Super Mario Galaxy 2

[SuperStingray]

Yeah, the Wii really can't handle DLC too well. Why should this be DLC if they had to put Rock Band DLC onto separate disks?

Also, I'm not too concerned about this being a rehash. Miyamoto himself said that the only reason this game exists is because he had a lot of ideas left that didn't make it into the original, so that must count for something. The Regginator also confirmed it would be a lot tougher.

[Toothpaste]

SMG2? DLC? You guys really don't know how much space the Wii has (It's 512MB FLASH memory. Yes that's right, stick a 512MB Memory Stick in instead of their drive, and it'd be the same), and how much space this would take as DLC. You seem to also neglect to notice Nintendo use DVD's for their system.

Let's keep on building on this, with the amount of models, new textures and new features. It just seriously wouldn't fit on a wii "hard drive". It'd only be DLC if it was small. Implying small changing, considering the vast ammount of additions to the game. It could never be Wii DLC (Hell, the Wii could never handle DLC well anyway. Get your SD cards out!)

That's why I said if the Wii had more focus on online. Guess I wasn't clear enough...if the Wii was meant to be big on online connectivity like the 360 and PS3 (theoretically), obviously there would be a bigger hard drive to support that and I knew this already. I'm not saying I actually expected SMG2 to be DLC, I just said it could have been (as in theoretically) if the Wii's specs were good enough, but they're not. I don't think putting in Sonic is a great idea either, I was just using that as an example because that would at least be something new to beef up the game's content if anything. I'm not "hating" on the game, I'd be saying much worse if I were. I don't think this game will be bad (I still have faith in Nintendo, I loved the first Galaxy and I think this one will be amazing), I just can't help but wonder how it's going to be amaze me because what's been shown so far doesn't look that impressive IMO, and the game is coming out soon. I guess after the big differences between 64, Sunshine, and the first Galaxy I was expecting a bit more for the newest 3D Mario game regardless of the big "2" in the title. Not a total reboot, but still something a bit more than what we've seen. I guess that could change by the time the game is out, but given how close the release date is I can't help but be skeptical.

I used to play the Tony Hawk games (THPS3-American Wasteland), so sequels that aren't too different isn't a foreign thing to me. I guess the fact that DLC pops up more often now than it did back in those days is also making me raise my expectations a bit high, combined with all the money I've invested in The Sims and their expansion packs.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Captain THPS4

[blackherox]

I would like you to dig up the interview if you don't mind. The game was announced as Super Mario Galaxy 2 and everything I've heard Miyamoto say was about how the development team had so many unexplored ideas they could use for the Galaxy formula so they decided to make a sequel.

Here it is, http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/e3-mario-galaxy-2-is-90-per-cent-new Also expnasion pack doesn't nessecraily equal DLC. They could have always released it full retail as Super Mario Galaxy 1.5.

Obvioulsy. But it doesn't stop people complaining about the similarties with said predecessor, people did it with M@S 2 for example (some in this topic) so Galaxy 2

is no different.

Same point as above really. In the end I was merely addressing you quote when you listed those games. I have no problem with the sequel of Galaxy 2 sequel, although there were parts of the originally Galaxy I really did not like that I see returning so obviously I'm going to personally rate it lower than he originally.

[SykoTech]

Thanks for the link. I had heard the part about Galaxy 2 running on stuff they couldn't fit in the first game, but I never heard that "Let's make Galaxy 1.5" line before. Guess that further explains why it just seems like more of the same instead of an improvement in any area. Not a really bad thing of course (Sonic & Knuckles rocked), but a bit underwhelming in this day and age.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Tentomon

[Diogenes]

but a bit underwhelming in this day and age.

I don't see why. It's not as if this is actually replacing an entirely new entry; even if they weren't working on this, we most likely still wouldn't see an all-new 3D Mario until the Wii 2 (or whatever they call it). We're just getting a double dose of this generation's 3D Mario.

[azoo]

I don't see why people are considering SMG2 an "expansion pack", especially considering that if any game that was based off the exact same stuff but with different levels and such, there'd only be ONE first person shooter out there in the market, and only one music game.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Azukara

[SykoTech]

I don't see why. It's not as if this is actually replacing an entirely new entry; even if they weren't working on this, we most likely still wouldn't see an all-new 3D Mario until the Wii 2 (or whatever they call it). We're just getting a double dose of this generation's 3D Mario.

