[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   

File: 480 KB, 1200x1200, 1677731715255979.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10425050 No.10425050 [Reply] [Original]

People often cite influence as a reason a game should be considered great. A game being influential in its genre or gaming as whole is not a sign that the game itself is a great game or even good. Everyone acknowledges that popularity=/= quality. Influence is downstream of popularity. Games attached to big franchises will inevitably be more influential than other similar quality titles in other franchises by shear exposure for consumers. Others in the market choose to copy the successful game due to financial incentives. Inspiration too is downstream of popularity. Many game developers being inspired by the popular game they played as children doesn't say anything about the quality of the game itself. Only that more were exposed to it.

>> No.10425056

Wow that's a lot of words to just say "I don't like Mario 64"

>> No.10425058

I just like the game. Sorry you got filtered.

>> No.10425059

have you tried not being gay?

>> No.10425061

What if you yourself were influenced by a game? Is that a valid reason to consider it great?

>> No.10425062

You sound too downstream of being retarded

>> No.10425073

I didn't read that, but the most influential videogame is BBC (it is a real game, don't ban me) on IBM 1620.
Not only was it one of the first text based games, it also combined sports simulation with text. Essentially originating all games that ever had text in it and also sports games for fat losers.
It also inspired the many BBC fans on the many boards of 4channel.org to post how women were made to input the game in other IBM 1620s, so you can still see it's massive influence today.

>> No.10425096

>People often cite influence as a reason a game should be considered great. A game being influential in its genre or gaming as whole is not a sign that the game itself is a great game or even good
This right here demonstrates the difference between theory and practice.
OP is either too retarded to understand or just trolling. When a vast majority of people think highly of a product then it probably is. When one or two individuals think King's Field is amazing they are just outliers.

>> No.10425128

>When a vast majority of people think highly of a product then it probably is.
People like you are what's keeping franchises like Madden and Pokemon in the shitter.
If 90% of the planet enjoyed the taste of human feces, that doesn't make it objectively good.

>> No.10425140


,>Red is my favorite color because it earned it. It put the work in.

>> No.10425201

i agree that influence =! greatness, as in the case of oblivion’s horse armor, or cod (though it’s pretty good), or fortnite battle passes, etc

mario 64 is however the prime example of an incredibly influential game actually being good and worthy of all of its acclaim

>> No.10425284

>game developer says X game influenced them
Okay buddy tell the devs what did and didn't inspire them

>> No.10425289

>If 90% of the planet enjoyed the taste of human feces, that doesn't make it objectively good.
But in practice nobody likes human feces (where the exceptions confirm the rule).
Thanks for proving my point of theory vs practice

>> No.10425304

Mario 64 certainly influenced a lot of developers to make 3D games, but actual direct copying of it is few and far between.
Closest thing to a Mario 64 clone prior to the current explosion of indie garbage was Vexx.
If it wasn't for Mario then games like Tomb Raider and Crash Bandicoot would be cited as influences more often instead.

>> No.10425306
File: 110 KB, 988x1200, Mario_Wall_Jumps_SMS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>A game being influential in its genre or gaming as whole is not a sign that the game itself is a great game or even good.
True but it's a huge indicator

And SM64 is obviously great so you aren't helping your case posting that picture

>> No.10425317

I don't think Mario 64 is good because it's "influential". I think it's actually a good game, that holds up better than a lot of the games that copied it, because the basic moving of Mario around the levels feels very satisfying, and allows for a high level of mastery.

You wont get that in whatever "point A to point B" sixth gen Spyro sequel OP grew up with.

>> No.10425358

>everyone acknowledges that popularity=/= quality
lol, lmao even

>> No.10425378

In practice Taylor Swift and kpop is extremely popular.
Also marvel.
They are all comparable to consuming human shit.

>> No.10425412

Uhuh. Anyway, I'm heterosexual and I enjoyed Super Mario 64.

>> No.10425416

Who gives a shit? Just play video games.

>> No.10425417
File: 102 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Pitfall is the original 2D platformer and nobody cares about it at all.

>> No.10425419

True, but Super Mario 64 is good, and Pitfall isn't.

