Read on Twitter
Bored so here's a counterargument to this thread (check it out btw cause it's well written and some decent points are brought up) https://twitter.com/HyIianWariah/status/1315044567079702534
-Both the overall claim and example used, I just can’t agree with. Objective based levels are not restricted to a certain “theme” or way of approaching it, and Galaxy stretches this definition quite a lot, but it’s not a bad thing as discussed here. The given level for example
works because of it’s overall sense of feel, not specifically design. It’s not trying to quickly shift ideas purposefully, it’s trying to convey a sense of adventure and thrill with each idea presented, almost feeling episodic. And I really think that’s a huge misunderstanding on
the game in general from her. Galaxy’s main focus is not being sporadic in what it presents, it’s main goal is to convey this adventurous/galaxy-esque sense of wonder through variety in level design. Let’s say we DO make the argument that it is being sporadic in it’s design,
this is still a very small amount of levels that do this. All of the more sandbox-esque levels stay consistent in theme, and while some linear levels do rapidly change like this, it has reason, and I feel she is neglecting said reason explained above.
I’d also like to add that “cohesion” and “sticking to a theme” don’t equal level design. It can be a prominent factor but level design is also if the levels control/play well, so even still I believe it’s unfair to call it purely. “bad level design”
-I’ll be fair and say the gravity mechanic has aged in certain areas, but I’m not going to go full on and say that it “ruins” the levels designs. You don’t always need jumping platforming in a platformer
The gravity effect allows the player to approach these areas in a more methodical sense, and it works. Luckily in this game, there is an equal amount of jumping platforming and more slow-paced gravity focused areas, and the combination of the two keeps things fresh and adds to
the overarching space theme of the game. And yeah, to make it work they are a little constricted, which equates to a fair amount of basic square platforms.
But for the most part the skill in platforming comes down to being more thoughtful and careful in where you’re jumping/running, and this change in pace works.
- The camera isn’t bad? I think Galaxy’s camera falls flat to a lot of the issues every game with a fixed camera falls under, but 90% of the time it’s never an issue, and when it is an issue, it’s usually warranted because of poor placing on the player.
It could be better but the game is designed fairly well to the point where it’s not even an issue to bring up.
This idea of “having no identity” really relates back to the first point brought up. First off I want to touch on the example she gave and the comparison to 64. I genuinely cannot see the similarity, even reading it over;
The purely linear nature of Gusty Gardens is like nothing in 64, no matter what way you look at it. But I want to continue using 64 as a comparison because it brings me back to my main point.
A 3D Mario game does not need to be defined by the way in which it presents the format of it’s levels and to what degree. Galaxy combines both more-open sandbox areas and straight-up linear segments. And there isn’t anything wrong with that nor the level design happens each leve
Mario 64, for example - every single level is unique in it’s design and theme. But that doesn’t make the game have “no cohesion”. You still get this overall whimsical and more light-hearted sense from it.
Each level makes “sense” in this world created, and even though they’re different in theme and design, they still connect to create a complete game. The same exact thing can be said about Galaxy.
The vast scale in approach is what MAKES the identity of Galaxy, and it all comes back to form this spacey, epic, grandiose package, and it works
All 3D Mario games (besides Odyssey really) are course-cleared games - even if they have sandbox elements. So naturally they would all start off in the same place. Once again, no reason the same acceptance/logic shouldn’t be applied
- 64 also tacks on stars with no streamlined objectives (for the most part) and that’s fine. Don’t know why the same acceptance can’t be applied to Galaxy.
(Sorry Hylian, not trying to be mean just thought it'd be interesting to disect, good thoughts for sure!)
