next »

[Dragonmaw]

So here's a thought for a forum game, spawned by the Earth-Shattering Battle thread.

The rules are simple. You will be comparing two games within the same genre to each other. Critical analysis of each game's strong points and weak points is crucial, and comparing the points to their counterpart is just as essential. The catch is that you can only discuss the two games mentioned until the next page of the thread (may be reduced to a few posts to keep it flowing).

Discussions, contradictions, and walls of text are encouraged. This is exploratory and meant to foster thought on game development and critique, not say "i hate this game lol." Likewise, don't go bitching people out or insulting those that like a particular game. None of that "subhuman fagots" and "elitist dickwads" bullshit in here.

Here's the rules:

1.) The first post on a new page should contain the next two games to discuss. Anybody can do this. The new topic post doesn't require an initial discussion (as shown below) but it can be helpful to get the topic going. Thus, topic changes are going to occur (ideally) every 15 posts.

2.) No slandering people in the thread of fans of a particular game just because you think it sucks, is flawed, was botched, whatever. This is a place to point out the strengths, weaknesses, and comparisons, not disparage groups of people.

3.) Please post reasoning behind your points. Likewise, personal experiences with a game are totally fine, as long as they tie into the strengths. Saying that your mom yelled at you because you played Halo is not acceptable. Saying that you played Command and Conquer with your father and bonded with him while doing so is.

4.) All games are, well, game. This includes comparing indie the mainstream. Just try to keep it within the same genre.

5.) This is not to compare franchises, unless it is relevant to the discussion. Hence, try to judge games based on their own merits and only mention the franchise when remarking on how a game improved. This isn't the place to say "Halo is better than Quake," it's to say "Halo 2 is better than Quake Wars" or what have you.

To start it off, here's a classic:

Discuss: Command and Conquer, Warcraft

[Dustin Smith]

i haven't played enough rts's to weigh onto this current debate, but here's some possible ones i want to dissect at a later point:

super mario bros 3 vs super mario world
runman: race around the world vs. sonic
modern warfare 2 vs halo: reach (the only two mainstream shooters i've avidly played)
mr. gimmick vs trip world (tomomi sakae fight go!)
shatterhand vs megaman (grueling nes fight to the death)
super smash bros vs melee
super mario bros 2 (US) vs super mario bros 2 (japan)
gunstar heroes vs contra III
tactics ogre vs final fantasy tactics
banjo kazooie vs rocket: robot on wheels
...to name a few.

[PleasingFungus]

Without some initial discussion, I'm really not sure what to say. They're both RTSes? One of them is fantasy, the other is sci-fi? I played them over a decade ago?

I think that starting with 'two games, go' without any more detailed prompt is perhaps impractical. Likewise for the idea of a new pair of games every page - seems antithetical to forum structure. Taking a lead from the (pre-defunct) TIGForums Renditions thread, with a moderator changing topics every so often (rather than at the whim of a page divider!) would probably make more sense - especially if the thread takes off, so someone making insightful posts about a pair of games doesn't suddenly find it lost beyond a page barrier.

[Dragonmaw]

I suppose we could do that. Since it appears that I'm the only one who really played C&C and WC, we'll shift topics to one of Dustin's:

TOPIC: Super Mario Bros 3, Super Mario World

Potential sub-topics: Comparison of world maps, changes to power-ups, thematic similarities

I'll make a post later, when I'm a little more lucid (bit tired right now).

[baconman]

This forum post reserved for participation purposes. I'll be Bach.

(EDIT: FINALLY!)
__________

While SMB3 and SMW were designed in similar ways and on similar principles, each had it's own advantages and disadvantages in development, and they were both developed for a different purpose. SMB3 was designed to be the "pinnacle NES game," where SMW was designed "to sell the Super Nintendo." After all, without that definitively addictive experience, the little gray box itself wouldn't be so interesting, now would it?