When you look at the big picture like that sure, but I was just focusing on this sequel itself. While I do think it's nice they are giving us more, I'm not too big on buying more of the same, at least not for full price. The only sequels I go for like that nowadays are the ones that are vastly superior to the original in all categories. Galaxy 2 is not that. I'm still going to rent this for sure though.

[Toby]

The only sequels I go for like that nowadays are the ones that are vastly superior to the original in all categories. Galaxy 2 is not that.

So you've played it then? Do tell. What's it like?

[speedfreak]

The only sequels I go for like that nowadays are the ones that are vastly superior to the original in all categories. Galaxy 2 is not that. I'm still going to rent this for sure though.

Almost no sequels are ever "vastly superior in all categories" though. I guess you're a new IP kinda guy? I personally think the first Galaxy was fantastic and I would gladly slap down $50 for more of the same. Though SMG2 is said to have at least 90% new content anyway.

[DarkOverord]

When you look at the big picture like that sure, but I was just focusing on this sequel itself. While I do think it's nice they are giving us more, I'm not too big on buying more of the same, at least not for full price. The only sequels I go for like that nowadays are the ones that are vastly superior to the original in all categories. Galaxy 2 is not that. I'm still going to rent this for sure though.

Don't assume. Nintendo Sequels are normally known to be more enjoyable than the original. Unless you literally mean that it needs a new game mechanic in every game? A new gimick? Isn't that Yoshi, and the new power ups? Isn't that the new levels? The new music which inevitably going to appear?

Doesn't it make more sense to assume it's not superior after a few reviewers have got hold of a review copy :B?

[SykoTech]

So you've played it then? Do tell. What's it like?

Yeah, yeah. I know I haven't played it. It's not I'm condemning the game or anything. It's just that based on the gameplay, graphics, and music I've seen/heard so far, it seems like more of the first Galaxy. Once

again, not a bad thing. Just not something I get very excited about.

Almost no sequels are ever "vastly superior in all categories" though. I guess you're a new IP kinda guy? I personally think the first Galaxy was fantastic and I would gladly slap down $50 for more of the same. Though SMG2 is said to have at least 90% new content anyway.

"Vastly superior" was a bit much, I'll admit. But I generally want a completely upgraded experience. Ratchet & Clank for example. I'm a huge R&C fanboy but I was a little disappointed with Tools of Destruction because, aside from the graphics, story, and music, most of it was just like the PS2 games with a few added gimmicks. It was still fun, but underwhelming. A Crack in Time however, was much better because it not only improved the graphics, a new story, and added unique music, but also made huge improvements to Clank's gameplay, space travel, and level design. Even small things like the way Ratchet's movements handled felt improved. It still maintained the staples of the franchise, but made the entire experience feel fresh. That's what I want in a sequel.

And (so far) Galaxy 2 is falling a bit short IMO. Graphics look the same, music sounds the same, controls look the same, etc. If I wanted to be nitpicky like the people complaining about Sonic 4, I could say that the enemies are just copied-n-pasted from the first Galaxy. Not gonna go there though.

The level design is new, which is great. Some added gimmicks are appreciated too (Yoshi). But it's just not enough for me.

Also, truth be told, while I liked the first Galaxy, I was pretty much done with it once I beat the game with Luigi. Don't know why, but I've only gone back to it a few times, mainly for Melty Molten Galaxy (kickass), but I've never replayed it entirely. So, Galaxy 2 would have to get a lot of assurance that its not more of the same for me to purchase it.

Don't assume. Nintendo Sequels are normally known to be more enjoyable than the original. Unless you literally mean that it needs a new game mechanic in every game? A new gimick? Isn't that Yoshi, and the new power ups? Isn't that the new levels? The new music which inevitably going to appear?

Doesn't it make more sense to assume it's not superior after a few reviewers have got hold of a review copy :B?

Yes, it makes sense to wait and see....hence why I am still waiting. I haven't written it off, just giving my impression so far.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Tentomon

[Cortez]

The only sequels I go for like that nowadays are the ones that are vastly superior to the original in all categories.

God knows why you're at a Sonic forum then, we haven't had a game 'vastly superior to the original' since 1994 lmao!

