Gaming Super Mario Galaxy

[Ellerby]

[FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="DimGray"]Got it on Tuesday, been playing it so much since then. I've got 62 stars and am still working on getting more. Even though I could fly to the [spoiler]center of the universe[/spoiler] right now, I'm still holding off and completing all the little challenges, comets and extra levels. Finding hidden stars isn't as easy as I thought it would be, but having [spoiler]Luigi[/spoiler] send you pictures and such helps.

I really love the way they set up the galaxies. Within each galaxy are different planetoids and sometimes going from one planetoid to the next changes the entire atmosphere of the game while other times it sticks with the same theme. Either way it's always fun.

All the power ups are really great, too. Each one controls completely differently from the others and is unique in its own way. I can't even pick a favorite because they're all that much fun. Did anyone have a blast skating? So awesome.

And the Bowser fights are back to being epic. While Bowser Jr. battles tend to be a bit easier, the Bowser fights (or the two I have done thus far) are just insane.

One thing I've found that usually isn't the case in platformers like Mario is I'm actually dying quite a bit. It's not a bad thing though, after a couple deaths you usually grasp what you've done wrong, fix it and then succeed.

And yeah, the music is flipping beautiful. I even turned up the volume a couple times just because I liked the tunes.

I've found that to really enjoy this game, turning all the lights off makes for a sweet atmosphere. I think as far as Wii games go, this has got to be up there with Twilight Princess (if not, above TP).[/COLOR][/FONT]

[BlueYoshi]

[color=darkred]I'm glad to hear that the game is being received so well.

I've finally made up my mind on getting a Wii thanks to this game, so the next time my pay check comes in I'll own one. I look forward to posting up my comments about it.[/color]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

[quote name='Desbreko'][COLOR=#4b0082]The lack of Mario Sunshine quality camera control doesn't really cripple the game.[/COLOR][/quote]

Just wait. I'm up to the Bedroom galaxies, and your camera woes get worse and worse. It's gotten to the point where I'm dreading going into the bonus stages...and even a few of the regular galaxies. Early, early on in the game, Galaxy's camera doesn't seem too bad. But in the levels I'm playing currently, things are almost unplayable. It's ****ing terrible. Case in point:

In a Gravity-centric bonus stage, where you go along that very fixed, linear path...the camera should NEVER EVER EVER be positioned up and to the right, slightly angled down to you, somewhere in-between 75 and 89 degrees. Because it utterly ****s up how Mario moves, because the camera itself is so ****ing zoomed out that you can't even tell which direction you're facing.

If that weren't bad enough, it doesn't help that Mario's movement is neither absolute nor relative, but some weird *** sludgy mess in-between. I've accidentally walked/jumped off an edge so many ****ing times that it's unreal.

In fact, thanks to the camera issues, I'm inclined to say that Mario 64 had better movement controls. At least you didn't have to ****ing run backwards to see ****.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm really happy to read all of the positive things about this game in general - I was waiting for some OB feedback too.

November 24th can't come fast enough!

I'll be interested to see what I think about the camera issues when I get this game. Reasonable reviews seem to suggest that the camera mostly works pretty well, but that the lack of total control can be difficult. 100% manual control wouldn't be workable though, so I guess they've tried to strike a compromise.

In any case when I get the game on the weekend I'll post my own thoughts.

In the meantime, how far is everyone? Are you finding the game to be too easy or difficult?

And has anyone decided to play thoroughly the first time through? (i.e. avoid finishing too soon and wait for 120 stars?)[/font]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

The camera **** is schizo, too...control one minute/platform, can't even use the ****ing C-button the next. What the ****?? This is not next gen...Jesus Christ...this isn't even last gen for chrissakes.

[SIZE=1][COLOR=red]Let's try to be a bit more constructive with future posts, please. We'd ask the same of other members who post this crap, so everyone should really be held to the same standard. Any future trolling posts that are heavy on the swearing and light on the content will just be removed. Thanks.
- James[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Note: Trolling is making an outrageous statement solely for the purposes of pissing people off. A short post expressing disgust with sloppy game design is not trolling.

[Charles]

It's okay. He likes Kane & Lynch. :animeswea

[Treble]

Well, I can’t really say much for the camera issue people seem to be having since I’ve only had a few odd occurrences where the angle of the camera was a bit off. But most of the time I think the camera does a pretty a good job of adjusting to the way the player moves. I don’t know, all the positive things this game has going for it is just too awesome for me to even care about the camera.

Anyway, I haven’t gotten to far since the last time I posted. I’m up to 38 stars as of right now, and man things just keep better and better. I was expecting the game to be more on the easy side, but boy was I wrong. I can’t even count the number of times I died in the game due to my own clumsiness. Those single star galaxies in particular are normally the ones that I have a bit of a trouble with. Despite the challenge, I find it so much fun to just keep going back and retrying the levels until I get those stars. That satisfaction I get every time I get a single star is unbelievable, I always feel like I’ve accomplished something so big.

