Super Mario Galaxy 2
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would recomend the any of the PS1 Spyro games for a new gamer. These were the first games I was able to beat on my own, and the games that got my dad into gaming. I prefered these to Super Mario 64 at the time. Spyro was easier for me to get into because breathing fire on enemies didn't require as much precision as jumping on their heads. In 3D, that was pretty tough for my little 8 year old self. (Also, that chain chomp kind of scared me.) The graphics are dated, but I think they look pretty cool. The musical score by Stewart Copeland compares well with modern games. Also, you get to be a dragon who can skateboard, which is pretty cool.
Most of the games people have mentioned so far I'd rank too difficult for a new player... and I'd strongly disagree with Yahtzee with his choice.
I wouldn't give a completely new person anything harder than the original Tetris... hell I'd probably just give them Tetris and nothing else. Tetris has: basic controls for those who have never touched any, minimal 2D controls, the slowest low levels, the highscore (or rocketship if you know this) being the only goal if it is a goal yet, solid mechanics, the notion that exploits are to be exploited and losing is fun.
I've also never met a human that Tetris can't devour said human's soul if introduced.
You need to introduce a new gamer gradually and work up or you will cripple their growth. You NEED to increase control and game complexity slowly. Let them grasp 2D space before you introduce complex obstacles in it. Give them limited controls in 3D which trick them into thinking they have lots of control (think an old racer without camera controls, Doom or the simplest Wii games) before full 3D space control. I've never met a competent, adaptable gamer that did not start with the basics, regardless of if they realise it is because of them.
Also cram a shit-ton of puzzlers everywhere after Tetris to enhance problem solving, that's always good.
Edit: The largest factor on the speed of all this is the person's flexibility, a child is usually the fastest at adaptation while older people tend to go all: "Spinny fps guy temporarily replacing whoever ran to the bathroom or it might be a dog taped to a controller, we the recievers of free kills will never know".
I wouldn't give a completely new person anything harder than the original Tetris... hell I'd probably just give them Tetris and nothing else. Tetris has: basic controls for those who have never touched any, minimal 2D controls, the slowest low levels, the highscore (or rocketship if you know this) being the only goal if it is a goal yet, solid mechanics, the notion that exploits are to be exploited and losing is fun.
I've also never met a human that Tetris can't devour said human's soul if introduced.
You need to introduce a new gamer gradually and work up or you will cripple their growth. You NEED to increase control and game complexity slowly. Let them grasp 2D space before you introduce complex obstacles in it. Give them limited controls in 3D which trick them into thinking they have lots of control (think an old racer without camera controls, Doom or the simplest Wii games) before full 3D space control. I've never met a competent, adaptable gamer that did not start with the basics, regardless of if they realise it is because of them.
Also cram a shit-ton of puzzlers everywhere after Tetris to enhance problem solving, that's always good.
Edit: The largest factor on the speed of all this is the person's flexibility, a child is usually the fastest at adaptation while older people tend to go all: "Spinny fps guy temporarily replacing whoever ran to the bathroom or it might be a dog taped to a controller, we the recievers of free kills will never know".
I actually enjoyed you giving some good press of LittleBigPlanet. Believe it or not it's what I've used since it's release to introduce my little sister to proper gaming. She now is playing Unreal 2004 against mid-level bots. It really is the perfect starting game.
You people are all crazy. I'm pretty sure the point of video games is to be fun, and MG2 is more fun than anything I've played in years. What's wrong with you? You're saying they should scrap the entire engine and start anew when they have plenty of uncovered territory in the current layout? Every single star in Galaxy 2 feels fresh and unique. There was never a point where i stopped and said "hmm the overall feel of this game is similar to the prequel." You keep saying games should evolve, but evolution takes time. Mario has just now gotten to the magical point where the mechanics have been polished to the point where Nintendo can simply focus on creative level design, and boy oh boy are they creative. Yes SMG2 IS CREATIVE!! (as you said, Mario is the symbol of N's creativity) even if they didn't spice up the formula to your satisfaction. If you played MG2, you loved it, and if you didn't, something is severely wrong with you. What was the significant evolution between GOW 1 and 2? Halo 1 and 2? Halo 2 and 3? All the GTA's? FF's? In fact, I'd say that by your standards, COD is the same game as Halo.
