Mario for N64 is the WORST GAME EVER

SRZLY.

My mom can make a better game. My dog can make a better game. George Bush can make a better game.

What the fuck is up with the camera!?!?!? There are like 6 modes and only one is remotely playable. Yes, one, but everytime you warp (which means all the time in this game) the camera goes back to the initial mode, which means you have to press 2 or 3 buttons to get the camera straight. The camera has a narrow angle and stays far from the character which makes it crap to use in tunnels etc.

NEVER ADD CAMERA TRANSITIONS TO AN ADVENTURE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Never! You are just there walking in a certain direction, and suddenly the camera moves on its own and the controls shift and you are then walking backwards. Not only can this be utterly annoying in regular situations, but a sure death in trickier times. 75% of the times you die in this game weren't your fault.

Now to make it worse, the controls shift when you enter water. Which means, you have to do a miracle every time you enter or leave a body of water if you want to continue moving. Furthermore, the underwater controls are terrible and won't let you dive or go back up without moving forward.

LOL do nintendo programmers have any idea of what real walking actually feels like? I doubt it. If they did, they wouldn't make mario's walking majorly slippery in EVERY GAME. I know games that are less slippery when you are walking on ice. I have a theory that nintendo programmers just sit there all day and so have no idea of what walking is.

To make the situation worse, mario will only start walking in the direction he was already facing before, which only adds up to the slippery walking and makes it a test of nerves to even walk on virtually flat ground. Yes, virtually flat, because if the ground is inclined by even 1 single degree, mario will start sliding down for the silliest reason, and it takes forever to get him back up, if you are able at all.

But getting back up is not only awful when you slide down, but also when you jump down heights. Mario can take more than 6 seconds to get back up when he falls. This wouldn't be so terrible in any other game, but this game if one of those try-and-try-again-until-you-make-it, and it can be extremely annoying having to wait 6 seconds every time you fall.

Mario's attack has a microscopic range. It's so little that enemies may still do damage when in front of you. Mario doesn't move to attack, which means you have to guess when exactly he's gonna decide to actually hit the enemy to press the attack button. That, added with the horrible walking controls makes you pretty much of an ant in the game. Nintendo has a history of making mario games hard, and in fact, the only one which wasn't so hard became the most popular one (super mario world). Hard is hard - this game is not hard, it's ridiculous. Don't play this game too much or you might have a nervous breakdown.

Yep, and when you think your patience cannot be bothered further, you are presented with bibles of text, and you will come to at least 2 sings you have to read every 20 seconds of gameplay.

Then, when you think flying might do the job instead of walking... flying is a joke. The controls are so terrible that I had to use savestates and reload 15 times to get a single coin. And no, I'm not a bad player - I can beat mario world with small mario and not dying once. So if this game was hard for me, expect equal or worse for you.


My hint: if you have this game, let's make a global event and burn it. You might actually want to burn your HD if you played on an emulator. Then we can all go pee on the developers.

[/rant]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Sonic 3D (or whatever it was called) had the same problems

there was a real drive during '94-'96 to transform all the old 2D platform games into 3D, and none worked out well

I have nothing to complain about the gameplay of zelda ocarina of time - the problem in that game is actually some important stuff that you are given no hint to. Majora's mask was flawless, if not by the too-hard-to-catch fairies (fine with me actually).

This is a joke right?

Uh, Kromoh, maybe your controller is damaged? lulz...

I've never had any problems with running or swimming in that game. It was the first game for the 64 that I had, and I loved it (completed with all 120 stars, you know). I even picked it up again years afterwards and played some more. The camera angles never bothered me very much, as they never appeared to get screwy.. Not the way you say, anyways. And there are specific slopes that are supposed to be unclimbable, and they have different textures to stand out for that purpose. Other than that, all slopes don't make you slide, not as you say. Maybe if you could post some footage of exactly what you're talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John11

This is a joke right?

---

No it is not. The game is a joke. It's is the lamest excuse possible for a classic. If it wasn't part of the mario series, that game would sink in quicksand. Seriously, it sucks. It doesn't even have a plot, the developers nearly wrote "Yeah, you know what you have to do, beat the bad guy and save the good girl" as a game intro.

