>beginning of game is quite tedious & dumb, doesn't start getting good until about halfway through
Why'd they do it?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
>beginning of game is quite tedious & dumb, doesn't start getting good until about halfway through
>beginning of game is quite tedious & dumb, doesn't start getting good until about halfway through
Why'd they do it?
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
No. The beginning of the game was the beginning of the game. I thought it was tedious but I wouldn't going to say it. Looking back it was a fine memory. The game wasn't a Mario game in my opinion.
Remember when you were playing donkey Kong in the '80s as a little kid and you could easily visualize a water spout strapped to Mario's back? No.
"I hope one day developers will create a game where Mario will have a water pack strapped to his back instead of him breaking bricks"
Yeah. I'm sure I'm the only one though
Well traditionally w mainstem Mario games, the beginning of them is supposed to be very fun to hook players in. But this one wasn't like that.
As much as a dog this game I must say
There were a lot of games out that are more fun now. But honestly can't tell you if it wasn't really fun back then.
Not saying if it was super fun or if it was super tedious I'm just saying it wasn't super Mario.
The Gamecube's early first party titles were all about showing off. Water in Sunshine, Wind and open space in Wind Waker, the vacuum in Luigi's Mansion, massive numbers of rendered and acting entities in Pikmin, I think the game has a cool *future* feel to it. The water stuff is very conceptually advanced even if the stuff the insects at Valve are doing now is technically more complex. Nintendo built a game around *doing stuff with water*, and it looks and works well enough to sell the point. Beyond that beaches are just a cool Y2K thing so it's a doubly strong time-capsule thing now.
You might not have wanted mario with a water pipe pack. But people were thinking of a world that felt less geometrical and abstract, of natural elements that felt and worked somewhat naturally. Mario as a self sufficient selling point I don't think really appeals to Nintendo. I doubt Shigeru Miyamoto agrees with you on what a 'Mario Game' is or why that should be appealing.
They learned a lot from that, though. With both N64 and Gamecube they put out machines with all the "graphics", but it turns out that no one actually cares about that other than a very loud minority of morons. People want games. With their later systems, they got people to actually start buying again.
I wrote the post you replied to.
Agree it does have a *future* vibe. That's why I don't think the first battle was a negative. Agree the games vibe is undeniably as a time capsule & a proper one. But of course he doesn't agree, I don't agree with the people who think fluud is suited for Mario. My view may be in the minority, it's not for me.
Please calm down. It's a very sensible point of view. You don't like it, then there's nothing you can do.
>even if the stuff the insects at Valve are doing now is technically more complex
Nintendo has never put out games as technically advanced as Valve has. Your criticism sounds angry and jealous.
I don't think you've understood me. If you're a Valve fan you're probably very uncultured and a weak thinker. So I'll try to make this easy.
This isn't a "criticism", it's a one-off comment. I have written elaborate "criticism" of Valve elsewhere and can go on for pages if I want to and have completely won plenty of people over on the subject.
My point is that "technically advanced" and "conceptually advanced" are separate trajectories and that what ultimately matters to an aesthete is the latter. The former enables the latter. And "technical" work which does not enable some finer or more complex experience is simply craftsmen working for their own gratification. I believe that western gaming audiences, especially the PC scene (which due to control of the internet tainted all western gamers) has a serious problem with conflating tech with progress and superiority without explanation, because it's something we can quantify and measure over time we give it undue importance. Wet roads causing rain.
Valve games are "technically advanced" often in the same sense that a car shell on cinder blocks with a really nice engine inside is "technically advanced". There is something there I could appreciate if I were a certain kind of craftsman (or pretend to appreciate if I were a poser tainted by bald millenial memes about how HARD PROGRAMMER WORK is the difference between a "good" and "bad" game), but if I'm not there's nothing of interest to me. It should be obvious, but PC gamers are dumb, we should always be asking "what can I do with this?"
Nintendo created a game in which we can "do" a lot with simple "water". And it was for the early Gamecube. Half Life Alyx models liquids inside bottles that are being tilted. Sure. Advanced. But why would I play it? Nintendo ask "how much fun can we have with the idea of water?" Valve ask "how much water can we simulate?" These are not competing desires. One would have to be confused to think so.
