next »

[ChefSeth]

    There has been a tiny bit of a resurgence with 3D platformers lately and I can't help but be disappointed that they all seem to be taking their inspiration from "collect-a-thon" type games like Banjo Kazooie more so than Mario 64. I don't think there's been a true successor to Mario 64, Sunshine changed the movement mechanics a significant amount, and also focused more on world building rather than pure platforming. Mario Galaxy returned to platforming, but with straight forward and linear levels, as well as nerfed and slowed down movement with less options than Mario 64. Mario 64 has it's problems, but a lot of them are technical rather than design. The camera gets stuck on objects frequently and inexplicably, collision can be misleading, draw distance keeps you from really seeing the levels as a whole, and there are frequent framerate drops. Mechanically though it is nothing short of genius, and you could steal almost everything from it. 

    Before anything else, the team behind Mario 64 made sure Mario was fun to control on his own. They gave him tons of different jumps, so many jumps most people don't even know them all, but what this means is players can be creative just while running around the hub world. They can have fun without any enemies or death pits or collectibles. This was critical to the game's success, it means that they could create simplistic levels lacking a lot of the charm of other collect-a-thons and it's still a joy to play. Casual players can use five easier jumps to accomplish what advnaced players do in three difficult jumps. The fun of Mario 64 is in the creativity in using these tools to solve problems of platforming. Banjo Kazooie on the other hand is reliant on cute and lovable NPC's, good dialogue, fun and quirky gimmicks like the transformations and minigames, and memorable set pieces. That's great, and I think it worked really well, but it presents two problems.
   
    Firstly, all of those are way more difficult to produce than just a simple level to jump around in. Writing is hard, art is hard, music is hard, and often these moments require unique coding just for that one tiny part of the game. That's not a surprise to anyone here, but all of these need to come together in a very specific and difficult to accomplish way to make something that is inspired by Banjo Kazooie. Mario 64's focus on mechanics makes it much more in scope for an indie team, just make fun movement and worry about personality and charm afterwards. Mario 64 does have some NPC's, cute specific moments, and some gimmicks but not nearly to the degree that Banjo does, and the people who look back fondly on Mario 64 remember it for it's platforming and movement a lot more so than it's charm. Banjo fans are fans because of the unique and creative atmosphere it created, and that's very difficult for an indie team to replicate.

    Secondly, by focusing more on mechanics the game will appeal to a wider audience. Banjo Kazooie is kind of controversial, there are people that just don't resonate with the characters or don't like the atmosphere and so there isn't really much else for them to get out of the game. The movement is slow and doesn't have much room for creativity, the platforming is simple, so there isn't much joy to just mechanically playing Banjo Kazooie. You're there for the experience. By focusing on platforming, you don't have to lose any of that atmosphere or experience, but you gain so much by making movement for the sake of movement fun. If other elements of your game fall flat, you can still find a good market in people that just like to move around in your game. Casual players like it, hardcore players love it, I can't really think of any downsides to expressive movement in a 3D platformer.

    I'm not saying that an indie team CAN'T create the type of atmosphere and polish that Banjo Kazooie has or that they shouldn't try, but after Yooka Laylee's negative reviews I think it's important to keep in mind scope when making a game. Whether your team is capable of creating that atmosphere or not, it is much easier to polish a set of movement mechanics and rely on those than it is to rely on NPC's and world building. Purely from an economic stand point I don't get why there hasn't been more of a push to create this type of game.

   I don't see how you lose anything by designing this way, if you want to create a charming and fun world filled with lovable characters and your team is capable, do it! But don't ignore your movement mechanics. Build those to be fun first, before anything else, and your world and your characters will be part of a much better game. I'm hoping that a Hat in Time and Mario Odyssey will come out and do exactly that, but right now I'm a little skeptical.

   To address the inevitable "well why don't YOU make this game if it's so easy", I'm working on a different game right now and I absolutely plan to make a Mario 64 spiritual successor as soon as I'm done with my current project. I'm a huge believer in be the change you want to see, but I'm also a huge believer in finishing what you started and I started my current project first.

Tl;dr Mario 64 focused on a ridiculous amount of movement options that allowed for creative movement while Banjo Kazooie focuses on world building and characters. Movement focus is cheaper and easier to produce, and if your world building doesn't appeal to some people (you can't please everybody) you will rope in a larger audience with your good movement mechanics as a foundation

[BorisTheBrave]

I think you may be letting nostalgia do your game design. Nothing measures up to M64 in your mind because they are not *exactly* the same.