>> No.10425496

pitfall is representative of the era where video games were meant to be a short distraction after you finished your homework and waited for the gang to pick you up

>> No.10425593

64 is obviously a classic, but the way mario specifically controls in terms of analog movement, the way they executed it the first time, feels like ass and drags down the game.

>> No.10425612

the basic 3d mario moveset is so much more fun and iconic than any other 3d platformer that it's kind of crazy. nothing even comes close.

>> No.10425617

>follow western devs on twitter
>it's clear they barely play games
>it's clear they don't have any idea on gaming
>but they cite three super duper popular games as influences so those games are now good

>> No.10425640

That's not what I said. I said it's good because it plays fun in a way that overrides the various ways that it might feel dated.

>> No.10425651

I think the thing is that the genre tended toward ease of movement as things moved on. Most later 3D platformers will have conveniences like a double jump, so you can correct your movement in mid-air, or some kind of attack that doesn't require you to actually aim for the enemy in a very precise way.
None of that actually makes the genre more fun though, because a lot of the fun is in the sense of mastery that comes from correctly learning to pilot this character who has a sense of weight and fragility.
Games like Banjo Kazooie or Sonic Adventure for example, those are games of instant gratification. It feels good to hit an enemy and knock them off screen, but it never feels great in the way that landing a perfect jump on a goomba feels great, because you didn't really earn it. The game handed it to you.

>> No.10425654


>> No.10425661

tl;dr version: POPULAR BAD

>> No.10425671

Looking back, the pop music I hated in high school was no less valid than the garbage edgy Nu Metal bands I was into at the time. We all go through our contrarian phase and then cringe at it later.

>> No.10425689

Idk limp Bizkits music is still relevant(oddly enough), the only thing relevant about Britney Spears is how fucking psychotic she is.

>> No.10425697

The pop music I hated in highschool is still pretty awful, desu. Could never get along with that whole "emo" thing. Just overly effeminate men crying to the backing of guitars.

>> No.10425753

My Nu Metal phase coincided with my weeb phase and also being a chunky kid in high school, so it’s extra traumatizing to look back on. Many such cases on 4chan lol.

>> No.10425761

Sure, but emo is the big again. Blink 182, greenday, simple plan, etc. Are releasing song right now to critical acclaim. They're are b oning their biggest hits because of stream count. The music industry is just as a fucked as AAA videogames.

>> No.10425763

True, but those bands were and are mainstream radio friendly compared to cringey hardcore screamo and shit.

>> No.10425770

you are 100% correct. all it means is that people had fun at the time, or experienced something new/shiny at the time. additionally, it can mean that one tiny ASPECT of the thing influenced them in a SPECIFIC way. it can also mean something like "i saw potential in the idea, and i wanted to explore that myself with my own creations". "it touched the lives of many" like you said, means nothing more than exposure.

however, no matter how true that may be, you will unavoidably encounter zealots, especially here, that refuse to acknowledge that and will endlessly suck off rather shitty/basic games. ESPECIALLY when it comes to n64 stuff, which realistically deserves no more praise than being a footnote, or prototype, in development history.

>> No.10425771

Toxic is now a classic radio song on par with Michael Jackson's songs. The only Bizkit song that people unironically like in 2023 is Break Stuff.

>> No.10425773

I think SM64’s initial upstairs levels still hold up well. Some of the basement stars are where I start to lose steam upon replays.

>> No.10425774

thats not what he said at all. are you retarded? take your meds.

>> No.10425778

you didnt refute his point at all though. all you said was "no, you're wrong, because quantity clearly indicates quality". op specifically says it just means raw exposure. quantity indicates nothing more than quantity.

>> No.10425801
File: 119 KB, 720x540, three-hands-n64-controller.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

My thoughts exactly

Influence doesn't necessarily make a game good, but it does make a game important. Night Trap is a game most people probably wouldn't bother with, but its cultural influence and the fact that it's basically partially responsible for the ESRB being formed makes it an important game. The same can be said of games like Angry Birds and their impact on mobile gaming. It's not really about being great.

Super Mario 64 may not be the *best* 3D platformer, but it is still an important game for basically starting the genre alongside Crash Bandicoot. You don't have to like it, but it's still an important game.

