+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Thread: Nintendo blames... itsself??? (/showthread.php?tid=763)
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - CartoonDevil - 16th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
[B]The graphics haven't improved much?? You've got to be kidding me. Come on, ABF. Don't tell me your eyesite is that bad. The game doesn't look too good for a first-party Gamecube game (although neither did Luigi's Mansion), but all of the effects (particle effects, water, morphing, etc.) looked great and were difficult to pull off.
You just contradicted yourself. How can the game not look good for a first party game (when first party games aren't even the prettiest on the system all the time) and still say that because the effects were difficult, they get extra credit in terms of how good they look? Are you daft?
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 16th June 2003
First-party Nintendo games usually look great. And I meant that overall Mario Sunshine doesn't look as good as a big first-party Nintendo game should look.
Your tactics are failing, troll.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - CartoonDevil - 16th June 2003
How can the game not look good for a first party game (when first party games aren't even the prettiest on the system all the time) and still say that because the effects were difficult, they get extra credit in terms of how good they look?
Rogue Squadron II, Metroid Prime, StarFox Adventures. All of those games look prettier than anything Nintendo has shown yet. Now answer my first question and don't dodge it again. Your calling me a troll won't mask the fact that you don't answer when it's not going to suit your point of view.
Calling me a troll doesn't make it so, either.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 16th June 2003
Quote:How can the game not look good for a first party game (when first party games aren't even the prettiest on the system all the time) and still say that because the effects were difficult, they get extra credit in terms of how good they look?
Rogue Squadron II, Metroid Prime, StarFox Adventures. All of those games look prettier than anything Nintendo has shown yet. Now answer my first question and don't dodge it again. Your calling me a troll won't mask the fact that you don't answer when it's not going to suit your point of view.
Calling me a troll doesn't make it so, either.
Alright here it is one more time, so pay close attention. Having to constantly repeat myself is getting really annoying.
Nintendo's first-party games aren't usually the most graphically impressive for their time, but they're always up there. Their later NES games were some of the best-looking titles for the system, and the same goes for their SNES and N64 games. But so far the Gamecube hasn't gotten quite the same treatment. Aside from Wind Waker, most of their first-party games don't look as good as they should/could/whatever. OVERALL, Mario Sunshine doesn't look anywhere near as good as their best-looking first-party game (WW), but it does have some great visuals in some places.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Weltall - 16th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by OB1Oh that is such bullshit. If you're going to count each and every one of those outdoor areas as completely unique then you have to do the exact same with Mario Sunshine's levels. The themes that get repeated are the generic outdoor areas, the snow areas, the water areas, and uh... I think there's one more. The first two levels are identical in theme, and there are a few more that belong to that generic outdoor area theme as well. I'll get screenshots when I have time.[/quote]
Even if you did count each one as unique, Mario 64 wins because it has almost twice as many stages.
Sunshine has less stages, and they are ALL tropical in theme, and that's to say nothing of those that are basically facelifts of Mario 64 locales (A Haunted Hotel instead of a Haunted House! Unique to the MAX!) Then you factor in how many objectives were repeated within individual stages and how many shines were taken out of objective-based gameplay and relegated to mindless blue-coin hunts, and you have a vastly inferior gameplay experience.
Quote:Wow what a precise, error-free list. I certainly hope you don't use "facts" like these in your other arguments. Here's a full (I think) list of all the new moves you get in Mario Sunshine:
-Spinning jump
-Tightrope/Springboard jump
-Rocket jump
-Hover jump
-Speed jump
-Wall Ride
-Spray
-Spin Spray
-Wet Slide
And then of course the Yoshi stuff.
Oh, come on now. You're reaching for shit now. Wet Sliding and Springboard jumping!? Stuff that was in Mario 64 in different forms, or spinning sprays, not to mention the Turbo pack in it's entirety, which were new but completely useless? And Yoshi's moves were identical to Mario's except for the hover wasn't as good. Spinning jumps were in Mario 64, and more useful as well.
Let's not forget that flying is gone too, which was a much more integral gameplay element than wet-sliding.
Quote:Well you're definitely not as sensitive to control as I am if you can't tell the difference. [/B]
No, I guess I'm not a Mr. Micormanaged Magic Thumb like yourself, the controller's differences notwithstanding. I found both games to control so similarly that any differences were not noteworthy.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Great Rumbler - 16th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by CartoonDevil
Rogue Squadron II, Metroid Prime, StarFox Adventures. All of those games look prettier than anything Nintendo has shown yet. Now answer my first question and don't dodge it again. Your calling me a troll won't mask the fact that you don't answer when it's not going to suit your point of view.
Well, technically, Metroid Prime is a first-party game since Nintendo owns %100 of Retro. But, anyway...
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 16th June 2003
Quote:Even if you did count each one as unique, Mario 64 wins because it has almost twice as many stages.
