Super Mario 3D Land

[Jonnas]

You say the last two paragraphs... does that mean the FLUDD line and one above or the two above the FLUDD line?

 

It includes the FLUDD line. I liked the FLUDD, even if it had more potential than that. I'd like to see it make a comeback, a suit in a future Mario game would work.

 

Oh, and when I said it lacked genuine content - I mean it lacked the content to make it the x number of hour game they wanted it to be.

 

If they'd have made Sunshine a 100, or even 80, Shine game, yes it would have been shorter than 64, but it would have felt better for it as it's own game - and the length would have been fine too.

 

TWW could have used the extra dungeons, but swapping them for the Triforce Hunt was a no no. They should have just left the hunt out and have done and again, it would have been a better game. Shorter than it's predecessors? Sure. But better than trying to drag out it's length to match them and bringing it down in the process.

 

I disagreed with that paragraph because I don't think it had anything to do with the unfamiliar setting/environment (in either game).

 

And also because I liked the Triforce Hunt I didn't think the game was worse for having it instead of an extra dungeon with a useless item (You aren't referring to the supposed Water Dungeon, right? That one could give you the Bombs, but a "Triforce Dungeon" couldn't give you anything worthwhile)

 

I totally see your point regarding Sunshine, though. Maybe I wasn't 100% accurate with my previous statement

 

And one more point that cannot be stressed enough:

 

Bowser... in a hot tub...

 

I rest my case :p

 

I refuse to see that as a flaw :p

 

 

ANYWAY, maybe we are getting off-topic, and I was reminded of the possibility of a returning Tanooki Suit, so...

 

 

Relevant?

[Agent Gibbs]

In regards to the Wind Waker i offer the following

 

with an action replay (on a gamecube only i'd say) you can access the unfinished remanants of one of the planned (and possibly even completed -see below) dungeons

arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/07/4796.ars

 

 

From gameinformer.com/News/Story/200703/N07.0309.1142.57468.htm:

 

 

GI: I think it was right after I got a new TV. (laughs) With Wind Waker, you had to cut a few dungeons out of the game to have it released on time–was there anything that you had to cut for Twilight Princess?

 

Aonuma: With Wind Waker, it wasn’t that we removed dungeons because of time constraints or anything like that. Actually, we thought that there was just too much volume. So we reduced it to something that we thought was much more manageable to the end user. But having released it, we heard from North American end users that there wasn’t enough and they wanted more. So with Twilight Princess, we added one more dungeon than was in Ocarina of Time.

Seems the link is dead - lol use a fairy?

 

but supposedly the dungeon's in wind waker were;

To get the third pearl (and bombs possibly) but this was removed in favor of blowing up a wall to get to jabun......

 

The remaining dungeon(s) are ambiguous, some speculation says you were expected to do a dungeon or mini dungeon to get the fire and ice arrows rather than just teleport into an island this could be combined with....

others suggestions that a 3rd and/or 4th dungeon for re-powering the master sword along with corresponding sages were included, i'm of a mind to think its only a 3rd re-powering dungeon mainly due to being only able to think of a third sage - a Goron, but i suppose they could have had a Gerudo? or Impa descendant

 

Its also theorised at least one would have taken place in expanded sections of the submerged hyrule

 

The fetch quest was always intended, but probably expected to be done over the course of the game rather than bumped to the end only, after all you can get several charts before completing all the dungeons.

 

The game is awesome as it is, but could have been much better

[Captain Falcon]

 

ANYWAY, maybe we are getting off-topic, and I was reminded of the possibility of a returning Tanooki Suit, so...

 

 

Relevant?

 

Ha ha, that's awesome and yeah, this thread is suffering from some pretty serious derailment issues right now so...

 

I'm not worried for this in slightest really. Coming off the back of the 2 Galaxy games, they know what works and what doesn't. They won't leave in some questionable camera shifting mechanic if it is anything less than perfect. And they have shown mastery of level design. Yes, not every one was a classic but then at their worst, they were still good.

 

The only thing I am possibly concerned at at this stage is if the development on this game is holding back development of a new Mario game for Nintendo's next console. The previous two shipped without a Mario title at launch and it's difficult to imagine this being different.

