Rev: Mario

[HereticPB]

For the last two generations, I think Mario has been taken WAY too much out of his element. By that, I don't mean that I didn't like the last two Mario games. They were fun, like virtual playgrounds. I love the fact that they've focused on Mario being more acrobatic (and I think there's still a lot of room to expand on that). But I mean, I think the last couple Mario games just...never really felt as much like Mario games. Where are my hills with eyes on them? Why are there only 2 or 3 goombas in this whole level? Where are all of my question blocks, my powerups? Pipes? Underground/sky bonuses? Where are all the Koopas that I can take out with one kick of a shell?

I think that Mario, as a 3D game, has SO much freakin potential it's not even funny, which is why I don't think I want the game to be 2D, or even a game full of linear courses. Mario's world is just so....awesome! What I want to see is a big world, and if anyone can remember, the world would look like the Mario Bros. 3 cartoon. Mario's world is so great...I want to stand on TOP of one of those big phalic hills with the eyes on them, and look out. I want to see little mushroom houses scattered in the distance, with big block pyramids and angry suns and everything that we HAVEN'T seen in the last two Mario games. I want to have a really epic battle with Bowser, something which was more or less done in Mario 64.

I don't want the hub world to be a castle with worlds inside paintings, or a town, with pipes that take us to places around an island. Why not just put us IN the Mushroom Kingdom? I'm thinking like, Hyrule, but Mario. Maybe not as BIG as Hyrule Field, but with the same jist. The castle, with its town in front of it, with the countryside past it, which would lead to other areas. I want more or less, a living, breathing mushroom kingdom, with all the little quirks and things we've expected from Mario in the past. It'd almost be like, an adventure/platformer. Like, it would be as if the land from Super Mario RPG was brought into full 3D except on a much bigger scope. But I mean, if the game was so big, but also focused on platforming, how amazing would that be? How great would it be to be on top of something like Tal Tal Mountain, and see other lands in the distance? Instead of just getting to the top of the mountain, getting a Star, and exiting the course, maybe you don't exit the course, but instead, grab a super leaf or a feather and just bolt and jump OFF the mountain and soar to the base of the mountain, and maybe enter a deep forest that awaits you. It'd be like in Spider-Man 2 how you could be on top of the Empire State Building, seeing all of NYC, and deciding where you want to go...except it would be a Mario World! (of course I'm not suggesting random missions like in SM2, but more like an area by area progression like Zelda)



I think it'd be cool if we still got those kind of obstacle courses like we got in the Mario 64 Bowser levels, or the secret levels in Sunshine...but they should be integrated into the environment, giving them purpose. Kind of like how Sands of Time had all its little obstacle courses, but there was still a linear progression (though in the Mario game you could still go anywhere you wanted after completing an area).

And they could integrate missions into levels, like, say that one of the Koopa Kids doomships was getting ready to invade Ice Land, which resides past a could mountain. Maybe Toadsworth or some smart character has deduced that in order to intercept the ship, Mario has to get to the top of this mountain in a certain amount of time. it'd be like a race to the top of the mountain with all its little obstacles, and then you get to the top when the timer is at 10 seconds with the ship soaring overhead. The timer hits zero, and the moment of opportunity strikes, as he hops onto the ship. The ship itself is filled with enemies and whatnot, and from there, acts almost like a Bowser level.

So yaeh, I guess I'm all for a linear level type progression, as long as they're integrated into the environment, and we can still explore at our leisure.

More or less, I'd like to see 3D environments resemble some of the environments in this video: http://www.nesplayer.com/television/smb3_files/smb3show_files/tv_intro.rm

Haha, and I said it before, and I'll say it again, I really do think Mario looks so much cooler with red overalls. I dunno, it just looks more unique. Maybe it's just because that's what I grew up with, but I always wished Nintendo would let us have an option to use it (and I think it makes Fire Mario look cooler because then he has white overalls/red shirt/white gloves, not white shirt, white gloves. god i'm such a girl about that


JAM13000
Revolution IGN boards


I agree 100 GD Fckn Percent!!

