Ok Waa Waa, I played Mario Galaxy... - Page 3

gdreaper · #21 November 29th, 2007, 07:56 PM

Forget it Ed, you can't like R&C more than Mario Galaxy here, you'll get banned

Oh, for the note, I played both games. R&C > Mario Galaxy <--- truth. And please, don't show me a link to metacritic to show me which one gets better reviews.

Dax · #22 November 29th, 2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tag

Well that's the problem. To use an exaggeration, that's like saying saying "I enjoyed Barbie's hair adventure more than Bioshock".

1. Not the same genre.

The Jak and Daxter games have a better storyline than Super Mario Galaxy; storyline plays an important role when determining how much I like a game (to me, storyline is almost as important as gameplay). I really loved the hover-board in J2 and J3. Also the ratio of good to bad levels and variety in the Jak games>the ratio of good to bad levels and variety in SMG; to me at least. I really liked collecting precursor orbs in the Jak games because the unlocked special abilities that were always fun to play around with (what made the orb-collecting even more fun is that you had to do a certain task to get a group of orbs instead of them just lying around out in the open).

There are a lot of other reasons as well, but those are just a couple.

Quote:

Well Shepsel Ed is still wrong. To be honest this game reminded me much less of mario 64 then any of the other Mario games. There's something I didn't realize until later in the game, and what makes Mario Galaxy different from Mario 64. This isn't a spiritual succesor to Mario 64, this is a spiritual succesor to the 2D mario's of old. Mario 64, while an amazing game, added a lot of elements that didn't really have much to do with mario. Galaxy brought it back to the basics. Like 2D Mario, almost all of Mario's moves were some variation of jumping, aside from the ground spin wheras Mario 64 had punch, kick, dive, grab, jump kick. All the Mario upgrades in Galaxy felt like a traditional Mario upgrade, the only one that felt like that in 64 was the flying cap. Most importantly, in Mario 64, you didnt die often and levels werent very linear. You had to figure out how to get the star which made the game difficult in the discovery and exploring sense, but the path do getting that star was relatively easy once you knew what you were doing (and 1-ups were harder to come buy). Galaxy was just like the old Mario's, you had a path (and maybe an alternate path here or there) and you had to follow it, but they'd be ****** if they were going to make you work for that star (especially the later levels). You had 3 hits versus 8, fewer coins to come by to recover, several hard jumps to make that could often lead to your death, difficult purple coins to collect that might kill you. On many stars you would die and die often. In fact without automatic saves midway through some stages (as in the old marios but not in 64), some of them would have been very very difficult to get.

In other words, Mario 64 was great, but this is the first real super mario bros. game in 3D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by X51

Opening a long paragraph by saying someone is wrong because their opinion differs isn't an effective method of communicating ideas.

Pwned!

Icemage · #23 November 29th, 2007, 08:52 PM

I seriously don't understand how Ed gets painted as a fanboy just because he thinks Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction is more fun (for him) than Super Mario Galaxy.

To be honest, I got way more adrenaline rushes playing Ratchet and Clank Future: ToD than I did playing through SMG, and that's the honest truth. R&C looks better, too, and while it's not nearly as difficult as SMG, the extra challenges and skill points are sometimes considerably harder than anything SMG offers.

Does that mean I think R&C is a better game? Not at all. SMG has a charm and consistency all its own, but my impression of it is marred by the horrible swimming boards, and the occasionally flaky camera / movement inversion.