On the advantages and disadvantages, SMB3 was developed on the NES. Granted, this means some technical limitiations like colors, a very basic, boardgame-style map screen, a four-button + pad input scheme (don't forget start/select!), and 8x8/16x16 tiles with the total resolution of (IIRC) 256x240. But it also had many advantages, like having a direct predecessor to refer to in terms of sprites, physics, gameplay mechanics, and a host of influences. It also made it's advantages work in it's favor; the boardgame-style map screen allowed for things to occur "outside" of levels, like the wandering Hammer Bros., the Doom Ships and Koopa Force; and the limited spriting made things like Doom Ships a forced "dance of death," requiring precise location of "safe spots," and quick manuevering to get yourself there.

SMW had the technical advantages. Hundreds of sprites could be on-screen at once, and even Super Mario could be an entire 256x256 sprite, instead of an assemblage of smaller sprites. It also managed to place 3 of the worlds on a single, "main" world map that appeared in alternation to the other submap worlds. But also, I'm pretty certain that everything in it - physics, graphics/sprites, programming, you name it - had to be completely written from scratch. This shows in just how differently the Goombas and Koopa Troopas work in the game compared with the original and SMB3. And the world map's definitive path-structures (as seen in many titles, including the DKC trilogy) were considerably more streamlined and focused on getting a player immediately from one level to the next - but in the process, foregone nearly anything else that it was being used for in SMB3.

Both games attempted to do very similar things in many cases. SMW had puzzle-like "Ghost Houses" which became a staple feature, clearly favoritized by developers... but SMB3 featured those as well! They just came in different forms, like the considerably more numerous Fortress levels, Pipe Mazes, or the ones with very convoluted solutions such as 6-5 or 7-7 (which IIRC, is the infamous "Muncher Mania" level - that or 7-6). The bonus games in SMB3 often revolved around the map screen, where SMW's structure forced them to be integrated into the level design itself. The exploration/mystery was the big draw of SMB3's level design instead (often creating changes in the map screen like the Treasure Ships or White Toad's Houses), where in SMW it was directed at the map structure instead. In fact, about the only "map-based secret" in SMB3 was where the third whistle was located. All of the paths were completely open, and the risk-reward involved was apparent to the player by trying the hard levels. SMW, however, only branched the path as a reward for the keys/holes; and even still, if you saw one (which was always obvious), you knew you'd find the other just by poking around.

Both gave a huge assortment of powers to Mario and Luigi - the SNES concentrated them into fewer powers using the multiple inputs, whereas the NES had more numerous forms to compensate for the lack of additional command inputs. Though it proved to be considerably more fun that way, who would have thought that back then, from a design standpoint... when the NES was about all they'd known? Sure, there was Sonic and the Genesis - but for the 3 pad-buttons it had, Sonic games only used the inputs for one single core function, the jump button! And both featured a type of "save point," although given NES limitations, SMB3 used it as a "Continue" feature instead; allowing you to use shortcut pipes to skip to the point of the last beaten Fortress. Which again, can draw a comparison to Ghost Houses equating to save points in SMW.

SMB3 and SMW had equatible difficulty, and they each had tricks to get around certain issues. You could swim under the Koopa Navy, for example, or P-Wing yourself through the Doom Ships just fine. The only difference was that in SMW, that extra layer of difficulty was COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. The most that the warp whistles could do in SMB3 was take you to the beginning of World 8. That was some tough shit, and you'd only get there by using the whistles... in a certain way. The Star Roads could take you from World 2 (early on at that) not only straight to World 7; but it would hand-deliver you straight to the doorstep of Bowser's Castle! And even still, World 7 wasn't the hardest world in the game, the secret "Awesome!!" world was; and completing some of those levels (especially "Tubular!") was even more difficult to me than "Muncher Mania" proved to be.

They both were successful at what they were created to be - SMB3 as the pinnicale of SMB; and SMW as the spiritual forebear to Donkey Kong Country games. No doubt DKC was an intentional rebranding of SMW (hence why you don't see a sequel for nearly 8 years); as comparing the two always favors SMB3 for being, while not necessarily a "better game," the "better Mario game" of the two. And the formula for the DKC games - especially 2 and 3 - completely remain true to the core formula. All of the secrets, bonus games, and shortcuts are engrained in the level design itself, rather than in map screen deviations (ala SMB3); and you can "win" the game and still optionally tackle additional challenging levels.