 

I guess there is nothing to stop another instance of the "New" games but I'd rather not see one of them for a while unless it is based on Super Mario Bros. 2.

[Agent Gibbs]

The only thing I am possibly concerned at at this stage is if the development on this game is holding back development of a new Mario game for Nintendo's next console. The previous two shipped without a Mario title at launch and it's difficult to imagine this being different.

 

I guess there is nothing to stop another instance of the "New" games but I'd rather not see one of them for a while unless it is based on Super Mario Bros. 2.

 

Very good point, it would be nice to see a mario game at launch again, we haven't had one since the N64, and that game alone sold a lot of consoles

 

I understand the 3DS idea of leaving off major 1st party games to favor 3rd party but they went from one extreme to another, i hope they get the balance right with the "café"

 

But i've high hopes for the game, given galaxy's recent brilliance it should be very good indeed

[Burny]

Very good point, it would be nice to see a mario game at launch again, we haven't had one since the N64, and that game alone sold a lot of consoles

 

That's just unrealistic though.

 

Any high profile game - especially when Nintendo is behind it - takes like a minimum of 2 years to develop now. If it runs on a new dedicated engine, it takes more. That's probably a lot longer than the amount of time between the point where the new hardware is finalized and where it is released.

 

The only way to get such high profile games for launches, would probably be to develop them on an existing engine and with existing tools etc. for the previous generation's hardware a long time in advance. From the moment the new dev-kits are available, the efforts would have to be concentrated on porting the game - which would have to be mostly done at that point.

 

This might happen in the future, where hardware jumps between consoles could be subjectively a lot smaller.

[Josh64]

 

And one more point that cannot be stressed enough:

 

Bowser... in a hot tub...

 

I rest my case :p

 

I thought I'd blocked out the horrific voice acting for life but when I read that it all came FLUDDing back (Oh ;D) like a traumatic childhood memory.

[Captain Falcon]

That's just unrealistic though.

 

Any high profile game - especially when Nintendo is behind it - takes like a minimum of 2 years to develop now. If it runs on a new dedicated engine, it takes more. That's probably a lot longer than the amount of time between the point where the new hardware is finalized and where it is released.

 

The only way to get such high profile games for launches, would probably be to develop them on an existing engine and with existing tools etc. for the previous generation's hardware a long time in advance. From the moment the new dev-kits are available, the efforts would have to be concentrated on porting the game - which would have to be mostly done at that point.

 

This might happen in the future, where hardware jumps between consoles could be subjectively a lot smaller.

 

I know what you are saying about development cycles but I don't think you're giving the hardware and software teams enough credit.

 

Hardware isn't finalised 2 years prior to launch but you can bet they have a pretty good idea of what it can do by then. They can work around a rough tech spec and then narrow it down to match the machine closer to launch. Games can take a while to develop but the right team with the right hardware and achieve a surprisingly lot in a short time... if they have the tools.

 

A pre-exitsing engine helps but then most games are built of one anyway these days. Nintendo take their last engine and make the new game whilst working on improvements for it if it won't do what they need it to.

 

A team could quite easily begin pre-production on a game for a console that is years away from launch. Concepts, ideas, artwork, prelimanary level design... nothing stopping any of that being done before a game is started. Ubisoft said a while ago that they were ramping up the development on next gen techonolgies and the next gen still seems as far away now as it did then.

 

The N64 launched with Super Mario 64 and the whilst the GameCube only had Luigi's Mansion on day 1, Smash Bros was there within 2 months. If they haven't got a game to justify the new hardware, they shouldn't be launching it anyway.

 

Third parties will be newer to the hardware, and deserve a bit of slack because of it, but Nintendo themselves have no such excuses to not have at least one proper title that isn't just a hi-res version of a Wii game.

 

But this is totally the wrong thread for this topic.

 

Edited May 14, 2011 by Retro_Link

[Burny]

... but Nintendo themselves have no such excuses to not have at least one proper title that isn't just a hi-res version of a Wii game.