>> No.10425806

in general, i can agree that it still "holds up well", in that its still a game that accomplishes what it was designed to do. it is what it was designed to be, and with minimal issue. at the time, there was nothing like it, and it BLEW MINDS. however, in how far gaming has come, it is incredibly minimalistic, simplistic, barebones, often empty, and lacking many refinements. while the camera can be manipulated to be serviceable, it still lacks the refinements of today's settings. MOST of the engagement with the levels is simply engaging with the geometry of the floor, and not so much interacting with THINGS. does it still truly hold up to the utter "MINDBLOWING" status of old? not even a little bit. give that game to a 10 year old now (especially if they've already played odyssey) and they'll say "this is fucking ROUGH". same thing for ocarina. can you still play it? sure. but it isnt very refined at all. "best game ever"? not a chance.

but sadly, there will undoubtedly be zealots blinded by nostalgia that will refuse to actually look at things objectively.

>> No.10425812

The fact that it isn't ridiculously streamlined is the reason why people keep coming back to it. Odyssey plays almost like it's on rails with how much they focus on making it idiot-proof.

>> No.10425813

being important to history doesnt make a game good either.

>> No.10425816

That is literally what I just said

>> No.10425818

good job missing the point and saying nothing of relevance or value.

>> No.10425824

This. Real, functional adults mindlessly follow trends and consume whatever the rest of the hive mind tells them to. People who do otherwise are immature and frankly need to grow up already.

>> No.10425830

I’m >>10425671. It’s not like I was listening to cutting edge underground stuff lmao. It was mainstream crap like Linkin Park and Disturbed, which is really no different from Christina Aguilera or Blink-182.

>> No.10425853

I'd be hard pressed to find a game that does Ocarina of Time better than Ocarina of Time.
"Best game ever" is always hyperbole, because different games are attempting to do different things. It doesn't make sense to compare radically different things.

Drop another paragraph though. Maybe I'll admit these games I like are actually bad this time. lol.

>> No.10425861

I dont really like 3d platformers that much, but there's nothing that really gets to the level of Mario. Jak and daxter and gex are probably the closest, spyro too... i guess.

>> No.10425864

Yeah, I was so bored with most of Odyssey. I can appreciate that it's good, but that's entirely clinical. I'm rarely engaged by it. I never get that rush of exhilaration when I pull off something tricky, and grab a star I've been failing to get for the past twenty minutes. It feels like a busy work simulator, like most games now.

>> No.10425869

imo Ratchet & Clank is Sony’s most successful platforming franchise. Jak’s weird swerve into early 00s edge and GTA lite gameplay in the sequels was a turnoff for me.

>> No.10425872

Apart from being better music.

>> No.10425875

Eh, pretty debatable. I love a lot of Blink’s music.

>> No.10425907

>I'd be hard pressed to find a game that does Ocarina of Time better than Ocarina of Time.
almost no 2 zelda games are alike. shitty comparison choice. other ips dont really try to hardcore copy it either. closest sort of copy i can think of is actually darksiders, but thats still VERY different.
>"Best game ever" is always hyperbole
tell that to the zealots and every list of games that put oot as #1 for the past 20 years.
>Maybe I'll admit these games I like are actually bad this time. lol.
just because you like it doesnt make something good, and CERTAINLY not flawless. i like sonic adventure 2 and payday 2. they have myriads of flaws, but i have hundreds of hours of enjoyment in them. it doesnt make them actually good or products of notable quality.

>> No.10425909

i love BBC

>> No.10425910

>I'd be hard pressed to find a game that does Ocarina of Time better than Ocarina of Time.
there's no game that captures the essence of adventure better than OoT. there are a few games that come close, but they usually skew more towards RPG territory and are held back by things like skills, stats, spongey enemies, etc., that detract from the immersion. the genius of OoT is that everything is tangible: you don't kill 100 enemies and then magically get some skill point to invest in a special power, you have to go explore and find hidden treasures that give you those powers. likewise, many things that are typically repetitive, exhausting obstacles in these kind of games are simple and streamlined in OoT: having money makes life easier but you don't need to farm it to get some piece of equipment. enemies can occasionally be threatening, but most will die to a few sword swings. shops are useful but never necessary. so on and so on. the game just has this wonderful, brisk pacing lets you play how you want to play and focus on the adventure instead of the usual "gamey" bullshit. i suppose most of this applies to Zelda games as a whole, but OoT does it exceedingly well.

