next »

[Squire Grooktook]

I didn't imply that

It's what I read from this:

You just like hand holdy game

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.

The implication:
1: the game is hand holdy because...
2: it is based on timing rather than thinking
3: There is no thinking or connection making involved because it's too fast.

I was merely doing my best to address and disprove the above. This is not actually an attack on Mario 64.

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.

I'm having a hard time reading this. Are you saying that a linear title doesn't require a mental map? I'd strongly disagree. A route and a plan, as I've expounded, is of overwhelming importance.

It's true that backtracking doesn't exist (or rarely exists) in this context, but that means that you need to plan your deadly trek forward even more intricately. The path forward can also "change" drastically, as mistakes made can force you to completely change your strategy and the way you maneuver around obstacles.

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.

Is it? I would actually disagree.

Let's say that I, in a moment of panic, expend a resource to escape. Because I lost this resource, I am forced to switch to a different weapon with different timings and ranges. Because of this weapon's unique range and timing, I am unable to attack encroaching enemies from the angle I planned. These enemies encroach to areas that they would have been kept at bay from before, and thus I am forced to completely change the way I navigate and maneuver in order to accommodate these completely new obstacles. This disruption of timing and resources will then send a ripple through the remainder of the game, further changing my route and forcing me to change my plan of attack (my "mental map") on the fly.

Navigating a maze of bullets and blades, and navigating a maze of brick and mortar are not the same thing of course. But, the point is, they require similar levels of engagement, thought, and mental gymnastics.

You don't have to go back

And I wish I didn't in Mario 64 Backtracking was always my favorite part of Super Mario Bros~


*edit*

Anyway, I have some tests to study for within the next few days, so it's probably not a good idea to stay in a lengthy discussion past tonight. Before I go, I will just re-iterate my points:

-I think Mario 64 is a good game, but its platforming is inferior to the rest of the franchise in at least half the paintings.
-I think Mario Galaxy's more exciting platforming is a preferable trade-off for its more linear level design, at least for me
-Games with linear structures do not necessarily require less thought. They can require just as much mental gymnastics if not moreso, just applied differently.

...and that's it for me. Thank you for the discussion ^_^

[gimymblert]

I think you jump at conclusion and do wild generalization by lumping things together that reduce the granularity of the analysis through false equivalence. They are different mental gymnastic, they are not the same. Avoiding enemy is still local play and local avoidance.

But the initial point was that mario 64 is not unfocus, and by now it's firmly established

So inferior that it's played way more than galaxy and mod are pouring for it, so much that nintendo has to take a DMCA take down on the multiplier node that was accumulated 1million view.

Iyt's more exciting TO YOU, don't overgeneralize by saying it's inferior to other in the franchise, RFOL.

[Squire Grooktook]

Since you're still up...

Iyt's more exciting TO YOU, don't overgeneralize by saying it's inferior to other in the franchise, RFOL.

I am a firm believer that all game related issues are purely subjective, and I've appended "to me", "in my opinion", etc. to numerous statements I've made in this discussion. That should have made it clear that my comparison of the two games is merely a matter of personal taste and philosophy.

I will also add that I am aware of Mario 64's continued popularity in the speedrun community, but I believe they are very probably for very different reasons.

But the initial point was that mario 64 is not unfocus, and by now it's firmly established

I'll append to the above bullet points that I believe many of the stages are very unfocused and unsatisfying from the perspective of platforming and enemy/pit/obstacle placement.

I think you jump at conclusion and do wild generalization by lumping things together that reduce the granularity of the analysis through false equivalence.

They are different mental gymnastic, they are not the same.

Navigating a maze of bullets and blades, and navigating a maze of brick and mortar are not the same thing of course. But, the point is, they require similar levels of engagement, thought, and mental gymnastics.

[s0]

Squire Grooktook irl:

[Pfotegeist]

I'd like to know how Banjo-Kazooie would benefit from being hybridized with Super Mario64's underground levels, I mean the linear levels that required timed jumps, and can also be found in Super Mario Sunshine which they doubled as a time attack course.  The little flexibility that the standard levels had would make it look better, like most mario games give you a water level and suddenly you like hopping by comparison.