I think being a producer on a Super Mario Bros game has to be one of the hardest jobs in game development because they have the pressure for each game to be innovative in some big way over what...
I think being a producer on a Super Mario Bros game has to be one of the hardest jobs in game development because they have the pressure for each game to be innovative in some big way over what has come before. Contrast that to Madden NFL or The Witcher or Atelier or Disgaea or any other franchise where the formula is to repeat the same formula with minor changes every time.
In this case Nintendo is doing it on old hardware (it’s not like Super Mario World) which has no special new feature (say the stereography of Super Mario 3D World) which makes it even harder.
The Witcher is a really strange inclusion in that list. All 3 games in the series are the same genre but they all play wildly differently. Even between 2 and 3, the change in scope and polish is...
The Witcher is a really strange inclusion in that list. All 3 games in the series are the same genre but they all play wildly differently. Even between 2 and 3, the change in scope and polish is pretty significant.
yeah lol The Witcher is probably one of the biggest counterexamples I'd pull out when it comes to "repeating the same formula with minor changes every time" -- they very much didn't do that even...
yeah lol The Witcher is probably one of the biggest counterexamples I'd pull out when it comes to "repeating the same formula with minor changes every time" -- they very much didn't do that even though it might've made more sense to do so lol
But it also just feels weird to call it a franchise at all tbh, since there were only 3 games and the vast majority of people have only heard or or played the 3rd one.
Hehm I've been pleasantly surprised this week to see Mario wonder being praised for it's inventiveness and spider man getting ripped up a bit for being basically just rinse and repeat open world...
Hehm I've been pleasantly surprised this week to see Mario wonder being praised for it's inventiveness and spider man getting ripped up a bit for being basically just rinse and repeat open world drivel.
But also, disappointed that somehow they do both have basically the same metacritic score.
I don't recommend putting any weight to Metacritic. While reviews from corporate sources have gotten much better than they've used to be, games can be very subjective and a lot of outlets seem to...
I don't recommend putting any weight to Metacritic. While reviews from corporate sources have gotten much better than they've used to be, games can be very subjective and a lot of outlets seem to err on the side of the zeitgeist, and therefore the hype and marketing built up around them. In any case, reviews are better for their content than their conclusions.
It’s notorious, for one thing, that video game reviews have no dynamic range. You just can’t say any game at all is 13/100 never mind a AAA game from a big publisher. But also being repetitive is...
It’s notorious, for one thing, that video game reviews have no dynamic range. You just can’t say any game at all is 13/100 never mind a AAA game from a big publisher.
But also being repetitive is what superhero movies are all about, it’s a feature not a bug. So often you see multiple trilogies made out of the origin story and the first few books about some hero like spider-man, when they do something big that really does the source material well like Superman vs. Batman people get upset. Superhero stores are a lot like the myths of the greeks or the norse and have an almost religious character for which repetition is the way.
to give a different lens from viewing it: unless you are specilizing in a specific genre or franchise (or you do a AVGN like niche specifically to find bad cheap games), a 13/100 isn't even worth...
You just can’t say any game at all is 13/100 never mind a AAA game from a big publisher.
to give a different lens from viewing it: unless you are specilizing in a specific genre or franchise (or you do a AVGN like niche specifically to find bad cheap games), a 13/100 isn't even worth reading the label of. So you won't find a 13/100 score unless you dig deep. Especially since MC needs at least 4 reviews to register a score for a game.
So it's not too surprising you won't find large companies with finite time and an interest in driving views to be focusing on the biggest titles. And while people will talk about how buggy modern AAA games are, they are almost never as bad as a 13/100.
13 says to me that the game works against you in every step of the journey to have fun. controls don't work or are inconsistent, there is no UI or otherwise visual feedback to know if are doing something right (or at all), sound is grating or has the wrong feel, and the visuals are physically hurting your eyes. I can't ever say I played a game that utterly bad except for some very old phone games you grabbed from some semi-legit alternative storefront. And why would I leave a review? I paid nothing and lost 10 minutes, I don't want to spend 5+ more minutes thinking about such a game.
Now, there certainly is an argument to be made about normalizing the scale so we make full use of it. But I think the current scale is simply a remnant of the school system. Schools don't want students to be normalized in such a way that 50-60% of the students fail simply because they didn't do as well as the upper half. School has a floor of mastery and if you reach that floor (putting aside arguments of what the floor should be) you should pass that course. Games are graded similarly. a 6/10 game shouldn't necessarily normalize to a 3 and "fail" because 70% of the games are better than it. a 6/10 in my mind suggests signifigant jank, lack of presentation, or simply generic uninspired gamelpay, but there's still some core fun in there. a 3, well: I guess that game needs to repeat the course again.
