Nintendo blames... itsself???

[A Black Falcon]

See, I wrote that post then added the second half on later, so that's why it kind of breaks in the middle.

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.

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...

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...

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*

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.

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...