24th April 2005, 11:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 24th April 2005, 12:17 PM by A Black Falcon.)
Repeating something, without giving any details of why you think it is so, is completely pointless. Either explain why you believe that or just quit it.
Yelling "X is true! X is true! X is true!" without ever saying WHY X is true gets you absolutely nowhere.
Joy, 3d means a third dimension... so in that quite limited regard MN64 is more complex (in controls). But going by level design, GGA is more complex. Going by gameplay, they're equal. Different, but equal. Well... I'd say GGA is definitely better, because of a bunch of reasons, but you disagree, so I'll just call it even and say 'each does things differently from the other game'. :)
Why are GGA's level designs so much better and more complex? Well, we could start with the improved graphics. Then there's the greatly increased challenge. The fact that the enemies are actually a threat. That you aren't having run around collecting keys in the temples... :D (instead, they made the temples longer and harder...) Etc. Complexity? Looking just at the temples/castles, it depends on how you define the term... are you talking about varied gameplay (the minigames and stuff in MN64, how you have to go over the same terrain multiple times as you get the keys, the fact that it's 3d so you have to think a bit about that third dimension, etc), or about challenge? Because one could say 'more difficulty makes it more complex', and they'd have a point... and on that there's no comparison.
As I said, MN64 is a good game. I like it, and it was definitely worth buying. But there's no way that it's as fun, or as worth replaying, as GGA.
Yelling "X is true! X is true! X is true!" without ever saying WHY X is true gets you absolutely nowhere.
Joy, 3d means a third dimension... so in that quite limited regard MN64 is more complex (in controls). But going by level design, GGA is more complex. Going by gameplay, they're equal. Different, but equal. Well... I'd say GGA is definitely better, because of a bunch of reasons, but you disagree, so I'll just call it even and say 'each does things differently from the other game'. :)
Why are GGA's level designs so much better and more complex? Well, we could start with the improved graphics. Then there's the greatly increased challenge. The fact that the enemies are actually a threat. That you aren't having run around collecting keys in the temples... :D (instead, they made the temples longer and harder...) Etc. Complexity? Looking just at the temples/castles, it depends on how you define the term... are you talking about varied gameplay (the minigames and stuff in MN64, how you have to go over the same terrain multiple times as you get the keys, the fact that it's 3d so you have to think a bit about that third dimension, etc), or about challenge? Because one could say 'more difficulty makes it more complex', and they'd have a point... and on that there's no comparison.
As I said, MN64 is a good game. I like it, and it was definitely worth buying. But there's no way that it's as fun, or as worth replaying, as GGA.
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}