Why does this game have so little platforming? Not counting rainbow ride, and the bowser levels, it seems like on every stage only the first star counts as platforming while the rest are padded with gimmicks. They almost all come down shoot yourself out of cannon, put on a green or blue hat to get the star in an obvious location, or just keep taking the same route as star one, but take a small detour (tick tock clock is literally all this).
Look at dire dire docks. Not one of the stars require you to do any platforming except for the pole jumping one.
what is funny is that i made this picture weeks ago but its still an appropriate response to your thread
That's what I mean. Getting to the top of wet dry world or Bob-omb Battlefield is a one trick pony. Once you get the star up top, you basically have to do it all over again, (race with koopa) or use a gimmick like the cannon and hat.
And hell, even getting the main star on stages is extremely easy; On Bob-Omb battlefield you literally only have to make 2 jumps to get to the top of the hill, one of which is just to get up the stairs of all things...
The questions you should really be asking are:
why can't Mario use his trip kick for anything mandatory in the game, why can't you meet and ride Yoshi earlier, who is the owl and why does he only appear in two levels, exactly how were you supposed to know that you had to win two stars in Peach's Secret Slide, and why weren't there more levels that led to the outside world like the Hazy Maze?
Pretty good work anon.
>implying that Crash Bandicoot ever had true 3D platforming instead of just alternating between vertical and horizontal platforming and locking your movement to only two axes at a time
What are you talking about OP? Mario 64 is a perfect transition from 2D to 3D platformers, and nintendo helped pioneer how to succeed in that transition. For example, the innocuous shadow under Mario is critically important for navigating a 3D world projected onto a 2D screen for depth information. Given that this and other techniques (mainly development of the camera controls) are required to even approach 3D platforming, Nintendo was extremely wise to not make most of the game floating platforms in space because a 2D game does not trivially translate to 3D; they are somewhat different beasts.
Also in 2D platformers you often have 'floating' platforms. This isn't often visual jarring because typically devs like to add background that you don't interact with to illustrate supports for those platforms. It would be odd to have every platform in Mario 64 supported by something because you would be able to interact with the supports, both curtailing design freedom and imposing things that may not make good level design.
Last thing, if you take 2D slices of 3D images >>2895930 and >>2895934 I would argue they do resemble their 2D brethren.
Anyway, can you give an example of what you would call a true 3D platformer?
>Implying that Mario 64 ever had true 3D platforming instead of just walking around and picking up coins and sometimes flying around with a wing cap
I don't really consider Crash a 3D platformer (even though it technically is, something like the boulder levels wouldn't have worked in 2D) but at least it's actually a platformer, unlike Mario 64.
I didn't say anything about autism, what I implied is that you guys are a bunch of obnoxious nerds who try to rewrite history with your absurd nitpicking.
Next time on /vr/: video games weren't actually ever video games
We didn't use that word back in the 90s. And ultimately, "collectathons" belong to the platforming genre.
Anyway, I don't think you could name any real pure 100% platforming game. Every platformer you could think of likely has action traits (fireball on SMB, for example), it's not 100% platforming.
If we want to get really pretentious and nitpicky about it all, then let's fucking do it.
That why i called it lolautism, as a joke. You know what i mean. People are discussing whether some games that belong to the platform genre actually incorporate elements that the name of the genre implies in a civilized way , you are the one being obnoxious.
I don't think it makes them a bad thing, personally, I like Mario 64. But when people talk about the best platforming games of all time I would never even consider it among games like Sonic, Super Mario World, SMB3, or Crash Bandicoot 2 because Mario 64's platforming elements are secondary to the once-amazing open 3D worlds.
I'm not the guy you replied to, by the way, I just thought I'd chime in.
Not that guy either, but I think people do consider games like SMW or SMB3 as contenders for best platformers of all time, at least 2D ones.
As for Mario 64, I think the game does focus quite a lot of platforming, and while it also focus on exploration a lot, most of the exploration do require platforming. I think the Rare games balanced more toward the exploration/collecting aspect, and having to replay levels with new abilities or different characters, while on SM64 you barely have any powerups, and there's very few stars that require specific powerups to obtain them, most of the stars just require you to reach to a certain point in the level. Rare games are a lot more puzzle-y and I don't really remember dying on these games because of falling to an endless pit, which is a lot more common on SM64.
The Rare games also had a lot more shit to collect, Mario only collects coins, a concept that was in previous Mario/Miyamoto games (red coins in Yoshi's Island before SM64).
I'd still call SM64 a platformer and do think it's a contender for one of the best 3D platformers, although there are better ones in my book.
