Gaming Super Mario Galaxy

OMG it's 8.9 for Twilight Princess all over again. Joe will be out of a job in 6 months...

Two things come to mind in this thread: "if you have bought it and love it, WHY are you reading, caring and commenting in a review?? even more so calling it "shameful"!?!" and "if you don't agree, then fine, no two people have exactly the same opinion but it doesn't mean one or the other is any less invalid".

It does make me wonder

 

I never understood why the newer games got so good scores when they were simply rubbish?

Galaxy and Sunshine are pure pants. You lot who hold these fond memory's of days gone by seriously need to wake up.

Miamoto(Sp?) needs to come up with a new idea as his legacy will be a copy after copy.

 

gee, then why not just close these _discussion_ forums, then, mister sandinvagina?

differences in opinions are what makes the world go round. it's when people get all bitchy and fanboyish that a discussion descends into a flamefest and loses all semblance of normalcy.

 

One thing.

That's all you needed to say to be quite honest, because SM64 is easily one of the best games to be ever made.

 

I am from Spain and was reading the article... I disagree the review cause it´s actually impossible to be more original in some generes and we must evaluate the game by itself... ¿Bioshock 10? ¡But its a FPS! ¿Whats original in that game and never done before? I am not telling that Bioshock don´t deserve a high score because it´s a great game. I´m telling that this Mario is one of the best ever made and has enough innovations over the excelent Mario 64 to be original by itself, remember also the originality of the use of the wii mote for first time in a Mario game and that make it even better... I´m sorry but I believe that is one of the best games of the year and actually I dont remember right now a more original contender or a game that deserve more. And it even has more merit that it has been one of the gratest of the year done with a less horsepower than the competition. I believe that Nintendo did a very great game and one of the best Marios... Time will tell it... Remember

 

Nintendo has tried new IPs for its hardcore audience, but that ends up being the problem, only the hardcore buy them (pikmin anyone?)
and i don't consider Zelda to be recycling storylines at all... Princess Zelda isn't in all of the games, the games she's in she doesn't always need rescuing from the very start (Ocarina of Time it isn't until you get to the very last level that she needs rescuing), and Link very rarely knows Zelda from the outset anyway. Sure, you may begin each of the games having to save a girl of some sort, but if you're going to say that thats how its recycling storylines, you may as well then point out that every action/adventure game out there has you saving the day and becoming the hero.

Back to Mario Galaxy though. Graphically, I don't think everyone will have the same opinion. Some will love the art style and be able to tell you everything that is good about the graphics, others will hate it and be able to point out everything that could have been done better. Its just opinion. Technical aspects of what the graphics engine does however is a different issue.

I'm not sure how a true co-op (one plays as Mario, the other as Luigi) would work in this game, especially if both try to run off in different directions. The game was certainly designed for single player, and Nintendo probably just added on the "co-op" part as a way for spectators to get involved a bit, in the chance that they might then have a go at playing as Mario later. A Mario game with true co-op will certainly be designed around that concept from the get-go... kinda like the Mario and Luigi games on GBA/DS.

Needless to say, I'm loving Galaxy. Each new galaxy is completely original, the Prankster Comets (I haven't seen them mentioned in any reviews yet...then again, I've only read two) add a bit of replayability to certain stars (even if the replayability is forced), and I'm constantly going "wow, thats awesome" while I'm playing. If the only goal of the team at Nintendo Tokyo and Miyamoto was for people to have fun playing this, they've succeeded with flying colours.

 

i bet Joe meant that this 9 was more a 9.4 and bioshock's 10 was more of a 9.6.....

i vote for 0-20 scores in the future.....

 

oh please. screw decimal scores, seriously. there's no point. and there's no point in marking out of 20 either.
i actually prefer reviews that are out of 5, making them more like movie reviews. it reduces the amount of fanboy rage when a game gets 97% instead of 98.

 

I think the suggestion of decimal scores was a joke, Fod. It's certainly not anything I'd ever do here - especially when the last two weeks I've been pushing the idea of abandoning the scores altogether for games.

