Super Mario Galaxy ruined the entire 3D Mario genre!

All we do now is go from point A to point B! Its like a gentle cloud taking us to the star since those games are ridiculously easy. Super Mario 64 was a fair challenge, some stars where 30 seconds from the stage, others took minutes or hours to figure out. It was a vast open world, full of discovery and reward. Sunshine was the same, it was not linear, it had open sandbox worlds where you could tackle any star! And looking for the red coins was very fun because you had to... wait for it... explore!

Super Mario Galaxy ruined all that. It had the potential to be explorable because it was in space, isn't space all about exploration? but, it was casualized, and thus became more popular. I've lost faith that Nintendo will ever make another explorable 3D mario game.

I enjoyed it too much to take your opinion into consideration. Although, now that I think about it, an open world Mario Galaxy game could be neat!

It's the pinnacle of the 3D platformer genre. So no, it didn't ruin anything. If you want something open-world, you have other games to chose from.

if by ruined you mean made it approximately fourteen googles better ....

I can't be alone in this! someone has to agree... anyone?Second_Hokage

[QUOTE="Second_Hokage"]I can't be alone in this! someone has to agree... anyone?crippled_ram

[QUOTE="crippled_ram"][QUOTE="Second_Hokage"]I can't be alone in this! someone has to agree... anyone?Second_Hokage

lol so easy = casual now? some of my favorite games are "easy"

Super Mario galaxy 2 isn't "too easy". Sure getting every star is fairly managable, but there are some that provide enough of a challenge to make the game interesting. More importantly it's just designed so damn well that you'll essentially be in a constant state of orgasm while playing.

If you want a challenge, go play Super Meat Boy.

I prefer a linear experience going from A to B. Messing around in a bunch of nothingness is not what I want to do in a platformer.

I did kind of miss the exploration aspect while playing Mario Galaxy but at least it was good unlike Mario Sunshine which was terrible.

Yea I gotta agree. I loved the exploration element that sunshine had. It may be an opinion in the minority, but Sunshine was legendary to me. That game held my attention solidly for months. The variety, the exploration, the puzzles. Everything. I tried the first galaxy and had a tough time getting into it. After the novelty of the controls wears off, it was simply jumping from ball to ball collecting stars and jumping on enemies. Call me crazy but I didn't find much enjoyment in Galaxy at all. God knows I tried. Even bought a damn wii for that game alone.

The fact that you like 64 is already an indication of poor taste. Your opinion on 3D mario, disqualified.

Well, those are some pretty strong words.

I don't think SMG is terrible by any means, but I would agree more exploration aspects would be welcome.

I'd welcome a "Super Mario 64 2" but I don't know if that's what other people would like too...

And aspects from "SM64 2" were apparently already included in SM64 DS (like the multi-player).

The fact that you like 64 is already an indication of poor taste. Your opinion on 3D mario, disqualified.

ActicEdge

On topic, TC, you have a very odd way of saying SMG perfected the 3D Mario genre.

It's the pinnacle of the 3D platformer genre. So no, it didn't ruin anything. If you want something open-world, you have other games to chose from.

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="Second_Hokage"]I can't be alone in this! someone has to agree... anyone?crippled_ram

Super Mario galaxy 2 isn't "too easy". Sure getting every star is fairly managable, but there are some that provide enough of a challenge to make the game interesting. More importantly it's just designed so damn well that you'll essentially be in a constant state of orgasm while playing.

If you want a challenge, go play Super Meat Boy.

Naylord

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

The fact that you like 64 is already an indication of poor taste. Your opinion on 3D mario, disqualified.

drinkerofjuice

On topic, TC, you have a very odd way of saying SMG perfected the 3D Mario genre.

Times changed, it was big when it came out (personally thought it wasn't very good) and not I'm even more cemented in believing the game is terrible and your opinion of 3D mario is terrible for thinking the game is good. So yes, all those opinions, disqualified on the grounds of crazy.

[QUOTE="Naylord"]

Super Mario galaxy 2 isn't "too easy". Sure getting every star is fairly managable, but there are some that provide enough of a challenge to make the game interesting. More importantly it's just designed so damn well that you'll essentially be in a constant state of orgasm while playing.

If you want a challenge, go play Super Meat Boy.

Second_Hokage

I was expecting you to mean it ruined 3d platforming for you because all other games in the genre now pale in comparison... then I clicked on the topic and saw that you fail at life.

