3D World, 6 years later

[MiracleDinner]

3D World is underappreciated for its time mostly because it wasn't what people wanted on the Wii U, that is a Super Mario Sunshine HD remaster or sequel or a Super Mario Galaxy 3. It is an alright game on it's own but it's no Galaxy 3 or Sunshine 2. Nintendo really did backstabbed Wii U owners by giving the Switch the 3D Mario game that they wanted on the Wii U when they should have made the 3D Mario game that they wanted from the get go. Giving the Wii U a Galaxy 3 or a Sunshine 2 would have made the Wii U do a lot better than it did with 3D World. It just wasn't a strong and groundbreaking 3D Mario title like Mario 64, the Galaxy games, and even Odyssey. It is kinda in the category of Sunshine, where it is a solid game but not nearly as groundbreaking as it's predecessor.

I basically agree completely.

 

[Ray Trace]

I would like to point out that aside from gameplay mechanics and power-ups and things like that, most if not all the content reused from the first Super Mario Galaxy was relegated to postgame content.

Those were the rehashing of ideas at their worst. Earlier in the game, you're also dealing with repeat ideas that the first galaxy had and didn't take any new spins on or anything amibitious, such as "ice meets fire" (twice may I add), a floating beach level, the pathetic bug stack thing being a boss, a petey piranha monster with asses as weak point, a large robot themed after snifits, a bee-themed galaxy with Honey Queen in it, rolling ball gimmicks, Bowser Jr. using machines that have cockpits as weakpoints, a planty, sky-themed galaxy with the sameish music as gusty garden, and probably more that im missing.

That's not to count the sheer amount of filler stars such as the Green Stars, the chimp, the boss/enemy gauntlet galaxies, and the gimmicky motion control bs as well. I know that Galaxy 1 had its share of filler content but you'd think Galaxy 2 would address them as well; it doesn't.

Yeah, Galaxy 2 had some neat new ideas but it was far and few between, when the game constantly reminds you that you can be playing a far better experience instead and how pointless this game felt.

 

[MiracleDinner]

Those were the rehashing of ideas at their worst. Earlier in the game, you're also dealing with repeat ideas that the first galaxy had and didn't take any new spins on or anything amibitious, such as "ice meets fire" (twice may I add), a floating beach level, the pathetic bug stack thing being a boss, a petey piranha monster with asses as weak point, a large robot themed after snifits, a bee-themed galaxy with Honey Queen in it, rolling ball gimmicks, Bowser Jr. using machines that have cockpits as weakpoints, a planty, sky-themed galaxy with the sameish music as gusty garden, and probably more that im missing.

That's not to count the sheer amount of filler stars such as the Green Stars, the chimp, the boss/enemy gauntlet galaxies, and the gimmicky motion control bs as well. I know that Galaxy 1 had its share of filler content but you'd think Galaxy 2 would address them as well; it doesn't.

Yeah, Galaxy 2 had some neat new ideas but it was far and few between, when the game constantly reminds you that you can be playing a far better experience instead and how pointless this game felt.

I mean, a lot of people say "Galaxy 1 was great and innovative, Galaxy 2 was bad because it was a copy-and-paste sequel"

Personally I played Galaxy 2 first, so I didn't get that, the game felt like an amazing new thing being one of my first Mario games and definitely my first 3D platformer. It was to me what Super Mario 64 was to everyone else back in 1996 - an amazing revolution which introduced me to the 3D platforming genre, admittedly one I have never particularly taken beyond the Super Mario series, but still.

I played Galaxy 1 later and although the gameplay wasn't particularly new it was still great to have a fresh adventure with new galaxies and levels, and another legendary OST.

Nowadays I play them both and love them both. I would say I prefer Galaxy 1 because it felt like more of an epic space adventure than just a generic Mario game, than Galaxy 2, but I definitely very much appreciate the existence of Galaxy 2 for its new music, new galaxies and levels, and some gameplay additions like Yoshi and the green stars.

I know you consider the green stars filler content but at least it's better than literally doing the exact same thing twice for 100%. Or SM64 and SMS which had 120 stars and that was it.