That's why they had

two of them. Plus: they published a very high profile 3rd party game. Various (partly legit!) reasons for disliking these titles aside, that's a lot of content for a launch. Kid Icarus might not have made the photo finish to the launch or the two months beyond, but that's life. Postponing the release of major hardware due to the unavailability of just one or two titles out of a dozen is ridiculous. Even you would take a less than perfect launch any day instead of sitting on several million pieces of hardware you've probably already had to pay the component suppliers and manufacturer for.

 

 

Really, you better get the notion that "the right team with the right tools" can get anything done quickly at Nintendo out of your head.

"The right team with the right tools" might exist somewhere in the world, but it pretty much means it's a team that's worked in the same constellation with the same tools and at least similar projects and hardware for years. From the general impression I get in "Iwata asks" features, they work almost "prototype-driven" on some projects at Nintendo, changing and optimizing the game all the time - going as far as to scrap whole parts. Preproduction won't get you terribly far with such development methods. Remember the first

? Half of the levels didn't even show up in the game.

 

 

Anyway, this is the same team that made Galaxy 1/2, isn't it? That means they've probably been at it since late 2009/early 2010. If they actually rush it out before Christmas this year (without butchering it in the process), that would be a development cycle almost too good to be true for Nintendo.

 

Simple fact of the matter is: This was started too late to be ready anywhere near launch and the probability that this large of a project will ever be ready at a launch again is very, very low. Unless of course, someone pulls another Twilight Princess. :p

 

Edited May 14, 2011 by Retro_Link

[Captain Falcon]

So those two examples... one is Nintendogs but in Hi-Res with Cats hastily slapped in at the end and the other wasn't even made in house... what case are you trying to make here? And publishing a game has nothing to do with the ability of the first party studios to create content.

 

You don't postpone the launch, you make sure the games have ample development time before you launch the thing. With the 3DS and seemingly the next home console, they aren't aiming for a big holiday period that would naturally see higher sales. There was nothing stopping the holding off of the 3DS release until June if they wanted - and I doubt it wouldn't have affected sales one bit. I don't buy the iPad would have made a difference as most purchasers have already made up their mind if they want one.

 

If you are aiming for a holiday period, then it's different but the 64 didn't and neither did the GC in Japan or Europe, nor the GBA. The DS and Wii did but they were so unique at the time that it made sense to position them as to give them that extra push.

 

And unless we played different versions of the game, most of the Galaxy 2 trailer did feature although maybe not with identical placement or the same texture work.

 

Even though they released the Wii, it's highly probably that they have had hardware kicking around that is on par with the Xbox for sometime - it's 5 years old after all and it's not like Nintendo wouldn't have even got pretty far of designing a machine that powerful when dreaming up the GC successor at the time

 

The Wii uses similar tools to the GC for development and it's likely the next machine was again modelled after the same structure to ease development of new games. Failing that, it would adopt something more akin to PC development like the Xbox for multiplatform support - they won't want to alienate third party devs by making them trying to learn a a whole new process for making games that aren't much better than what they are already used to - not this late in the game.

 

I agree that this game was started too late to make the console launch but I don't think it's impossible for it to happen in the future without having to pull the old switcheroo like with TP. And when it's the games driving hardware sales, they should be aiming to produce something worthwhile.

 

This won't be a brand new engine - it will be modified from Galaxy or they would have gone back to the Sunshine as a starting point if it proved too resource demanding. Either way, it shouldn't need the 2+ years to make.

 

Edited May 14, 2011 by Retro_Link

[Burny]

So those two examples... one is Nintendogs but in Hi-Res with Cats hastily slapped in at the end and the other wasn't even made in house... what case are you trying to make here? And publishing a game has nothing to do with the ability of the first party studios to create content.

The case I'm trying to make is the following:

 

There is software.

 

Surprisingly simple, isn't it?

 

Where do you think they got ~4 million units at launch from and when did they realize, that not all the software would be nicely laid out for staggered release, so it could be shoved up the early adopter's rear ends in nice intervals? The console units didn't drop from heaven, they were probably produced over months, which was planned and commissioned a long time beforehand, as was - *gasp* - possibly available software. Having to postpone games? That can happen on much shorter notice.

 

 

You don't postpone the launch, you make sure the games have ample development time before you launch the thing.

