Topic: Super Mario Wii U :-)

I would love a Super Mario 64, 2? 128?

Wasn't the sequel to Super Mario 64, Pikmin?

i want super mario 200000

Well, we nearly got one:

http://www.mariowiki.com/Super_Mario_64_2

But yeah, another Mario 64 like game with open worlds and star collecting... that would be awesome. Especially if it had co-op multiplayer, like we were promised for both Mario 64 2 and Mario 64 DS.

"I don't know if I'll be making 'Mario' but in 10 or 20 years I think I'll still be doing something,"
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/23259/20141028/super-mar...

Disagree, I don't want there to be a game like Sunshine, where there's only 7 levels and you have to do each 11 times. It gets boring seeing the same level 11 times. I prefer 3D World where you get a lot of levels, and you don't have to repeat them.

I think Galaxy 1 & 2 gives up the best mix between Sunshine and 3D Wolrd. There's a hub world. there's lots of levels, and each time you go back into the same level, the star is located on a different area of the galaxy, so it's like you're playing a different level.

So I feel that Galaxy 3, or a game that has the same structure as the Galaxy games would be the best fit for the new 3D Mario game.

I don't think that's a huge deal. It made the levels much more memorable though. Just like in Galaxy, the star was located in a different place each episode. And not all stars were located in the level itself, as they contained secret levels as well. If you want a game with a lot of different levels; play 3D World.

Sunshine was linear, and it most certainly wasn't open world.

I'd love a Mario game with the Super Mario World physics and style. New Super Mario Brothers U is great but it uses a physics system that's been played out over the past few DS and Wii titles.

In terms of level design and gameplay, Sunshine is the most non-linear 3D Mario game.

The missions you have to beat in order to beat the game are always the same (the first seven in each level), unlike 64 and Galaxy where you only had to get a certain amount of power stars.

I'd rather the game was like Mario 64 than Sunshine, because as people said, it's not really non linear. After all, you've got to beat the first seven missions of every area to reach the final boss; that's something you never had to do in Mario 64 or Galaxy.

And the lack of variety was a bit of a downer too. Even for a game set in a tropical resort, it didn't even scrape the surface of the huge pool of ideas the setting could have brought. I mean, a while back, I guest wrote a post about that, and I still stand by much of it today:

http://www.superluigibros.com/isle-delfino-a-dull-setting

I mean, an island with no ruins, no cruise ships, no pirates, no caves or tunnels (outside of a few in Noki Bay/Corona Mountain), no jungles or forests and a boringly laid out town on perfectly flat land... that's kind of disappointing.

But enough of that. I'd be fine with a Mario Sunshine style game if it was different to Sunshine, but had the same sort of limited 'theme' to it. I remember coming up with a post about how a sequel could be set in a ski resort type area or something and use snow/ice as a replacement to sun, sea and sand. I'd be fine with that, just as I was fine with Luigi's Mansion 2 having all areas be haunted house themed (albeit with interesting twists to the formula).

But there was nothing forcing you to complete the game in a specific order, you could for instance skip one level and go to the next provided you unlocked it. That's not at all like the NSMB and 3D series games where if you couldn't beat a particular level, you couldn't progress at all. Plus, it's the level design that defines it as nonlinear, not the Shine requirements.

That being said, I do agree that the Shine requirements were stupid.

Noki Bay is ruins and Pianta Village is pretty close to jungles/forests. Taking the low number of levels into account, I'd say they did fine variety wise. The problem is that they crammed too many Shines into too few areas, they should've had at least 10-12 levels in the game.

This is something I miss about the pre-2010 era, instead of having generic Mushroom Kingdom settings (or in 3D World's case, a Mushroom Kingdom clone), they took a unique theme for the game and designed the settings and gameplay around it. It was much more interesting that way.

Not quite. You could go to any level, but if memory serves, you couldn't complete each level's missions out of the intended order like in 64. I think fighting Petey Piranha early is the only time in the game where you can do that, and it's relatively pointless in that instance. Besides, regardless of which levels you complete first, you'll have to complete the same missions if you want to beat the game. If someone really dislikes a specific mission in Sunshine then they just have to deal with it, but that's not the case with 64 and Galaxy. I won't try to argue Sunshine is any more linear than the NSMB or 3D Land/World games (mostly because those games are intentionally linear), but I do find it a bit ridiculous seeing people complain about how linear Galaxy and Galaxy 2 are when Sunshine isn't much better in that regard.

Sunshine is better level design wise, for the most part there wasn't a definite path you had to take through the levels and there were plenty of opportunities for exploration. Galaxy and Galaxy 2 are actually no better than 3D in that regard, they railroad you into taking certain paths based on the episode and there's less opportunities for exploration.

By saying that I want another game like Sunshine, I don't mean EXACTLY like Sunshine. Of course they wouldn't be bringing along the flaws of that game. That'd be dumb.
All I meant is that I want a game in the style of 64 and Sunshine, since they both have the same type of gameplay.
You explore a world and collect objects (like stars) through different missions.
Rather than going through each linear level once, hitting a flagpole and that's that. I don't have anything against that style of gameplay, but we haven't had a collectathon Mario-game for over 10 years.
I guess what I'm saying is I miss 3D platformers as they used to be.

Both 3D Land and 3D World were basically just 2D platformers with an isometric perspective, if that makes any sense.

Yeah, me too. The older ones were so much more open. Sure, you had to tread familiar ground a lot, but that was part of the fun, exploring the worlds and gaining different perspectives on them. And they weren't all just obstacle courses.

Super Mario 3D World is good, but what it sets out to do is ultimately not much different from what New Super Mario Bros. U set out to do. I'm hoping for variety's sake that the next 3D Mario does not follow this model.

^{Yeah, you're right @OmegaMetroid93, I shouldn't have written this thread off. Sorry about that.}

I think the death of 3D platfomers is probably because the decline of platformers was going to happen unless the indie scene and Little Big Planet and NSMBWii hadn't come around, and all of that is 2D and successful so why still try for 3D, which would likely be way more expensive.

I also wouldn't be surprised if part of the issue is that the only games that are allowed to feel open anymore seem to be massive open world titles instead of having levels that are open but small enough to work for a platformer.

when there'll be a new nintendo direct?? when?? xD

NEWS: http://mynintendonews.com/2014/12/19/miyamoto-next-mario-will...