After two incredible games in the Mario 3D Franchise (Land and World), I think the next logical step is to take advantage of the Galaxy name and just make that the title and theme of the next Mario 3D Game.

What do you think?

URL to share (right click and copy)

I think what I see in Galaxy vs. post -Galaxy Mario games is more about world and personality. Galaxy was already trending towards a more linear Mario experience that borrowed from the original games, so it doesn't really have what Mario 64 and Sunshine had. The more disappointing part about the later games to me is that they don't even really try to build a world. Sure, Galaxy 2 evolved into a level by level affair, but there was still a sense of place, a theme tying the game together. THAT's what I want to see them get back to, because every Mario game after Galaxy 2 has been kind of void of any unique personality.

Would I love to see a return to something more open ended like 64 and Sunshine? Definitely. We've had a lot of games that are really similar as of late, and it'd be cool to trend back to something they've only done twice before. As long as this game has its own world and motiff and theme and all that, I'm game.

kriswright said:

Honestly, what I'd like right now is a 3DS version of Galaxy 1 and 2.

Probably not going to happen.

During an interview with IGN, they said that experiments had been done with playing the Galaxy games on a 3DS screen, and it didn't work out so well. Mario was too small to see. They went with the 3D Land design instead and... well, kind of zoomed in on Mario a bit too much in my opinion.

[ref=id=11836&pagenumber=1#428397]PogueSquadron said:[/ref][quote]I wouldn't be surprised if they just ported the first two games in HD. I felt like there was a lot of Galaxy love in SSB4, and seeing those environments in HD made me curious. Sounds like it'd be a low cost money maker for them. Both games on the same disc? What a ridiculous value that would be.

I'd also like to see them go back to something a little more open ended. I like the 3D ______ games but I miss the playground mentality of 64 and Sunshine to an extent.[/quote]
[pic]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/190/f/3/shut_up_and_take_my_coins__by_kuriseru-d6cr0iz.jpg[/pic]

[ref=id=11836&pagenumber=1#428416]carlosrox said:[/ref][quote][ref=id=11836&pagenumber=1#428411]GameDadGrant said:[/ref][quote]At this point, I wouldn't mind a return to the Super Mario 64/Sunshine design.[/quote]I want this AND the 3D World style games.[/quote]
I agree. Both designs have some advantages and disadvantages. I'd hate to pick.

[ref=id=11836&pagenumber=1#428445]kriswright said:[/ref][quote]Honestly, what I'd like right now is a 3DS version of Galaxy 1 and 2.[/quote]
You people just want to drain my wallet, dontcha?

[ref=id=11836&pagenumber=2#428446]PogueSquadron said:[/ref][quote]I think what I see in Galaxy vs. post -Galaxy Mario games is more about world and personality. Galaxy was already trending towards a more linear Mario experience that borrowed from the original games, so it doesn't really have what Mario 64 and Sunshine had.[/quote]
My feelings exactly. I feel that Galaxy was a linear game which allowed for some exploration, but not "freeform" exploration like Mario 64. And I was totally fine with that. I think it lends itself to a tighter game.

So, that's why I'm voting yes on the Super Mario 3D Galaxy thing. Just give the 3D games a more grand and Galactic feel and moveset that you can find in the Galaxy games, slap the 3D name on it, and you have yourself a great end to the 3D Trilogy.

Oh mop do I hope not. Fun as they are, I'm growing tired of these same-y Mario games.

@Jargon

Metroid had a lack of content developed for it during that time though and hadn't yet journeyed in to 3D gameplay. I don't think Mario is going to have a rejuvenation that will be at all comparable. Now Mario gets a title virtually every year on one platform or another and they all borrow design elements from each other. I have no reason to think that Nintendo will stop that trend until the sales start to become unacceptable and they think they can do better shaking up the formula again. It's clear they are willing to let Mario stagnate for the time being.

@Stephen

First of all, you need to separate 3D Mario and 2D Mario because they are completely different types of games, made by completely different teams. Lumping them together is like lumping 3D Mario together with Mario Kart or Paper Mario.