Of course, and it definitely has more variety than Sunshine does. The stages in Mario 64 are also smaller and more simple than the ones in Sunshine, however. It's kinda like Banjo-Kazooie that way.
I was responding to ABF's claim that every single level in Mario 64 is very unique and that no themes repeat themselves, which is completely false.
Quote:Oh, come on now. You're reaching for shit now. Wet Sliding and Springboard jumping!? Stuff that was in Mario 64 in different forms, or spinning sprays, not to mention the Turbo pack in it's entirety, which were new but completely useless? And Yoshi's moves were identical to Mario's except for the hover wasn't as good. Spinning jumps were in Mario 64, and more useful as well.
You're insane if you believe that. The tightrope jump and spin (which I forgot to mention) was not in Mario 64 and it was used very often in Sunshine. All of the new moves were very useful, so stop trying to say that they weren't just because you forgot to mention them. And calling the so-called spin jump in Mario 64 more useful than the one in Mario Sunshine shows just how poor your argument is. The only times you could sort of spin jump in Mario 64 was when you jumped on certain enemies and were sent flying around. In Mario Sunshine you can do it wherever you want to and it is definitely very useful.
Quote:Let's not forget that flying is gone too, which was a much more integral gameplay element than wet-sliding.
Yes flying is gone, but that's the only other one you forgot to mention. Well that and the tree tip jump. Mario Sunshine still has more moves than Mario 64.
Quote:No, I guess I'm not a Mr. Micormanaged Magic Thumb like yourself, the controller's differences notwithstanding. I found both games to control so similarly that any differences were not noteworthy.
I probably played both games a lot more than you did, so I'm more aware of the differences than you are.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Weltall - 16th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
You're insane if you believe that. The tightrope jump and spin (which I forgot to mention) was not in Mario 64 and it was used very often in Sunshine. All of the new moves were very useful, so stop trying to say that they weren't just because you forgot to mention them. And calling the so-called spin jump in Mario 64 more useful than the one in Mario Sunshine shows just how poor your argument is. The only times you could sort of spin jump in Mario 64 was when you jumped on certain enemies and were sent flying around. In Mario Sunshine you can do it wherever you want to and it is definitely very useful.
Oh, come on now. The Spin Jump was something I didn't use once in the process of beating SMS, that and the spin spray were almost totally useless, and the turbo pack is useful on one level. The spray, the Rocket boost and the hover were the only new moves added to Sunshine that were at all integral to the gameplay, and if anything made the game too easy. As my review states, my favorite stages in the game were those where you didn't have the water-pack.
SMS also left out the ability to become metallic and walk in the water, which should have been a no-brainer in a game that involves water so innately.
Quote:Yes flying is gone, but that's the only other one you forgot to mention. Well that and the tree tip jump. Mario Sunshine still has more moves than Mario 64.
But why did they remove useful moves and replace them with twice as many moves that served no purpose?
Quote:I probably played both games a lot more than you did, so I'm more aware of the differences than you are. [/B]
No, I think you're just a bit more full of yourself than I am.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 16th June 2003
Quote:Oh, come on now. The Spin Jump was something I didn't use once in the process of beating SMS, that and the spin spray were almost totally useless, and the turbo pack is useful on one level. The spray, the Rocket boost and the hover were the only new moves added to Sunshine that were at all integral to the gameplay, and if anything made the game too easy. As my review states, my favorite stages in the game were those where you didn't have the water-pack.
The spin jump was the coolest move in the entire game! I used that more than any other special move and it was extremely useful.
Quote:SMS also left out the ability to become metallic and walk in the water, which should have been a no-brainer in a game that involves water so innately.
It would have been nice to have some special caps/feathers/whatever, but not being able to turn into metal didn't hurt the game at all.
Quote:But why did they remove useful moves and replace them with twice as many moves that served no purpose?
Did you actually play Mario Sunshine? Because judging by your comments it doesn't seem like it. The few moves that were removed were removed because they would have been completely useless with the waterpack or were replaced by better, more efficient moves. You don't need a long jump because you have the waterpack. You don't need the crouch jump because you have the backflip and the spin jump. Just because you didn't know how to effectively use the new moves doesn't mean that they were useless.
Quote:No, I think you're just a bit more full of yourself than I am.
Actually it's because I don't have the same bizarre hatred for one of the finest platformers ever made, so I don't have to make up crap to help my argument like you do.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Weltall - 16th June 2003
Bizarre hatred? I don't think the game is that great, but I certainly don't hate it. Final Fantasy X I hate. Mario Sunshine? I'm disappointed, but it wasn't a crap game, it just wasn't anything special, especially when it took seven years to make and is the direct sequel to one of the greatest games ever. SMS doesn't measure up to Mario 64, and I think you're perhaps the only person I've ever met that thinks it does.
