Hey! Thanks for watching! I tried something new with this one by adding a one minute preview section with notable clips from the video. What did you think? Did it work? Was it too long? I'm legitimately curious, so voice your opinions here!
I didn’t mind it, although I felt the out of context “wtf does this even mean” clips worked better than the more informational ones (not sure why that’s just my preference I guess)
My honest 2 cents, this is the first of your videos I have seen (recommended through algorithm) and my first impression was that the intro was a bit long and didn’t provide enough context to be useful or engaging as a hook. I almost clicked off during it but decided to stick around and then thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the video. I think diving right into it without messing around is almost always the best hook you can have
@KylerGreer Thank you for the feedback! I'm glad you ended up liking the video despite the slow start haha. I definitely have a bit of trouble with finding ways to have engaging intros and the preview thing was an attempt to remedy that!
I really feel like so many reviewers and critics of the game like to think that everyone is going to want to 100% the game. While yeah, a decent amount of people do (particularly with Mario games), the majority of people just want to play the game. The best example of this is how negatively people seem to feel about the shop moons. There is no need for people who arent trying to 100% the game to buy all the moons. And if someone isn't trying to 100%, it allows them to skip some of the more frustrating moons and just buy them.
I agree! Using Balloon World to make enough money in order to buy moons to get access to the Dark Side and Darker Side of the Moon is totally valid. And even then, you won't get the gold sail that signifies 100% completion until you actually complete all the objectives despite how many moons you have in total!
Alright, so I've done some thinking, and I think I might have a theory/reason as to why some people (including me) say that a lot of the power moons in Odyssey are filler. So, as far as I know, we are surposed to believe that Odyssey's Power moons are surposed to be the equivalent to power stars in Super Mario 64, Sunshine and Galaxy 1 and 2. The multi moons are meant for the bosses and objectives. Also, aparently they are surposed to be the equivalent to Grand stars in the SMG games. The thing is though, the power stars/shines in the other games are gotten by beating a certain objective, but in Odyssey, the moons are gotten by ground pounding a glowing spot or just getting them as they are out in the open. The problem is that, because we are meant to think that the moons are worth a power star, we end up extremely disapointed if we get the moon by doing the most mundane tasks. I think though, that that problem could've been solved. Please note though, i's just a theory. I'm not an expert at game developement at all. I'm just a random law student giving my insights. I do wonder what you think though. Do you remember the green stars in Super Mario 3D World, or the star medals in 3D Land? Hell, even the star coins in the NSMB series could fit in this category if you think about it. A lot of those were collected the same way as many of the moons are collected. I think if we are meant to think that the moons are the equivalent to green stars in SM3DW/Star medals in 3DL and the multi moons are the equivalent to getting the goal pole in those two games, then I think the filler complaint would be less valid. A "You got a moon" animation wouldn't be necessary and the flow of gameplay wouldn't be stopped. Just a little sound effect that lets you know you collected the moon would be enough. Also, the argument of not being forced to collect everything would be more valid. I mean, the green stars are a mandatory thing, but they aren't shoved in your face like the power stars/shines/moons are. I mean, did you feel more obligated to getting a power star in SM64, or a green star in SM3DW? Keep in mind, this is speculation. I kinda written it down somewhat quickly, I have to be at a concert soon, so if you want me to elaborate, just tell me. I just want to have said it. Have a great day and please tell me what you think.
I love people who think, and yes, please do elaborate! I think the issue of believing power moons are the equivalent to power stars in the other 3D Mario games is an expectation that is set by the player and therefore it's the players fault for expecting something outside of what the game delivers. I do, however, also think that Odyssey being a 3D Mario game doesn't exactly help in distiguishing the collectables that way as you'll be more inclined to expect a 64/Sunshine/Galaxy type collectable, but at the end of the day, the fault lies with the player approaching the game in the same way they'd do one of the other 3D Mario games and continuing to do so even after they've learned that it's different. I think the "you got a moon" thing is kinda overused, but on the other hand it'd feel like something was missing if it weren't there. Remember, the game is arguably meant to be able to be played in small chunks at a time. Don't know if I feel this way because I've already played the game or not though. The solution to this would be to cut out the "filler" moons completely, because there definitely are some that aren't really necessary, but then again you don't really have to collect a lot of these if you don't want to, so I don't think it's as big of a problem as a lot of people make it out to be. If you just pick them up as you run past them on the way to other, bigger challenges then that will probably suffice! Thanks for the well thought out comment, by the way!