Crash bandicoot is a cleverly designed game to give the illusion of being playing a 3D platformer when in reality we are playing a rather primitive hybrid between 2D and 3D. Most of the action while on 3D camera (behind Crash) is comprised of action segments, beatin up enemies, breaking up boxes and finding hidden items around, the true platforming action in Crash comes on the side-scrolling segments. The 3D parts still have places where you need to jump but honestly they're just required to press the jump button and the directional forward, there's no real momentum-based or strategical platfoming required, it's very basic and the paths are always really narrow, there's no sense of space and anyway Crash doesn't have an extended jump (like on Mario 64: Z trigger while running to crouch then jump for Mario to do a long jump).
I consider Jumping Flash a better 3D platformer than CB.
This is kind of a different criticism though. What sucks is that many of the stars require you to repeat the same platforming section. Still a platformer, just a padded one. Except that you don't need to do the padding content unless you want 100%
I think the thing that has aged the worst about this game is the camera system honestly. Even with all the buttons to manipulate the camera I still feel that the camera can work a bit against you, that you can never get it at times exactly how you need it. Especially considering the next fault I have with the game. I feel the movement is way too sensitive. This was most noticeable for me on tick tock clock. The hardest level in the game imo. I will admit it could be that my ability has diminished. I also have always found platformers to be amongst the hardest genre's for me. Keep in mind that I did a playthrough of this game last year so this is the perspective I am coming from.
SM64 was one of the first of it's kind. So they just played it safe by not making the platforming too hard.
Spyro > SM64 > Crash > Banjo > the rest from that time period
>I think the thing that has aged the worst about this game is the camera system honestly. Even with all the buttons to manipulate the camera I still feel that the camera can work a bit against you, that you can never get it at times exactly how you need it.
>because the camera was fucking horrible which made platforming a chore from certain angles
Come on. Are you guys trolling here or what?
Can you imagine how boring the game would be without the camera controls? If the camera was something you never had to think about it at all. Honestly, controlling the camera is 25-50% of the entire game.
Keep in mind when this game came out merely having this capability was hugely significant to a lot of people. Not only was it the first truly 3D, fully playable game many had ever played, for some it was the first such game they had ever even seen. The camera and the 3D graphics subtley complimented eachother to great effect at the time. Whether Nintendo designed the camera deliberately with this in mind or the whole thing was purely incidental, I can't say. But I don't see how it's fair to say that it's a "fault" of the game's.
TL;DR: SM64's camera control is not a flaw, it is literally a feature.
I have played the game as a kid. It was in fact my 3rd favorite game on the N64 and that is only because at that time I had the most ridiculous Pokemon obsession. So most of my play time with N64 as a kid was Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2. SM64 was definitely my third most played on the system.
As I said, it could be that my ability has deteriorated. Maybe I just didn't notice the flaws as a kid but playing it last year the faulty camera stuck out to me in a way I didn't realize back then. I don't think it's just the camera though. It's a combination of certain things combined with the camera that makes the camera not so optimal.
This simply became amplified since I played SM64 again after I played Spyro again. I'm convinced now that Spyro was the best 3D platformer of that era. I always liked both as a kid but at one point I would have defninitely said SM64 is better than Spyro. Not anymore though.
What's strange is even though you say it is a feature, I think looking back on it SM64 could have been done in an even better way. With a better camera and better platforming. Call me crazy but I'm thinking Nintendo probably over estimated, like many developers did, how difficult 3D controls would be. Hope that makes sense.
>I think looking back on it SM64 could have been done in an even better way. With a better camera and better platforming.
Eh, that's fine with me. As long as you don't hold that against the game. Hindsight's always 20/20. So I don't think it's ever fair to look back on a game years later and see things that could have been better, and then count those as flaws.
So, by the way do you think there's any connection between:
>at that time I had the most ridiculous Pokemon obsession. So most of my play time with N64 as a kid was Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2.
>I'm convinced now that Spyro was the best 3D platformer of that era.
I mean Spyro is more or less a Pokemon, basically, right?
I don't understand. You all are saying Mario 64 isn't a 3d platformer because there isn't enough jumping on platforms? And because of this it isn't good?
Maybe some of you are being a little to critical and need to step back and look at the game as a whole. A great Mario game with lots of variety in levels which transitioned into a 3d world very well.
>You all are saying Mario 64 isn't a 3d platformer because there isn't enough jumping on platforms?
They're taking a very literal definition of what a platformer is. Technically maybe they are correct. But not really.
You could have just quoted me once you know?
Of course there is no connection. I don't know why you would even assume something so ridiculous. I don't even like the series past the third gen. The game is better than SM64 simply because it is better.
It is absolutely fair to give a retrospective for SM64. I'm not saying the game is bad. Far from it. It's still great. That's no excuse to not point out flaws though.
>Of course there is no connection. I don't know why you would even assume something so ridiculous
Oh, really? Well. I'm surprised. To be quite honest it seemed like a sure thing to me. I didn't think it was that ridiculous. But ok if you say so.
>It is absolutely fair to give a retrospective for SM64.