As for why SMB3 turned out to be the funner of the two? I believe it comes down to the fact that it had fundamental groundwork to build off of, and the developers found ways to utilize the limitiations of the NES; where SMW had to be developed from scratch (and focus more on bug/troubleshooting the engine, and less on refining level design), and really downplayed any advantages that a "World Map" screen has over any standard menu. The fact that there is a good amount of unfinished "glitch" levels in SMW suggests that it's an unfinished, imperfected product; whereas SMB3 was seen through to the end. How many unfinished or "glitch" levels do you see in SMB3?

However, I do find that both of them were partly responsible for something that many players wouldn't even think of as a faux pas at the time. BOTH TITLES, at early release, were packaged with Player's Guides (by the devlopers!), and a free trial subscription to Nintendo Power; which at the time, was the biggest spoiler-mag in existence. Sure, they left a little meat at the very end for you to explore all on your own... but hand-held you from start all the way to that point. Maybe it wasn't so bad back then, without the internet being so prominent and full of FAQs and YouTube playthroughs; and it pointed out a lot of neat things you could do, that most players wouldn't expect to even try.

[SirNiko]

Super Mario World was the first Super Mario game to feature a save feature, and I feel like that had a significant impact on the design of the worlds. The value of 1ups was severely diminished due to the ability of the player to save the game and even though the world was littered with hidden extra lives in the form of the 3-up moons, they were of little value or interest. In its place were secret levels and paths which I believe were far more conducive to replay value.

The fact that the game was not meant to be played in a single sitting also led to a far less strenuous experience. Individual levels could be much more difficult knowing that they player could focus an entire sitting on a single stage, and I think Nintendo capitalized on that - the later fortresses were downright sadistic affairs littered with moving spikes, spinning sawblades and invincible fireballs. Simultaneously, you lost access to the special suits and starmen you could bring with you in Mario 3.

With the advent of things like the Switch Palaces and Star Roads, exploration was rewarded to a far greater degree. In all the previous Mario titles, reaching the final level and defeating Bowser was the ultimate goal, and all other actions were taken with the express purpose of completing that (assuming, of course, you weren't simply screwing around). Super Mario World continued to be challenging even after Bowser was defeated, as there were new places to discover. The Special World served as an ultimate reward to the gamer that chose to go over and above the call of duty, allowing for freedom of design by creating tiers of accomplishment for casual and advanced players.

As mentioned before, Super Mario World resulted in a trend of devaluing 1-ups that is still problematic in modern Mario games. Once the player reaches the first ghost house, there's no reason to ever have to replay a completed level due to death - at the first sign of an emergency you slip back to the Donut Ghost House and complete it for a nearly free save. Couple that with the Top Secret Area, and it felt needlessly repetitive. By contrast, the secrets in Super Mario 3 were limited in use and therefore the player was constantly driven to find new resources when the prior ones were exhausted. Nintendo really didn't seem to consider the way the save-game feature was implemented in SMW to make it work right.

[cystem glitch]

I disagree with your emphasis on the devaluing of 1-ups between the two games. In both games I compulsively collected the one ups, up to and surpassing when I hit the 99 lives mark. There were enough extra guys in Mario 3 that unless you had a real dry spell or were fucking up a  hard level repeatedly you wouldn't hit zero that often (and when you did, you could continue). The 3-up moons were strange and relatively rare and I wanted them for that reason alone and so I completely differ with the statement "they were of little value or interest." That's like saying hammer suit was of little value or interest because you were only going to play a few levels as it before taking a hit and losing it for the rest of the game. It's oddity is compelling enough. And in both games you could skip to the end boss and skip the majority of the game in the process so finding all kinds of weird new shit and completing every level they had to offer is part of the adventure.

You're on to something with the save states though; it feels totally necessary with the sprawling world and all the different paths offered (and unless you get each path you aren't really totally completing the game) but picking up a halfway completed saved state feels stale.