@@FromHerotoZeroYT Awww, that's sweet! Me too! Anyways, many sources, including the Mario wiki, do claim that the moons are the equivalent to power stars. Yeah, I do agree with the fact that the intepertation of the player is a factor, but said interpertation isn't completely their fault, aspecially if they play it for the first time. The fact that prominent sources like the Mario wiki say it might not help either. About the point you made last, which was the "collect them as you go" argument, THAT my friend is exactly how the green stars/star medals in SM3DW/3DL work. However, do you hear anyone complaining about those? Most likely not, because they are not presented as if they were power stars, as opposed to Odyssey's moons, and probably also because of the fact that there is not an entire animation tied to it. Just a little sound effect, that's it. Also, they feel optional, unlike the moons in Odyssey, however, that is elaborated on by Joseph Anderson. This is also why I'm fine with the geen stars in SMG2 and the blue coins in SMS. They may not all be the most well hidden or the best to collect, But they FEEL (at least more) optional. Maybe I'm missing something here, so please tell me if I am. Ok so I guess this next question might be more subjective, would a game like SM64 or SMG benifit from the moon system or get weaker? If we take Good Egg Galaxy for example, you'd get a moon/star for: Talking to the luma that will lead you to the next planet, getting all the star chips on the boulder planet, killing the piranha plant that spawns a sproutle vine (maybe), making your way though the boulders and slurples and killing the prickly plant at the end, the optional flipswitch planet, the dino piranha boss, the 1up room challenge, the star bit collectathon/hungry luma feeding, the tower planet climb, maneuvering the gravity planet, getting the pull star chips on the star planet, getting on top of the house for te launch star (maybe), getting rid of the big thorny flower (maybe), killing the big pokey, using the rainbow star to kill all the goombas in the bonus room (optional), making your way through the chomp planet, killing the two roctos and fighting king kaliente. If you ask me, that would get tedious really quickly. Jeepers, I really started to sound like JA, didn't I? The final point for now. This has to do with the "play the game in small chunks" argument. If you ask me, it would be more of an argument against te game. Maybe I'm misinterperting it, but it feels to me like your saying that you'd better play it in small chunks to avoid getting bored out of your fucking mind. I like to play games for at least 30 minutes, when I have nothig else to do, like sitting in a long car/plane/train journey or just nothing to do. Anyway, that's just me, and maybe i'm in the minority. Thanks for your reply! I'm glad I can talk to someone about this. Hopefully you didn't get too bored reading the Good egg galaxy moon tangent. My essay writing skills need to be refined a little lol.
I'd say that the "collect them as you go" moons are pretty much as optional as the Green Stars are, but you're right. The moons feel less optional because of how they're included in the game from the get-go compared to the green stars which are only unlocked after you've done everything else. That said, I don't like the green stars very much, but don't have that much of a problem with the moons. That's probably very subjective though. I agree, the moon system would not work for Galaxy and would get tedious very quickly. I don't think the moon system would work at all for any of the earlier 3D games simply because they are fundamentally different games. Odyssey plays more into the strengths of having multiple short missions and moons you can find out and about, the most important factor being it's an open world game and not a stage clear game like the Galaxy games or has a rigid mission structure like 64 or Sunshine. (Both of which relied heavily on the boot-out system for various things despite people desperately wanting that system to have been included just to drag out the completion time and would require a complete redesign in order to make use of the moon system). Because yeah, that would get tedious and you kinda see it at certain points in Odyssey too. The difference is that you can at any time go and do something else in the same level. Misunderstand me correctly, I brought up the "playing the game in chunks" part because Nintendo specifically used that as an example in how they designed the game given the handheld nature of the Switch. This obviously depends on the person, but I still think Odyssey plays well enough to keep someone's attention despite this design philosophy because of its strong core gameplay. At least for me, controlling Mario is the most fun part about the game. Collecting the moons is just a nice excuse for me to jump around and do cool tricks or experiment with new ways to reach places! And hey, no worries! This. This right here is why I love making RUclips videos!
@@FromHerotoZeroYT Yeah, I guess Odyssey is probably the best out of the 3D games to have the moon system. Maybe taking a galaxy level wasn't the best way to support my argument, but I just wanted to try and paint the picture a bit. However, I do think this makes Odyssey have it's own identity. A lot of people seem to compare it to earlier 3D Mario games, and I do agree that I'm guilty of it too, but it's like no other. Nintendo took a step in a new direction, but whether it's a right or wrong direction is entirely subjective. Please note, not all of the arguments are acurate to my opinions. I do agree with you on the last point (about playing the game for longer periods o time). I would be lying if I said that Odyssey is a terrible abomination, because it's not. I do, however, feel like a lot of people who like it seem to foget about the glaringly obvious flaws it has. But maybe That can be said about any game, nothing is perfect. I do agree with most of the things that Joseph Anderson said about the moons, though. Maybe categorising them wasn't the best aproach, but I see his point. Also, even though I like the capture mechanic, I do feel like it could've been used better in some cases. I also think that the lives system being removed is a pitty, aspecially since the game is extremely easy. Even that last level doesn't reach the difficulty heights of the last levels in SMG2, 3DL and 3DW. This does show that the game is most likely meant for new players to ease themselves into the Mario series. Outside of that though, the controlls are probably the best here than in ay 3D Mario game, the music is great, the bowser fights are fun (aspecially the ending one) and some of the platforming challenges are quite enjoyable. I don't think it's the coming of christ though, but it isn't te sequel to Hotel Mario either.