What can I say? I guess I expect more from a Mario game than you do, but whatever.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 16th June 2003
Are you kidding me?? I love Mario games more than anyone else, which is precisely why I love Sunshine so much. Instead of dwelling on what I consider to be insignifant issues, I just let myself get sucked into the terrific gameplay. Why did I like Mario 64 in the first place? Because of the gameplay. Mario Sunshine is just like Mario 64 but with better controls, better moves, better level design, a greater difficulty level, a better camera, and is just a shitload of fun. Sure I could bitch and moan about how this is the first Mario game in seven years so it should have been more innovative, blah blah blah, but as soon I start playing the game I just can't stop smiling. I also expect to see big changes with the next Mario game, so that should take care of the innovative part.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 16th June 2003
OB1, how is it false that in Mario 64 themes repeat a lot? The only semi-repeating themes are the snow levels and the underwater levels. There are no "outdoor generic" levels. All the outdoor levels you are talking about are very unique. The first two levels are the same? Have you really played Mario 64 in the last five years? Bob-Omb Battlefield and Whomp's Fortress are dramatically different in theme and design! Same for every one of the outdoor levels! As opposed to SMS where most of the levels are oh so similar... a few are unique, like the one in the docks, but so many others look like they could be in the same level if not for that they aren't... while the SM64 levels are pretty much all unique. Sure, every SMS level has unique things. But not even as many as the difference between the water or snow levels in SM64, for most cases...
Now, SMS is still very good, but the level variety was very lacking. In both theme and design.
As for the moves... some of the new ones are good. I love the hover... that is easily the best new move. Hover is very cool. But the rest? I don't use them much at all... and it was very dissapointing to see some of SM64's best moves, like the flying and the long jump, gone.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 16th June 2003
I can't believe you're serious about this. Go back and play the game right now and play the first two levels of the game. They use the exact same textures/trees/ground! Let me get some screen shots.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Great Rumbler - 16th June 2003
Alright, since OB1 won't quit pestering me, I'll see what I can do with this debate.
Hmm...where should I start? I guess I'll start with level design. Mario 64 had a wide variety of different themes while SMS had one basic underlying theme. But the levels in SMS had enough unique properties as to make them different from the others. One level had a hotel that you could go inside, one level was a town with a large lake, one was a theme park, one was a beach [those huge mirrors were awesome], there was the overworld which was a town, ect. They both have variety in level design but in their own different ways.
Now let's go onto moves. SMS basically took away the moves that were made irrelivant becuase of the jet pack. Moves such as the long jump and backflip could easily be duplicated using the jet pack. Flying. Flying was definitely something that should have been added to SMS at least once, because flying was awesome. But with the jet pack you at least gain some altitude, although it isn't nearly as much fun as flying.
Metal Mario was cool part of Mario 64, but it wasn't so great that it makes SMS a worse game by not having.
Are you happy now, OB1? Now quit sending me IM's!!
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 16th June 2003
Haha, that's good. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not the only one that feels this way about Mario 64. I'm just the only one from the pro-Mario Sunshine camp that ever defends the game.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 16th June 2003
OB1, you are honestly going to say that the Bob-Omb first level and Whomp's Fortress are the same level design theme? Do you have eyes? ... guess not...
One is a BIG FIELD.
The second is a CASTLE TOWER. Very different.
Most any two levels in SMS are far more similar than those two, no question.
Oh, Metal Mario wasn't ever that great. The flying and metal caps were good ideas, but it was annoying that they were timed. SM64 really needed powerups that weren't timed! I really noticed their lack in that game... :(
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 16th June 2003
Most of the areas that you claim to be drastically different are the ones that share the same exact textures with other levels. That means they share the same theme! You know that big and small level? Same thing!
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - CartoonDevil - 16th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by Great Rumbler
Well, technically, Metroid Prime is a first-party game since Nintendo owns %100 of Retro. But, anyway...
First party game, yes, developed by Nintendo no---but the code wizards at Retro.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Dark Jaguar - 16th June 2003
If they are owned by Nintendo, it's made by Nintendo. It's the same as HAL, or NST, or even Miyamoto. Sure there's the individual talent to recognize, but they ARE Nintendo now.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 16th June 2003
Quote: Most of the areas that you claim to be drastically different are the ones that share the same exact textures with other levels. That means they share the same theme! You know that big and small level? Same thing!
How exactly do a castle and a field with dirt cliffs have the same textures?
Oh wait, they don't...
So the first two levels ... aren't a good example... of what you are trying to "prove". :)
And owned by Nintendo doesn't mean first party. Rare was 51% owned by Nintendo and was second party...
First party is Nintendo itsself and the developers it set up and owns wholly -- HAL, NST, etc... I'm not sure about Retro. Maybe they are first party... don't know for sure. Silicon Knights, also... I think they are second party, but don't know for sure...
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - big guy - 16th June 2003
i agree with OB1 that SMS is a great game and has plenty of variety in objectives and level design. but i will also say that at the end of the day i did enjoy SM64 more...probably because of nostalgia.
and flying in mario 64 was sweet.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Great Rumbler - 16th June 2003
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
And owned by Nintendo doesn't mean first party. Rare was 51% owned by Nintendo and was second party...
