Super Mario 64 was a bad Mario game, and here's why.

Avatar image for deactivated-57e190e6cd327
deactivated-57e190e6cd327

231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By deactivated-57e190e6cd327
Member since 2015 • 231 Posts

Sure, many people believe that Super Mario 64 revolutionized the video game industry, and it probably has. However, when taking a look at the game within itself and the franchise, it's somewhat of a poorly made game. Here's why.

First off, the game-play. Whenever Mario played back in his previous titles, he would play as a basic platform character. He could run and jump. He hopped from one enemy to the next. The goal? Get to the end. That was all. It's a simple idea that made the basis for future platform games as a whole. Cool.

Then we get Super Mario Bros. 2, and while the American version somewhat had a different style, it was still an overall nice experience. Sure, the Japanese release was the true version, and I'd have preferred that title, but I don't mind the American title.

Next came Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World, which perfected the game-play. Well, minus the hub-worlds. Then came THIS game, which took an awkward turn in the franchise. The games used to be about getting to the end of each stage and jumping on enemies along the way. Now, to convert the series into the third dimension, they gave it a whole new approach. Now it's not about getting to the goal, which involves collecting Power Stars in the game.

Okay, I really don't mind there being something other than a flag pole. I mean, even Super Mario Bros. 3 had the cards, and Super Mario World had the moving bar. However, the main objective is NOT about getting to the stars, but rather FINDING them. That might seem like the same thing, but it's not. The stages involve wandering around a big open landscape in the hopes that you'll eventually come across one. It's not only that, but you have to select the right mission and find THAT star in particular, usually with no clear direction in most of them. Sometimes, you can find OTHER stars that aren't even part of the mission.

I'm not really going to get mad at Nintendo for trying a new formula with Mario, but it doesn't feel like a true proper Mario game in the third dimension. It feels like I'm playing something like Banjo-Kazooie or Donkey Kong 64 with Mario in it. Yes, I know that these games came after Super Mario 64, and were likely the result of the formula of Super Mario 64, but still, it's different than what was established.

I mean, it's not like it's impossible to create a proper Mario game in the third dimension. Just take a look at Super Mario 3D Land and Super Mario 3D World. Those games were built around Mario in the third dimension, and I think they look rather decent. Sure, I haven't played Super Mario 3D World yet, but I have played Super Mario 3D Land, and it does feel like a proper Mario game in the third dimension. However, if they would've left out some of the second dimension segments, and used somewhat more hilly terrain like in Super Mario 64, it would've been a perfect Mario game in the third dimension.

So then what about Super Mario 64? Well, like I said, it's a Banjo-Kazooie styled game. That means that you're in a large open world and are wandering around in the hopes of finding a star. Previous Mario games had a clear path, but this one really doesn't.

I think I should also bring up the hub world. You are looking for the Power Stars, and only by obtaining more Power Stars can you reach more stages to collect more Power Stars to reach Bowser at the top of the castle. In fact, you need eighty out of 120 Power Stars in the whole game.

Okay, so where do I begin?

This is one of the biggest problems I have with collecting Power Stars in the whole game. You need to collect some so you can collect more. The only obstacle that's preventing players from getting to the final boss is the need for at least eighty of them. However, it's not just constructed to have players collect eighty stars. Nope. Players must first collect one to open up more stages, to which they must have three, then they must have eight to fight the boss to open up more stages, to which they need thirty to access more to eventually get fifty to find out that you need eighty.

So, why can't players just get the eighty that they want go get from the beginning? I mean, challenge isn't really scaled much to begin with, as every stage has that mission that's pretty hard to do. The game could be a lot more fun if it allowed players to pick any level they choose from the beginning, rather than having to unlock them through padded game-play. Yes, I think everyone who reads my reviews should know that I'm big on being able to choose your own levels. Technically, players can choose any level that they want in this game, but they have to be unlocked. I would enjoy the option of picking Dire Dire Docks straight from the beginning, for example. Why? Whenever I replay the game, I'm just not into the whole gimmick of playing Bob-omb Battlefield first, then possibly the slide, then doing two or three levels back and forth, then fighting the boss, then just moving along. Point here? I'd like to choose from fifteen levels from the beginning.

