ITT I learn that when I fire a red shell at my buddy in Mario Kart, I’m not playing a game. I’m opening a JPEG.
Throwing a baby penguin over a cliff.
I don’t think I can even begin to understand what your OPINION of what a game is Gnalvl. You’re saying that because you find a game to be easy it doesn’t have as much interaction and thus making it not a game. It almost sounds like you’re trying to put Nintendo’s titles in the same vein as something that can be played on an iPhone. People can have difference of opinions on what a game is or isn’t and even bash on Nintendo for some of the things they do but your logic is both baffling and headache inducing to me. Why does a game have to have decisions in order to affect the story? Do you actually understand exactly how many games out on the market DON’T do this? At this point I’m going to have to agree with Zoolander and just not pay any attention to what you have to say on the subject further.
And I did try to read your paragraph of stuff but the fact that you even attempted to say that Super Mario 64 and OoT were asset galleries made me not compute the rest of it. I’ll tell you right now that if you tried to present what you said in a presentation to the game industry, most of them would walk out on you.
Different challenges can be harder or easier to different people, but challenge is still a very objective matter. With all other factors being equal, no one can argue that a game which lets you take 8 hits without dieing is more challenging than one which allows you to take only 3 hits before you die.
Thus when we account for the sum total of challenge factors in Nintendo’s 3D games, they are undoubtedly MUCH less challenging than their 2D counterparts.
3D Mario gives you 3-8 hit points from the start, with multiple melee attacks, and 3 axes through which to avoid enemies. 2D Mario starts with 1 hitpoint and no melee attacks, and must increase his hitpoints and attack ability through powerups. He can only avoid enemies through the Z axis. 3D Mario has far fewer instakill pitfalls, and doesn’t even give you any till a few levels into the game. 2D Mario is filled to the brim with pitfalls, and you can fall to your death within seconds of starting the game.
Likewise, compare Zelda 2’s combat to Ocarina. From the first moment of the game, you can’t use your shield without correct usage of high and low blocks. Within the first dungeon, you fight enemies with equal abilities to you, who cannot be beaten without a very fast and accurate mixup of high and low attacks plus high and low blocks. Immediately after the first dungeon, you’ve got the Goriya enemies, who’s boomerangs circle around to your back, requiring you to rapidly block left and right, as well as high and low. The game throws many enemies at you at a time, and in many situations, if you don’t kill the first few enemies quickly and immediately, you will be run down by others which come from opposite directions.
By comparison, there is 0 technique to using the shield in Ocarina. Enemies spit projectiles at you in extremely slow patterns, so you see them coming a mile away, and Z targeting makes it impossible for your shield to miss. You never need specific directional attacks to beat any enemies; at most, enemies like skulltulas must be cut in the back, but since they intentionally expose their backs to you in slow, predictable patterns, without even attacking you, it’s a non-issue. Pretty much every other enemy can be killed with a basic lunge attack without any specific timing or technique. You pretty much never get overrun by many enemies at once, and the only enemies with equal capabilities to yours are the Stalfos knights encountered far and few between in the late game.
That’s garbage. Yes, the NSMB series feels somewhat whatered down compared to the original SMB games, but they’re still FAR more challenging than SM64 or Ocarina. NSMB still starts you with just 1 hitpoint, there’s still just 1 axis through which to circumvent enemies, and pitfalls are still everywhere. There’s simply no comparison.
Pretty much everyone I know, ranging from experienced to casual gamers, can play through the majority of SM64 and Ocarina without dieing much. If you boot these games up with a group of friends over, anyone can pick them up and have next to know problems succeeding.
By comparison, most casual gamers if handed SMB or NES Zelda games will die almost immediately, possibly even in the first or second level. The sheer minimum ammount of reflexes and memorization required is much higher. Even experienced gamers, who are merely rusty, will probably game over at least once within a 20 minute period. My girlfriend has played through all through SM64 and Ocarina and never goes back to them cause they’re too easy, yet she can’t rescue Zelda at the beginning of LTTP without dieing 3-4 times in a row.
You’re also completely misinterpretting my point about aesthetics. The fact that 3D Nintendo games look good is not a problem. That fact that there’s so little challenge that interaction tops out at merely oggling at the graphics IS a problem.
No, they don’t at all. The 3D Marios don’t have question mark blocks, your primary attack method is melee fighting instead of stomping enemies and bumping them from underneath. There are extremely few enemies in the game, and you can just run around all of them because they have no reflexes. The health system is completely different, powerups basically only appear as keys used to unlock secrets in a few specific levels, they aren’t the SMB trademark powerups, and aren’t even remotely needed for survival.