>> No.10425915

wow anon, its almost as if you've grown up and the same gimmicks of children's games dont still enthrall you all these years later.
>b-but i still replay mario64!
nostalgic bias is not an argument, anon.

>> No.10425939

I was underwhelmed by 3D World but loved Odyssey. I don’t think it’s an age thing, it’s just that everyone has their preferences with Mario games.

>> No.10425946

I prefer Banjo, then again there would be no Banjo without Mario 64.

>> No.10425965

3d world is more like galaxy. the levels are very linear. while some spots might be a bit fat and have that "exploration" to them, the goal is still at the end of the A-B route. 64, sunshine, and odyssey are all about repeatedly engaging in the same sandboxes, with exploration and engagement in every corner being rewarded. and actually on that point, 64 has the least reward/discovery for engagement, but as kids when 3d was new, we still autistically explored every empty nook and cranny because you never knew what you might find.

>> No.10425973

>IF I say it
>THEN everyone else is wrong
>unless they agree with me :)

>> No.10425986
File: 3.04 MB, 640x360, Brachio.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I wonder how many people complaining ITT literally just didn't like the controller(s) from Nintendo.

>> No.10425987

I can point out exactly how Mario Odyssey is less satisfying than 64, but you wouldn't want to hear it.
In a lot of ways, it's better. It's just that they stripped any amount of skill mastery out of the gameplay, and made it a game where you walk around picking shit up every five feet instead.

>> No.10426004

People need to stop making "best game of all time" lists in general, because it's a retarded concept. You fundamentally cannot compare a racing game to an RPG or a shooter, so there's no point.
Do I personally like OOT more than Metal Slug, Deus Ex, or Super Monkey Ball? I don't know. They're all excellent, and should all be considered among the best games ever, but how do you put them in any kind of order?

>> No.10426005

Anyone have the mario 64 webm of person A walking into the castle while hating the game while person B is diving and rolling out to the castle while having a good time?

>> No.10426008

3D World is also my favourite Mario.

>> No.10426016

I think I just prefer my 3D Mario games without time limits, so I wasn’t that big a fan of 3D Land/World. I love both Galaxies and Odyssey.

>> No.10426070

>any amount of skill mastery
neither game demands much of the player, but the hat dive/jumps objectively create more complex movement options. odyssey literally has all of the options that 64 has, and more. and no, im not talking about glitchy shit like backwards long jumping, im talking about actual design. well, i guess it doesnt have the dropkick slide, but was that ever necessary or useful? still more options though. there is no real "skill mastery" for required for any of the stars in 64, and if you want to argue about fancy movement tricks like you see in speedruns (tick tock clock for example), then you're just being disingenuous if you think suck things dont exist in odyssey.

now if you want to argue that "rewards are too bountiful, it does feel as impactful as needing to really climb and strive for the reward" thats a fair point, but a personal taste. personally, i LIKE finding meaningful rewards for engaging with otherwise pointless objects and places.

>> No.10426093

That second paragraph is why people prefer the limited movement of 64. Once you go for a jump, you have little influence until you land. In Odyssey you can flub a jump and course correct to safety without a problem. There's more risk and precision in 64, which is requires it's own set of skill mastery

>> No.10426101

OP is half-correct only because SM64's actual innovations were largely ignored by the industry to chase trends like having full analog movement and large open levels. Neither of these made the game great, it was the robust movement physics and non-linear collectables, but devs still haven't learned what people actually want and so SM64 retroactively takes the heat for what is essentially a competency crisis.

>> No.10426104

Super Mario 64 wasn't influential though...what did it influence? Hub worlds? Those already existed. Platforming? More modern games copied Tomb Raider than they did Mario 64. Design? Large worlds for you to explore at your leisure and progress naturally through were already done in Adventure games.

What EXACTLY did Mario 64 influence in terms of game design that was wholly original to itself and no others before it?