You note M64 had plenty of linear and gimmick levels, but not exactly the same amount as BK. And you critize mario sequels for either having more movement mechanics, or for having less. Come on - if someone made a sequel to M64 that was so slavishly precise to your formula, it would be creatively bankrupt. I loved the 3d mario sequels, personally.

There's a decent number of games in the free roaming 3d platformer genre. Admittedly, none of them have reached the fame of M64. I think the genre has less adherents than you might care to admit, and M64 is known for being ground breaking rather than for the quality of the game.

I think what you want (ok, what I want), is basically Super Mario Maker, but for the 3d marios. How sweet would it be to play those same games again, only with tough as nails courses that require the full range of movement options.

[s0]

making a game that uses 3d space well is really hard which is why the majority of singleplayer 3d games either use simple heightmaps (GTA, Elder Scrolls) or corridor levels (most shooters). it's the same reason why there are so few deus ex like games: some genres are just hard to get right.

anyway, mario 64 is different from banjo kazooie and other "open world 3d platformers" because it focuses on the actual platforming part, whereas banjo is more of an adventure/puzzle game with "platforming elements". banjo's moveset consists of discrete moves that usually have 1 or 2 predefined purposes and progression is gated by acquiring new moves, a lot like the items in a zelda game. the actual platforming is trivially easy for the most part and it's all about figuring out which move to use. mario 64 gives you a bunch of different jumps and lets you chain them together and use them for traversal in any way you see fit. there are 3 "lock and key" type abilities (the caps) but those can be unlocked early and are not the focus of the game.

most other 3d platformers (jak&daxter, ratchet&clank etc) follow the banjo formula rather than the super mario 64 formula, so it's fair to say that sm64 is unique.

[ChefSeth]

I think you may be letting nostalgia do your game design. Nothing measures up to M64 in your mind because they are not *exactly* the same.

You note M64 had plenty of linear and gimmick levels, but not exactly the same amount as BK. And you critize mario sequels for either having more movement mechanics, or for having less. Come on - if someone made a sequel to M64 that was so slavishly precise to your formula, it would be creatively bankrupt. I loved the 3d mario sequels, personally.

There's a decent number of games in the free roaming 3d platformer genre. Admittedly, none of them have reached the fame of M64. I think the genre has less adherents than you might care to admit, and M64 is known for being ground breaking rather than for the quality of the game.

I think what you want (ok, what I want), is basically Super Mario Maker, but for the 3d marios. How sweet would it be to play those same games again, only with tough as nails courses that require the full range of movement options.

It isn't that they don't have the exact same movement mechanics, Galaxy is pretty close to having the exact same ones, but the nerf in speed fluidity and the few options they removed make a difference. That being said I LIKE Galaxy, and I didn't mean to come off like I didn't, but it is no spiritual successor to Mario 64. It's not that I want something to use the exact same mechanics, I want something to be designed with the same philosophy, movement is about creatively exploring SEVERAL options, not one or two. Mario Sunshine I think is a misguided attempt at that, it does add MORE options to the game, but some of them are so good (spin jump and hover nozzle) you don't really need to be creative at all, and being creative is actively hampering how effective you can be at the game. Galaxy has less options and is much more about timing the few options you have than it is about creatively exploring them. The linear levels also aren't a problem, but deviate from M64 where linear levels were a difference in kind, not the focus.

Also saying that M64 had "plenty" of gimmick or linear levels is not at all true. I didn't admit that it had plenty, just that it had some, because it does have some. I really think you should do back to back playthroughs of at least the first hour of each game and compare the focus on gimmicks, they aren't even close to the same when it comes to them. The vast majority of your playtime in M64 will be spent on platforming.

All this talk of nostalgia too I think is misguided, while I do have a lot of nostalgia for Galaxy,  I hadn't played more than the first level of M64 until a few weeks ago when I decided to play through the whole thing. I think I'm being pretty fair towards Galaxy despite having an attachment to it, and I don't think my attachment to M64 comes from an undeserving place. If you really don't think M64 has anything different from these other games design-wise, I really recommend you playing it again and comparing it to other games. It really is very different purely from an objective standpoint

[gimymblert]

The nostalgia test, are people still playing the game for itself and finding new things?
- mario 64 yes, active community of modder, speed run, TAS and pannenkoek of "first we must talk about parallel universe" fame (https://kotaku.com/youtubes-mario-64-genius-sounds-overwhelmed-with-his-po-1797832360)
- other 3d mario no

Mario 64 is basically like a classic sonic game, it's level are more of the skate park design mentality than the obstacle course like other game. In a skate park, elements are there to enhance your expression, in a obstacle course they are there to be consume.

