Support NeoGAF

[Solid Samus]

Yup, basically.

Basically that perception is the fault of Nintendo's awful marketing and not at all indicative of the kind of variety and creativity that's actually on show in the game. I just wanna point that out again. It's shockingly less 'been there done that' then you guys make it out to be at least based on having watched more than half the game being played at this point.

I'm just tired of the game being judged entirely on surface similarities to another game and not based on its own merits or its differentiating factors, of which there's far more than you'll acknowledge.

 

[Freezie KO]

One aesthetic miss

You keep saying "aesthetic" over and over again, ad nauseum, but that's not the primary complaint here. And repeating "aesthetic" won't make it true.

The levels being made up of the flat square tiles from 3D Land is not (only) an aesthetic choice. It affects gameplay. This is central to how the game will play, and the entire level design philosophy is based on this concept from 3D Land.

The limited 3D movement in much of those square spaces is not an aesthetic choice. It's purposely designed to appeal to people who are more comfortable playing in 2D. If you love that, good for you. But stop repeating like a broken record that it only relates to aesthetics. It relates to play.

The decision to retain 3D Land tropes such as the timer for 3D Mario or the 3 Star Coins/Green Stars is also not an aesthetic choice. It's gameplay.

Same goes for the limited moveset, the 12 directional movement, the run button for 3D Mario, the return of the Tanooki suit behaving just like it did in the 3D Land, etc. These are not aesthetics borrowed from 3D Land. These are core mechanics that make up the experience.

You seem to want to have it both ways. You want to pretend that other people only care about aesthetics, as if that makes them "shallow gamers" or something. Not only isn't that true, you yourself posted in your first reply to me about how you were pleased with the "art style" and the "old and new visual concepts." And you've mentioned the soundtrack several times, which is obviously not gameplay. So not only are you misrepresenting other people, you're also being hypocritical with your argument by praising as important the very aspects you're downplaying.

 

[Solid Samus]

You keep saying "aesthetic" over and over again, ad nauseum, but that's not the primary complaint here. And repeating "aesthetic" won't make it true.

The levels being made up of the flat square tiles from 3D Land is not (only) an aesthetic choice. It affects gameplay. This is central to how the game will play, and the entire level design philosophy is based on this concept from 3D Land.

The limited 3D movement in much of those square spaces is not an aesthetic choice. It's purposely designed to appeal to people who are more comfortable playing in 2D. If you love that, good for you. But stop repeating like a broken record that it only relates to aesthetics. It relates to play.

The decision to retain 3D Land tropes such as the timer for 3D Mario or the 3 Star Coins/Green Stars is also not an aesthetic choice. It's gameplay.

Same goes for the limited moveset, the 12 directional movement, the run button for 3D Mario, the return of the Tanooki suit behaving just like it did in the 3D Land, etc. These are not aesthetics borrowed from 3D Land. These are core mechanics that make up the experience.

You seem to want to have it both ways. You want to pretend that other people only care about aesthetics, as if that makes them "shallow gamers" or something. Not only isn't that true, you yourself posted in your first reply to me about how you were pleased with the "art style" and the "old and new visual concepts." And you've mentioned the soundtrack several times, which is obviously not gameplay. So not only are you misrepresenting other people, you're also being hypocritical with your argument by praising as important the very aspects you're downplaying.

These are all aspects of design that are in no way inconducive to quality, polished, creative platforming. They may effect gameplay but that's not to say they effect it negatively - keep that in mind. That's why I say it's an aesthetically grounded argument - because at its core you're not bothered by the impact the art design and level format (which isn't always able to be boiled down to simple rectangular platforms, mind you) has on the gameplay, or you'd acknowledge the game's overwhelmingly positive reception and the constant reiteration by reviewers that these fears should be put to rest based on the caliber of the level design and the kind of genuine surprises and creativity on show DESPITE it. Let's not forget that beyond the space motif Galaxy 2 was largely small floating platforms whose claim to genuine fun was throwing new gameplay ideas at you left and right, something that this game also does not fail to do with reckless abandon, enough so that it's damn near on Galaxy's level insofar as ratings without even boasting a gimmick like space to strengthen its core.
And again I brought up the music and the art direction because for some of you it's okay to call them uninspired or lazy too despite those things damn near being objectively false at this point.

 

[Freezie KO]

you're not bothered by the impact the art design and level format [...] has on the gameplay

Again, you don't get to decide what other people are bothered by or what their criticisms are.