(apologies for making a whole mountain out of what was a small part of your overall comment. But I have seen this point made numerous times and wanted to get that response off my chest).
I haven’t played spider man 2 yet but my understanding is that the big overhaul in this game is less about innovation in the game play and more about innovation in the story by significantly...
I haven’t played spider man 2 yet but my understanding is that the big overhaul in this game is less about innovation in the game play and more about innovation in the story by significantly reducing the amount of copaganda
Nintendo doesn't release a new game every year, so that probably helps with the pressure. They can take their time to develop the game, and usually have one or two "mainline" releases per...
Nintendo doesn't release a new game every year, so that probably helps with the pressure. They can take their time to develop the game, and usually have one or two "mainline" releases per platform/generation per franchise. And since they're so financially stable, there's less pressure to keep it "innovative and fresh" since even if it flops, they'll be fine. They can just focus on developing the best game they can.
I agree that their financial stability is an important factor in the development of their games, but I'd actually say it has the opposite effect. They strive to make their games "innovative and...
I agree that their financial stability is an important factor in the development of their games, but I'd actually say it has the opposite effect. They strive to make their games "innovative and fresh" because if the experiment is a failure and flops, then they'll be fine. This allows them to avoid the need to make their games predictable and always market-safe to avoid financial failure with any games.
Even then, they have had strings of 'safer' games, such as the NSMB games, where they innovated far less. I wonder what was up with those, development-wise...
Personally... I think it's both. Others feel a pressure to innovate and make it stand out from the crowd, and sometimes it shows. They try radical new directions that don't pan out, take risks...
Personally... I think it's both. Others feel a pressure to innovate and make it stand out from the crowd, and sometimes it shows. They try radical new directions that don't pan out, take risks with short time frames to test them because they need to make a deadline and publish the game to make a profit.
Nintendo doesn't have that pressure though, so they're able to experiment a bit more freely. They can take their time and test concepts more thoroughly before releasing them.
And sometimes, they can just do the safer stuff and go to familiar territory. Personally, I think not all games have to be super innovative or dependent on gimmicks to stand out from the rest. Sometimes it's nice to play a more "classic" game that's well designed and has been updated in the right areas for modern gamers to enjoy.
Disgaea is a odd choice here because it seems like the worst of both worlds. They release every 3-5 years and keep the formula familiar. Given the absurdity of its damage calculations I'm guessing...
Disgaea is a odd choice here because it seems like the worst of both worlds. They release every 3-5 years and keep the formula familiar. Given the absurdity of its damage calculations I'm guessing they spend quite a bit of time attempting to balance the madness, down to the power grinding spots and "unintentional" features like item duplication.
I think the other end of the extreme is that when you get too comfy, so does your audience. You can get quite a bit of PR from purists if you try to deviate slightly from the formula and get experimental.
The reviews are very positive, but I am curious how people feel about the 10 hour (main story) - 20 hour (full completion) playtime. For comparison: Mario Odyssey: 10-60 hours New Super Mario Bros...
The reviews are very positive, but I am curious how people feel about the 10 hour (main story) - 20 hour (full completion) playtime.
I think it'll make the usual debates around the net about quality vs quantity. It will turn some people off, but some of those detractors might still buy anyway due to Nintendo's reputation of...
I think it'll make the usual debates around the net about quality vs quantity. It will turn some people off, but some of those detractors might still buy anyway due to Nintendo's reputation of very rarely doing sales on their first party games.
I think that's the primary difference between how Wonder is being received and all the relative Ire for Sonic Superstars which is getting a lot more flack for the length. Nintendo definitely has a better reputation for polish, but it's always interesting seeing how polarizing Sonic games can be every time. I think Sonic Mania was the only game in over 20 years to not have that effect and part of that was due to
not being full price ($20 at launch). Inevtiably, paying less means there's less critique from the "dollars per hour" camp.
being "new" by going back to the basics, which you can only really get away with maybe once a decade. Advance and Rush had their appeals, but Mania did feel like a proper Genesis throwback 20 years out from Sonic 3.
For what it’s worth, Superstars nails what I think are the two most fundamental core elements of a 2D Sonic game: Physics and level design. The game felt weird to me at first with the modern...
