oh renzor, what have they done to you?

#41RazumPosted 8/22/2012 6:15:29 PM
-New SMB 2 without a quality level design and solid mechanics is a game with absolutely no worth.

Without quality level design? Seriously? This game excelled in it's level design. The levels themselves are consistently better then those of old. That's not to say some levels in the old ones weren't better then current (old star world beats new star world for example, or that level in pipe maze in SMB3), but consistency is the key word here.


-I am not one to denounce opinions.

Opinions are nothing but that. I have no problem with someones position disagreeing with me, but I'm still going to explain and defend my own.


-SMB3 has huge, branching world designs. New SMB 2 has a linear path that diverges once every blue moon.

I must ask, have you completed NSMB2 100% yet? The first couple of worlds are a bit lax, but later ones branch quite a bit. I must also point out that in SMB3, nearly every bit of branching is simply a shortcut back in the event of you getting a game over. Only in a couple of instances can you outright skip levels due to branching paths. SMB3 and NSMB2 are tied in map design, with SMW severally outclassing them both.


-SMB3 introduces etc

This is a chicken or the egg issue. SMB3 came out first, so it had a lot more that wasn't previously introduced that it could most notably being flight. You'll notice, the run meter/inventory haven't been seen since then, outside of the return of the run meter in this game, which is really only used for the flight. SMB2 (US) introduced nonlinear stage design, no question there. And improved controls are a nature evolution, even now. NSMB series in general controls better then SMB3. Ultimately, from you're list, SMB3 only introduced flight. You would have been better off mentioning the power ups, koopalings, or the nice enemy diversity that have since then become staples. Sadly, that doesn't make one game better then the other, just shows which came first.

Calling the coin stuff gimmicks and disregarding them is the same as calling SMB3's powerups gimmicks and dismissing those. But wait, SMW and the rest of the series already did that. Notice how virtually none of them have been seen since then? Will we see the coin related things again? Probably not. Doesn't make them any less fun while we do have them.

Again, the verdict here is roughly equal.


-SMB3 is still regarded as one of the best games ever made.

Dude. This isn't evidence towards anything anywhere. Nostalgia plays a part here more then anywhere else. Several people played SMB3 as a child and stopped playing games. Give NSMB2 the same amount of time as SMB3 had and then talk to me. It's very possible that NSMB2 will be remembered much in the same way from the youth of today.
---
UMvC 3 Team:
Hagger/P.Wright/Spencer
#42RazumPosted 8/22/2012 6:15:41 PM
-SMB3 has drastically different mechanics from any previous Mario game.

This doesn't show that one's better then the other in the slightest though. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is considered by virtually every to be better then Super Mario Galaxy 1, and that is 100% expansion pack.


-SMB3's main-game lasts longer and is more difficult.

Longer? No. Stage-wise, they are roughly equal, and level-length wise, the are again roughly equal. NSMB2 wins here, because in each level there are Star Coins to find. In several levels there are hidden exits, which were virtually non-existent in SMB3 (I can think of 2, and both led to flutes). Difficulty? None of us can compare that without past playing of other Mario titles interfering. Put them in the hands of someone who's never played either and see what they say. I'd personally give it to NSMB2, if nothing else for the Star Coins and exits. Oh, and please don't give me that to many extra lives garbage. Rayman Origins and Super Meat Boy have infinite lives and crush these in terms of difficulty.


-The NES game wins because SMB3 vastly exceeded the standards of almost every game at the time, whereas New SMB 2 doesn't lift a finger to be the bastion of its platform, genre, series, or even month of release. The sole purpose for its creation is money. Not "most important reason". The only reason it exists, period. It's not to make a fun game.

Standards change. Back then SMB3 had 2 games to trump (SMB1 and 2). NSMB2 has HUNDREDS. Stop trying to compare things that 1) Have nothing to do with which game is actually better and 2) are almost 100% related to which came out when.

On an unrelated not, you're username makes me think I've debated with you before, but I have no clue where.
---
UMvC 3 Team:
Hagger/P.Wright/Spencer
#43pokemega32Posted 8/22/2012 6:18:59 PM(edited)
Vyers posted...
Amazing how a game somehow introduces the ability to revolutionize gameplay mechanics, in this case platforming. How in the world is completely switching up the gameplay and improving the mechanics constitute an introduction of an idea? It's a flat-out balls-to-the-walls improvement. It's a demonstration of going from Point A to Point B. A world map is a demonstration of going from Point A to Point B. What they did was change HOW you could play the game. Play all levels. Play only necessary levels. Find secrets. That completely changed how an SMB game could be played. How can you so plainly fail to notice that?


It's like you're not even reading my posts.

How can I get this through your head?

A game is not automatically superior just because it introduced new and improved mechanics. New =/= better.

New SMB 2 barely does that. The secrets and divergences are, more or less, the same as they were in the first SMB, with the addition of Mushroom Houses.


Where were all the secrets and divergences in SMB3?

