Rummy Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 Also Mario and Luigi RPG 4. Way too much holding hand tactics! You mean Dream Team? Cos I'm just going through that now, and MAN it's annoynig that I'mmore than 30 hours in and it STILL feels the need to explain every new mechanic/puzzle that they introduce.
Sheikah Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 Well shit. You've totally proved my point conclusively wrong. Unless...ykno, you wanted to actually prove it. Which is probably difficult as you've played the game before. You'd be looking an average of 6 minutes and 24 seconds per star at minimum, though that's possibly still doable too. However it requires knowledge of the game and most efficient routes stars etc. In fact, looking at those numbers and facts, I'd find it highly likely you're just spouting bullshit unless you can actually prove otherwise(though again, it's a conundrum given you've played the games before). I think 6.8 minutes per star isn't too unrealistic for an experienced gamer familiar with other 3D Mario games and therefore his moveset (but never played 64)...some of the early stars can be got in much less time so you can spend more time on the later ones, and there's also a few stars you just get given by toad. Then there's the 100 coin stars that when you earn you aren't ejected from the level. I think the 3D games generally are longer though and for the average gamer this will take much longer than 8 hours... just being able to move in 3D means there's more exploration, and the levels tend to feel bigger.
Guy Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 I'd take me eight hours just to catch that fucking rabbit if I had to play Mario 64 again now. BASTARD
Rummy Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) I think 6.8 minutes per star isn't too unrealistic for an experienced gamer familiar with other 3D Mario games and therefore his moveset (but never played 64)...some of the early stars can be got in much less time so you can spend more time on the later ones, and there's also a few stars you just get given by toad. Then there's the 100 coin stars that when you earn you aren't ejected from the level. I think the 3D games generally are longer though and for the average gamer this will take much longer than 8 hours... just being able to move in 3D means there's more exploration, and the levels tend to feel bigger. I do concur, but at the time 3D mario was new, that in itself added gametime of learning all those things, in addition to exploring/figuring out where the stars were, exploring the castle, finding secret areas, finding the block switches etc. It's tricky because 64 was revolutionary as it being Mario in 3D, but even so I reckon it'd have given a much longer average playtime. It's all very difficult to look at now, as I for one have gotten 'better at' games whilst I've gotten older, which affects the perspective. I definitely recall spending a lot of time in SM64 just taking things in, exploring, figuring out which star was actually which, getting thrown off the mountain by king bob-omb, trying to work out why I couldn't Wing to the Sky, looking for lost penguins, trying to land in cages with the help of owls etc. Now I can do it because I know, but first time - how do you figure it out if you don't? All of that adds time, and gameplay because you're doing things to get there. It's the element of challenge that games used to use, but not at a terribly extreme level. (this isn't solid/conclusive but it's somewhat relevant - http://www.howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=9364 - mean and median sitting around 13 hours) Edited November 10, 2013 by Rummy
Sheikah Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 Yeah I think it's hard to say whether newer games are shorter in that respect, we've gotten much more familiar with Mario and controlling him.
Ronnie Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 http://playeressence.com/super-mario-3d-world-will-have-post-game-content-like-super-mario-3d-land/ Good to hear
markderoos Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 Of course games get easier to finish when you are more experienced. Try to imagine a boy/girl to whom Mario 3D World will be their first Mario experience. I don't think they will finish this game as fast as some of us... But maybe as slow as we were when we played Mario Bros 1? I liked Masters of the Universe, I don't like Justin Bieber. Maybe getting older has something to do with it
Retro_Link Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 Aren't the NES Mario and Gameboy games still considered pretty hard even with experience? Mario Bros is a right bitch! Also the sense of accomplishment I got from completing Super Mario Land on the Gameboy, or getting 120 stars and blasting to the castle roof is something I rarely feel when completing or 100% games nowadays.
Ashley Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 I'd take me eight hours just to catch that fucking rabbit if I had to play Mario 64 again now. BASTARD Seeing that rabbit as an adult all I can think is "he looks stoned off his face".
