The Case Against Super Mario 64

[Deleted member 2474]

I'm also not sure why Mario punches or kicks in this either, especially when the game doesn't really do much with it.

Click to shrink...

Depth perception in 3D games (especially ones with more primitive lighting engines) was difficult for many people, and jumping on enemies consequently was much trickier than in 2D Mario. Punching and kicking lets you hit enemies easier.

Lots of 3D platformers had to find ways to work around the challenge of jumping on enemies in 3D - this is also why you see things like the Homing Attack in 3D Sonic games.

 

[Larrikin]

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)_/¯

Click to shrink...

What the fuck? no. I'm putting both as subjective. How could you possibly draw that conclusion given how painstakingly "In My Opinion" the OP is?

 

[RPGam3r]

Not all games are liked by all people. I don't like Fortnite, but I easily understand its huge appeal/impact and didn't write a dissertation on why it personally isn't great for me.

 

[eso76]

Worst take ever.

 

[eXistor]

I read you comments in the Dunkey thread. I...I don't agree even one iota.

 

[clickKunst]

You think that's bad - the game punishes you for going fast!

 

[MisterHero]

Ok so you are building a strawman to launch your arguments. Almost no one in the wide world of gaming consider this game to be perfect in all these aspects. They were revolutionary and mind-blowing at the time, but of course have been iterated on endlessly since then, and improved in many ways. Most people will return to a later 3D Mario, where most of the mechanics of 64 have been polished. But 64 remains a towering achievement considering how many things it got right while being the very first of its kind. It blew open the doors of 3D action adventuring.

Click to shrink...

I consider Super Mario 64 to be a perfect game for both its time and any other time.

Nearly, maybe every, game that came afterwards tries to overcompensate with mechanics and content. Even later 3D Mario games are guilty of this.

How can even a Mario game to be better than 64 if they can't even recapture or improve upon flight?

 

[Acorn]

I just want everyone to admit Banjo Kazooie was better. Not a bad game though.

Click to shrink...

Never.

 

[Trup1aya]

I strongly disagree with all of your points OP, except the one about getting booted after each star.

I especially don't understand the complaint about the Castle. This is a classic case of Function over Form. The primary role of the hub world is to be a playspace that brings enjoyment, via gameplay throughout the course of the game. It is itself a level. Being a plausible and convincing living/workspace is rightfully at the very bottom of the list of priorities.

 

[KeRaSh]

After a brief dip into the dunkey thread on the game I figured I'd take a more structure approach to this argument.

I'll preface this by saying that I completely understand why this game is so beloved. It pioneered 3D Platformers, and 3D games in general. Many people consider the game to control Perfectly, with Perfect levels and Perfect design etc. The game was a spectacular leap forward for our industry and I love what it has done for games as a medium and for the industry as a whole. I respect this game, but I don't like it. I think it is terrible. I hate it.

And obviously, obviously this is an opinion piece. I am not trying to convince people that this is an awful game but I'm just putting forward the reasons why this game, that is so universally revered, is not enjoyable to me (and maybe some others). So without further adieu:

1. The Context (Hub World and Stars)
Starting here makes sense to me. I don't like the castle, I think it is the root cause of a lot of my grievances about this game but just from a design standpoint I don't think it's very well implemented. Having this weird maze-like structure that is, in-universe, supposed to be some sort of place that people live and operate in always struck me weirdly. It felt like "Hey, Peach is a princess, she has a castle. Lets go with that." which led to "how do we get all these worlds in here?" which led to... paintings I guess. How do we get them to play the levels in order? "Uhhh... mario has stars right? Lets go with that. You need x stars for certain doors" etc. Its just excuse after excuse eithout any real reason apart from "thats the easiest way to get these things into the game". It's a small gripe but imo an important one because a game being contextual within itself is something that always draws me in and makes me care about the world even if it's an incredibly game-y world, the smallest touch goes a long way to making me feel better about how it's presented.

In SMB1 it's a mad dash through all the levels to reach the princess. You are left, Peach is right. Go get her. Mario is travelling from place to place hunting what he thinks is Bowser/The princess but it turns out to be someone/somewhere else. There's a sense of urgency that, at a very base level gives you context and drives you through level to level. It's barely there but it's something, and something is enough. In SMB3 it's the same but with an actual overworld which goes leaps and bounds into establishing the place that you're in. Again with Super Mario World.

