You know this is the second time i've tried to get through this game and within 10 minutes I am absolutely bored. Also the camara flat out sucks in it. I want to like this game but I just can't. Another part me wants to stick it out and finish just so I can say I did but I have a feeling the ending is going to let me down too.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Was there ever a Mario Sunshine party?
- Thread starter Snookie
- Start date
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
Snookie said:
The ending bites and the blue coins collection thing was crap due to heaps of them being so obscure, but the rest of the game is gold. The camera is really only TERRIBLE on the fun park level when you have to climb the tower. I loved the game until 90ish shines.
Really let down by the fact that some blue coins only appear when you pick a certain shine on the level screen as well.
Joseph Merrick
Member
Playing a game for its ending? Heh!
Yep.catfish said:
Joseph Merrick
Member
It's okay. Apart from crashing into invisible walls. Gawd.Oogami said:
No, it was cancelled.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
I've been watching my son play it recently. I had fun passing some of the tougher parts for him.
Azure Dream
Member
If you're playing a Mario game for the plot or ending, anything short of an Alphadream or SquareEnix game and you're making a big mistake. I was just thinking earlier today how much vapid Peach agitated me. "I'm your momma?" she said, as if she ACTUALLY WASN'T SURE. I swear that was done as a knee-jerk reaction to her more confident appearance in SSBM.
I enjoyed a good deal of Sunshine, but felt that the game wasn't designed to be GCN's big Mario title. It would've been so much better accepted as a late N64 release. At the very least, it touched up some of Mario 64's rougher control aspects (and no more punching, at least, back to more of an emphasis on stomping), the water effects and draw distance were impressive (if a little overboard, in some situations it would draw the enviroments, but not the objects, so it didn't always do you that much good), and FLUDD had some interesting gameplay aspects (hovering to save yourself after a bad jump was gold).
The camera went completely daft, though. What was worse that if it was solely a dumb camera, I could absolutely deal with that, but you'd get to a certain area or point and it'd start FIGHTING with you, insisting on some inane angles. Pachinko machine, hurrah.
Also, looking back at early media for the game is confusing, because many aspects looked more advanced in the initial media. By the end, things became very boxy and N64-y, while the early videos had at least a Dreamcast vibe. I'm not saying the graphics were N64 level (but many certainly weren't using the GCN to the fullest, and the framerate went from 60 at the tradeshows to cut to 30 at release, and they couldn't even hold it thanks to issues with the water and reflections), but the designs and styles echoed that same boxyness and blurriness. It was developed with the previous console's design concepts in mind.
It's by no means a bad game, I just wish it hadn't been "the" big Mario game for the GCN. Why are we down to just one anymore, anyway? Back on the NES we had three (four if you include both SMB2s), and on the SNES there was arguably 2 (depending on if you count YI as part of the same direct series). The PS2 received at least three of their big platformer licenses (Jak, R&C, and Sly). I think the reason Sunshine stung was that we had to "make do" with that as the big Mario platformer title on the Cube, and if platformer fans wanted more, they had to scrape together what they could from the Party games and SSBM, or pay more attention to other series.
I enjoyed a good deal of Sunshine, but felt that the game wasn't designed to be GCN's big Mario title. It would've been so much better accepted as a late N64 release. At the very least, it touched up some of Mario 64's rougher control aspects (and no more punching, at least, back to more of an emphasis on stomping), the water effects and draw distance were impressive (if a little overboard, in some situations it would draw the enviroments, but not the objects, so it didn't always do you that much good), and FLUDD had some interesting gameplay aspects (hovering to save yourself after a bad jump was gold).
The camera went completely daft, though. What was worse that if it was solely a dumb camera, I could absolutely deal with that, but you'd get to a certain area or point and it'd start FIGHTING with you, insisting on some inane angles. Pachinko machine, hurrah.
Also, looking back at early media for the game is confusing, because many aspects looked more advanced in the initial media. By the end, things became very boxy and N64-y, while the early videos had at least a Dreamcast vibe. I'm not saying the graphics were N64 level (but many certainly weren't using the GCN to the fullest, and the framerate went from 60 at the tradeshows to cut to 30 at release, and they couldn't even hold it thanks to issues with the water and reflections), but the designs and styles echoed that same boxyness and blurriness. It was developed with the previous console's design concepts in mind.