For what it’s worth, Superstars nails what I think are the two most fundamental core elements of a 2D Sonic game: Physics and level design. The game felt weird to me at first with the modern graphics, but I soon settled into those familiar old physics and was zooming through zones using the same muscle memory that I’ve honed over the last 30+ years. I still prefer Mania, especially with the character swapping features in Encore mode, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised by Superstars. My only gripe is that some of the late game bosses are very slow and very challenging.
Not sure where those numbers came from but I'd pad them out a bit. I'm currently at 100% for worlds 1-5 and some of the super world levels, have yet to beat the game though as I'm trying to...
Not sure where those numbers came from but I'd pad them out a bit. I'm currently at 100% for worlds 1-5 and some of the super world levels, have yet to beat the game though as I'm trying to complete as I go. Probably played for 25 hours so far?
Many of the levels are short, and most of the game is pretty easy. But this is the best 2D Mario in a very long time. It does feel like it's geared more towards short attention spans. That said, these days games lose me pretty damn quick, and this one has not, so I guess it's working.
For reference, I cut my teeth on NES Mario and have been a Nintendo obsessive, but I'm not the 𝖌𝖆𝖒𝖊𝖗 I once was.
If it's cheaper than a movie ticket per hour, it's enough for me. ¯\(ツ)/¯ I really don't have the time to invest 100 hours in a game, I'd rather experience 5 different 20 hour stories instead.
If it's cheaper than a movie ticket per hour, it's enough for me. ¯\(ツ)/¯
I really don't have the time to invest 100 hours in a game, I'd rather experience 5 different 20 hour stories instead.
I don't think a 2D Mario would ever really compare to something like Odyssey in playtime, the 3D games are kind of a different thing altogether in my view. It seems like it will compare fairly to...
I don't think a 2D Mario would ever really compare to something like Odyssey in playtime, the 3D games are kind of a different thing altogether in my view.
It seems like it will compare fairly to like, SMB3, SMW, NSMB U types of playtimes like you mentioned and I'm happy enough with that in terms of getting my fill of the game. As for relative to price, well... we all know how fruitless trying to compare playtime:price ratios can be when people have thousands of hours in free games. It is what it is.
Super Mario 3D World also took me 25 hours or so to finish. Not quite 100%, but I did get every star and unlock every level. Although I consider 3D World, ironically, more of a take on the 2D...
Super Mario 3D World also took me 25 hours or so to finish. Not quite 100%, but I did get every star and unlock every level.
Although I consider 3D World, ironically, more of a take on the 2D formula if that somehow makes sense.
I am psyched about how huge the game is. I am really really enjoying this game, and I’m broke so I don’t get to buy new games often, so I’m glad that this will keep me entertained for a very long...
I am psyched about how huge the game is. I am really really enjoying this game, and I’m broke so I don’t get to buy new games often, so I’m glad that this will keep me entertained for a very long time.
I didn't expect to like the game as much as I do. Every level has some kind of big unique mechanic, often a little hidden, and the online features are great. The online mode lets you see other...
I didn't expect to like the game as much as I do. Every level has some kind of big unique mechanic, often a little hidden, and the online features are great. The online mode lets you see other players and help them out a bit, but without turning the game into a full coop match where strangers could clear out enemies for you and you have to keep up to not miss stuff.
I love playing games that let me play coop with random people, but sometimes it's annoying you can't both have other players around and go at your own pace without other players rushing ahead. Wonder's light online functionality is a really cool solution to my common issues with online coop with strangers.
Played it with 2 people during the weekend, and wow is it amazing. I didn't think there was that much creative space left in a 2D jump&run, but the wonder flowers in particular are truly inventive...
Played it with 2 people during the weekend, and wow is it amazing. I didn't think there was that much creative space left in a 2D jump&run, but the wonder flowers in particular are truly inventive each time around, and the mini stages are really really nice breaks with often crazy setups.
I think being a producer on a Super Mario Bros game has to be one of the hardest jobs in game development because they have the pressure for each game to be innovative in some big way over what has come before. Contrast that to Madden NFL or The Witcher or Atelier or Disgaea or any other franchise where the formula is to repeat the same formula with minor changes every time.
In this case Nintendo is doing it on old hardware (it’s not like Super Mario World) which has no special new feature (say the stereography of Super Mario 3D World) which makes it even harder.