As I said above: There was software, so there was obviously time. If it wasn't your software, that's both yours and their loss. Thing is: software development isn't so easily synchronized with the hardware development and production. It's not that any team can or should drop their current project and just start to work on launch titles two years in advance. Nintendo did bet on a handful of things - Kid Icarus, the availability of the eShop and OoT among them - and they lost their bets. Waiting to release the console? Well...

 

 

There was nothing stopping the holding off of the 3DS release until June if they wanted - and I doubt it wouldn't have affected sales one bit.

That's a good one. You know what they'll be doing this June? They'll start to hype up the "Cafe". Pretty much perfect timing to launch their new big handheld. Competing with your own next big thing is totally going to make up for having had 2+ months longer to sell units that you've got tucked away in some warehouse anyway. :p

 

3.6 Mio. sold units of an overpriced gaming handheld without large exclusive/original games say: Waiting wouldn't have been worth it.

 

 

Either way, it shouldn't need the 2+ years to make.

Keep dreaming. You're only setting yourself up for massive disappointment in the future.

Time required for any software development is one of the hardest things to estimate correctly (spoiler: it's downright impossible). Experience shows us: Nintendo takes longer.

 

There were a lot of things in the Galaxy 2 Trailer, that didn't make it into the game or were completely re-purposed. Not (partly recycled) bosses or enemies, but what's with the levels looking like a castle/drums (showing up 3-4 times) that never appeared anywhere, the slide looking completely different, Mario's head as planet, which didn't seem to have the pretty central purpose it received in the end and almost all the grass using "fur shaders" and having more geometry? Say what you want, but when so many little and large things change between an official mid-2009 E3 trailer and an early 2010 release, the changes going on in between are substantial.

 

 

And when it's the games driving hardware sales, they should be aiming to produce something worthwhile.

No. They absolutely shouldn't. They should all keep twiddling their thumbs, which I'm sure they're already doing all the time instead of developing games, right?

 

Edited May 14, 2011 by Retro_Link

[Captain Falcon]

The case I'm trying to make is the following:

 

There is software.

 

Surprisingly simple, isn't it?

Edited May 14, 2011 by Retro_Link

[Burny]

But if the changes are as big as you believe, then it shows that the team is capable of achieving a lot in a short amount of time and still meeting deadlines - something you were trying to say is impossible.

Point is, there were both structural and visual changes within the last half year(+) of development, which weren't foreseen. And that's after nearly two years of development with the same engine, many existing assets, the same team and the same hardware as with the last game. So much for speeding up development with preproduction. All in all, that amounts to almost 2,5 years of development for a direct sequel, that could reuse a lot of assets and experience from the previous game. That's by no means quick, but just normal.

 

Even if they can reuse a lot of tools and assets for Super Mario on the 3DS from the Wii games, they aren't magically going to be done faster with development for this game or any other, even if they are in a similarly favorable situation. They could have ten years worth of preproduction and they might still take 2+ years to actually make the game.

 

And that's my point with new systems and the 3DS. Nintendo's hardware is a major source for income for them and they don't live in a closed world of their own. They won't hold it back when it's time for them to release, if they have unique original software ready or not. It's either selling less units with few software or completely losing any sales they could get in the meantime. It's not the nicest thing for early adopters, but it's no use whining about how there isn't/won't be a massive launch game ready or downright demanding they shouldn't release any hardware without such a game anymore. It's pretty much out of their control. And that certainly doesn't only apply to Nintendo.

 

And if we're going to stay off topic: Give me a single reason, why a hardware manufacturer would chose to delay the hardware launch for 3-4 months, despite having a decent selection of ports + typical "launch games" and - of course - the hardware ready(ly manufactured)?

Any reason that could compensate for four months of lost sales and any excuses they could make to Ubisoft for not allowing them to unleash their shitty port-storm at the promised and planned time? I don't think so.

 

 

As for the topic: It's nice that Myamoto promises to do everything he can in order to get this game ready before the end of the year, but I don't believe they'll manage to get it ready by then without having significantly less content than SMG 1/2. As it stands, I won't be surprised if they announce an 2012 release at E3. That would leave the question what they could sell at christmas. Something tells me, they'd rather rush Mario Kart than this...