There is so few skate park games and too many obstacle courses with finite shelve life.

[Squire Grooktook]

anyway, mario 64 is different from banjo kazooie and other "open world 3d platformers" because it focuses on the actual platforming part

I personally can't stand the "collect-a-thon" design philosophy of early 3d platformers (drop you into a big unfocused playground and set you on fetch quests for some doohickeys). There's very little I would personally salvage from them, and I do not enjoy revisiting them.

As you said, Mario 64 stands above the rest of its ilk for me because there's actually some decent platforming level design within those toyboxes. But I'd still rather replay the much more focused and tight Galaxy series any day of the week.

There is so few skate park games and too many obstacle courses with finite shelve life.

There are numerous methods through which an "obstacle course" can have infinite shelf life. Deep scoring systems, RNG to keep you reacting each time, etc.

Insane Japanese nerds have been score-running and coming up with new strategies and tricks for Battle Garegga and Mushihimesama Futari for 10-20 years now with an unhealthy passion that makes the speedrun community look like a bunch of casuals.

Of course, I suppose that a game might qualify as a "skatepark" to you the moment it approaches that much depth.

[gimymblert]

Those game aren't unfocus, you are just not liking them lol, they follow the adventure structure, like a zelda game, aka figure out what to do through clue, ie it engage the intellect more than reflex, at least initially, the formula is like that:
1 - Explore the level to make a mental map of how things connect together
2 - use the various clues and hints to figure out where the goal is
3 - then figure out how to reach the path to the goal
4 - execute the skill require to reach the goal
It's different from the skate park, banjo has this adventure structure but still play itself as an obstacle course (apply the right skills to the right obstacle), golden eye has this adventure structure, classic sonic doesn't for the main part but still follow skate park gameplay (except for side activity, like hunting side path, bonus and big rings).

New mario game has streamline the adventure part to generally small room or screen for side bonus, instead of using it as a full structure. And while mario 64 is mostly adventure skate park, it does have moment of obstacle course you can branch in or out from the rest, but boss level tend to be mostly obstacle course. Mario galaxy is the total opposite of mario 64, it's slow, not every expressive as there is generally only one best way to complete a level, and linear, you don't have to though and the designer baby sit you through by taking control of the camera, collision bug tend to be highly detrimental to the player while in 64 they can be opportune for new possibility.

Mario 64 is also very well design and teach the player how to understand 3d progressively, there is generally 3 type of simple 3d configuration, the wide land (all directions), the tower (around a landmark) and the room to room. Bomb battlefield first star ask you to follow a path toward a landmark seen in the distance (ie linear) along the way, there is many smaller side activity point organize around small POI, half way through you climb a tower, so you have basically all principal 3d configuration organized like a tour, with each implicit room introducing some idea and baiting into exploration of the small room without forcing you, it teach you the whole aesthetics of the game in a single playthrough. Further level would be more and more complex adding "systemic" relation to 3d exploration (water height, character size, clock element), making him much more sophisticate than any mario afterwise while keeping everything highly legible. It's a master piece. Mario 64 is letterally the best zelda game with BOTW, and I would put him above this one.

[Pfotegeist]

I took camera design loosely inspired from Mario 64 because Lakitu holds the camera somehow.  The method for designing quality 3D space camera becomes convoluted mathematically and rigged mechanically as the screen space has the same goals as a 2D game, the camera's positioning allows more mistakes.

There is also a 3D game design problem emergent from unfocused 3D camera movement a player doesn't cue, or when player expects camera retention and it suddenly breaks and shows another angle. (As a player it turns out trying to make quick adjustments in a 360 degrees of freedom while the camera rotates off cue will make it harder to focus and break the understood interface's quality.)  Games that switch direction can keep the player character moving the same direction briefly or until the direction input is refreshed, but this is rarely a clean fix.  I found this very interesting, but most games have the camera rush straight up to you and retain the character tightly, but I have also seen some use breakaway or see-through shaders.