Rummy Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 I can't believe they decided to add a ton more of them into SM64DS! Though on the note of that, I'm currently at 54 minutes and 11 stars, though I do know what I'm doing which helps a bit more(also forgot they added red coin guides in DS version)
Goron_3 Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 Rainbow Ride and Tick Tock Clock.... Countless lives lost back in they day
Rummy Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 Rainbow Ride and Tick Tock Clock.... Countless lives lost back in they day Ahhh, when you jumped into the clock at the wrong point! I think I stupidly ended up stubborn and trying the stars anyway, rather than exiting course or anything. Those two were both very deserved of being the final two courses though. God it was such a well crafted game!
Goron_3 Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 Ahhh, when you jumped into the clock at the wrong point! I think I stupidly ended up stubborn and trying the stars anyway, rather than exiting course or anything. Those two were both very deserved of being the final two courses though. God it was such a well crafted game! Definitely! The hardest star for me though was the castle secret star opposite Rainbow Cruise...you had to use the wing cap to get 8 red coins and if you died you got sent to the outside of the castle
Sheikah Posted November 10, 2013 Posted November 10, 2013 I remember finding flying really quite hard. But man, those were the days. That actually felt like a power up and a half and actually took some skill to use. Such a brilliant idea to require a triple jump to take off as well.
Mr_Master_X2 Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 (edited) Pretty much this. Whether we like to admit it or not, Nintendo have changed. Newtendo. They have a particular style, especially with their Mario games, they have a certain look and feel. Every since New Super and Galaxy, their games have been similar in how they look and play. They look "clean" and usually have one or two new features to separate it from the previous edition, but I can't see them creating huge differences in length or style between their games, like the difference between Mario Bros. 1 and 2, for example. I think somebody recently mentioned that they've modelled themselves on Apple. I'd agree with that, but I'd also argue that they've perhaps gone a bit too far and have somehow lost what Nintendo originally was about, which was making games for gamers. I'm all for making games available for everyone, but they've lost a significant amount of their core audience by doing this. This sort of stuff could be solved with difficulty settings in games. Why not include that? Instead of making it "easy" for everyone. (I know that newcomers will find it hard for them, but what about the ones who have been there since the beginning?) Thanks, but you also make an interesting point with the "incremental increases". This counts for most Nintendo games, mainly Mario/Zelda. We've known from how Nintendo works (interviews etc.) that they usually have pools of ideas/abilities/items left over from games that get put into sort of a reserve pool for later games, and other ideas that just get thought up and stored. They used to just "splurge" them all out for the next game in the series, but now instead they just trickle them out, giving us one or two new items or abilities a game, "conserving" the ideas, padding the rest of the game out with...what almost feels like the previous game. While this does seem to cut down on the "we're thinking up stuff" time for a new game (thus keeping them flowing what is essentially annually now) no new game ever hits that "full-on fresh and new Nintendo magic" feeling like it used to. I think that is why so many people are disappointed with what this game is, is because the last time Nintendo went full splurge is Mario Galaxy. Of course, just going "Mario Galaxy 3" wouldn't have counted as a full original entity either, so... There's those who wanted a new Galaxy, those who wanted a new 3D. Even weirdos who wanted a new NEW. (Bloody weirdoes... <_<) What we should have been wanting is a whole new concept. With Nintendo being fully aware now of people wanting another Galaxy (the internet moaned so loud, how could they not hear?) we're likely to end up with another Galaxy rather than a complete original game next time. It could be the end of the Wii U's life before we get a complete new original Mario game. I feel those that wanted another Galaxy and get it will be disappointed, as most were really craving a new unique Mario experience (which they got with Galaxy) and won't get with future sequels. Edited November 11, 2013 by Mr_Master_X2
