Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
(Post 905954)
That's a really exteme opinion.
And I found it wasn't the case at all, there are things catered to noobs like "noobtubing" but overall the most skilled players determine the victor in team battles.
And Trace is right too many idiots call games terrible just because they overplayed the f*ck out of them and got bored. That happens with any game that you play too much.
Except Star Fox 64, the only game proven to never get boring ever.
So linear = bad?
That's a great way to write off an entire era of platforming right there. I agree that Galaxy was more linear than the first two 3D titles, but it doesn't make it less fun and there is still a hefty amount of exploration, a lot of stars that can only be found by exploring.
I think you're simplfiying the gameplay in an absurd way because there was more to the gameplay of Galaxy 1 than how you put it. And I doubt 2 is any different. I expect the "more of the same" criticism from people but that's what I want because Galaxy went by too quickly for me, but while it lasted it was the most fun platformer I've ever played and IMO superior to Mario 64. If 2 is just a mere expansion of the first game I'm fine with that. Nintendo have been breaking ground with almost every new Mario title for the past 30 years, but it doesn't matter if they start sticking to a successful formula because that's the case with most video game franchises.
If you want sandbox gaming (which quite frankly is overrated) than Mario is not for you. Mario games always have exploration but they're always gonna be linear in a way. Even in 64, obtaining stars meant having to follow a particular path most of the time.
In other words you're criticizing a platformer for functioning like a platforner.
|
@MW2: Trust me, I have been in SO many games where the opposing teams gets a lucky AC130 from a carepackage and wins because of it. Or, games where the opposing team has 3 or 4 people doing nothing but noob tubing. Or, games where the opposing team uses nothing but UMPs and ACRs. Or games where they're all camping in corners with heart beat sensors. Or games where they're all MLC knifing. If these kids who think they're good at MW2 hop into Counterstrike or even Halo, they get murdered, because those games don't have all these unbalanced, unfair, and frankly plain random events.
@Mario: I guess my main problem wasn't really that it's so linear, it's that the levels STINK. Nearly every single level involves landing on a slightly large asteroid, and then finding the star launcher onto the next asteroid, and then launching onto the next asteroid, etc. It's as if Nintendo gets a free pass as far as level design goes.
"Hey guys, I can't think of any ways to expand or improve the current portion of this level."
"So just launch Mario onto another floating rock and start from scratch"
I just miss Delfino Plaza and the Peach's Castle, where the world map itself was grounds for exploration. Then you could pick a level to enter and do an entirely new set of exploration while the level dynamically changed as you acquired more stars.
I don't understand why Sunshine 2 has an aggregate score of 96 (or whatever) on Metacritic; it honestly feels sloppy and unimaginative, especially since it's almost a direct replica, in quite a lot of ways, of the previous game. It even has the same "cleaning robot" minigame where you have to destroy X amount of boxes in X seconds.
Maybe I just need to play it more. |
