Loved Mario 64.
Bought a Wii for Galaxy and dropped it.
Bought a Switch for Odyssey and dropped it.
Dunno why it didn't click.
Bought a Wii for Galaxy and dropped it.
Bought a Switch for Odyssey and dropped it.
Dunno why it didn't click.
-
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.
I love Mario games. So much. But i didnt like Galaxy 1 and 2 initially. Going back to them years later though,i loved them. Odyssey however? zzZZ
- Thread starter nogoodnamesleft
- Start date
Oh, I can agree with this. The problem is that before we even knew about Odyssey there was a huge number of people complaining for years about how Mario 64 booted you out of a level when getting a star and wanted a structure more similar to something like Banjo Kazooie or Tooie. I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo heard those complaints. Which I think was a mistake. The moons do feel less significant than getting a star or getting to a flagpole because of it.
I find Odyssey's OST to be filled with several sublime entries. Steam Gardens is definitely one of the standouts, but New Donk City's jazzy backdrop, Fossil Fall's Galaxy-esque epic, Cap Kingdom's serene waltz, and lest we forget the GOAT, Bubblaine
Fitting we're in summer right now, since this is the perfect summer sound.
I find Bowser's Fury really fun and well made, maybe being a part of a remaster has foreshadowed its sucess.
OP
OP
see theres nothing wrong with these tracks in fact they are quite nice, but just background sound to me. i totally forgot about them until you posted them too
The moons feel less significant because they are less significant by design, isnt just the booting you out of level thing. SM64 had six stars per level (and an extra for 100 coins), worlds in odyssey can easily have 30+. There are even "multi-moons" that makes it even more clear a singular moon is not supposed to be a big thing (and the several inconsequential ways of finding them like just buying or buttstomping random spots settles it). You may like it or not (i don't) but i dont think it was nintendo changing things up due to complaints and more something they wanted to do from the get go.
I can't relate to that on any level. Their melodies and instrumentals are as infectious to me as any of the best Mario tracks.
personally I think Mario 64 would be improved if I didn't have to climb all the way to the top of Tall Tall Mountain four or five times
Odyssey suffers from bloat. Too many kingdoms and too many power moons. The core content that's there is very fun and the controls/moveset are the best ever for 3D Mario.
The Galaxy games are tighter experiences, of course.
Maybe there should be "main stars" that are the main goals of the levels, and sub-stars which you can collect to make a main star. You only get booted for the goal stars and nothing else.
The Galaxy games are tighter experiences, of course.
I think there should be a different system going forward. The "booting you out of the level" thing was kind of annoying in Galaxy 2 with the green stars. At the same time, Odyssey's power moons weren't always that satisfying to find.
Maybe there should be "main stars" that are the main goals of the levels, and sub-stars which you can collect to make a main star. You only get booted for the goal stars and nothing else.
Last edited:
Totally the same, and for the New Donk one posted on the previous page. Good tracks, that I will have forgotten in an hour's time (idk why).
I also found Odyssey a little lackluster in the challenge department and had a hard time staying engaged with it.
Have you checked out the post-game content? It gave me the challenge I was looking for and it's suupperr beefy
Opposite for me. I loved both Galaxy 1 and Odyssey initially, went back to Galaxy 1, couldn't do it. The lack of expressive movement and the slower pace really makes it feel boring coming off of Odyssey and even Sunshine. I never loved Galaxy 2 and consider it a worse game than Galaxy 1 even though 2 is technically better.
Yeah, odyssey was missing something. Some of the areas felt unfinished. Also didn't care for how the levels didn't have a cohesive design
Maybe you're right. Thinking about it more I do remember reading an interview where Koizumi did state that they added so many moons because the Switch is a handheld. So the idea seemed to be that they wanted you to be able to grab a few moons in a very short play session. This is probably why Odyssey is the only 3D Mario game that doesn't require you to get every collectible to unlock the super-secret final challenge level. I don't think they expected most players to even get them all. But having many of them seemed to be the goal to have the game more fitting for the Switch when portable.
But yeah they do feel less significant all the same. I don't mind it too much but even I got burned out a bit by even the 500th moon.
The solution to that would have been to have a better-level design instead. The levels from Mario 64 that have this issue the most are tacked in the later half of the game. I think they were running out of steam when it comes to designing the levels. You can't really approach a star from many angles in the later levels like Rainbow Ride is just an over-glorified side scroller. lol
I don't think this is really true. There are throwaway stars in M64, as well, but they don't cause all of the starts to blur together as a result. Allowing each star to be a specific objective, with the world tailored around it and a return to the hub after the objective has been met, just inherently gives more weight to each of them. It makes the game feel more structured, and each challenge purposeful and handcrafted.
Bowser's Fury is a much tighter experience than Odyssey, but it has the same exact problem. It just sort of feels like an aimless Easter egg hunt, which pre-Odyssey Mario games never did. The games are great regardless, but I do think this particular decision has introduced some problems.
I replayed Odyssey recently and it's still brilliant in my eyes.