At the rate I’m going, it’ll probably be a while until I could get all 120 stars. However, I plan to get all of the stars before I beat the game. The first Bowser fight was pretty epic, and the music that played while fighting him was very cool. And I hope that the last Bowser fight will be just as awesome or even better.

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

[color=red][size=1]Edited post to keep it on-topic. - James[/size][/color]

I'm glad that Charles brought up Kane & Lynch, actually, because it'll help me illustrate my point.

I'm willing to overlook a few of K&L's problems (and the game does have problems) because when you take the time to learn the game, it doesn't brick-wall you.

By that I mean, after you've figured out the ins and outs of the cover system, the gunplay, the firefights, and so on, there aren't too many moments where you find yourself scratching your head, asking what the **** were the developers thinking. In fact, I count only one throughout the entire game: the dump truck. Google search "Kane and Lynch Dump Truck" and you should find people talking about it.

All the rest of the game is difficult but not unfair. The game's design (the technical elements I mean) rarely, rarely, rarely works against you. It actually reminds me of what good old-school gaming used to be, come to think of it. A game that's hard as hell but becomes incredibly balanced once you "get it."

Thing with Galaxy's gameplay/camera dynamic is that there's nothing to "get." There's no consistent rhythm you can work into, because you're more fighting a schizophrenic camera than even regular bum**** enemies.

What I had mentioned in my previous post (Yeah, that was just me trolling before :rolleyes:) is precisely fighting the camera and [I]had just happened[/I].

Lava world. To get this one star in particular, you had to use the Fire Flower to ignite two little torches on the right and left of the doorway. Sounds simple enough. Pity that as soon as you reached the large horseshoe-esque platform in front of it, you no longer were even able to use the C-button.

So, to be clear here, on the piddly little easy jumps before this part, you had "full" camera control (C-button and D-pad). Get to the horseshoe, and suddenly the camera is locked. [I][B]That[/B][/I] is stupid and arbitrary.

It's even worse when the locked camera distance is "medium." It makes running across the horseshoe a pain in the ***, because you can't see what's in front of you. Not only are you unable to see the few highly-mobile enemies in your way, but hopping across the lily pad-esque pieces of the horseshoe is made needlessly more difficult than it really should have been.

You're fighting the camera there.

You're also fighting the camera when you want to light the torch on the right side, even though it looks like it should be easy. Hell, it [I]should[/I] be relatively simple, since you get the Fire Flower on that side, so you have plenty of time. But guess what. The medium camera sucks for distance shooting, as well. There's no effective way to figure out which way you're definitely facing. So lighting that torch is more luck than good aim.

I got the star on my first try, but just the very fact the camera was that terrible...makes me want to kick the devs in their balls.

First time you get the Ice Flower was another "fighting the camera" moment. Ice-wall-jumping wasn't hard and wasn't unfair. But when you need to guide one of those idiot duck things over your ice bridge, so the duck will launch you vertically for the star, but the camera is locked in so close that you can only see yourself and maybe four feet around you, so quite often--unless you go extremely slow--you have no idea where the duck is...getting that star becomes an exercise in frustration.

Most of you now will come in and pooh-pooh what I'm saying. But I don't give a ****. Anyone who says this camera isn't all that bad needs to get kicked in the head. That's certainly what seems to have happened to the cameraman for Galaxy.

[Charles]

And conversely, I felt that the camera was fine anywhere between 90-95% of the time. Of course, the camera is not perfect. On occasion, I would find myself inhibited by an awkward view that I wished I could change, or my view would be obscured by an environmental object. But, overall, the camera was a tremendous improvement over the system in Mario 64 and Mario Sunshine. For the most part, the camera is zoomed out and the views are pretty smartly laid out; I was glad that I did not have to wrestle with a clumsy manual camera. I also liked how the developers smartly regulated many of the more intensive platforming sections to a sideview, or put the camera directly behind Mario. Nicely done.

In this kind of game, where the character is constantly jumping around at fast speeds, it is incredibly difficult to set up an effective camera that can keep up with the action. The new Sonic games are crippled by a terrible camera (among other things) and even Ninja Gaiden suffered from camera problems. Countless other 3D platformers and actions games, inclcuding Tomb Raider, have suffered from camera issues too. So, it is not unexpected that Mario Galaxy should suffer from its share of hiccups every now and then. After all, not only is the player running and jumping at quick speeds in Galaxy, they are also going through gravity and perspective changes on a constant basis. Would I have liked a more cooperative, manually controllable camera in some situations? Sure. Nevertheless, whatever camera issues there are, certainly are not game breaking or overly distracting. Any claims to the contrary are overreactions.