For all intents in purposes, the 3D Mario titles, up until 3D World, are just a random 3D collectathon with the Mario character shoehorned in.
As I stated above, there are practically zero instances in 3D Zelda where attacking, gaurding, or dodging requires specific techniques, especially compared to games like Zelda 2, where failure to block correctly resulted in your swift death by the middle of the first dungeon. In terms of the system itself being inherently flawed; I’ve already pointed out early in the thread how the lack of camera control, and limitations of Z-targetting would lead to serious problems if Nintendo HAD actually included any requisite challenge in the game.
Right, because everyone who doesn’t like the same games as you deserves to be banned, and talking about flagship Nintendo games in a Nintendo-dedicated thread is a complete derailment.
No question mark blocks, not a mario game! 
Man, you must suck at old-school Nintendo games.
Can one bad console gen really ruin a comp like Nintendo? WiiU is flabbergastin’ bullshit but they’ll bounce back.
Most complaints I heard about Nintendo consoles.
NES wasn’t powerful enough since everyone was used to making arcade games.
SNES They went with 65816 which was the super version of the 6502. Not really a complaint unless you hated the 6502 architecture for some reason.
N64 They used cartridges so they had less space for their games and were more expensive to produce.
Gamecube the biggest complaint was actually the controller not the mini dvds as you could just use dvds in the dev kits.
Wii not powerful enough.
If you don’t believe enemy, environment, and puzzle challenge is the SOLE interaction in most games, ask yourself what IS the interaction in games. If you can’t actually explain what the interaction in a game is, how can you hope to discuss games at all? Why do you even bother posting on these forums
OF COURSE I understand that. Specs asserted that there were other meaningful interactions in games besides challenge. Therefore, I brought up the lack of player’s effect on the story as an example where meaningful interaction besides story does NOT exist. The rarity of which any games include story interaction was my ENTIRE point.
Let me ask you this, do you actually understand context, and how it affects the meaning of statements people make? Did you pass 1st grade reading comprehension?
This is a hilarious assertion, and I’ve give you an example to show why.
Anita Sarkeesian makes a video series pointing out sexist tropes in videogames. People on internet forums immediately stop listening, fail to understand her statements, and begin unleashing intense hate and sexual harassment, claiming that her work would never be taken seriously, and this reaction all stems from the fact that gamers are retarded man-children who cannot accept criticism of games they like. As a result of her work and the controversy surrounding it, she is now invited to give industry presentations everywhere, and the game community’s pathetic reactions are held as a social study unto itself.
I point out that games are all about interaction, which means fundamentally that games with less interaction are inferior games. People on SRK refuse to understand and respond with hate, because they’re manchildren who can’t accept someone criticizing games they like. For you to follow this by saying that my statements about the fundamentals of games would never be taken seriously at an industry presentation, is a hilarious accidental parody of the Sarkeesian fiasco, showing that fanboys really have no fucking clue. Exactly, why would you even consider yourself an authority on what industry insiders would take seriously?
I mean come on, I point out that games are about interaction, and you guys react like you think the world is flat, and I just said it was round. Clueless!
If you don’t understand how the 2D games are harder, you suck at basic math. Let me walk you through it:
“3D Mario gives you 3-8 hit points from the start, with multiple melee attacks, and 3 axes through which to avoid enemies. 2D Mario starts with 1 hitpoint and no melee attacks, and must increase his hitpoints and attack ability through powerups. He can only avoid enemies through the Z axis. 3D Mario has far fewer instakill pitfalls, and doesn’t even give you any till a few levels into the game. 2D Mario is filled to the brim with pitfalls, and you can fall to your death within seconds of starting the game.”
SM64 less places to fall and die < SMB more places to fall and die
less < more
SM64 2 axes available to avoid enemies > SMB 1 axis available to avoid enemies
2 > 1
SM64 3-5 different melee attacks > SMB 0 melee attacks
5 > 0
SM64 8 hitpoints > SMB 1 hitpoint
8 > 1
Therefore, SMB is obviously harder by all objective measures.
GG, retard.
I like the cube controller, except the C-stick, it was comfortable and a THOUSAND times better than the N64 controller.
I like that the wiiupro controller is a failed DS4 prototype though.
Did this dude Gnalvl really just liken himself to Anita Sarkeesian? The woman who has been proven to be a fraud, shyster, and a sensationalist just fishing for attention/money/fame? Now the picture is as clear as crystal…
Alright folks, shows over… Nothing more to see here.
Anita’s pussy was an asset, in playing her game, though.
All Gnalvl’s pussy is doing is stinking up this thread.