Serebii Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 Thanks, but you also make an interesting point with the "incremental increases". This counts for most Nintendo games, mainly Mario/Zelda. We've known from how Nintendo works (interviews etc.) that they usually have pools of ideas/abilities/items left over from games that get put into sort of a reserve pool for later games, and other ideas that just get thought up and stored. They used to just "splurge" them all out for the next game in the series, but now instead they just trickle them out, giving us one or two new items or abilities a game, "conserving" the ideas, padding the rest of the game out with...what almost feels like the previous game. While this does seem to cut down on the "we're thinking up stuff" time for a new game (thus keeping them flowing what is essentially annually now) no new game ever hits that "full-on fresh and new Nintendo magic" feeling like it used to. I think that is why so many people are disappointed with what this game is, is because the last time Nintendo went full splurge is Mario Galaxy. Of course, just going "Mario Galaxy 3" wouldn't have counted as a full original entity either, so... There's those who wanted a new Galaxy, those who wanted a new 3D. Even weirdos who wanted a new NEW. (Bloody weirdoes... <_<) What we should have been wanting is a whole new concept. With Nintendo being fully aware now of people wanting another Galaxy (the internet moaned so loud, how could they not hear?) we're likely to end up with another Galaxy rather than a complete original game next time. It could be the end of the Wii U's life before we get a complete new original Mario game. I feel those that wanted another Galaxy and get it will be disappointed, as most were really craving a new unique Mario experience (which they got with Galaxy) and won't get with future sequels. What irks me are those who complained how unoriginal this was and then, in the same post, said they should have done a new Galaxy
Zechs Merquise Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 Seriously, I have never found completing any of the Mario games challenging with the exception of The Lost Levels. It's usually finding everything and doing everything that is difficult. Even if you look back to the first three titles on the NES, the warp zones made them pretty simple to complete, but going through and seeing every level was much harder. From Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES things got easier with the inclusion of the map screen as you didn't have to do all the levels and certain items allowed you to skip difficult ones. Again, doing everything was what was difficult. People who claim Super Mario 64 was hard to complete must be either looking through rose tinted glasses or be pretty poor at games. You only needed 70 stars to complete the game, getting them was pretty easy. Now getting the full 120 was much harder than that's where the real challenge came from.
f00had Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 After seeing Hero of Time post that screen of the casino type world with all the colourful lights I'll have to pre order this game. £36 from Wow HD... that's good enough for me.
Hero-of-Time Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 After seeing Hero of Time post that screen of the casino type world with all the colourful lights I'll have to pre order this game. £36 from Wow HD... that's good enough for me. Then my work here is done.
Rummy Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 (edited) Seriously, I have never found completing any of the Mario games challenging with the exception of The Lost Levels. It's usually finding everything and doing everything that is difficult. Even if you look back to the first three titles on the NES, the warp zones made them pretty simple to complete, but going through and seeing every level was much harder. From Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES things got easier with the inclusion of the map screen as you didn't have to do all the levels and certain items allowed you to skip difficult ones. Again, doing everything was what was difficult. People who claim Super Mario 64 was hard to complete must be either looking through rose tinted glasses or be pretty poor at games. You only needed 70 stars to complete the game, getting them was pretty easy. Now getting the full 120 was much harder than that's where the real challenge came from. 70? Damn, why did I convince myself it was 75! I wasn't saying it was hard per se either, I was just saying that as a fresh/newcomer to the game I'd imagine it'd take longer than 8 hours. It isn't neccssarily difficulty, but more because of content of exploration, discovery, figuring out which star was which, failing hard at SOME stars and then opting for a different one etc. I definitely mixed things up in my original run when I found a certain star too tricky(in addition to trying to 'get' what I presumed were later stars instead). As for your statement about the games being easy with warp zones, but not neccessarily with full completion(originally we played sorta without knowledge of the warp zones in all stars). SMB3's items...wow. Well, I think we originally played without the whistles but even so - that final fortress in world 8? I didn't learn to actually complete that until I was a teen/adult; we always Jegem's clouded it actually assuming at the time that you HAD to. I think I posed the challenge of it to Marcamillian