Topic: Where's AlexSays?

I don't think Click Clack ever said non-Nintendo games are more "adult."

I also don't get where exploration comes into play with Galaxy. It's pretty linear, and there weren't a lot of secrets. I've never heard anyone talk about Mario as an intellectual experience, nor seen any evidence with the many people I've played Mario with over the years. Everyone just wants to see if she can get to the flag pole or star, which is a lot of fun.

Don't get me wrong, it's an all right game, but calling it some sort of intellectual experience is a huge stretch. I can enjoy imaginative children's stories more than most people my age, so I understand the possibility there, but I don't think Galaxy achieves it in any way. Mario 64 felt more imaginative to me. Galaxy had such a dark and drab mood.

I think most of the stories in RPGs are atrocious, but it's still a story-based game, and you enjoy that in a way that you do not enjoy a Mario game (which, in the few cases where there were stories, were even worse than the worst RPG). I'd never say Disgaea 3 is a better game than almost any Mario game, but the story and strategy aspects engage the mind in a decidedly different way.

I never said I was in the majority about the atmosphere.

But even if I did say so (which again, I didn't -- I know it's a minority opinion, and I never presume to give the opinion of anyone but myself), I also think citing review quotes is the absolute worst way to express what the "majority" thinks. Reviews are not synonymous with popular opinion. Game journalists are generally the worst kind of journalist (present company excluded, as always! I haven't been following this site since VC-Reviews for nothing!), always making hyperbolic statements like these in the name of a vague, niche crowd that on odd days calls itself "hardcore."

I don't understand the giant paragraph about Mario Galaxy taking a step away from open-ended game play as a defense of the game being about exploration. You just explained how it's not about exploration.

About the design thing, I understood that fine the first time. I was simply saying I don't agree that it's the case.

Believe me, I agree about the gaming press, but that's actually what, in the case of some of these reviews, is so surprising; these people usually hate colorful, childlike games--and they're usually just dying to find a way to say that Nintendo games are going downhill, too easy, etc--but with this one they had no trouble admitting the pure joy of playing it. But anyhow, I don't think one needs to cite a whole lot of evidence to make the point that Galaxy is one of the most widely acclaimed and loved games of the past many years. You'd certainly be hard pressed to find another person anywhere saying that the game is "drab" or "dark" in the slightest, even if they found this or that gameplay element to criticize.

I don't understand the giant paragraph about Mario Galaxy taking a step away from open-ended game play as a defense of the game being about exploration. You just explained how it's not about exploration.

Oh, that paragraph wasn't supposed to defend exploration as the core of this game, I was agreeing that it isn't, but that the linearity of Galaxy only further underscores the analogies I've made to pop music, etc. In fact, I only mentioned "exploration" once with direct reference to Galaxy in any of the posts above: "That kind of 3D game plays off the sense of curiosity, exploration, and general wonder that you had as a child." That statement is still correct, exploration is one of the things the game plays off of, but by no means does it feature as large here as it did in previous Mario titles. As I said, it combines that with a throwback to more linear levels like Mario 3. Actually, the planetoid concept was the perfect solution to the question of linear vs. open in a 3D game, because the levels have a path to take you through, but that path may bring you through many tiny planets that you can briefly explore before moving forward. It has a little of that "garden" concept preserved, but within a bigger emphasis on linearity, which is a brilliant solution, as far as I'm concerned. This is a big part of why I believe Galaxy could easily be seen as the near-perfection of most of the strengths and goals of the series up to this point.

I was referring to the story, and I am definitely not alone there. It's this absurdly serious thing that does not belong in the game. The levels themselves are extremely colorful. Where I probably am in the minority in regards to Galaxy is that I think the orchestral soundtrack makes it worse. Everyone I know loves it, but not only do I find the original songs to be forgettable, but they seem too serious and epic for a Mario game. Couple that with the story, and you should understand what I meant, even if you disagree.

The game itself is basically Mario 3 in space in 3D, and that's why it's my favorite of the 3D Mario games. I have high hopes that Galaxy 2 will improve on most of the areas of Galaxy 1 that I didn't like. I do like the game, but I don't think it's as amazing as the press makes it out to be, so as the lone voice saying, "The game isn't perfect," I realize it often sounds like I think the game sucks, which it certainly doesn't. Oh well.

Oh, and about the lesser emphasis on exploration, I think that's a good thing, too. I want to explore Hyrule at a leisurely place; I want to run straight through the Mushroom Kingdom as fast I can and then do it again. I rather Mario games that challenge my reflexes, not force me to wander around aimlessly. Miyamoto stressed how opposite he wanted the original Mario and Zelda games to be, but before Galaxy I was starting to worry that the distinctions were not as great any more due to the open-ended levels and puzzles (two things Mario didn't have much of before). Metroid Prime series was a much worse offender in this regard, though, trying to be basically Zelda in space.

Oh ok, I can understand that much better if you're talking about a dark story. The story really doesn't concern me at all, though, in anything I'm talking about with regards to the enjoyment of the game. Everything I've said about the game being imaginative etc is meant to refer to the worlds themselves, the gameplay, and the overall design; again it's my point to begin with that the story is pretty much irrelevant for the type of enjoyment I'm talking about. I guess I'm a bit like Miyamoto on that; the gameplay is exactly the same no matter what intros you provide to explain why you're venturing to the places you're venturing, so you might as well just have the princess get captured for no reason and then let the player go ahead and start playing. A nice story can be a bonus, sure, but it in any way crucial to your enjoyment while playing a game like this, it's just a supplement that frames everything.

I also didn't intend to get into a debate about Galaxy, but I guess it ended up being the best example to talk about great design and how one enjoys that. Maybe we should have picked a Nintendo game we can both agree on; even then, though, it sounds like we'd be talking about different aspects of the game that entice us. However, I stick firm by my central claim, which is that the primary way in which a person enjoys a great Nintendo game is much closer to an "abstract" enjoyment of the playful design, ingenuity, and inventiveness of the game's worlds or stages than it is to anything instinctual related to the running or jumping portrayed, and one's "higher" intellect is every bit as engaged (or often more engaged) by this enjoyment as it is by a game that has a complex plot, characters, etc. That's all I'm really trying to make clear (that and the fact that Clickity's posts about higher / lower were fundamentally wrong ); Galaxy is a side issue.

It looks like AlexSays had dissappeared again. I wonder what happened to him...

He's waiting to pounce!

Although I'm pretty sure I saw him shout at someone recently. It was cooool.

Double spacing rocks btw, I see why he like's it.

Ive been wondering too, he oughta return soon