You completely miss the point. A world without New SMB 2 is a world with one less Mario game. A world without SMB3 is a world where platform games are either lacking many of what are today considered some of the most important elements of platform games. You lose one of the biggest contributions to the entire genre, a game so mechanically sound and so well-designed that it's amazing by the standards of this very moment. SMB3 has been superior to New SMB 2 in any way that doesn't include technical prowess. The whole of the package of New SMB 2 is lacking; SMB3 ain't.


What is it about influence =/= quality that you just can't wrap your head around?
---
When life gives you melons, you know you're dyslexic.
#44VyersPosted 8/22/2012 6:19:02 PM
pokemega32 posted...
Stop doing that. You can't say "it's not just the unoriginality" and then use the unoriginality as one of those arguments.

Buwhat? It has nothing to do with originality, it has to do with laziness. Not revolutionizing the wheel is somewhat understandable. It is impossible, however, to justify reusing almost the entirety of your soundtrack.

What made SMB3's style so much more "inspired"?

Not being done by any other game, and being completely unlike every Mario game before it in how the visuals were presented.

So? It's not like that's a major part of the game.

Neither are visuals. But you didn't dismiss them so readily. The 3D is a big sell for the game, just like most Nintendo-published 3DS games.

Shorter and easier do not necessarily equal worse. Nor does linearity.

Longer and harder didn't make SMB3 worse. Nor did nonlinearity. SMG2 was so difficult because it could be. Despite the fact that New SMB 2 still has the invincibility modes, it's one of the easiest Mario mainliners of this generation. The whole saving grace of SMB this gen was that it had found a way to be hard and long without scaring away less experienced players. New SMB 2 scares away the hardcore fanbase because it doesn't challenge them.

Collecting coins simply requires to you to move through the levels.

It is no more repetitive than racking up points in SMB3.


The game's selling point isn't "rack up a million points!". If they're going to try to bank on a million coins, then I'm going to criticize them for doing so. Blame Nintendo for making them such an easy target in this respect.

And you've managed to measure each game's "depth" objectively?

Many people have praised how well hidden the Star Coins are in each level and that they think the level design is quite good.

There are certainly far more level gimmicks in NSMB2 than there are in SMB3.


New SMB 2 drops the mid-air spin without adding anything that makes up for this. That in and of itself is a huge lack of depth, because the mid-air spin was actually a subtle, effective, interesting way to change the gameplay.

Also, I saw a level where a Star Coin was sitting in a shallow pool next to the flag pole without a single hazard nearby. CHALLENGE

But I'll address the worst thing you've said next post.

You cannot claim something is "objectively" anything using subjective evidence.

Let's look at it like a product - since its purpose is solely that, to produce money for Nintendo. Both games are $40. Which offers the better experience?

There are people who find it very fun and find the level design creative and find the Star Coin collecting challenging.

You can't say that they're "objectively" wrong.


I can say that they are wrong to look at a game that defined an entire genre in such a way that games are still learning from it and say "it's not as good as this game because it's newer". New SMB 2's qualities and gimmicks in large part exist solely because SMB3 pioneered them. When I go to a movie, I do expect innovation. I expect a two hour subliminal explanation for why my eyes should be beholding this giant screen. If I leave the theater without a validation that my two hours were not wasted, then I will call it inferior - even if it ripped every good idea from every good movie ever made. New SMB 2 did just that. Almost every single idea in the game isn't its own.
---
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Negative_Hippie
Blog: http://www.1up.com/do/my1Up?publicUserId=6123776
#45pokemega32Posted 8/22/2012 6:23:22 PM
Vyers posted...
I can say that they are wrong to look at a game that defined an entire genre in such a way that games are still learning from it and say "it's not as good as this game because it's newer". New SMB 2's qualities and gimmicks in large part exist solely because SMB3 pioneered them. When I go to a movie, I do expect innovation. I expect a two hour subliminal explanation for why my eyes should be beholding this giant screen. If I leave the theater without a validation that my two hours were not wasted, then I will call it inferior - even if it ripped every good idea from every good movie ever made. New SMB 2 did just that. Almost every single idea in the game isn't its own.


Okay, clearly this is a lost cause.

I have no idea why you can't grasp "new content =/= better content" but I doubt you'll ever figure it out.
---
When life gives you melons, you know you're dyslexic.
#46mudelledgePosted 8/22/2012 6:31:21 PM
Vyers posted...
pokemega32 posted...
Stop doing that. You can't say "it's not just the unoriginality" and then use the unoriginality as one of those arguments.

Buwhat? It has nothing to do with originality, it has to do with laziness. Not revolutionizing the wheel is somewhat understandable. It is impossible, however, to justify reusing almost the entirety of your soundtrack.

What made SMB3's style so much more "inspired"?

Not being done by any other game, and being completely unlike every Mario ame before it in how the visuals were presented.

So? It's not like that's a major part of the game.

Neither are visuals. But you didn't dismiss them so readily. The 3D is a big sell for the game, just like most Nintendo-published 3DS games.