Also, how 95% new content (the other 5% presumably being just the Galaxy engine and controls) is not enough for this to be different from the original is incredibly backwards thinking.

[SykoTech]

God knows why you're at a Sonic forum then, we haven't had a game 'vastly superior to the original' since 1994 lmao!

Also, how 95% new content (the other 5% presumably being just the Galaxy engine and controls) is not enough for this to be different from the original is incredibly backwards thinking.

If you think that every Sonic game since then has been a direct sequel, then I don't know what to say. So I'll just take that as your attempt to be funny.

And I'd rather trust what I can actually observe myself than put my faith in a PR statistic. kthx.

[Cortez]

If you think that every Sonic game since then has been a direct sequel, then I don't know what to say. So I'll just take that as your attempt to be funny.

And I'd rather trust what I can actually observe myself than put my faith in a PR statistic. kthx.

Well every main game upto Shadow the Hedgehog essentially was if you want to get technical. But yeah, I was joking.

Also, I still don't see why you're so determined to hate this game. You've even said you enjoyed the original enough to play through it twice, and I think everyone can agree that beyond Luigi's game there was little replay value. 95% new content is probably the same amount as ALL direct sequels if you take the engine and such into consideration. Sonic 2 wasn't 100% new content, and neither were Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles yet nobody can argue that those games were brought down by similarities to previous games.

For God's sake Pokemon GSC reused practically the entirely of RBY in Kanto's story, did anybody complain? Fuck no, those games were sheer perfection at the time.

You're way of looking at this game is horribly flawed, using your logic any game that reuses the engine from it's precedator could be a mission pack and that's just not true. The amount of content they've added to this game makes it much much more than some mission pack and if you looked beyond 'oh the graphics and music are similar' you'd realise it.

[SykoTech]

Well every main game upto Shadow the Hedgehog essentially was if you want to get technical. But yeah, I was joking.

Also, I still don't see why you're so determined to hate this game. You've even said you enjoyed the original enough to play through it twice, and I think everyone can agree that beyond Luigi's game there was little replay value. 95% new content is probably the same amount as ALL direct sequels if you take the engine and such into consideration. Sonic 2 wasn't 100% new content, and neither were Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles yet nobody can argue that those games were brought down by similarities to previous games.

For God's sake Pokemon GSC reused practically the entirely of RBY in Kanto's story, did anybody complain? Fuck no, those games were sheer perfection at the time.

You're way of looking at this game is horribly flawed, using your logic any game that reuses the engine from it's precedator could be a mission pack and that's just not true. The amount of content they've added to this game makes it much much more than some mission pack and if you looked beyond 'oh the graphics and music are similar' you'd realise it.

Determined to hate it? I said I was still planning to rent and enjoy it. If Nintendo would actually drop their prices, I'd buy it at some point. Just because I'm not forcing myself to love everything about it doesn't mean that I'm trying to hate it either. There is something else other than those 2 extremes.

The Sonic games you bring up were back in the 90s. Sorry, but I think my standards might have changed since then. For instance, say the next Sonic game was to have controls exactly like Unleashed, be designed just like Unleashed, have a story that's nearly the same as Unleashed, and have the exact same graphics as Unleashed (all despite coming out 3 years later). The locations would be different (France, Japan, etc.), some gimmicks would be added (ummm, Super Sonic?), and the music tracks would be different (same style though). Now I'm a guy who throughly enjoyed Unleashed, especially the Daytime stages. But I'd be pretty underwhelmed to see a sequel like that head my way. I'd still want to play it, just like I still want to play Galaxy 2, but it wouldn't be something I'd be dying to run out and buy.

I'm just gonna skip the Pokemon part. Given my distaste for that franchise and how popular it is on these boards, I'd probably be flamed with hellfire if I was to speak against it. Not to mention de-rail the thread.

Bottom line is, I'm not the type that wants to buy something new to get an experience that's the same. Well, at least not for more than $30. While Galaxy may have "95% new content" in level design and stuff, a lot of the elements are a carbon copy of the first Galaxy. They're not as important of course, but their still a vital part of the experience. Forgive me for being demanding, but I prefer for developers to upgrade all areas of sequels. If not improve, at least make it different ever so slighty. Nintendo doesn't seem to be making an effort to do this.

