Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
| Replies:
|
Time Mage 1106th Post

 
Red Carpet Premium Member+
 
    
    
   
| "Time Mage's exhaustive explanation(long post)" , posted Mon 16 Dec 13:12
quote: I courious about Your opinion Time Mage.
Well, now that I have time, I'll elaborate:
First, Mario 64 was very good. So good, that it created a new genre, the 3D platformers. The concept was different, now you hadn't to pass stages, you had to do missions in certain worlds, so when you finished all the missions, you ended exploring them perfectly. Each mission had something that made it unique, whether it be a race, a particulary difficult set of jumps, a time-trial mission, colect missions, etc...
This game was good, very good, I repeat, and was recognized as it worldwide. Then, the clones came. Ones were good (Banjo-Kazooie) and others, bad (DKC64, in MY opinion), because they only offered you what M64 invented, but in different forms and greater quantities. Note that more isn't better, that's the reason I didn't liked DKC64, it offered MANY things to do, but the path to do them was very fixed, and also there were an overwhelming quantity of stupid things to collect... too disperse. That and the abilities of the Kongs (many of them pointless or stupid), etc...
Now, here comes Super Mario Sunshine. It wasn't as innovative as Mario 64, because it was, basically, a continuation. But, instead of adding "more, but different" SMS added the elements that M64 hadn't (difficulty and bosses), and also some very interesting gameplay adictions, like the waterpack. The "platformer" element was more present, so, when M64 was more about exploration, SMS is more a platformer, and the maximum expression of it are the no-waterpack missions. To sum up, I like to think of SMS as Super Mario World was to Super Mario 3: More, but better.
P.D.: I LOVE 2D platformers.
|
|
|