There's a difference between 51% and 100%, which is the percentage of Retro that Nintendo owns.
It was announced several months ago and I made a thread about it, but it must have been on one of our other forums.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 17th June 2003
Quote:How exactly do a castle and a field with dirt cliffs have the same textures?
Oh wait, they don't...
So the first two levels ... aren't a good example... of what you are trying to "prove".
So if the levels share the same textures it doesn't matter since the architecture is different, right? Even though the levels in Mario Sunshine are more different from each other than those generic outdoor areas and the other repeating themes in Mario 64 (snow, water, etc). Talk about double standards. Seriously now, arguing with you has gotten worse than arguing with Darunia. It's like you stepped into some sort of stupid machine that completely distorted all of your opinions. What the hell happened? Please tell me this is an act or something, because I'm really starting to worry.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 17th June 2003
You aren't making any sense...
Repeating textures... hmm. The two water levels, the two snow levels, and Bob-Omb Battlefield and Tall Tall mountain share lots of textures. And the level construction of the mountain is vastly different. Other than that, I don't think any share much more than basic grass/sky/water textures while using other things as the main focus of the level design or construction.
Like in the first two levels, the first one doesn't have any of those castle textures in it, which are almost all of the ones in level two. And level two has very little of level one's grass and dirt. So how do they repeat so much?
Almost all the other levels are at least that different.
As for SMS... a few are unique, like the one on the cargo crates and grills. Or part of the amusement park one. But most... aren't. Like the beach (both the beach level and the beach part of the amusement park and several other ones), and grassy field, and others... all so similar! Far, far more similar than almost any two levels in SM64...
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 17th June 2003
Ok everybody, since there's no way in hell that ABF is ever going to admit that he's wrong, I will post a bunch of screens from Mario 64 showing two different themes spread across five different levels.
ABF seems to think that each level has a completely unique theme to it, but these screens speak for themselves:
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 17th June 2003
What, exactly, do those prove?
First, which level are those top two shots from? I don't remember... :)
Next, with the two from Bob-Omb and the two from Whomp's level you just proved my point. Same with the ice level shot. Well... you just proved my point with shots that try to deny that I'm right as much as possible. Doesn't work though... those levels still clearly have dramatic texturing differences.
Taking two shots of the one tiny area with grass in the Whomp's Fortress doesn't change that taht is all the grass in the whole level. As opposed to Bob-Omb where its almost all grass.
Taking a shot of the one stone wall in Bob-Omb doesn't change the fact that that's the only big stone area in the level. As opposed to Whomp where its almost all stone/brick.
One final thing. I'm still confused about what your point is... because you aren't making much sense if its 'they use the same textures in large areas of each level'.
And one last thing. How exactly does this relate to the conversation? So Whomp has a grass court. And Bob-Omb Battlefield has a small stone wall. So? Its not like that's relevant at all to my point, which is about the overall theme and level design!
Are you saying that (other than the snow and water levels, which differ in level design but not theme) some levels repeat some textures in a secondary way that other levels have as a primary theme? Sure. True. Though when the textures you are complaining about seem to be grass, stone, and dirt, I've got to wonder, given how I'd expect those in most any environment... except snow, which has its own. :)
Major themes... snow, water, sky, castle, field, clock, ghost house, snow, lava, desert, and those Bowser levels. That's 11, all different. Plus two, for the other snow and water levels.
What were the other two levels (to make 15 total)?
Tall Tall Mountain. Repeats many grass/dirt/stone textures. In a new level format, and with some new stuff.
Tiny/Huge Island. Again, repeats the grass/dirt textures (and some stone) with some new themes and a unique design.
So you can legitimately say that in that game 3 levels share significant themes and one other shares some themes with each of those three (that last one is the Whomp's Fortress). And there are two pairs of similar themed levels... though only to a point (water and ice). The ice ones are admittedly similar in textures, but the two water ones are quite different -- one has just a lake while the other has the changable water level, a town, etc... makes for some major texture additions (from the first water level, anyway).
That's three (or debatably four) vs. EVERY SINGLE LEVEL in SMS that share the same theme. Hmm.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Sacred Jellybean - 17th June 2003
This is a silly, pointless argument.
The resolution in those screens is amazing! Were those taken from an N64 emulator?
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 17th June 2003
Yup, that's how high-res Mario 64 looks.
Honestly, IMO N64 games benefit from the low res and blurring of a TV... not all of them look nearly as good when bumped up and the natural antialiasing of a blurry TV is removed, to say the least. :)
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 18th June 2003
Quote:What, exactly, do those prove?
First, which level are those top two shots from? I don't remember...
Next, with the two from Bob-Omb and the two from Whomp's level you just proved my point. Same with the ice level shot. Well... you just proved my point with shots that try to deny that I'm right as much as possible. Doesn't work though... those levels still clearly have dramatic texturing differences.