Click to shrink...

You complain about context but then praise SMB as an example where it's done right. That game gives you zero context on what's going on. You don't know who Bowser is, why you are running from left to right or why you have to rescue a princess...
What a weird argument.

 

[Treasure Silvergun]

I can agree on level design, for some worlds at least. I never enjoyed some of the later worlds, which is the reason I never completed SM64 twice.

But your paragraph on context reminded me of a sentence I read on GAF in the heydays of photorealistic games in the 7th gen: "Mario is still a nonsensical character doing nonsensical things".

Peach's castle makes as much sense as Bowser turning all the inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom into floating bricks instead of, you know, turning them into his slaves instead. The premises of Mario games are not supposed to be scrutinized under the lens of coherence.

 

[JershJopstin]

I'm curious OP, do you share my opinion that Sunshine handles way better than 64? Most precise Mario has ever felt imo.

While I grew up with a 64, I somehow avoided SM64 until VC; I played it after Sunshine, Galaxy, and Galaxy 2. One of the first things I noticed was that it felt noticably clunkier to play and the controls' reputation didn't hold up at all.

 

[Jasper]

The level of hate you get for this opinion is frankly disturbing.

If I, very hypothetically, would disagree with the Mario defense force, I'd be sure to keep my mouth shut after seeing this.

 

[R IS REAL 2041]

Dunkey's video and this thread made me want to do another 120 Star run. That game is one of the games I recalibrate with because it controls so good.

I'm loving Odyssey right now because it's more like Mario 64 than any other. Perfect controls, back to the "Stars" but they call them Moons now, freedom of choice (looking at you, Galaxy), etc.

 

[Deleted member 19996]

Kind of agree with OP. I never really enjoyed or liked the game. Camera was a major factor of disgust. Then again I seem to not enjoy any 3d Mario game.

 

[FuzzyWuzzy]

Dukeys video did a damn good job of showing why its liked. I still play it at least once a year and I just cant see how the controls are garbage, it always feels like I am in control and the movement options are very varied

 

[Larrikin]

I strongly disagree with all of your points OP, except the one about getting booted after each star.

I especially don't understand the complaint about the Castle. This is a classic case of Function over Form. The primary role of the hub world is to be a playspace that brings enjoyment throughout the course of the game. It is itself a level. Being a plausible and convincing living/workspace is rightfully at the very bottom of the list of priorities.

Click to shrink...

I agree completely, I just think it goes way too far with that. It completely eschews a reasonable premise (for lack of a better word) for which other games have found ways to do. I mean, to take Banjo Kazooie for example where you have a similar "magic painting" premise, but the hub world still takes some effort to give a context to the areas, and you don't actually enter a painting but rather unlock the doorway to these areas that can at least conceivably exist in Grunty's Castle given the surrounding areas.

I'm curious OP, do you share my opinion that Sunshine handles way better than 64? Most precise Mario has ever felt imo.

While I grew up with a 64, I somehow avoided SM64 until VC; I played it after Sunshine, Galaxy, and Galaxy 2. One of the first things I noticed was that it felt noticably clunkier to play and the controls' reputation didn't hold up at all.

Click to shrink...

I haven't finished Sunshine (but have played a bit and watched speedruns) but I would say that from a pure control perspective it's my favourite outside of Odyssey.

*snip* The premises of Mario games are not supposed to be scrutinized under the lens of coherence.

Click to shrink...

It's not about scrutinizing the details... I mean why did future mario games bother to include any of the things I mentioned if they aren't necessary and don't matter? They believed it improved the game. So do I, I think having some sort of grounding (seriously, anything. the barest of bones is better than nothing at all) is important to make the player care about what's going on, otherwise it might as well be an interactive fever dream where stuff just happens.

You complain about context but then praise SMB as an example where it's done right. That game gives you zero context on what's going on. You don't know who Bowser is, why you are running from left to right or why you have to rescue a princess...
What a weird argument.

Click to shrink...

