SM64 sold 11.91 million copies and the N64 sold 32.93 million. So technically you'd be in the majority of 63.8% N64 owners.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Case Against Super Mario 64
- Thread starter Larrikin
- Start date
SM64 sold 11.91 million copies and the N64 sold 32.93 million. So technically you'd be in the majority of 63.8% N64 owners.
No it doesn't.
+How do stars open a door?
+How can a Yoshi hatch from an egg and grow into an adult in seconds?
+Why did Bullet Bills evolve to have arms when they never use them?
It's like Nintendo isn't even trying.
SM64 aint terrible but it isnt this amazing game in 2019.
Odyssey is better in pretty much ever aspect imo.
Odyssey is better in pretty much ever aspect imo.
Maybe SMO should have made it so that you return to the ship after every moon...
Ehh. You aren't exactly wrong, OP... but this feels like looking at the prehistoric drawings in the cave of Altamira I thinking "Pfft most children nowadays can draw better than this".
That'd be fine if the levels were designed with that in mind, like in 64.
A lot of the Stars are put in places where you would be unable to backtrack or it would be impractical to do so, anyway. There's only a few levels where I think this becomes an issue, like Rainbow Ride where you have to repeat the same on-rails segments over and over with little control or freedom.
Threads in which someone tries to explain or judge from today's perspective why a game from 20+ years ago isn't as good or groundbreaking as everyone thinks it is really are the silliest ones. Mario 64 was and is an earthshattering achievement that rightfully blew everyone's mind and many things it did still hold up today. Yes, it could have done some things better, but that's easy to say after more than two decades of evolution in game design and technology.
Same here. I made myself play it, because everyone seemed to love it, but I never enjoyed it and never finished it.
You stating that the game was "objectively bad" in the Dunkey thread makes me think that you are intensely biased against this game for some reason. No one in their right mind would state that SM64 is bad objectively. Subjectively, sure; Knock yourself out. But really the only way that a game can be "objectively bad" is if the mechanics/programming of the game never works well enough to be playable for a large majority of people that play it, which absolutely cannot be said about SM64. Especially in the era that it released.
I don't see the point in being overly critical of a game which released in 1996. Mario 64 blew more minds and was more revolutionary than any game before or since.
The castle is a safe area for the player to learn how to play in and offers choice in progression.
I've primarily played Mario 64 in a emulated version (wii) which I assume is the NTSC version, I did however try the game once on a friends original pal system and I remember it feeling really off from how I know the game, a lot less responsive.
OP's Origins + "too olds to criticize"
OP
OP
several people said:
also several people said:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is what I mean by Super Mario 64 is sacrosanct. All arguments are equally unviable against it because it has every excuse behind it.
27, but I was a generation behind in consoles growing up as I got my older brother's leftovers, so I was playing SNES when N64 happened, and N64 when Gamecube happened etc. I ended up going through roughly the same order of games as someone born in the 80's.
Last edited:
Never finished Mario 64, even at the time I got a bit bored about half way through. Think it's the need to go back to older stages to get some extra stars (usually the less interesting ones by that point) to open up doors in the hubworld that always gets me. The 'restart level after collecting a star' issue that other posters mentioned probably makes this worse too, while a game like Banjo or Spyro would keep the momentum going until you 100% the level (or as much as you can with your current abilities)
Newer 3D Mario games have a similar issue for me, but they tend to have more interesting challenges to go through to unlock the next new set of levels, while Odyssey has so many optional moons to collect it never becomes a problem
For a 3rd person 3D game at the time though, Mario 64 was a incredible leap forward in terms of control and design
Newer 3D Mario games have a similar issue for me, but they tend to have more interesting challenges to go through to unlock the next new set of levels, while Odyssey has so many optional moons to collect it never becomes a problem
For a 3rd person 3D game at the time though, Mario 64 was a incredible leap forward in terms of control and design
Last edited:
From all the videogame hot takes, you do not mess with SM64. Really. The only person I have ever known who has defied this game is probably halfway crazy, so I think something may be wrong with you OP.
Joking aside, there's not much to counter argue. Topic is just bollocks.
Joking aside, there's not much to counter argue. Topic is just bollocks.