The only thing objective about 8 hits vs. 3 is that 8 is technically greater than 3. Challenge is far, far more complex than that, and not objectively measurable. e.g., The 3 hit game might have invincibility windows in between hits, and the 8 hit game might have enemies who can E. Honda slap you 8 times in rapid succession, effectively one-shotting you. In platformers, pitfalls are a hazard that cut immediately into your health no matter how high. Sabin isn’t 10 times more durable than Crono just because the former has 9999 HP compared to the latter’s measly 999. To claim 8 > 3 and therefore a game with 3 hit lifebars is objectively more challenging is, at best, horrendously lazy.
As for 3D Zelda combat, you’re objectively wrong. You still have to consider surrounding enemies when locked on to your current one, surrounding terrain, etc. You can argue that 3D Zelda doesn’t ask you to do as much of this as it should, which may well be a valid point, but the idea they aren’t handling some kind of combat system with an end goal, obstacles, and a toolset for your player character is beyond silly.
I’m not going to dignify the “Mario 64 has no question blocks and Mario punches so the flavor is gone” sentiment with a response.
You think Super Mario Bros is harder because you can’t jump over the fucking pits?!?! HAHAHAHA! I’m seriously laughing my ass off at you right now!
This is Gnalvl:
Edit: Please keep this shit going man, your posts are pure gold! 
No, it’s horrendously lazy that you’ve attempted this argument, yet failed to point out any such extenuating circumstances which somehow make SMB much more forgiving than SM64. I prefaced my previous statements with “all other factors being equal” because there are no other mitigating factors which affect challenge in SM64 and SMB, and you know it. There are invincibility windows in both games, a fact that is rendered largely irrelevant by the fact that SMB starts you with 1 hitpoint the majority of the time, so you never get a chance to have an invincibility window before you next hit.
No, you don’t have to consider surrounding enemies. In 3D Zelda you rarely EVER get into combat with multiple enemies at once, and even when you do, they’re so slow and unagressive that it’s typically a non-issue. The fact that you haven’t even addressed the high/low mixup required to block and attack in Zelda 2 just goes to show what a fallacy your argument is. You’re not being objective, you coming at this with rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, ignoring the obvious facts as if you’ve never even played these fricking games.
This is hilarious. The whole central characteristic of Mario is that he’s a diminutive, out-of-shape plumber, rather than a big strong tough guy who can pummel his enemies into submission. The fact that you couldn’t punch or kick enemies to death is what separated games like Super Mario Bros. from games like Double Dragon or Battletoads. Mario succeeds by being resourceful and finding magic items and tricks to trip up enemies, rather than winning through brute force. A Mario game without trademark magic blocks and powerups is as true to the franchise as a Bionic Commando game with no grappling hook.
Right, because borrowing someone’s raw footage of a game cutscene which the original uploader had no hand in creating = fraud, and has anything to do with whether story tropes in a game are or aren’t sexist. :rolleyes:
Thanks for proving my point. Manchildren…
Good to see you’ve taken up failing at both math and basic reading comprehension now.
Here’s today’s lesson:
The X axis denotes Mario moving left and right across the screen.
The Y axis denotes Mario moving forward and back (which is impossible in the 2D games)
The Z axis denotes Mario moving up and down.
Mario has to move along the X axis in order to reach the goal, so that’s a given. In the 2D games, if Mario only moves along the X axis, he will run into enemies and die. Therefore, he has to jump, using the Z axis, in order to avoid the enemy. If he only moves along the X axis, he will fail to avoid the enemy.
The Z axis is tricky, because gravity enforces specific limitations on movement. If Mario doesn’t time the jump right, he’ll fail. He also has decreased ability to change directions while in mid-air, and his path is tightly controlled - he has to come back down to the ground after a short time.
By comparison, in SM64, Mario can always avoid enemies by running around them on the Y axis. There is no gravity limitation here - Mario can run as far away from the enemy on Y as there is room (there is typically a LOT of room on the Y axis), and there is no force which pulls Mario back to his original Y axis position after a limited amount of time.
Therefore, avoiding enemies in SM64 is MUCH easier (and it doesn’t have to be).
Try hooked on phonics maybe?
G3nshiro’s little bro has done an amazing job thus far, niggas can’t help but bite and then complain why a hook is in their mouth.
:lol:
This post does not contribute to the discussion, nor is it funny, so I decided to delete it.
This will be my last post on the matter, as we’re not having a debate here. I’m trying to educate you, and receiving neither a) financial compensation for my time nor b) the satisfaction of teaching a receptive student.
Subjectively, I do not enjoy 3D Zelda combat or exploration, feeling that the combat system feels too much like Punch Out and less like the more frantic – but often still too easy – 2D Zelda combat. Others disagree.