>> No.10426112


>> No.10426114
File: 556 KB, 663x837, 1580318053642.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>That second paragraph is why people prefer the limited movement of 64
my second paragraph has nothing to do with movement. its entirely about reward distribution. are you retarded?

you so confidently think you've made a point, when you didnt even say anything at all. while sure, you CAN correct course, you still have to "master" HOW to correct course, on top of recognizing that you've fucked up to begin with. while there might be more "risk" with 64's jumps, in that they require more commitment to the action, that has nothing to do with "skill mastery. the level of "skill mastery" remains exactly the same or greater in odyssey. knowing how far/high you can jump and recognizing distances is a skill that is the same in both games. while one may punish you for lacking that, so does the other one EXACTLY the same. while odyssey might have movement options that can mitigate that punishment, you still have to learn recognition of situation AND execution of those options. the notion that "you get punished and dont have options for safety when you make a bad call" equates to greater skill is laughably elitist and you just look like a clown.

>> No.10426137
File: 21 KB, 360x240, 1656778529717.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>influence does not inherently equate to greatness or quality
>thats all well and good, but i want to talk about innovations and devs not doing what i want
>i want to talk about a specific game's influence and ignore the point entirely. also, i want to ignore the concept of influence entirely, and pretend that being influenced means copying something it invented.

you guys are fucking retarded.

>> No.10426139

Mental illness.

>> No.10426146 [DELETED] 

> i want to ignore the concept of influence entirely, and pretend that being influenced means copying something it invented.
Yes, you retard. Influence is not something floating around in the aether, influence is something directly attributable to a previous innovator. Fucking brain-damaged tranime poster.

That only applies to 3D collectathons. Either way, it's a dead genre.

>> No.10426231
File: 74 KB, 250x323, Donkey_Kong_flier.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because it isn't?

>> No.10426248
File: 106 KB, 1355x1336, Tomb Raider (USA)_0005.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Platforming? More modern games copied Tomb Raider than they did Mario 64.
What other games ever used this bizarre assbackwards control set up?

>> No.10426249
File: 653 KB, 418x256, dkong_sample2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Is it?

>> No.10426265

The absolute cope.

>> No.10426270

Most of the moons are literally just "walk around and stumble into it" though. It's boring. Everything in 64 is framed like it's a proper little adventure you go on to retrieve a star.

>> No.10426272

nobody cares who did what first. they only care who did it well.

>> No.10426279

being influenced by something has nothing to do with whether it was innovative or the first to do it. all it means is that it is the thing that the person had experience with. somebody can be influenced by banjo kazooie, even though mario 64 did it first. somebody can be influenced by megaman 9, even though there are 8 games of the same shit before that. you are beyond retarded. its whatever the person has experience with.

>> No.10426319

between moons and purple coins, there is a lot to stumble into, and it all goes towards progression. other than "because its a video game, and im having fun" (which isnt what we're talking about. we're talking about actual rewards), what reason is there to engage with the boxes in 64? with enemies? with the random trees and empty fields? what is there to actually find, other than a few coins? and then theres also the fact of running past the same shit over and over just to get to the end point again. for odyssey, you progress through a world, checkpoint after checkpoint. if you meander, you find things along the way. receiving rewards encourages you to engage with every new thing you encounter. mario 64 has limited and distinct goals, which devalues most of the level.

while i can understand the argument that moons are "too common and cheapen the feel" by comparison, i had a lot more fun actually exploring and collecting. i feel like its disingenuous to call 64 "more exciting" at all, and only fair to say that each star brings a higher high than the moons do. i would also say that the high is short lived, because you just go in to the next objective. i find that a constant stream of "fuck yeah!" being more consistent was more fun than long periods of dryness with brief spikes of "fuck yeah".

>> No.10426369

Someone please explain this webm

>> No.10426374
File: 2.56 MB, 190x200, 1550454918655.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anon... it's lemurs walking but played in reverse

>> No.10426379

its a normal animal video in revers. because of how their tails look, in reverse it looks like dinosaurs.

>> No.10426382

Damn it's so convincing if you don't fullscreen it. Incredible. Thank you.