Sure. I just meant that it's not right to take a game's unrealized, theoretical potential, whatever that may be, and cite that it didn't achieve that as a flaw long after its production has ended. If that makes sense.
A game that has great 3-d Platforming is Bomber man hero. The levels don't have a rotating camera, but all the Mario concepts are there like "coins" and power-ups. It's fun to play a platformer that isn't about jumping on enemy heads too. The music is also elder god tier
>And because of this it isn't good?
No, I'm just saying because of this I didn't personally like it. But I have no problem admiting the game is good for what it is, if it wasn't it wouldn't have spawned a whole new subgenre.
But it wasn't a direct translation of the classic 2D mechanics to 3D, that would be 3D Land.
I completely agree Bomberman Hero is a great game but according to this thread it is bad because it is not exclusively jumping on platforms. Also because Bomberman doesn't actually jump, it is the worst 3d platformer of all time.
>why can't Mario use his trip kick for anything mandatory in the game,
They focused a lot of dev time on making Mario play right first and foremost, then built the world around that. They probably just forgot.
>why can't you meet and ride Yoshi earlier,
They planned for him to be in there but cut him out at some point, probably because it wasn't fun, didn't work, or both. You can still find graphics for his egg buried in the ROM.
>who is the owl and why does he only appear in two levels,
Beats me, but he shows up a lot more in the DS version, for what it's worth.
>exactly how were you supposed to know that you had to win two stars in Peach's Secret Slide,
There's probably a sign or Toad somewhere that mentions it, could be wrong though.
>and why weren't there more levels that led to the outside world like the Hazy Maze?
It was the early days of 3D. Developers were still coming to grips with how gameplay would work in 3D. And having the same "style" of platforming that was used in 2D games wouldn't work as well in 3D, because the extra dimension adds an entire layer of complexity in trying to make accurate jumps.
Plus gamers weren't used to it either, it was a great game and kinda mind blowing at the time, have to ease everyone into 3D. Considering most 1st gen 3D games suck complete ass it was good strategy
Tired of these threads. We're here to talk about /vr/ games in earnest, not shit on them constantly. This place was never supposed to be /v/.
Mario 64 is still a lot of fun even today, and yes was one of the first 3D games that didn't suck ass. It has to ease people into the idea of 3D platforming, and as mentioned earlier in the thread while it would have been cool for all the levels to be Bowser levels, the game itself and the game's goals are still great fun.
OP is a faggot
Just because not every jump is from floating platform to floating platform over a bottomless chasm doesn't mean that there's no platforming. And while the punishment for falling down is often just having to run back over and try the jump again without restarting the level bear in mind you can get hurt falling and hitting the ground from too high for maybe the first time ever in any Mario.
Every Mario game in the New SMB series along with 3D World and 3D Land are
Fuck it, you know what, Galaxy 1 and 2 were soulless too. They're all fun games, but Mario hasn't really excited me since Sunshine. And honestly I've lost faith in Nintendo's ability to pull off the kinds of games they used to.
I'm aware that this is the nostalgia talking but I don't care.
Maybe this will be a little more to your tastes OP?
I at least agree about Galaxy 2 being a great game, although I remember Galaxy 1 being slightly less impressive. Mainly I just can't shake the feeling that every Mario game after Sunshine has been too... clean. It just doesn't feel right anymore. I know I have these nostalgia goggles bolted to my face but I just can't see it any other way.
Christ you are retarded OP.
I guess platforming only counts when there's pitfalls involved? jesus fuck.
If the first star on every map counts as platforming, then "platforming" is simply traversing the map.
And if that's true, everything you do in Mario 64 is platforming.
Just because you may have to go around and find multiple things or go around and solve a puzzle is still going around a platforming-design map.
The platforming is there though. You're not supposed to know where the stars or coins are, so you explore the level, and while doing that you have to go through platforming. Some stars, the most obvious one, might not require it, I'll give you that.
>Tick Tock Cock
now this is the dumbest thing you said
that level is pure platfoming
you take one star, then the next one is further, and the next one is even further, and ALL of it is platforming. And unlike the Bowser levels it's longer and actually has a little bit of exploration. You can also go back more easily as everything is done in a circle.
It doesn't force the platforming as much as both earlier Marios and later ones, but it lets you platform through the levels in all sorts of ways*. Notably when compared to the collect-a-thons that would follow it starts throwing pits and moving platforms as early as the second world. It was Rare that took the "adventure game with platforming as traversal between content" design to be the "standard" for collect-a-thons.
Look up some of the non-TAS speed runs like Siglemic to see what you can do.
sorry, no, Mario Galaxy is ANYTHING but soulless. It has more soul than literally any other game released in the past 3 generations. it's entirely you who is soulless if you can't see that.
>more soul than any other game released in the past three generations
I mean I could just list all of my favorite games released in the last decade and I think they all have more soul than Mario Galaxy, but we're out of /vr/ territory at that point.