Mario 64 - initial thoughts

[marurun]

Spent my Nintendo coins and picked this one up on the VC. It was heralded as the first 3D platformer that effectively didn't suck. I recall several magazines rating this a perfect 10. How does it hold up?

Where to start... Graphically, it compares favorably to much of what else was out at the time. It pushes polygons pretty well and draw distances are good. Colors are bright. It's lacking in the texture department, though, with lots of repeating patterns and solid color or shaded objects. Fortunately, the N64 renders 3D well and without the kinds of errors the PS1 did, so objects and landscapes are nice and solid, with no seams.

The audio is a mixed bag. Sound effects are acceptable quality, but they can be rather annoying. Mario's voice is obnoxious and he's constantly emitting silly utterances. The grunts thwomps make sound like someone discovering a hernia during sex. The standard jumping and sliding and hitting sounds are just fine, however. The music is rather weak, IMO. The compositions aren't bad, but they aren't good, either. This is Mario by way of Muzak, generated by general MIDI. Would fit right in if this were Mario's first elevator game.

Design-wise, Mario has a lot he can do, and the levels are well-crafted to force you to utilize his moves. At times, it almost seems like there's too much Mario can do, as some of his moves feel extraneous and unnecessary, and if you're not careful you'll end up doing one of his less more obscure, less useful moves instead of the simple one you wanted.

Control-wise, I find this game frustrating. Sure, a is jump and b is punch. Simple, right? No. When you're running, b can be a dive. Despite the fact that the N64 controller has ample buttons on it, you'll find that their functions are constantly changing depending on what you are doing. This works better than I'm making it sound. Mario is MOSTLY predictable, but I am periodically plagued by bizarre control results. One other problem is slippery slopes. No, not the logical fallacy. You can walk up some slopes, but really steep ones you can usually only surmount partway, and only with a running start, and you can't turn around and run back down. No, you either slide down on your stomach or butt, and then you slide on the flat surface below. It is as if everything is made of ice. It leads to needless injury and death far more often than is appropriate.

In addition to having to keep a somewhat over-large stable of moves in mind and avoid slopes like the plague, you also have to manage the camera. I mean, sure, it's one of the first games where you could manage the camera, but it's because you HAVE to manage the camera, because the damn thing is constantly moving this way or that, making movement difficult, especially at times when precision is necessary. A narrow bridge to cross? Oh, not hard enough. Let's make sure the camera does a slow sweep to one side when the player attempts to cross so they have to compensate in order to keep moving in a straight line! The camera is also quite often putting itself in the wrong place to get a proper view of the space you need to move into. This era in gaming was certainly plagued by worse (Resident Evil, Tomb Raider) camera problems, but I don't know that Mario 64 is much of an improvement. I find myself often needing to swing the camera around almost 180% only to find that where I want the camera is where the game won't let me put it. If you thought the Sonic Adventure camera was a pain, well, comparatively it isn't.

This isn't a bad game, really. If it were just some random 3D platformer it would have been well-received and have advanced the genre a little. But this is a Mario game, and it doesn't feel or play like one. I don't believe I'm a fan of Mario in 3D, because he's a lot more complicated and a lot less fun this way. I certainly can't understand how it got a few perfect 10s. That's just beyond comprehension.

[AppleQueso]

Is this your first time with 3D Mario in general?

Mario 64's camera is pretty annoying. Mario Galaxy's AI camera thing though is fantastic. Seems to almost always point right where I need it to be.

I certainly can't understand how it got a few perfect 10s. That's just beyond comprehension.

Seems pretty clear to me. It was just incredibly fresh and did things no other game had really done before. It set the standard for 3D platformers to follow. Really, unless you take 10/10 to be absolutely 100% flawless, there's no reason why some rough edges here and there should take away from the new ground it broke.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Is this your first time with 3D Mario in general?

Mario 64's camera is pretty annoying. Mario Galaxy's AI camera thing though is fantastic. Seems to almost always point right where I need it to be.

I remember seeing a technology patent Nintendo took back before Mario Galaxy that dealt with handling the camera angle in videogames. I didn't think much of it until just now when you mentioned it. Mario Galaxy's camera was beyond perfect, especially for a game where it could so easily be the worst experience ever.