>> No.10426384

Np, yeah first time I saw it I went into /x/ mode then felt real stupid afterwards

>> No.10427732

not influence in a vacuum, influence as the result of the game being that good to begin with, it's so good it influences other games because devs look to it and want their game to be that good, so they model theirs after it. that Influence.

>> No.10427742

>they only care if a Nintendo game did it*


>> No.10427748

this is a good and explicit example of contrarian mental illness. influence absolutely contributes to a game's greatness.

>> No.10427753

No it doesn't.

>> No.10427763

So then Halo is a great and hugely influential game for inventing the 2 weapon limit in FPS's?

>> No.10427889

You're just downplaying Halo. It popularized dual analog stick controls for FPS, with the grendade mapped to a trigger you could easy lob one in the midst of combat, gunfights would play out like real time puzzles. The limit of two weapons also played a role in strategy, do you switch something out the first chance you can, or do you hold on to it hoping to find ammo. Each gun had a vastly different playstyle, and forced you to approach combat differently.

Halo also had godtier soundtrack, and the vehicles controlled splendidly. I can't even think of an FPS before the game, where vehicles played pivotal roles and you could drive and abandon them at your volition. The team ai was also intuitive, and they would pile in and help out in combat should you proposition them with a vehicle.

I agree with anon, you guys exhibit contrarian on a level comparable to illness.

>> No.10428059

>the two weapon limit is actually a good thing because [players had to compensate for the 2 weapon limit]
>further cope
>you guys are mentally ill

>> No.10428515 [DELETED] 

lol cope
u funny

>> No.10428546
File: 95 KB, 2048x1536, 1700255536645602.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

yea because most people are great am i right ?
the avengers is the best movie ever.

>> No.10428556

Mario 64 is barely even playable with its slog of retarded physics and "play the same level 6 times". I played and still play a shitton of games, but I always drop M64 after a few levels because of how fucking abysmal that game is.

>> No.10428845

>People often cite influence as a reason a game should be considered great. A game being influential in its genre or gaming as whole is not a sign HURR DURR DURR I HUFF MY OWN FARTS I AM VERY INTELLIGENT AND IT'S ALL THE OTHER KIDS WHO WOULDN'T BE MY FRIEND WHO ARE WRONG

>> No.10428863

>the avengers is the best movie ever.
It's not a terrible movie. It's not a deep, introspective, unique, insightful film. It's archetypal and accessible, so the fact it appeals to mass audiences should be easy to understand. That doesn't make it "bad", and it doesn't make you intelligent for standing against it.

Try not to cut yourself on the edge, anon. I know you need to express that you have a unique personality somehow, but "I hate all popular thing, me special" isn't it.

>> No.10428868

It's OK to criticize and even dislike popular things :)

>> No.10428873

Yes, but it's also blatantly obvious when you're just doing so to try and stand out from the crowd and claim some kind of unwarranted moral superiority for doing so. Your acid-dripping emoticon speaks loudly to this.

>> No.10428874

>It's not a terrible movie.
Don't lie to people on the internet, faggot

>> No.10428876

I am not that anon, now rethink your current position.

>> No.10428880

>I want to play e-games to win an internet slapfight
Not interested, claim whatever "victory" you want, it doesn't raise my esteem of you.

There's no need to reiterate my post since I was correct the first time, just reread it.

>> No.10428882

Nta, but you sound like the attention whore, not him. Why are you defending multi billion dollar corporations from criticism, bootlicker? How much are they paying you?

>> No.10428883

>Everyone acknowledges that popularity=/= quality.
Explain Smash and NSMB then

>> No.10428884

Another failed shitposter outed, may your superiority complex never wane.

>> No.10428886

>There's no need to reiterate my post since I was correct the first time, just reread it.
It's a fucking horrible movie, dipshit. You're a funcopop smoothbrain. Keep shilling for companies that hate you and want you to be a wall-e human. Fucking retard

>> No.10428913

>so the fact it appeals to mass audiences should be easy to understand. That doesn't make it "bad", and it doesn't make you intelligent for standing against it.
you got that all wrong,the point is that the masses are dumb and i stand against it BECAUSE i am intelligent.

