![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lbd_nytetraynRe: 2-player Nintendo games
Just wanted to throw my two cents in on the subject. But before I do... Metroid as 2-player? Like, the original Metroid? Or am I just reading it wrong?
Anyway, I don't mind 2-player alternating games, though I think Nintendo had improved on it for a while there. Truth is, I wish that Nintendo did MORE of them now. Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine come to mind, specifically. Those are two games that I think could benefit from that sort of teamwork, like in Super Mario 3 and Super Mario World, where you worked together to clear away the stages, and you'd pass it off, either if you die, quit a stage, or clear it.
I admit, SMB1's style didn't work too well until the Super Mario All-Stars version, where it was more turn based depending on if you died or cleared a level. You could practically never get a shot to play once for 32 levels if your friend is good enough.
Unfortunately, if there's two of you, the latest Mario offerings can be just plain BORING with only the one-player feature. I think if implemented like in SMB3 and SMW, the games, Sunshine in particular, would've been a lot more enjoyable for us in the long run.
LBD "Nytetrayn"
Just wanted to throw my two cents in on the subject. But before I do... Metroid as 2-player? Like, the original Metroid? Or am I just reading it wrong?
Anyway, I don't mind 2-player alternating games, though I think Nintendo had improved on it for a while there. Truth is, I wish that Nintendo did MORE of them now. Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine come to mind, specifically. Those are two games that I think could benefit from that sort of teamwork, like in Super Mario 3 and Super Mario World, where you worked together to clear away the stages, and you'd pass it off, either if you die, quit a stage, or clear it.
I admit, SMB1's style didn't work too well until the Super Mario All-Stars version, where it was more turn based depending on if you died or cleared a level. You could practically never get a shot to play once for 32 levels if your friend is good enough.
Unfortunately, if there's two of you, the latest Mario offerings can be just plain BORING with only the one-player feature. I think if implemented like in SMB3 and SMW, the games, Sunshine in particular, would've been a lot more enjoyable for us in the long run.
LBD "Nytetrayn"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
That would be nice...
Date: 2004-06-04 03:24 am (UTC)Re: That would be nice...
Date: 2004-06-04 03:43 am (UTC)LBD "Nytetrayn"
no subject
Date: 2004-06-04 07:26 am (UTC)I think SMB3 had the best 2P-alternating approach -- you passed the controller back and forth a lot, and there were several minigames that involved both players. But on the whole I'd rather not play like that. And I can't imagine Mario Sunshine in an alternating mode... some of those levels can take 15 or 20 minutes to clear, so even if it traded back or forth after each level was completed you'd still be sitting on your ass forever.
But those were just observations and personal opinions. I don't expect anyone to take them as law.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-05 03:13 pm (UTC)I don't remember SMB3 working with one controller, though, until the SMAS remake... fortunately, the NES came with two controllers, so...
Still, the thing with Super Mario Sunshine is that it always felt to me like we were stepping on each other's toes when we'd try and pass things back and forth. The one player-only format seems to make it a less social experience, and I'd rather we both be able to pay attention and try and work together on stuff, or take separate approaches, during the same gaming session.
LBD "Nytetrayn"