Which of these Mario games is a "3D Mario"?

[Moblinking5000]

one of the pillars of the zelda franchise is the idea of linear progression tied to key items

Both Zelda 1 and ALBW both had very little of this, too. No one is out here saying that neither of those are ''true'' Zelda games or some nonsense like that.

BotW also has some progression:

-You have to get the Runes to get the Paraglider, which will allow you to leave the Great Plateau

-You get the outfit that lets you climb up waterfalls, which is required for some of the Koroks

-You must complete the Four Divine Beasts and obtain the Champion powers to access the Champion's Ballad content.

-You must obtain the Thunder Helm to gain access to one of the main dungeons in the game.

So it looks like BotW even has some of this, too!

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

Both Zelda 1 and ALBW both had very little of this, too. No one is out here saying that neither of those are ''true'' Zelda games or some nonsense like that.

BotW also has some progression:

-You have to get the Runes to get the Paraglider, which will allow you to leave the Great Plateau

-You get the outfit that lets you climb up waterfalls, which is required for some of the Koroks

-You must complete the Four Divine Beasts and obtain the Champion powers to access the Champion's Ballad content.

-You must obtain the Thunder Helm to gain access to one of the main dungeons in the game.

So it looks like BotW even has some of this, too!

the only one of these that counts as progression is the first one, which is designed as more of a gate to the real game from the tutorial, not as a form of progression (at least that's how I see it)
the rest aren't tied to game progression whatsoever
ALBW literally requires you to buy the right item to enter a dungeon lol
and zelda 1 is still clearly built on this framework; if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a requirement to complete some dungeons before others. The raft is a good example of this, I think

this is discussion best had in the previous thread though lol

 

[Fig]

botw isn't a real zelda game, we already established that in the last thread like this

You do realize that BotW takes major influence from the very first Zelda right? Are you saying that Zelda 1 isn't a Zelda game or what?

 

[Moblinking5000]

the rest aren't tied to game progression whatsoever

You literally need an item to enter one of the main dungeons, my man, and you need to beat the rest and get the Champion powers to start the Champion's Ballad.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

You literally need an item to enter one of the main dungeons, my man.

sorry, which item is it that you need to enter hyrule castle?

 

[Moblinking5000]

sorry, which item is it that you need to enter hyrule castle?

I'm talking about Naboris, not HC. You need to get the Thunder Helm.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

I'm talking about Naboris, not HC. You need to get the Thunder Helm.

not required for progression

 

[Moblinking5000]

not required for progression

Uh, yeah...? You need to get the Thunder Helm to access Naboris so that you can continue the main story. How is that NOT progression?

 

[twilitfalchion]

Like Mikey said, this kind of discussion is getting off track from the purpose of the thread.^^

 

[Moblinking5000]

My apologies. If Mikey wants to continue this, we can do this another time.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

My definitions for what type of game something is always coming from a primarily mechanical perspective. If we considered story as the only modifier for a type of game or a member of a series, spinoffs would be considered in the same light as that series. I find it important that games within a series share easily identifiable gameplay pillars that stay consistent throughout the series. Most people who are fans of zelda think all zelda games are good to some extent in a vacuum but tend to rate them poorly against others based on the criteria that actually changes between zelda games.
Similarly, it's important to me that when I say "3D Mario game", all these games have similar gameplay patterns to each other, which 3DL/W don't.

 

[thePlinko]

Both Zelda 1 and ALBW both had very little of this, too.

Are you kidding? Both of those games had a ton of item based progression, especially Zelda 1, where there are multiple instances of dungeons being locked behind a single item that has very little other use.

That being said, I don’t think dividing “2D” and “3D” for Mario games based on the overall design structure of the game is quite accurate. 2D is any game that primarily utilizes 2 axis’s in its gameplay, while 3D is any game that uses 3.

If a new Mario game only had 2 axis of movement, yet still was relatively open and required you to collect a certain amount of macguffins to progress, I’d still call it a “2D” game, just in the style of 64 (I actually kinda want to see that now).

I think a better way of describing the split Mikey is talking about would be by calling them “Super Mario Bros style” and “Super Mario 64 style.”

 

[Moblinking5000]

I said, ''very little'' not none. Zelda 1 lets you enter Levels 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 without other items.

Also, it's been requested by both OP and a mod to drop this discussion, so we should.

To get back on topic, I'll add that I think that a 2D Mario game like 64 or Oddysey would be cool af. It would be like a Mario metroidvania, which would be a neat direction for the series.

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

If a new Mario game only had 2 axis of movement, yet still was relatively open and required you to collect a certain amount of macguffins to progress, I’d still call it a “2D” game, just in the style of 64 (I actually kinda want to see that now).

I scoured for any mario-esque game matching this description but the best inversion I could find was NSMB lol

 

[Ten Thousand Needles]

All of those except NSMB are 3D Marios. I would say that SM64, Sunshine, Galaxy & 2, and Oddysey are "mainline" 3D Mario games whereas 3D Land/World + Bowser's Fury sort of stand on their own.