Maybe speedfreak was right. I may be more of a new IP guy since I'm always garanuteed a fresh experience from them. But I certainly don't hate sequels. I'm all for them as long as they signifcantly stand out when compared to their predecessor. I don't really see how that's asking for too much. Well, given how Nintendo typically releases one 3D Mario game per generation, I guess it was asking too much for them to make another game and go all out with it. Can't expect everyone to be like Naughty Dog.

[SykoTech]

Seems I might of killed this topic with my complaints, so in favor of dropping it and moving on, here's some news.

http://www.destructoid.com/super-mario-galaxy-2-won-t-have-a-hub-world-168568.phtml

Not that big of a deal IMO. The Hubs of the original Galaxy weren't that big of a deal anyway. Though it makes me think Rosalina might not get a significant part (or show up at all) which would be saddening.

[Blue Blood]

D=

What a shame. The hub in Galaxy sucked because it was a backwards step from Peach's Castle and Delfino Plaza. It was small, there were no secrets and there was nothing to do. Now rather than fix that, they decided to go the obliteration route. Having a fun hub to run around is great because you can do all the things you normally do except you can focus on whatever you like and don't have to worry about dying. They're just playgrounds. Why scrap it in favour of a menu?

[SuperLink]

Yeah it's what I've been complaining about. The little Mario Planet doesn't look too bad, but geez, Miyamoto's "reasoning" is pathetic stock response garbage. He basically didn't want to say they were too lazy to make an amazing hub.

The idea that a 3D Mario can be 100% enhanced without a hub is bogus, and noone can ever prove otherwise. The hubs are what made 3D Mario what they are. Yes, Galaxy's hub was pretty crap, but how does it feel that we'll never get a hub as good as the Castle or Delfino again? Feels bad man.

[Diogenes]

Seems like it's always "pathetic stock garbage" and being "lazy" when it's something you don't like.

They're streamlining the game, cutting out the blundering around in the hub and getting you into the meat of the game faster. You might not think it's the best way to go, but it's not an unreasonable decision, and the reasoning certainly doesn't seem like an outright lie.

[SuperLink]

and the reasoning certainly doesn't seem like an outright lie.

Yes it does, what kind of gamer finds a hub world "too confusing"? Ffs, it's like Nintendo really are marketing to babies, and I know people who played and loved Mario 64 as toddlers.

It's like I said before, the idea that removing a hub can make a game better is bogus. Anyone who honestly believes that a 3D Mario using a stage select is better than a 3D Mario using a 64/Sunshine quality hub is lying to themselves.

You don't need to "streamline" adventure platformers. 3D Mario has always been just as much adventure as it has platforming. Take away the hub, and the adventure part just "poof" disappears.

I'm gonna quote something awesome someone said on another forum:

Lack of supprise's or exploration IS a big deal.

Thats what made Mario64's castle so great, it was the exploring, and not knowing that you would find.

This made system, by comparison, looks like we always know exactly whats coming. It looks more primative then Mario Worlds, for that mater.

Edited March 23, 2010 by SuperLink

[Carbo]

Seems I might of killed this topic with my complaints, so in favor of dropping it and moving on, here's some news.

http://www.destructoid.com/super-mario-galaxy-2-won-t-have-a-hub-world-168568.phtml

Not that big of a deal IMO. The Hubs of the original Galaxy weren't that big of a deal anyway. Though it makes me think Rosalina might not get a significant part (or show up at all) which would be saddening.

Awesome. My inerest in this game is a bit more raised now.

[Diogenes]

Yes it does, what kind of gamer finds a hub world "too confusing"? Ffs, it's like Nintendo really are marketing to babies, and I know people who played and loved Mario 64 as toddlers.

Considering how pissy you're getting over this, maybe they are.

As far as I can tell, he never said it was "too confusing". He's just simplifying it, making it easier and quicker to get to the actual meat of the game. Is it for the casual players? Partially. But it makes things smoother for everyone.

It's like I said before, the idea that removing a hub can make a game better is bogus.

Funny, I've heard plenty of people complaining about the hubs in Sonic games...with some pretty valid reasons, too...

Anyone who honestly believes that a 3D Mario using a stage select is better than a 3D Mario using a 64/Sunshine quality hub is lying to themselves.