I believe mario 3 to be the superior game because it is stranger, more iconic, better reduced in it's gameplay (how you avoid obstacles and play well or die), leaner, beckons one more enticingly to play it again perhaps with someone uninitiated or just to run through the stranger worlds (3 - 7 essentially which is most of the levels), and it has clawed it's way deeper into my heart. Strangeness is really key though, the gameplay is so solid but the setting and trappings so bizarre.

Super mario world is great too, and added enough fresh shit to offer a great play experience and sell a few systems. Capes were pretty pimp and many of the challenges were challenging, and there was lots of new without watering down core difficulty that much.

I don't know if pixels will ever be pushed as compellingly as they were in mario 3 but I guess that's what we are trying for right? RIGHT!?

[InfiniteStateMachine]

Command and Conquer had the superior soundtrack. It had more epic battles (larger max unit count and smaller size units).

I feel infantry combat was also handled better. Units and structures were more interesting to me(Obelisk FTW).

[Dustin Smith]

Seeing as how Dragonmaw decided on using my SMW vs SMB 3 thread I should get on to posting my wall-o-text. *yawn* give me a good night's sleep and I'll get on this post-haste.

[Dragonmaw]

Here's my thoughts on the two:

I never had a SNES growing up, so the first time I got to play Super Mario World and Super Mario Bros. 3 was at a friend's house around the time I was 13 (2001 or so). I don't really have a lot of nostalgia for the games, but I like them quite a bit.

I always felt that Super Mario Bros 3 had a far stronger world map. Where SMW is heavily linear, SMB3 felt like there were multiple paths to take and thus more options. SMB3 also had the roaming enemies on said world map, which added an element of meta-gaming to the whole affair (can I take on that Hammer Bros?) that enriched the experience. The secret buttons in SMW's world map were an excellent addition, as they gave you incentive to replay old levels, but they were the only significant improvement over SMB3's world map.

Nintendo essentially made two completely different games between SMB3 and SMW. SMB3 is more of a gamer's game. It has a bit of challenge and improved/added to the previous games in the series. In comparison, SMW was more of a side-grade. It's a game that is obscenely easy from start to finish, partially because of the devaluation of 1ups (good earlier post, by the way). While it has a stronger design in terms of accessibility and appeal, it's weaker in terms of challenge. Nintendo seems to have followed this philosophy since then, as most Mario games hold the player's hand a bit excessively. Possible exceptions include Super Mario Sunshine (which most people hated, despite it being my personal favorite) and Super Mario Galaxy 2.

Power-ups between the two games remained essentially the same. Cape replaced Tanooki, other classic power-ups (fire flower, mushroom) stayed. The new blocks (note, secret) made individual levels in SMW far more interesting, even if they were not nearly as difficult. SMW is more of an exercise is "maximalist" design. New concepts are constantly being introduced and discarded. In retrospect, SMB3 seems to construct more out of what it has, thus leading to a larger challenge. Perhaps this is because the developers had to make each situation with older elements in SMB3 feel fresh, so the challenge level rose as the developers expected more of the player. Conversely, since SMW has tons of many elements, the developers had more to work with and didn't have to rearrange existing elements into new patterns. They could make a far easier situation that a player had not seen before simply because there was more options to work with.

That's a potential line of thought. Games with less elements (notably shmups) have to focus on being challenging and difficult to alleviate the notion that they are relatively simple or minimal. Conversely, games with lots of elements (like RPGS) have to focus on being easier, as too much challenge with so many elements can drive people away. Obvious exceptions to each exist, though.

[SirNiko]

That's an interesting point - SMB3 did indeed have a lower number of unique situations and levels (excepting the Kuribo Shoe stage). The fact that the stages all appeared at the start of the world led pushed the player to develop strategies to tackle them. Each world was a cohesive whole you had to handle in a single sitting, therefore the significance of individual stages mattered less.

By contrast, SMW kept the paths between stages a secret to the player. Aside from the knowledge that the red dot indicated a second exit, you did not know the best way to tackle a world simply by looking at it. And even if it HAD been displayed, the shortest path was painfully obvious: proceed to the first star road and go directly to Bowser's Front Door. The was no strategy to the game as a whole, only the individual stages.