I get that some find it a bit unfocused or a bit too collectathon-like, but that's a big reason why I liked it so much. It gives you a reason to explore every inch of each level. And some of the moons are hidden in really clever places.
I get that some find it a bit unfocused or a bit too collectathon-like, but that's a big reason why I liked it so much. It gives you a reason to explore every inch of each level. And some of the moons are hidden in really clever places.
The most inconsequential star on Sm64 is still miles more well thought out than "walk into this store and get one". The only 1:1 comparison would be the ones in the castle where you talk to the toad and just get it. which are like two? i might me misremebering though. even the other secret stars on the castle require you thinking a little bit outside the box/doing something.
I have not but I shouldn't have to rely on post game content.
I'll check it out though one day.
Mario 64 only alters the world for a tiny handful of stars, and even less that alter it in a way that's not just "we didn't spawn this NPC" when you pick a specific star. Part of 64s strength is not being tied down like that really. Sunshine is much worse for this, where you can do everything you would have needed to for a shine but you can't have it because you're on the wrong menu option
The main quests of 3D Mario platformers are usually pretty easy, they always up the ante in the postgame. I think Odyssey's postgame is a standout amongst the other ones in the series both in the sheer amount of content and creativity
The complaints about lack of platforming challenges in Odyssey don't really ring true to me when Mario himself has the most robust platforming moveset in the series.
Yes, you can ground pound your way to collecting some moons. But the heights of the platforming challenges and abilities in Odyssey are some of the best of the series, especially compared to Galaxy which stripped so much from Mario's moveset. That especially becomes apparent when comparing both game's post-credit content.
Yes, you can ground pound your way to collecting some moons. But the heights of the platforming challenges and abilities in Odyssey are some of the best of the series, especially compared to Galaxy which stripped so much from Mario's moveset. That especially becomes apparent when comparing both game's post-credit content.
does that somehow cause the shitty stars in sm64 to not exist
The complaints about buying moons are weird to me. It's completely optional, and exists only to make it easier for people to progress. Given Nintendo's shaky record with accessibility, I think features like this should be welcomed.
does three shitty stars in SM64 make 119 shitty moons better?
i already addressed that
the post was in response to someone saying UHHH WELL SM64 HAD SHITTY STUFF TOO. but it obviously was a very smaller amount of them (which is obvious because there are far less stars to collect to begin with). point is the proportion of the ones you need to actually have any involvement with the game is higher anyway. even having to run around the boo in the garden, while prety easy, is still more involved than "just buying it"
100% agree.
It's a design choice to provide beginner players with less roadblocks to progress through the story. Mario Odyssey has 999 moons so there are still plenty to obtain for higher level players that actually provide the Mario challenge that veterans of the series would be looking for.
I adored Odyssey. I can agree that it's less fun to 100% than previous games, but I don't mind that too much. It's kinda like Starfield's 1000+ planets: the moons are there if you want 'em, but you don't need 'em to have a good time.
beats me, I was replying to your actual post and not whatever point you're trying to make now
the point i edited right after on the same post because i knew someone would say GOTCHA YOU TALK TO A TOAD AND GET A FREE STAR LMAO PWNED? sure thing
oh right, I forgot you're supposed to go back and reread every post you've ever replied to to make sure it hasn't been edited after the fact
Not really. Buying the moons is completely separate from the throwaway moons that are scattered around the worlds. You aren't organically met with them throughout the game, you have to deliberately go to a vendor and purchase them. They're not required to advance the game. If I recall correctly, they're only required for 100%, because you can't get to 999 moons without buying some of them. You say you aren't advocating for their removal, yet you've complained about them in nearly every post you've made here. I just can't imagine why anyone would be bothered by their inclusion.
This definitely muddies the water for me. It really is something special.
I enjoyed the game, but some worlds were absolute duds to me.
Exactly because they're required for 100%. If the game had 500 moons and you could buy all 500 on place of taking one of them away from somewhere else you couldnt get it, no issue there. But if you want to fully complete the game, you need to buy them, there's no way around it. I'd rather have less moons but all of them being better planned while still offering the chance of someone who can't get them for whatever reason to just pay and get them than to have them as part of the 100% from the start as design. Its that simple.
I played and beat the shit out of Odyssey and agree wholeheartedly that it had too many moons. The best movement that I've ever had the pleasure to control in a platformer, but a lot of the moons would have been better off as "star piece" missions where you get a fraction of a moon for doing some of the easier tasks like watering a plant or solving a small puzzle. I never really felt like I was starting a course and at the end there would be a reward, but rather navigating thru an overworld and just getting random rewards as I turned over rocks.
I find with Mario games that if I don't play it to completion it is probably more of a me not having quality time to play games thing than a Mario thing. I have gone back to games like Galaxy 1&2 and enjoyed it immensely. I really liked Odyssey but finished it pretty quickly. Never got 100%, though.
Honestly, of the few I've tried none have gone beyond the feeling of "it's decent" for me
I mean fair enough, I agree they shouldn't be required for 100%. But that's such a minor issue, and their presence otherwise is a good thing, I think, for the added flexibility it offers players.