[QUOTE="Naylord"]

Super Mario galaxy 2 isn't "too easy". Sure getting every star is fairly managable, but there are some that provide enough of a challenge to make the game interesting. More importantly it's just designed so damn well that you'll essentially be in a constant state of orgasm while playing.

If you want a challenge, go play Super Meat Boy.

Second_Hokage

I regularly breeze through games that people on SW consider tough as nails. I've beaten each iteration of the 3d Ninja Gaidens on their highest respective difficulties and I do it with ease. I can almost manage a no hurt run on NGB at MNM difficulty. While everyone else was b*tching about the challenge in the Souls games I was having a great time. If a game has a difficulty optioin, I will choose the highest one 9 times out of 10.

All that said, I found plenty of challenge in the latter halves of both Galaxy titles. I actually got stuck more in SMG than I did in Super Meat Boy.

[QUOTE="Naylord"]

Super Mario galaxy 2 isn't "too easy". Sure getting every star is fairly managable, but there are some that provide enough of a challenge to make the game interesting. More importantly it's just designed so damn well that you'll essentially be in a constant state of orgasm while playing.

If you want a challenge, go play Super Meat Boy.

Second_Hokage

Arrogant much?

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"][QUOTE="meetroid8"] Mario has huge casual appeal.meetroid8

Having -ville at the end of the game's name?

[QUOTE="charizard1605"] And Super Mario Galaxy wasn't casual, you noob.meetroid8

So does diablo, what's your point?

[QUOTE="meetroid8"][QUOTE="charizard1605"] And Super Mario Galaxy wasn't casual, you noob.ActicEdge

So does diablo, what's your point?

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"][QUOTE="meetroid8"] Then what does?meetroid8

I'm sure some casuals have played and enjoyed Demon's Souls. What say you now?

[QUOTE="meetroid8"][QUOTE="khoofia_pika"] ... being casualjimkabrhel

I'm sure some casuals have played and enjoyed Demon's Souls. What say you now?

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="meetroid8"] The only thing that makes something casual is if people say it is. Since casuals play and enjoy the game, it must be casual.meetroid8

I'm sure some casuals have played and enjoyed Demon's Souls. What say you now?

ding ding ding ding ding! Winnar!

So then what was your argument about?

[QUOTE="meetroid8"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I'm sure some casuals have played and enjoyed Demon's Souls. What say you now?

Wiimotefan

ding ding ding ding ding! Winnar!

So then what was your argument about?

[QUOTE="meetroid8"][QUOTE="charizard1605"] And Super Mario Galaxy wasn't casual, you noob.ActicEdge

So does diablo, what's your point?

Well, there were some pretty wild debates how D3 is "dumbed down" and "casualized" on some PC gaming sites :P

I genrally don't see the point in trying to classify a game as casual or hardcore, seeing as how many games could be played at either level. Super Mario Galaxy you could play just to beat it (casual) or try and beat every level as Mario and Luigi and get every star (hardcore). A fighting game you could just play a few games with some friends and just that (casual) or actually participate in tournaments and practice alot for such occasions (hardcore)

Really the casualness or hardcoreness of gaming is dependant not on the game, but the individual. Which is why it makes more sense to me to describe people as either "casual" or "hardcore." Although I can't say I even approve of doing that really since all it leads to is egotism and pretentiousness. That plus some people may only take few games "seriously"and many others not, where it becomes harder to classify such a person as "hardcore" or "casual"

in the end, though, who really gives a f*ck.

I genrally don't see the point in trying to classify a game as casual or hardcore, seeing as how many games could be played at either level. Super Mario Galaxy you could play just to beat it (casual) or try and beat every level as Mario and Luigi and get every star (hardcore). A fighting game you could just play a few games with some friends and just that (casual) or actually participate in tournaments and practice alot for such occasions (hardcore)

Really the casualness or hardcoreness of gaming is dependant not on the game, but the individual. Which is why it makes more sense to me to describe people as either "casual" or "hardcore." Although I can't say I even approve of doing that really since all it leads to is egotism and pretentiousness. That plus some people may only take few games "seriously"and many others not, where it becomes harder to classify such a person as "hardcore" or "casual"

in the end, though, who really gives a f*ck.

DJ-Lafleur

Man I hate the terms hardcore and casual. I just choose to dismiss them altogether, but if gamers had to settle on a definition of the two then I would go with what you just said.