I like Both
But I voted for the Genesis
Printable View
I like Both
But I voted for the Genesis
Sonic games make me vote for Genesis. I do like Super Castlevania IV more than Bloodlines though.
I felt the same way until I played them both recently. I found CV4 to be the longer game, but Bloodlines to be more fun and action packed. I think they're both great, but if i had to pick one it would be Bloodlines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orchid87
Oh yeah....I voted for the Genny!
Too close to call for me on SCIV vs Bloodlines. They're both just so good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clessy
Sheath, I think you've got that a bit backwards. Mascots only become successful mascots/icons BECAUSE of good games (and what makes a game good isn't just gameplay -obviously, but the look, sound, feel, and how they fit with the interests of the market/users of the time -good advertising is critical too, but having a mismatch in genre/style and user interests can make good marketing efforts moot . . . and make good/quality game design moot as well).Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Sonic and Mario are both great examples of hitting the market sweet spots almost perfectly with the right combination of style, gameplay, sound, visuals, and good marketing to top that off than drive it to success. (albeit in Europe, Sonic probably would have been a success by viral marketing -ie word of mouth- alone)
Regardless of Nintendo's many bad points (especially the brutal licensing policies) with the NES, they definitely got it right in 1986 with the right product (hardware and especially software with SMB) at the right time in the right market with the right marketing. (some of that was sheer luck/chance though, but many things work out to being that way ;))
Super Mario Brothers was a revolutionary game for the North American market as much as Space Invaders or Pac Man had been 5-7 years earlier.
Mascots are certainly marketing tools, I'd never argue against that, but mascot featured games certainly aren't any less valid in comparing as part of the general libraries. (for better or worse) However, some games (mascot or otherwise) certainly have added hype to cut through before a fair/balanced evaluation can be given. (unless, of course, the reviewer goes in actually having no background info on the game and is thus not biased due to such hype -obviously, personal preferences will still drive bias towards some games over others too)
I also find it rather ironic that you mention Mario 2 they way you do, since that's a prime example of a marketing gimmick using (or abusing) a mascot theme. (it's certainly a good game in its own right, but the reworking to Mario themes/characters certainly makes it one of the most blatant examples of a tie-in -more so than many other spin-off games since it was a fully complete and released game that got modified after the fact)
The Sonic games also don't feel like forced mario-a-like games that simply built on Sega's preceding titles. There's some similarities, but I think you're exaggerating. (on both the mario-like play and relation to Sega arcade games -hell, Mario itself didn't come out of nowhere, it was an evolution among many others in the platform genre, Sonic was another such evolutionary development)
There's a number of fundamental gameplay mechanic differences between Sonic and Mario games to note, and speed is just part of that. (there's the level designs, differing attack mechanics, differing control/acceleration/physics, different powerups, and Sonic's Rings -that last one is not to be understated, and it's one thing that really pushes Sonic to being more fun for me and especially more forgiving compared to mario . . . mario gives you one or 2 hits depending on powerup status, sonic gives you rings that you continuously collect and can partially re-collect after taking damage, plus you get added shields/powerups on top of that -it seems like an odd parallel to make, but the ring mechanic really feels a bit like baby mario in Yoshi's island -and the latter is also a big part of what made YI so much more fun for me than any other 2D mario game, though the art/music/level design certainly didn't hurt either ;))
And I guess that gives a decent lead-in to the actual original topic of this thread:
I'm not sure I can choose, but Sonic 3&K and Yoshi's Island are definitely both at (or extremely close) to #1 for each console in my book. (excellent balance of gameplay, difficulty/challenge, level design, duration and save mechanism, some degree of exploration and replay value, excellent art/graphics design, good music/sound, etc)
Going by those games alone, I'd probably have to choose the SNES, but there's a wealth of other games to compare, some I'm still not familiar with enough to really compare things. (and there's the issue that 2D platform games aren't one of my favorite genresin general -though that also makes me point out S3&K and YI even more prominently since I really enjoyed both of those, not just compared to other 2D platformers, but for all games I like in general)
The style of Mario games was never what I had a problem with, but just the general gameplay. There's some aspects about the level designs (somewhat), control (more so), and damage/death mechanics (especially) that turn me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch
I love Yoshi's Island, and that's obviously going above and beyond any "sweet/cutesy" art styles of previous mario games (though well short of Yoshi's Story :p).
Sonic may have been made to answer Mario, but the swell of "me-too" mascots that followed were mostly directly the fault of Sonic's success and popularity.