I just beat the game today with 61 stars and I plan to go back and collect everything else as time permits. Mario Galaxy is my favorite Mario game, with Mario Bros. 3 and Mario 64 behind it. I did not complete Sunshine largely because of its camera issues.

So, that is an alternative take for anyone on the fence who might be dissuaded by some of the negative opinions in this thread.

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

The views aren't smartly laid out, though. There are dozens of times in each level (especially the planetoids and "classic" open worlds) when you have no choice but to run to the camera because the game has arbitrarily locked it. Even in Honeybee Hive, the camera is locked at certain parts of the level when there's nothing to justify locking the camera. It's stupid and arbitrary.

The only times when the fixed camera is decent are the true side-scrolling portions. But that's generally because Mario's movement doesn't radically change with each step. Left is left. Up is up. Right is right. Down is down.

"Overreaction" nothing. Once a game begins arbitrarily locking the camera to mediocre positions and angles, it's certainly not "overreacting" when calling that game out on the dogshit camera system it has.

On top of that, since when did a first-person view [I]not[/I] turn your character in that direction? The first-person mode in Galaxy means absolutely nothing because you can only use it to look around...and that's only if the game didn't randomly lock it from you.

And yes. Other 3D platformers sucked when it came to cameras. We all have experienced the horror that was Ninja Gaiden ("corner combat featuring Ryu's forehead!") and Tomb Raider ("what was I shooting at again?"). But we should expect better out of the company who [B][I]****ing introduced the platformer and then revived the industry with that genre[/I][/B].

Oh, and it's not that there should be a manual camera and nothing else. [U][B]But at least give us ****ing camera control[/B][B] all the time[/B][/U]. Don't arbitrarily lock the camera to bizarre 3/4 medium shots that barely show 4 feet around Mario. When that **** happens (and it happens way more than just 10%), games collect dust.

If you want to talk about camera control for 90% of the game, Super Mario 64, man. There was maybe 10% of that game where you couldn't position the camera at all (i.e., locked camera). Everything else...rock those C-buttons.

The Wiimote has a D-pad. Nintendo should have ****ing used it.

[Charles]

I just personally had little problems with that camera that made the game unplayable for me. Again, I acknowledge that there are issues but none that ruined the game--[i]for me[/i].

Also, I don't know if Mario Galaxy completely revolutionizes the genre, but it does feel unique and it is the best 3D platformer that we will play until Nintendo makes a new Mario game.

We all know what you're saying. You've made your opinion perfectly clear. I, on the other hand, am just providing an opposing opinion. No need to ram the same argument down peoples' throats. Now, go play Kane & Lynch.

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

Oh, the game wasn't unplayable for me. I was one-stocking most of those levels, even with the crappy camera.

But be that as it may, the camera [I]is[/I] crap. Even if the crap camera didn't "ruin the game" for you, you still see and admit how crappy the camera is.

Mario Galaxy doesn't revolutionize jackshit. Never said or implied it did or that it should have. But frankly, from the company who [I]did[/I] revolutionize chunks of the industry, I'd expect a camera system that wasn't two generations ago.

By the way, go ahead and buy into all the negative press about Kane & Lynch. The general public is enjoying the game. The "professional" reviewers aren't because they're still sucking on the cocks of overhyped garbage like CoD4 and Halo 3.

And I'll ram whatever I want down your throat, especially when I know you can see how terrible the camera is. Difference here is that you're much more forgiving than I am.

EDIT: Um, no, James. Those short posts weren't trolling. How the **** could they be? I was playing the ****ing game and what I described in that short post had just happened to me. So I clearly wasn't just making some outrageous statement to get a reaction out of people. Which means I wasn't trolling. kthnxbye

[James]

[quote]I'm trolling? *laughs* That's funny. I never thought that pointing out something that obviously had just happened in-game could ever be considered trolling.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]As per usual, there is a reasonable way to present your views. A post full of little else but ranting/swearing not only insults your own intelligence, but it adds nothing to the thread.

Your subsequent posts are fine. Let's keep it that way. As I said before, anything else that amounts to trolling will simply be removed - it's nothing but an eyesore and doesn't add anything of value to the discussion. I'm tired of delivering these obvious warnings to people who should know better. So this will be the last one.

And now, back to the thread. :catgirl:[/font]

[Charles]

[quote name='The Blue Jihad']Oh, the game wasn't unplayable for me. I was one-stocking most of those levels, even with the crappy camera.

But be that as it may, the camera [I]is[/I] crap. Even if the crap camera didn't "ruin the game" for you, you still see and admit how crappy the camera is.

Mario Galaxy doesn't revolutionize jackshit. Never said or implied it did or that it should have. But frankly, from the company who [I]did[/I] revolutionize chunks of the industry, I'd expect a camera system that wasn't two generations ago.