You head right, you fight what looks like bowser (but if you kill with fireballs it turns out to be a regular monster in disguise, proof that this was part of the concept and was considered a worthwhile aspect of game design to include) who is clearly a bad guy and you get informed that your princess is in another castle. That's all the reason Mario needs to keep going and there are no abstractions preventing him. Most of Mario 64 is you doing things because they are the next thing you are able to do (even if you can choose the order somewhat) with the only metric of success being an arbitrary mcguffin that has no explanation for its existence. I'm not asking for a miracle, I'm not even asking for something good. I'm just asking for literally anything. The fact that it is so overtly pointless is a let down and makes the game feel more like a chore than an experience to me.

 

[Firemind]

Thanks OP I needed a laugh.

I like how people are offering arguments why the game is well-designed yet the OP ignores them and replies to the non-substantive posts.

 

[NuclearCake]

Sorry OP. Mario 64 has near perfect controls.. It's insane what you can pull off in this game.



It puts 99% of other 3D platformers to shame in just how fun it is to play and it's fun basically because of these controls.

 

[goldenpp73]

Dukeys video did a damn good job of showing why its liked. I still play it at least once a year and I just cant see how the controls are garbage, it always feels like I am in control and the movement options are very varied

Click to shrink...

The controls being garbage can only really be explained if you're bad at the game i'd say.

 

[Larrikin]

Thanks OP I needed a laugh.

I like how people are offering arguments why the game is well-designed yet the OP ignores them and replies to the non-substantive posts that aren't about the game.

Click to shrink...

... duh? I'm not going to quote every person and be like "Soz, I disagree, that is actually bad". That's reductive and unnecessary. My point is not to convince people on whether it's poorly designed or not, it's to posit the discussion's right to be taken seriously. Posts like yours are exactly the reason I feel the thread has a reason to exist.

The arguments to why it's well designed are, quite obviously, the opposite of what I posited in the OP. I feel X Y Z is not enjoyable for A B C reasons, , others say X Y Z is good for C D E reasons. There is nothing to be gained from slinging shit at other posters when we simply accept that we fundamentally disagree with each other.

On the other hand, when someone posts a specific argument I feel there is a point I can talk about, then I'll talk about it. e.g NTSC vs PAL, or people questioning my feelings that the game needs a baseline context.

I'm ok with disagreeing with people, and also not thinking they are wrong just because they believe differently from me. If that is so farfetched an attitude then maybe I'm just an insane person. That's ok with me.

The level of hate you get for this opinion is frankly disturbing.

If I, very hypothetically, would disagree with the Mario defense force, I'd be sure to keep my mouth shut after seeing this.

Click to shrink...

I know right :-/

 

[D.Lo]

A really well written, decently argued, absolutely terrible take.

 

[FuzzyWuzzy]

In all seriousness, the control point seems to stand out to me the most as just being so far of the reasonable take

 

[DrazilKaj]

OP is absolutely right and pretty much nailed all the points. I don't care if no one agrees with us, but Super Mario 64 from what I've played is VASTLY overrated and just a pain in the ass to play. I'd further add how boring and static the bowser fights are (you fight him with very little differences not once, not twice, but three times! I don't think I've seen such little changes since SMB1.), and how BS it is finding some of the powerups (including one that's hidden inside a terrible level which I NEVER GOT).

And don't get me started on the awful, AWFUL flying mechanic. I really don't know what Nintendo was thinking that it would be fun to make the controls 'realistic'. I could go on for days about why the game reeks. I can't believe people think the game controls 'perfectly'.
This game is not the masterpiece people think it is, to me it's crap. While it may have innovated the 3D platforming genre, that IMO is the only good thing about it.
Kinda shocking that a game like Gex 2 actually improved upon the SM64 formula immensely.

Oh yeah, and Dire Dire Docks isn't a good music track.

 

[Rendering...]

I saw the topic title and shook my damn head. Why do people do this?

Some kind of intellectual exercise? That's fine, I guess. But it still kind of sucks because it involves ragging on a beloved piece of media that truly is something special.

Like, sure, it's not some perfect game. But I can't get behind criticizing the castle or the controls. The camera, maybe. Some of the objectives, OK. The flying mechanics? They could be better. As an overall package though, Mario 64 is a classic for good reason and it holds up great.

 

[Kcannon]

Never bothered me. I prefer it to Odyssey's abundance.

Click to shrink...