And besides, there are plenty of never-before-seen-in-a-mario-game gameplay mechanics in Galaxy 2, such as the drill, 3 new yoshi powerups (-1 if u compare the balloon to the balloon P from SMW), 2 fantastic new powerups for mario (which yahtzee completely dismissed despite them being awesome and adding levels of complexity to the game), and several new gravitational patterns.
I just don't understand.....Nobody goes out to buy a video game for the story it tells. (except maybe some final fantasies) Even Heavy Rain, which is basically just a choose your own story book turned into a movie, was largely bought for the new gameplay mechanic; not the story. MARIO IS A PLATFORMER. SMG2 IS THE GREATEST 3D PLATFORMER EVER CREATED. END OF STORY.
And besides, there are plenty of never-before-seen-in-a-mario-game gameplay mechanics in Galaxy 2, such as the drill, 3 new yoshi powerups (-1 if u compare the balloon to the balloon P from SMW), 2 fantastic new powerups for mario (which yahtzee completely dismissed despite them being awesome and adding levels of complexity to the game), and several new gravitational patterns.
I just don't understand.....Nobody goes out to buy a video game for the story it tells. (except maybe some final fantasies) Even Heavy Rain, which is basically just a choose your own story book turned into a movie, was largely bought for the new gameplay mechanic; not the story. MARIO IS A PLATFORMER. SMG2 IS THE GREATEST 3D PLATFORMER EVER CREATED. END OF STORY.
I agree that Bioshock is easier and more accessible than lots of other FPSs due to the vita-chambers. However, I think there is a bit of a jump in difficulty when you face your first Big Daddy which might discourage the first-time gamer as they die multiple times trying to kill that behemoth using limited weapons.thenamelessloser said:
While I disagree about it being the greatest platformer ever. I do agree with the idea that it was the right decision on Nintendo's part to refine and evolve the mechanics of Galaxy.Electrogecko said:
What the Mario franchise is best at is "fun", changing it up before it stops being fun, evolving what stays fun (such as the Paper Mario games) and appending numbers to what does not radically change for those who want the same fun (such as Super Mario Galaxy 2).
You bought a Mario GALAXY game Yahtzee and you seriously thought it wouldn't involve more Mario and clever GALAXY related stuff?
I'd understand if it was called "Super Mario Not-Galaxy" and you were upset over things not breaking the previous mold but this was "Super Mario Something Number" and will feel like it's predecessor just tighter with safe changes.
Yeah the Mario franchise is fun and all but its always better to expand new ideas(even thought eh Super Mario Sunshine was a bit of a disappointment) but Super Mario Galaxy 2 was the squeal to a great game. It's like a book only so much of the story can be fit in one place with this it was a fine example of that type of scenario. All it brought was slight changes for instance bringing back everyone's favorite green dinosaur Yoshi to the game play.
For Galaxy 2 it didn't really need more tweaking to be better i like the fact they brought back a few maps from past Mario games. So this is more a of here you go play this until we can think of new ideas for a new Mario game. But i like to see them try to beat their idea of space traveling.
TIMBAP_AJR
For Galaxy 2 it didn't really need more tweaking to be better i like the fact they brought back a few maps from past Mario games. So this is more a of here you go play this until we can think of new ideas for a new Mario game. But i like to see them try to beat their idea of space traveling.
TIMBAP_AJR
*Sheds a few tears* i believed in you yahtzee!!!!
anyways how could anyone here defend Mario he has been in about 81 games so far (guineis book of records) and most of the ones he stars in have been the exact same i (sadly) have new super mario bros and it is the exact same as the original Mario.
"BUT WAIT" YOU CRY!!! "their is a mushroom that makes you slightly bigger then before!!!!" i admit they put an extra five to ten minutes into putting another mushroom in the game but you guys still like him and buy the trash they come out with
.
if im complaining about one part of the article its because i couldn't read two pages of how great mario is so i gave up
anyways how could anyone here defend Mario he has been in about 81 games so far (guineis book of records) and most of the ones he stars in have been the exact same i (sadly) have new super mario bros and it is the exact same as the original Mario.