So having to wander around a pointless area to find something actually worth playing is automatically and undeniably better than being able to jump into the action immediately? There's no possible value in having the levels easily found and accessed in a few button presses rather than having to run to one end or the other of some random area to get to them?

Oh, wait, I forgot, you're the guy in charge of everyone else's opinions. Sorry, carry on.

You don't need to "streamline" adventure platformers.

So you can just toss whatever shit you want in there and it's okay? There's never going to be a case where something would be improved by trimming extraneous junk? Horseshit.

3D Mario has always been just as much adventure as it has platforming. Take away the hub, and the adventure part just "poof" disappears.

3D Mario is changing. If you don't like the direction that's one thing, but don't act as if they're doing it unknowingly or breaking some sacred contract.

[SuperLink]

Partially. But it makes things smoother for everyone.

The game can be made smoother without taking out any sense of depth the game ever had.

Funny, I've heard plenty of people complaining about the hubs in Sonic games...with some pretty valid reasons, too...

Probably because:

- They had to load

- They were annoying/pointless/crap a lot of the time.

Hubs in Mario are amazing compared to Sonic hubs, and don't even try to pretend like you disagree.

So having to wander around a pointless area to find something actually worth playing is automatically and undeniably better than being able to jump into the action immediately?

The hubs in Mario games are worth playing, they're brilliant! Full of goodies and fun to explore, how the hell are they pointless? You sound like someone who hated the hubs the way you talk about them. Some of us love a bit of adventure in our adventure games thanks.

There's no possible value in having the levels easily found and accessed in a few button presses rather than having to run to one end or the other of some random area to get to them?

"Some random area" heavily underexaggerates what hubs are and what they stand for.

Oh, wait, I forgot, you're the guy in charge of everyone else's opinions. Sorry, carry on.

Right back at you. Suddenly it's OK that Nintendo are completely removing an important and brilliant factor to "focus" on something that was already brilliant anyway. Does it gain anything? No, it only loses content.

There's never going to be a case where something would be improved by trimming extraneous junk? Horseshit.

Yeah, maybe if the hubs were extraneous junk. Do you even remember what we're talking about here? Since when have Mario extras ever been anything other than great? I understand if you don't remember them seeing as it's been so long since Nintendo put any decent extras in a Mario game. (Excluding Luigi)

3D Mario is changing. If you don't like the direction that's one thing, but don't act as if they're doing it unknowingly or breaking some sacred contract.

Enjoy your exploration and secret free "adventure platformer" then.

I'll be playing it and longing for Delfino Island, or a secret area I can get to where Yoshi will give me 100 lives and upgrade my jump for being such an awesome player.

Man, those were the days. Nowadays it's just complete a linear game and watch the credits, and sometimes get an alternate picture for the ending.

Edited March 23, 2010 by SuperLink

[Noir]

I may not be so lolbutthurt about the hub being removed but it's definitely a BIG disappointment. Galaxy's hub was pretty mediocre, but 64 and Sunshine had such fun ones and I hoped they could get it right this time like they did then. I understand where Miyamoto is coming from, but I'd gladly trade quick access to levels for a fun hub. Oh well. There's no doubt in my mind that the levels will be great so whatever.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Noir

[Solly]

I have to question the validity of this. The floating Mario-head-ship-thingy that dictates Mario's position on the map screen looks like it can be explored to a degree, as shown by this hideously blown up screen shot. You can see Mario at the top, Yoshi at the bottom and the flower-things he can swing out leading away from his nose. Having a small hub is different from having no hub at all.

But even then I wouldn't mind. Galaxy's hub was so insubstantial. It wasn't like the Mario 64's or even Sunshine's where there was a lot to see and explore, with secrets to find and even stars to collect. Galaxy had maps too- they were just stationed on a gigantic rock that connected the them together. There was nothing to do, so it generally wasn't any fun to be in. All you ever did was arbitrarily waddle your fat Italian ass from one side to another- and since there are so many more levels in the Galaxy games, you had to remember which dome they were all in, so if you made a mistake, then you were treated to more waddling.

So yeah, they definitely didn't handle the hub as well as they could have in Galaxy 2, and it's a step down from Peach's Castle or Isle Delfino, but we really might as well streamline it all into something more basic if it serves no ultimate purpose and is only a chore to get through.