Best Super Mario 3D Platformer

[saulres]

itt I learned that Reck has a diametrically opposite viewpoint of what games are good than I do.

I look forward to more of his pans so I know what I should pick up.

[xRECKONERx]

Because I don't like wonky camera / bad controls in my 3D platformers?

[xRECKONERx]

As far as Ocarina of Time goes, I could rant but I'd highly suggest instead you take 30 minutes of your time to watch Egoraptor's well-thought-out critique:

[Untrod Tripod]

Majora though

masterpiece

[xRECKONERx]

Yeah MM is amazing

[xRECKONERx]

TLDR WHY OOT ISN'T THAT GOOD

- The game confuses 'waiting' with 'difficulty'. Most enemies in the game involve standing around and just waiting for them to be vulnerable. That's not hard, it's the illusion of difficulty. (This isn't only OoT, there are plenty of games that do this, Final Fantasy is notorious for this.) Wait for the boat to go down the river so you can get to the next point. Wait for the dialogue box to finish. Wait for the enemy to reveal its weakness. Wait for Link to get back up after being knocked down. Wait for the OPEN A CHEST cutscene to finish. Wait for the unlocked door cutscene to finish. WAIT WAIT WAIT.

- There are no puzzles. Walking into a room and looking to find the eyeball to shoot isn't a puzzle. Puzzles give you all the information and it's up to you to solve it. Not having an item or "hey, kill all these monsters so a chest appears!" isn't puzzling, it's hand-holding.

- The game is just a series of places where you press A. It's not actually open world. "Oops, sorry, can't go past this gate that YOU CAN CLEARLY CLIMB OVER without a letter from the King!" Making your player rebel against the rules of your game isn't a good thing to do.

[Chevre]

I guess I should admit that I played SM64 on the DS, so it's entirely possible that all the issues you mention were fixed.

As for Zelda, the only two games I've played are the original (which is so truly far from any other zelda game it's difficult to compare) and Phantom Hourglass, which I loved. I watched someone play Skyward Sword and thought that was a visually pleasing adventure.

[Vi]

TLDR WHY OOT ISN'T THAT GOOD

- The game confuses 'waiting' with 'difficulty'. Most enemies in the game involve standing around and just waiting for them to be vulnerable. That's not hard, it's the illusion of difficulty. (This isn't only OoT, there are plenty of games that do this, Final Fantasy is notorious for this.) Wait for the boat to go down the river so you can get to the next point. Wait for the dialogue box to finish. Wait for the enemy to reveal its weakness. Wait for Link to get back up after being knocked down. Wait for the OPEN A CHEST cutscene to finish. Wait for the unlocked door cutscene to finish. WAIT WAIT WAIT.

This... actually makes no sense. Only two of these are intended to add difficulty, and surviving on the boat for a set period of time is if anything a counterexample to your point. The rest is just

look everyone it's frigging 3D

.

Or to restate your point another way - are cutscenes "artificial difficulty"? If so, the entire RPG genre might not be for you, and there's a disconnect going about which parts of the game are intended to be difficult. You might as well be saying that books are difficult.

- There are no puzzles. Walking into a room and looking to find the eyeball to shoot isn't a puzzle. Puzzles give you all the information and it's up to you to solve it. Not having an item or "hey, kill all these monsters so a chest appears!" isn't puzzling, it's hand-holding.

So if you're looking for

puzzles

specifically by that definition and to the extent you seem to be looking for, then all of the non-handheld Zelda games probably aren't for you. (On the other hand, the Oracles games should serve your purpose.)

- The game is just a series of places where you press A. It's not actually open world. "Oops, sorry, can't go past this gate that YOU CAN CLEARLY CLIMB OVER without a letter from the King!" Making your player rebel against the rules of your game isn't a good thing to do.

Again, the entire RPG genre is probably not for you.

---

SM64's camera wasn't good - and I'm glad it was one of the first things fixed in other 3-D games - but I don't think it was as crippling as it's being made out to be. I agree the controls needed shoring up. My complaint is more that these days it seems very obvious that all of the stages are small and limited to a box (Wet-Dry World, for instance).

[Untrod Tripod]

You might as well be saying that books are difficult.

[Untrod Tripod]

also Reck's tl;dr post was summarizing the video he posted

[Quilford]

3D Land is horrendous. Such a tremendous letdown from the excellence of Galaxy I. I also like 64, which I played on DS.

