|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
firenze
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Bonus Round
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: Re: Virtual Console for Game Level Evolution |
  |
|
| Faithless wrote: |
Suddenly, I'm really aware of how weird the N64 made the game experience. Playing NES Super Mario, there's a Beginning, Middle, End of each chapter. Same with Sonic, Gunstar Heroes, etc. But when I drop in Mario64, everything gets loose and ugly. The game may have been a revolution at the time, but I'm beginning to loathe the point where it comes up in my VC shuffle. SMB has a progression, a goal, a clear cut path that you follow, and thus is satisfying, one level at a time. Mario64 is not satisfying, if you play Star by Star.
Is that why Minigames are taking off? Perhaps the classic game is a set of minigames -- each level is a complete experience, whereas modern gaming is open-ended even when it's not a sandbox title? |
I don't think the N64 really ushered in this change. There were plenty of pre-N64 games that didn't have a beginning/middle/end "level" structure. Sure, Mario platformers still pretty much adhered to the tried and true level concept. But what about Zelda (from the NES original)? Even Zelda 1 with its clearly defined dungeon "levels" had a bit of choice in wandering around the overworld and not forcing you to stay in sequence. Super Metroid (and even NES Metroid) wasn't about an easy to seperate "Level 1 complete" mentality. Other NES games just off the top of my head that didn't have very definite stopping points include Rygar, Strider, and A Boy and His Blob.
And then there are RPGs that always kept leading you on to the next goal. PC Adventure games - King's Quest or Monkey Island never had good stopping points, part of what made them addictive. Chakan on Genesis did the Mario 64 hub world jumping into portals/paintings, but in a 2D platformer that came out years before Mario 64.
I think Mario 64 just took a little bit of that design of not giving defined levels in oder to keep the player going just a little while longer. It was new to the series, and relatively unused in platformers, but it wasn't a new gameplay concept in the least. And honestly, there are still definite levels in Mario 64, even if you do have to access them through a hub world that's essentially a glorified menu that you can move around in. There's not really that much functional difference between a "hub world" and a stage select screen (such as the classic Megaman design) other than adding a little more immersiveness. You still choose "grassy level", "water level", "snow level" in Mario 64 just like you chose your level in Gunstar Heroes through a menu screen.
Maybe I'm missing your point here. Please correct me if I'm on the wrong track.
As for the sentiment of wanting "play a level" style gaming, it's still out there. It's just that there's more choice now and lots of people prefer the sprawling epic structure. But you can just play level based games if that's your thing. I love popping in a 2D shooter and playing a couple levels. A few rounds of a fighting game, etc. Just thinking "next-gen" home consoles here, on my 360 I play plenty of very level-based games. Samurai Warriors 2, DOA4, Prey (yes, even FPS still do a rather arcadey level-based design sometimes), a race of Ridge Racer 6, Lost Planet... Games are still out there, and I don't think minigames are the only throwbacks to a time of simple level based gaming at all.
Also... I think you need the Metal Slug Anthology for your Wii if you don't already have it, Faithless. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
firenze
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Bonus Round
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:11 pm |
|
|
| Faithless wrote: |
I think I should clarify, I guess, that the games I'm playing are platformers -- although I guess Gunstar is more of an "action" game, whatever that means. Zelda is open-ended -- so is a game like Sim City. But that's not what I'm tackling on the VC every day.
Firenze, you're definitely not missing my point... I guess I'm just having difficulty articulating what my point is, beyond "SMB is more casual than SM64." |
I do sort of understand that feeling you're getting. I'm not sure I can make a clear definition of it either though.
Maybe it's just that since there were so many platformers in the 8/16-bit eras, developers felt like they had done most of what could be done with the formula. After SM64, open-endedness started becoming more prevalent in game design.
Perhaps there's a bit of a renaissance of "classic" feeling platformers on the horizon? We've gone through the experiements in making hub based 3D platformers, free flowing and connected worlds, and metrovania designs. It's almost passe now to do a hub world or a connected universe - Maximo, the Jak games, Ratchet, SM64 and Sunshine, Banjo, Ape Escape, etc... And the metrovania style went from super unique to formula (as evidenced by some of the animosity toward the style from IC/SB regulars). I mean, Kirby and the Amazing Mirror is even cribbing from the formula now.
Now we are getting at least a return to "classic" by Nintendo's DS games - Yoshi's Story 2 (damn near an expansion pack to the original SNES game), New Super Mario Bros., Super Princess Peach, Kirby Squeak Squad, the upcoming Wario platformer... People do seem to like to follow Nintendo's lead. So maybe it's time for a resurgance after a couple generations off.
Even Castlevania is returning a little bit to more "level" based gaming with Portrait of Ruin, although some people would rather it feel even more like the early series level based games. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
