Re: Where Mario Kart Went Wrong
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:17 pm
Please don't quote walls of text to add minimal comment, it's a short scroll upward. Thanks.
Vermilion wrote:FudgeDiver wrote:DS is only disliked by people who can't handle the snaking
To be fair, snaking did ruin the online matches.
FudgeDiver wrote:DS is only disliked by people who can't handle the snaking
Suffocate Peon wrote:Jezo wrote:I started skipping through when you said the new mechanics in Double Dash didn't change the gameplay. That's just straight up wrong.
How?
After Christmas Name Change wrote:It's an interesting post, SP, but a strange one. Is this meant to be an opinion piece - ie a piece of creative writing, an article, almost like a magazine/ journal contribution - or more of a rant/ ramble/ succession of thoughts?
After Christmas Name Change wrote:I don't understand why you've chosen to try and mirror the series to Smash Bros. You talk about Melee as if it were the result of a consistent upward arc of recreation and innovation that eventually led to the perfect entry in three series, and lament the fact that Nintendo didn't do the same with MK, but you ignore the fact that SSBM is the second game and there are three more instalments.
After Christmas Name Change wrote:Plus not everyone thinks MK64 is the definitive entry. Bear in mind that the way you love MK64 but hate the changes MKDD brought, is the way some feel about the change from SMK to MK64.
Jezo wrote:Suffocate Peon wrote:Jezo wrote:I started skipping through when you said the new mechanics in Double Dash didn't change the gameplay. That's just straight up wrong.
How?
The ability to hold 2 items and swap them on a whim added a new strategic twist to item management. The character on the back could also be knocked down temporarily making the characters unable to switch. It's not a massive change or some revolutionary new way to play, but it still changes the gameplay from that of regular Mario Kart.
Met wrote:I don't really get how you can compare Smash Bros and Mario Kart. They're completely different genres. At the core of it, a racing game is the player Vs the track with the occasional player to get in the way, while a fighting game is player Vs player (with the stage occasionally getting in the way in the case of Smash).
The nature of a constantly changing opponent compared to a static opponent means your mechanics can be more fluid to match.
Would I like to see a kart game where one racer builds meter to maintain speed (like the coins), while one has a card system to boost speed or defense (like the boxes) and another focuses on attacking to slow people down? I think it would be interesting, sure. But it would be unbalanced as all hell. Fighting games get around it because everyone has so many options: if a character has good aerial options most characters have anti-airs to counter. They can maybe grab out of the air to force the fight onto the ground.
Racing games are mechanically a lot shallower in that respect because your main goal isn't outplaying your opponent, it's outplaying the track. And the track isn't going to throw out a surprise raw super at the start of the second lap.
Tl;Dr: it's dumb to compare mechanical depth in Kart and Smash, you may as well compare mechanical depth in Kart and space travel.
Met wrote:I don't know what you want from Mario Kart, in that case. Because outside of the aspects which seem to just be "I want it to be a different genre" or are, frankly, superfluous to the game itself, it seems to do everything you want.
You ask for themed tracks and we have courses based on major Mario levels. You ask for themed items and we're throwing around mushrooms, stars and shells. The game draws from Mario history plenty. Hell, it's even moved into pulling from other Nintendo games.
The only point that really holds water is the speed of the game and layout of the tracks. And to that, yeah, we have 200cc and if that's not enough maybe you want to play a different game. As for track design, I wouldn't mind narrower courses, but the level of bullshit in the game would make it a clusterfuck, potentially not in the fun way.
Suffocate Peon wrote:MK64 is probably the better multiplayer game. But DKR is the better singleplayer, and still is. Replaying it recently it wasn't just a nostalgia rush, it's genuinely good. The silver coin challenge idea isn't new or bold, but it just reminded me how simply satisfying a kart racing game can be, needing to take these difficult lines and routes whilst still maintaining a good lead. DKR came out of nowhere at the time, it was the sheer adventure of the game, the ease at which it innovated, Rare were peerless at the time for all the ideas they'd include in their games, that as a teenager was so exciting. Around that time Beetle Adventure Racing came out as well, as well as Snowboard Kids. Now, to others these might be rough games, but i don't care about polish personally. Their enthusiasm mattered more, and in a way, like Rockstar's PS2 games, the roughness added to their charm.
The obvious point about the space levels was the surprise, even though they're brilliant anyway with some great music. It wouldn't be nearly as cool just unlocking a new cup, you had to enter the hub and be in awe of the potential. And space isn't all that out there, but none of its zones hinted at entering that type of theme.