Objectively, challenge in games is a complex beast involving level design and tuning of difficulty according to what a designer feels will lead to the most enjoyment for their target audience. No game can appeal to everyone, and no intelligent game dev will design in a way to appeal to all, instead opting to please a specific niche.
How much or little you enjoy the challenge and feel of a particular game is subjective. It’s the realm of opinion. Granted, this does NOT mean that opinions shouldn’t be backed or defended; facts are atoms and opinions are molecules, and strong opinions especially. But an opinion it will always remain, for infinity, beyond any desire to change it, as barring suddenly acquiring the Infinity Gauntlet you can’t change how reality works enough to make your opinions factual.
How a game actually works is objective, and objectively, 3D Marios and Zeldas have all the things necessary for a video game: goals, obstacles, and skills for your player character(s) to use to conquer the obstacles and achieve the goals. You don’t have to like how they feel – I don’t like how 3D Zelda feels, just how I dislike how modern 2D Mario games feel since NSMB – but they’re just as much and as valid a game as their predecessors.
Ongoing series go through iteration. Mario punching things in 64 is no more or less jarring than Mario plucking vegetables and hucking them in Mario 2 or grabbing and kicking Koopa shells in Mario 3. See also: Yoshi’s Island, which is wildly different mechanically from its predecessor, yet featuring super tight level design and well-tuned challenges. Iteration means things that are similar on the surface can actually feel and play wildly different (Mario 3 and Mario World).
My advice: while there are no doubt angry Nintendo fanboys giddily taking potshots at you because they’re angry Nintendo fanboys and all that’s needed to irk them is any stance critical of Nintendo, not everyone trying to educate you in this thread is an angry Nintendo fanboy. You’re doing a lot of talking, and not a lot of listening.
Actually, you already failed to distill the objective parts of the design in this sentence, since what the designer feels about his audience is subjective, and so is any concept of what the target audience actually enjoys.
No one is talking about whether they like SM64 or Ocarina’s mechanics, or how they feel, we’re talking about objectively, whether or not they are challenging. I have presented many mechanical differences which objectively make these games far less challenging, and you have failed entirely to mention any mechanical differences which make the game equally or more challenging.
Mario 2 is not even a Mario game; it’s Doki Doki Panic. And throwing vegetables is obviously much less jarring anyway, because it’s an unconventional method of defeating opponents, rather than the direct manner of merely punching them to death. Grabbing shells in Mario 3 is just an evolution of the existing shell mechanics.
Yoshi’s island is a spinoff, and Yoshi’s primary gameplay is mostly the same as SMW - he eats enemies with his tongue or spits them out at enemies. He isn’t bashing them into submission with karate moves or gunning them down with machineguns.
Again, you have entirely failed to grasp the point of this discussion.
Whether anyone enjoys SM64 or Ocarina is not the subject of this discussion. We have already established that objectively what makes games games is interaction. You guys have failed to cite any interaction in the structures of these games which is not enemy, environment, or puzzle-based challenge, and you have failed to cite any mechanics which compensate for the many mechanical aspects of them which drastically reduce the challenge. Therefore, it is obvious that by the very objective definition of what makes games games, these are weaker games than their predecessors.
If we were having a subjective discussion, we would be talking about what makes games fun. But a fun game is not necessarily a good game, and it’s entirely possible to enjoy a game which isn’t actually a good game at all. Some people will like a game just because of a specific character or story that appeals to them, because it’s based on their favorite tv show, or because they like the BGM…it’s totally arbitrary. Moreover, there are absolutely no constructive conclusions that could be drawn from subjective discussion about what’s enjoyable about a game, since no one on this forum gives a fuck about anyone else’s personal tastes - if anything, personal taste is the number one cause on this forum to receive insults and flames.
The original structure of SMB and Zelda was to provide action and exploration gameplay via enemy, environment, and puzzle challenges. The newer games are plainly inferior at doing this; they are far less challenging. The enemies are sparse, slow, and easy to beat, resulting in less action. The environments are sparse and empty, resulting in less exploration. The puzzles are at best, equally simple as their 2D counterparts.
Anyone is free to say they enjoyed these games anyway because the 3D wowed them, or they came at an influential time in their childhood, but it’s irrelevant and I honestly don’t give a fuck. I am not here to get touchy-feely with you guys and go round robbin hugging Nintendo and Sega plushies - I’m here to discuss game mechanics. I thought that coming back to the SRK forums, where fighting game mechanics are allegedly understood and discussed in full, there’d be people capable of discussing the mechanics of other games, but I obviously overestimated you guys. Outside FG’s, you have no interest in discussing mechanics, all you want to do is throw juvenile insults and make juvenile excuses any time someone criticizes games you like.
I tried.