It's by no means a bad game, I just wish it hadn't been "the" big Mario game for the GCN. Why are we down to just one anymore, anyway? Back on the NES we had three (four if you include both SMB2s), and on the SNES there was arguably 2 (depending on if you count YI as part of the same direct series). The PS2 received at least three of their big platformer licenses (Jak, R&C, and Sly). I think the reason Sunshine stung was that we had to "make do" with that as the big Mario platformer title on the Cube, and if platformer fans wanted more, they had to scrape together what they could from the Party games and SSBM, or pay more attention to other series.
Joseph Merrick
Member
o rlyR0nn said:
For what it's worth I found Sunshine to be a fairly interesting and enjoyable experience. The game had plenty of flaws, from the repetitive theme and repeating certain missions, mixed visuals and lack of variety in levels. When the game shined (No pun intended), such as Noki Bay, the game had a brilliant mix between traditional platforming with the void levels and excellent objectives relying on the FLUDD. It's a shame more of the game couldn't be like that, but I think overall it was a pretty good experience.
I experienced this when I started to play BATEN KAITOS. I got so bored just after 15 minutes. But I forced myself to play up to around 5-10 hours! Still the game sucked so much.
So I decided to sell the game. It's not worth it to play a game just because the hype was too big to resist buying it. If you don't like it, let it fall.
So I decided to sell the game. It's not worth it to play a game just because the hype was too big to resist buying it. If you don't like it, let it fall.
GitarooMan
Member
My opinion is that game controls were great and well-tuned, but the level design didn't measure up. Noki Bay is a striking exception, but in general I thought the level design and objectives were boring. I'm also not a fan of the "find one shine and restart the level", I prefer the BK type which allows you to just explore the level and find as much as you can. Despite all the problems, it's still worth playing through IMO, but not one of my favorite 3D platformers.
Snookie said:
Yeah I had pretty much the same reaction to SMS as you are having now, it was mostly those inspired mini-levels that kept me playing as long as I did. I think I finished about half way to three quarters through before I put it aside in disgust because the main game just seemed lame and like a chore to play through.
Walter Matthau
Member
_
Last edited:
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
This game is just about soulless. I think that's why it seems like a side-release to the series.
crisdecuba
Member
Haha I totally forgot about that!PolyMan said:
Chittagong
Gold Member
party? nah. think mourning.
The level design was incredibly uninspired and, on top of that, there was little to no variation in each stage's theme at all.
The game's redeeming features were the graphics and, more importantly, those awesome "bonus" levels that brought Mario back to his platforming roots without FLUDD, then had you do them again with FLUDD and a challenge that was somehow almost as hard.
Everything else was just "good."
The game's redeeming features were the graphics and, more importantly, those awesome "bonus" levels that brought Mario back to his platforming roots without FLUDD, then had you do them again with FLUDD and a challenge that was somehow almost as hard.
Everything else was just "good."
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
I had a lot of fun with it. Not enough to go back and get the last 30 or so Shines I missed, but enough fun to look back on it fondly.
I'm pulling an all-nighter right now, but... are you insulting Mario Bros. 2?
Joseph Merrick
Member
Super Mario Bros 2 is great, you swine.
The Guivre
Member
The only thing that really matters to me about Mario Sunshine is that not only did my non-gamer wife play it without complaint. She beat the game, then demanded that I find her a list of all the shines she hadn't gotten.
The only other time she's been nearly that enthusiastic about a game was Pokemon Emerald.
So bless you Mario Sunshine, for giving me hope that one day I'll make a gamer out of my wife, which is really what every gamer wishes for in the end. That and a one console future
The only other time she's been nearly that enthusiastic about a game was Pokemon Emerald.
So bless you Mario Sunshine, for giving me hope that one day I'll make a gamer out of my wife, which is really what every gamer wishes for in the end. That and a one console future
Link
The Autumn Wind
I just found myself getting bored with it, which had never happened with a Mario game before. Besides the lack of variety in the levels, my biggest issues were the ridiculously tedious blue coin challenges, and the fact that you could only get the specific shine you were there for at the time.
The best thing about Mario 64 was that - with some exceptions, of course - pretty much any star in the level was obtainable if you could get to it. This made exploring a lot more fun.
I also wasn't a big fan of Fludd. It made things too cumbersome, and took away a lot of reliance on precision.
The best thing about Mario 64 was that - with some exceptions, of course - pretty much any star in the level was obtainable if you could get to it. This made exploring a lot more fun.
I also wasn't a big fan of Fludd. It made things too cumbersome, and took away a lot of reliance on precision.
