• Super Mario 64 Vs. Super Mario 64 DS
    23 replies, posted
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re6qlTbQB4w[/media] A interesting comparison on the two games. I will admit I grew more fondly of the DS version, seeing as that's the version I really grew up with. Kind of an intro that isn't about the game, so skip to 3:30 if you don't care about that.
I honestly had no clue they remade 64 and made it on the DS. I mean wow, they even had switchable characters.
Not far into this video but I wanted to mention the comparison of 64's visuals w/ Crash Bandicoot is really unfair. If you know anything about the art and engine design of Crash it was a whole other beast that set in stone the entire game's direction. And going on to say people expected more at the time isn't accurate either.
[QUOTE=Toothpick;52012769]I honestly had no clue they remade 64 and made it on the DS. I mean wow, they even had switchable characters.[/QUOTE] Because it was a very popular game and an excellent way to establish your 3D-capable handheld system.
The DS port suffered due to the lack of a joystick
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52012874]The DS port suffered due to the lack of a joystick[/QUOTE] Play it on the 3DS.
[QUOTE=jonu67;52012878]Play it on the 3DS.[/QUOTE] the 3ds circle pad just translates into the dpad, so it's not really better
The movement controls are definitely more natural on the original, I mean the game was [I]literally[/I] designed around the Control Stick. However, the compromises they made in the DS version to approximate the original style of movement were more than serviceable and the new camera controls blow the original's out of the water. Once I got the hang of it, I beat the entire game using the d-pad controls with no issues. Coupled with all the redesigned content and the new content, I think the DS version surpasses the original, especially as a handheld experience. If they rereleased it with analog controls, it would unquestionably be the superior version.
[QUOTE=jonu67;52012878]Play it on the 3DS.[/QUOTE] It feels really shitty. I beat the game 100% on the DS but using the Circle Pad isn't helpful. It feels better to use than the D-Pad but it still suffers from the weird ass controls that the D-Pad had. I do agree that the DS version is much better though. If the controls were better it would be perfect.
"My own experience with 3d modelling makes [2d sprites] impossible to ignore" mate what are you talking about this game is from 1996. we STILL use 2d sprites today. [editline]26th March 2017[/editline] his criticism of the graphics is the dumbest thing ever [editline]26th March 2017[/editline] 'wow look at his bad model' *shows a broken model with missing textures* [editline]26th March 2017[/editline] "When the game chugs for [B]no apparent reason[/B]" *shows a scene running poorly because there's a lot of objects in it all at once* this guy is dumb
[QUOTE=Rusty100;52013325]"My own experience with 3d modelling makes [2d sprites] impossible to ignore" mate what are you talking about this game is from 1996. we STILL use 2d sprites today. [/QUOTE] and then he gives it a pass when the same thing looks better on a new device 👌 Plus during all this crap he shows Spyro which came 2 years later, was built off the foundations of other games, and (I found out earlier in a 2 second Google search) one of the first games ever to use a LoD system. The main programmer wrote the engine before work ever started. And made big comparisons to CB which had a notoriously complex renderer designed for [I]that game[/I] that broke sony's rules on programming for the PS1. He also didn't compare the visuals to a single game on the N64 which obviously got a lot better with time, like w/ Rare games. Mario 64 was a ground up effort with a bigger scope than Crash. It was never going to hit his arbitrary grafix bar. Like just look at the difference between M64 and OoT/MM which run on the same engine and only came a couple years later. It doesn't really need to be said that it helps a lot to have an engine sitting there for you.
Babby Child did no research so spews shitty opinions and made up facts: The Video.
[video=youtube;h9QRsiVNYGU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9QRsiVNYGU[/video] Found in the description.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52012796]Not far into this video but I wanted to mention the comparison of 64's visuals w/ Crash Bandicoot is really unfair. If you know anything about the art and engine design of Crash it was a whole other beast that set in stone the entire game's direction. And going on to say people expected more at the time isn't accurate either.[/QUOTE] also the fact that the gameplay was specifically designed to limit how much of the level was being shown at a time crash bandicoot was always about the graphics and very little else, makes no sense to do an HD remake imo
[QUOTE=64fanatic;52013517]Babby Child did no research so spews shitty opinions and made up facts: The Video.[/QUOTE] how about you refute those points then [editline]26th March 2017[/editline] as someone who grew up with mario 64 and for the longest time was my fondest gaming memory, I can agree with a lot of the points he brings up. some, not so much, but I still feel he hit the nail on the head.
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;52013889]also the fact that the gameplay was specifically designed to limit how much of the level was being shown at a time[/QUOTE] yeah that's what i was referring to. not to mention animation, they did a bunch of crazy stuff to make that game run. they practically invented occlusion culling and as part of that used leaves and other structures to control visible polycount. the mario/zelda engine didn't even have that on the table and really couldn't due to their non-linear structure.
