing game. Sadly, it wasn't until Mario Kart DS' mission mode that some of these ideas were re-used.

[Dynamo]

ìFor example, looking for enemies, suits, a certain feel of speed etcetera in M64 where it's a pretty different game from the NES and SNES games. That plus the Mario universe itself is so diverse you almost never see everything they thought up in the games in every game. (Yes, even at this point.)

They changed gameplay mechanics a lot, too. They played around, tried adding value (for example, the underwater breathing thing to add to the challenge). You could say it doesn't play like a Mario game at all. But hey, 3D was new, and Nintendo was experimenting with it. They had all freedom to make the game however they liked for all this new technology. Most people liked it, some may not, and those who expected a more traditional Mario were probably disappointed. Me, I think they did pretty well for one of their earlier 3D games.

This is exactly why I think this isn't a proper mario game. I understand they wanted to experiment as it was one of the earliest 3d games but just because it's one of the earliest that doesn't mean it's good (in my opinion, at least).

As I said, it's like removing the BFG and demons in doom, turning it into a RPG set in a forest called Phobos and claim it's doom 4. It just isn't the same.