By the way, go ahead and buy into all the negative press about Kane & Lynch. The general public is enjoying the game. The "professional" reviewers aren't because they're still sucking on the cocks of overhyped garbage like CoD4 and Halo 3.

And I'll ram whatever I want down your throat, especially when I know you can see how terrible the camera is. Difference here is that you're much more forgiving than I am.[/QUOTE]


You haven't even played COD4. Granted, I haven't played Kane & Lynch but man, I don't know how dozens and dozens of reviews can be wrong. Well, besides the fact that there's no online co-op even. :animenose

Also, I don't see how just because Mario Galaxy doesn't completely revolutionize camera work in 3D platfomers, it's suddenly a poor game. I think that it keeps up with the action well for the most part--much better than most 3D adventure games, in fact.

The creativity on hand, level design, wide degree of gameplay elements, awesome music, and great implementation of gravity outweigh some niggling camera issues in my opinion.

I just find the game to be [i]fun[/i]. If you don't like that, I'm sorry dude! It just feels like the old Mario games to me and I like it a lot. Gonna cry about it?

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

[quote name='Charles']I don't know how dozens and dozens of reviews can be wrong.[/quote]

Um...have you [I]seen[/I] the level of writing quality in so-called "professional" reviews these days? These reviews read like ****ing hack-jobs. lol. There are no reviewers these days; there are only fanboys with journalism degrees.

[quote]Also, I don't see how just because Mario Galaxy doesn't completely revolutionize camera work in 3D platfomers, it's suddenly a poor game.[/quote]Show me where I ever implied that I expected the camerawork in Mario Galaxy to be revolutionary. Expecting functional, manual control is not expecting revolution. It's expecting [I]industry standard[/I]. And what we got in Mario Galaxy was industry standard two console generations ago. Hell, I don't even want a camera joystick because obviously that's just oh so much to ask from the great brain-trust of Nintendo. A smart implementation of the ****ing [B][I]D-pad[/I][/B] would have sufficed. And really, the only times Mario Galaxy keeps up with other 3D platforming is only when the camera isn't in Eastern Bum****. When the camera is positioned well, Galaxy gives other 3D platformers a run for their money in terms of play control.

[quote]The creativity on hand, level design, wide degree of gameplay elements, awesome music, and great implementation of gravity outweigh some niggling camera issues in my opinion.[/quote]Meh. Love the music, I love the gravity sections [I]when done right[/I] (READ: 2D or 2D-esque), love the individual themes, like what they've done with the Wiimote functionality (star pointer).

But in terms of level design, I think it's a step back from previous Mario games. This is much too linear and the levels are far too short. I can see what they were trying to do with the Super Mario 3-esque "short-burst" levels but in all honesty, Galaxy's star/mission structure is disappointing.

In fact, Galaxy feels more like a smarter version (with better controls) of Sonic and the Secret Rings than a fully-realized and re-imagined next-gen Mario game. And when I really think about it, it really does feel like I'm playing Sonic and the Secret Rings.

There's such a rigid, linear aspect to so many of these levels. The only times your path (significantly) changes in any given level is when you select a different star to pursue. Once you grab the star for that objective, you're done, and zip back to what is basically the main menu of the game. Thus, each star you pick up feels horribly disjointed from the rest, and the levels have zero continuity because of the segmented approach.

Was the exploration from Super Mario 64 sacrificed for this supposed "re-focus" on classic platforming? I hear that a lot, and it's a crock of PR ********. Because nobody seems to understand that SM64-style exploration and NES Mario-style platforming are not mutually exclusive.

Like I told you on the phone a while back, they could have done completely away with this crap mission structure, and instead dropped Mario in the center of these levels, with the selected galaxy completely open to him.

From there, they could have four stars immediately visible. One to the left, revolving around a small sun. One to the right, in a beautiful supernova. A third in the center, perched near a black hole. And the fourth, directly above Mario, embedded in a moon that's currently orbiting around the planet.

Now just think about that. To get to those individual stars, you're still figuring out how to get up there, so exploration and puzzle-solving still play a key role. And with classic platforming (and light puzzle-solving), you grab those stars.

For the Sun Spot Star, you'll slingshot yourself around a few satellites, and then leap into the star's orbit around the sun. You'll whip around and the star is yours.

Supernova Star Dust, you're using gravity to pull clumps of matter together so you can platform yourself over. Launch yourself into the supernova, catch a ride on a few stars, then grab the power star when you get close enough.

For Star in the Event of a Horizon, it's a perfect opportunity to showcase how Mario can move with gravity. The trick for this is positioning beyond anything. The platforms you have to fall onto don't move, so the trick is using the black hole to pull you onto lower and lower platforms, avoiding comets and asteroids and such or using them as other stepping stones, until you're directly above the star. Then drop down and claim your reward.

