If you were comparing SM64 to SMG 1/2, I'd agree 100% with you (and I've played SM64 recently on N64)
Ok so we agree that SMG controls better than SM64 (don't want to compare SMG to SM3DW, can't say if one is better, they are just... diffferent). And I certainly don't want to give the impression I think SM64 is a bad game, with bad controls, it's fantastic on both accounts. I just think the controls have been bettered by Nintendo over time and in comparison the newer ones are in a different league.
Mario 64 has smooth, free-flowing 360 controls with analog speed control. Mario 3D World has 8-way movement with a clunky and stiff running mechanic and a stupidly designed grab mechanic.
3DW made decisions with it's controls that just make no logical sense to me. The Gamepad HAS an analog stick. Why use a run button? And if you are going to use a run button, why don't you use the much more accessible trigger button? Why did they go back to requiring you to hold a button to hold an item, rather than making it "pick up" and "throw"? Why did they assign 3 different functionalities to the same button in the same context?
All of these decisions were originally made in Super Mario Bros. 3 because the NES had 2 face buttons and a D-Pad. But we don't have an NES controller anymore, so there is no reason to continue having these faults.
I didn't miss it, just did't think it was relevant at the time (sorry for glossing over it). So to address it. Now certainly the SM3DW are more retro than SM64, that's a given. You can do more with SM64 than SM3DW fundamentals (more control over direction and speed), but does that make them better? That's where I don't think that follows (to me this is kind of self evident, plus I don't find 2D Marios from SMW onwards klunky and awkward, they handle very nicely to me), what you gain is much more than what you lose. I don't feel restricted my the limitations in SM3DW's controls, I think anything I wanted to do in SM64 I could do easier and more accurately in SM3DW.
The thing for me that is the key issue is how easy is it to do what you intend in the game. Case in point, the Wall Kicks Will Work star in Cool, Cool Mountain in SM64. I find that star fiddly in SM64 due to wall kicks being too timing/camera reliant, even though I know exactly what to do I know it may take a few attempt to get the star because performing the wall kick correctly has a strong element of luck in it (for me, maybe I just suck at it). If the game were rereleased with SM3DW (or SMG) controls, I'm pretty confident I'd be able to get that star every time because that aspect of the controls is better in the latter games.
That's the key thing for me, if you know what you want to do, which ever control scheme has less of an element of luck in being able to pull it off is the better scheme for my dollar. Anyway, agree to disagree (I expected the opinion to not be popular, the point of the thread anyway), I just think you're all nuts.
If you seriously think SM64 handles better you need help.
> Failing to understand subjectivity vs. objectivity.
Serious if it's so much better they wouldn't have deviated from that scheme for the latter entries in the series
> Believing everything Nintendo does is the right decision, and because they chose to go down a certain path, all others sucked.
Did you see what you did wrong there? If not go sit in the corner until you've worked it out. I'll give you a hint, look up Straw Man Argument on wikipedia and notice the title of the thread.
No. By 1999, the industry had 3D platformers down. It would be pretty kick donkey for 1995, but there was no excuse for how it played even when it came out. Glitches, some poor level design, camera, and movement, as well as a scattershot approach that missed more than hit, would be "bad" for almost any time period in gaming.
No. By 1999, the industry had 3D platformers down. It would be pretty kick donkey for 1995, but there was no excuse for how it played even when it came out. Glitches, some poor level design, camera, and movement, as well as a scattershot approach that missed more than hit, would be "bad" for almost any time period in gaming.
Not to say i disagree, but technically Sonic Adventure came out in 1998...in japan.
Anyway out of all the more famous 3d-platformers from the late 90s to early 2000s, i think Sonic Adventure is the weakest one. Less fun than Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, or Mario.
Though to be quiet fair, I think i remember preferring Sonic Adventure 2 and i keep on hearing on how it is better than Sonic Adventure, so i will have to check it out on PSN
And Super Mario 64 came out in 1996, with lots of competant 3D platformers following quickly on its heels.
Look, I enjoy Sonic Adventure a lot, but mostly because of the good ideas that are there, as well as the occasional shining moments when those ideas actually coalesce. It was never really a well-made game.
Destiny is one of the best games in recent memory and its pretty much PSO/MH for Western Audiences.
I disagree simply because while that's clearly what its going for...it doesn't have nearly as much content and depth that actually makes those games work.
I think the Sonic Advance titles were solid games. They never seem to get any recognition, though.
They used to get a lot of recognition. Even writers on sites like IGN would go on about how the handheld entries are the last bastion of good Sonic games. By now, though, they're just kinda forgotten by the gaming public because they were on handhelds. And we all know how handheld games don't matter.
By now, though, they're just kinda forgotten by the gaming public because they were on handhelds. And we all know how handheld games don't matter.
You say that sarcastically, but in my experience handheld games don't seem to matter as much. It's so weird since for Nintendo they're frequently more popular, yet the console games are frequently the ones gamers seem to care about. I'm trying to think of a reason, and the closest I've gotten is that Nintendo in particular use their handheld games as similar to previous console games (as in games from the console/s before the current one) in...at least enough of a way that it doesn't compare to the changes and upgrades for their console games. Like Gameboy mostly got what were the handheld equivalent of Mario 1 and 3 but...different and Zelda remained 2d for a looooong time on handheld despite revolutionizing everything on consoles in 1998. Maybe also because you can't impress people as much or make an immediate impact outside of actual gameplay. That's just guesses though. Graphics are usually a tool partially for impressing an audience before they actually play it and obviously the consoles > the handhelds in that regard. Even for 3DS, the footage you find online makes the already weaker graphics look worse because the games usually look better on an actual 3DS.
Forums
Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Posts 1,701 to 1,720 of 12,088
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic