Easy, straight from page 1 but it isn't wrong at all.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
ITT, We all have to agree on a game better than Super Mario 64
- Thread starter Polioliolio
- Start date
Easy, straight from page 1 but it isn't wrong at all.
Bill Rizer
Member
Only game that can compete, I think is Donkey Kong on Gameboy (DK '94). Absolute masterpiece.
Monocle
Member
Why are most of the games that are actually better than Mario 64 disqualified?
Consensus is bullshit. Just listen to me.
Consensus is bullshit. Just listen to me.
Nonsense. Mario 64's mechanics, art, music, and level design are easily better than Banjo Kazooie's.
TemplaerDude
Member
I had fun with Super Mario 64.
I've had a lot more fun with many, many other games.
I've had a lot more fun with many, many other games.
daTRUballin
Member
It's fine to compare the mechanics and level design of both games, but art and music shouldn't even be a part of the discussion of comparing them. Well, maybe the music, but bringing art into this is just silly. And even then, saying that Mario 64 had better music than Banjo is debatable in itself.
moffattron9000
Member
SMB 3 is not as good as Mario 64. Hell, Super Meat Boy's better than both of them.
As for nominating a game, Burnout Paradise. The driving is a delight, the open world is great and full of things to find, and it feels like what was in my mind as a kid when I was playing with my Hot Wheels cars (Matchbox cars are lame).
As for nominating a game, Burnout Paradise. The driving is a delight, the open world is great and full of things to find, and it feels like what was in my mind as a kid when I was playing with my Hot Wheels cars (Matchbox cars are lame).
daTRUballin
Member
You know, for somebody with a username inspired by CBFD, you sure seem to be consistently anti-CBFD around these parts.
Hmm.
Or maybe I'm mistaken. Sorry if I am. 
Jonneh3003
Banned
Woah now I'm convinced it isn't one of my favourite games, this term is meaningless.
I agree with first post, Galaxy is a better game but for its differences.
This is a terrible way to go about this, but whatever, I'll have fun with it.
Lastly the tile work can rear its ugly head at times. This is something that even annoys me in Mario Maker, with its complete lack of slopes resulting in some horribly unnatural looking levels. Let's look at fairy fountains, one of the rewards for finding a secret in Zelda games.
A plain-ass cave with a blocky puddle. It looks like something I could make in my RPG Maker days in 30 seconds dropping tiles down.
An otherworldly realm unlike anywhere else in the game.
I'm not saying LTTP is a bad game. It just suffers from its format. The moment-to-moment gameplay of slashing things and solving basic puzzles is fine, but not that great. SM64's moment-to-moment gameplay is marvelous. The camera swings unpredictably at times, and a few stars are of questionable quality, but I'm hard-pressed to think of a game where just running and jumping around is so much fun. And unlike OOT or MM, which I could argue are better than SM64, LTTP doesn't have the advantage of immersion to foster strong investment in the story or satisfaction in solving a puzzle. That is why A Link to the Past is not a better game than SM64.
Ocarina of Time does A Link to the Past far better. For a game so praised for exploration it's not that great at it. Its overhead view gives the whole game a clinical, game-y feeling. A third person or over-the-shoulder view is more intimate, makes you feel closer to your character and environment. You see the world more or less from Link's point of view, not from a helicopter. LTTP shows you everything in a room in one glance, OOT engages the player by making them search the room by moving the camera around. They have the same kind of simple environmental and block pushing puzzles, but OOT's are more satisfying due to the stronger player connection with the world. They have simple, unremarkable combat, but OOT is wise enough to focus on what it excels at--exploration and puzzle solving--and let the combat take a back seat.
Lastly the tile work can rear its ugly head at times. This is something that even annoys me in Mario Maker, with its complete lack of slopes resulting in some horribly unnatural looking levels. Let's look at fairy fountains, one of the rewards for finding a secret in Zelda games.
A plain-ass cave with a blocky puddle. It looks like something I could make in my RPG Maker days in 30 seconds dropping tiles down.
An otherworldly realm unlike anywhere else in the game.
I'm not saying LTTP is a bad game. It just suffers from its format. The moment-to-moment gameplay of slashing things and solving basic puzzles is fine, but not that great. SM64's moment-to-moment gameplay is marvelous. The camera swings unpredictably at times, and a few stars are of questionable quality, but I'm hard-pressed to think of a game where just running and jumping around is so much fun. And unlike OOT or MM, which I could argue are better than SM64, LTTP doesn't have the advantage of immersion to foster strong investment in the story or satisfaction in solving a puzzle. That is why A Link to the Past is not a better game than SM64.