I think there is a fundamental problem here though with people who are fans of the game (not fanboys, just fans), those who really like the game, those who hate it, etc. Half of you are saying its a rubbish game, a more vocal half are saying something different. I have to try and see both sides, and I've called it as I see it. The game is awesome, GOTY material, but it does have flaws and it does have a weak story which could have been used for greater effect - minor issues admittedly.

One of the differences I look for between a score of 9 and 10 is that a game tries to do something new or clever, instead of re-using the same old visual clues. That can be something simple, like Portal, or more immaterial, like BioShock. Here, I see a near-perfect game which is accessible and fun and a definite must have, but the whole time I'm playing it I find myself either missing important information for no reason or getting bored in dialogs because I know it all from past Mario games. There's an argument there to say that its good for newcomers, but from the angle that Bit has with hardened gamers and so on, I don't think that that is an applicable issue.

Either way, there's a legitimate arguement for both your and my arguments. I never claim that my score is a purely objective recognition of design - just that I, as someone who was trained as a writer and who has an obsessive interest in games, have these opinions on the game which you as readers should hopefully find entertaining and helpful as a rough guide and introduction. You could pick any game ever and we could argue it's score back and forth - I'd love to if you've got the time, actually - so, while scores are important to a degree, I think it's more important that the reader takes in the full body of the text and uses it as a spring board to make their own opinion.

 

Yes, it does, because there are comments which are pure flame and fanboy on here and have no intent on actually discussing the game. They haven't been deleted and this hasn't been closed either.

It's *just* a number - what gets me is that people get so worked up about respective numbers regardless of whether it's had an impact of them owning and playing the game or not. I fail to understand why people get so worked up over a number and not just discuss the actual game.

 

I agree with Joe whole heartedly on his review.

SMG is a great game which the Wii sorely needs as it is severely lacking in quality titles. Nintendo might be selling millions of consoles but they should concentrate on getting some content out there to make the purchase worth while.

SMG is great fun, it has brilliant graphics, excellent sound and the platforming game play is as good as it gets. The girl friend loves playing it and the fact i can can freeze the enemies and some of the projectiles with the second remote makes it easier for her in the more difficult levels. But.... I would not put this as my game of the year as it is basically the same as every other Mario game. My main complaint about Nintendo is they continually use the same franchise's over and over again, something which the other consoles and developers get heavily criticised for. I don't seen anything particularly innovative about SMG over Mario64.

 

True enough, but Nintendo has a proven ability to use clever design to provide better graphics on lower-end systems, so I felt I had to mention it. It wasn't a point which cost the game anything in my scoring, but something I felt needed a mention. The game looks good, but could have used alternate methods to look better.

 

"Here, Mario can drink honey that turns him into Bee Mario"
Nope it's a Bee Mushroom, like all powerups it's mushroom based.

Shame you didn't mention the frankly HIDEOUS powerup - the Spring. God thats badly designed and doesn't work properly.

Galaxy has alot going for it and at least for the first few galaxies you'll be grinning with joy - shame the rest of the game doesn't have the same effect as it gets repetitive and dull. you seem to do the same boss battles about 3 times each, which is just irritating. The stating is quick to get around on but is irritating how you use it (too similar to your generic spin attack) and will kill you more times than not. Not even going to talk about how rubbish the swimming is.

Also I hate the way the game decides to change the rules arbitrarily - some planets you can walk all round no problem and some that look exactly the same you can't and there's no reason. Not great.

I'd personally give the game 7-8/10 - it's good but getting tired and not all the innovations are even that at all.

 

It's funny how some of you folks are knocking Nintendo's overuse of the "Mario IP." Seriously, Nintendo's put Mario and Pals into just about *every* situation imaginable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mario_games_by_system

And my guess is, they'll find more stuff for him to do. More power to them. Frankly, I enjoy the latest iterations of Nintendo games.

Comparisons to Bioshock are lame. Bioshock is ultimately just like any other shooter game out there, with a few additional upgrades. It's a fun game, no doubt -- I enjoyed it and feel I got my money's worth. The problem is the very fabric of the game: the story, while initially good, turns into a game-domineering letdown. ONE harvest makes you a bad guy, no matter how many you save. There's no chance at redemption at all, a drastic flaw that absolutely wrecks the story and the entire meaning of the game. I played through Bioshock once and have no intention of going back. It did not stack up to the other 'Shocks at all, IMHO.