As to why Mario 64 got a perfect 10, think about the time. Analog thumbsticks were non-existent. The 3-D platformer was struggling to find its identity. Sure there was Crash Bandicoot, but it was really really limited to a small area of space. With Sega not even transitioning their mascot into the 3D world (aside from Sonic R, which came after Mario 64), critics feared Mario would never successfully make the leap either.

What they got was a control scheme that they had never seen before. A camera that moved like no other (for the time) and a three dimensional world that they had never seen. It was mind blowing and completely revolutionized the platforming genre. After that, we had a plethora of great games that utilized the groundwork Mario 64 laid down.

[lwcook]

I certainly can't understand how it got a few perfect 10s. That's just beyond comprehension.

How old are you exactly? Because you just made me feel really old, and I'm 26.

Mario 64 was insanely revolutionary when it was released and basically created how to do a 3d platformer. There were very few 3d platformers before it and none of them handled basic things you take for granted now like a decent camera system, proper physics, and an explorable overworld that ties everything together.

[DinnerX]

Control-wise, I find this game frustrating. Sure, a is jump and b is punch. Simple, right? No. When you're running, b can be a dive. Despite the fact that the N64 controller has ample buttons on it, you'll find that their functions are constantly changing depending on what you are doing. This works better than I'm making it sound. Mario is MOSTLY predictable, but I am periodically plagued by bizarre control results. One other problem is slippery slopes. No, not the logical fallacy. You can walk up some slopes, but really steep ones you can usually only surmount partway, and only with a running start, and you can't turn around and run back down. No, you either slide down on your stomach or butt, and then you slide on the flat surface below. It is as if everything is made of ice. It leads to needless injury and death far more often than is appropriate.

The physics in future 3D Mario games fixed the physics issues with slopes and sliding, just so you know.

A narrow bridge to cross? Oh, not hard enough. Let's make sure the camera does a slow sweep to one side when the player attempts to cross so they have to compensate in order to keep moving in a straight line!

You were playing in Wet Dry World, weren't you? That is the most frustrating camera situation I've ever encountered in a video game. I didn't have many other camera issues in Super Mario 64 though.

[Jagosaurus]

After seeing this & then Tomb Raider a couple months later, I was finally convinced in 3D console adventure and platform games could be done. Revolutionary.

[Ziggy]

Ahhh, this reminds me of something after I first joined the forums. Ack posted about how he was trying Mario 64 (for the first time IIRC) but was frustrated by the controls. I posted telling him that the controls are great, you just have to get a feel for them. I said I wanted to post a video of my gameplay to show him how smoothly you can control Mario. I guess I came across like an a-hole, and he took it as me saying how awesome I am at the game and curse you for not liking my favorite game.

Ack, if you read this... remember that?

This isn't a bad game, really. If it were just some random 3D platformer it would have been well-received and have advanced the genre a little. But this is a Mario game, and it doesn't feel or play like one. I don't believe I'm a fan of Mario in 3D, because he's a lot more complicated and a lot less fun this way.

So this was your first 3D Mario game experience? I don't think it's fair to say it doesn't play like a Mario game if this is your first 3D Mario. It's a 3D platformer, of course it doesn't play like a 2D platformer. You have to go into it knowing that.

I'd say try the other 3D Mario games, they do improve in everything (except that nostalgic feeling - for some of us).

I certainly can't understand how it got a few perfect 10s. That's just beyond comprehension.

I wont bother saying what's already been said...

As to why Mario 64 got a perfect 10, think about the time. Analog thumbsticks were non-existent. The 3-D platformer was struggling to find its identity. Sure there was Crash Bandicoot, but it was really really limited to a small area of space. With Sega not even transitioning their mascot into the 3D world (aside from Sonic R, which came after Mario 64), critics feared Mario would never successfully make the leap either.

What they got was a control scheme that they had never seen before. A camera that moved like no other (for the time) and a three dimensional world that they had never seen. It was mind blowing and completely revolutionized the platforming genre. After that, we had a plethora of great games that utilized the groundwork Mario 64 laid down.

+1

I'll just stress one point. Mario 64 was *mind blowing* when it came out, and a perfect score is exactly what it deserved. In comparison to all games up until May 2013, no, it isn't perfect. But that'd be like comparing Super Mario Bros. to New Super Mario Bros. Wii. You might as well compare apples and oranges.