So has 3D Mario stagnated? No. There's been two straight games made in the same style, but the second one is much more ambitious, most notably with the addition of four player mode. If you think 3D Mario is stagnating now, you must have really thought it was stagnating when they released two straight Mario Galaxy games that were much more similar than Mario 3D Land and Mario 3D World.

That's in contrast that to 2D Mario, which I think it's fair to say has stagnated to an extent with four straight entries in the "New" series (and a big DLC pack). But fortunately Mario Maker looks to be a pretty huge twist on that formula and could really spice things up for 2D Mario as a series.

If Nintendo announces another Mario 3D title like this poll suggests, then we can start talking about stagnation (although I'd have to judge the game on its own merits first) but saying it's already happening is just shortsighted.

@Jargon

Stagnant is too strong a criticism for the 3D games, I agree. But I'll sign on that the presentation in those games is a little blah and borrows too much from NSMB.

@Jargon Miyamoto did say this in an Iwata Asks about 3D World and if I recall correctly, it was not prompted (what I mean is no one was talking about Galaxy but it was apparently on his mind...)

“Just so there is no misunderstanding, I should point out that this doesn’t mean we’ll never make another Super Mario Galaxy game.”

I really hope they do a Super Mario Galaxy 3.

The main thing I'm getting from this thread is that some people don't like how 3D Land and 3D World look.

I dunno. Looks are important, sure, but as I said earlier, Galaxy didn't have "scope" as much as it had cutscenes of Mario being shot from a planetoid to another. The addition of actual multiplayer in 3D World is way more meaningful for the series.

I dunno. How fun was that multiplayer? Sorta fun. It certainly didn't feel to me like, "For the love of God, yes! Multiplayer Mario! More please!"

And reducing the atmosphere of Galaxy to just cutscenes in the middle of levels is bullshit and you know it, Gui.

I actually don't think it is. The battleship attack at the beginning of the game is cool, sure, but that's about it. On a second play through i just felt that cutscene was interminable. I absolutely saw 3D World's succinct opening as an improvement.

Beyond that opening, I don't see a ton of "atmosphere" in the game. It's a bunch of disparate levels. Beyond the general idea of "space", they're not thematically coherent. The planetoids are infinitely more interesting for their physics than they are for the setting they provide.

Multiplayer was fun enough to me that I'm starting to have more difficulty caring for platformers I can't play in simultaneous co-op.

edit - I don't mean to shit on Galaxy, it was a fantastic game, and I probably enjoyed the sequel even more, but my enjoyment of those games was 98% because of the fun physics and the way the game seemed to reinvent itself every level, and not because of the "Mario is on an epic adventure" factor. And I also feel 3D Land and 3D World did a good job mixing things up from level to level, so it's pretty much a wash, until you add the multiplayer factor.

Hmm... Well, stick to your guns, then. I certainly don't feel like mounting a long defense of Super Mario Galaxy in here. But my opinion is it has atmosphere to spare, something that even the Nintendo-bashing media couldn't ignore.

And as much fun as I find multiplayer coop, I'll still play single-player platformers until my thumbs rot off. /ognes

EDIT: Maybe we're not talking about the same things, here. I don't think I used the words "scope" or "epic adventure" at all. I dunno. Can we both just agree we like Mario games?

If people were disappointed in how 3D World looked, I think it's generally because Mario games, at least the main ones, tend to have a look that's pretty iconic and unique. Every game tends to have its own flavor, and I think 3D World just didn't have that as strongly as other games. The Sprixie Kingdom IMO just wasn't that interesting. It was kind of just different from the Mishroom Kingdom in name only.

@kriswright

Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by atmosphere, then. Some of Galaxy's music was grandiose. Is that part of it?

When I think of atmospheric games, I think of games with more coherent worlds; games that use ambient sounds, unsettling emptiness, and lack of action to set a mood. I don't recognize Galaxy in that. Galaxy is never quiet. You're always moving.

@kriswright

Incredibly fun.