You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. In fact you're quite stupid. Right off the bat you engage in ad hominem because you're insecure, and you know for a fact that you can't actually argue about Nintendo making more technically advanced games so you skirt the subject by using vagaries like "conceptually advanced" which is a gimmick term you just invented to try and sound right. Which is very typical for a nintendo fanboy. They are incapable of thinking logically and so create roundabout mental gymnastics to invent new reasons why they should love nintendo.
>Nintendo created a game in which we can "do" a lot with simple "water"
And Valve based their entire second game around a physics engine which the entire game world was subjected to. You've lost the argument, and you've lost the plot. Valve's implementation of physics was not the first (Trespasser), but it did, as you said, "asked what they could do with it" and created one of the best games ever made. So right off the bat you're stupid, wrong, and contradictory.
You should quit while you still have some dignity left.
I know I'm smart because whenever I post on Ganker people feel the need to talk about intelligence one way or another. People read my posts and get an impression of "intelligence". You feel the need to tell yourself and everyone else that it must be a false impression and elaborate at length on that. That's not what confident superiority looks like. When I read a post that looks like a stupid person trying to sound smart I call them a Hispanic and move on.
Now as for the subject at hand, you're calling every perspective you don't hold or agree with "ad hominem". Shallow theory of mind. I suspect you have a small, round, yellow-brown indio-skull.
>you know for a fact that you can't actually argue about Nintendo making more technically advanced games
I don't believe that. Why would I argue it?
>you skirt the subject
I'm talking about what interests me, autist.
>vagaries like "conceptually advanced" which is a gimmick term you just invented to try and sound right
It's a term I coined to describe phenomena which I think are clearly observable yet cannot be adequately described using existing language. That being, as I said, the realisation of more fine and complex ideas divorced from technical judgements.
>They are incapable of thinking logically and so create roundabout mental gymnastics to invent new reasons why they should love nintendo.
What is the "logical" reason why I shouldn't, Mr Spock? Is your answer that we shouldn't because they are less technically advanced than certain PC games? And that is the only way you can imagine appraising a video game? Perhaps because of certain limitations in the language you have received and not thought critically about?
>And Valve based their entire second game around a physics engine which the entire game world was subjected to
And it's not that interesting unfortunately. I think they knew that considering the game isn't that long. Technically advanced, but concept wise it's "what if barrel float?"
Continued.
>You've lost the argument
The argument is just starting now that we're talking about specific games.
Valve built a game around a physics engine, but again, "what did they do with it?" The barrels float, things break and fall down, you can stack things, you can pick up and throw things, you can make a see-saw. That's *okay*, but if the term "tech demo" was ever applicable it's here. The situations where things happen using these novel features are extremely contrived one-offs mostly. They built these technical tools, then had to think and strain to work them into the game. It's funny and novel once, but Half Life 2 is not a game I ever feel like going back to.
Now unfortunately you haven't given me much more to work with.
>and created one of the best games ever made.
Where are your *arguments*? Mister Spock, you supposedly have facts and logic on your side. Convince your fellow logical observers. Or is this self-evident to all logical observers, that Half Life 2 is one of the best games ever made? Dare I suggest that you would try to imply that recognising this fact is how one tells a logical and intelligent person from someone who is quite stupid, if I did not pre-empt you?
I can explain what I believe. I'm interested in sensation and experience. Super Mario Sunshine strikes me as more novel and interesting than Half Life 2 on the strength of its ideas and final presented experiences on offer. You can disagree, but you can't call this wrong. It's not a logical process. You on the other hand, claim to be logical. So you should be able to make an even clearer outline of how you think, and it should be something that can be rationally disagreed with. You're in the harder spot here. So you're probably going to call me a pseud and run away once you figure that out.
you sound like a gay. good lord
valve sucks and so does mario sunshine.
>The game wasn't a Mario game in my opinion.
literal schizo delusion
I think wind waker was a great game and people go schizo over it. I never said sunshine was bad. But Mario doesn't shoot water, he breaks bricks and smooshes goombas. Nothing wrong with doing something different. Don't like Mario party either. Didn't say it was bad. Curb your contempt.
I was mostly joking about the on the face absurdity of the statement but yes I do hold you in contempt. you have a very superficial, low brow idea of mario those involved would detest.
Remember when you were playing donkey Kong in the '80s as a little kid and you could easily visualize Mario slinging fireballs with his bare hands? Of course not.
There were fireballs in Mario Brothers.
In Mario Land 1, he had a super ball, Mario Land 2, he had rabbit ears. In Mario Sunshine he had fluud. Nothing wrong with trying something different. If that's what you want, there you go.