Suffocate Peon wrote:I think, really, how can racing games in the late 90s inspire more than the ones 20 years later?
I hate all forms of tacky glitz, and want continuity with the original Super Mario Bros. This is a stylistic taste thing maybe others disagree with. I wouldn't want blocks on the ground like Super Mario Kart but they've obviously tried different things before settling on the ? diamond boxes of MK64, wanting them to be sparkling and stand out, even if it looks tacky.
I want a visual purity to the series, i think it's fine Mario Party carries the gloss, i think Mario Kart ought to dial back on the excess. I think most people focus on just the unfairness in the games, like Kalimari Desert I read is awful because the train offers too much randomness, but i love the visual minimalism of the level and always thought the train was simple and brilliant. I like M64's tracks for their length, and the sparse backgrounds, there's a peacefulness to being way out in front of the rest. Tbh, your opinions on MK64 in the past far exceed my whole post in terms of an alternative take, though they are very interesting.
Suffocate Peon wrote:It's not yearning for the past, it's identifying the giant leaps made THEN and the feeling it gave THEN, and wanting new games in a genre to make similiar leaps, aware of the 20 years of pop culture everyone has consumed in the mean time. So, merely carrying on where DKR left the genre wouldn't be enough. Beetle Adventure Racing had you leap through the air into a volcano and dodge T Rexs, both exciting then as a teenager when a few years before I was racing around a dirt course driving a Sabaru. I want a kart racing game to be strawberry floating mental, I want an embrace of full on glitching, I want to race through the falling vomit of an alien, I want to be at the mercy of an malevolent robot, I want tracks that morph and transform, a lap to lap major restructuring, a track that's graphically unfinished why not, a Daffy Duck style being drawn as you race 4th wall breaking perception altering.
Suffocate Peon wrote:But it is Nintendo I know. Could at least have done a Pikmin level. All those creatures.
Suffocate Peon wrote:Item boxes: They don't really need to stand out if they pop up in your path every 10 seconds of a race, it's just a preference really, meant to express how simple and dry and minimal the graphics could be. I want more of the playfulness I think of something like Yoshi's Island, graphically more in tune with that and the original Super Mario Bros. Yoshi's Island uses monsters and creatures in a way few games do. Mario Kart picks a theme for a level then constructs it, it's not an organic approach really, they define too much of what you expect before you even begin to race. Just realised there's a subway level in the recent ones, urgh. So yeah..less literal, more expressionistic and playful. It's really the opposite of realism I want. So Nintendo might do a 'Monster Land' and it might be as sterile as walking around a toy shop or something, i want more elegance and interactivity rather than just excessive graphical detail littering the track.
Suffocate Peon wrote:I mean, Neo Bowser City looks cool in the fly over, but it's all prettiness kept at a distance, and doesn't tie into Bowser at all. I think Toad's Turnpike in M64 makes little sense as well, but it's at least an idea not seen before, and distinct with it. One of the first tracks I tried and was pretty amazed by it. Mario is supposed to be part of a created world, and Mario Kart should add to it. The update of Toad's Turnpike in Double Dash did away with the dodging trucks on the motorway aspect except for a tiny bit of the track which seemed so confused. They re use far too many of the same tricks, jumps landing on mushrooms, the track splitting off, the odd underwater splash, rotating hazards. MK64 at the least was more pure with it, Yoshi Valley fitted the character and was pretty mysterious, not knowing who was in first place. If you're going to do a track with multiple routes where you have to figure out the quickest way , yeah why not commit to it entirely? They could expand on these ideas. So Nintendo apply the general form to every track, regardless of how inventive it appears. They're not being specific, thinking; this track will go heavily in this direction. So by 'purity' i include this.
Suffocate Peon wrote:Jezo wrote:Suffocate Peon wrote:Jezo wrote:I started skipping through when you said the new mechanics in Double Dash didn't change the gameplay. That's just straight up wrong.
How?
The ability to hold 2 items and swap them on a whim added a new strategic twist to item management. The character on the back could also be knocked down temporarily making the characters unable to switch. It's not a massive change or some revolutionary new way to play, but it still changes the gameplay from that of regular Mario Kart.
Well that's very slight.
Met wrote:Racing games are mechanically a lot shallower in that respect because your main goal isn't outplaying your opponent, it's outplaying the track. And the track isn't going to throw out a surprise raw super at the start of the second lap.