The hub is actually great, you can find secrets and you have to explore
We have open world games in 2019 where the entire world feels like a level select screen, and yet Mario 64 has a hub world that feels like more than that, with secrets a sense of mystery
Being locked to sections until you get enough stars keeps you locked to a certain few levels so the difficulty curve still works, while still giving the player choice on what to do next, and getting through a barrier and onto the next part of the castle/set of levels gives the player a good sense of progression
We have open world games in 2019 where the entire world feels like a level select screen, and yet Mario 64 has a hub world that feels like more than that, with secrets a sense of mystery
Being locked to sections until you get enough stars keeps you locked to a certain few levels so the difficulty curve still works, while still giving the player choice on what to do next, and getting through a barrier and onto the next part of the castle/set of levels gives the player a good sense of progression
Well I kinda meant posting on here. Im old enouph that there is no reason why I shouldn't have played it. Hell I bought mission impossible for N64 instead of Mario 64.
Weird to see people act like Super Mario 64 was the first 3D game to "feel good" when Quake came out a bit earlier and has aged dramatically better
I'd argue Quake was also way more influential to modern games, since it's the template for pretty much every FPS since
I'd argue Quake was also way more influential to modern games, since it's the template for pretty much every FPS since
Feelings vs Facts
Oh cool, do you have those measurements or know where they can be found for SM64 (a cursory Google search didn't really come up with much)? What is the objective, quantifiable level where a game becomes sluggish and floaty? Do you have comparisons on these measurement levels to other games?
I'll re-emphasise here, I think SM64's controls are great - never had an issue with floatiness of sluggishness myself - but you can't take the 'feel' factor out of something like this. There are objective values involved (the time spent in the air when jumping, the arch made by the character, the length of time it takes for Mario to start running after you move the stick) but there are a lot of factors which affect how it's interpreted by the player
OP
OP
This is such a good post. Especially having just come out of a 2 hour discussion with my friend about how "objectively/irrefutably good" SM64 controls are simply due to most people having that opinion.
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone complain about how Mario controls in 64. Whereas Sunshine somehow made movement even better, the way Mario moves and maintains momentum in 64 still blows my mind.
I believe the initial development period of the game was just programmers focusing on making Mario feel good, and it certainly shows.
I believe the initial development period of the game was just programmers focusing on making Mario feel good, and it certainly shows.
1) SM64 still has by far the best hub world. I like the maze like castle, feels like I'm exploring a place that could have secrets anywhere - and it does
2) This is correct. With the benefit of hindsight, the game should give you an option to go straight to another star, though given that the world changes with some star challenges, I don't see they can escape putting you back at your initial point, though you could at least lose the bit where you leave the painting.
3) Never had an issue with the controls. Camera is now dated, yes.
4) Aside from a few starts which were clearly filler, I thought the level design was great.
2) This is correct. With the benefit of hindsight, the game should give you an option to go straight to another star, though given that the world changes with some star challenges, I don't see they can escape putting you back at your initial point, though you could at least lose the bit where you leave the painting.
3) Never had an issue with the controls. Camera is now dated, yes.
4) Aside from a few starts which were clearly filler, I thought the level design was great.
Imagine having this take on one of the most influential games of all time. Bad controls and level design ? You're taking the piss surely.
Can't wait for your insightful critique of Pong or Doom (1993) next.
Can't wait for your insightful critique of Pong or Doom (1993) next.
Stuff like Isle Delfino wasn't possible on the N64, and any game that attempted open world had to use the notorious fog to hide the fact that they couldn't draw out very far. Nintendo obviously wanted to avoid fog at all costs. The castle is the workaround, it acts as a hub but has very short draw distances and can be easily segmented for fitting each part into RAM.
You are constructing your arguments from a 'I don't like this' point of view, which is really poor to make a case against. Give us non-biased arguments in stead of your tastes.
Hyper nerds trying to frame their subjective experience with a piece of media as something that's objectively quantifiable is why we can't have nice things.
OP can pretend that this thread was created in good faith for the sake of discussion but their posts from the dunkey thread already contradict that. Not to mention that any argument made against theirs is met with "See??? You can't criticize Mario 64 😂"
It was 1996
A bit before? Quake released literally 1 day before SM64 did in Japan.
A bit before? Quake released literally 1 day before SM64 did in Japan.
Last edited:
One day before Japan and several months before the rest of the world qualifies as "a bit", I would think.
I disagree with most of your points, OP. They mostly seem to be constructed around highlighting flaws of the game that - after more than 20 years - definitely exist, but are still outweighed by some timeless design choices. The purity of acrobatic movement within the game world alone is fueling the game to a level where it's no surprise that the simple yard in front of the castle can grasp peoples attention, just fooling around for hours. In this context, the disconnection between the levels and the hub - even their weird self-containment - don't matter as much to the experience you have once you're traversing them.