 

[Ray Trace]

I have a twin, so the Luigi post-game from Galaxy never bothered me all that much. My sister would play through the game as Mario, and then I'd play through the game as Luigi.

 

[MiracleDinner]

I have a twin, so the Luigi post-game from Galaxy never bothered me all that much. My sister would play through the game as Mario, and then I'd play through the game as Luigi.

Fair enough but you could just have two save files. I wish Galaxy 2 and 3D world kept the 6 save files but if need be you can use modding to get infinitely many.

 

[Ray Trace]

Nah, we both used characters we liked at the time, so we both won.

 

[MiracleDinner]

3D World says hi

 

[Ray Trace]

Which is why I like it more than Galaxy. Playing as Toad is always awesome.

 

[Pokerninja2]

Those were the rehashing of ideas at their worst. Earlier in the game, you're also dealing with repeat ideas that the first galaxy had and didn't take any new spins on or anything amibitious, such as "ice meets fire" (twice may I add), a floating beach level, the pathetic bug stack thing being a boss, a petey piranha monster with asses as weak point, a large robot themed after snifits, a bee-themed galaxy with Honey Queen in it, rolling ball gimmicks, Bowser Jr. using machines that have cockpits as weakpoints, a planty, sky-themed galaxy with the sameish music as gusty garden, and probably more that im missing.

That's not to count the sheer amount of filler stars such as the Green Stars, the chimp, the boss/enemy gauntlet galaxies, and the gimmicky motion control bs as well. I know that Galaxy 1 had its share of filler content but you'd think Galaxy 2 would address them as well; it doesn't.

Yeah, Galaxy 2 had some neat new ideas but it was far and few between, when the game constantly reminds you that you can be playing a far better experience instead and how pointless this game felt.

All that reminds me that Super Mario Galaxy 2 was originally going to be DLC for the first game. Makes me wonder how that would have turned out in the end.

Also, I didn't really have a problem with those filler moons. Green Stars were, again, postgame content and it was pretty fun finding some of them, The Chimp offered some pretty fun challenges as well (I always think back to the Rock Mario bowling mission), and I'm the guy who likes beating enemies and bosses so Battle Belt and Boss Blitz were some of the most fun galaxies in the game imo.

 

[MiracleDinner]

All that reminds me that Super Mario Galaxy 2 was originally going to be DLC for the first game. Makes me wonder how that would have turned out in the end.

Also, I didn't really have a problem with those filler moons. Green Stars were, again, postgame content and it was pretty fun finding some of them, The Chimp offered some pretty fun challenges as well (I always think back to the Rock Mario bowling mission), and I'm the guy who likes beating enemies and bosses so Battle Belt and Boss Blitz were some of the most fun galaxies in the game imo.

Yeah as I say I frequently see Galaxy 2 as just an expansion for Galaxy 1 rather than them being two separate games, as they were officially published.

Me too, I liked the green stars and the chimp's challenges were alright. I loved both battle belt and boss blitz.

 

[Dr. Peach]

The proper term would be an expansion pack.

 

[MiracleDinner]

The proper term would be an expansion pack.

Um yes

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

The proper term would be an expansion pack.

dlc at full price mind you

with watered-down levels

 

[10000 Needles]

Show me one DLC pack that has has as much content as Galaxy 2.

 

[Dr. Peach]

dlc at full price mind you

with watered-down levels

There are a few physical games with DLC packs and a lot of WiiWare games that have DLC packs so this is a bit applicable.

The term expansion pack fits pretty well because its physical media like we're dealing with old school style of adding content.

Galaxy 2 does not require you to own Galaxy 1, that's the difference.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Show me one DLC pack that has has as much content as Galaxy 2.

Sure Galaxy 2 has enough to be a full game but it's mostly a retread of the first one. Might as well give credit to New Super Mario Bros. 2.

 

[10000 Needles]

It's a sequel. It was built on the engine of the first game and added new mechanics, new levels, and took a new direction in art/music. I don't know what else you would expect from a sequel. Unless you dislike the first game I fail to see what's so problematic about the direct sequel being similar. It's like complaining that the lost levels is too similar to the first SMB.