[marurun]

Thing is, Tomb Raider came out in the US just one month later than Mario 64, and while the camera was more glitchy than the one in Mario 64 and you couldn't really manually move it, it had, most of the time, better auto-positioning than the one in Mario 64. I was out of high school and about to set off to college when Mario 64 was released in the US, and so I had no exposure to it. I was the only idiot at college who bothered to take a video game console with me (that year, boy did that change in the next two years) and it was an older one.

Still, 3D camera management was something that was already at issue on the PC. I rather think Mario 64 would have been more "revolutionary" if it had tried to do just a little less just a little better. This is one of those cases where everyone says "if not for Mario 64, there would have been no 3D platformers!" I call BS. Crash Bandicoot came out later in '96, as did Tomb Raider, with MDK just the next year. You can bet these were in development before Mario 64 came out. They were just as much pioneers. Nintendo did get there first and plant the goal posts, and for the time they did a fine job. But any delays, even of a few months, and someone else would've been first. I think the 10s for Mario 64 are, even in context, a just a bit too generous. I see no problem with 9s, but 10 seems inflated to me, especially given all the problems with implementation.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Still, 3D camera management was something that was already at issue on the PC. I rather think Mario 64 would have been more "revolutionary" if it had tried to do just a little less just a little better. This is one of those cases where everyone says "if not for Mario 64, there would have been no 3D platformers!" I call BS. Crash Bandicoot came out later in '96, as did Tomb Raider, with MDK just the next year. You can bet these were in development before Mario 64 came out. They were just as much pioneers. Nintendo did get there first and plant the goal posts, and for the time they did a fine job. But any delays, even of a few months, and someone else would've been first. I think the 10s for Mario 64 are, even in context, a just a bit too generous. I see no problem with 9s, but 10 seems inflated to me, especially given all the problems with implementation.

I do not think the camera for Mario was that bad. Yes, when you got close to walls it would get stuck sometimes and yes, when you were on that one small walkway it would spin, which was a pain. But there where moments where the camera is completely impossible to deal with the previous games. Although to say that Nintendo is perfect is untrue. Those problems do exist, and Nintendo's failure to include a second thumbstick really hindered that, but at the time....it was still a crazy concept to even have one.

To say that crash bandicoot is a real 3D platformer is a fallacy. You moved up and down a corridor. the controls were solid, but there was no need for a camera to move.

Hindsight is 20/20

[Dylan]

The controls in Mario 64 are rock solid. Mario having a variety of moves detracts nothing from the game, and understanding what comes out when is really just a matter of playing the game for a short period of time.

The problems with the camera in Mario 64 are exaggerated (by a lot of people). Outside of a few isolated incidents (like the top of Wet Dry World) between zooming in/out and left/right you can see just about anything. I imagine half the problems people experience is that they try to keep the camera zoomed out in areas with walls and buildings.

Still, 3D camera management was something that was already at issue on the PC. I rather think Mario 64 would have been more "revolutionary" if it had tried to do just a little less just a little better. This is one of those cases where everyone says "if not for Mario 64, there would have been no 3D platformers!" I call BS. Crash Bandicoot came out later in '96, as did Tomb Raider, with MDK just the next year. You can bet these were in development before Mario 64 came out. They were just as much pioneers. Nintendo did get there first and plant the goal posts, and for the time they did a fine job. But any delays, even of a few months, and someone else would've been first. I think the 10s for Mario 64 are, even in context, a just a bit too generous. I see no problem with 9s, but 10 seems inflated to me, especially given all the problems with implementation.

The thing is, comparing a game like Crash Bandicoot to Mario 64 in terms of what they pioneered just doesn't make sense. Crash Bandicoot is indeed 3D, but it's still confined by the conventions of 2D platformers in that levels are completely linear and tunnel-like. Mario 64 rightly gets credit for being the first true 3D platformer in the sense that it was a game that fully realized the actual implications that 3D had for designing worlds and mechanics. Levels were massive and open, and in many cases there weren't just obvious single direct routes to objectives. 3D games may have existed around that time, but Mario 64 completely broke into the uncharted territory that was realizing the potential of 3D and what it could mean to game design. Besides just that, comparing it to games like Tomb Raider or MDK its controls were extremely precise and flexible. The game's pace was just right. The amount of freedom and control you had with Mario was unheard of.

Incredible level design and game mechanics coupled with excellent controls are what put Mario 64 ahead of its peers (and are what makes it hold up so well today).