|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Nov 23, 2009 6:15:58 GMT -5
Well, the biggest surprise for me playing alone is that even though I died less (largely because you can't scroll the screen too far as there's only one of you) it's still a bloody difficult game... There's still some stages where I just ignore the secrets and Star Coins because I just want to survive! Some of those castles are extremely cruel  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2009 10:02:26 GMT -5
I've played multiplayer a couple times and it is crazy fun. I know from past experience that my group of buddies doesn't like competitive gaming in a co-op game, and I have to agree with them, so we do our best to not screw each other over (though it winds up happening anyway because of how the game was designed). That doesn't keep us from having the Frustrated Guy, though. >_> What can you do.
But we've been doing good so far! In both multiplayer playthroughs, we've made it to World 3 without anybody using continues. But given how much World 3 sucks in general, I wouldn't be surprised if that streak gets flushed down the toilet...
|
|
|
|
Post by Da Robot on Nov 25, 2009 4:23:34 GMT -5
Famitsu gave NSMBWii a 40/40 review score . . . which is like the 3rd or 4th . . . this year. Also Iwata Asks for the game is now up. Has lot of info that also not about NSMBWii Including: - Wanting Mario's name being Mr Video originally. - The original Donkey Kong game was going to star Popeye - Why paratroopas exist - Why the pipes are green - SM64 having Mario/Luigi multiplayer |
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Nov 25, 2009 9:45:20 GMT -5
Points 1, 2 and 5 already know. The reast, I knew them from the Japanese version.
Anyway... This is the first Mario game to get 40/40. And no, Famitsu is NOT a good objective reviewer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flip on Nov 25, 2009 14:49:07 GMT -5
Man oh man... I finally played last night with a group of friends who are all very snobbish, hardcore gamers. INSANE. We all had to start playing at exactly the same time without any practice on solo-mode (they're that choosey), and well... it was a total shitshow. I loved it! We fought for lives, Penguin Suits, totally stomped people into lava to make it to safety... Controllers were thrown if we couldn't get to fight the boss, we would argue over where to go on the map screen, and the two Mario vets in the room (inc. myself) were cussing left and right at the non-Mario players whenever they forgot to hold the Dash button or screwed us out of a perfect flagpole finish.
Man... what a genius idea.
My only gripe is that the game is way too short (already halfway finished in one night of four-player). And don't say "STAR COINZ LOL" because we've been consistently clearing stages with 2 or 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Nov 25, 2009 15:08:36 GMT -5
STAR COINZ LOL
Okay, seriously, regardless of what Nintendo says, it's rather hard to find satisfying Mario games. I think Nintendo still fears losing expected market for a big game like that. What I don't like is the fact that it has 78 stages. To me, a good game is one that takes at least 100 hours to finish.
If you want challenge, look for SMW ROM hacks. Those are insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiker of Games on Nov 25, 2009 15:15:19 GMT -5
100 Hours? I think the problem with those games is that they are not as legitimately long as they may seem. When you have a game built entirely on randomly constructed dungeons or battles, then its easy to artificially inflate the length of the game to be as long as you want it to be. Take an RPG game and replace it with Tetris and you get the same result (of course you'll probably want to make sure you level up your bricks just in case).
That makes for an addicting game and a lengthy one, but that doesn't necessarily mean its a good game.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Nov 25, 2009 18:38:46 GMT -5
Okay, seriously, regardless of what Nintendo says, it's rather hard to find satisfying Mario games. Speak fo' yo'self, foo'. 100 hours is ridiculous. To me a great game is one I can finish in a few hours, but want to go back to again and again for the rest of my life. Which describes all the Mario platformers. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Nov 25, 2009 18:50:19 GMT -5
100 hours is retarded. I don't have 100 hours to spend on a single game. Hell, the most time I've ever racked up on a game was the original Pokemon at around 50 hours, which was mostly levelling up... and I played that in short bursts for months! No game I have ever played has taken me 100 hours to complete.
The original Super Mario Bros. has, if playing fully for the first time, around 1-2 hours of gameplay. SMB2 has around the same, SMB3 has around 3 hours, SMW has around 3 hours, NSMB had around 3 hours. I'm still working my way through NSMBWii and I have hit the 4 hour mark for the single-player game. As far as I'm concerned, that's money well-spend on a 2D Mario platformer.
Of course, if a game has really good replay value, that's different, but when a developer talks about how many hours of gameplay you get, that is NOT what they are referring to.
YL... what game have you played that has taken you 100 hours? And was every hour an entertaining and enjoyable experience, or just a way to waste away the hours in an ever-decreasing life?
|
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Nov 25, 2009 19:15:14 GMT -5
I have deduced that YL is an extremely poor judge of quality in games. |
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Nov 26, 2009 4:33:01 GMT -5
Sorry for my misuse of language, but I'm talking about my personal preference here. To me, a good game is one that takes at least 100 hours to finish. And I think facing the same level again and again is kinda boring once gameplay prolong. And it's not that I have much to do, so I'm feeling free to waste my life away on nothingness. |
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Nov 26, 2009 11:03:45 GMT -5
OK then. Say you have a game where you're a pear that does nothing but walk up staircases ad nauseum. If this hypothetical game took 100 hours to complete, that would automatically validate it as a good game in your eyes? |
|
|
|
Post by Hiker of Games on Nov 26, 2009 11:06:13 GMT -5
Only if the pear is a complete badass.
|
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Nov 26, 2009 11:44:37 GMT -5
OK then. Say you have a game where you're a pear that does nothing but walk up staircases ad nauseum. If this hypothetical game took 100 hours to complete, that would automatically validate it as a good game in your eyes? Ahahahaha, that's a good read! Okay then I'll play as a pear =P  (Image by Ursulav of dA)Okay, not really. Let me put it this way then... Let's say, I'll like a game if it force-combines SMB1, SMB2J, SMB2U, SMB3, SML, SMW, SML2, New SMB DS and New SMB Wii. Because the game will then be really worthy of the money and time - I don't think we get new SMB games very often, no? Wait for 3 years and you get... about one month's worth of gameplay if you play slowly. All these can be solved easily with custom levels =P And it's not like 100-hour games do not exist. Counting in the reset times and if you aim for 100% completion by playing the game multiple times, games from Fire Emblem series can give you hundreds of hours of play easily - although I must say, this is not something everyone will enjoy. But for me, do this and I have no need to buy new games for quite a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Nov 26, 2009 11:55:27 GMT -5
You see, I enjoy the experience of being constantly challenged. I would prefer an exciting game to last just half an hour than a level grinding game that last 20.
The fact that Mario games in the last few years have lasted me in the region of 6-10 hours, and are constantly challenging and fun, I feel I got my money's worth. If I was doing the same thing over and over for those 10 hours, I would feel cheated.
|
|