 

Edited May 14, 2011 by Retro_Link

[dazzybee]

Burny, I bet you never have a problem with the 10 character limit?!

[Burny]

Burny, I bet you never have a problem with the 10 character limit?!

 

Is it even worth to touch the keyboard, if all you want to write is "cool" or "stupid"?

[dazzybee]

Is it even worth to touch the keyboard, if all you want to write is "cool" or "stupid"?

 

Haha, I agree! Keep it up, I have to get a cup of tea involved beforehand, but I always enjoy reading your posts!

[Captain Falcon]

SMG2 may have been in development for 2.5 years but look at how much more content is in the game. Plus, it's not like EA Tokyo didn't have other projects on the go either. Starting out as a side project really as the SMG 1.5, it wasn't until a while in they decided to go for the full sequel route at which point they would have begun to get all the team working on it.

 

If they knew what they were making from the start, the development process would have been easier and quicker. They know the intention of this game from the start and what they want it to be. And if they can reuse assets to cut development time then it should lead to a quicker turnaround - and this would be further aided if the 3DS toolset mimics the Wii/GC one which is a pretty good bet. If not, they it might create a few more headaches but the have DS experience in the team so it's not like it's all new to them anyway.

 

Galaxy's gameplay (the panetoids and gravity manipulation) was pretty unique and would have taken a long time to perfect to a standard that was suitable for an entire game. I don't think this game will feature such a unique take on the platforming genre that it would require the same level of testing to get up and running. I believe it will be fairly conventional.

 

I guess for this version, we don't really know just how much of the team is focused on it. I doubt all of the team are working on this - you have to imagine that at least some of them are doing experiments with a Cafe Mario game. And given that the teams aren't particularly large, a small diversion of man power can make a difference.

 

Retro Studios made Metroid Prime and then released Echoes almost two years to the day later despite the fact we now know they were working on Prime 1.5 and they are vastly more complicated games than Mario's are. But then you only have to look at certain high profile games on other systems and see how they turn around sequels every other year on projects that probably require a substantial amount more of development to represent even half the amount of game content.

 

If they wanted to cut development times down further, they could quite easily by throwing more people at the games but they don't - yet going in with a suitable plan sure helps.

 

 

As for the 3DS...

 

Something is only delayed if it is given a date and then it has changed. If Nintendo have never announced that February release for the 3DS in Japan, making it a May or June date wouldn't have been classified as a delay.

 

I suspect internally they were shooting for a holiday 2010 release in Japan but realized they were never going to make it but still wanting it to appear in the 2010/11 financials, they opted for the late Feb (March elsewhere).

 

But the point remains that after a decent opening 2 weeks, sales have dropped of remarkably in all territories. Because of a lack of software and the price.

 

You say it's extra months of sales but the thing isn't actually selling in big quantities. Had they been honest with themselves and looked around at 3rd parties and their content partners, they would have seen that nobody was really ready for the launch period they were hoping for - themselves included.

 

Those extra months have been a waste of time because if they have waited and released with more software that consumers want, they would have enjoyed high sales for longer than a week before they dropped like a stone. Based on current sales, I am fairly sure that the sell through of 3DS consoles by the end of the year would have been the same whether they released it when they did or 2 to 3 months later - as long as they aren't missing a major holiday period release, the impact is far less significant than you think it is. It's just what quarter the sales number fall in - 2010/11 Q4 or 2011/12 Q1. But 2010/11 was looking bad and they wanted a boost - end of story. Except it's not because now 2011/12 Q1 isn't looking very good as the the sales aren't there.

 

And had they been sensible and gone for a later release date, they wouldn't have begun production of the hardware as soon and there would not be any issues of holding onto stock.

 

All that's happened is the 3DS is looking like a bit of a lame duck right now and attracting a lot of negative attention - something I'm sure Nintendo are really chuffed about.

 

But the 3DS is a completely different beast to the Cafe.

 

As for your comments about this missing 2011 whilst they push for Mario Kart... if they had to settle for one, yes they'd go for MK as it probably will sell more units, but it's different development studios so apart from Miyamoto's time they aren't sharing that much - and I can't imagine him being too hands on with MK anyway as it pretty much takes care of itself. It doesn't really feature new gameplay elements, it's just track design.