"BUT WAIT" YOU CRY!!! "their is a mushroom that makes you slightly bigger then before!!!!" i admit they put an extra five to ten minutes into putting another mushroom in the game but you guys still like him and buy the trash they come out with
. if im complaining about one part of the article its because i couldn't read two pages of how great mario is so i gave up
Well I bow to your patience sir. I'm nowhere near strong enough to do that. I'd have a breakdown.Eqan Asif said:Ha! Took me over 300 tries to do it, but I did get 3 stars in all of em'.GLo Jones said:For the first time, I must completely disagree with Yahtzee. He is absolutely and utterly wrong:I'm a pretty quick learner when it comes to knew games, but damn, I just couldn't do it... I couldn't do it!Angry Birds is FUCKING HARD.
*curls up and cries*
Mario 1 -> 2 = More of the same
Mario 3 -> World = More of the same
Mario 64 -> Sunshine = More of the same
Mario Galaxy -> Galaxy 2 = More of the same
Do your damn homework next time Yahtzee, Nintendo have been doing the major revision -> minor tweaks since the very beginning. You could argue that the Rock suit, Yoshi, Cloud suit and revised map are less of a change than the water pack or Yoshi plus revised map but you can't say there's a significant difference.
Mario 3 -> World = More of the same
Mario 64 -> Sunshine = More of the same
Mario Galaxy -> Galaxy 2 = More of the same
Do your damn homework next time Yahtzee, Nintendo have been doing the major revision -> minor tweaks since the very beginning. You could argue that the Rock suit, Yoshi, Cloud suit and revised map are less of a change than the water pack or Yoshi plus revised map but you can't say there's a significant difference.
He is right (like almost always) and for what would be a good game for a first time player... maybe a turn based RPG with a good story and instructions just since it'd be easy to play and get into, of course I can't think of a game that really fits this criteria.
Yahtzee, let me first state that I completely agree with your premise that Nintendo, normally the last developer in the world we would expect to take the easy route, did just that. We can normally expect a serious dose of innovation with each new Mario platformer, so on that front, this game is a real letdown.
However, this brings us to a question of when does this become a bad thing? One could argue that sequels are always bad because commissioning a sequel is essntially giving a developer a license to put creativity on the back burner. On the other hand, and i feel this is partly true with SMG2, sequels sometimes free up the developer to focus on the fun part of gaming, which is the gameplay, rather than having to spend the time and resources it takes to develop a completely new game from scratch. Regardless of whether you think sequels are worth the price of admission, You have to admit that SMG2 gameplay has more polish than the original... and it's obvious, at least to me, that a larger amount of effort went into gameplay rather than figuring out how to build a spherical-based platformer. The technical feats had already been figured out, so these developers got to spend 3 years polishing gameplay instead of figuring out a graphics engine. Any time a developer gets to spend more time making a game fun, that's a good thing.
Here's my rule of thumb on sequels. If a company spits out a sequel for money, or because they want to extend the life of a cool game engine, that's not cool and they should burn in hell. However, If the first game is excellent and developer makes a sequel because there were so many great ideas that they could not put into the original due to time constraints (realisitcally, even Nintendo can't spend forever developing a game), then I'm all for it. I'd prefer them to release DLC, but if it's so much content that it warrants stamping out a new disc, I have no problem with that. This is what I think SMG2 represents.
So for a reviewer like yourself, I think it's perfectly fair to ding a game for lack of creativity, even if the game is good. Regardless of how many "me too" games developers put out, creativity is still the lifeblood of the industry. At the same time, I don't think creativity has to ALWAYS involve building games from the ground up with completely new and innovative mechanics. The levels in SMG2 are spectacularly creative, even if they are based on the same game engine and exact same platforming mechanics as its predecessor. Refining and polishing an established format is fine as long as the end result is a fun and entertaining experience. For a game of this quality, I'm okay with Nintendo's decision to put innovation on the back burner in favor of superb gameplay. I see where you're coming from because it is kinda scary when a developer like Nintendo stops being innovative, but I don't think lack of innovation warrants a bad review. Innovation and gameplay are both important; innovation drives the industry, gameplay sustains it. Dark void was innovative, but the game play sucked ass. SMG2 had almost zero innovation, but was extremely fun. It would be great if a game has both, but realistically, I'll take the game with better gameplay any day over an innovative game that sucks, even if I know that the innovative game is what's driving the industry forward.
jojo
However, this brings us to a question of when does this become a bad thing? One could argue that sequels are always bad because commissioning a sequel is essntially giving a developer a license to put creativity on the back burner. On the other hand, and i feel this is partly true with SMG2, sequels sometimes free up the developer to focus on the fun part of gaming, which is the gameplay, rather than having to spend the time and resources it takes to develop a completely new game from scratch. Regardless of whether you think sequels are worth the price of admission, You have to admit that SMG2 gameplay has more polish than the original... and it's obvious, at least to me, that a larger amount of effort went into gameplay rather than figuring out how to build a spherical-based platformer. The technical feats had already been figured out, so these developers got to spend 3 years polishing gameplay instead of figuring out a graphics engine. Any time a developer gets to spend more time making a game fun, that's a good thing.