[xRECKONERx]

This... actually makes no sense. Only two of these are intended to add difficulty, and surviving on the boat for a set period of time is if anything a counterexample to your point. The rest is just

look everyone it's frigging 3D

.

Or to restate your point another way - are cutscenes "artificial difficulty"? If so, the entire RPG genre might not be for you, and there's a disconnect going about which parts of the game are intended to be difficult. You might as well be saying that books are difficult.

No, cutscenes are not artificial difficulty. But it becomes a problem when the game rips you out of the moment CONSTANTLY for cutscenes to show you, 'HEY IT IS ALL 3D AND SHIT'. It ruins the pacing of a game that is literally about going and exploring. It pulls you out of the exploring.

And the 'waiting' as artificial difficulty is more about the enemy design. With a couple unique exceptions (e.g., The Iron Knuckle) every enemy is just a waiting game. Wait for them to run around and complete their mechanics cycle so they're vulnerable, then attack! Sit there and wait for the weak point to show up so you can use a thingy on it, then attack! It's very lazy design. "That fight took a long time, that was hard!" No, that fight took a long time because you sat around WAITING for the enemy to do something.

So if you're looking for

puzzles

specifically by that definition and to the extent you seem to be looking for, then all of the non-handheld Zelda games probably aren't for you. (On the other hand, the Oracles games should serve your purpose.)

ALTTP had puzzles in the way you approached dungeon mechanics and enemy mechanics. I'm not just asking for a series of levers and switches, I'm asking for a little thought to be taken into account when I'm trying to figure out how to be an enemy. Something more than, 'GEE IS IT THE GIANT GLOWY EYEBALL THING, I WONDER'. The video above gives a good example: in LTTP, you walk into a room in a dungeon, and there are five guys patrolling around. And it's crazy, and when they get on eye level with you, they follow you. So navigating the room becomes a puzzle, of trying to outstep the enemies and find paths to get to their sides in order to attack them. I feel like, even for its fault, Skyward Sword had some cool puzzle elements. And the newest one, A Link Between Worlds, fucking

nailed

that feeling for the most part. Even Majora's Mask has more puzzly elements than Ocarina.

Again, the entire RPG genre is probably not for you.

I think hiding behind genre labels to hand-wave a game's faults is a pretty disingenuous thing to do.

The summation of your post could just be, "yeah but it's an RPG so haha owned". That's not an excuse for lazy game design elements. And I also assume you probably didn't watch the video I was TLDRing, but you should, because it explains these things in a way I will never be able to because I'm not going to spend months crafting the ultimate persuasive argument.

[Vi]

No, cutscenes are not artificial difficulty. But it becomes a problem when the game rips you out of the moment CONSTANTLY for cutscenes to show you, 'HEY IT IS ALL 3D AND SHIT'. It ruins the pacing of a game that is literally about going and exploring. It pulls you out of the exploring.

Isn't that, like, almost every adventure game designed for consoles starting with the N64? I'm not trying to be facetious; I'm trying to picture a major 3D Nintendo adventure that doesn't do this fairly often.

Also, it's not like Banjo-Tooie or something where the cutscenes come without warning. It's not like you won't know there's a cutscene coming every time you pick up a heart container or open a big chest or enter a new area. This argument makes no sense because you are essentially consenting to the cutscenes every time they occur.

And the 'waiting' as artificial difficulty is more about the enemy design. With a couple unique exceptions (e.g., The Iron Knuckle) every enemy is just a waiting game. Wait for them to run around and complete their mechanics cycle so they're vulnerable, then attack! Sit there and wait for the weak point to show up so you can use a thingy on it, then attack! It's very lazy design. "That fight took a long time, that was hard!" No, that fight took a long time because you sat around WAITING for the enemy to do something.

That, along with mash-button-until-dead or chase-and-hit, pretty much sums up every boss I can think of offhand in the Zelda universe. :/

So if you're looking for

puzzles

specifically by that definition and to the extent you seem to be looking for, then all of the non-handheld Zelda games probably aren't for you. (On the other hand, the Oracles games should serve your purpose.)

ALTTP had puzzles in the way you approached dungeon mechanics and enemy mechanics. I'm not just asking for a series of levers and switches, I'm asking for a little thought to be taken into account when I'm trying to figure out how to be an enemy. Something more than, 'GEE IS IT THE GIANT GLOWY EYEBALL THING, I WONDER'. The video above gives a good example: in LTTP, you walk into a room in a dungeon, and there are five guys patrolling around. And it's crazy, and when they get on eye level with you, they follow you. So navigating the room becomes a puzzle, of trying to outstep the enemies and find paths to get to their sides in order to attack them. I feel like, even for its fault, Skyward Sword had some cool puzzle elements. And the newest one, A Link Between Worlds, fucking

nailed

that feeling for the most part. Even Majora's Mask has more puzzly elements than Ocarina.