Also I feel the need to remind you that this discussion is taking place in a thread about 3D world which is the exact same game as its predecessor but with even less variation than what Galaxy 2 had compared to the first.

 

[saltypepper]

It wasn't supposed to be a big 3D Mario game which I guess is understandable, takes a lot more time, maybe even more than when the Wii U would still be relevant. Plus the multiplayer is still pretty fun, which I imagine is what it wanted to aim for, couch co op (I still kinda wish it had online).

I just wish it felt more like a connected world. It just seemed like obstacle courses with a theme for an hour and then.. the next few obstacle courses with a new theme for the next hour.

 

[MiracleDinner]

with watered-down levels

If you ask me Galaxy 2's levels are at least on par with Galaxy 1.

Sure Galaxy 2 has enough to be a full game but it's mostly a retread of the first one.

I mean, a lot of people say "Galaxy 1 was great and innovative, Galaxy 2 was bad because it was a copy-and-paste sequel"

Personally I played Galaxy 2 first, so I didn't get that, the game felt like an amazing new thing being one of my first Mario games and definitely my first 3D platformer. It was to me what Super Mario 64 was to everyone else back in 1996 - an amazing revolution which introduced me to the 3D platforming genre, admittedly one I have never particularly taken beyond the Super Mario series, but still.

I played Galaxy 1 later and although the gameplay wasn't particularly new it was still great to have a fresh adventure with new galaxies and levels, and another legendary OST.

Nowadays I play them both and love them both. I would say I prefer Galaxy 1 because it felt like more of an epic space adventure than just a generic Mario game, than Galaxy 2, but I definitely very much appreciate the existence of Galaxy 2 for its new music, new galaxies and levels, and some gameplay additions like Yoshi and the green stars.

It's a sequel. It was built on the engine of the first game and added new mechanics, new levels, and took a new direction in art/music. I don't know what else you would expect from a sequel.

They were going to expand on Rosalina and her backstory but they scrapped it which really disappointed me. Personally I see the overall style of the gameplay, level design, visuals, and music as being very similar to the first one but just a refreshing new selection. That's why I see it as an expansion pack.

 

[Ray Trace]

It's a sequel. It was built on the engine of the first game and added new mechanics, new levels, and took a new direction in art/music. I don't know what else you would expect from a sequel. Unless you dislike the first game I fail to see what's so problematic about the direct sequel being similar. It's like complaining that the lost levels is too similar to the first SMB.

Saying that it's a "sequel" doesn't actually address any of the problems we have with the game. It's terminology for the sake of terminology. You can practically apply this term to excuse any sort of retread flaws within any sort of game franchise even when the flaws are actually there and they are tiring and extremely prevalent. All a "sequel" means is that it's the next entry of a franchise. Something like Super Mario Bros. 2 USA is still a sequel to Super Mario Bros. even despite playing radically differently (and yes I know that the rom hack exists but so does 2 USA).

I didn't get bothered with 3D World's retread because it had multiplayer as a unique experience and yes, it applies to us, who played the game on multiplayer and I'm not going to count the single player experience. Also, 3D World was graphically, very different than 3D Land (graphics do matter) which helped with the game's presentation.

I like the first game, because it had a lot of new ideas and it was fresh at the time. I expected a sequel to actually have new ideas, and not mostly retread on the original and retain all of its flaws while introducing new ones. I'd still use the term "pointless" to describe Super Mario Galaxy 2 because it really felt like a pointless sequel.

 

[MiracleDinner]

the rom hack exists

Do tell, I've never heard of that

I expected a sequel to actually have new ideas, and not mostly retread on the original and retain all of its flaws while introducing new ones.

Galaxy 2 at least had a few appreciable new ideas like Yoshi and the green stars, the World map was kind of cool, Rock Mario, Cloud Mario. I do think that a lot of people overestimate the extent to which Galaxy 2 improved Galaxy 1 but it was building on something so great that it's hard to fall down if we're judging Galaxy 2 on its own.

