"You may see symbols above enemies in the battle sequences.
These mean that the enemy can make you dizzy, put you to sleep, or call in some reinforcements." -Russ T.
Why does he say this? There are no symbols above enemies unless they're inflicted with a status effect. Just to be sure, I looked at a Dark Koopa, a Crazee Dayzee, and a Groove Guy, but there are no symbols.
Is this a scrapped feature? A translation error maybe?
>unlike Mario and Luigi
SSS was good and BIS was okay. Didn't play DT but I've heard it was alright. I'd say it's a worthy successor, but that's probably just because I don't think very highly of SMRPG(it's a great game, but nothing too spectacular in my opinion). M&L isn't as good as traditional Paper Mario, but it's not bad.
>a new Paper Mario
I want Miyamoto to stop using Paper Mario as a lab rat. A large majority of Paper Mario fans want something similar to the first two, and even IS seem to think it would be a good idea to return to the classic formula. Why does Paper Mario have to suffer so much due to Miyamoto's obsession with experimentation?
After two lackluster games, it's obvious to anyone, right? That's my hope. If it's good I will buy a Wii U for it(or an NX if it has backwards compatibility).
The badge system and partners give this game so much replay ability. I can pop this fucker in any time
I feel like I'm the only person on earth who likes the original Paper Mario to its sequel.
And I think the sequel is really good, but if people ask me to choose it's always pain being honest about this.
I liked TTYD more than Paper Mario 64 on my first run through it but after replaying it once I've grown more fond of the original.
Despite its improvements everywhere else the structure of the overworld is a lot worse. There's really no point to all the needless backtracking and even using the quick warps tended to be a hassle.
I hear you, I think it comes down to which one you play first. The sequel has such good combat that it's hard to go back to the first one, but the first one has better level design (though not world design)
Was the aesthetic of this game a consequence of the N64's limitations? Whenever I heard someone mention the "N64 can only do 3D, even the 2D 'sprites' are actually just flat 3D models" bit, I think back to this game. Maybe Nintendo wanted to do a 3D RPG at first but that proved too complicated and instead of doing regular 2D they came up with this gimmick?
M&L sucked because of the crappy way to switch abilities.
I can't tell you how many times I had to pause to think about the buttons to press to make mario small.
Okay, I need Mario in front and Luigi in back, and I have to switch Luigi to the hammer.
It was a such a chore. Especially when you had what 10 abilities mapped to two buttons.
TTYD is my favorite, but I can see why you'd prefer the original. I think the original is more consistently fun/good than its sequel. TTYD is a game of highs and lows and isn't quite as consistent: some chapters are amazing, and others are a tad boring (never bad, though; I mean it's one of my favorite games!)
I've never heard of that, and it sounds ridiculous. The N64 can obviously produce sprites and it does have a few sprite based games. Furthermore, even most 3D games contain a lot of sprites (the treetops and rolling balls in Mario 64 to name two examples).
They didn't design the game around the N64's limitations. They wanted it to have a "storybook" like aesthetic (hence its Japanese title, Mario Story). That's why it looks like a pop up book and uses sprites.
There's also an early development mock-up if this game and they used SM World sprites to showcase how they wanted the game to look.
I'd post a link to some sources but I'm typing this on my phone and it would be a hassle, so maybe tomorrow.
>I've never heard of that, and it sounds ridiculous. The N64 can obviously produce sprites and it does have a few sprite based games. Furthermore, even most 3D games contain a lot of sprites (the treetops and rolling balls in Mario 64 to name two examples).
What's ridiculous about it? Imagine a wall polygon. Now imagine it textured. However, the wall spins to face the camera. That's how the trees and stuff works. If they were sprite based, they wouldn't phase through 3d models.
Same idea for 2D games, except the "camera" is in a fixed position. Orthographic projection or something.
So Yoshi's Story is actually 3D?
What about later systems that use sprites in 3D games? Let's say Elder Scrolls: Oblivion which uses sprites for leaves and grass. I think the leaves always face the camera. Does this mean the 360 and PS3 can't render sprites? I'm not trying to be mean, I jut don't understand this concept and I'd like to see a source.
I wanted to use Yoshi's Story as an example, but it kept crashing my emulator. Notice how each image has a slash through it on the wireframe half? It's two primitives creating a rectangle and then textured with a "sprite" image. It is technically 3D, but the Z axis is never used.
The best answer here describes the idea better than I can:
I doubt modern systems have dedicated 2D graphics. They can take control of a framebuffer and change the pixels directly without any 3D rendering, but that's slower than using rectangles because it doesn't use the system's GPU. So they can render sprites directly to the screen using the CPU, but they cannot be scaled or rotated (quickly). Primitives can. I don't think the N64 is strong enough to render both 2D graphics and game logic on it's CPU for a commercial sized game. If it can directly change the framebuffer directly at all.
I'm not an expert on this. If someone more knowledgeable wants to tell me off please do.
>M&L sucked because of the crappy way to switch abilities.
>I can't tell you how many times I had to pause to think about the buttons to press to make mario small.
What a stupid reason to hate a game. Don't act like the whole thing is trash because you were too mentally deficient to remember a handful of simple combinations.
One time I was playing Paper Mario in the volcano island's jungle and a "Mr. M Bush" turned around and ran at me as I was falling unto a spring after using it to get away. And for some odd reason, Mario flipped on his side (i.e. is back was to the ground) as the he touched me and the battle screen started.
I never figured out what caused it.
The game is fully 3D though besides the characters. Also, you completely made this up. There's not a single source on the internet that states this. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
As someone mentioned, the art director, Naohiko Aoyama, simply wanted the game to have a unique "pop-up book" style, similar to Yoshi's Story. It's not a coincidence that the game is called Mario Story in Japan.