Good God man, you're absolutely insane! Those are the same fucking textures!
Quote:Taking two shots of the one tiny area with grass in the Whomp's Fortress doesn't change that taht is all the grass in the whole level. As opposed to Bob-Omb where its almost all grass.
Taking a shot of the one stone wall in Bob-Omb doesn't change the fact that that's the only big stone area in the level. As opposed to Whomp where its almost all stone/brick.
Well of course the ratio of stone vs. grass isn't going to be the exact same with each level, but what the screenshots prove is that they most definitely do share the same theme. I'm just in total shock that you're trying to deny this. Unbelievable.
Quote:One final thing. I'm still confused about what your point is... because you aren't making much sense if its 'they use the same textures in large areas of each level'.
The only way you can tell the theme of each level is by how it looks (which seems to be a concept far beyond your comprehension), and how it looks is defined by the textures and other "props" placed in each level.
Quote:And one last thing. How exactly does this relate to the conversation? So Whomp has a grass court. And Bob-Omb Battlefield has a small stone wall. So? Its not like that's relevant at all to my point, which is about the overall theme and level design!
The point is that the damn levels share the same theme! It's just funny to see you try to deny it.
Quote:Are you saying that (other than the snow and water levels, which differ in level design but not theme) some levels repeat some textures in a secondary way that other levels have as a primary theme? Sure. True. Though when the textures you are complaining about seem to be grass, stone, and dirt, I've got to wonder, given how I'd expect those in most any environment... except snow, which has its own.
So you're saying that both snow levels are completely unique, even though they share the same theme and the same textures??!! And just a second ago you said that the textures are completely unique! What happened to that argument? Oh that's right, you change your argument whenever you start losing a debate, just like you did in the gay debate thread. What the hell is wrong with you??!! I seriously cannot believe how stupid you've become.
Quote:Major themes... snow, water, sky, castle, field, clock, ghost house, snow, lava, desert, and those Bowser levels. That's 11, all different. Plus two, for the other snow and water levels.
You count snow twice?? Again, what the fuck is wrong with you??!! There is no castle theme because there are no castle levels. The same goes for the Bowser mini-levels. Those are not full levels. So the themes in the game are snow, water, sky, "outdoor generic", clock, ghost house, lava, and desert. So that's eight total themes.
Quote:What were the other two levels (to make 15 total)?
Tall Tall Mountain. Repeats many grass/dirt/stone textures. In a new level format, and with some new stuff.
Tiny/Huge Island. Again, repeats the grass/dirt textures (and some stone) with some new themes and a unique design.
Those are the same themes! The levels in Mario Sunshine look much more different from each other than the levels I've mentioned in Mario 64, even though they share the same theme. But by going with your logic each and every level in Sunshine should be considered as a totally different theme because they're not 100% identical to each other.
Quote:So you can legitimately say that in that game 3 levels share significant themes and one other shares some themes with each of those three (that last one is the Whomp's Fortress). And there are two pairs of similar themed levels... though only to a point (water and ice). The ice ones are admittedly similar in textures, but the two water ones are quite different -- one has just a lake while the other has the changable water level, a town, etc... makes for some major texture additions (from the first water level, anyway).
That's three (or debatably four) vs. EVERY SINGLE LEVEL in SMS that share the same theme. Hmm.
Ok, that's it. I quit. You've reached a level of complete and total idiocy that far surpasses anyone else in the history of the board, even nickdaddyg. Arguing with you will go nowhere because no matter how much evidence is mounted against you, you will never admit defeat. You've lost all touch with logic and reason, and I'm just getting fucking tired of this. In the past it was fun to debate you because at least you had a sense of reason and usually gave a good argument, but now it's just come down to you completely making shit up, thinking that I'm stupid enough to fall for it.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - big guy - 18th June 2003
looking at the screens from bobomb battlefield and whomps fortress, i notice some things.
first, OB1 is correct, both of them have grass and bricks as textures in the level.
also, that ABF is right, because they have these in vastly different proportions and have different textures representing them at that. the whomps grass is darker and thestones/bricks in each level, as well as the "natural cliff" texture are quite different.
i don't know what the argument is, really, but i think you guys are trying to prove different things. i'm not sure. anyway, that's what i see in the pics.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Dark Jaguar - 18th June 2003
To be honest more often than not, like 3/4 ratio, these two ARE arguing totally seperate points and not realizing it. In fact, much of the time they seem to agree with each other and are fighting for the SAME point of view.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 18th June 2003
ABF is arguing that each and every level in Mario 64 has a completely unique theme to it, while I'm arguing that some levels share the same theme, like the snow areas and the outdoor areas. He doesn't seem to understand what the word "theme" means.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 18th June 2003
See, I wrote that post then added the second half on later, so that's why it kind of breaks in the middle.
