Well FF13 wasn't a sequel, but I see no harm in having multiple sequential sequels myself. I mean think about it, a story so expansive that it needs to span several games isn't a bad thing automatically!i would say the final fantasy games they all suck and furthermore- final fantasy 13 III! what!? a sequal to a sequal of a sequal? it makes no sense!!
Mario Galaxy, really everyone loves it and its a pretty decent functional game for a one designed for motion controls and it looks nice but... i just don't like it, the idea of it feels too desperate, not far enough removed from elements we saw in Sunshine, and its just feels like a mess, it looks it too, it used to be simple to choose worlds, open a door and jump into a painting, but now we have a hub we can fall off of which is just tossed together without a care... the levels aren't that inspired really, i've seen better level ideas in previous mario games including Mario Kart. Mario feels quite limited now too, i know he isn't that far removed from his moveset in M64 but there isn't much call to use them as there was in 64, 64 still feels bigger too and the worlds felt like worlds, big long levels of terrain where a fall wouldnt kill you.
I hate Mario's current tendency to have levels suspended above pits, Mario 3D Land did the same. Was there a bomb that blasted the Mushroom Kingdom into floating pieces?
*Limited power of the GameCube. It would have looked significantly better had it been native to the Wii.the limited power of the Wii compromise their vision. There is a real dissonance there.
While I can't deny that Galaxy's hub overworld was flawlessly designed, I can't say that I think it's appropriate for a Mario game, 3D or not. I don't see why we should have to travel to different portions of a given area just to get to different worlds. That's why I love Galaxy 2's return to a traditional map. It's so much quicker, so much more convenient. Of course, it still had the Starship Mario to mess around with, so it didn't completely get rid of the hub part, but I actually prefer this, as well. I think it's a great mixture of the two styles, as we can still get 1 ups and whatnot while still having a proper world map. It's definitely the style 3D Mario should keep using in the future.Fortunately, I think it also preserved some of the best of Mario 64, such as the concept of a hub world. In fact, the hub world in Galaxy is much more streamlined.
Limited move set is fine and is, in fact, one of the reasons Mario doesn't need to be linear. However, play the first course in Super Mario 64 and the first course in Super Mario Galaxy. Bomb-Omb battlefield's first star is one of the more limiting stars of the game--but you are still given more freedom than you are in Super Mario Galaxy.From what I've seen, this is a fairly common criticism. Allegations of linearity (when really, the game is not structurally more linear than any Mario before it, and is less linear than a vast majority) and a limited moveset are not rare.
I honestly just feel this should have been a handheld release. It didn't even feel like a 3D game. It felt, again, like SM3DL: A 2D game with 3D graphics.I was initially disappointed when I heard that Mario Galaxy wasn't as "free" as Mario 64. In hindsight, I don't think my past self had much of a point. Mario Galaxy doesn't have to be Super Mario 64--it has its own identity, and I'm glad for that. I just can't fault the impeccable level design and platforming.
I feel like it took out some of the best things SM64 had to offer. SM64 offered unique worlds filled with exploration while SMG returned to the linear paths of the 2D titles. The controls felt awkward and on SMG, more more than SM64, which is disappointing seeing as this is coming from a newer title. But really, the most disappointing thing was how constricted the game felt. I know some games, like Zelda, have something to gain from this. But Mario didn't use any of the benefits of linearity and ultimately suffered.I acknowledge the differences between Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario 64, but strongly disagree with anyone who thinks those differences are weaknesses.
I don't think it's a bad influence...but where's the joy in it? I find it disturbing that people gain a pleasure in pretending to kill innocents....To be honest, I cannot understand games that have any sort of content that is a problem in society.
I mean violence here, mainly; not horror violence like Resident Evil (which is acceptable as it's fictional), but games like Grand Theft Auto.
A game where you go around killing people, stealing cars and other things that are a major problem in reality. Isn't that a sort of bad influence?
And let's not forget war games (Call of Duty, Medal of Honour...). War is, imo, one of the worst things in world history, in every aspect; and to make games that focus on killing people in a battlefield seems to me kind of immoral (yes, I know it's a game and it isn't really happening but most of you know what I mean).
There's still a line between reality and fiction. People enjoy it because it doesn't hurt anyone else in real life, so why should anyone feel guilty about it? It's the same with movies. People do enjoy watching others get killed. Although, going into that would go off topic.I don't think it's a bad influence...but where's the joy in it? I find it disturbing that people gain a pleasure in pretending to kill innocents....
I understand the joy in being a villain in an RPG game, but that isn't what GTA is...There's still a line between reality and fiction. People enjoy it because it doesn't hurt anyone else in real life, so why should anyone feel guilty about it? It's the same with movies. People do enjoy watching others get killed. Although, going into that would go off topic.