Another thing is the beginner is expected to fall off the edge a few thousand times, and since this was one of the early brutal platformers it was unnecessary to handhold. The N64 controller was controversially painful. Thumb stick, bulky, "handles like a piece of wood" - paraphrased, unknown Nintendo Power mail-in comment.  It all contributed to how the design evolved to simpler things customers won't whine about today.

[Squire Grooktook]

Those game aren't unfocus, you are just not liking them lol

Fair enough! I still hate 'em!

aka figure out what to do through clue

You mean like "shoot into the wild blue" ? :3

For instance, think about Shoot Into the Wild Blue. It’s a pretty straightforward star. You talk to the pink Bob-omb, enter the cannon, aim at the pillars, and blast toward the star. It really is easy once you know how to do it.

But the first time you play, you don’t.

You enter the cannon, and there’s a star above you in the sky, in a cage. You shoot at it. You fall short and make your way to the cannon to try again. You blast off and fall short again. You try for a while before you get frustrated and consult the internet. You’re supposed to shoot at some pillars, which will stop you midflight so you can climb down a pole and collect a star that’s hidden out of sight below. You didn’t shoot into any wild blue. You shot into the most confined area in the whole level to find a hidden object.

This is early 3D game design in a nutshell. You try and try until you happen to get it right. The worst case of this is Blast Away the Wall, where Mario needs to shoot himself at the corner of an unspecified wall in Whomp’s Fortress, a level composed entirely of walls.

I'll stick with the enjoyable hop and bop of Galaxy.

[gimymblert]

Meh, you were supposed to have the cap anyway, the game teach you you don't have to do everything in one go and when you get stuck in general you have many more option, you don't have to go for all star, that's suggested as early as the first star with the "tourist tour path" with the nagging star behind chomp chomp. The game constantly tease you with out or order stuff, and if you can't figure out something, come back later. And that's key, adventure games tend to follow this logic, you have to experiment to discover relationship between element, the hint aren't just the starting riddle, they are the environment and the physics. The world is structured like a buffet.

Mario 64 is also part metroidvania, it's all about the navigation puzzle, the game nag you very early with non materialize block (the red cap block) which you unlock very soon after a bunch a stars, which make the cannon level making much more sense, but if you are smart you can sequence break, there is a zillion way to do everything, now when I play the game, I can shoot straight to the floating platform, no need for the cap.

As a kid I was able to figure out shoot in the blue without any help at all, it make sense, you overshoot, you need to stop overshooting, therefore shoot at something that stop you (the pillar), that's very elementary applied physics, and by now you have experimented with cannon already, you should figure out you would overshoot because it's not new. It's a puzzle game, it engage your mind, you are independent too, you must come up with your own solution. Of course the first time you don't know, you are supposed to play the game, not follow ikea instructions, that's barely different from qte, do the right ting at the right time, so much for gameplay.

I really don't like galaxy (and sunshine) I feel like there is a silent parent looking over you ready to give you a cookie when you have done something basic but only in the way they wanted you to do it, how many time I found way to sequence break and the game said no, push the camera to mess me up or put invisible wall, F**K YOU GAME, I'm an independent person, I don't need you to tell me what's good for me, and not your tedious repetition.

This is early 3D game design in a nutshell. You try and try until you happen to get it right.

I really don't get that, any game that has a minimum of challenge will have you repeat until you succeed, that's literally gamedesign regardless of number of D, you try, you fail, until you figure out, unless you are playing "tourist" game where you can never fail ...

This made me wonder how old are you lol, old game use to be full of secret you had to figure out by being observant, so much than many seemingly obscure stuff can entirely be deducted based on minor change in pacing, they had the straightforward obstacle course (with expressive resolution) but also secret all other the place for engaging the mind, many secret room, hidden bonus, etc ... once you play these game, being challenged by simple puzzle like in mario 64 is routine lol.

Also the control of mario galaxy are so much worse, that's unbearable, especially the collision ... and the camera think it's smarter than it actually is, cringe ...

[Squire Grooktook]

I really don't get that, any game that has a minimum of challenge will have you repeat until you succeed, that's literally gamedesign regardless of number of D, you try, you fail, until you figure out...