I am not gonna say this is the worst game I've played, because I've played shitty crappy ones, but it was hard to decide.

Also, to add to what invader_tech said. There was a button you could press to flip out of the 6 second sliding animation and I don't recall ever being forced to read much of anything during that game (let alone bibles of text). I'll give you that Mario's attack was useless, but you never even needed to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Uh, Kromoh, maybe your controller is damaged? lulz...

I've never had any problems with running or swimming in that game. It was the first game for the 64 that I had, and I loved it (completed with all 120 stars, you know). I even picked it up again years afterwards and played some more. The camera angles never bothered me very much, as they never appeared to get screwy.. Not the way you say, anyways. And there are specific slopes that are supposed to be unclimbable, and they have different textures to stand out for that purpose. Other than that, all slopes don't make you slide, not as you say. Maybe if you could post some footage of exactly what you're talking about?

---

I mean that, in many, MANY places, if you don't get momentum, mario won't be able to overcome the silliest thing and slide back. Even in the desert, lol

Like what exactly? The desert was almost entirely flat, and sliding on a flat surface after running is easy to pop out of with a quick jump and a flick of the control stick. There were pillars there as well that you could run straight up on, if I recall correctly. The only thing that you'd slide off of that I can remember was the edge of the pyramid and some of the sand dunes right at the starting point that prevented you from skipping the giant blocks that slam across that metal pathway-thing.

haha you nerd

Every stage has the slide problem, not only that one. The "quick jump" to get out of the slide actually isn't that quick since you have to wait for Mario to slide a few seconds before getting back up.

And lol I completely skipped the metal pathway thing using the damn wing cap. This game sucks.

Another thing that I forgot to mention is that the camera takes forever to move when you're the one doing it. It isn't even very mobile, it only goes to pre-set positions. If I want to do a 180 with the cam I have to press and release the button 6 times.

http://fallingsky.blogs.com/falling_...8014605100.jpg

He's coming for you, Kromoh.

Wah wah, cry me a river about nintendo's FIRST 3D platformer, more than 10 years old. The control is much better with the real N64 control BTW.

:?

I had no problems with this game back when I played it, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe if I played it now my opinion would be different, but... I still very fondly remember it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I have nothing to complain about the gameplay of zelda ocarina of time - the problem in that game is actually some important stuff that you are given no hint to.

---

What do you mean by that?

I actually couldn't bring myself to continue playing MM because I kept comparing it to OoT. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

What do you mean by that?

---

Well, you've played most zelda games, I think you'd know what I'm talking about. In many, many parts of the game, you reach a point and think "ok, done, what next?" and there is no clue to what you should do. This is especially true around the final dungeons.

Majora's mask was, in all technical terms, a brilliant game. Perfect controls, perfect gameplay, perfect plot, perfect items, perfect dungeons. If I would change anything about it, it would be making it less dependent on OoT - if you don't play Oot before MM, you'll get kinda lost at the beginning.

^^ Um yeah trying to use your brain to figure out what to do next is part of the fun of the game. :P I'd hardly call it a problem.

Besides Navi was always there to shout at you every 10 mins or whatever if you weren't going where you were supposed to.

Navi was a cool little fairy. MM's one wasn't nearly as helpful, though I admit it was essential for aiming the zora's fins.

But the zelda games for the GBC still are the best ones. If you haven't played them yet, do urgently.

when it was new, i loved that game. but now that we have much more advanced stuff, we are expected to hate the old stuff, so i think its best not to cry about a really old game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slash112

when it was new, i loved that game. but now that we have much more advanced stuff, we are expected to hate the old stuff, so i think its best not to cry about a really old game.

---

Super mario world and super mario world 2 for the SNES are brilliant games. Zelda - Link's awakening for the gameboy is an amazing game. Secret of Mana for the SNES was a perfect game. Wario Land 3 for the GBC was if not the best adventure game ever. I even remember playing castlevania on dynavision, and that game was incredible.

You can't blame a game's failure on the time it was made. Nintendo has been relaunching identical copies of older games, and they are all top success.

Mmmm....Gauntlet.

I completely agree though/ SM64 is their worst one, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken

Wah wah, cry me a river about nintendo's FIRST 3D platformer, more than 10 years old.

