Super Mario 64 (VC)

On the one hand, this could go in the VC thread; on the other hand, quite a few of us seem to have bought it, and, well, it's Super Fucking Mario 64.

I know that a lot of you (Andy, Jay) won't have the same nostalgic blast that I do for this.  Yes, it's technically shonky in places; yes, the camera hasn't aged well; yes, I really wish there was an axes-inversion option for flying, cannons, camera etc.

What of it?

It's still brilliant, surfing the Koopa Shell for the first time.  It's still brilliant, getting the Wing Cap.  It's still brilliant, being able to get the stars on more or less the order you want - something Galaxy, a game ten years younger, barely allows you to do.  

It's still brilliant.

Share yer experiences, at the time or playing it through again now.  If people think this should go in Retro, I'm quite happy to shift it over there, but I reckon a lot of us will be playing it on the Wii U.  And was the Wing Cap Tower star always so hard?  Precision movements, and you only really get one shot at the spiral.

It's a hard one where to put but I would think like Earthbound if it is getting it's own thread then retro best place as you might be playing it on Wii U but Stu might go dig it out on the N64 and at the end of the days it's a N64.

Can a game be both pretty and rough at the same time? SM64 comes close to that: having to redesign the things we know and love into 3D does not always work (as you would have to expect). It doesn't help that it looks like Mario is flicking the V's when he celebrates collecting a Star (whose eyes are too close together).

But... it's so colourful, and bright, and tries so hard. You can't begrudge SM64 its position in history: as a first draft for moving Mazza from 2D to 3D, the level of success that was achieved is nothing short of spectacular.

Yeah, I've never been blown away by this and there's no nostalgia factor considering I played it well after its release. I think the open-endedness of the levels and Mario's movement are both fantastic, and it's a credit to the game that Mario managed to transfer to 3D so well, but the camera and visuals are so dated in my eyes that it affected my enjoyment of the game. It's a good game - I just prefer other Mario games.

There's too much blasphemy going on here! *hugs Super Mario 64* This is the game Nintendo should HD-erise.

I was going to say I just watched them playing it on NLife and it looks fine to me for a game that is almost 20 years old, you can find worse looking games on the 360 then this.

Jimbob wrote:

There's too much blasphemy going on here! *hugs Super Mario 64* This is the game Nintendo should HD-erise.

Your mileage is entitled to vary, of course - but I was never that impressed with SM64 graphically, even playing it as a kid.

I'm not going to defend SM64's graphics, although I do feel that (due to its "chunkyness") it's aged better than, say, OoT. But it's an N64 game, and they generally have not aged well.

All I can say is, this is a game that's really not about the graphics. It's about riding a Koopa Shell up a mountain, to one of the best musics in Mario history.

I got an N64 with Super Mario 64 for my 7 or 8th birthday, they were the first console and game that I actually owned myself and I remember when I first started it up I was pretty annoyed to find 2 save files on it where my brother and dad had already been playing it for weeks

Balladeer wrote:

All I can say is, this is a game that's really not about the graphics.  It's about riding a Koopa Shell up a mountain, to one of the best musics in Mario history.

It isn't about the graphics, you're right - but it can get to the point where the visuals affect your enjoyment of the game, and that's what happened when I played it. I could fully get behind an HD remake of this.

No game really should be about the graphics, it should be about the game play and last time I played SM64 it still played great.

I think I'm being misunderstood here - I'm not disputing that Mario 64 is a great game. I'm saying that for me, early 3D games haven't aged well graphically and that takes me out of the experience of playing it. That, coupled with not getting a nostalgic kick from playing this (whereas, I'd get a nostalgic kick from Spyro because I owned a PS1 during that time) is why I was never blown away by this like I was playing Galaxy. Just clarifying why Balla mentioned myself in the OP.

A question for you all - if there was a "tier list" for Mario hub worlds, where do you think Peach's Castle would fall? I'd probably slot it ahead of both Galaxy's hub areas, but behind Isle Delfino.

JayMoyles wrote:

A question for you all - if there was a "tier list" for Mario hub worlds, where do you think Peach's Castle would fall? I'd probably slot it ahead of both Galaxy's hub areas, but behind Isle Delfino.

Agreed.

I've not got my rose-tinted glasses on for SM64 as I didn't play it till years later and it was brilliant.

I've only ever completed M64 on the ds
I might re download it and try to slap bowser down on the big screen.

Jimbob wrote:

JayMoyles wrote:

A question for you all - if there was a "tier list" for Mario hub worlds, where do you think Peach's Castle would fall? I'd probably slot it ahead of both Galaxy's hub areas, but behind Isle Delfino.

Agreed.

Isle Delfino
Peach's Castle
The Faceship
Rosalina's Observatory
Sprixie Land

In short,

Would you even count Sprixie Land as SM3DW to me isn't a proper 3D Mario, more of another thing along side the 2D games.

But would agree with the list either way

I agree, it's debatable. Even if it's a 3D Mario, is Sprixie Land a proper hub when you can barely even jump in it? Either way, it shows a disappointing trend in 3D Mario games. *cough*seemyarticleinGintendo*cough*

Nah I see it like the World maps in the 2D Marios

Just read NLife review who have given the game a 10/10.

But this line Super Mario 64 was a 10/10 game in 1996. It's still a 10/10 game in 2015 because, quite frankly, gameplay this good doesn't age.

That last point is to me the main thing and why the graphics don't bother me what so ever and how this & other classics can still hold up because of the gameplay.

I can't say they don't matter at all, but they're certainly not a big deal.  For me, they don't spoil the experience one jot.  The camera's more of a problem, as NL mentions, and somebody in the comments makes a good point about the bosses being throwaway - but it's still magical.

Hard, too!  I almost died twice trying to open the chests in the sunken galleon!  I don't remember it being this hard.

EDIT: There's a massive argument in the comments over whether it's worth a 10/10.

I don't think any games should get a 10/10 as that means it's perfect and nothing is perfect, it could be the best of it's genre and you could award top marks based on that but otherwise I wouldn't give anything a 10/10.

I remember a IGN review for Jade Empire which got a 9.9 and the reviewer got stick for not giving it a 10 not because it deserved a 10 but they said he was a chicken about giving a 10, his answer was the same as mine that's it's not perfect so not a 10.

10/10 doesn't have to mean perfect though this is why the words of the reviewer will always be more important than a score.

Maybe 10/10 should indicate a new best in the genre, rather than be seen as perfect?

That's what some reviewers use it as.  I guess it depends what sort of distribution you fit to the scores (maths for the maths god), but it could be as generous as the top 5% of games, depending.  

It's not a symbol of perfection, though, and never has been.  Maybe if the score's out of 100% - not when it's out of 10.  Some of the NL fans could do well to learn that.