The Post Your Thoughts of the Moment Thread 2

[mikey]

You know how some people will never accept triforce heroes as a sequel to albw? I imagine it's like that only for slightly different reasons

[Dudeman]

...Triforce Heroes is nowhere near being a sequel to ALBW in the same way that Galaxy 2 is to Galaxy 1. TFH is focused on three-person multiplayer, with costumes as a gimmick, with a story that functions mostly as a spin-off to the Zelda universe. The only ties it has to ALBW are the art style. That's it. ALBW in and of itself is more of a sequel to ALttP (in fact, it's called Triforce of the Gods 2 in Japan). It features traditional Zelda gameplay with dungeons across a large overworld and item-based progression (if more freeform than its predecessors).
Galaxy 2 is literally an expansion to Galaxy 1. The core gameplay and engine are exactly the same. This is an apples-and-oranges comparison you're making. TFH is not comparable to ALBW in the same way that Galaxy 2 is to Galaxy 1. Try again.

[mikey]

You're really kinda coming across as unnecessarily antagonistic rn
Sorry you didn't like my comparison galaxy 2 just feels different dude

[Splatoon Inkling]

It was a really good game. I also likes how at the end you actually get to collect the green stars instead of playing the whole game over again, but as Luigi. I like the new power ups, and orchestral music. Actually I do have one friend who didn't ever really care for galaxy, he said it was just so different from the Mario games that he didn't, but really I think that's what makes it so great. Mario Odyssey is really good, but in some places I feel it actually breaks too far away (I really liked the bowser castles in Mario Galaxy 1, and 2. They were just made out so well.) In Mario Odyssey he's literally coming to a Chinese palace. Although Cappy was a good replacement for items, I could go on much longer. These aren't necessarily bad, but it doesn't make for something I would consider to be a sequel to galaxy. It feels more like a game that got ideas from the different 3d Mario games, changed some things, and created Mario Odyssey.

[Maelstrom]

late but I actually agree with Noc. Galaxy 2 felt like a bland level pack for galaxy 1. The worlds were bland and new ideas felt stale. This doesn't mean it was a bad game, but it pales in comparison to galaxy 1.

[LeviR.star]

Can agree with Maelstrom here because he actually explained himself.

[Bobbythekid21]

I never had a chance to play SMG2 but the original SMG is in my top 5 favorite videogames of all time.

[Splatoon Inkling]

I see your point, but I still think Nintendo should make a third (not Odyssey) that has more changes, and additions, but not so much that it feels to Odysseyish or something unlike Mario Galaxy. I mean Nintendo has the power over that, but my whole point from the beginning essentially was that I really liked the first 2 Mario Galaxies, and really hope they make a 3rd.

[The Deku Trombonist]

For me Galaxy 2 felt a little bit too linear. Not that Galaxy 1 wasn't, but it felt less so. I preferred the open feel of games like SM64 or SMS.

[SlowPokemon]

My general opinion is that Galaxy and Galaxy 2 are both too linear, but that can't stop me from enjoying the insane levels of creativity on display in the level design.

[cashwarrior1]

I never understood the problem with a game like mario being linear. Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 weren't designed to be nonlinear, so it shouldn't be viewed that way. Mario 64, sunshine, and odyssey were designed with nonlinearity in mind. Nintendo themselves categorize Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 both as a stage clear mario game. Meaning you play a level to reach the end goal, and that's it. I think you should watch Barry Kramer's video on the topic. His argument is that Mario Galaxy is a stage clear game, but it's not a good stage clear game. He argues that the levels were designed in a way that made the player want to explore in a nonlinear fashion, but then tells the player to follow a specific path. I think he brings up some good points.

Also, I also would like to see a Super Mario Galaxy 3, but I think it's best for Nintendo to do what they've been doing and move on to different ideas.

[Tobbeh99]

My opinion on Galaxy 1 and 2, is I think that Galaxy 2 is a sequel to 1. But I do agree that they are similar. But that doesn't mean that they can't be sequel. Usually a sequel is pretty similar to the one before. And I personally liked Galaxy 2 more than 1. I find it richer and more fun just. Like the first one was really good, but the second was even better! Also the first one seems more chill and a bit dark, sort of nighty-esque, while the second one seems more light and bright and joyful. Although Odessy is sort of similar in the theme of traveling. But gameplay-wise I think that Oddessy is a bit different, and more like Super Mario 64, or maybe Super Mario Sunshine.

[LeviR.star]

For me Galaxy 2 felt a little bit too linear. Not that Galaxy 1 wasn't, but it felt less so. I preferred the open feel of games like SM64 or SMS.

I feel like this is especially true. For one thing, a lot of my fun came from the free-roaming of entire galaxies like Honeyhive and Shiverburn, which made the time limit-less purple coin missions very enjoyable (at least in my opinion). When they made all purple coin missions in Galaxy 2 timed, I was a little disappointed. This, along with the increased number of side-scrolling segments and the new galaxy selection maps made the sequel feel a little too linear. Still, all in all, Super Mario Galaxy 2 is by no means a bad game.

Also, an official infograph, for those on the Odyssey debate: https://www.mariowiki.com/File:3D_Mario_Infograph.jpg

[mikey]

It was a really good game. I also likes how at the end you actually get to collect the green stars instead of playing the whole game over again, but as Luigi. I like the new power ups, and orchestral music. Actually I do have one friend who didn't ever really care for galaxy, he said it was just so different from the Mario games that he didn't, but really I think that's what makes it so great. Mario Odyssey is really good, but in some places I feel it actually breaks too far away (I really liked the bowser castles in Mario Galaxy 1, and 2. They were just made out so well.) In Mario Odyssey he's literally coming to a Chinese palace. Although Cappy was a good replacement for items, I could go on much longer. These aren't necessarily bad, but it doesn't make for something I would consider to be a sequel to galaxy. It feels more like a game that got ideas from the different 3d Mario games, changed some things, and created Mario Odyssey.

galaxy wasn't exactly the same as sunshine, odyssey wasn't exactly the same as galaxy (and in fact odyssey is quite different because no hub world and story is set up a bit differently and there's much less platforming in favor of more adventure/exploration) but I still see them all as sequels to SM64

maybe what I mean is that galaxy 2 is a galaxy sequel and not a SM64 sequel and that's why it's so different

[Dudeman]

I apologize for my aggressive tone, I notice I've been a lot more sarcastic and flippant than usual during the past week or so and I'm not sure why that is. These are bideo blames, why am I getting heated about this

maybe what I mean is that galaxy 2 is a galaxy sequel and not a SM64 sequel and that's why it's so different

Phrasing it that way actually makes a lot more sense. I can see what you're getting at more clearly.