Second of all, many of the stars feel like padding and somewhat seem useless to play. Sure, players can get away with avoiding forty stars, but some stars are just very bad to play at points. Take every star that involves collecting 100 coins. First off, this is a giant waste of time. Yeah, I know video games in general are meant to waste time, but take it from Mario games. 100 coins should give the player an extra life. Not here. It gives you a Power Star. That part, I don't have a problem with, but these missions feel really unnecessary. Since you can usually avoid them, though, that still means you can have 105 stars and still fight the boss.

I think now's a good time to mention the stars in the hub world and such. Here's an example. In the basement, a bunny runs around. If you can catch it, it will give you a Power Star. That's one of thirty stars in the hub world. However, there's another star that involves catching the same bunny in the basement again. What's the point of this? There's also a star that involves finding eight red coins in the bosses and the cap rooms. Why? It's probably padding.

Well, this is getting really long, so I'll cut short here. It strays so far from the established formula that it feels more like a spin-off than an actual Mario game. Please note that I'm not saying that it's a bad game as a whole. However, it's a bad MARIO game. This shouldn't be part of the main canon, but rather a spin-off, like Paper Mario. Oh, boy. I have a LOT to say about that game. I'll revisit this one at some point in the future, but stay tuned for Paper Mario.

Avatar image for YoshiYogurt
YoshiYogurt

6008

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 YoshiYogurt
Member since 2010 • 6008 Posts

I played this game long after it came out (2004) and I had no problem.

I think it's a great mario game and disagree with your gripes on the power stars. Play sunshine and you will love 64, those blue coins ruin that game.

Avatar image for judaspete
judaspete

7201

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#3 judaspete
Member since 2005 • 7201 Posts

Have you played Crash Bandicoot? I think you'd like it.

Avatar image for wiifan001
wiifan001

18660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#4 wiifan001
Member since 2007 • 18660 Posts
@chad_devore said:

Sure, many people believe that Super Mario 64 revolutionized the video game industry, and it probably has. However, when taking a look at the game within itself and the franchise, it's somewhat of a poorly made game. Here's why.

No

You need 70 stars not 80

Avatar image for so_hai
so_hai

4385

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 89

User Lists: 0

#6 so_hai
Member since 2007 • 4385 Posts

@chad_devore: You've just managed to expand fairly minor points into padded out paragraphs yourself. You seem to have 3 ideas:

  • I prefer linear level design to exploration.
  • I prefer to select all levels to start with.
  • I don't like the hub world.

OK fine, but none of this means that Mario 64 is bad Mario game taken like this. Also, if you prefer to select all levels to start with, then Mario 64 ought to be on top of your list because it does allow some choice, whereas all the games beforehand had no or little choice of stages to play.

Avatar image for Litchie
Litchie

34468

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#7 Litchie
Member since 2003 • 34468 Posts

Ok. You dislike Mario 64 for being different. Too bad you couldn't enjoy an awesome game like the rest of us.

Avatar image for YearoftheSnake5
YearoftheSnake5

9716

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 55

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By YearoftheSnake5
Member since 2005 • 9716 Posts

These kind of games obviously aren't your thing. You didn't like Mario 64 or Banjo Kazooie, and that's fine. They're enjoyed by a good many people. Enough to get the spiritual successor to BK funded on kickstarter in less than a day. They're good games. You just don't enjoy them. Simple as that.

I didn't like Mario 64 back in the day. I thought it was ugly, even for its day, and didn't care for the level design. In contrast, I loved Banjo Kazooie; which I felt was prettier and had more gameplay variety.