Thread: Super Mario Galaxy

Originally Posted by False Truth

You make a good point. Putting Mario in another large RPG world would have been good, probably as good as the title on SNES. Many people say Paper Mario is the successor of Mario RPG, but I still don't believe that. Only if they use the same devs and the same mechanics(just a bit upgraded) as the original Mario RPG, then it would truly turn out to be just as good, if not better, than Mario RPG. Unfortunately, Square Enix sort of abandoned nintendo during its N64 days, although they made a few Final Fantasy Titles for Gamecube(non numbered), who knows if they'll ever experiment with the Mario again, let alone have the same team that worked on the original game.

Well paper mario is an indeed good RPG but not as good as others
it jst doesnt have much stuff to lvl up
or a lot of stages like the Supermario64
or Mario Galaxy
I fu could also upgrades weapons it would be a good game

Mario games shouldn't revolve around plot, otherwise it'd just be another series...Mario games are fun for one reason, they're weird, corny, different everytime. If you let a storyline be the determining factor of whether you buy a mario game or not, you're buying it for the wrong reasons, I think. Sunshine sucked because it tried to have a story, Mario games shouldn't have to worry about plots and such and just stick to being a game.

This game looks good. Its like the other ones where you have to collect stars and such. Only in this one, the worlds you go to are sphears.

Originally Posted by Dark.

Mario games shouldn't revolve around plot, otherwise it'd just be another series...Mario games are fun for one reason, they're weird, corny, different everytime. If you let a storyline be the determining factor of whether you buy a mario game or not, you're buying it for the wrong reasons, I think. Sunshine sucked because it tried to have a story, Mario games shouldn't have to worry about plots and such and just stick to being a game.

Not just plot, but innovation and depth. Some Major fans may be able to handle it, but I don't like the idea of playing the same(one player) game multiple times in a row(take the pokemon handheld series for example, it comes in too many different colors/flavors, but it's essentially the same game with a few "different" monsters and worlds, nothing new is brought to the table, a basic moneygrabber title). Sunshine failed at plot(and at sales), but it brought nothing new in terms of gameplay, hoping that a "gimmick" such as the waterhosebackpack would make things different. To the core, it was the same game as the rest. And after collecting all of the coins and stars in all of the other mario games(they add up to over 100,000 on average), I'd rather not do the same thing again in SM Galaxy.

Now I know some of you will bring up other series which might do the same thing, essentially being the same game, like Zelda for example. Yet Zelda still crushes other games in sales and reviews. When measuring innovation and difference, they obviously got it right with a series like Zelda.

Originally Posted by Dark.

Mario games shouldn't revolve around plot, otherwise it'd just be another series...Mario games are fun for one reason, they're weird, corny, different everytime. If you let a storyline be the determining factor of whether you buy a mario game or not, you're buying it for the wrong reasons, I think. Sunshine sucked because it tried to have a story, Mario games shouldn't have to worry about plots and such and just stick to being a game.

u señorito need to be fun
people with 60 years mario
and with out mario i think lots of game would be created.
and sunshine u got a point it kinda was sucky but it is a fun adventure game

Originally Posted by False Truth

Not just plot, but innovation and depth. Some Major fans may be able to handle it, but I don't like the idea of playing the same(one player) game multiple times in a row(take the pokemon handheld series for example, it comes in too many different colors/flavors, but it's essentially the same game with a few "different" monsters and worlds, nothing new is brought to the table, a basic moneygrabber title). Sunshine failed at plot(and at sales), but it brought nothing new in terms of gameplay, hoping that a "gimmick" such as the waterhosebackpack would make things different. To the core, it was the same game as the rest. And after collecting all of the coins and stars in all of the other mario games(they add up to over 100,000 on average), I'd rather not do the same thing again in SM Galaxy.

Now I know some of you will bring up other series which might do the same thing, essentially being the same game, like Zelda for example. Yet Zelda still crushes other games in sales and reviews. When measuring innovation and difference, they obviously got it right with a series like Zelda.

my point exactly
some failure games may bring some new 1 with better plot and graphics
i dont know super mario galaxy plot but it seriuosly kicks mario sunshine gaming and graphics.

Originally Posted by Baal

my point exactly
some failure games may bring some new 1 with better plot and graphics
i dont know super mario galaxy plot but it seriuosly kicks mario sunshine gaming and graphics.

I just realized, it doesn't matter how good the gameplay is or not in terms of the wii, at least for now, beacause of the gimmicky "wii-mote", people will find almost every game on the wii to be a unique and fun experience, etc etc.

I'll lay down a prediction. I predict early reviews of Wii games(even the few crappy ones) will be high up in the 9's and 10's, simply because of the motion sensoring, 3-d speaker technology they hold within the wii. Then maybe around Mid April of '07, they'll start coming back to their senses, and stop reviewing games based on the innovation and uniqueness of the technology.