The Witcher is a really strange inclusion in that list. All 3 games in the series are the same genre but they all play wildly differently. Even between 2 and 3, the change in scope and polish is pretty significant.
yeah lol The Witcher is probably one of the biggest counterexamples I'd pull out when it comes to "repeating the same formula with minor changes every time" -- they very much didn't do that even though it might've made more sense to do so lol
But it also just feels weird to call it a franchise at all tbh, since there were only 3 games and the vast majority of people have only heard or or played the 3rd one.
Hehm I've been pleasantly surprised this week to see Mario wonder being praised for it's inventiveness and spider man getting ripped up a bit for being basically just rinse and repeat open world drivel.
But also, disappointed that somehow they do both have basically the same metacritic score.
I don't recommend putting any weight to Metacritic. While reviews from corporate sources have gotten much better than they've used to be, games can be very subjective and a lot of outlets seem to err on the side of the zeitgeist, and therefore the hype and marketing built up around them. In any case, reviews are better for their content than their conclusions.
It’s notorious, for one thing, that video game reviews have no dynamic range. You just can’t say any game at all is 13/100 never mind a AAA game from a big publisher.
But also being repetitive is what superhero movies are all about, it’s a feature not a bug. So often you see multiple trilogies made out of the origin story and the first few books about some hero like spider-man, when they do something big that really does the source material well like Superman vs. Batman people get upset. Superhero stores are a lot like the myths of the greeks or the norse and have an almost religious character for which repetition is the way.
to give a different lens from viewing it: unless you are specilizing in a specific genre or franchise (or you do a AVGN like niche specifically to find bad cheap games), a 13/100 isn't even worth reading the label of. So you won't find a 13/100 score unless you dig deep. Especially since MC needs at least 4 reviews to register a score for a game.
So it's not too surprising you won't find large companies with finite time and an interest in driving views to be focusing on the biggest titles. And while people will talk about how buggy modern AAA games are, they are almost never as bad as a 13/100.
13 says to me that the game works against you in every step of the journey to have fun. controls don't work or are inconsistent, there is no UI or otherwise visual feedback to know if are doing something right (or at all), sound is grating or has the wrong feel, and the visuals are physically hurting your eyes. I can't ever say I played a game that utterly bad except for some very old phone games you grabbed from some semi-legit alternative storefront. And why would I leave a review? I paid nothing and lost 10 minutes, I don't want to spend 5+ more minutes thinking about such a game.
Now, there certainly is an argument to be made about normalizing the scale so we make full use of it. But I think the current scale is simply a remnant of the school system. Schools don't want students to be normalized in such a way that 50-60% of the students fail simply because they didn't do as well as the upper half. School has a floor of mastery and if you reach that floor (putting aside arguments of what the floor should be) you should pass that course. Games are graded similarly. a 6/10 game shouldn't necessarily normalize to a 3 and "fail" because 70% of the games are better than it. a 6/10 in my mind suggests signifigant jank, lack of presentation, or simply generic uninspired gamelpay, but there's still some core fun in there. a 3, well: I guess that game needs to repeat the course again.
(apologies for making a whole mountain out of what was a small part of your overall comment. But I have seen this point made numerous times and wanted to get that response off my chest).
I haven’t played spider man 2 yet but my understanding is that the big overhaul in this game is less about innovation in the game play and more about innovation in the story by significantly reducing the amount of copaganda
Nintendo doesn't release a new game every year, so that probably helps with the pressure. They can take their time to develop the game, and usually have one or two "mainline" releases per platform/generation per franchise. And since they're so financially stable, there's less pressure to keep it "innovative and fresh" since even if it flops, they'll be fine. They can just focus on developing the best game they can.
I agree that their financial stability is an important factor in the development of their games, but I'd actually say it has the opposite effect. They strive to make their games "innovative and fresh" because if the experiment is a failure and flops, then they'll be fine. This allows them to avoid the need to make their games predictable and always market-safe to avoid financial failure with any games.
Even then, they have had strings of 'safer' games, such as the NSMB games, where they innovated far less. I wonder what was up with those, development-wise...
Personally... I think it's both. Others feel a pressure to innovate and make it stand out from the crowd, and sometimes it shows. They try radical new directions that don't pan out, take risks with short time frames to test them because they need to make a deadline and publish the game to make a profit.
Nintendo doesn't have that pressure though, so they're able to experiment a bit more freely. They can take their time and test concepts more thoroughly before releasing them.