Yeah, the capture mechanic feels underutilized and is definitely one of the weak parts of Odyssey even if some of the captures are really fun. I can see where Joseph is coming from too, but I also think that looking at the moons categorized like that gives you the wrong impression of how they're being used in the game, but I already went into a lot of detail about that in the video. On the topic of lives: If you think about it, the 1UP mechanic hasn't really contributed to the difficulty or the game, really, since Super Mario World where you'd be sent back to the last save point when you ran out. For 64 and onwards you don't really lose any more progress when you get a game over from losing all your lives, where you're sent back to the title screen, than just dying in a level, where you're sent to the beginning of the level. Even the stages with checkpoints are so short that you're either almost not going to notice or they have an obscene amount of 1UPs in them so that you'll never run out. And yeah, I believe Nintendo also said that Odyssey was meant as an introduction to Mario for the more casual crowd. That doesn't mean the game has to be easy though, and I definitely wish there were a lot more "hardcore" parts like there was in the previous 3D games!
Your view of how the Mario series is a lead up to Galaxy 2 is how I view Sonic Generations for the Sonic series, what i mean by this is that both games are like a celebration of each respective franchises history and take game ideas and mechanics from a bunch of their games to create the most solid pure platforming level design in the genre 3D or 2D
Yeah, though I guess an important difference is that Generations was made specifically to celebrate past Sonic games, unlike how Odyssey is just another game for the Mario series, but yeah I can see the similarities
I will never not be salty about how much missed potential there was in the Ruined kingdom. Such a cool location only to be used as a glorified boss Arena is painful
I agree, it's a cool location, but to play devil's advocate a bit, I don't think a full level would be that good. At least not within a game like Odyssey. I probably should have talked more about that in the video haha
extremely good vid man! i burned out hard after beating the main game a few years ago but now i feel like going back and completing my save i also didnt use the hint system because i didnt really know what it was but i will now
I’ve been feeling like the nerfed long jump, side flip and wall jump make for much less dynamic movement than the previous sandbox Mario’s. The hat bounce combo is too good, I have to really force myself to look for opportunities to use his other moves. The roll naturally gets used a lot as well ofc
The wall jump definitely sucks. Nitro Rad brought up a good point in his Corn Kidz 64 and Pseudoregalia videos I think it was that a good wall jump is something that you can use for more than just jumping between two walls and the one in Odyssey definitely aren't used as well as those games. As for the long jump, I don't think it's that bad because of what I said in the vid, but I haven't heard anyone say something about the side flip being nerfed. I used it a lot, but that might just be because I'm used to it being the best height you can get while standing relatively in one place from the previous games
Thank you! Sunshine's pretty polarizing too I guess, but like I mentioned in the intro, people either straight up love or despise Odyssey. I feel like there's a lot more balance when it comes to Sunshine, you know?
I was prepared to watch the whole thing but then you start out with it being the “most polarizing” Mario game? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a complaint for it beyond, “It was pretty easy to beat,” and “Other Mario games are harder to 100%.” It’s a beloved game, not a divisive one like Sunshine.
Before watching this video: I liked Odyssey, but there is no denying that the game is suffering from what I call "open world syndrom". Most open world games - including highly praised ones like BotW - are just quantity over actual quality. Now, with SMO and BotW, it's not that there is an actual lack of quality - these are highly polished games after all - it's more that, instead of having to collect 999 moons with at least half of the moons being rewards for even the most generic shit imaginable, I prefer the approach of SMG, where every single star feels special. It's the same with BotW and the stupid seeds, but to a lesser extend. These games want to impress you with high numbers (999 moons, or over 100 shrines) but those numbers are ultimately pointless. What good are 1000 shrines, when they all look the same, have the same music and all follow one of maybe five patterns? What good are 10.000 moons to collect, when you get 1000 moons from talking to some stupid NPC over and over again? Obviously I'm exaggerating, but quantity over quality seems to be the overall theme with open world games. That and boring, uninspired sidequest. (None of the sidequests in BotW could hold a candle to the complexity and emotional reward of the wedding quest from MM.)
I can really do anything but agree, especially with the point about Majora's Mask, but the big caveat with these games is that you're not really supposed to collect them all! I hope I manage to properly convey this and a lot of other points that speak to the work done by the dev team by the end of the video, so feel free to report back with what you thought, negative or positive :)
@@FromHerotoZeroYT Yeah, I guess, but we didn't have to collect every single star in SM64 or Galaxy, or every Shine in SMS either. I mean, okay, we were never supposed to collect everything but, still, there could have been a more elegant way of making sure that non-completionist gamers don't get locked out from seeing the ending. Better balancing the difficulty would be my approach. Making sure that every level has enough easy (but fun and creative) moons, alongside difficult and more cryptic ones. But that task obviously gets more difficult the more stars/moons/whatever your game has, which is why I think it was a stupid idea to raise the number that high in the first place. BUT THEN AGAIN, if they didn't do that, the worlds would feel empty, which is why quantity over quality seems to be a common "problem" with open world or big sandbox games.
