Originally posted by Lana
See, as much as I love Mario, I've never quite thought that Mario 64 was the perfect game that a lot of people seem to think it is. Very very good game, but not perfect. There's still a lot that's better.I have a feeling that this will continue to be the case for me with Galaxy.
Since when is something right just because a majority thinks so?
The reviews are simply opinion too, you know.
Mario 64 wasn't perfect, no game in existence is. But for its time it was as good as anyone could reasonably expect any game to be, especially as it was also revolutionary while being this good. Really, it was as close to perfection as any game. Too often, a game is trying to be revolutionary, and so much effort goes into doing this new stuff that the basic fundamentals get neglected, and as a result other aspects suffer (a current example of this is Assassin's Creed, according to many reviews). Mario 64 found a way to be as revolutionary as any game in history, while also being pure simple undiluted fun.
Galaxy isn't nearly as revolutionary, it innovates, but it isn't doing anything completely new. But, I would say it's a better game. It nails everything it tries to do, and actually does come very close to perfection. The only flaw I see in Galaxy is that the camera system screws up sometimes and gets into a view that makes simply walking forward difficult. But it's rare.
Originally posted by Lana
You would not believe the amount of discussion that has been had on this topic before 😂 😛
Much of it by myself, I am quite willing to admit.
Bowser/Peach is possibly my favorite video game pairing. 😊
Originally posted by BackFire
Mario 64 wasn't perfect, no game in existence is. But for its time it was as good as anyone could reasonably expect any game to be, especially as it was also revolutionary while being this good. Really, it was as close to perfection as any game. Too often, a game is trying to be revolutionary, and so much effort goes into doing this new stuff that the basic fundamentals get neglected, and as a result other aspects suffer (a current example of this is Assassin's Creed, according to many reviews). Mario 64 found a way to be as revolutionary as any game in history, while also being pure simple undiluted fun.Galaxy isn't nearly as revolutionary, it innovates, but it isn't doing anything completely new. But, I would say it's a better game. It nails everything it tries to do, and actually does come very close to perfection. The only flaw I see in Galaxy is that the camera system screws up sometimes and gets into a view that makes simply walking forward difficult. But it's rare.
Really, the one big thing Mario 64 had going for it was near-perfection of 3D platforming. And unless we can somehow stuff in more "D"s, that sort of revolution simply can't be repeated.
Galaxy's claim to fame, I would say, is mostly due to refining the 3D platforming formula and using tweaked physics to make it interesting again. I'm not sure I'd call the game perfect, but it is definitely the best game in the Wii's catalogue.
Originally posted by BackFire
Mario 64 wasn't perfect, no game in existence is. But for its time it was as good as anyone could reasonably expect any game to be, especially as it was also revolutionary while being this good. Really, it was as close to perfection as any game. Too often, a game is trying to be revolutionary, and so much effort goes into doing this new stuff that the basic fundamentals get neglected, and as a result other aspects suffer (a current example of this is Assassin's Creed, according to many reviews). Mario 64 found a way to be as revolutionary as any game in history, while also being pure simple undiluted fun.Galaxy isn't nearly as revolutionary, it innovates, but it isn't doing anything completely new. But, I would say it's a better game. It nails everything it tries to do, and actually does come very close to perfection. The only flaw I see in Galaxy is that the camera system screws up sometimes and gets into a view that makes simply walking forward difficult. But it's rare.
I dunno, I suppose. I mean, it WAS a great game, and still is compared to a lot that are out there...but in all honesty I've played a lot that I've found a lot more fun 😛
Kaliero -Yep, totally agreed. It really is Wii's best game by a good margin, I think.
Lana -- That's fine. Fun is subjective, and yadda yadda. But, Mario 64's importance to gaming and especially the genre is second to none. The actual flaws of the game are incredibly minor and rare, it does come as close to perfection, objectively speaking, as any other game out there.
Also, Lana, did you actually play Mario 64 when it was first released?
Originally posted by BackFire
Kaliero -Yep, totally agreed. It really is Wii's best game by a good margin, I think.Lana -- That's fine. Fun is subjective, and yadda yadda. But, Mario 64's importance to gaming and especially the genre is second to none. The actual flaws of the game are incredibly minor and rare, it does come as close to perfection, objectively speaking, as any other game out there.
Also, Lana, did you actually play Mario 64 when it was first released?