Tall Tall Mountain, Tick Tock Clock and Rainbow Ride are some of worst levels in Mario history because of this. They actually go against SM64's very own design philosophy of having free playgrounds (we know they designed SM64 that way so that people could enjoy 3D movement to the fullest).

Bomb-Omb Battlefield was fun because it was sprawling, but most levels weren't exactly like it.

 

[Iztok]

I appreciate your effort here, but I just can't agree on any of the points, at all.
I don't feel slighted by that, mind you, there's plenty of games from that era I personally couldn't enjoy, yet other people did.

And I played PAL when I got it new, so that wasn't a factor for me (I've replayed it as NTSC most of the times since, however).

The only thing that slightly annoys me today, as it did back then, is the camera system.
But for a 1st try it was pretty amazing even in that regard.

 

[Odrion]

I gotta say, it is uuuuuuuuuhgly. Lots of gradients and amateurish looking stuff you would find in a bad Unity game. I don't think Nintendo really had a real grasp on texture design yet.

 

[K' Dash]

I gotta say, it is uuuuuuuuuhgly. Lots of gradients and amateurish looking stuff you would find in a bad Unity game. I don't think Nintendo really had a real grasp on texture design yet.

Click to shrink...

I hope this is a joke.

People applying current standards to the game that gave birth to 3D adventure games, lol.

 

[Rendering...]

I gotta say, it is uuuuuuuuuhgly. Lots of gradients and amateurish looking stuff you would find in a bad Unity game. I don't think Nintendo really had a real grasp on texture design yet.

Click to shrink...

This post is ugly. I haven't seen your face but I bet it could also use some improvement! Sand down the rough edges and whatnot.

 

[Deleted member 21709]

Tall Tall Mountain, Tick Tock Clock and Rainbow Ride are some of worst levels in Mario history because of this.

Bomb-Omb Battlefield was fun because it was sprawling, but most levels weren't exactly like it.

Click to shrink...

I can see how it can be annoying when speed running, but it never annoyed me when just playing the game. The game design was so open and forgiving for its time.

I gotta say, it is uuuuuuuuuhgly. Lots of gradients and amateurish looking stuff you would find in a bad Unity game. I don't think Nintendo really had a real grasp on texture design yet.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, I don't understand.

 

[Bomi-Chan]

It was the first 3d platformer. Like give it some slack.

Click to shrink...

not completely true. compare it to bubsy 3d, or the other 3d jump n runs at that time.sm64 was the first 3d platformer which made everything Right and brought 2d mario into the 3rd Dimension. most games back then failed in that attempt miserably(castlevania, contra, street fighter, sonic,...)

Has anyone compared pal and ntsc Mario 64? I'm really curious if the pal version somehow feels significantly worse.

Click to shrink...

the pal Version was a quickly slapped together Version, it is indeed 16% slower than the original. the Colours are all a tad washed out. sad.
i grew up in Germany, so i never knew it better than this.

 

[D.Lo]

I gotta say, it is uuuuuuuuuhgly. Lots of gradients and amateurish looking stuff you would find in a bad Unity game. I don't think Nintendo really had a real grasp on texture design yet.

Click to shrink...

Lol, dumbass Nintendo. Why didn't they use Unity in 1995 on a console with 4MB of RAM.

 

[Deleted member 21709]

not completely true. compare it to bubsy 3d, or the other 3d jump n runs at that time.sm64 was the first 3d platformer which made everything Right and brought 2d mario into the 3rd Dimension. most games back then failed in that attempt miserably(castlevania, contra, street fighter, sonic,...)

the pal Version was a quickly slapped together Version, it is indeed 16% slower than the original. the Colours are all a tad washed out. sad.
i grew up in Germany, so i never knew it better than this.

Click to shrink...

Same. I didn't even know about this issue at the time.

 

[piratethingy]

The level of hate you get for this opinion is frankly disturbing.

If I, very hypothetically, would disagree with the Mario defense force, I'd be sure to keep my mouth shut after seeing this.

Click to shrink...

Lmao yeah God forbid someone disagree with your opinion about a video-game. What a martyr.

 

[Rygar 8Bit]

not completely true. compare it to bubsy 3d, or the other 3d jump n runs at that time.sm64 was the first 3d platformer which made everything Right and brought 2d mario into the 3rd Dimension. most games back then failed in that attempt miserably(castlevania, contra, street fighter, sonic,...)