That's fair, but 64 and Sunshine were also smaller games and not really as deep in the open world genre as Odyssey is and the Galaxy games are more course clear than what the other ones were trying to be. Odyssey would definitely have had good of a better difficulty balance, but at the same time, this might not have fit into the vision of the devs. Pretty much all of the 3D Mario games has some "padding" and I think this was done mainly so that people could get to the end of the story (70 stars in 64 for example) without having to strictly follow a set path and being able to freely choose which stars to get. Odyssey kinda takes this to the extreme, which is not for everyone, but I think the reason and thought behind it is clear.
I'm sorry but I gotta be honest. This video just seems like a whole lot of cope. I kinda enjoyed Mario Odyssey on my first run but felt no need to go back for more since I personally didn't enjoy the act of getting moons. After watching Joseph Anderson's critique on it, I came away almost fully agreeing with him. About the whole Nintendo claiming the amount of moons was an intentional design decision, I'll remind you Sonic Team said the exact same thing about the reuse of level design in Frontiers because "story reason". Everyone could see that was bullshit. What makes Nintendo any different? Why would they just admit "yeah we ran into problems regarding length and had to pad it out". They wouldn't. Of course they would say it's intentional. They trying to sell you a product and come across as competent. I realized the latter point was KingK but still. I believe you also completed missed the point about example tweets he used. He didn't have to get examples with tons of like or whatever, it is sadly true that far too many "gamers" simply won't buy a game due to it being too short. It's well known gamers complain about game length when a new release comes out. He was just showing the average response related to this behavior. Also you're completely missing the point on everything he brings up but he wasn't saying designing games around the hardware is always a detriment but rather it's a regular thing Nintendo does that in this instance is a problem.
That's not how I intended to portray my opinions, but that's fine! Whether or not you're going to like this game relies heavily on how much you enjoy the basic movement of Mario, I think. Like I explained, if you try to have fun with it, it opens up a lot of possibilities, but the level design doesn't always properly present you with these options so it can be difficult to "get". I still believe that this was a concious design decision though since there's so much variety in how you can traverse the levels. Even just that pillar you can long jump to in the inverted pyramid is such a good example of that. JA's critique of the game is flawed in a lot of ways, but it also brings up a lot of valid criticisms, because if the devs fail to get you engaged in the many mechanics and challenges because they're too obscure to grasp, then they might as well not be there. That said, his rant about the hint system was just plain wrong lol. The reasons why I don't think Nintendo is trying to pull a fast one on us regarding the amount of moons are simple: 1. They've been saying this for as long as we've know about the core mechanic of the moons. 2. The game is actually built around it and it makes sense when you take the portability of the Switch into consideration. 3. Nintendo actually has a good track record for their Mario games. Sega, well, not as much. I truly think Nintendo would never have released something they believed to be a sub-par core Mario game just because of the fear of having the Mario brand diminish in value. Also, I proved without a shadow of a doubt that even running through the game while doing mostly the easiest moons and skipping the cutscenes takes 3 and a half hours at minimum which would translate to about 9 hours if you were to only collect moons from KingK's example where he considers 40% of them being worthy of getting. Now, just how many moons someone would personally consider worthy is a different question, but this example was just so full of holes that I had to make a rant about it haha
I'll just make a seperate comment for the edits since you won't get notified about it otherwise. No, I don't think I missed the point about the tweets at all. The way he frames this is as if it was some huge ongoing discourse at the time that somehow made it's way to Nintendo, but the reality of it is that this is yet again the work of a very loud and very small group of people. The vocal minority, if you will. The tweets shown are seemingly supposed to be proof of this, but 1. they're from way after the game released, and 2. they have almost no interactions. Even the article in that one tweet concluded that short games weren't necessarily bad, so that was just him (or his editor) taking a random headline that looked like it would confirm the allegations and it's hillarious how wrong he is when you look at the full context of the article. So yeah, even if he did mean to show people's sentiment about games being short, he couldn't even manage that. You're giving KingK too much credit here. He says verbatim: "Since this game is on the Nintendo Switch and Nintendo are seemingly obsessed with designing games around a hardware philosophy now [...]". I don't see how you can interpret that as anything but him saying that this is something that has started happening recently. Don't know how to say this without sounding snarky, but feel free to explain what I'm missing though
Also, I guess I'll add one more thing that I feel needs to be said before I go to bed. (I'm so sorry for blowing up your notifications, dude) I wouldn't have had as big of an issue with KingK's game length segment if he made it clear that this was just a theory instead of engaging in bad faith arguments and trying to pass it off as fact without presenting even a single piece of evidence to support it. If you've been following this guy for a while then you'd know that this is something he does regularly too, and not just when it comes to games critique.
![[Super Mario Odyssey] All Seaside Kingdom Coins (100 purple local coins)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vW75sogWnbI/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey! Thanks for watching! I tried something new with this one by adding a one minute preview section with notable clips from the video. What did you think? Did it work? Was it too long? I'm legitimately curious, so voice your opinions here!
I didn’t mind it, although I felt the out of context “wtf does this even mean” clips worked better than the more informational ones (not sure why that’s just my preference I guess)
@@saltyshrimppasta Gotcha, definitely something to keep in mind, thank you!