ALttPs "game-y feeling" is precisely its trump card against OoT. It's a far more immediate game and much more mechanically sound. I've never considered "immersion factor" in terms of graphics as a positive trait of a game. The camera might be behind Link but the brevity of action is weaker in OoT. I would say LttP has better block puzzles because they don't waste your time.
You're saying SM64 is better than LttP because its mechanics and immediacy are top-tier - which they are - so it seems weird you'd cite OoT as bridge of quality between the two titles.
You're saying SM64 is better than LttP because its mechanics and immediacy are top-tier - which they are - so it seems weird you'd cite OoT as bridge of quality between the two titles.
Darkstorne
Member
I completely agree =) That's why I think we'd only be able to decide on games that are equally great. I could sit here and post about how I think Vagrant Story is the greatest game of all time, but that's only because it resonated with me personally more than Mario 64 did. Story and art direction are important to me. The game was way ahead of its time, like Dark Souls, crossed with Fallout's VATs, crossed with a bit of Patapon I guess? Like Mario 64 it's almost faultless, so finding a better game is just down to preference. I think there are quite a handful that deserve to be top of the pantheon together.
Exactly. I 120'd SM64 about two months ago for the first time, and even if it doesn't make my top 5 in terms of favourite titles I couldn't stop noting the mastery of the damn thing. Other titles contending for top game are too iterative. Mario 64 is really a bold step.
Art? No. SM64 looked really bland soon after its release.
Music? Debatable. I think Banjo Kazooie had a lot better fitting music than SM64 which at times was probably too serious / melancholic for what you were playing. I agree though that as stand alone OST Mario 64 is better.
Level Design? I really don't know both are great but very different. Banjo had more stuff to do though.
nkarafo
Member
Super Mario 64 OST is great but it was too short, with many levels repeating the same themes. There are a few all time classics in there too and one or two dynamic tracks but again, there's too little in here.
Banjo-Kazooie has a massive soundtrack with the majority of the songs being dynamic, with different versions and all. I can also pick dozens of stand out tunes that stuck in my head to this day.
I believe Banjo-Kazooie OST was the best Grand Kirkhope has ever made. Super Mario 64's OST however isn't even the best Koji Kondo has made for the N64 alone. Majora's Mask is where is at IMO.
Mario as a character and the unique mobility he displays is something that can be learned deeper even on repeat play sessions until a player has utter mastery of control to take Mario on leaping rollicks that make quick and clever work of the title's levels. The speed and precision with which one can ascend a level like Tick Tock Clock reveals a dexterity catered to by very nuanced fine-tuning of player mechanics. I think these are the merits by which games should be judged, by the unique factors that strictly belong to videogames as a medium. Mario is a very special game that set standards whether its music was 'too serious' or not.
I take issue with the idea that the level design in Mario 64 was somehow better than BK a lot of the levels in Mario 64 are just non descript and uninteresting. You've also got some levels that use ambient music which when combined with the level design lead to a rather dull experience in hindsight. I mean Wet Dry world blew our minds when we were kids just cause we didn't know any better, but lets be honest, would you really want to go back to it?
I don't think LTTP has great action to back it up. Zelda 2 and the Gameboy Zeldas have far better feeling controls and satisfying combat. I always go to them if I feel like a more action oriented gamey Zelda. The only time I replay LTTP is in another attempt to appreciate it more like others do.
I'll admit I'm just using this thread mostly as a springboard for what I wanted to talk about--that idea that LTTP is better than OOT because it does "exploration and discovery" better--because I don't want to get into a debate about how many Planescape: Torments are equal to a Mario 64.
daTRUballin
Member
Meh. Wet Dry World was a pretty cool level. I'd play it again. Why not?
Because like what even was that level? Like where were you supposed to be? Mario 64 has a bunch of levels that just take place in these weird environments that aren't really fleshed out.
nkarafo
Member
You mean like 3D land and Mario 3D World? Where the levels are just these abstract concepts and random shapes that make no sense?
At least Mario 64 has a slightly better sense of place in some levels and doesn't look like it's environments are made in some kind of toy factory.
Mario Sunshine is probably the best in portraying levels with a sense of place. I also love how you can see previous levels from afar, kinda like Dark Souls 3.
Bloodborne is utter tripe. Limited weapons, limited armor sets, horrible image quality, horribly broken multiplayer, short game length, mostly boring music. The state it launched in was abysmal as well and took numerous patches to get into a releasable state.
They clearly had a low budget and strict deadline to get it out ASAP.
I nominate Majora's Mask.
They clearly had a low budget and strict deadline to get it out ASAP.