a few years back - he couldn't solve it either! I HAD completted it earlier than when I learned how, and I do remember my absolute moment of joy/pleasure/bewilderman at being in an area looking like it was leading to boom-boom. I chanced upon it though, with not enough attention paid to my surroundings at the time due to frustration and impatience - it was a long time more til I actually solved the puzzle and realised it. Buuuuuuut...I digress. It's those moments and magic that I've enjoyed in the older games, and feel is lacking in the newer ones, though. There's those who wanted a new Galaxy, those who wanted a new 3D. Even weirdos who wanted a new NEW. (Bloody weirdoes... <_<) What we should have been wanting is a whole new concept. With Nintendo being fully aware now of people wanting another Galaxy (the internet moaned so loud, how could they not hear?) we're likely to end up with another Galaxy rather than a complete original game next time. It could be the end of the Wii U's life before we get a complete new original Mario game. I feel those that wanted another Galaxy and get it will be disappointed, as most were really craving a new unique Mario experience (which they got with Galaxy) and won't get with future sequels. I don't want a new Galaxy. The closest I say is that I want a new game, akin to SM64 but NOT 'another' SM64. I want a 3D mario that invokes the similar feelings that SM64 did/does for me - it's not just a big series of levels and preset courses(Sunshine onwards forced you to do every star/shine/sprite in order on each world, you could only do what you were meant to be doing as far as the game was concerned). It may have been a design oversight, but it was brilliant imo. In SM64, you could accidentally get the wrong star, go find a secret star, fight bowser on occasion, do another course, find secrets etc. The Castle was a world of exploration in itself, containing 15 main mini-worlds of exploration with some unique ideas and mechanics, with 6/7 challenges each, and topping all of that - 15 'secret' stars hidden within the castle itself. All of that was great, and a great feeling of exploration and discovery. Galaxy 1's hub was bland, and served exactly that. Each star was bland in that it served its own linear purpose. You couldn't accidentally go off the beaten track and discover something else. Sometimes two stars in the 'same' galaxy felt disconnected becasue it took you on two completely different paths that could never be explored outside of them. SM3DL was a nice game, it was pretty and it was fun enough, but it was still mostly A-B. The doubled up levels were kinda nice in that slightly more challenging version of an older, a new game+, but on the whole nothing made me want to 100% it. Mario 64 though? That was a challenge I was ready to take head on. Maybe it's almost a feeling of being defeated by the world, how can you possibly manage to get 5 stars and not a 6th!? Secrets and choice. I think they're very powerful things in game creation. Sorry. I dunno. I've rambled. I can't quite place the magic that made games like SM64, but I think we're going in the wrong direction to discover it again. Edited November 11, 2013 by Rummy
f00had Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 For anyone who's looking to get this game at a cheap price Gameseek are selling it at £34.75 if you use the voucher code XMAS at checkout, however they take payment immediately and I've never used them before so I dunno how quick they are at sending games. http://www.gameseek.co.uk/pd/VideoGamescc4ua7sx6w/Super-Mario-3D-World Now to just cancel my pre order at Wow HD...
Retro_Link Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 Secret warp pipes between worlds are back http://uk.ign.com/videos/2013/11/11/super-mario-3d-world-cheat-secret-warp-pipe-in-1-2-warp-to-world-2
Cube Posted November 11, 2013 Posted November 11, 2013 Want more challenge? Don't get the damn lives. The challenge should not be related to the number of lives. The lives in recent Mario and Sonic games are just outdated, pointless, broken systems that are only there because of nostalgia. The only punishment if having to start the level you're on again (and, if there's a hub, you have to walk back to the start of the level and sometimes a "Game Over" animation). It's just a slight annoyance and nothing more. These days, there's no proper game over and there's not really any accomplishment in finishing without getting a "Game Over". Me, ReZ and Peeps played a lot of a game called Cloudberry Kingdom the other week. There's no lives system and you start playing from the start of the level/checkpoint instantly. That is how it should be - difficult sections can be made extremely difficult, and it's fun to just keep trying again and again and again until you master it.
Rummy Posted November 12, 2013 Posted November 12, 2013 Secret warp pipes between worlds are back http://uk.ign.com/videos/2013/11/11/super-mario-3d-world-cheat-secret-warp-pipe-in-1-2-warp-to-world-2 These are the kinda things I like to see. Not so much for their use, but their discovery.
Recommended Posts