My honest 2 cents, this is the first of your videos I have seen (recommended through algorithm) and my first impression was that the intro was a bit long and didn’t provide enough context to be useful or engaging as a hook. I almost clicked off during it but decided to stick around and then thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the video. I think diving right into it without messing around is almost always the best hook you can have
@KylerGreer Thank you for the feedback! I'm glad you ended up liking the video despite the slow start haha. I definitely have a bit of trouble with finding ways to have engaging intros and the preview thing was an attempt to remedy that!
The indignation in “who even stands still in this game on purpose” is the best moment of the entire video
I really feel like so many reviewers and critics of the game like to think that everyone is going to want to 100% the game. While yeah, a decent amount of people do (particularly with Mario games), the majority of people just want to play the game. The best example of this is how negatively people seem to feel about the shop moons. There is no need for people who arent trying to 100% the game to buy all the moons. And if someone isn't trying to 100%, it allows them to skip some of the more frustrating moons and just buy them.
I agree! Using Balloon World to make enough money in order to buy moons to get access to the Dark Side and Darker Side of the Moon is totally valid. And even then, you won't get the gold sail that signifies 100% completion until you actually complete all the objectives despite how many moons you have in total!
Alright, so I've done some thinking, and I think I might have a theory/reason as to why some people (including me) say that a lot of the power moons in Odyssey are filler.
So, as far as I know, we are surposed to believe that Odyssey's Power moons are surposed to be the equivalent to power stars in Super Mario 64, Sunshine and Galaxy 1 and 2. The multi moons are meant for the bosses and objectives. Also, aparently they are surposed to be the equivalent to Grand stars in the SMG games. The thing is though, the power stars/shines in the other games are gotten by beating a certain objective, but in Odyssey, the moons are gotten by ground pounding a glowing spot or just getting them as they are out in the open. The problem is that, because we are meant to think that the moons are worth a power star, we end up extremely disapointed if we get the moon by doing the most mundane tasks. I think though, that that problem could've been solved. Please note though, i's just a theory. I'm not an expert at game developement at all. I'm just a random law student giving my insights. I do wonder what you think though.
Do you remember the green stars in Super Mario 3D World, or the star medals in 3D Land? Hell, even the star coins in the NSMB series could fit in this category if you think about it. A lot of those were collected the same way as many of the moons are collected. I think if we are meant to think that the moons are the equivalent to green stars in SM3DW/Star medals in 3DL and the multi moons are the equivalent to getting the goal pole in those two games, then I think the filler complaint would be less valid. A "You got a moon" animation wouldn't be necessary and the flow of gameplay wouldn't be stopped. Just a little sound effect that lets you know you collected the moon would be enough. Also, the argument of not being forced to collect everything would be more valid. I mean, the green stars are a mandatory thing, but they aren't shoved in your face like the power stars/shines/moons are. I mean, did you feel more obligated to getting a power star in SM64, or a green star in SM3DW?
Keep in mind, this is speculation. I kinda written it down somewhat quickly, I have to be at a concert soon, so if you want me to elaborate, just tell me. I just want to have said it.
Have a great day and please tell me what you think.
I love people who think, and yes, please do elaborate!
I think the issue of believing power moons are the equivalent to power stars in the other 3D Mario games is an expectation that is set by the player and therefore it's the players fault for expecting something outside of what the game delivers. I do, however, also think that Odyssey being a 3D Mario game doesn't exactly help in distiguishing the collectables that way as you'll be more inclined to expect a 64/Sunshine/Galaxy type collectable, but at the end of the day, the fault lies with the player approaching the game in the same way they'd do one of the other 3D Mario games and continuing to do so even after they've learned that it's different.
I think the "you got a moon" thing is kinda overused, but on the other hand it'd feel like something was missing if it weren't there. Remember, the game is arguably meant to be able to be played in small chunks at a time. Don't know if I feel this way because I've already played the game or not though. The solution to this would be to cut out the "filler" moons completely, because there definitely are some that aren't really necessary, but then again you don't really have to collect a lot of these if you don't want to, so I don't think it's as big of a problem as a lot of people make it out to be. If you just pick them up as you run past them on the way to other, bigger challenges then that will probably suffice!
Thanks for the well thought out comment, by the way!
@@FromHerotoZeroYT Awww, that's sweet! Me too!
Anyways, many sources, including the Mario wiki, do claim that the moons are the equivalent to power stars. Yeah, I do agree with the fact that the intepertation of the player is a factor, but said interpertation isn't completely their fault, aspecially if they play it for the first time. The fact that prominent sources like the Mario wiki say it might not help either.
About the point you made last, which was the "collect them as you go" argument, THAT my friend is exactly how the green stars/star medals in SM3DW/3DL work. However, do you hear anyone complaining about those? Most likely not, because they are not presented as if they were power stars, as opposed to Odyssey's moons, and probably also because of the fact that there is not an entire animation tied to it. Just a little sound effect, that's it. Also, they feel optional, unlike the moons in Odyssey, however, that is elaborated on by Joseph Anderson. This is also why I'm fine with the geen stars in SMG2 and the blue coins in SMS. They may not all be the most well hidden or the best to collect, But they FEEL (at least more) optional. Maybe I'm missing something here, so please tell me if I am.