I'd still use the term "pointless" to describe Super Mario Galaxy 2 because it really felt like a pointless sequel.

I mean.... did you at least like the fact that we got all that new music and all those new galaxies and levels?

 

[Ray Trace]

Calling The Lost Levels a "romhack" is just one of the derogatory things I call it. Its inception disgusts me. Not only is it pretty much a by-the-book more difficult retread of the first game, but Japan of course had to be condescending about it as well. At least we got Super Mario Advance 2 out of it and a playable Toad but still, it's that "oh it's too hard for Western gamers" attitude that gets me every time. They're so insecure about their game, that's what they're telling me, that it's so badly designed that it wouldn't sell to Western audiences.

Galaxy 2 at least had a few appreciable new ideas like Yoshi and the green stars, the World map was kind of cool, Rock Mario, Cloud Mario. I do think that a lot of people overestimate the extent to which Galaxy 2 improved Galaxy 1 but it was building on something so great that it's hard to fall down if we're judging Galaxy 2 on its own.

It had a few good ideas such as Flashback and Beep Block Galaxy (and see why the beep block concept returned in 3D Land and World, huh?), but in the end, it really didn't help my overall perception of the game. I hated Yoshi by the way, hated using him and felt like he added nothing to the game worth deserving of a sequel, and Rock Mario was only used to its potential in extremely few levels of the game (with a good chunk of Rock Mario uses being tied to that terrible primate and dreadful bowling minigames). I wanted better Rock Mario levels, even, but we got stuck with a straight plowing through a straight, boring line for, like, a level for Melty Monster when we could have had another neat level for Melty Monster.

See, that kinda sums up my feelings for the game. It had a lot of neat ideas. Melty Monster was an amazing Galaxy. So was Space Storm. The game undeniably had great soundtrack that I'd still like listening to. However, most of those galaxies only had like, one Star in one level worth collecting, and the rest is just filler nonsense like it was for Melty Monster where only one level I remember actually took place in a volcanic environment. The jungle galaxy with Fluzzard, that would have been a cool galaxy to explore in like it looked in the previews but no, it's just a shitty motion control minigame level.

I can't judge Galaxy 2 on its own. I simply can't. It has Galaxy with 2 on its name. I've played the first Galaxy and enjoyed it a bunch. Whenever I play Galaxy 2, I get reminded that I could be playing the much better entry than it, because of its extremely derivative nature. That's why I think it's pointless.

 

[Toka Hebizuka]

Calling The Lost Levels a "romhack" is just one of the derogatory things I call it. Its inception disgusts me. Not only is it pretty much a by-the-book more difficult retread of the first game, but Japan of course had to be condescending about it as well. At least we got Super Mario Advance 2 out of it and a playable Toad but still, it's that "oh it's too hard for Western gamers" attitude that gets me every time. They're so insecure about their game, that's what they're telling me, that it's so badly designed that it wouldn't sell to Western audiences.

I'm pretty sure it was Nintendo of America that decided it was too hard, not Nintendo of Japan

 

[Ray Trace]

I stand corrected then.

 

[Revin]

the first time i played mario 3d world, i thought it was good, but not amazing. it twas fun but it doesnt measure up to the galaxy games (which were my introduction to 3d mario and what got me into nintendo on a bigger level). about a year or two after odyssey came out, i decided to replay it and found myself liking it a little bit more. i think it definitely has some flaws, depending on what you're after, but i also have a newfound appreciation for it's strengths. the story, theming and things like that are all practically non-existent (even levels within worlds rarely have any common link in terms of the environment they take place in, apart from the last couple of worlds maybe), but one thing i really appreciate about this game is that its great for pure undistilled platforming. i know everyone compares games to super mario 64 as their golden standard of what a 3d mario platformer should be like, but i think there's merit in the kind of linear levels that 3d world (and 3d land) offer. it really is like taking levels from 2d mario games and giving them a new dimension, and that's something i've learned to appreciate, and i hope there's room for both kinds of 3d marios going forward