[Flamin Scotsman]

i actually prefered 2d marios.. didnt like the 3d ones.

[MicVlaD]

The writer has some good ideas, but big worlds would be overkill for me personally. Probably the reason why I didn't like Super Mario Sunshine as much as SM 64: the levels didn't feel like pure platforming levels to me.

[Fallax]

I agree, but I don't want another Zelda, just Mario. I think Mario is unique. But, honestly, I haven't enjoyed one single 3D Mario game. So, I do wants something.

[HolyPaladin]

I loved Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine, but I've always kept a place in my heart for the old 2D Super Mario Bros. titles. I think my favorite Mario game to date is still Super Mario Bros. 3, and I'd love to see Mario wander back in that direction more.

[PorpoiseMuffins]

Mario 64 was either my number 1 or number 2 favorite games of all time, competing with Zelda: Ocarina of Time for the spot. Even so, I totally agree with this guy. Mario 64 was pretty much a perfect game, but I think that that is the way Mario should be headed. I did feel like Mario was WAY out of his element in Mario Sunshine, although the game was still enjoyable.

[tonic]

Mario, like Metroid, needs to be kept in the second dimension.

[Zeep]

bah. metroid prime is a great game, no matter how you slice it. i'm not saying it was better or worse than it was in 3d, but it was still a great game.

and yeah, sunshine was a bit... un-mario-like. kinda like how StarFox Adventures was to Fox. ("You found a pebbble! Doo-dee-doo!") and it seems to me like Nintendo's really just pimping the hell out of mario, especially lately. Mario baseball, mario soccer, mario party (x7), mario tennis, paper mario, mario DDR, mario pinball... the list goes on and on. and this is something i hope doesn't happen to metroid. for the majority of the series' life, there were only like 3 games: Metroid, Super Metroid, and Metroid 3 (or whatever the title of the Gameboy one was). But in the past 3 years, we've got metroid prime, metroid fusion, metroid zero mission, and metroid prime hunters and metroid pinball coming up. plus a rumor of another 2d metroid coming to the DS. if nintendo starts using Samus the way they've used Mario, we're in for some trouble. in a way this has also happened to zelda. people rarely take the handheld versions seriously anymore, and the concept behind four swords, while not a bad one, is already old. Nintendo's franchises are TOO great for a new game every few months., like mario gets.

[DLazare91]

^ I dunno Metroid Prime was as good if not better than fusion.

[Phoenix]

"You found a pebbble! Doo-dee-doo!"It was a rock. (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=39)

[Nexus]

If you ask me comparing 2D and 3D games should not really be compared. I find both 3D and 2D version of Zelda, Mario and Metriod to be excellent.

I love the freedom of the Mario world, especially the jumping which I am happy to see in the New Super Mario game. I had a dream the other day that I could jump like Mario, it made me happy. :)

[PorpoiseMuffins]

Mario, like Metroid, needs to be kept in the second dimension.

Words cannot begin to express the degree to which I disagree with that statement.

[Teh Roxor!]

I agree with PorpoiseMuffins. That's crap. Both Metroid Primes were amazing, and at least Mario 64 was good. Nintendo does not need o keep anything in the second dimension, they need to make games good no matter what dimension they're in. That's right, even the 4th.

[Zeep]

that's it! THAT'S the revolutionary secret nintendo's been hiding from us! all the games will be 4D!

[Vishus]

There are more 2d counterparts than there are 3d. Simply keeping them in the 2d is just so inside of the box.

[HolyPaladin]

Um..., regarding the 4D thing..., our games already play in 4D. Since the fourth dimension is time, our games need to play in time... or else they'd just be a still image on our screens. Even 2D side-scrollers play in the fourth dimension.