However, I respect your opinion - I have a very similar personal, subjective bias against Ocarina of Time that probably doesn't resonate well with the collective opinion of the game :D
However, I respect your opinion - I have a very similar personal, subjective bias against Ocarina of Time that probably doesn't resonate well with the collective opinion of the game :D
OP
OP
I say this in the OP:
"And obviously, obviously this is an opinion piece. "
But also, every review is biased. I presented aspects of the game I feel were poor. That was my experience.
I remember reading a funny article a while ago about an "unbiased review" for a store. It went something like
etc.some article said:
No review is ever unbiased, you can only provide your feelings and experiences with the game. Where are all the non-biased reviews praising the game? You can't just have them say "the controls feel wonderful and precise" because that is equally biased. That's how opinions work.
This is ridiculous, my opening premise is that I accept the game is widely considered to be good. My issue with the dunkey video was him saying the controls were 'Inherently enjoyable' to which I strongly disagreed, and provided my own experience, to which people disregarded as trolling.
You'll notice how I'm not quoting every person in the thread who disagrees and saying they're wrong, but instead addressing the people who make dismissive retorts about the validity of my (and at least a few others in this threads) experiences?
I say you can't criticize Mario 64 not because people disagree, but because people dismiss the notion that it's possible to hold that belief "In Good Faith".
So yeah, proving my point.
I'll hazard a guess that Mario 64 performs better in these categories than other games not judged as harshly by OP. Mario Galaxy, a game which definitely does not have poor controls, is definitely floatier than Mario 64.
Therefore I say whatever subjective problem OP has with Mario's movement in 64 does not relate to the responsiveness or how gravity affects him.
I don't think the rest of world release is especially relevant. The game was made and out there.
I'd argue the western release is much more relevant, since this is an English speaking forum and I sincerely doubt many people here played the game before the western release.
We could go back further, though, if you really want. There were plenty of games on PC especially that were doing 3D and doing it well before SM64. Hell, SM64 wasn't even nearly as influential as people claim - 3D platformers of its kind are practically a dead genre outside of newer Mario games and a handful of deliberate throwbacks.
I'm in the same boat. I respect Super Mario 64 for what it did at the time, but I had played already quite a few 3D platformers (including Mario ones) by the time I got around to actually playing it. Most of its accomplishments were stuff I took for granted, and so I didn't really get a lot out of this. Not a big fan of its structure, find it kinda gross looking, and it simply has more levels I'd rather not want to be in than ones I do. For both my attempts to play this, the later half of this game consisted of me looking for easy hidden stars to I can meet the bare minimum to progress. In all fairness though, I'm not that into the collect-a-thon platformer genre in general. It was always going to have an uphill battle for reasons beyond its control.
I'm also not sure why Mario punches or kicks in this either, especially when the game doesn't really do much with it.
Ocarina of Time is a good comparison. That's another influential, important game, but for someone late to the party, it's not going to be the same experience as someone who played it back in the day. When I played Ocarina, it was mainly the dungeon layouts, and use of the ocarina that that had to carry the experience.
I'm also not sure why Mario punches or kicks in this either, especially when the game doesn't really do much with it.
I definitely understand its purpose and appeal during the 90s, but do you expect people to still do this nowadays? When I played it in the 2000s, I walked inside immediately. I didn't have to learn how analogue sticks worked.
Ocarina of Time is a good comparison. That's another influential, important game, but for someone late to the party, it's not going to be the same experience as someone who played it back in the day. When I played Ocarina, it was mainly the dungeon layouts, and use of the ocarina that that had to carry the experience.
I'm less interested in debating your opinions as i am how I can prove that you're OBJECTIVELY wrong. I mean: the castle is annoying because 'in universe it wouldn't be maze like'. This is the very definition of what the in universe castle would be, and its not even maze like in the game!
Ah but - I played it after borrowing from a friend, which used to be much more of a thing! Reckon it nets out 70% played it
Ah but - I played it after borrowing from a friend, which used to be much more of a thing! Reckon it nets out 70% played it
Pretty much this. Especially on the controls, Mario is very snappy and responsive.
Yes, but then you include a threadmark title "Feelings vs Facts", which reduces all criticism of your points to "subjective" while putting your points as "objective".
¯\_(ツ)_/¯