Quote: ABF is arguing that each and every level in Mario 64 has a completely unique theme to it, while I'm arguing that some levels share the same theme, like the snow areas and the outdoor areas. He doesn't seem to understand what the word "theme" means.
I agree that we don't seem to be able to agree on what the word "theme" means, making this discussion somewhat strange... :)
And if you "read" my previous post then THINK ABOUT IT and REALIZE WHAT I WAS SAYING you'd know that in fact that is quite definitley not what my postion is.
Quote:first, OB1 is correct, both of them have grass and bricks as textures in the level.
also, that ABF is right, because they have these in vastly different proportions and have different textures representing them at that. the whomps grass is darker and thestones/bricks in each level, as well as the "natural cliff" texture are quite different.
i don't know what the argument is, really, but i think you guys are trying to prove different things. i'm not sure. anyway, that's what i see in the pics.
I never said that the levels don't share grass, dirt, brick, etc. textures. They very clearly do. But that isn't my point... its OB1's point, but not mine. You and DJ are right -- we are not arguing the same subject.
I am arguing about the theme/level design. Ie how the level looks, and what its design is, and what the major texture/level themes are.
And in Mario 64 almost every level is unique on this aspect. As I said, three levels are more similar than the rest. I admit that. And the two water and two snow levels are similar. But the other 10? Every one is almost completely unique in design and theme, and has LOTS of unique textures in it, in high proportions to the repeating ones. THAT is my point -- that every level LOOKS UNIQUE when you look at it. Not that they never have grass or water -- obviously some do -- but that the main theme (GRAPHICALLY) in every one of those 10 levels (12 if you count the water/snow ones together) is different.
True, there are those ones with similar graphics. And there are others with similar base design -- some that are mountains, some are plains, etc... but each one puts its own twist on those themes, by putting in location-specific themes that really would only work in that area. Like the quicksand and pyramid, or lava, or giant mushrooms, or whatever. On this issue -- varying the level design and putting in unique themes -- SMS does a good job too, mostly. Every level has unique things. It obviously fails on the 'unique that really only fit in that area', but that's to be expected when you have just one graphical theme for the whole game, of course.
So when you put all those aspects together, SM64 has a more varied, more unique, level selection. And SM64, while it does repeat some graphics, obviously (why you thought I denied that the levels use the same stone/grass/water/etc textures is beyond me, because I didn't...), in almost every level varies it a LOT. Almost every level (over 10 of the 15) has as its main graphical theme a completely unique set of graphics, textures, and environment. That is a fact! I still fail to see what your argument is in relation to mine... if you have one...
Quote:So you're saying that both snow levels are completely unique, even though they share the same theme and the same textures??!! And just a second ago you said that the textures are completely unique! What happened to that argument? Oh that's right, you change your argument whenever you start losing a debate, just like you did in the gay debate thread. What the hell is wrong with you??!! I seriously cannot believe how stupid you've become.
No, actually, that's not what I said in that quote. I said that the snow levels have very similar graphics, but in GAME PLAY each one is quite different. GAME PLAY. NOT GRAPHICS.
As I said before. The two snow and the two water levels DIFFER IN LEVEL DESIGN, BUT NOT IN (graphical) THEME. Why is that such a confusing statement?
I also said that the snow location obviously doesn't use the same trees/water/etc as the rest of the locations because they have to have unique snow-covered ones. That's about it from that quote...
Quote:You count snow twice?? Again, what the fuck is wrong with you??!! There is no castle theme because there are no castle levels. The same goes for the Bowser mini-levels. Those are not full levels. So the themes in the game are snow, water, sky, "outdoor generic", clock, ghost house, lava, and desert. So that's eight total themes.
Accidental. Snow should just be there once. Castle theme is Whomp's Fortress. As I said later in my post, I think that its a unique graphical environment, but I could see how you could make an arguement about that. Which is why I said that three, possibly four (this being that #4) levels in SM64 share similar graphic tilesets, two pairs of two share similar tilesets (with unique things in each one), and the other 7 or 8 levels are unique. Which makes for 10-11 unique levels, and 4-5 that are less unique. That compares well when compared to SMS.
Er, I think. I'm kind of fuzzy on what all the SM64 levels were... :)
*checks*
Quote:Those are the same themes! The levels in Mario Sunshine look much more different from each other than the levels I've mentioned in Mario 64, even though they share the same theme. But by going with your logic each and every level in Sunshine should be considered as a totally different theme because they're not 100% identical to each other.
My point there was that I agree -- they are similar. I was just saying how they were different.
Quote:Ok, that's it. I quit. You've reached a level of complete and total idiocy that far surpasses anyone else in the history of the board, even nickdaddyg. Arguing with you will go nowhere because no matter how much evidence is mounted against you, you will never admit defeat. You've lost all touch with logic and reason, and I'm just getting fucking tired of this. In the past it was fun to debate you because at least you had a sense of reason and usually gave a good argument, but now it's just come down to you completely making shit up, thinking that I'm stupid enough to fall for it.