Ok so I guess this next question might be more subjective, would a game like SM64 or SMG benifit from the moon system or get weaker? If we take Good Egg Galaxy for example, you'd get a moon/star for:
Talking to the luma that will lead you to the next planet, getting all the star chips on the boulder planet, killing the piranha plant that spawns a sproutle vine (maybe), making your way though the boulders and slurples and killing the prickly plant at the end, the optional flipswitch planet, the dino piranha boss, the 1up room challenge, the star bit collectathon/hungry luma feeding, the tower planet climb, maneuvering the gravity planet, getting the pull star chips on the star planet, getting on top of the house for te launch star (maybe), getting rid of the big thorny flower (maybe), killing the big pokey, using the rainbow star to kill all the goombas in the bonus room (optional), making your way through the chomp planet, killing the two roctos and fighting king kaliente. If you ask me, that would get tedious really quickly. Jeepers, I really started to sound like JA, didn't I?
The final point for now. This has to do with the "play the game in small chunks" argument. If you ask me, it would be more of an argument against te game. Maybe I'm misinterperting it, but it feels to me like your saying that you'd better play it in small chunks to avoid getting bored out of your fucking mind. I like to play games for at least 30 minutes, when I have nothig else to do, like sitting in a long car/plane/train journey or just nothing to do. Anyway, that's just me, and maybe i'm in the minority.
Thanks for your reply! I'm glad I can talk to someone about this. Hopefully you didn't get too bored reading the Good egg galaxy moon tangent. My essay writing skills need to be refined a little lol.
I'd say that the "collect them as you go" moons are pretty much as optional as the Green Stars are, but you're right. The moons feel less optional because of how they're included in the game from the get-go compared to the green stars which are only unlocked after you've done everything else. That said, I don't like the green stars very much, but don't have that much of a problem with the moons. That's probably very subjective though.
I agree, the moon system would not work for Galaxy and would get tedious very quickly. I don't think the moon system would work at all for any of the earlier 3D games simply because they are fundamentally different games. Odyssey plays more into the strengths of having multiple short missions and moons you can find out and about, the most important factor being it's an open world game and not a stage clear game like the Galaxy games or has a rigid mission structure like 64 or Sunshine. (Both of which relied heavily on the boot-out system for various things despite people desperately wanting that system to have been included just to drag out the completion time and would require a complete redesign in order to make use of the moon system). Because yeah, that would get tedious and you kinda see it at certain points in Odyssey too. The difference is that you can at any time go and do something else in the same level.
Misunderstand me correctly, I brought up the "playing the game in chunks" part because Nintendo specifically used that as an example in how they designed the game given the handheld nature of the Switch. This obviously depends on the person, but I still think Odyssey plays well enough to keep someone's attention despite this design philosophy because of its strong core gameplay. At least for me, controlling Mario is the most fun part about the game. Collecting the moons is just a nice excuse for me to jump around and do cool tricks or experiment with new ways to reach places!
And hey, no worries! This. This right here is why I love making RUclips videos!
@@FromHerotoZeroYT Yeah, I guess Odyssey is probably the best out of the 3D games to have the moon system. Maybe taking a galaxy level wasn't the best way to support my argument, but I just wanted to try and paint the picture a bit. However, I do think this makes Odyssey have it's own identity. A lot of people seem to compare it to earlier 3D Mario games, and I do agree that I'm guilty of it too, but it's like no other. Nintendo took a step in a new direction, but whether it's a right or wrong direction is entirely subjective.
Please note, not all of the arguments are acurate to my opinions. I do agree with you on the last point (about playing the game for longer periods o time). I would be lying if I said that Odyssey is a terrible abomination, because it's not. I do, however, feel like a lot of people who like it seem to foget about the glaringly obvious flaws it has. But maybe That can be said about any game, nothing is perfect. I do agree with most of the things that Joseph Anderson said about the moons, though. Maybe categorising them wasn't the best aproach, but I see his point. Also, even though I like the capture mechanic, I do feel like it could've been used better in some cases. I also think that the lives system being removed is a pitty, aspecially since the game is extremely easy. Even that last level doesn't reach the difficulty heights of the last levels in SMG2, 3DL and 3DW. This does show that the game is most likely meant for new players to ease themselves into the Mario series. Outside of that though, the controlls are probably the best here than in ay 3D Mario game, the music is great, the bowser fights are fun (aspecially the ending one) and some of the platforming challenges are quite enjoyable. I don't think it's the coming of christ though, but it isn't te sequel to Hotel Mario either.
Yeah, the capture mechanic feels underutilized and is definitely one of the weak parts of Odyssey even if some of the captures are really fun.
I can see where Joseph is coming from too, but I also think that looking at the moons categorized like that gives you the wrong impression of how they're being used in the game, but I already went into a lot of detail about that in the video.