Here's my rule of thumb on sequels. If a company spits out a sequel for money, or because they want to extend the life of a cool game engine, that's not cool and they should burn in hell. However, If the first game is excellent and developer makes a sequel because there were so many great ideas that they could not put into the original due to time constraints (realisitcally, even Nintendo can't spend forever developing a game), then I'm all for it. I'd prefer them to release DLC, but if it's so much content that it warrants stamping out a new disc, I have no problem with that. This is what I think SMG2 represents.
So for a reviewer like yourself, I think it's perfectly fair to ding a game for lack of creativity, even if the game is good. Regardless of how many "me too" games developers put out, creativity is still the lifeblood of the industry. At the same time, I don't think creativity has to ALWAYS involve building games from the ground up with completely new and innovative mechanics. The levels in SMG2 are spectacularly creative, even if they are based on the same game engine and exact same platforming mechanics as its predecessor. Refining and polishing an established format is fine as long as the end result is a fun and entertaining experience. For a game of this quality, I'm okay with Nintendo's decision to put innovation on the back burner in favor of superb gameplay. I see where you're coming from because it is kinda scary when a developer like Nintendo stops being innovative, but I don't think lack of innovation warrants a bad review. Innovation and gameplay are both important; innovation drives the industry, gameplay sustains it. Dark void was innovative, but the game play sucked ass. SMG2 had almost zero innovation, but was extremely fun. It would be great if a game has both, but realistically, I'll take the game with better gameplay any day over an innovative game that sucks, even if I know that the innovative game is what's driving the industry forward.
jojo
I also can't believe you consider Mario 64-> Sunshine to be a better step than Galaxy 1 -> Galaxy 2.
When considering what game I would hand to a first-time player to say "This is what'll get you started", I had to think back to when I first started playing video games. My answer, in that case, is the original Crash Bandicoot games or the original (Read: Insomniac-produced), Spyro: The Dragon games. The challenge of the former and the atmosphere of the latter both compliment the easy-to-learn, mildly-difficult-to-100% nature of both, and I feel they are both worthy training-wheel games on the road of hardcore gaming.
On the point of Mario NOT being a casual game, did any fellow UK readers find it odd when a few months ago Nintendo were advertising Spirit Tracks on TV?
The ad was of the classic DS lite formula, attractive 30 ish yo woman relaxing on a sofa with soft lighting playing a game. Basically advertising to this "casual" market that is apparently out there.
Now I'm all for more people playing any Zelda game but it struck me as a strange link (sic) up. Spirit tracks is a tough little SOB of a game at times, I walked through it without much bother but I have played every Zelda game since LTTP. I can't imagine the difficulties that a brand new "casual" gamer would have with ST without some guidance.
They may well be shooting themselves in the foot with this, yes it's important that they attract these customers but someone who goes out and drops £200-ish on a DS and the game and then hits the brick wall of the difficulty curve is someone who is not going to buy another game again; and more importantly tell all their equally "casual" friends that this whole videogame thing isn't worth bothering with.
The ad was of the classic DS lite formula, attractive 30 ish yo woman relaxing on a sofa with soft lighting playing a game. Basically advertising to this "casual" market that is apparently out there.
Now I'm all for more people playing any Zelda game but it struck me as a strange link (sic) up. Spirit tracks is a tough little SOB of a game at times, I walked through it without much bother but I have played every Zelda game since LTTP. I can't imagine the difficulties that a brand new "casual" gamer would have with ST without some guidance.
They may well be shooting themselves in the foot with this, yes it's important that they attract these customers but someone who goes out and drops £200-ish on a DS and the game and then hits the brick wall of the difficulty curve is someone who is not going to buy another game again; and more importantly tell all their equally "casual" friends that this whole videogame thing isn't worth bothering with.