Disagree. By making use of smart telegraphing, designers can create challenges that reward trial and error / memorization, but are also theoretically possible to accomplish on the first attempt. Succeeding on one's first attempt should be extremely unlikely if the challenge is high, but the potential to do so is integral to a sense of genuine fairness, IMO.

You can have a good puzzle and a bad puzzle. Smart strategy or infuriating trial and error. The difference is the sense of "honesty" and fairness to the player. I suppose it's a matter of opinion where the line is drawn.

This made me wonder how old are you lol

I did not write that quote. A friend did. Here's the full article for a better sense of his viewpoint:

https://catstronaut.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/mediocre-mario-64/

I personally think his appraisal is a bit too harsh. I strongly empathize with his loathing of collect-a-thon design, but I still think that the better platforming segments and setpieces in Mario 64 redeem the game for the most part. I also think it controls pretty well, though every Mario game does imo.

Also the control of mario galaxy are so much worse, that's unbearable, especially the collision ... and the camera think it's smarter than it actually is, cringe ...

I never had any issue with Galaxies controls/movement at all. *shrugs*

[gimymblert]

I have been explaining how mario 64 telegraph everything and how it's not even special in how it does it, and it's not hardcore like old game secret

Galaxy has problem when you stop playing with the hand holding of the designer, first the collision isn't snappy, the character hang in the air before slipping to death if you just barely catch a platform, that's bad if you are trying to evaluate distance for power play, it create ambiguity, it also mean you have to jump way ahead and land way away of an edges, and all edges aren't consistent, plus the game is super slow you don't have much breath and depth in the navigation, and the camera will mess you up when the designer thought you should take ONE path or you should be ON the ground, I have the same issues with banjo too, and galaxy is worse than banjo in term of level design. You just like hand holdy game Also F**K purple coin, collecthon done bad is that, not mario 64 that actually ask to engage with the level design.

And holy shit what memorization in mario 64, I can take any star in 16 different ways, there is entire channel dedicated to pick all star by pressing the jump button as little as possible, you can't do that with design that rely on memorization. That shoot in the blue star, I can pick it without the canon! Galaxy IS about memorization. mario 64 is the most honest game ever.

I don't even want to read that article, mario 64 is barely a collecthon, you can skip so much thing and it always have simple straightforward "action" stars for people who want it to be light on exploration, that dont applies to rare's platformer surely, they are true collecthon as you can't skip as much and collecting IS required not just a goal.

[Squire Grooktook]

I have been explaining how mario 64 telegraph everything and how it's not even special in how it does it, and it's not hardcore like old game secret

Yes, but you've only done so with generalities, and not concrete examples. Nothing wrong with that, I've been doing the same.

For example, you didn't really give an example of how the cannon shots in "Shoot into the blue" or "blast away the wall" telegraph themselves (aside from "you're supposed to have the cap" for the former, and I can't even remember if that's true). You're only example of the way that the game telegraphs itself is the early chain chomp, and I'm not sure that level of telegraphing holds up throughout the entire game. But at that point, we might as well be arguing based on each and every star.

There comes a point in game design discussion where (if you really want to prove your point) you have to sit down and analyze the levels piece by piece to prove an abstract point. Up until that point, it's mostly generalities, and I don't really care about this particular subject enough to take it further. To be honest, I don't really care too much about the telegraphing in Mario 64 (unlike my friend), I would just prefer more platforming over wandering.

I'll just summarize that I think Mario 64 is a good game. Better than its imitators, but I think that it has aged quite a bit (unlike its 2d predecessors), and the extent of that aging process has been covered by the nostalgia and historical importance associated with the title. I think the greater emphasis on platforming and abstract environmental challenges in Galaxy utterly blows it out of the water in raw fun factor. I also recall no issues with Galaxy's controls or collisions.

I can respect your opinions and tastes on the game, even if I do not personally share them.

You just like hand holdy game

As someone who periodically returns to the harder Japanese arcade version of Ghouls and Ghosts, with the aim of repeated perfect clears, I do not think I would classify my tastes as "hand holdy" ^_^

[gimymblert]

I said the game make you experiment safely with canon in bomb battlefield, without mentionning the level, by the moment you get to into that level you know how canon work ... Cant be more specific, and I did go from general (the general strategy of the game to teach you, to the canon in bomb battlefield). Also I'm a professional designer, I have worked in the industry lol.

Pay attention, that's literally the gameplay, pay attention.