For One Small Star for Toadkind, I have two words. Mario Cannon. Use the Toad's cannon to launch you into orbit a la Jules Verne's From The Earth to the Moon. From there, you're going to want to build up enough speed to slingshot to the moon, destroy it (marvelously, I might add), then you'll ride the star back down.

THAT would be level design worth praising. I can see all of those bits in my head. I'm particularly fond of staring down and seeing the halo of matter as it gets sucked into a black hole.

The level design of Galaxy holds nothing to previous Mario games. I miss short-cuts that weren't spoon-fed to you. Like in Super Mario 3, when you had enough runway and the Raccoon or Tanooki Suit...amazing stuff happened there.

[quote]I just find the game to be [I]fun[/I]. If you don't like that, I'm sorry dude! It just feels like the old Mario games to me and I like it a lot. Gonna cry about it?[/quote]When the game does things well, I find it fun, too. But there are only so many times when it's fun to use the same exact launch star just to take a tiny variation in a level that I had just completed for two previous stars. And no, I'm not going to cry about you thinking Galaxy feels like the old Mario games. I'm just gonna laugh at you, because it's nothing like the old Mario games.

[Charles]

I move that we include in the rules, bannings for heresy.

I refuse to overanalyze this Mario game and pick apart every detail. I liked the streamlined setup. I find the game easy to jump into and play and I still think that the game rewards exploration quite well. There are still a bevy of secrets in store for those who explore the levels carefully. Personally, I find the system to be a perfect marriage between Mario 64 and the classic sidescrollers. Although the mission structure is more linear than Mario 64's, I prefer the more focused approach. I dislike obscure goals, but that's me.

I also think the fact that you're free to explore many of these worlds as you choose, aids in helping the game to feel open-ended. The fact that each goal makes the worlds slightly different makes them more enjoyable to revisit for me too. If I had to revisit the same world and just explore its every nook to find Stars, I wouldn't have as much fun. If I wanted to do something like that, I would play Tomb Raider. Again, that's me.

Also, the thing is, if you look at the original Mario games, you could choose to explore the levels at your own leisure or blow through them in [i]seconds[/i]. The levels in Mario Galaxy are often set up in a similar way. I could spend a couple minutes on any one stage or up to ten minutes.

This is among the, if not [i]the[/i] best platformer to ever grace a console and I'm sad that you're in such a position where you can't just sit back and enjoy it.

You know, Zelda was one thing, because I didn't really care about that game too much, but now you're knocking on a dangerous door. Leave it alone, man. Leave it alone.

[Billy Shears]

[quote name='The Blue Jihad']

The level design of Galaxy holds nothing to previous Mario games. I miss short-cuts that weren't spoon-fed to you. Like in Super Mario 3, when you had enough runway and the Raccoon or Tanooki Suit...amazing stuff happened there.

[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkRed"][SIZE="1"]This is the only discrepency I have with your post. Where are there short cuts that are "spoon-fed" in Galaxy when you named pretty much every short cut in any Mario game with the ability to fly? How is having the Raccoon Suit/Flying Feather and flying thru the whole level amazing?[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

Haha, heresy. I suppose it [I]would[/I] fit as something someone could get banned for here. I wonder what'd be more offensive to people on OB. Saying that Nintendo is still cranking out substandard games or talking **** about Jesus. My bets are on the former.

Now...who's overanalyzing? I'm certainly not. All I'm doing to taking a look at what the game actually is. And what it is is very obviously linear and mission-based. "Streamlined" nothing. It's outright linear. You have an utterly fixed path for every star you choose in the main menu. These are Sonic and the Secret Rings missions, dude.

I honestly don't know what kinds of secrets you're finding when you explore the levels carefully, either. What, there's one or two hidden stars in each galaxy...and that's about it for secrets. I wouldn't classify coins or extra lives as secrets, nor would I consider those subterranean caverns (like the ones with the musical notes) as all that rewarding, especially since they're repeated throughout the game, so they kind of lose any initial impact they may have had. Same goes with the SMB3 music. First time it brought me back to my childhood. But hearing it for just about every other special stage after that...it just loses its magic, dude.

Obscure goals? What the ****? See, here's the thing. Mario 64 didn't have obscure goals. The star's description was a big hint what you had to do. And most cases, it kind of outright told you how to get the star. But the brilliance of Mario 64 was how open-ended it was. You weren't immediately forced into a launch star to set you on the precise path that you knew was going to lead to the star itself. Obscure goals? **** no. It just didn't hold you by the hand the entire goddamn time.

This "freedom to explore" is amusing. What freedom to explore? There's certainly no "freedom to explore" when you're in the levels themselves. Or did you mean being able to visit different galaxies? That isn't exploration. That's just selecting a different level from the main menu. The kind of exploration we're talking about happens (or should happen) when you go into those levels. And exploration doesn't happen when the game pushes you along a pre-determined path. In Galaxy, there's always one way and one way only to proceed when you enter a level. That is a game environment that neither encourages nor allows exploration.