I missed A Link Between Worlds, though I don't think I've heard anything bad about it and if I ever start playing handheld games again I'll look into it.

ALTTP didn't do a good job of this, though. For one, why are you not murdering everything in the room (or running by in some cases) instead of trying to attach a puzzle element to movement? As for puzzles, they're mostly about pushing every block in a room to open a door.

I think you're talking about the original Legend of Zelda. That's not a puzzle, though it is action-oriented gameplay. Yeah, that's tough to do in a 3D environment. Not impossible, and if you don't rely on C-targeting when fighting multiple enemies it's not so bad, but not as pleasant simply due to camera angles and so forth. The part in the video where the player was getting owned by two Lizalfos and a Beamos sounds like a case of bad prioritization and not being able to get out of the way until the player could arrange a favorable matchup - which is, in terms of general strategy, nearly identical to the Zelda 1 Darknut example.

Skyward Sword didn't really have much going for it either, other than trying things and seeing what happened in some cases. There was, what, getting out of the urn using the Beetle, using your map to find the hidden passage in the second dungeon, The Imprisoned, maybe thinking a little about what you were doing during the sacred grounds and volcano fortress segments... Maybe we're not talking about the same things? I'm interpreting what you're saying as wanting something like what Oracle of Ages had, where the turnstiles forced you to move in a certain path in order to access different parts of a floor.

Also, and for what it's worth, the fact that the eye switches weren't always obvious added something to the exploratory element.

Also, Iron Knuckle is a fantastic miniboss, not least because the damage it does per hit is so high that it forces the player to think about what they're doing. The Darknuts of Wind Waker are much the same.

Again, the entire RPG genre is probably not for you.

I think hiding behind genre labels to hand-wave a game's faults is a pretty disingenuous thing to do.

The summation of your post could just be, "yeah but it's an RPG so haha owned". That's not an excuse for lazy game design elements. And I also assume you probably didn't watch the video I was TLDRing, but you should, because it explains these things in a way I will never be able to because I'm not going to spend months crafting the ultimate persuasive argument.

I hadn't; I didn't have time this morning (and after clicking to a few places I'm not going to be able to deal with thirty minutes of rebuttable Zero-Punctuation-style yelling). However, silly RPG tropes like "why can't I cross this fence?" aren't worth the effort needed to complain about them.

[xRECKONERx]

I can think of a few bosses that changed up the gameplay design enough to be unique. Ghoma in Wind Waker stands out. Scaldera utilized the new motion controls in a really cool way. There was that jungle boss in Majora's Mask where you could take him down with a vast array of strategies, not just the "use the item from the dungeon then hit three times" motif (which is literally every single boss in OoT). I think Iron Knuckle not only excelled because of the stakes being higher due to per-damage hits, but because the

player

controlled the pace of the battle. It wasn't "sit around and wait" with IK, it was him reacting to YOUR attacks, which made it feel like the player had to dictate the pace of the battle.

Yeah, I did mean the original game, not ALTTP. My bad. And while it's not a

puzzle

, where you can sit and think about how to solve it, it's puzzle-based gameplay. Figuring out the solution to how to get through the room is just satisfying. I can't honestly think of any, "AHA!" moments like that in OoT, but I've experienced them in countless other Zelda titles.

I think the silly RPG tropes are worth mentioning and complaining about. It's not a critique unique to Zelda, but it's one that I feel needs to be mentioned if you're judging something objectively. Just because other games do it doesn't make it any less okay. Giving us an open world is a shallow and lazy attempt to appear interesting in Ocarina, because you're still highly on rails. I'd much prefer corridors and obvious game design that lets you know what you're doing, rather than show us the big fiery mountain but say NOPE YOU CAN'T GO THERE. It's literally showing the player something cool and going, "You can't go there until you do this mindless series of pressing A buttons and backtracking". That's not cool, or smart, or good game design. It's a lazy way to add length to the game. What's the difference between OoT being on rails and forcing you through the correct points in the correct order, and OoT being "open world" but forcing you to backtrack to points to arbitrarily trigger a story event to progress? About 4-5 hours of gametime.

[saulres]

I've only been able to watch part of that video, but I do intend to finish because it's so funny.