It's not an easy trade-off. SMB3's strategic exploration comes with increased repetition, if you fail to defeat the boss and run out of lives you will have to replay completed stages. SMW lacks that repetition, but the grand scheme of the world is less mechanically interesting from a strategic viewpoint. Both styles of game design could co-exist peacefully as two distinct series, I think.

[s0]

All of what I wanted to say has been said already.
Some suggestions for new topics, if anyone's up for it

Demon's Souls vs. Monster Hunter (Yes I'm a DS fantard)
Dungeon Keeper vs. Dungeons
Red Dead Redemption vs. GTA IV
Pokemon vs. Dragon Quest Monsters
Vanquish vs. Gears of War
Deadly Premonition vs. Alan Wake
Darksiders vs. Zelda: Twilight Princess

[cystem glitch]

Tetris vs Dr. Mario
Braid vs Cave Story
Marvel vs Capcom 2 vs Street Fighter II Turbo
Time Fcuk vs Shift
Chess vs Go
Guitar Hero vs Air guitar contests
All nes games that prominently feature wizards vs each other
Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing vs Hot Throttle
Mighty Jill Off vs Space Fuck
Rock Paper Scissors vs Odds and Evens
Final Fantasy 8 vs Onimusha 2

[SirNiko]

Rather than just listing games, why not just segue the conversation over to the comparison of your choice, and others can jump in as appropriate.

We'll probably run into games that some participants have not played, which is a good thing. It could spur some of the participants to pick up games that have been discussed which is always a positive (unless they're terrible).

[s0]

The problem with that is that the thread would probably turn into a mess pretty soon. I could start talking about Demon's Souls and Monster Hunter right now, but what if someone else still wants to discuss Mario? We'd have multiple discussions going on in parallel, or even worse, no actual "discussion" at all.

I think a better rule would be to talk about one pair of games for a set amount of time (like a day or something) and then change the subject.

[azeo]

I always wonder why SMB3 and SMW are the only two games that compared, when the most superior Mario platformer, in my opinion, is Yoshi's Island. Yes, it isn't in the "Mario" series (although it does say Super Mario World 2 on the cover), and it is really different from the other entries, but in terms of 16-bit and earlier platformers, it's amazing. The art direction, the level variety, and the little bits inbetween are what really make it stand out.
It's too bad it always gets ignored, and even worse that Nintendo made a crappy n64 sequel instead of a good one.

[Dragonmaw]

New Topic!

Demon's Souls, Monster Hunter

Sub-topics: The importance of character weight, MMO-like elements, hardcore progression, settings

[gimymblert]

SMB3 is packed with secret in each level, I dunno there was secret I found that were not on guide until "lately". Level where pack full with secret, sometimes you had to bactrack or solve a "puzzle" and some secret are nested inside other like on some ice level, backtracking after the P button with a flower allow you to unfreeze invincible piranha flower turned into coin which free a pipe, you need to do so under a certain time before the P power stop on a slipery level. There is only one level I didn't finished and play outside in, it's one of the last level in world seven. In my memory there was much more unique situation in SMB3 than in SMW.

SMB3 give you the load share of life (every 3 level with 3 stars in the slot), I think more so than in SMW but in smw you can go back with your save to harvest life in some level. But the real difference is that the progression is handle differently, SMB3 allow you to have much more option to skip level or reduce their difficulties, you had a map inventory where you could store a lot of items like cloud, tanuki suite, infinite flying suit, whistle. Map had different path with different type of level to suit you more, toad shoap, breakable stone, hidden passage, etc... When you lose all your life, continue allow you to keep your inventory and all the map modification and toad shop are back. 2P was also interesting because only level made by one player are reset, you can desync player to balance the progression, turning the map into a planning puzzle.