Crap, when did that game come out? 1996? Yeah, I got it the Christmas it came out. I was 10 years old, and that and Diddy Kong Racing were the only N64 games we had for about 4 months 😛
I dunno, I guess I just don't like it as much now as I did as a kid? I mean, it's still a great game, and it's still a lot better than most games out now and I'm definitely not denying the impact it had on gaming. It's still fun. I just don't find it as much fun as I did 10-11 years ago. Where I used to be able to play Mario 64 for 6 hours straight easily, now I get bored within 45 minutes.
Yeah, but how many games that are 10 years old are still as purely impressive and fun now as they were when they were first released? I'll tell you: none. Games don't age well. Because other games will take the innovation that a game like Mario 64 had, and build upon it, making their games better. That doesn't change that, when Mario 64 was first released, nothing like it had been done before, it was doing something pretty much completely new and had nothing to build on, they were pretty much creating a genre from scratch.
When discussing the quality of the game, it's only reasonable to take into account how good it was at the time of its release, not how good it is now, compared to other games that have had 10 years of innovation to work with.
Final Fantasy VI is my favorite game ever made. But playing it now, I don't enjoy it nearly as much as I did when I first played it. When FFX is 10 years old, go play it again, after you've played FFXIII and FFXIV, and note if you are still as awestruck as you were when you first played it.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I'll agree that it's true for the most part, but Super Mario Bros. is just as much fun now as it was back when I first held that rectangular little controller.I think OoT is just as fun now as it was then, but I use a lot more shortcuts now.
You don't think that much of the "awe" is gone, now that you know what to expect and know what to do?
See, now, I disagree with that. Not all games don't age well, and there's several games I still find as impressive and fun as they were when they came out, despite their age. Almost moreso, even, now that I'm older and can appreciate the impact they've had (OoT is definitely one of them).
And I don't know about that one 😛 FFX doesn't quite have the same emotional impact on me that it did my first playthrough (mostly because I know what happens in it), but 6 years on I still enjoy it as much as I did the very first time I put it in the PS2. Don't think that'll change much in another couple years.
I'm not required to think a game is near-perfect because everyone else thinks so, you know 😛
No game will have that same "Wow" factor as they had when you first played them. Especially a game like OoT where exploration is so key, I just don't see how it's possible to get the exact same amount of enjoyment out of it after knowing where to go and what to do, that would hamper the fun for me, and keep it from being as fun as when I first played it. And that "Wow" factor was a big part of games like Mario 64 and OoT.
That's fine if you don't think Mario 64 is near perfect. I'd like to know what significant flaws you think the game had, when compared fairly to other games of the time.
Originally posted by BackFire
No game will have that same "Wow" factor as they had when you first played them. Especially a game like OoT where exploration is so key, I just don't see how it's possible to get the exact same amount of enjoyment out of it after knowing where to go and what to do, that would hamper the fun for me, and keep it from being as fun as when I first played it. And that "Wow" factor was a big part of games like Mario 64 and OoT.That's fine if you don't think Mario 64 is near perfect. I'd like to know what significant flaws you think the game had, when compared fairly to other games of the time.
Where did I ever say I thought there were any significant flaws in it?
And I will have to disagree on games not having the same 'wow' factor on a repeat playthrough because I think that is very much possible.
Originally posted by BackFire
You don't think that much of the "awe" is gone, now that you know what to expect and know what to do?
No. I still appreciate OoT, even now, 9 years later, for being one of the most expertly told game stories ever. Which is even better now that I understand the principles of storytelling. It's not that an exact amount of enjoyment is lost over the years, it's that I gain enjoyment from different things as my mental perspective changes.
Originally posted by Lana
Where did I ever say I thought there were any significant flaws in it?And I will have to disagree on games not having the same 'wow' factor on a repeat playthrough because I think that is very much possible.
A game not being close to perfect suggests that there are flaws in the game, I'd like to know what they are, to you.
But, to each their own, I guess. I fail to see how the sense of exploration is as strong now in OoT as it was when the game was first played, when you didn't know exactly what to do to beat a dungeon and already know the story and such.
Originally posted by BackFire
A game not being close to perfect suggests that there are flaws in the game, I'd like to know what they are, to you.But, to each their own, I guess. I fail to see how the sense of exploration is as strong now in OoT as it was when the game was first played, when you didn't know exactly what to do to beat a dungeon and already know the story and such.
I don't think me saying that I don't think the game to be near-perfect suggests there are flaws at all. A game can be completely flawless yet there will be people who will not like it. It just means that I don't think the game is as perfect as it's generally made out to be.
Opinions rock.