I nominate Majora's Mask.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Um, why is there an x in front of the game I nominated when no one has openly disputed it
daTRUballin
Member
Ehhh, you do have a point. It was definitely a very weird level.
Weltall Zero
Member
Good thing I don't have to justify my choices, much like you don't have to justify your disputations. Just name them and be done
. Unless, of course, you claim to have played every single game I've listed, then I'm going to call bollocks.classic Nes-game that I still play sometimes.
I think Wonderboy 3 on Mastersystem is a better game than Mario 64.
Street Fighter 2
Devil May Cry 1
Polioliolio
Member
Which game did you nominate?
swarley64
Member
Cannot agree with this at all. Controlling Mario in SM64 is some of the tightest, most fluid movement I've ever experienced. Everything from the pitter-patter of the footsteps, to the animation, to the way the triple-jumps and cartwheels work was polished to absolute perfection and made to communicate the excitement and pure joy of movement.
By comparison, Banjo just kind of bumbles along in a really doofy way. It's depressing.
EDIT: Ok I just read through the list on the first page and I'm gonna dispute Sonic the Hedgehog 1. The pacing of Sonic 1 is lousy at best. The first zone is great, of course, then you get to Marble Zone and Spring Yard Zone which are kind of slow-paced and have depressing music. Then you hit the underwater zone which is FUCKING AWFUL, slow as molasses and way too hard. The last two zones are pretty cool but it's too late at that point.
Neff
Member
Nah. While the additions of the third dimension and those (at the time) beautiful graphics truly took a wrecking ball to what gamers expected from Zelda, the game itself was a step back from LttP in many ways. The overworld is smaller and sparser (Hyrule Field in particular is terrible). The past/future worlds feature little variation compared to LttP's drastically different Dark/Light Worlds. There are far less items to collect and use. I actually remember being very disappointed coming from LttP and Link's Awakening to Ocarina of Time, although over the years I've come to appreciate it as one of Nintendo's better works.
Wait, someone disputed The Thousand Year Door?
PM:TTYD executes on its concepts better than Super Mario 64 and is a better game overall.
What are you talking about? There's only one point in the game where you have to backtrack to complete the game. Even then, it's past a point where the game has opened up shortcuts to each of the main areas, making it almost trivial.
PM:TTYD executes on its concepts better than Super Mario 64 and is a better game overall.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Demon's Souls is a better game than Super Mario 64.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Dark Souls is a better game than Super Mario 64.
Ridiculous. What busywork? It's an RPG, but a relatively straightfoward one, with enough depth to satisfy meticulous RPG fans but not overly complex to become tedious. Its controls are intuitive and are explained immediately in the tutorial, it's less immediate than SM64 because it's an action-RPG and not a platformer, but that doesn't make it a weaker game. Level design being "mechanically less interesting" doesn't mean anything at all without elaboration. As for "it plays worse", again, a meaningless statement, and in no way true, as you admit yourself the camera is better, and the mechanics are precise and responsive.
Airola
Member
"Game-y feeling" is the best feeling.
Seeing whole room at once > seeing only what's in front of you.
I prefer to play chess by looking at the whole board from top, not by looking at the level of the chess pieces.
Let me stop you here. The Souls games suck at explaining anything but the most basic controls to the player. There's merit to leaving a game's deeper mechanics vague for players to independently uncover, but when I'm looking at the stats screen with a blank look on my face things have gone too far. I'd disqualify the entire series for creating a neglectful environment, but I acknowledge that the games are some of the best once you actually understand them.
Airola
Member
Nah, Sonic 1 was how the series should've been forever.
I totally enjoyed the slower stages more than the faster. Never understood the appeal of just running through the stages as fast as possible. The underwater zone is great too.
Sir Ilpalazzo
Member
It's definitely a minor weakness that the Souls games have some useless stats (like luck and resistance) but everything else on those pages is either intuitive or can be worked out with some critical thinking after you've played a bit of the game and picked up a variety of weapons (specifically talking about strength and dexterity here).
I don't think the Souls games really hide enough from the player to seriously hinder the experience of playing them, so overall I wouldn't say their obscurity is an issue.
Nimmermehr
Neo Member
World of Warcraft is a better game than Super Mario 64.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
"ITT, We all have to agree on a game"
well, that was set up for failure, wasnt it
well, that was set up for failure, wasnt it
gingerbeardman
Member
Hahaha. No.
Hmmm. Yes.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I agree. Demon's Souls is the GOAT, after all. I sort of think this is so much the case that it goes without saying, which is why i nominated a game which is closer to Super Mario 64 in quality