Also, the level itself doesn't change depending on which star you choose. What [I]does[/I] change is your fixed, rigid path. The game basically blocks off chunks of the level, nothing more.

"At your own leisure" nothing. That time limit ticks down faster than you think. And these two games aren't as similar as you think, either.

In SMB1, the average player has a window of maybe 100 seconds to break blocks and such. For the average gamer, those other 200 seconds are often spent moving forward at a safe pace. You can pretty much sit there, staring out into space (*rimshot*) in Galaxy. You can **** around a lot more in Galaxy.

And let's suppose the player goes bumping around in SMB1. They're going to find the usual coins, extra lives, mushrooms, and so on, but they're also going to find the Warp Zone, which can allow them to bypass entire levels. Don't like 1-4? No problem. Don't care for 3-X? 5-X? 6-X? 7-X? Warp Zone it!

Exploration in SMB1 was just a wee bit more rewarding/dynamic and game-changing than in Galaxy.

The approach to the pacing is radically different between these games, as is the incentive to explore.

The approach to the levels isn't even similar. With non-existent exploration, an extraordinarily fixed path, no substantial rewards beyond extra lives, and the limited mission structure, Galaxy's levels are basically a few bubbles of grass with launch stars connecting them.

Compare that to even 1-2 in SMB1. You can zip through the level normally, or you can hop on top of a brick pillar, punch out the ceiling, and outright manipulate the game physics and momentum to wall-jump-propel Mario onto the top of the level. There you can run full speed and avoid nearly everything through most of the level, then at the very end, take one huge leap for shits and giggles and find yourself in the Warp Zone.

Super Mario Galaxy does nothing in terms of platforming like the originals, because there's next to nothing when it comes to freedom of exploration and experimentation. Even SMB1 wasn't linear. You could manipulate momentum like crazy to get around huge portions of the levels.

Plus, World 1 in SMB1 isn't just 1-1 repeated four times with you going on a slightly different path each time. Unlike Galaxy.

And I normally would be in a position to enjoy this game if there weren't camera issues left and right, pacing issues left and right, and a mission-based structure that segments levels to all hell.

And I'm gonna keep knockin, knockin, knockin on your door till my knuckles bleed.

EDIT: Simple, Billy. With the Raccoon and Tanooki suits, the short-cuts were left for you to discover/create. In Galaxy, characters smack you in the face with "Feed me and I become a short-cut!"

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]As long as everyone keeps their posts to the point, it's all good.

Nobody's ever been banned for having an opinion, so don't think for a second that having a point of view is a problem. The only problem we've had is the way in which an opinion is presented - that is to say, if someone's attacking other members personally or if they are trolling the site in general, that's obviously not acceptable.

So yeah. You can hold whatever opinion you like, whether or not people agree with you. But if you don't behave with respect toward other members, there'll be a problem.

I know that what I say isn't likely to be acknowledged, but I think it's worth pointing out for the benefit of members in general.

As for the game itself - and without actually getting into the current debate, because I haven't yet played the game - one thing I was hoping for with SMG was greater linearity (as has been said, something that brings us back to the 2D games).

I liked the open worlds in Mario 64, but by the time SMS came around, they became somewhat tired. A combination of more open and more linear levels is a good idea, in my opinion (note the last part of that sentence). At the very least, it's what I personally have been hoping to see.

I think the end point - and something that should be acknowledged - is that although one can argue what a game [i]is[/i], people can have different interpretations.

For instance, you can say that the game is segmented. Some people will have a personal preference for this, others will not. Those that don't should not be in the business of convincing the other side that they are wrong - they are not wrong, they just have a different preference.

So I think pretty much everyone would agree that the game is more linear and segmented than previous Mario games. Whether or not this is a good thing is a separate question - and it's a question that brings value judgements into play. Trying to convince someone that their value judgement is wrong is like trying to tell someone that their favourite colour is ugly; ultimately it's a wasted exercise. Better to discuss the objective points of the game in a way that doesn't outright involve one person being wrong, but that simply discussed people's different theories.

In any case, I'm reading this debate with interest because I will be able to compare what I've read here to my own gameplay impressions. And that's always interesting.[/font]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

Despite what anyone may think, this is not trolling this thread, the members, or the ****ing site in general.

I was playing a bit more of Galaxy earlier today, and I'm going to be returning it to GameStop on Saturday. Because Galaxy is by far one of the worst games of the year.

NEVER have I ever played any game (or platformer) with such a terrible, haphazard, random, and schizophrenic control/camera system. Some of these design "choices" boggle my mind.

