I get that the headline is written to provoke but come on, I'm not gonna take an argument seriously if it's built around gamedesign focusing on gameplay too much. I too see a certain lack of...
I get that the headline is written to provoke but come on, I'm not gonna take an argument seriously if it's built around gamedesign focusing on gameplay too much. I too see a certain lack of imagination with Nintendo's art direction/storytelling when it comes to "vanilla" design (like the New Super Mario Bros games) but that doesn't mean there's "too much" gameplay, it means there's too little style.
This is extremely long winded, but I do heavily agree with his overall arguement. It started for me when I played Yoshi’s Woolly World (or was it Crafted?); I kept playing for a while but then I...
This is extremely long winded, but I do heavily agree with his overall arguement. It started for me when I played Yoshi’s Woolly World (or was it Crafted?); I kept playing for a while but then I realized that everything looks the same and you’re always doing the same things, so why bother continuing?
By far the worst one was Super Mario 3D World, though. Everything about it was so incredibly artificial at every step. And the entire game looks like that. I lost interest after the very first stage. I kept playing for a few more stages hoping things would change, but they never really do. Nintendo’s games during this era seem so later-focused on gameplay it feels kind of like playing a micro transaction-funded mobile game - almost like it’s trying to exploit you into doing something.
As a counterpoint, I really enjoyed Super Mario 3D World. I didn't really want a story or anything, I just wanted a nice collection of well designed 3D platforming levels, and it delivered. To me...
As a counterpoint, I really enjoyed Super Mario 3D World. I didn't really want a story or anything, I just wanted a nice collection of well designed 3D platforming levels, and it delivered. To me it feels the opposite of exploitative, I knew exactly what it was offering, and it was fun.
Interesting thoughts and very well presented (even if I'm unsure if an entire section was needed for the bonsai metaphor). I'm not sure if this is endemic however. This was ultimately a critique...
Interesting thoughts and very well presented (even if I'm unsure if an entire section was needed for the bonsai metaphor).
I'm not sure if this is endemic however. This was ultimately a critique on Bowser's Fury, and I love that he mentioned that sometimes "artificial worlbuilding" (to put it shortly for "mechanics that have zero connection to the world at large") is a result of dev realities. But I feel Ceave didn't consider the conditions here
an add-on to a remaster (and as we know, Nintendo has zero problems selling remasters at full price)
potentially made in a short amount of time
may or may not have been made by the in-house staff (I can easily imagine this being a quick outsource as Nintendo EPD works on the next core entry)
So the question of both time and talent is unknown here. If this was scrounged up by a 3rd party in 6 months as a quick advertisement piece, I wouldn't be shocked. I hesitate to use it as an example of what their next big titles will showcase.
moreover, the focus on this topic happened to be on Mario and Zelda. However, most of their other IP's do not have this issue, with the other camp being Kirby. Pokemon has many criticisms on its scope as of late, but everything in pokemon is contextualized within its world (in some cases, extremely contrived. But there is always some explanation), usually in relation to coexisting with pokemon. Metroid always tries to contextualize its levels. Splatoon has much weaker worlbuilding (at least, 1 does. I think 2 may have improved on this), but it does make some attempts to contextualize the setting, despite ultimately being a 3rd person multiplayer experience. Even Smash Bros, as a crossover, tries to contextualize its premise as trophies brought from the universe into this creator's playbox of amusement. This may be a problem unique to those few IP's, the oldest ones.
Mario in particular has always been the more "gamey" IP in the company, and perhaps the industry. So you can argue cynically that it is indeed "coasting" in the worldbuilding department, because it has conditioned players for multiple generations that it is not trying to present cohesive worlds, but be the purest of pure platformers. Likewise, I believe BOTW's is very much a "we needed to fill this open world" consequence of game dev. That game honestly would have been worth $60 even with only 30 shrines, focusing on the "interesting" quests that help build the world. But I can see how 30 would fail to fill the world that large with meaningful interaction at every step (the most common criticism of the open world format, in virtually every game). This may honestly be an argument that BOTW was TOO big a world.
I get that the headline is written to provoke but come on, I'm not gonna take an argument seriously if it's built around gamedesign focusing on gameplay too much. I too see a certain lack of imagination with Nintendo's art direction/storytelling when it comes to "vanilla" design (like the New Super Mario Bros games) but that doesn't mean there's "too much" gameplay, it means there's too little style.
This is extremely long winded, but I do heavily agree with his overall arguement. It started for me when I played Yoshi’s Woolly World (or was it Crafted?); I kept playing for a while but then I realized that everything looks the same and you’re always doing the same things, so why bother continuing?
By far the worst one was Super Mario 3D World, though. Everything about it was so incredibly artificial at every step. And the entire game looks like that. I lost interest after the very first stage. I kept playing for a few more stages hoping things would change, but they never really do. Nintendo’s games during this era seem so later-focused on gameplay it feels kind of like playing a micro transaction-funded mobile game - almost like it’s trying to exploit you into doing something.
As a counterpoint, I really enjoyed Super Mario 3D World. I didn't really want a story or anything, I just wanted a nice collection of well designed 3D platforming levels, and it delivered. To me it feels the opposite of exploitative, I knew exactly what it was offering, and it was fun.
Interesting thoughts and very well presented (even if I'm unsure if an entire section was needed for the bonsai metaphor).
I'm not sure if this is endemic however. This was ultimately a critique on Bowser's Fury, and I love that he mentioned that sometimes "artificial worlbuilding" (to put it shortly for "mechanics that have zero connection to the world at large") is a result of dev realities. But I feel Ceave didn't consider the conditions here
So the question of both time and talent is unknown here. If this was scrounged up by a 3rd party in 6 months as a quick advertisement piece, I wouldn't be shocked. I hesitate to use it as an example of what their next big titles will showcase.
moreover, the focus on this topic happened to be on Mario and Zelda. However, most of their other IP's do not have this issue, with the other camp being Kirby. Pokemon has many criticisms on its scope as of late, but everything in pokemon is contextualized within its world (in some cases, extremely contrived. But there is always some explanation), usually in relation to coexisting with pokemon. Metroid always tries to contextualize its levels. Splatoon has much weaker worlbuilding (at least, 1 does. I think 2 may have improved on this), but it does make some attempts to contextualize the setting, despite ultimately being a 3rd person multiplayer experience. Even Smash Bros, as a crossover, tries to contextualize its premise as trophies brought from the universe into this creator's playbox of amusement. This may be a problem unique to those few IP's, the oldest ones.
Mario in particular has always been the more "gamey" IP in the company, and perhaps the industry. So you can argue cynically that it is indeed "coasting" in the worldbuilding department, because it has conditioned players for multiple generations that it is not trying to present cohesive worlds, but be the purest of pure platformers. Likewise, I believe BOTW's is very much a "we needed to fill this open world" consequence of game dev. That game honestly would have been worth $60 even with only 30 shrines, focusing on the "interesting" quests that help build the world. But I can see how 30 would fail to fill the world that large with meaningful interaction at every step (the most common criticism of the open world format, in virtually every game). This may honestly be an argument that BOTW was TOO big a world.