@Jargon

No. You didn't have fun. You're lying to yourself. I have signed affidavits that prove you were miserable the whole time. Test me, internet boy. I will turn you inside out.

I think it's just an iconic look. The slight blue atmospheres that transition to stars. The characters of the Lumas and the shooting stars. The cosmic observatory. The prankster comets that change up the levels. I think there's plenty of space related imagery, characters, and especially gameplay mechanics that tie the whole game together beautifully.

Galaxy's worlds are disconnected, no doubt, but the game definitely created a unique flavor that I'm not sure the 3D_____ games did, which IMO seemed to borrow a little more heavily from past games.

@Jargon

They aren't totally separate though. The 3D Mario games are deriving design ideas from the 2D ones. World map level select, linear obstacle course design, three hidden coins or whatever along the way, end with a flagpole, toad houses, middle castle, final castle. The actual content in the levels is fine but all the dressing around it is just getting really, really dated.

Guillaume said:

Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by atmosphere, then. Some of Galaxy's music was grandiose. Is that part of it?

When I think of atmospheric games, I think of games with more coherent worlds; games that use ambient sounds, unsettling emptiness, and lack of action to set a mood. I don't recognize Galaxy in that. Galaxy is never quiet. You're always moving.

Galaxy absolutely has quiet moments! That image of Mario standing on a warmly lit planetoid in the starlight is about as quiet a visual as the series has ever had. And you can actually enjoy that image as long as you want, as there's no timer hurrying you along -- you're not "always moving." The soundtrack is as big and grandiose as ever, but it also has plenty of solemn music in those quieter scenes. It's easily the Mario game with the most dynamic range of atmosphere. Plus all those weepy Rosalina storybook vignettes.

Everybody jokes about Nintendo Magic around here...well, Super Mario Galaxy was the first Mario game that I would describe as "magical." I remember playing Super Mario Bros. on an idyllic Christmas morning as a kid, but Super Mario Galaxy felt like playing an idyllic Christmas morning, a warm fuzzy feeling in a cold environment. From the pure mechanical standpoint of things like controls and level designs and whatever, Galaxy was sort of disappointing compared to its predecessors. But in terms of presentation, it was like going from Steamboat Willie to Fantasia.

I wouldn't criticize 3D World's style and atmosphere too harshly for a Mario game, but it definitely didn't have Galaxy's brand of magic.


Guillaume said:

I actually like the current "find three things and reach the flagpole" formula of the recent games. It might feel "safe" or samey but the way I see it, we're getting a greater quantiy of unique challenges and obstacles courses (and of a higher quality) than the few sandboxes of Mario 64 that we kept having to revisit. It's more bang for my buck.

We've kind of gotten over the newness of running and jumping around in a 3D environment for the hell of it at this point anyway, right? At least as vanilla Mario.

Not when vanilla Mario has the range of motion that he did in Super Mario 64 and Sunshine! And not when he's running around sandboxes as dynamic and varied and densely packed as they were then. The thing I love about those games is the same thing I love about 2D Sonic: the player's range of motion can combine with even the subtlest features in the environment for unexpected (but intuitive and replicable) results. After Sunshine, Mario's range of motion gradually got much more rigid and strict, and the environments trended similarly. I never "got over" running and jumping around, later games just gradually made it less fun on its own merits than it was in 64 and Sunshine.

Myself, I think it's a shame that the platformer genre is so under-served that we have to rely on Mario games to cover it all. If Mario doesn't seem right for a certain type of platformer, why can't some other franchise step in to try a take at it? I'd love to see some other franchises expand into 3D such as Donkey Kong, Kirby, Yoshi, Wario, etc., all of which have had only one or none 3D games. I'd even be okay with a new IP if they wanted to go that route, though it isn't necessary. I feel there is still a lot of untapped potential in the 3D platformer/adventure type of design that boomed on the N64 and then started disappearing after that. Much as I like them, I kind of feel like the 2D platformer genre is over-saturated, or maybe that's just because of how little 3D choices there are.