Played this game over a weekend solidly when it first came out, to me it rocks. Noki Bay drilled everything.. Sunshine was like an evolution of Mario 64 and it was fun. Other than that, it just didn't have that certain appeal of accomplishment that the other Mario titles had.
radioheadrule83
Banned
D3VI0US said:
Bollocks. Totally different games, totally different styles of game. Supposedly the same genre, but other than that its an apples and oranges comparison.
PoP:SoT is a linear level-by-level swooshing-camera wank fest... but a good one. The actual platforming and puzzles are good, but its not the same kind of platforming in a Mario game. Don't get me wrong, its PoP like it should be (sans metal music too) -- but Mario's a totally different thing.
And Tony Hawks games would make a better comparison to JSRF.
Super Mario Sunshine is a good game. Feel free to throw more platformer comparisons at us that make it seem any other way... I have a strong feeling you'll fail.
Granted - it doesn't have the aesthetic variety of Mario 64. Water, water everywhere; rather like the Wind Waker really. They tried to design a feasable cartoon world, whereas levels in Mario 64 were freeform. There could be ANYTHING behind one of those paintings, it didn't have to conform to a tropical setting. So levels in SMS come off as little-areas in a larger world rather than small virtual playgrounds. Thankfully though, the secret levels (wherein you play without the FLUDD backpack) lean more towards that anything-goes playfulness. If there wasn't a party? There could have been for those levels alone.
I'll even concede that Mario 64 manages to be both more simple and intuitive than Mario Sunshine, yet far more deep and challenging. But honestly, you can probably count the platformers that might be better than this game on one hand. Sunshine is worth the price of admission. There are some good levels/shines revolving around some of the new abilities. When you hear people complain about the game? Its always about the same things. That tells me that only certain areas/shines can be blamed for sucking any life out of it. I know a lot of people start complaining when they reach the Hotel Delphino / Ghost house / Manta Ray beach and Theme Park areas for example. But looking at the game as a whole, there's plenty of positives: The control is immaculate, and the only thing wrong with the camera is that sometimes it doesn't know whether to let you look through an object or to try and squeeze itself into a small area with Mario -- that only affects certain areas (ie. break out the one-hand again and start counting the first few digits) -- other than that, its like the controls: immaculate.
Date of Lies
Banned
mario sunshine's camera bites? Have you ever played a 3d sonic?
Rocket Punch
Member
I always laugh when people comment on a user controlled camera as detriment to a game.
NEWSFLASH: If the camera sucks - YOU SUCK. Put the controller down and go play with lego blocks.
I did hate the blue cons though. Nintendo, don't do that again.
NEWSFLASH: If the camera sucks - YOU SUCK. Put the controller down and go play with lego blocks.
I did hate the blue cons though. Nintendo, don't do that again.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I disagree. While it's great to have complete control over the camera when you want it, the auto camera also has a responsibility of giving you the absolute best default view. This is espeically true in a platformer.huzkee said:
Mario Sunshine's camera was too manual for its own good.
CajoleJuice
Member
That level was so damn cool!PolyMan said:
Rocket Punch
Member
The problem with a scripted camera is that imo it lowers the sense of total freedom from which 3D games benefit so much. If the camera is automatically set to what the developers want it to be what is the point of a 3D game? I don't want to be constricted to what developers think the best angle should be. Why not just make a game 2D and leave it at that then?
I would rather have total control over the camera. Let me decide what I want to see. That to me is total freedom in a videogame.
I would rather have total control over the camera. Let me decide what I want to see. That to me is total freedom in a videogame.
The Guivre said:The only thing that really matters to me about Mario Sunshine is that not only did my non-gamer wife play it without complaint. She beat the game, then demanded that I find her a list of all the shines she hadn't gotten.
The only other time she's been nearly that enthusiastic about a game was Pokemon Emerald.
So bless you Mario Sunshine, for giving me hope that one day I'll make a gamer out of my wife, which is really what every gamer wishes for in the end. That and a one console future
You know i tried this with my wife because she loves Mario World (my gal
) and she loves Yoshi. So i'm like hey i got Mario Sunshine sitting around lets go through it together. So I get home from work and the first thing she told me was the game sucked and she couldn't figure out where to go.
I guess thats why i'm just trying to pick up some shines and maybe show her the way but man.. :lol
Then you would've been bitching about how the camera gets stuck behind walls when you're doing something important. Even if they had included an option to switch back and forth, it would have sucked, because people would never have to learn how to use the camera.Link said:
There was nothing broken about the free moving camera at all, it just turned off a lot of gamers because they had to learn something new.