 

xPaladin Mario is ultimately just like any other platformer game out there. I don't care if it was one of the first, Galaxy in itself, is not the "first" and thus, continues to follow the same trends it established decades ago.

What gets me though, is the amount of fanboy defense of Mario. It's a good game, but does not deserve perfect scores all the time. People knocked Ratchet and Clank for not really making any huge changes over what worked, yet it's perfectly fine for Mario to not have underwent drastic changes over Mario64/Sunshine and it's a good thing this time?

 

I truly enjoyed this game. It took care of the mario fix I needed so desperately after that whole "Super Mario Sunshine" mishap (in my opinion). I think that one of the more important things was for the game to actully stick to it's roots like SM64. That's what I wanted when I picked this game up, already knowing how to play it. It was the same Mario feel but with a whole new look and playability. One of the best things about this game was that "nostalgic" feeling, and I most certainly did not want that to change. Thanks for delivering Nintendo!

 

To all the people rabidly insisting SMG is a shoe-in for GOTY I ask you one thing; what defines a truly excellent 10/10 game? If it is simply a game that is great fun to play then there sure as hell should be a lot more 10/10s flying around and SMG would just be another one to add to that pile. Personally I think a game has to have something else, something special, something ground-breaking that raises it above the realm of 'just great fun', whether that be the plot, story-telling, gameplay innovation, the graphics, or just generally being a new franchise. From what I gather SMG has none of these and so the only conclusion is it's another good game worth getting - it's nothing to write home about, though. In fact, I would have said 8/10 is probably a fairer assessment.

 

Game play is really innovating, sure it's not the first game to use planets and such, but it's the only one that has perfect or near perfect camera, challenging, and has gravity put into the equation that is solid work, not something that is iffy. Something that YOU forgot in your judgment.

The sound... well it's sounds it can't be ground braking, but the music is just fantastic, it goes perfectly well with every stage, and has the ability to smoothly change depending on Mario environment (in water, outside of water, etc...), it doesn't just cut harshly and change music, or has the same one that repeat over and over again. This is something that was never done in games before.

Now you have to compare it between it's predecessors, to see progress and innovation inside itself (unlike F.E.A.R newer versions (see link if you don't know what I mean)).
It's the first Mario in 3D that allows you take objects and trow them. Swim with a turtle shell, trow bombs, power-up's and more... Something that was a BIG miss in it's predecessors in 3D.

Graphics, what is better graphics? More realistic? More realistic = better graphics? Taking my camera and taking a picture of store and put it on a wall or cube, makes better graphics? NO! It's number of polygons... is a sphere round or looks like triangles. Ground bumps, fur shading, proper shaddow, and so one, makes better graphics... Sure you don't have bumps on every stone that the texture shows, do the limitation of the Wii (in fact I'll be surprised if it runs super smoothly on your computer too, as their will be too much polygons to draw). SMG has just all that, things that has not there before in similar games with similar type of graphics. Sure it doesn't have bumps for the texture on the stone or wood texture on the ground (again due to the limitation of eh graphic card). But it does when you pass from grass to road, and so on...

Physics, is the physics good? Does it react properly? Well if you played SMG you will see that's the physics is truely awesome, and too few games has similar physics quality.

---------

If I follow your logic Meanmotion, I can just say well look at Crysis and bioshock, you got weapons, standard weapons, that you see in all FSP games, and shoot at "bad guys"... OOOOOOO very innovative, *I'm impressed*. Ok so Crysis uses more polygons and realistic texture, big youpido.
Yea in Bioshock you have this magic thing you can do with your hands, ok... that's like done in so many games in all genres.
Bioshock has an OK story, questionable on a realistic point of view... it should definitely get 4/10. And that's mostly because of effort in slightly better graphics and allows you to make choices.

 

I don't plan on reading the article, but I'm guessing Peach has gotten herself into another predicament once again, like she's always done for 22 years.

For the duration of the entire franchise, how many people have actually enlisted Mario for help with plumbing?