Like in Dusty Dusty Desert (or whatever the **** it is), there's this dual button platform thing, where one button raises this huge structure, and the other button lowers it. Tucked away in various little alcoves in this structure thing are five star pieces you need to collect for a launch star. But the ****ing game locks your ****ing camera so you can't even look around. You can't even [I][B]LOOK UP[/B][/I]. The [B]first-person view mode[/B] is [U]DISABLED[/U]. Where is the ****ing logic in that, seriously? In a level where you NEED to be able to see where the **** you're going to be jumping to, how is DISABLING first-person view a good idea?

Then in that same goddamn level, when you DO reach the star, it's housed in this large, phallic glass enclosure/tower, and you're landing on top. Now, based on Galaxy's earlier phallic glass towers, you'd assume that you could just run down the side and find the opening. NOPE. You FALL down to the bottom, and the camera falls with you. YOU land right-side up. The CAMERA [B]doesn't[/B]. So you're playing upside-down with no ability to re-position the camera. [B]What. The. ****.[/B] And no, it isn't "trippy." It isn't "brilliant." It isn't "original" or "new" or whatever. It's just downright retarded game design.

Or earlier in Dusty Dusty whatever, you start on these planetoid-style platforms. You know, where the game lets you run completely around it. Two platforms away, there are three rolling rocks going around a circular platform. Here I figured I could bypass the rocks by running on the undersides of these platforms.

NOPE. The camera doesn't go underneath with you. INSTEAD, it just stays topside and Mario goes silhouette. This I could have moderately tolerated if it hadn't been for the craptacular control/camera relationship.

Hold right to run onto the underside of the platform...but holding right KEEPS you going in the same ****ing direction...so by holding right ON THE JOYSTICK Mario is now running LEFT. There is no easy way to move anywhere, because everything is reversed, and even after I figured out which way was which now...Mario was still moving completely randomly. [B]What. The. ****.[/B]

Go ahead. Accuse me of trolling or whatever. I don't ****ing care. This game is terrible. It's overhyped ******** coming from a company that, despite its sales records, is a mere shadow of its former self.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]As I said earlier, an opinion is not trolling. But posting small snippets of junk definitely is. I think that's a pretty clear distinction.

It's cool that you don't like Super Mario Galaxy; that's a legitimate point of view. It seems that for you, the camera is an absolute deal-breaker. And I can understand that, because I've wanted to return quite a few games due to the camera being a massive problem.

So yeah, it's a reasonable point of view. But as I said before, it's just that - a point of view. And that's fine. lol[/font]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

A short, terse, curse-laden post is neither trolling nor junk, especially when it's ****ing obvious that it's referring to an actual part of the game. Unless "trolling" can be re-defined whenever you damn well please, historically, "trolling" is posting negatively for the sake of pissing people off. And believe me, if I wanted to post just to piss you people off, I could do it much more easily and efficiently than in a thread about Super Mario Galaxy where I'm mentioning utterly ****** parts of the game I'm noticing as I play through it. Oh, and that is not trolling, James. It's expressing utter disgust at lousy game design.

Because we both know that if I wanted to troll you ****ers, my posts would be [I]massively [/I]different.

Regarding Galaxy, no matter what anyone thinks...a camera that falls to the ground...and lands UPSIDE-DOWN...that's just totally sloppy, lousy game design. And if it happened in any other game, most of these people here would be railing against that game so hard that it'd look like gang-rape.

Same goes for the topside/underside control. It's downright atrocious no matter what you think. No good game ever has movement quasi-mush/quasi-reversed like that.

Theoretically, even with those quasi-reversed controls, if you pushed up-left on the joystick, Mario should have moved down-right. But he doesn't. Not consistently, anyway. It's all just broken and random.

I mean...what happened to the days where a Mario game had totally intuitive controls no matter how you were positioned? Where even in Super Mario 64, you were rarely fighting the camera? What happened to the days when control in a Mario game actually meant something?

I remember those days. I remember the control in SMB1 being tight enough to where I could wall-jump using momentum. I remember when there was no question which direction was which. I remember when it was never a guessing game where Mario would land after jumping. I remember when the act of platforming was an actual art.

People say Galaxy goes back to Mario's platforming roots...but it doesn't. There's none of the precision, tightness, or speed. The levels don't enable you to cheat the game's physics. Short-cuts are found when the game gives them to you on a platter. Galaxy is not remotely similar to classic Mario platforming or platforming philosophy. The player is at the whim and mercy of so much extraneous crap in Galaxy that nobody can even consider it to be a Mario game.

Case in point: Classic Mario platformers would have let you bypass those rolling rocks I mentioned earlier. Classic Mario platforming philosophy would have let you do some neat tricks through experimentation. Galaxy outright [I]prevents[/I] you. Galaxy's "classic platforming" approach is a huge crock of marketing PR ******** that everyone has totally bought into.