 

I do remain highly skeptical this will release in 2011 but only because I don't think they've been working on it very long - the fact they couldn't even muster a trailer for GDC and had to settle for Zelda reflects that... especially given Iwata's presentation about games development over the last 25 years was nothing more than a big advert for the 3DS.

 

Edited May 14, 2011 by Retro_Link

[Jamba]

I agree with Falcon's comments about the release. If anything, the decreasing interest in the 3DS is going to give the NGP more of a window.

[dazzybee]

The thing is, however disappointing the sales have been and currently are, and how there aren't any really fresh new AAA titles for it, I still don't see the issue of them releasing it when they did. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had a great time with their 3DS and I wouldn't have wanted to wait for it.

 

And sales will start going mental again next month when Zelda comes out, and then Starfox the month after. I think it's weird that the biggest games are N64 games but there's a reason we're all excited about them. And as for NGP, I think the 3DS will have AT LEAST 10m units on it if it comes out by christmas. And it'll trounce it over xmas, by when there'll be a lot of software by then. So on a sales front, I don't think Nintendo have done anything wrong. I think all a delayed release would have done is lost some of the negative attention in the sales and lack of (perceived) quality....But then you guys wouldn't have anything to chat about

[Burny]

@Cpt Falcon:

 

Let's just agree on not quoting whole posts. There isn't much discussion in between anyway. :p

 

 

There is no indication as to when they realized they would make SMG 2 into a real sequel instead of a "Mario Galaxy 1.5". If anything, it also goes to show that Nintendo's teams are prone to changing plans for games anytime they see fit, without planning this long beforehand. Another case of this is Skyward Sword, where the visual style was completely changed sometime before it's presentation at E3 2010.

 

It's probably very save to assume, that the devs at Nintendo know when to staff up in order to accelerate development and in what situation more developers wouldn't get them anywhere. They have been in business for about 25 years and wouldn't be where they are now otherwise. Neither of us would be able to teach them anything in that respect.

 

Don't believe however, that throwing more devs/designers at a project will necessarily speed it up, that's far too naive. For one, it's a general rule in software engineering, that there is a "hard limit" to how much development time can be reduced by increasing the team size. That's because the amount of work to put into coordinating a larger team also increases until it all but "compensates" (negatively) for the work more devs can do. I don't think that's a problem in Nintendo's projects though.

 

More importantly, there is a lot of work, that is very difficult to parallelize. If you've got several thousand assets to create it's easy to speed this up with more people, as long as they've been told what is expected of them. Designing a level layout in Mario and programming it however, strikes me as very hard to speed up this way. With levels as small and coordinated as Mario Galaxy's, you can't just cut them into arbitrary many pieces and have a separate person work on each or even have several persons work on the same part simultaneously. What is possible and what they already did (see one of the "Iwata Asks"), is to program editing tools, that even non-programmers can handle, so more people can come up with levels. But even these people have to be coordinated and the levels to be polished. And there is also a lot of different work, that doesn't require all the team. It's only natural, that some people of the core programming team move over to lay down the foundations of the next project, as they'd have little else to do late in the development, as it's also natural, that 3D artists and level designers are less involved when a new engine has to be done. This doesn't mean it's slowing the development down.

 

 

I do think you're shamelessly underestimating the complexity of Mario or platforming games in general. My gut feeling tells me J'n'Rs as fine-tuned as the Mario Galaxies and something as Metroid aren't giving each other much. The J'n'R's overall structure may be much more primitive than something as Metroid games - it's essentially chosing a level from the hub, traversing it to the end and that's it. But from what I can tell, the levels themselves tend to be mechanically vastly more complex than anything I've ever seen in the 3D Metroids. While Metroid is still an adventure game, it's not like Zelda, where almost each room has an interactive scripted puzzle. Most of the time, Metroid "puzzles" amount to little more than finding a switch to open a pathway or figuring out where a new ability lets you advance further in one of the previous rooms.