SMW was less interesting, it have obvious secret passage and fancy map effect, there was a bit of metroidvania structure with Big colored button to find that slightly change level lay out, but that's all. It handle the progression more through in level powerup. First you have yoshi , which allow to take one hit and "reclaim" it if you get back on yoshi, yoshi itself allow for a new double jump by sacrificing it, yoshi also gain power with turtle shell (the blue shell is really fancy and is essentially the unlimited fly power up), and there was different color of yoshi with their own power. In the same spirit you had a in level inventory, if you have already a top power up, the next power up store in the the top screen box, If you get hit the power up fall across the screen to give you a second chance, you can also manually invoke the fall to switch power up. All those give the player more adaptability to level and could go back in previous level (which you can't in smb3) to harvest item and quit. SMW also introduce mid level ckeckpoint I think.

SMB3 IMO is the superior game.

oh what? Demon's soul and monster hunter??? sorry never played them.

[Dustin Smith]

sinclair is going to sadface when he reads this, but i don't own a ps3 so i am severely lacking in the demon's souls department. i could talk about monster hunter, but only in isolation.

i dunno if i want to wall-o-text and steer the discussion away from DS vs. MH, but super mario 3 was the true sequel to super mario bros (2 in japan can be ret-conned as an official romhack and 2 in america ain't mario) in terms of level design. they're concise yet dense levels with sound principles backing them. smb3 introduced the first 'flying' class of power-up, which allows the player to disregard the level if they desire. the conditions required to fly via leaf means it isn't an end-all 'broken' item to abuse. it has it's uses, sure, but it's limited in scope. the maps were akin to boardgames, which is backed up by the card games and treasure huts. the level skips present are an extension of the warp pipes in smb, which are a sort of workaround to not having a save feature. smb3 expanded the basic concept of the original while keeping in the spirit of delicious physics and pedigree of level design.

super mario world is in a weird limbo between the nes titles and super mario 64's open 'playground' design. the 1-ups have been brought up earlier, and i see it thusly: smb and smb3 had points, right? they served little purpose other than to give feedback on doing something positive (killing an enemy, nabbing a coin). this quickly got devalued -- who ever looks at their score in a mario game? the inclusion of the save feature makes extra lives redundant, so instead i venture nintendo used them as a new 'score counter' of sorts. having a special, almost mythical moon worth three lives backs this up. Also, there are p switches that turn enemies into silver coins. collect them, and you get points. collect enough, and the points turn into 1,2, and even 3-ups. every time i beat the game i have 90+ lives.

the difficulty is extremely low as well, between an invincible yoshi and the item box enemies will rarely kill you. there's that one 'hidden' area which gives you two fire flowers and capes, so the game is begging to be beatten (i beat it when i was like 4). the cape is broken. with the inclusion of that upper quadrant -- which is mostly empty --a player could indefinitely fly through a level. gilbert mentioned the mid-level checkpoint; super mario bros had one, but it was invisible. when you died in smb, you were uneasy about if you progressed far enough to start at the half-way point. in smw, not only was this point made explicit, it made small mario large mario, effectively giving the player a free mushroom.

the dragon coins predated the red coins in super mario 64, and they're optional here. this furthers the playground motif and promotes exploration. obligartory mr. gimmick/trip world mention: if you like the idea of levels as a playground i'd investigate said two titles. i feel that interactions between player and enemies/environment mean a lot more than simply giving players an open area to explore.

the map system should be explained more. at the very start you're given a choice: do you go left, or right? the left was the slightly harder path (banzai bills and those dinosaurs instead of familiar koopas/goombas) but rewarded the player with the yellow switch. every world features some divergent path of some sort, and ardent players are able to traverse star road.

and so on. there's more random observations i could make but i'm not sure if there's an audience for it. i played both games at the perfect time, i played super mario world when i was 4, and played it with my mother. outside of the forest of illusion and one weird stage in choco island i was able to beat the game by myself. the low difficulty wasn't an issue then because i was a fledgling gamer. i played smb3 on the gba when i was thirteen, when i was a more experienced platformer player (who already beat smb1 countless times). smb3 is the better designed game, but i still love smw. i'm off to go write a review for a smw romhack, so i bid you all adieu.  
  
further reading:
http://forums.selectbutton.net/viewtopic.php?t=23960&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=426

[s0]

I've got my writeup on DS and MH half-written.

Prolly put it up tomorrow.