He said donkey Kong.
Go to retro gaming jail
The first time I played the original mario bros I just wished his hat could be put onto a t-rex so that I could control the t-rex and the t-rex would have a moustache on it
I think I got you. Have you heard of Tammy & the T-Rex?
of game is quite tedious & dumb, doesn't start getting good until about halfway through
If you think about it, almost every Ninty cube game was like this. And just as it was getting good, it bores you at the end with some collectathon section.
SHITTEST.
MARIO.
GAME.
EVER.
"Hey, look, it's shit, let's clean it up but WITH Mario"
Interesting take. Poo stains everywhere & literal poo monsters. Why were they trolling us w jannie Mario??
>how can mario save the day this time?
>hmmm he could protect...nature in some way, rescue an eco system brought into disharmony
>how do we incorporate that into the gameplay?
>I GOT IT
>Objection!
>SITDOWN b***h!
I'm gonna make this edit already. Zoomers be slackin.
Maybe they were conceptualizing a plumber as a figurative warrior against shit
So is it worse than the edutainment games?
The issue with Sunshine is that it never "gets good". It has maybe one or two decent stages and the others all feel dreadfully unfinished and unfulfilled. The game heavily lacks content and everything feels like it's taped together.
Even the extra shines you aren't forced to do the missions for are miserable, so you miss nothing by not getting them... they specifically chose the ones that sucked the most to leave optional.
Nah, the Amusement Park, Hotel, Noki Bay, & Village are all pretty varied and interesting. The drudgery only sets back in if you're doing the blue coin Shines bullshit.
Pinna Park is a decent idea, but very small and limited (it has two secret shines for a reason). It also features one of the most annoying required shines in the game from cramming a whole platforming layout into a thin elevator shaft where the camera has to be in see-through mode the whole time. Sirena Beach is dogshit and the worst stage in the game, nothing about the hotel layout makes sense as an actual level and the whole thing feels like a bad romhack. The fact that it's named after the beach yet almost all of it takes place in a janky hotel is telling, there's no way the way level ended up was the original intent.
Noki Bay isn't terrible, it's one of the bigger stages in the game and essentially works like Tick Tock Clock in some ways. The underwater jetpack stuff is awful, but it's not AS bad as Sunshine gets and feels like a minigame that simply didn't get enough polish. It and Ricco Harbor are two of the only stages I'll give some credit to.
Pianta Village has one or two decent stars and then you remember the underside of the village and how hard they tried to cram more stuff into it with the kaizo underside and weird inferno shine. In fact that seems to be Sunshine's big weakness, they take areas that made sense for a few shines and then slapped a bunch of hilariously bad platforming stuff somewhere because the game didn't have enough areas to add content to.
I think each stage has at most 3 (usually 1 or 2) well thought out shines and then the rest is all desperate filler by any means necessary. And that's BEFORE you get into the blue coins. Everywhere needed a stupid Shadow Mario shine, at LEAST one "Secret" shine, and then they started simply slapping another weird platforming challenge somewhere unfitting if they couldn't come up with anything else. It's a good thing the game's camera is as forgiving as it is, because it essentially had to be with where they put everything.
Mario if he steal
you just described earthbound
Just to annoy you.
Is there a version of Super Mario Sunburn with the vanilla title screen? I'd like to put this on a modded Wii as a nostalgic birthday present for someone and want them to believe the game is as good as they remember—the illusion is broken with the Sunburn title screen.
What are you talking about? This game is front loaded as frick. The ending is basically a total slog just collecting blue coins and trying to beat dogshit mini games
mario64 was the last real mario game
EAT FLUUD CEREAL
ITS WHEN YOU EAT MARIO CEREAL WITH WATER FROM A HOSE INSTEAD OF MILK FROM A CARTON
>The final level in this game was guiding a boat through lava with zero platforming to get to Bowser.
Sunshine will forever be dogshit.
My biggest issue with it is its overly sensitive directional control compared to Mario 64.
It seems they did a mistake with the easing, and flipped InSine (or InCubic) for the analogue stick input accumulation into Linear, OutSine, or even OutCubic.
This makes the control feel overly sensitive and it is hard to move Mario around because you have to be extremely precise on the stick.
You can notice that in 64 you have to push the stick all the way to the edge for Mario to run, while in Sunshine you go a little over halfways when you hit max running speed.