---

^this

How many "firsts" can you think of that were absolutely perfect, right from the start? Was the first lightbulb so perfect in its design that every idiot could use one and have it run forever with a minimum amount of power needed? No. Could the first microwave oven make a perfect piping hot burrito straight out of the freezer? No. (I don't even think that can be done quite yet today.)

Lets take a look at how we're viewing the game through the lens of retrospection. We say, "wow, those old 3D platformers sucked. You had to adjust the camera all the time and movement was damn near impossible until you got the hang of it."

Whenever I hear something like this, I try to imagine somebody from the future looking back at something we revere now. Take the Wiimote for example. It's a brand new thing that people have never tried before in the history of video gaming. And yes, learning to point and move takes a while for somebody who's never even heard of or seen the thing. But somebody from the future would say, "Man, that wiimote thing sucked. Compared to what we have now, it's probably the worst thing anyone's ever thought up. With our direct neural interfaces, we don't even have to hold anything to play a game. I mean, you just sit down and you're in the game, man. And the whole getting used to how it registers your movement and all that is just stupid. You move like you normally do in one of those DI things and it's completely natural. Sure, you're addicted to the thing for life, and it totally fries your nervous system, but they'll get that worked out in a while. It's not like we had forever to try to develop it properly, I mean, it was something the public wanted to have NOW. They were getting tired of moving in a holocube simulator."

Lol man that is completely bending the facts there. OF COURSE you cannot compare a N64 game with a Wii game, and I never did that, other people did. People said "oh, you can't compare it to games we have now", but I never did. There are many other N64 and even older-platform games with strikingly better camera handling, controls, physics, plot. That's why I think SM64 is such a terrible game. The Zelda games for the 64 had an adorable camera handling and physics, for example.

I never compared that game with the most recent ones, I compared it with games of same or older platform. You guys are the one comparing it to current games. And well, the game sucks in both ways.

Now stop defending the game. We all know it sucks.

If it wasn't named "mario", it would never have sold as much as it did, fact. If it was named anything else, it would sink as easily as metal mario sinks in water. People overrate this game because it's a classic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

If it wasn't named "mario", it would never have sold as much as it did, fact. If it was named anything else, it would sink as easily as metal mario sinks in water. People overrate this game because it's a classic.

---

Yeaaa but that could be said about plenty of other games as well. Imagine if they replaced the characters in Zelda with something else, and slapped a different title on the same game. It could be a great game, sure, and it would sell well, but it still wouldn't sell AS well as it would if it had the original Zelda characters in it. See what I'm saying?

And I genuinely like the Mario 64 levels. The little-big world, the volcano level, the clock-work place, third bowser level... Oh, and the ghost-house, can't forget the jolly good times I had in there.

I understand where you're coming from when you say you don't like them... but I don't have any problems with the controls because I'm that pro at the game. Or, I was, back when I played it. Most of my pro skills went into the first Smash Brothers after I started assembling mass graves for every person that thought they could beat me. Heh, mass graves for what was left of them.

Lol I'm very good at Super Smash Bros. needless to say, that game has amazing controls and nice gameplay. I can play really well whe nthe controls respond well. That's one thing I hate about games like Mortal Kombat - the difficulty isn't to cleverly and strategically order your arsenal off attacks, but to press a slutty sequence of buttons. Smash Brothers > Mortal Kombat, by a lot.

I'm not comparing it to a Wii game either. I just used the groundbreaking developments with the Wii to demonstrate that in the future, people will have this exact same discussion, but with things that we think that are awesome now. My point was that any time anything new and revolutionary is developed, there are inevitable missteps, and you can't just say "Lulz, these guys were incompetent, they didn't know what they were doing. This game sucks." The point is, they didn't know what they were doing. Nobody did. How can you expect the first to try doing it to be the best? A baby can't run a marathon the first time it tries.

If you didn't notice, the Zelda games came out after Mario 64 did. The reason why OoT was so great is that the developers had learned from their mistakes in Mario 64. Had they decided to release OoT at the same time with the same skills they had when they did Mario 64, it would have been much worse.

Honestly, I don't even remember beating it. I found other games to play that were better than it, like you said you did. But you can't say that it sucked because they didn't have experience. It's like shouting at a baby that falls over when it tries to walk the first time.