Click to shrink...

64 release before Bubsy 3d. I did forget about Jumping Flash though.

 

[Jroc]

Take a look at the speedrunning and romhacking scene for Mario 64.

I can understand enjoying the more "full featured" platformers like Banjo or the later Mario games, but Mario 64 is easily the top in terms of skill ceiling and raw mechanics. I'd even argue the abstract low poly 3D worlds make for better platforming than some of the more detailed modern levels.

 

[Carvel]

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.

Click to shrink...

Let me put it this way: my example wasn't as much targeted to highlight the tutorial aspect of the courtyard. The controls and the moveset are a game in and of itself – a simple test level with no real story connection or mission objective (like the courtyard) can be enough to experience fun with the game (even today). I think that there is proof for this theory in the numerous meta-challenges that have evolved over time, like the green-demon-challenge or the simple task of mastering the controls to reach the castle roof without the canon (yet again set in the courtyard), or the general appreciation of level concepts similar to this minimalistic approach in Mario Sunshine and further sequels.

 

[Swift_Gamer]

I agree with everything you said

 

[ZeoVGM]

One of the best controlling 3D games ever made.

Also, I don't remotely care about "context." It's a platformer from 1996. No one needed "context" when playing the original Super Mario Bros. Ridiculous complaint.

 

[bluehat9]

Just wanted to say I disagree that sunshine does anything better than Mario 64. Every time i try to play that game again I like it less.

No, but I really liked the 64 castle hub, loved the controls, and thought the star progression was fine (don't some levels change based on what star you pick?). Some level design isn't the greatest, but I give it a pass as a first 3D game at launch on a new system.

 

[Odrion]

Lol, dumbass Nintendo. Why didn't they use Unity in 1995 on a console with 4MB of RAM.

Click to shrink...

There are other games on the N64 that don't look as bad and have coherent looking environments. Banjo Kazooie is an obvious pick.

But I'm not talking about the textures being held back by hardware. It's about how they're designed and placed.

And that's okay! It's okay that it doesn't look good. Obviously Nintendo were in uncharted waters at the time and had to wing it. But it's fun to go back to the game and look at it's garishness.

 

[En-ou]

OP. Your points are terrible. All of it.

I just want everyone to admit Banjo Kazooie was better. Not a bad game though.

Click to shrink...

BK felt like a cheap knockoff to me. For me it didn't have that magic Mario 64 had.

 

[Porco Rosso]

I completely and passionately disagree, but thank you for elaborating on your thoughts instead of just making a low-effort troll post.

 

[Aurongel]

It's a pretty decent film overall but I cannot fucking believe that hack Orson Welles decides to shoot Citizen Kane in black and white instead of color. Found it super boring as a result.

Classic film my ass.

 

[En-ou]

I hated Super Mario World because they never explained how the hell a bridge made of butter could even stand.

Click to shrink...

I'm sure this is a joke...right?

 

[Rndom Grenadez]

¯\_(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.

Click to shrink...

Whether or not you went through the same order isn't as important as understanding the experience as it was happening. Mario 64 was landscape altering in every way.

I saw the title of the thread and thought "Nah I'm not even going to bother", but when I came in the arguments were worse than I was expecting.

Castle design as the hub and controls? Couldn't believe what I was reading honestly.

The game has faults of course, that have became more salient as the 3D platformer genre matured, but design and controls are most definitely not them.

 

[ZeoVGM]

I just want everyone to admit Banjo Kazooie was better. Not a bad game though.

Click to shrink...

The problem with that is that it's not better. Mario 64 has better level design.

 

[ZeoVGM]

I'm sure this is a joke...right?

Click to shrink...

Obviously. :P

 

[NotLiquid]

I get the criticism of the game booting you out after a star but I think that has to do with memory issues. Some stars heavily change the level layout. Thats why 100 coin stars don't boot you out.

Super Mario 64 is an incredible game that fumbles a bit during the home stretch. Tick Tock Clock and Rainbow Ride aren't fun, the latter particularly involving a lot of waiting that you can't always cheese through.

I'd actually be interested in an Odyssey 2 that has a Banjo-Kazooie styled hub. Odyssey feels as much a spiritual Mario 64 followup as it feels a Banjo-Kazooie one.