>> No.10429270

You're supposed to wander around and discover the game in a non-linear order. If you're bored of a level, play a different level. It's designed that way on purpose.

>> No.10429281

See, I didn't get a constant stream of "fuck yeah!" at all. I had the sensation of Moons basically being lowered to the status of coins in a regular Mario game. They didn't feel fun to pick up on their own, which just created a hunger in me for some greater objective, which wasn't there.
All of the trash moons should have just been blue coins or something. And they should have saved moons for the real objectives that make you do something more involved than pounding a glowing spot on the ground.

>> No.10429515

That can be said about Gex3, but M64 is too vast and empty to enjoy it. Plus the awful controls and the physics.

>> No.10429540

NTA, but a lot of games copied Tomb Raider's control scheme on PC, PSX and Saturn. Very few, if any, ever figured out what made Tomb Raider's controls so great.

>> No.10429568

OP is grasping at straws because he doesn't want to admit that a popular is good, and judging from the picture it probably all steams from consolewar bullshit.

>> No.10429590

Super Mario 64 rules you zoomer faggot

>> No.10429632

not attached to be a big franchise so people aren't exposed to it.

>> No.10429875 [DELETED] 
File: 137 KB, 880x704, Orson-Welles-Citizen-Kane.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Fr bruh. Look at this black and white cringe. No rizz, no sauce, just a straight up L with no value ong.

>> No.10429904

If you had s3&k which is a arguably better than smw or smw2. Your anticipation for a badass 3d sonic would be extremely high. Now imagine seeing N64 enjoyers get one of the best 3d platformers to this day, on day one. Then you continue to wait, only to never get that 5th gen 3d sonic game. Looking at Pappa Sega with tears in your eyes.

>> No.10429908

and yet, the primary world objectives are still laid out for you, you get triple moons for it, and theres a bunch of fanfare (and "boss" fights). its there, but you're incapable of recognizing that its the same, just because the reward is of the same denomination as other stuff strewn about, then thats a mental block on your part. again, maybe you've just grown up and the same type of games/rewards dont excite you the same way they used to, while nostalgia still tricks you into the same old brain patterns for things you played long ago.

>> No.10429935
File: 62 KB, 976x995, Fe7XVhoWAAANVb-.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I love these "popular = bad" takes. You really don't see the irony in what you're saying at all, do you?
Immediately dismissing something as bad because its popular is the exact thing you're complaining about, just in reverse.
You, like the people you complain about, are unable to judge the quality of a product in a vacuum.

>> No.10429939

stop getting distracted by the picture and missing the point. also stop inferring that the implication is that he's making any commentary on something being bad. all he's saying is that influence has no relation to quality. influence is only indicative of exposure. are good things generally more exposed to people? yes. but exposure does not indicate quality directly. being influenced by something does not indicate overall quality, because you can be influenced by a small aspect or even vague feeling of something. hell, you can be influenced by something in a way like "all i know is, i DIDNT want it to be like this". you're missing the point entirely, and presuming its some sort of attack on a specific game. all it is is an attack on the arguments people make. influence is not an argument for quality. argue about actual quality, leave influence out of the discussion. thats it.

christ fuck, learn to read.

>> No.10429942

>i love these "popular = bad" takes
and yet, he didnt say anything of the sort. learn to read, retard.

>> No.10429951

>Everyone acknowledges that popularity=/= quality.

>> No.10429962


>> No.10429963
File: 1.52 MB, 400x225, mustnt laugh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Everyone acknowledges that popularity=/= quality.
>this means that popularity = bad
you're fucking retarded.
let me spell it out for you. all it means is that popularity is not indicative of whether something is good OR bad. it has no bearing on quality. while good things do tend to be more popular, there is plenty of SLOP that is lapped up by the masses. popularity does not indicate anything about quality. if you interpret that statement as "therefor i think that popularity means its bad", then you're beyond saving and you should probably do your family a favor and kill yourself.