No, the problem is that you don't really understand my arguement and make all kinds of false assumptions based on what you think my arguement is when that's not really it at all...
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 18th June 2003
You see this, people? Do you see how ABF performs in a debate? His first stance was not that each level is unique in level design, but that they are unique in theme! I know that you meant this because you compared it to Mario Sunshine, and Mario Sunshine's levels are only identical in theme. They do not share the same architecture or design, not any more than Mario 64's levels do. So what you originally meant is that the levels in Mario Sunshine are identical in theme but that Mario 64's levels ar not. Not one single one of them. But now that you're being proven wrong, what do you do? Do you admit that you might not be right? NO! YOU CHANGE YOUR ARGUMENT! This is a constantly repeating pattern with you, ABF, and everyone (or at least the ones arguing with you) notices it! I see it, Weltall sees it. Just stop it, alright? When you lose an argument, just gracefully admit that you're wrong and let it be over. I'm sick of this crap.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 18th June 2003
http://www.gamespot.com/features/vgs/n64/mario64_2/index.html
Gamespot's Mario 64 Game Guide. Its got a list of levels here.
We forgot two things.
First, there are 15 levels.
But we forgot the Cave level, and also that there are three water levels.
So the game has 10 unique levels. And 5 not so unique in graphical design and texturing. In order...
Field (Big Bob-Omb Battlefield)
Castle (Whomp's Fortress)
Water (Jolly Roger Bay)
Snow (Cool, Cool Mountain)
Haunted House (Big Boo's Haunt)
Cave (Hazy Maze Cave)
Lava (Lethal Lava Land)
Desert (Shifting Sand Land)
--Water 2 (Dire, Dire Docks)
--Snow 2 (Snowman's Land)
--Water 3 (Wet Dry World) (though in gameplay it has major changes from the first two water levels)
--Field 2 (Tall Tall Mountain (in vertical format, with almost all dirt/stone instead of grass/dirt like Bob-Omb, or stone/brick like Whomp)
--Field 3 (Tiny-Huge Island)
Clock (Tick Tock Clock)
Sky (Rainbow Ride)
So there we are! A complete level list. And the link has pictures of them all.
So, the real arguement is this.
1) Is Whomp's Fortress different enough from Tiny-Huge/Bob-Omb/Tall Tall Mountain to be a different theme completely, or is it a different use of some similar ideas?
2)This covers just graphics, not anything about level design or how similar or different the levels play -- and that element is at least as important as this one...
Quote:You see this, people? Do you see how ABF performs in a debate? His first stance was not that each level is unique in level design, but that they are unique in theme! I know that you meant this because you compared it to Mario Sunshine, and Mario Sunshine's levels are only identical in theme. They do not share the same architecture or design, not any more than Mario 64's levels do. So what you originally meant is that the levels in Mario Sunshine are identical in theme but that Mario 64's levels ar not. Not one single one of them. But now that you're being proven wrong, what do you do? Do you admit that you might not be right? NO! YOU CHANGE YOUR ARGUMENT! This is a constantly repeating pattern with you, ABF, and everyone (or at least the ones arguing with you) notices it! I see it, Weltall sees it. Just stop it, alright? When you lose an argument, just gracefully admit that you're wrong and let it be over. I'm sick of this crap.
Oh, my original arguement. Actually, level design WAS a part of it. Part of my original arguement was that the levels in SMS DO share more level design ideas than SM64, by far. After my 5th beach/river with palm trees, I get tired of them... it just repeats similar ideas in its levels! It really is unavoidable with all the levels having a tropical theme, just like how if all the Mario 64 levels were in Lava world they'd start to look the same... but its just one other point where Mario 64 is better than its sequel.
How did I get off my original point? Well, you started talking about textures, textures, textures... which moved it to new subjects, of course...
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 18th June 2003
You know very well what your original stance was, but as per usual you changed it because you were losing the debate.
And of course there are palm trees in Mario Sunshine's levels. The whole theme is "tropical island"! But the levels are much better designed and more unique (in architecture) than Mario 64's. Mario 64 was the first game of its kind, and it was obvious that the developers were just experimenting with 3D platforming level design. Not that it wasn't great, but they definitely improved with Sunshine.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 18th June 2003
I wasn't losing... you just got us off subject. :)
Quote:Oh, my original arguement. Actually, level design WAS a part of it. Part of my original arguement was that the levels in SMS DO share more level design ideas than SM64, by far. After my 5th beach/river with palm trees, I get tired of them... it just repeats similar ideas in its levels! It really is unavoidable with all the levels having a tropical theme, just like how if all the Mario 64 levels were in Lava world they'd start to look the same... but its just one other point where Mario 64 is better than its sequel.
Quote:And of course there are palm trees in Mario Sunshine's levels. The whole theme is "tropical island"! But the levels are much better designed and more unique (in architecture) than Mario 64's.