What I think I'm missing in these arguments is they seem to exist purely for the sake of arguing. I LOVED playing OoT, every time I played it. And my favorite part?

Riding Epona. I could ride that horse for hours, it never got tiring. Made me want to ride real horses, which I've been able to do a couple of times and enjoyed each time I did.

Do the problems Reck and the video guy are saying the game have make it a bad game? Not to me.

[xRECKONERx]

Yeah, I can't argue with that at all. If a game is fun to you, then it's just fun. (I'm the type to ask

why

it's fun because that interests me more than just the raw experience of having fun.)

It's like... I can sit there and pick apart awful big budget summer blockbusters because they're very easy to pick apart. I can view it with a critical eye, but in discussing it, someone will inevitably bring up the experience of watching it in a theater with tons of people on release night and how

awesome

it was, and I can't ever argue with that.

It's not really arguing for the sake of arguing. It's viewing something with a critical eye to try and objectively judge if it's good or not. Video games are now old enough to be viewed through the same lens that critics use to view films, television, music, and even literature. I guess when I hear 'best' now, I don't think of the 'fun' I had anymore, as non-multiplayer video games have mostly transitioned from a fun experience to an art exhibition for me.

[saulres]

I'm the type to ask why it's fun because that interests me more than just the raw experience of having fun.

Okay I'll bite. Epona's not the only fun part for me.

I like games where there are places to explore, things to collect, and accomplishments along the way. "Oh, you did X, that means you unlock Y. Good for you." That's why I like Banjo Kazooie, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Donkey Kong Country, Mario 64, Lego games, etc. -- they all fit that mold. Fighting the enemies is something that I find gets in the

way

of my enjoying the game. I do it only because I need to to unlock more things. I'm a completist, I want to find every last coin and note and get my star reward, then move on to the next place to wash, rinse, repeat.

Games that are pure fighting, like the ones where you're playing one character fighting another and by mashing various combinations of buttons you try to FINISH HIM! hold no interest for me.

So the OoT wait and attack method is fine for me. I don't have to think much about how to fight someone, I can just do it and move on to what for me is the meat of the game.

EDIT: I realize FF doesn't quite fit the mold as obviously as the others. In those games, IIRC (it's been a LONG time since I've played any, or Chrono Trigger) the thing you were collecting were stronger and different spells and I think combat moves (plus they had amazing characterization and stories for a video game). But the combat in those wasn't real-time, it was "think about your strategy, enter your parameters, and press go". Those combats are fine for me, sometimes, because they involve thinking, not doing. I find real-time gaming too hard for me, I don't like to move that fast.

[xRECKONERx]

Huh. I guess I feel like OoT even does its exploration poorly. It's not really exploring, and there isn't anything to collect. The items are pretty nominal... the only "collectibles" IMO would be the sidquest items like the Biggoron Sword. I too like the collectathon type games like DKC/Banjo... but I think they're a completely different experience/genre from OoT.

Like, in OoT, I never felt like I was exploring. I never freaked out because I found a cool room or area or cave. I was just going where the game made me go by placing arbitrary obstacles in my way.

[AngryPidgeon]

Am I the only one that thought 3d World was actually a really cool game?

[xRECKONERx]

The one on the 3DS was enjoyable but a very short game and it didn't leave much in the way of exploration or self-discovery, which I missed. No secrets to find or working your own way through the levels, it was just a linear experience.

[AngryPidgeon]

The one on the 3DS was enjoyable but a very short game and it didn't leave much in the way of exploration or self-discovery, which I missed. No secrets to find or working your own way through the levels, it was just a linear experience.

I played through 3D world on Wii U with my roommate. It was actually a pretty fun thing to do while drinking and yelling at the game.

[saulres]

there isn't anything to collect

I beg to differ. Skulltula. Masks. Songs. Bottles. Ghosts. Items to fill the slots. These are just off the top of my head.

[Feirei]

I've played all but the 3D ones. 64 and Sunshine were games I replayed the fuck out of despite 64 having a shit camera, forcing me to make a few mistakes but I had adapted to it and no longer made mistakes.

You want a challenge? Try

Luigi's Purple coins using Luigi (Unlocked after getting all the power stars and defeating Bowser's 3rd level afterwards)

I want to try the 3D ones just to say I've beaten them.

Haven't fully beaten Galaxy 2 yet (LOLGREENSTARS) but I should prolly finish it.

Also, anyone find it the sticker star game wasn't a really good paper mario game?