I listed specific mechanics and design choices in which this game is a direct sequel to 3D Land and how that influences the very core of the gameplay. My position is "This game is a direct sequel, and I wanted something more original." Nothing you've said contradicts that position.

And I don't know why you're bringing up Galaxy 2. Nobody is denying that game is a direct sequel. However, that game is a follow-up to a game on the same hardware with the same engine. It doesn't carry the same expectations as a the first 3D Mario on Nintendo's first HD console.

 

[Solid Samus]

Again, you don't get to decide what other people are bothered by or what their criticisms are.

I listed specific mechanics and design choices in which this game is a direct sequel to 3D Land and how that influences the very core of the gameplay. My position is "This game is a direct sequel, and I wanted something more original." Nothing you've said contradicts that position.

Much of what I've said over the last three pages contradicts that position (and the reasoning that this game is lacking any originality or soul of its own) and provides valid reasoning for such. If you feel that the game doesn't feel original enough for you than fair enough. I'm saying that there's a lot more originality and creativity on display in this title than you give it credit for, even if it can be found in a title which at first glance gives off a safe vibe due to Nintendo's unreasonably boilerplate first round of marketing for the game.

You can pine all you want for the next big bombastic Mario given that Nintendo's given us no reason to believe there won't be another one but after two of the best in one generation with middling sales you'd think you'd be a little less disappointed that Nintendo put out just ONE 3D console Mario that defies the expectations of traditional 3D Mario to boost the 3D series' relevance and userbase without compromising their inspired game design philosophies, or at least display a little faith in them to defy your expectations occasionally without people going into DEY HAVE FORSAKEN US mode on a dime.

3D Land might affect the core of 3D World but there's tons of differences big and small setting them apart. More varied movement options with tweaked movement and momentum across four characters suited to different platforming challenges, with level design concepts that go far beyond the more traditional base platforming level design found in 3D Land and powerups and stage gimmicks that shake up the concepts of 3D traversal and enemy avoidance/dispatching in Mario games more than any since Mario 64's various Caps (and therefore help to lead to new level design concepts to begin with). I still feel like it's unfair to judge 3D World based on the limitations of 3D Land or the implication that as it's built on the foundation of 3D Land it doesn't do enough to stand out on its own, when nearly all the media and reviews out there go against that idea in spades.

I'm not even saying to take reviews at face value despite their unanimity but it's worth considering that 3D World doesn't have an overarching gimmick like gravity or Wii U maxxing presentation to fall back on - it's being judged on the merits of its gameplay alone and it's reviewing quite well despite it with universal comparisons to Galaxy. And that should say something.

I implore you, watch a 60fps stream of any given world playthrough. The game has a hell of a lot going for it and looks like the kind of game that will have a lot of mileage with a lot of people. Constant creativity with the kind of attention to level design that turns the boiled down concept of 'floating rectangle stages' on its head quite often. It's a game that practically screams fun at all times and yet you can't shake your disappointment over the fact that it shares aspects of its formula with a scaled down, less nuanced, less varied handheld aside. A formula that mind you enables things you don't often see in 3D platformers or 3D Mario even, like powerups that aren't timed one-offs that occasionally control like shit like in every other 3D Mario and have much more relevancy to the core gameplay as a result (enhancing it and introducing new traversal and survival options to the entire game instead of serving as stage gimmicks and nothing else), a better sense of situational awarement and spacial recognition relevant to a tight focused platforming experience leading to level designs that can take new risks, multiplayer gameplay, an immediate sense of familiarity to a gameplay formula that seems quite foreign to many, etc. etc.

Freezie I'm not going to act like I've been fair to when responding to you the last couple of months. Way back when 3D Land's trademark was leaked I speculated on what it was and immediately understood what it was and why Nintendo might want to experiment with that sort of Mario game. I'm one of the people who subscribes to the camp of being in love with this take on the series and wanted to see it expanded upon, and this at the very least amounts to a large expansion. So what seems boilerplate to you is damn near the Mario of my dreams, you know? Like, to me going from 3D Land to 3D World is like going from Mario 64 to Mario Galaxy. Might be refinement but it's refinement at it's best as far as I can see. And I also believe that 3D World makes a lot of business sense as well. So sometimes I get a little aggressive in my claims as a result of my personal bias to which I try to compensate for finding out as much as possible about these games via developer interviews and spoiler footage to have objective reasoning for what I believe. Anyways I'd like to apologize for my attitude and some of my nitpickings. That's what I believe about the game and at this point the only way I see this difference of opinion being resolved is when we both have our own opportunities to sample the final product as we please.