Shorter and easier do not necessarily equal worse. Nor does linearity.

Longer and harder didn't make SMB3 worse. Nor did nonlinearity. SMG2 was so difficult because it could be. Despite the fact that New SMB 2 still has the invincibility modes, it's one of the easiest Mario mainliners of this generation. The whole saving grace of SMB this gen was that it had found a way to be hard and long without scaring away less experienced players. New SMB 2 scares away the hardcore fanbase because it doesn't challenge them.

Collecting coins simply requires to you to move through the levels.

It is no more repetitive than racking up points in SMB3.


The game's selling point isn't "rack up a million points!". If they're going to try to bank on a million coins, then I'm going to criticize them for doing so. Blame Nintendo for making them such an easy target in this respect.

And you've managed to measure each game's "depth" objectively?

Many people have praised how well hidden the Star Coins are in each level and that they think the level design is quite good.

There are certainly far more level gimmicks in NSMB2 than there are in SMB3.


New SMB 2 drops the mid-air spin without adding anything that makes up for this. That in and of itself is a huge lack of depth, because the mid-air spin was actually a subtle, effective, interesting way to change the gameplay.

Also, I saw a level where a Star Coin was sitting in a shallow pool next to the flag pole without a single hazard nearby. CHALLENGE

But I'll address the worst thing you've said next post.

You cannot claim something is "objectively" anything using subjective evidence.

Let's look at it like a product - since its purpose is solely that, to produce money for Nintendo. Both games are $40. Which offers the better experience?

There are people who find it very fun and find the level design creative and find the Star Coin collecting challenging.

You can't say that they're "objectively" wrong.


I can say that they are wrong to look at a game that defined an entire genre in such a way that games are still learning from it and say "it's not as good as this game because it's newer". New SMB 2's qualities and gimmicks in large part exist solely because SMB3 pioneered them. When I go to a movie, I do expect innovation. I expect a two hour subliminal explanati




Ok I stop now..not cause you win.....not because you are a "moron" .....but just because your statement mend validated OPINIONS .....which do not matter....

Also you have tooooo much time on your hands to try to make an opinion valid while nit picking at everything.....

Smb3 + nsmb2= equals same concept yet new programmers and design......what do you expect after almost 30 years..
---
I don't like anything in the mainstream and they don't like me.~ Bill Hicks
#47xXDa-KidXxPosted 8/22/2012 6:41:31 PM
Vyers posted...
xXDa-KidXx posted...
Pretty sure the whole NSMB series art style was inspired by SMW and SMB3. Just telling Hah. It isn't bland at all. NSMB Series has some beautiful levels in it.


Being inspired by something doesn't mean that you made something good. Ed Wood was inspired by Orson Welles. One is considered one of the best directors, whereas the other is considered one of the worst directors.


....So..
---
3DS FC: 5455 - 9667 - 3429 My Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/DaKidWiiTrailers
#48VyersPosted 8/22/2012 7:03:22 PM(edited)
I think that the question needs to be, which game will people be talking about in the next 20 years? Will New SMB 2 be remembered for anything, besides being a rote copy of successful ideas?

It's not just about packaging every good idea someone else made. Mario is supposed to be elevated higher than yearly sequels. I especially hear people saying that Mario is too hard to innovate, as if all of the good ideas have been done already. It reminds me of a fun scene from The Truman Show, a movie about a man who is secretly living his life in a fake city run by a studio, with the intent of airing a candid show about his entirely life, from birth to death. As a child, he says that he wants to be a great explorer, like Magellan; however, his teacher (who is an actor hired by the studio), dissuades him by saying "oh, but they've pretty much explored all of the islands!" Which, obviously, is bunk (we have islands that actually have people who don't know about the rest of the world). Just like the notion that Mario, at least 2D Mario, cannot innovate. Let's look at Super Mario World's "smilie slopes", for lack of a better descriptor. The smilie slopes were triangular platforms that rested against flat walls or vertical surfaces, which if ran into, would cause Mario to run up the wall. SMW did not live and die by this, by any means. But it was a good idea. It was a good, optional idea, in a game that already proved itself many times over. It was an example of something that would never have been missed if absent, but is loved for being there. Why can't New SMB 2 have its own smilie slopes? Proverbially, of course.
---
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Negative_Hippie
Blog: http://www.1up.com/do/my1Up?publicUserId=6123776
#49VyersPosted 8/22/2012 6:57:45 PM
I will say, though, that I will not hold it against you for quitting the argument, and would not claim that I won it for your abandonment. I have no interest in winning by forfeit. :v
---
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Negative_Hippie
Blog: http://www.1up.com/do/my1Up?publicUserId=6123776
#50mudelledgePosted 8/22/2012 7:05:00 PM(edited)
You wonder that while writting posts on gamefaqs....


Tell Nintendo...enough said..simple as that...and I didn't abandon the argument...just ignoring it.... as if world peace was available or something of higher hopes
---
I don't like anything in the mainstream and they don't like me.~ Bill Hicks