[Flamin Scotsman]

The writer has some good ideas, but big worlds would be overkill for me personally. Probably the reason why I didn't like Super Mario Sunshine as much as SM 64: the levels didn't feel like pure platforming levels to me.

i totlaly agreee
well
if my opinion counts... seen as i threw the game away after collecting one shine...

[Phoenix]

Um..., regarding the 4D thing..., our games already play in 4D. Since the fourth dimension is time, our games need to play in time... or else they'd just be a still image on our screens. Even 2D side-scrollers play in the fourth dimension.Yes, but the "2D" games are 3D, not 4D. They are in the fourth dimention, but they skip the third, depth.

OK no more of this. Back on topic.

Flamin Scotsman, you shoulda played more SMS. If you played it expecting SM64 2, then I can see you were disappointed. Don't hate it because it's different. It's fun, just in its own way.

[MicVlaD]

and this is something i hope doesn't happen to metroid. for the majority of the series' life, there were only like 3 games: Metroid, Super Metroid, and Metroid 3 (or whatever the title of the Gameboy one was). But in the past 3 years, we've got metroid prime, metroid fusion, metroid zero mission, and metroid prime hunters and metroid pinball coming up. plus a rumor of another 2d metroid coming to the DS. if nintendo starts using Samus the way they've used Mario, we're in for some trouble. in a way this has also happened to zelda. people rarely take the handheld versions seriously anymore, and the concept behind four swords, while not a bad one, is already old. Nintendo's franchises are TOO great for a new game every few months., like mario gets.
Nah, don't think this'll ever happen to the Metroid-franchise: it's not like Samus (or Link for that matter) have the same degree of flexibility than Mario and his universe. Also, I have a hunch that Metroid Pinball is this so-called "new 2D Metroid-game" people once rumored about. We haven't heard from this rumor after Pinball got unveiled, and since Pinball isn't 3D...

And I shouldn't be too worried about the increase of Metroid-games. All of them are pretty good and stick to their roots, and at least the franchise gets attention now, something that couldn't be said during the N64-era. Not to mention that every new chapter of the franchise delivers some new gameplay experiences compared to previous titles, with the exception of Zero Mission which was basically a remake.

And about Starfox: it's still a shame what they did with Starfox: Assault. It could've been a perfectly fine game if they didn't implent the on-foot sections (some of the flight scenes even looked pretty good), or at least didn't make 'em as frequent as they are now. Here goes they surpass Lylat Wars with the Revolution-iteration.

[tonic]

Why do people think I said that the Prime games were bad? Not once have I ever said that, and I never will - those games did to Metroid what OOT did to Zelda. I just believe that Super Metroid, Fusion, and the GBA games were just much more enjoyable. Same goes for Super Mario Sunshine/64 against Super Mario World/Yoshi's Island.
Um..., regarding the 4D thing..., our games already play in 4D. Since the fourth dimension is time, our games need to play in time... or else they'd just be a still image on our screens. Even 2D side-scrollers play in the fourth dimension.
The fourth dimension is depth, not time. Time cannot be a dimension because it is relative. The dimensions of an object are fixed regardless of the objects around it (unless it were an immensely heavy object, or some kind of magnet, etc.), and thus are not relative. Therefore width, length, height, and depth are dimensions of an object. Time is relative, and therefore cannot be a dimension.
Interestingly enough, time being relative proves that there is in fact no way to ever travel back in time - it would destroy all the axioms of modern physics and Euclidian mathematics.

[pac4life]

i liked all the mario games
mario sunshine (have no idea why people dont like it ) was the best platformer game this gen. It was 10x more original than mario 64, and after playing through mario 64 again, i prefer sunshine over it anyday. The voice acting and such was horrible though.

[HolyPaladin]

The fourth dimension is depth, not time. Time cannot be a dimension because it is relative. The dimensions of an object are fixed regardless of the objects around it (unless it were an immensely heavy object, or some kind of magnet, etc.), and thus are not relative. Therefore width, length, height, and depth are dimensions of an object. Time is relative, and therefore cannot be a dimension.
Interestingly enough, time being relative proves that there is in fact no way to ever travel back in time - it would destroy all the axioms of modern physics and Euclidian mathematics.