And sometimes, they can just do the safer stuff and go to familiar territory. Personally, I think not all games have to be super innovative or dependent on gimmicks to stand out from the rest. Sometimes it's nice to play a more "classic" game that's well designed and has been updated in the right areas for modern gamers to enjoy.
Disgaea is a odd choice here because it seems like the worst of both worlds. They release every 3-5 years and keep the formula familiar. Given the absurdity of its damage calculations I'm guessing they spend quite a bit of time attempting to balance the madness, down to the power grinding spots and "unintentional" features like item duplication.
I think the other end of the extreme is that when you get too comfy, so does your audience. You can get quite a bit of PR from purists if you try to deviate slightly from the formula and get experimental.
The reviews are very positive, but I am curious how people feel about the 10 hour (main story) - 20 hour (full completion) playtime.
For comparison:
Mario Odyssey: 10-60 hours
New Super Mario Bros U: 10-25 hours
I think it'll make the usual debates around the net about quality vs quantity. It will turn some people off, but some of those detractors might still buy anyway due to Nintendo's reputation of very rarely doing sales on their first party games.
I think that's the primary difference between how Wonder is being received and all the relative Ire for Sonic Superstars which is getting a lot more flack for the length. Nintendo definitely has a better reputation for polish, but it's always interesting seeing how polarizing Sonic games can be every time. I think Sonic Mania was the only game in over 20 years to not have that effect and part of that was due to
not being full price ($20 at launch). Inevtiably, paying less means there's less critique from the "dollars per hour" camp.
being "new" by going back to the basics, which you can only really get away with maybe once a decade. Advance and Rush had their appeals, but Mania did feel like a proper Genesis throwback 20 years out from Sonic 3.
For what it’s worth, Superstars nails what I think are the two most fundamental core elements of a 2D Sonic game: Physics and level design. The game felt weird to me at first with the modern graphics, but I soon settled into those familiar old physics and was zooming through zones using the same muscle memory that I’ve honed over the last 30+ years. I still prefer Mania, especially with the character swapping features in Encore mode, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised by Superstars. My only gripe is that some of the late game bosses are very slow and very challenging.
Not sure where those numbers came from but I'd pad them out a bit. I'm currently at 100% for worlds 1-5 and some of the super world levels, have yet to beat the game though as I'm trying to complete as I go. Probably played for 25 hours so far?
Many of the levels are short, and most of the game is pretty easy. But this is the best 2D Mario in a very long time. It does feel like it's geared more towards short attention spans. That said, these days games lose me pretty damn quick, and this one has not, so I guess it's working.
For reference, I cut my teeth on NES Mario and have been a Nintendo obsessive, but I'm not the 𝖌𝖆𝖒𝖊𝖗 I once was.
If it's cheaper than a movie ticket per hour, it's enough for me. ¯\(ツ)/¯
I really don't have the time to invest 100 hours in a game, I'd rather experience 5 different 20 hour stories instead.
I don't think a 2D Mario would ever really compare to something like Odyssey in playtime, the 3D games are kind of a different thing altogether in my view.
It seems like it will compare fairly to like, SMB3, SMW, NSMB U types of playtimes like you mentioned and I'm happy enough with that in terms of getting my fill of the game. As for relative to price, well... we all know how fruitless trying to compare playtime:price ratios can be when people have thousands of hours in free games. It is what it is.
Super Mario 3D World also took me 25 hours or so to finish. Not quite 100%, but I did get every star and unlock every level.
Although I consider 3D World, ironically, more of a take on the 2D formula if that somehow makes sense.
I am psyched about how huge the game is. I am really really enjoying this game, and I’m broke so I don’t get to buy new games often, so I’m glad that this will keep me entertained for a very long time.
I didn't expect to like the game as much as I do. Every level has some kind of big unique mechanic, often a little hidden, and the online features are great. The online mode lets you see other players and help them out a bit, but without turning the game into a full coop match where strangers could clear out enemies for you and you have to keep up to not miss stuff.
I love playing games that let me play coop with random people, but sometimes it's annoying you can't both have other players around and go at your own pace without other players rushing ahead. Wonder's light online functionality is a really cool solution to my common issues with online coop with strangers.
Played it with 2 people during the weekend, and wow is it amazing. I didn't think there was that much creative space left in a 2D jump&run, but the wonder flowers in particular are truly inventive each time around, and the mini stages are really really nice breaks with often crazy setups.
Highly recommended!