Hand holdy mean everything is spelt out for you, ghouls and ghost isn't exactly obscur, it's a stright line, you can be difficult and hand holdy. I this context, we are talking about game that require you to pay attention and make connection, in game based on timing you don't have to make connection generally, you don't have time.

Anyway, I was just spelling out the specificity of m64, I wasn't trying to pit them against another outside of specifying my preferences like other did. I didn't say other where bad.


Edit: wait, I cut down on the bomb battlefield explanation, while writing that answer, because I assume people don't need extra length explanation, so I just mentioned thing that rely on the knowledge of the game:

Mario 64 is also part metroidvania, it's all about the navigation puzzle, the game nag you very early with non materialize block (the red cap block) which you unlock very soon after a bunch a stars, which make the cannon level making much more sense, but if you are smart you can sequence break, there is a zillion way to do everything, now when I play the game, I can shoot straight to the floating platform, no need for the cap. [talking about bomb omb battlefield there is no cap in fortress, no need to name it since it's obvious]

As a kid I was able to figure out shoot in the blue without any help at all, it make sense, you overshoot, you need to stop overshooting, therefore shoot at something that stop you (the pillar), that's very elementary applied physics, and by now you have experimented with cannon already, you should figure out you would overshoot because it's not new. [not new because I implied you did already in bomb omb, so you can figure out, it's an escalation of the same gameplay you experimented safely in bomb omb]

I mean the conclusion is still the same, paying attention to details, and not have everything spelt out, I guess it's just attitude toward things in general. You didn't made the connection despite knowing at least the first level of m64. Maybe that's just that. I like to be engage at another level, that's all, I like figuring things out.

[Squire Grooktook]

I said the game make you experiment safely with canon in bomb battlefield, without mentionning the level, by the moment you get to into that level you know how canon work ...

The issue is not knowing how the cannon works. That part is easy. The issue (at least, his issue) is that the star itself (the actual star, not the "decoy") is completely hidden from view, and it's very existence isn't hinted at in any way.

Like I said though, I personally don't mind the telegraphing in 64. I memorized the game long ago, so I no longer have reason to care. My focus is mainly on the platforming (or the periodic-lack-thereof, which is my biggest problem with the game). The telegraphing was an issue brought up by my friend, which I thought was amusing to quote in this context.

Hand holdy mean everything is spelt out for you, ghouls and ghost isn't exactly obscur, it's a stright line, you can be difficult and hand holdy. I this context, we are talking about game that require you to pay attention and make connection

Yes, and Ghouls and Ghosts, bullet hell shooters, fighting games, DMC-style character action, and other arcade-style action games require vast amounts of creative thinking in addition to reflexes and execution.

Identifying and manipulating the blind spots in enemy attack patterns, observing and exploiting the deliberately designed weakness's in enemy ai, applying the game mechanics to unique situations, etc. In these games, the optimal combat strategies are not spoon-fed or spelled out for you at all. Strategies and tactics must be devised through clever thinking and intense spatial reasoning. A game being structurally linear (or moving in a "straight line") has nothing to do with the need to think or observe. On the contrary, I would argue that the intense focus of these games only deepens the amount of strategic thinking, observation, and experimentation needed to make consistent progress.

In fact, it is for this reason that many people call bullet hell shooters "puzzle games in disguise", though I personally disagree with that sentiment due to the need for reaction time during more volatile/random attacks.

So no, I wouldn't call them "hand holdy".

in game based on timing you don't have to make connection generally, you don't have time.

Ghouls is not based on timing. The execution barrier is incredibly low. There's a massive input buffer, and none of the jumps or pure timing elements are particularly difficult. The challenge in the game is based on a combination of strategy and improvisation. Almost every stage and enemy behavior is heavily randomized. You observe the static/deterministic elements of the game in order to devise strategies that optimize your chances, but you must use reflexes and improvisational spatial reasoning to actually fulfill those strategies.

Also I'm a professional designer, I have worked in the industry lol.

I make no presumptions and I never implied a lack of experience. As I said, I respect your tastes and opinions, even as I stand by my own.

[gimymblert]

This is early 3D game design in a nutshell. You try and try until you happen to get it right.