Yes, time is relative, but I've still normally seen it labeled as the fourth dimension. When last I check, the first three dimensions were height, width, and depth.

EDIT: I was trying to search around for information either confirming or denying my labeling of the fourth dimension as "time", but I'm multitasking and thus too busy to put too much time into it, but I did stumble upon this:
http://www.jimloy.com/physics/4d.htm
and
http://www.rahul.net/raithel/otfw/dimensions.html

[tonic]

"Scientists" can graph the fourth dimension as time as long as they want, but that doesn't make it right. These "scientists" are most likely low-class chemists, who have only a basic grasp of modern and classical physics.

I'm a physics major and geometry minor at McMaster University - I know what I'm talking about here. It's elementary geometry that height is the third dimension. A much more abstract fourth dimension is depth. It's hard to understand it due to the same reason that it's hard to understand that as our speed increases, time decreases: that fact, being, that evolution has not shown humanity any real reason to take use of it, and thus we don't comprehend it as easily as other concepts.

First dimension is a straight line, with zero width. Impossible.
Two dimensions is a polygon, with zero height. Also impossible.
Three dimensions is what we perceive in the world. Possible, but only in our minds can it be comprehended.
Four dimensions is the connection of... well... it's very hard to explain. It's taken me a month of study just to grasp this concept, so I doubt I could explain it over a forum. All you have to know is that we view objects in a four-dimensional scope, not a three-dimensional one.


And I'm well associated with Ouspensky's idea of the six dimensions. It's some good stuff. Had to do a culminating on it ;)

[Primehunter]

Objects can feel a dimension higher but cant not interact with it.
Here is how to explain it. If things were 2d you would see in 3d but only react in 2d. This applies to us too. 3d objects can experience 4d but not change it. So there is the proof.

[Flamin Scotsman]

Yes, but the "2D" games are 3D, not 4D. They are in the fourth dimention, but they skip the third, depth.

OK no more of this. Back on topic.

Flamin Scotsman, you shoulda played more SMS. If you played it expecting SM64 2, then I can see you were disappointed. Don't hate it because it's different. It's fun, just in its own way.

nah i jsut dint like it... the only thing i enjoyed was spinning around on hte wire while shooting my flub thing...
i dont like 3d platformers really...i find them irritating, especially when its small platform to platform...

and i didnt read very far but time is the 4th dimension.. i do physics i should know..there is also, in theory, a further 7 dimensions.
were never going to have more than 3d in gaming..its technically not 3d yet anyway...

[Bowser]

Interesting. I remember hearing that time is the 4th dimension, as well. Interestingly enough, I was wondering: how would one create a 4D representation of a 3D world?

[tonic]

You can't. There is no way to create a 4D world that humanity can visualize in day-to-day life, much like how our speed effects time. It exists beyond human comprehension.

[Zeep]

Here's an idea: let's stop talking about theoretical physics and start talking about... umm... wait, what was the topic again?

[Teh Roxor!]

Wow. I should have never made that remark.

[Nexus]

Here's an idea: let's stop talking about theoretical physics and start talking about... umm... wait, what was the topic again?
It was Mario for the Revolution. Do you think that the Revolution version will link with the DS version?

[SuperLuigiBros]

^probly not. They might make a new Mario for that though.

*hopes no one notices that I havnt read anything in this thread*

If they turned Mairo Bros 3 into 3d then it would rock. That had the most 'mario feel' to it, with all the platform and stuff. Sunshine was awsome, but the platforms were too realistic with metal grating and such. they should keep the platorms wood with perfectly diagonal lines/gradient/watever. Go Miyamoto, Go!

[tonic]

Physics and geometry are much more interesting than talking about how poor 3D Mario games are in comparison to their 2D counterparts.