On the topic of lives: If you think about it, the 1UP mechanic hasn't really contributed to the difficulty or the game, really, since Super Mario World where you'd be sent back to the last save point when you ran out. For 64 and onwards you don't really lose any more progress when you get a game over from losing all your lives, where you're sent back to the title screen, than just dying in a level, where you're sent to the beginning of the level. Even the stages with checkpoints are so short that you're either almost not going to notice or they have an obscene amount of 1UPs in them so that you'll never run out.
And yeah, I believe Nintendo also said that Odyssey was meant as an introduction to Mario for the more casual crowd. That doesn't mean the game has to be easy though, and I definitely wish there were a lot more "hardcore" parts like there was in the previous 3D games!
Your view of how the Mario series is a lead up to Galaxy 2 is how I view Sonic Generations for the Sonic series, what i mean by this is that both games are like a celebration of each respective franchises history and take game ideas and mechanics from a bunch of their games to create the most solid pure platforming level design in the genre 3D or 2D
Yeah, though I guess an important difference is that Generations was made specifically to celebrate past Sonic games, unlike how Odyssey is just another game for the Mario series, but yeah I can see the similarities
I will never not be salty about how much missed potential there was in the Ruined kingdom. Such a cool location only to be used as a glorified boss Arena is painful
I agree, it's a cool location, but to play devil's advocate a bit, I don't think a full level would be that good. At least not within a game like Odyssey. I probably should have talked more about that in the video haha
dark side is worse ruined kingdom has that good suberea
extremely good vid man! i burned out hard after beating the main game a few years ago but now i feel like going back and completing my save
i also didnt use the hint system because i didnt really know what it was but i will now
Thank you! I'm glad my extreme fixation towards the hint system helped lmao
Thank you for this! I love the thumbnail btw.
Haha, it's my pleasure! And yeah, I'm really proud of this thumbnail! Definitely one of my best!
Welcome to the "I've criticized KingK in a video" Club. We are the only 2 members I know of.
That's kinda wild ngl
I’ve been feeling like the nerfed long jump, side flip and wall jump make for much less dynamic movement than the previous sandbox Mario’s. The hat bounce combo is too good, I have to really force myself to look for opportunities to use his other moves. The roll naturally gets used a lot as well ofc
The wall jump definitely sucks. Nitro Rad brought up a good point in his Corn Kidz 64 and Pseudoregalia videos I think it was that a good wall jump is something that you can use for more than just jumping between two walls and the one in Odyssey definitely aren't used as well as those games. As for the long jump, I don't think it's that bad because of what I said in the vid, but I haven't heard anyone say something about the side flip being nerfed. I used it a lot, but that might just be because I'm used to it being the best height you can get while standing relatively in one place from the previous games
thanks for the upload :D
Good video, but I really don't think Odyssey is the most polarizing Mario game. That'd definitely be Sunshine.
Thank you!
Sunshine's pretty polarizing too I guess, but like I mentioned in the intro, people either straight up love or despise Odyssey. I feel like there's a lot more balance when it comes to Sunshine, you know?
Unlisted?
Unliste.... Wait hang on something's wrong here
I was prepared to watch the whole thing but then you start out with it being the “most polarizing” Mario game? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a complaint for it beyond, “It was pretty easy to beat,” and “Other Mario games are harder to 100%.” It’s a beloved game, not a divisive one like Sunshine.
Just a quick search here on RUclips will bring up a bunch of wildly polarizing opinions
Before watching this video: I liked Odyssey, but there is no denying that the game is suffering from what I call "open world syndrom". Most open world games - including highly praised ones like BotW - are just quantity over actual quality. Now, with SMO and BotW, it's not that there is an actual lack of quality - these are highly polished games after all - it's more that, instead of having to collect 999 moons with at least half of the moons being rewards for even the most generic shit imaginable, I prefer the approach of SMG, where every single star feels special. It's the same with BotW and the stupid seeds, but to a lesser extend.
These games want to impress you with high numbers (999 moons, or over 100 shrines) but those numbers are ultimately pointless. What good are 1000 shrines, when they all look the same, have the same music and all follow one of maybe five patterns? What good are 10.000 moons to collect, when you get 1000 moons from talking to some stupid NPC over and over again?
Obviously I'm exaggerating, but quantity over quality seems to be the overall theme with open world games. That and boring, uninspired sidequest. (None of the sidequests in BotW could hold a candle to the complexity and emotional reward of the wedding quest from MM.)
I can really do anything but agree, especially with the point about Majora's Mask, but the big caveat with these games is that you're not really supposed to collect them all! I hope I manage to properly convey this and a lot of other points that speak to the work done by the dev team by the end of the video, so feel free to report back with what you thought, negative or positive :)
@@FromHerotoZeroYT
Yeah, I guess, but we didn't have to collect every single star in SM64 or Galaxy, or every Shine in SMS either. I mean, okay, we were never supposed to collect everything but, still, there could have been a more elegant way of making sure that non-completionist gamers don't get locked out from seeing the ending. Better balancing the difficulty would be my approach. Making sure that every level has enough easy (but fun and creative) moons, alongside difficult and more cryptic ones. But that task obviously gets more difficult the more stars/moons/whatever your game has, which is why I think it was a stupid idea to raise the number that high in the first place. BUT THEN AGAIN, if they didn't do that, the worlds would feel empty, which is why quantity over quality seems to be a common "problem" with open world or big sandbox games.
