Yes and no.
Yes because dormant IPs need to be ressurected, I'm looking at you F-Zero and Eternal Darkness
no because we need new IPs double edged sword this question is
3D World doesn't improve upon 3D Land? Um, okay, whatever floats your boat
The thing about 3D World is that it doesn't really do anything with the gameplay. You have the same moveset as 3D Land, you complete the levels the same, there's no new twist on the gameplay, all they really do is layer level gimmicks on top of 3D Land's gameplay. And the gimmicks don't really save the game from feeling stale, they're basically distractions. So the game feels just as stagnant as every other Mario game in recent times.
Depends on the game. Part of the appeal of games like Smash Bros and Mario Kart is that they happen once per generation. If we got a Mario Kart every year, I'm not sure I would buy it.
On the other hand, more simple games would be great if there were multiple sequels in a generation, and that does happen (see Kirby, Pokemon)
3D World doesn't improve upon 3D Land? Um, okay, whatever floats your boat
The thing about 3D World is that it doesn't really do anything with the gameplay. You have the same moveset as 3D Land, you complete the levels the same, there's no new twist on the gameplay, all they really do is layer level gimmicks on top of 3D Land's gameplay. And the gimmicks don't really save the game from feeling stale, they're basically distractions. So the game feels just as stagnant as every other Mario game in recent times.
3D World has vastly superior level design, multiplayer capabilities, vastly improved visuals, and overall better design. But I guess those are all just gimmicks, right?
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
I'd say. While 3D Land kept basing their levels on traditional SMB stages, 3D World switched it up in many ways. It had open plains, large bounded spaces to hide keys in. On one instance with the shore-line, it was entirely horizontal. It had an underground section where only your shadows are visible. It had Really Rolling Hills, Double-Cherry Pass, Mount Must-Dash, Hands-On Hall (the oriental style one). It had top-down levels. It had levels on a moving train. Must I go on?
Secondly, the levels they had weren't just available on multiplayer, they worked especially well in multiplayer, where some areas even prompt teamwork. I've played this with several different groups, and we all have a blast.
Done before. IDK why people keep praising them for bringing the co-op into 3D, it's not like it does anything different.
Not only was it the first 3D Mario Game to add multiplayer, but it was the first to throw a competitive element in the mix, but only subtly on the side. This was an incredibly smart choice for multiplayer, as one could watch the group evolve from cooperative to disfunctional, and back to cooperative in the matter of a single play session, depending on the context at hand. The mad dash for the crown creates all sorts of chaos in a formerly cooperative environment, and it is wonderful.
As if graphical improvements actually matter anymore.
Graphics may be secondary to gameplay, but come on! You can't say it doesn't affect anything at all! If anything, it's a subconscious effect that just makes you feel better about the game you're playing.
I'd say. While 3D Land kept basing their levels on traditional SMB stages, 3D World switched it up in many ways. It had open plains, large bounded spaces to hide keys in. On one instance with the shore-line, it was entirely horizontal. It had an underground section where only your shadows are visible. It had Really Rolling Hills, Double-Cherry Pass, Mount Must-Dash, Hands-On Hall (the oriental style one). It had top-down levels. It had levels on a moving train. Must I go on?
Secondly, the levels they had weren't just available on multiplayer, they worked especially well in multiplayer, where some areas even prompt teamwork. I've played this with several different groups, and we all have a blast.
Not only was it the first 3D Mario Game to add multiplayer, but it was the first to throw a competitive element in the mix, but only subtly on the side. This was an incredibly smart choice for multiplayer, as one could watch the group evolve from cooperative to disfunctional, and back to cooperative in the matter of a single play session, depending on the context at hand. The mad dash for the crown creates all sorts of chaos in a formerly cooperative environment, and it is wonderful.
These are all gimmicks, they don't really add anything significant.
Graphics may be secondary to gameplay, but come on! You can't say it doesn't affect anything at all! If anything, it's a subconscious effect that just makes you feel better about the game you're playing.
They really don't. All graphics do at this point is make the game prettier, and they don't even do that well anymore.
Nintendo should make one high quality game per series on each console and stop doing remakes and ports of old games or Wii games.Playing the originals on Virtual Console or Wii mode is better.
These are all gimmicks, they don't really add anything significant.
Rubbish, the "gimmick" of multiplayer and great design made 3D World so much better than 3D Land and has a very noticeable difference between solo and multiplayer.
These are all gimmicks, they don't really add anything significant.
Rubbish, the "gimmick" of multiplayer and great design made 3D World so much better than 3D Land and has a very noticeable difference between solo and multiplayer.
I played 3D Worlds multiplayer and it was boring. A donkey backwards control scheme that made me accidentally keep picking up my partners didn't help.
These are all gimmicks, they don't really add anything significant.
Honestly, "gimmick" is just a derogatory term for feature, which people like to use to downplay the amount of thought that was probably put into it. You could really call just about anything a gimmick if you wanted. Graphics are a gimmick; open-worlding is a gimmick, overworld maps are a gimmick, etc. If you can write off everything I said about the game as gimmicks, save graphics, I'll just keep playing my gimmicks.
To me, those gimmicks made the multiplayer experience what it was.
and stop doing remakes and ports of old games or Wii games. Playing the originals on Virtual Console or Wii mode is better.
I can't agree with that. I mean call me a "graphics jerk" if you want because I'm half a PC gamer but I do love a good remake of an old game. SNES and NES games they can leave as they are, fine, but N64 through to Wii? A lot of those games are great but they could be fantastic with a new coat of paint. Just look at how much better Ocarina of Time 3D or Wind Waker HD were.
My guess is that this whole "I don't want remakes" routine is a bit of people thinking of the game they remember not the game as it is. Plus frankly I don't think the remakes take up nearly as much time as people seem to think they do. I reckon the Wind Waker HD remake in particular was largely the Zelda team doing "research" for how they wanted the actual first HD Zelda to look
No. Why is this even a question? They have a huge repertiore of franchises, there's no reason for them to up the pace. They probably don't even have enough studios to do so, anyways. If anything, they need to put more franchises into the rotation to keep the line-up fresh, though ultimately I think it's best if they just try to focus on making fun games and creative ideas, and see what they can do with them. If they come up with sequels? Reboots to long-dead franchises? New franchises? All of that would be fine so long as whatever they come up with is fun.
...but I'm probably not saying anything new, which is why I'm so surprised this is a question...
These are all gimmicks, they don't really add anything significant.
Honestly, "gimmick" is just a derogatory term for feature, which people like to use to downplay the amount of thought that was probably put into it. You could really call just about anything a gimmick if you wanted. Graphics are a gimmick; open-worlding is a gimmick, overworld maps are a gimmick, etc. If you can write off everything I said about the game as gimmicks, save graphics, I'll just keep playing my gimmicks.
To me, those gimmicks made the multiplayer experience what it was.
Exactly this. Let's also not forget that the D-pad, shoulder buttons and analog sticks were also gimmicks when they were first introduced, since they were a selling point that the competition didn't have.
I wouldn't call stuff like that gimmicks. Stuff like adding the waggle motion to a game that would be fine without it I would consider a gimmick.
Also a good point. While the exact definition of 'gimmick' may be disputed, I think we can all agree that dismissing a game's unique, stand-out features and levels as 'gimmicks' and therefore irrelevant doesn't make sense.
Forums
Topic: Should Nintendo bring out sequels more frequently???
Posts 41 to 60 of 83
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.