You pretty much repeat what I said in my last post.
As for level design... hmm. Given the limitations of having just one theme to work with, they did a good job. But its unfortunate that they weren't allowed to do multiple themes... all I can do is think about how much better the game would be with varied themes. Because setting isn't just graphics, it really affects the whole level design. Like that list of Mario 64 themes -- those 9 themes (if you don't count Castle) are all different and all lead to major level design differences even when the setting is otherwise fairly similar. SMS lacks that possibility, so even when its got better design, larger levels, more to do in levels, and a nice variety of settings given the theme, they still can't help but repeat eachother a lot... and it loses the chance for the gameplay possibilities that were added to Mario 64 by its having 9 major themes instead of one!
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 18th June 2003
Of course more themes would have been great, but I don't blaim Nintendo for trying to do something different. And it's obvious that the game wasn't in development for much longer than two years. But it's still my favorite 3D Mario game.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 18th June 2003
Heh... its funny now that we both understand the facts and eachothers' arguements that there isn't much to argue over anymore... :)
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 18th June 2003
No it's because I'm sick of arguing with you. You're annoying as hell.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Sacred Jellybean - 18th June 2003
I love you guys. :love:
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 18th June 2003
I'm not sick of arguing with you, just of you misrepresenting my opinions... because in this thread you did that about 10 times per post! It's awful seeing you spend so much time replying to my post on some subject that I neither say or imply I support...
Oh, and what are we arguing about? To me it looks like the textures thing was resolved, and that was most of the 'arguement'... all that could be argued now is whether SMS's better level design or SM64's more varied levels is the superior game type.
And I'd say that that decision really comes down to opinion. Doesn't mean I won't argue it, but its not really something that you can say, without bias "this one is best"...
Oh, and next time I suggest that we try to find the facts BEFORE spending a page and a half arguing about each of our (incorrect) memories of a game... :)
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 18th June 2003
This is the post that started the whole debate:
Quote:And SM64 does have more environments to go to... 15 levels, every one very different. SMS has a nice theme, which I like, but its just not the same...
You said that each level in Mario 64 is very different, and then you went on to say that the level themes never repeat themselves. Now you're changing your argument because you lost the debate. Nice one.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 18th June 2003
Fine.
I was wrong that all of SM64's levels are different. Actually, only 11 of the 15 are. As I've being saying ever since I checked and noted what the actual levels were.
Not that it changes my general point that SM64 has far, far more variety...
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - Weltall - 18th June 2003
Well, I am of the opinion that SM64's levels are simply designed better. I like the crowded design, because that's exactly what the old Mario games were like: Crowded with stuff! SM64 felt like Super Mario in 3D. Sunshine felt like just another thematic platformer, and basically that's all it was. It didn't feel special at all, it didn't have the surrealist, fantastic charm that Mario games have always had. It was too realistic-looking and not nearly complex enough. It's a major reason I favor SM64 to SMS. And nostalgia definitely does not factor, as I played SM64 only two months before SMS.
Super Mario Sunshine is the Final Fantasy VIII of Mario games: Prettier than the older games, but inferior in almost every other aspect.
Who says that? I say that.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 18th June 2003
Mario 64 felt nothing like the 2D Mario's. And Mario Sunshine is Mario 64 but better in almost every way. Now it's "just another thematic platformer"?
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 18th June 2003
I partially agree, but on one point you are wrong. Mario 64 didn't have the same level of "stuff" as older Marios. Just go play it. You'll notice how everything is spread out... and more importantly there are almost no enemies in levels. Sure, there are plenty of other challenges... but enemies? Very few. As with most 3d platformers... that's the most dramatic change in the switch to 3d -- the enemy count went dramatically down.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 18th June 2003
That and the 2D games are much more fast-paced.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - A Black Falcon - 18th June 2003
Oh, absolutely. I should have mentioned that too... Mario is slow! Play the 2d games. He's fast. He runs. He jumps. He flies, almost... :)
Then play 64 or Sunshine. Wow, is he slow. I know that the change to N64 3d hardware necessitated it, just like N64 memory restrictions necessitated the extremely low enemy count... but still, it is dissapointing...
The fact that 3d open platformers just don't feel like the old style of 2d platformer is why I like games like Rayman 2 so much -- they come MUCH closer to that...
Except for the much easier difficulty level (MUCH MUCH easier), Rayman 2 really feels like RAYMAN 2. Not like "semi-related 3d product called Rayman 2" like Mario 64 really is.
Nintendo blames... itsself??? - OB1 - 18th June 2003
I don't feel that either 3D Mario game is very much like the 2D ones (in terms of gameplay and charm), but I did still enjoy Mario Sunshine more than any other platformer since Mario 64. I liked Rayman 2 but not enough to keep it. The linear style worked nicely, though. The next Mario game should be a cross between Rayman 2 and the mini-levels from Sunshine.