[QUOTE=Limed00d;52013893]how about you refute those points then [editline]26th March 2017[/editline] as someone who grew up with mario 64 and for the longest time was my fondest gaming memory, I can agree with a lot of the points he brings up. some, not so much, but I still feel he hit the nail on the head.[/QUOTE] Besides his thoughts on the graphics (Which I think is pretty misinformed), I agree with almost everything he said.
My biggest issues with SM64DS are mainly minor nitpicks and personal preferences. I believe you should play it only after you've completed the original so you can fully appreciate what it adds and what it takes away. A lot of the changes in DS feel outright arbitrary and while I can agree with some of their inclusions (replacing one-off stars with silver star missions or otherwise, adding new extra areas with secret stars, etc.) none of them felt like they added anything significant to the game itself and some were a bit too simplistic in design, the beach level in the minigame room and the section with rolling balls in the boo courtyard come to mind- granted a lot of the original game was also very simple like the aquarium so that's not really too much an issue. A lot of things also felt outright broken like Luigi's backflip pretty much breaking a lot of sections, or the fact that there was literally no reason to switch off of Yoshi since he has access to all caps from the start plus have his own special abilities. It often felt like they threw together extra content for the sake of having more content rather than fleshing it out. Plus I can't personally overlook the lack of analogue, I had to play most of the game with the weird right handed stylus option because I couldn't adjust to using the Dpad well enough. I found it too imprecise too often, though it does do its job well as explained in the video. Your milage will definitely vary with the port but overall I feel it worth playing.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52012796]Not far into this video but I wanted to mention the comparison of 64's visuals w/ Crash Bandicoot is really unfair. If you know anything about the art and engine design of Crash it was a whole other beast that set in stone the entire game's direction. And going on to say people expected more at the time isn't accurate either.[/QUOTE] the playstation had vertex quantization, the n64 supported floating point numbers. of course the graphics are going to be more crisp on the 64.
[QUOTE=Limed00d;52013893]how about you refute those points then [editline]26th March 2017[/editline] as someone who grew up with mario 64 and for the longest time was my fondest gaming memory, I can agree with a lot of the points he brings up. some, not so much, but I still feel he hit the nail on the head.[/QUOTE] Most of what I'd say is based on him having no understanding of hardware or context of the era SM64 came out in, and how retarded it is to hold a game made in the early 90's to today's standards. That said, going through the trouble of spending hours writing it out properly seems pretty fucking autistic. Dude spent some serious time making a 1 hour vid regardless of what I think. It really isn't a big enough deal.
[QUOTE=64fanatic;52014096]Most of what I'd say is based on him having no understanding of hardware or context of the era SM64 came out in, and how retarded it is to hold a game made in the early 90's to today's standards. That said, going through the trouble of spending hours writing it out properly seems pretty fucking autistic. Dude spent some serious time making a 1 hour vid regardless of what I think. It really isn't a big enough deal.[/QUOTE] The entire point this series is whether or not the game still hold up today (Especially to the eyes of someone who only had some experience with them while growing up.) and comparing it to see if the remake beats, stands up to, or falls behind the original. I don't see a problem with analyzing old games like that, especially when you do understand why something might be a certain way. (Graphics comments aside) Now while I do agree that his thoughts on the graphics and performance was pretty silly, I still think he makes pretty good points about everything else. (Spoiler:[sp]He does think these games still hold perfectly fine, despite a few gripes he has. He just ultimately prefers the games that came out afterwards, but understands why people would prefer this game over those.[/sp]
The original still has its advantages. This for example: [T]https://www.mariowiki.com/images/9/9a/Bibi_64.png[/T] vs [T]https://www.mariowiki.com/images/0/00/M64DSDorrie.PNG[/T] I hope he mentions this in the video.
[QUOTE=Samson0722;52013520][video=youtube;h9QRsiVNYGU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9QRsiVNYGU[/video] Found in the description.[/QUOTE] both amusing and annoying at the same time. brilliant
one thing i agree with is: fuck smearing in older games. and the textures they used for sm64 were really ugly. i also feel like im the minority when i say i really like the crisp, pixelated look of sm64ds and i really like it when low poly 3d games use it. metal gear solid looks similar with different tricks and i actually really like the style of that too. up-scaled it can look pretty horrible, especially when not done correctly and evenly, so playing these games in higher screen resolution can be a little bit of an eye sore. if the next "low budget indie game" revolution moves from pixel 2d games to 3d low poly games, i don't know if the low res pixelated texture look will ever look right since i'm sure nobody wants to play a current indie game at 4:3 res.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.