Identifying and manipulating the blind spots in enemy attack patterns, observing and exploiting the deliberately designed weakness's in enemy ai, applying the game mechanics to unique situations, etc. In these games, the optimal combat strategies are not spoon-fed or spelled out for you at all. Strategies and tactics must be devised through clever thinking, observation, and experimentation. A game being structurally linear (or moving in a "straight line") has nothing to do with the need to think or observe. On the contrary, I would argue that the intense focus of these games only deepens the amount of strategic thinking, observation, and experimentation needed to make consistent progress.

Thanks for making my point

I don't know how you could that star anyway, I need to look at footage of noob playing that game lol, it's a trivial star to find with minimal exploration.

And I have specfically specified linear game don't have to be hand holdy due to thei structure as early as sonic. Creative thinking and the 4 stages realization I propose are different order of magnitude. Figuring out how to avoid an attack pattern vs figuring how attack pattern work into a web of spatial connection to attain the goal are different scale completely, the latter being mario 64 as it require to think long term and globally.

[Squire Grooktook]

...as it require to think long term and globally.

This is usually fulfilled in such linear action games by the presence of resources.

IE lives, weapons, items, and the ubiquitous "bombs" that allow you to skip patterns in a shooter. This "global" thinking is deeepened if these resources can be gained or lost through periodic risk/reward gambits scattered across the game.

Usually, every player will often have their own completely unique route and long term plan for completing the game, due to their unique skillset and preference for avoiding certain attacks over others, or taking certain risks while avoiding others.

So yes, even though the game may be composed of interlinked battle setpieces which require their own strategy, there is still the presence of long term "global" thinking. Some games take it even farther, such as Battle Garegga's arcane adaptive difficulty manipulation, where picking up the wrong item can potentially kill you several stages later.


On a side note, unless you're attempting one of those bizarre multi-dimension limited button press speedruns, there is very little "global" in Mario 64. The painting worlds change over time and unlock new regions, but each world is isolated from every other world. There are no connections that can be made between boo's mansion and tiny huge island. From this perspective, one could potentially argue that a game like Battle Garegga requires even more "global thinking", since the simplest of actions in the first stage can gravely effect the your route through the rest of the game, up to the final stage.

[gimymblert]

This is SO not the same level at all, this is like different skills, they are only tangentially related conceptually, you are trying to grasp as straw and have move the goal post already multiple time.

I was waiting for the super global inter stage rebuttal, because I pick an extrem example, but at the same time, the fact that those extrem example DO exist show there is depth that mario galaxy don't have, because if I didn't kept ignoring the moving goalpost, that was the primary comparison. Mario galaxy has no depth, you can't have these kind of emergent challenge.

[Squire Grooktook]

This is SO not the same level at all...if I didn't kept ignoring the moving goalpost...

It's a different kind of skillset, but both fall into the realm of long term planning, experimentation, and discovery.

Anyway, the thing is, we've kind of gone off on a tangent. My own complaints about Mario 64 (the platforming, or frequent lack thereof) have not even been mentioned. Instead we've bounced from a friend's complaint that I don't care about, to another genre entirely due to your post implying that linear titles do not require thinking and are all about "hand holding". Which is not true.

Mario galaxy has no depth, you can't have these kind of emergent challenge.

I'm not going to touch or argue this. Honestly, Mario Galaxy is not a game where I care about the depth (neither is Mario 64). I just think the run and jump action is a lot more omnipresent and fun than that of its two predecessors, both of which are fairly inconsistent when it comes to the platforming side of their level design.

[gimymblert]

I didn't imply that

old game use to be full of secret you had to figure out by being observant, so much than many seemingly obscure stuff can entirely be deducted based on minor change in pacing, they had the straightforward obstacle course (with expressive resolution) but also secret all other the place for engaging the mind, many secret room, hidden bonus, etc ...

But by definition, you don't need a mental map of a level you won't need any backtracking into part whose state will change and you have to anticipate the change in navigation. Because it's "linear", at best linear game will change your local navigation affordances, it mean you can't go to the upper and you have to stay on teh low route for example, it's all about conserving resources.

And resource management in the typical game is not the same as changing water level that shift navigation and object placement to create new path. The mental model for the latter is much more involving, and mean you have a plan to traverse through all state, resource management tend to have local consideration that repeat along a level.

You don't have to go back and manipulate a level spanning router, that change the whole level design, to manipulate it depending on your current goal, fun or things you want to pick, which is the furthest you can do in mario 64, the systemic structure, the mental model of anticipation is different.