The first thing that comes to my mind when somebody says platformers, are the mascot games like Sonic, Mario, DK, Ristar, Dynamite Headdy, Sparkster you know, the cute/cool, jump on top of your enemy, and collect the tokens/banana's/rings/jules, whatever item.
I think the Shinobis, Castlevanias, and Metroids(and arguably the Mega Man's, debatable on that one though) are on a different level of gameplay than strait mascot platformers. Sure, platforming is a major part of the gameplay for them, but there is just so much more to them that it's not fair to group them with the Mascots. In my opinion, the Genesis has the better mascot platformers than the SNES, but its close. I prefer the mascot platformers on the NES over the Genny though.
I feel like the mascot platformers are the most childish genre of video games there is, simple, cute, and really meant for children to play. They are cool to go back and play sometimes these days, mostly for nostalgic purposes for me though.
http://ecogamer.site88.net/web_image...possum_box.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Obviously
That is actually what I mean. I consider a game something that was created from scratch for the sake of being a good game. Mascot platformers exist only to sell systems and games, just like mainstream franchises today only exist as long as they are going to sell over a million units. I don't consider these games, they are marketing tactics, cash cows, they exist for the money not for the game quality. That doesn't make them bad games, I just don't respect them as much as a game that was made for the sake of making a unique game.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
Don't you mean hop 'n bop platformers vs. action platformers? They're almost two different genres.Quote:
Originally Posted by shinobimusashi
Don't forget action/adventure platformers too. (Metroid would fit more into that than "action platformers" -way, way more exploration and such than most "action" games)Quote:
Originally Posted by Olls
Then you get some mixed crossovers like Jazz Jackrabbit: a run n gun or shooter/action platformer (a la Mega Man, Contra, Turrican, etc), but styled and paced much more like contemporary run & jump "hop n' bop" platformers. (the theme and graphical style are obviously following Sonic games -the level design to some extent too)
All commercial games are products intended to make money, they're never just made for the sake of being a good game. (innovation and such can be a winning marketing tactic -and there's some really notable cases of revolutionary game design sweeping the market -often with tons of copycatting, from the early arcade games going really mainstream/mass market with the likes Space Invaders and Pac Man, to Mario with sidescrolling/run/jump platformers, to Wolf3D/Doom with FPSs, to a wealth of other 3D genres, sand box games, etc, etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Neither Sonic nor Mario were created solely as marketing tools, they were created as characters in games. After those games got massively popular, sequels and spin-offs (and copycats) were sure to follow.
Mascot games are made to be good games as much as any other commercial releases. In some cases, you also have original games that later get rebadged for an existing franchise. (Mario 2, Star Fox Adventures, etc)
Many sequels or expanded franchise entries may still be very original and unique games. (for better or worse -sometimes games are too different and frustrate gamers/reviewers expecting something closer to previous titles in the franchise, regardless of the quality of that game in its own right: Sonic 3D Blast, Mega Man Legends, Castlevania 64, Metroid Prime, 3D Sonic games, etc -some even feel that way about the 3D Mario titles or the RPG spin offs in the Mario series)
Now I feel like we're arguing like that Southpark Episode with the Mom N' Pop coffee shop versus Starbucks. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
I realize that my point of view on this particular topic is extremely hard to prove, but I really cannot see it any other way. Obviously game publishers hope to make money on every game they publish, but I have seen plenty of interviews of developers wanting to make a game and failing to understand that the market just wouldn't buy into the concept. Non-mainstream Sega games are a prime example of what I am talking about, but old school Sega even tried to make franchises and licensed games special.
Sonic though, he is well documented as having been created by a petition to counter Mario, the fact that the 16-bit Sonic games were great is just a testament to how much talent Sega had employed back then. Mario Bros. felt just like Joust and countless other single screen platformers, Super Mario Bros. was certainly unique, no arguing that, but we all know that Nintendo was after money all along and broke every rule it took to make sure they cornered as much of it as possible.
Two games that nobody seems to care about, but I think they are among the best 16- bit platformers are Captain Lang (High Seas Havoc) and Sokcet the time Dominator, I also like Hook for the SNES, I try to avoid the MD and SegaCD ports since only the Nintendo version was programmed by japanese developers.
I prefer Genesis to SNES platformers, but the original NES is where it's at for platformer gaming. There are just so many awesome platformers on the NES that they really define the system.
Maybe you meant something else, but the way this is worded sounds extremely biased/elitist . . . and makes you sound like an ignorant jerk, honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinitosoccer
Who programmed/developed (or published) a game shouldn't have any impact on whether you like the game for its own merits. (be it gameplay, sound/music, art design, etc)