>> No.10429996
File: 100 KB, 977x970, D9okQDKW4AA5rSo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Your entire argument is that a game being influential doesn't mean its a good game, which is just retarded.
I'm going to assume you're from gen Z, because you guys are the only generation who seems to get filtered by older products like this.
Even fucking gen alpha kids are able to sit down and have fun with super mario on the NES. Your generation is the only one who throws a fit and pulls these mental gymnastics to try and explain away why the game is actually shit.
You should really sit down and consider why everyone else ITT is dumpstering on you, but you guys don't do that. You'll just handwave it away and make up another retarded rationalization for why everyone else but you is actually wrong.

>> No.10430006

Games are all about mental tricks, ultimately, and when the illusion fails, that's a problem.

>> No.10430020

>Your entire argument is that a game being influential doesn't mean its a good game
Nta, but it's true. Taste is subjective. Some people think mgs is a horrible movie game that ruined gaming forever, but it's still influential. Op used sm64 pic as a bait tactic. He didbt say one thing about sm64, he let you useful idiots do all the assuming.

>> No.10430051
File: 471 KB, 1235x695, 1678907653099159.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

what exactly is the purpose of this thread beyond being bait? To express yet again that popularity =/= quality? This isn't even really vidya related. Just sub the gaming terms for literally any other industry terms and it's the same shit

>> No.10430059

Everything on this board is bait, but I will take the opportunity to discuss what I like about Mario 64, because I find the discussion engaging.

>> No.10430108
File: 39 KB, 349x642, fuckoff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>He didbt say one thing about sm64, he let you useful idiots do all the assuming.

>> No.10430153

Something being influential generally means it was good, yes. Influential things weren’t always mainstream popular when they were current however.

>> No.10430491

>Pokemon makes loads of money splitting games into two versions
>other games copied the two versions gimmick because it makes money
the fact that others copied doesn't mean that Pokemon is itself good.

>> No.10430519

mario 64 is still fantastic, because the core movement of mario is so satisfying. no other mario game has copied it successfully

>> No.10430524

I think you’re focusing on the wrong aspect of what makes Pokemon good here.

>> No.10430525

Fucking /thread

>> No.10430543

>what is Doom
stop replying to your own posts.

>> No.10430547

Nobody said anything about pretending. The context is in your face. You can seethe about it at the copium den. what I said is true and you had absolutely no argument whatsoever so you decided to apply flawed logic, kudos

>> No.10430550 [DELETED] 

Literally not him, just sick of the Nintendie revisionist history

>> No.10431339

>Your entire argument is that a game being influential doesn't mean its a good game, which is just retarded.
im sorry that such a simple concept eludes you. your nonsense about generations was cute though, but it still did nothing to support your claim OR refute mine/op's. the only one "dumpstered" is you for failing to understand such a basic concept. you can scream contrarian nonsense all you want, but it doesnt make it true.
being influential doesnt mean its good
being influential doesnt mean its bad
being influential literally says nothing about the actual quality of the product
all that being influenced by it means is that the person was exposed to it and took note of something about it.
thats it.
its not a hard concept.
if you view influence as a metric of accomplishment or something, thats great for you an all, but it does not denote quality of any kind, good OR bad.
again, if you cant understand that, i think that you're beyond help, and you should probably consider suicide before you drag your family and others around you down more, especially with the holidays coming up.

>> No.10431524

>Everyone acknowledges that popularity=/= quality.
I wish. Try going on >>>/pw/ sometime.

>> No.10431530

Influence is a contradiction
>Our criteria for this uber-list of games consisted of a variety of factors, including how good the game was compared to others at the time, the overall game design, how well it stood up over the long-haul, how influential it was in the realm of gaming and just plain how much fun we had playing the damn things.
See here, they say how much it held up but then it's contradiction with influence meaning outdated games will still be high just for being really good before they were outdated.

>> No.10431570

this is why tetris mogs all others. hugely popular, concise game that accomplishes its design objectives, still holds up as playable and smooth today, exposed a lot of people to video games, as well as influenced many to want to make something as simple, popular, accessible, and successful. it even has an incredibly high skill ceiling.

>> No.10431576

It's a mobile game

>> No.10431589

complexity does not inherently mean quality. theres nothing wrong with being a simple game.

>> No.10433718

Good thing that doesnt apply to SM64. It's a genuinely good game with amazing movement and momentum, alongside it's sandbox style levels that let you progress however you like.