 

Just look at some of the levels with moving platforms in Galaxy. Any moving platform has to be scripted by hand. If it only goes forth and back, they already have to determine at which speed it will go, starting and ending position, wether it should stay still before and after moving, for how long should it do that etc.? Chain multiple moving platforms together and you'll already have to synchronize all of them "by hand" (more scripting), test how far they can be away etc.. Add in moving firewalls, blocks, spikes, switches for slowing down time, different movement capabilities for Mario (bee suit, Joshi etc.), disappearing platforms and the likes, make each of them timed and add in gravity on spheres like in SMG, and you've got absolute tons of scripts - which I can only imagine being iteratively refined rather than planned. That's for a level that'll hardly take more than 5 minutes to traverse. That's still without things like camera placement being scripted for different parts of the level, which only ever attracts attention, when it's poorly done.

 

Compared to Mario games, the levels in Metroid are for the very most part static set-pieces with scripted triggers for opening paths. Now, in a good J'n'R, especially in MG2, the amount of activity and fine-tuning in the levels is insane. And that to a point, where I wouldn't be sure, that the visually much more complex levels in Metroid take any longer to produce.

 

We will see how experimental the nature of Super Mario 3DS turns out to be. I cannot see Nintendo ever making a fully fledged high profile Mario/Metroid/Zelda Game game in under two years. They're far too complex for that, even if they seem simple at first, compared to many high-def games. An army of 3D-artists only gets you so far in a game, that only has as rudimentary shapes as Mario.

 

Out of interest, would you show me those high profile games on other platforms which turn around every other year? I'd be surprised if the more substantial amount of development effort was due to the game's complexity rather than the need to produce a vast number of high-def assets, similar to what you see in movies. In that regard: Do these games actually offer more playable content than the Mario Games?

 

 

 

 

Just to conclude that wall of text a bit with more off topic things: Just because other systems sold more, doesn't mean that ~194k sold units of an overpriced handheld system with barren game landscape suddenly equals zero. It's not rosy but not half the catastrophe people make it out to be.

 

As for more time selling the thing: Worst case scenario would probably be to only sell the initial 4 Mio. units, before more games come around in the spending season. Nothing prevents them from having a good holiday sales period after that, there's just already 4+ Mio. units with customers to sell games to. Some dubious imaginations how a launch coinciding with holiday sales (and the NGP) would compensate for that, were hardly a satisfying excuse to wait any longer in September 2010, when they announced the 3DS' release (for Japan, though international was probably tied to that).

 

Yes, it's all about quarter sales numbers. Shitty launch lineup didn't kill a platform as far as I can see. Negative attention didn't either (360 and PS3 would have to be dead by now) - hardcore whiners are just a fickle bunch at the best of times.

 

 

Edit: @dazzybee

I don't think the OoT and Starfox remakes will drastically improve 3DS sales. Those rely largely on nostalgia and might mostly sell to people who already own a 3DS. They might give a short term boost, but for really getting the 3DS started, Mario Kart is where it's at.

 

Edited May 14, 2011 by Retro_Link

[Retro_Link]

What is this thread even about now?!!

 

I'm not gonna read through all these posts, they're crazy long!

 

Is this discussion about Mario?... otherwise tell me if I should stick it all in a new thread, otherwise confine it to PM's!

[Burny]

What is this thread even about now?!!

 

If it's possible to cut down development time for high profile Mario games to under two years and if Nintendo should postpone releases of hardware in order to get similar high profile games done for launch.

 

And a bit about if there's indeed a chance to see this game by the end of this year.

[Retro_Link]

OK, well I know there's not much information about the game at the moment, but I think the conversation is perhaps a bit alienating, I'm gonna go through and spoiler tag it to free the page up a bit.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Retro_Link

[Hero-of-Time]

Leaked screenshot?

 

http://nintendo3dsblog.com/leaked-image-of-super-mario-3ds

[ShadowV7]

Hmm. Hard to say. At first I thought no mainly because it looks pretty barren and platforms are pretty small(thin or lack solid depth) and not many at all. But this could be a sort of bonus/extra stage, which does seem much more likely.

[Hero-of-Time]

Hmm. Hard to say. At first I thought no mainly because it looks pretty barren and platforms are pretty small(thin or lack solid depth) and not many at all. But this could be a sort of bonus/extra stage, which does seem much more likely.

 

It's E3 time, anything is possible!