[Vi]

I can think of a few bosses that changed up the gameplay design enough to be unique. Ghoma in Wind Waker stands out. Scaldera utilized the new motion controls in a really cool way. There was that jungle boss in Majora's Mask where you could take him down with a vast array of strategies, not just the "use the item from the dungeon then hit three times" motif (which is literally every single boss in OoT). I think Iron Knuckle not only excelled because of the stakes being higher due to per-damage hits, but because the

player

controlled the pace of the battle. It wasn't "sit around and wait" with IK, it was him reacting to YOUR attacks, which made it feel like the player had to dictate the pace of the battle.

Gohma had an interesting way of beating it but fits wait-until-pattern-allows. Scaldera was a rush boss (though I agree that it used the motion controls well). Odolwa was a rush boss (I don't actually remember much of what it does because ignoring damage while you hacked at it worked so well).

May I try a different metric? For a Zelda boss "good" is "I actually have to worry about the damage I'm taking" or "I actually feel like I can screw this up" or "I need skill to hit this boss". That's Bongo Bongo, Gyorg, Majora's Mask (without Fierce Deity's Mask), and maybe the scorpion thing from Skyward Sword. Something that makes you feel accomplished when it's exploding and melting.

Yeah, I did mean the original game, not ALTTP. My bad. And while it's not a

puzzle

, where you can sit and think about how to solve it, it's puzzle-based gameplay. Figuring out the solution to how to get through the room is just satisfying. I can't honestly think of any, "AHA!" moments like that in OoT, but I've experienced them in countless other Zelda titles.

Speaking to post 42, there are lots of hidden caves in OoT that aren't advertised and have interesting goodies. Gerudo Training Ground and Ganon's Tower had several "aha!" puzzles. If I'm not mistaken, Spirit Temple was actually fairly thought-provoking as well. I personally kept stumbling over the magic bean spots with "o-ho" thoughts.

I think the silly RPG tropes are worth mentioning and complaining about. It's not a critique unique to Zelda, but it's one that I feel needs to be mentioned if you're judging something objectively. Just because other games do it doesn't make it any less okay. Giving us an open world is a shallow and lazy attempt to appear interesting in Ocarina, because you're still highly on rails. I'd much prefer corridors and obvious game design that lets you know what you're doing, rather than show us the big fiery mountain but say NOPE YOU CAN'T GO THERE. It's literally showing the player something cool and going, "You can't go there until you do this mindless series of pressing A buttons and backtracking". That's not cool, or smart, or good game design. It's a lazy way to add length to the game. What's the difference between OoT being on rails and forcing you through the correct points in the correct order, and OoT being "open world" but forcing you to backtrack to points to arbitrarily trigger a story event to progress? About 4-5 hours of gametime.

Well, it's not the original Legend of Zelda where theoretically you can find four dungeons at the start of the game. It's also not ALTTP where obvious insurmountable nonhuman obstacles stop you from reaching places (e.g. requiring the Magic Mallet to go south of the bridge in the Dark World or Titan's Mitt to open up the Dark World Kakariko area). So, in terms of the game

telling

you that you can't go places rather than

showing

you, sure, I can kind of buy this (w.r.t. leaving Kokiri Village, visiting the Deku tree, and going to Death Mountain - the Zora King is intended to push you to Lake Hylia first, which you can't get to beforehand because you can't jump the fence in Hyrule Field as a child, and you can never pass the bridge at Gerudo Valley as a child because empowered female thieves).

Even so, if you've played Skyward Sword, you'd know that OoT is

really

not the game this complaint should be leveled at. Twilight Princess isn't much better; I never felt a need to explore anything in that game.

But, y'know? At this point I think we're both getting down to "this is my experience". Without actually putting several hours into the game, I don't think that part is going to change any time soon.

---

@Feirei: Luigi's Purple Coins is 70% having a route and 30% execution. I actually really like that you have to "figure out" how to do it, though I'm sure most people went to YouTube after their first handful of lives.

[Porochaz]

Skyward Sword is almost surely the best zelda game objectively.

The anger I felt when I read this was possibly a bit extreme, but you are so very utterly terribly wrong.

Skyward Sword was awful. The only Zelda game I have not wanted to complete. Where is the large towns? I would have been happy with just the one. Where are the people to talk to? But most of all, how the fuck do I get the wii-mote to do even something remotely similar to what I w-fuck I died.

Maybe it's because I'm left handed and Nintendo decided they would rather shit on me than make a game playable but man was I bored before I got to the stupid moblins and there electricity things.