That's fair, but 64 and Sunshine were also smaller games and not really as deep in the open world genre as Odyssey is and the Galaxy games are more course clear than what the other ones were trying to be. Odyssey would definitely have had good of a better difficulty balance, but at the same time, this might not have fit into the vision of the devs. Pretty much all of the 3D Mario games has some "padding" and I think this was done mainly so that people could get to the end of the story (70 stars in 64 for example) without having to strictly follow a set path and being able to freely choose which stars to get. Odyssey kinda takes this to the extreme, which is not for everyone, but I think the reason and thought behind it is clear.
I'm sorry but I gotta be honest. This video just seems like a whole lot of cope. I kinda enjoyed Mario Odyssey on my first run but felt no need to go back for more since I personally didn't enjoy the act of getting moons. After watching Joseph Anderson's critique on it, I came away almost fully agreeing with him.
About the whole Nintendo claiming the amount of moons was an intentional design decision, I'll remind you Sonic Team said the exact same thing about the reuse of level design in Frontiers because "story reason". Everyone could see that was bullshit. What makes Nintendo any different? Why would they just admit "yeah we ran into problems regarding length and had to pad it out". They wouldn't. Of course they would say it's intentional. They trying to sell you a product and come across as competent. I realized the latter point was KingK but still.
I believe you also completed missed the point about example tweets he used. He didn't have to get examples with tons of like or whatever, it is sadly true that far too many "gamers" simply won't buy a game due to it being too short. It's well known gamers complain about game length when a new release comes out. He was just showing the average response related to this behavior.
Also you're completely missing the point on everything he brings up but he wasn't saying designing games around the hardware is always a detriment but rather it's a regular thing Nintendo does that in this instance is a problem.
That's not how I intended to portray my opinions, but that's fine!
Whether or not you're going to like this game relies heavily on how much you enjoy the basic movement of Mario, I think. Like I explained, if you try to have fun with it, it opens up a lot of possibilities, but the level design doesn't always properly present you with these options so it can be difficult to "get". I still believe that this was a concious design decision though since there's so much variety in how you can traverse the levels. Even just that pillar you can long jump to in the inverted pyramid is such a good example of that. JA's critique of the game is flawed in a lot of ways, but it also brings up a lot of valid criticisms, because if the devs fail to get you engaged in the many mechanics and challenges because they're too obscure to grasp, then they might as well not be there. That said, his rant about the hint system was just plain wrong lol.
The reasons why I don't think Nintendo is trying to pull a fast one on us regarding the amount of moons are simple:
1. They've been saying this for as long as we've know about the core mechanic of the moons.
2. The game is actually built around it and it makes sense when you take the portability of the Switch into consideration.
3. Nintendo actually has a good track record for their Mario games. Sega, well, not as much.
I truly think Nintendo would never have released something they believed to be a sub-par core Mario game just because of the fear of having the Mario brand diminish in value. Also, I proved without a shadow of a doubt that even running through the game while doing mostly the easiest moons and skipping the cutscenes takes 3 and a half hours at minimum which would translate to about 9 hours if you were to only collect moons from KingK's example where he considers 40% of them being worthy of getting. Now, just how many moons someone would personally consider worthy is a different question, but this example was just so full of holes that I had to make a rant about it haha
I'll just make a seperate comment for the edits since you won't get notified about it otherwise.
No, I don't think I missed the point about the tweets at all. The way he frames this is as if it was some huge ongoing discourse at the time that somehow made it's way to Nintendo, but the reality of it is that this is yet again the work of a very loud and very small group of people. The vocal minority, if you will. The tweets shown are seemingly supposed to be proof of this, but 1. they're from way after the game released, and 2. they have almost no interactions. Even the article in that one tweet concluded that short games weren't necessarily bad, so that was just him (or his editor) taking a random headline that looked like it would confirm the allegations and it's hillarious how wrong he is when you look at the full context of the article. So yeah, even if he did mean to show people's sentiment about games being short, he couldn't even manage that.
You're giving KingK too much credit here. He says verbatim: "Since this game is on the Nintendo Switch and Nintendo are seemingly obsessed with designing games around a hardware philosophy now [...]". I don't see how you can interpret that as anything but him saying that this is something that has started happening recently. Don't know how to say this without sounding snarky, but feel free to explain what I'm missing though
Also, I guess I'll add one more thing that I feel needs to be said before I go to bed. (I'm so sorry for blowing up your notifications, dude)
I wouldn't have had as big of an issue with KingK's game length segment if he made it clear that this was just a theory instead of engaging in bad faith arguments and trying to pass it off as fact without presenting even a single piece of evidence to support it. If you've been following this guy for a while then you'd know that this is something he does regularly too, and not just when it comes to games critique.
I agree