[James]

[quote]A short, terse, curse-laden post is neither trolling nor junk, especially when it's ****ing obvious that it's referring to an actual part of the game. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The point is, I view short, terse, curse-laden posts as [i]both[/i] trolling [i]and[/i] junk. And that's what matters, because you're on my site. If I were on yours and you had different rules, that'd be cool.

Anyway, no more admin-related stuff in this thread. Back to regular SMG discussion now, please.

I have one question for everyone here who has played this game: where do you think Mario should go next?

Super Mario Galaxy adds a significant new innovation to the Mario series by virtue of its spherical worlds; I wonder what Nintendo can do next to keep Mario "fresh". Do you think Nintendo should do another space or spherical-centric Mario game...or something different again?

I'm curious to see what people think about this.

Most people could never have predicted that Mario would utilise spherical worlds after Super Mario Sunshine - many people wondered how you could wow people after already going to 3D so successfully with Super Mario 64. It makes me wonder if people have ideas about the next "big thing" for a Mario game. [/font]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

Deleted. Way to go. You gots the last word! I knew you had it in you! -Alex

And what Nintendo does from here depends on whether they want the Mario franchise to survive or whither and die.

If they do another 3D spherical worlds ********, they need to seriously reconsider their camera systems. One of the worst cameras in years. It's just absolute dogshit. Nobody in their right mind would think this camera is even "good enough."

If they do another 3D game, they need to make sure that nobody in the SMG level design staff returns. Some of the levels in SMG are cute. Others are downright terrible.

Doesn't help that Mario himself moves, runs, jumps, and lands like a ****ing sand-bag. Nintendo, if you have a 3D, platform-based environment with a crappy automatic camera that changes Mario's movement directions with every little sway...at least make sure Mario himself can move with some sort of acrobatic skill. When he just about trips over himself when he lands after a hop, something is horribly wrong with your game.

If they want to do Mario right, bring the entire ****ing series back to total 2D. Use a HUB concept. Keep the gravity sections. Create a console version of a New Super Mario Bros type of game.

[Charles]

A sandbag? Really? Mario isn't acrobatic enough? Huh?

I'm going to lay the cards on the table here. You're clearly biased against Nintendo, and every time a big game from them comes out, you find something weird to complain about. I wish that more people would chime in here about the camera because I'm so sick of arguing this nonsense up and down. I don't know what game you're playing, but the camera is absolutely fine most of the time. In fact, when you consider the quality of camera work in this genre, and factor in the nature of the platforming in Mario Galaxy (where you're constantly switching gravity, surfaces and viewpoints), the camera is as good as any game's camera out there. Better than most.

I have played the game, beaten it and the camera has never been an issue. I have no motive to simply make things up here. Now, one might say "Buuut Chaaarles, that's for [i]you[/i]." But no. The camera is just fine. This is not a matter of arguing difficulty or ability. We're talking about visibility and the player will be able to see Mario and his surroundings just fine for the vast majority of the game. When there are hiccups, they're not nearly as severe as you're making them out to be. The camera is smartly zoomed out most of the time and is a blessing compared to manual cameras that one constantly has to stop and readjust. Quite frankly, I'd rather spend my time controlling my character instead of wrestling with a camera. After all, quick pacing is what makes Mario Galaxy such an old school platforming experience.

The thing I must repeat is, I do acknowledge that sometimes the camera is placed in an awkward spot, or I might find a situation in which I wish I could have a bit more control over the view, but it's such a minor, minor issue.

I do think that you're trolling when you claim that the game has one of the "worse camea systems in years" because this is no an opinion---not even a very bad one--it's just a flat-out falsity that can be disproved by anyone with the ability to even watch a video of the game in motion.

Where preference comes in is my attitude toward the level design. I can respect your opinion in relation to how the levels are designed. You obviously preferred being dropped in the middle of a huge world and just finding your way to a star. And you know, that had an appeal of its own. However, I can appreciate Mario Galaxy's approach. Even if you're guided through the levels in a more linear manner, the sheer diversity and design of the different planetoids lends the game a magical feel that makes the player want to see what's coming up next. Also, there are branching paths in the levels where you can find secret planets and discover hidden stars when you're not looking for them. Also there are different planet surfaces and pipes and hidden nooks you can easily miss. A player could blow through a level if he or she chose, or they could explore every surface. Just like how in the old Mario games, I could run straight through, or take the time to hold down on every pipe. So, I didn't mind and I argue that not everyone will find Galaxy's approach to be horrible.

At any rate, I think you're being treated too liberally here, so I'm establishing the Mario Nation and making this thread a military state. Once you've turned your back on the Nation, you're done. So, I'm going to ask you, no, [I]command [/I] you, to pay homage to Mario Galaxy or suffer the consequences.

As for the direction the series should take---I'd like to see a Little Big Planet kind of approach with user generated content.