I understand Halo being unambitious, since it is, but not SMG. Christ, the level designs are the very definition of ambitious.

I agree in regards to Halo 3 but not Mario Galaxy.

neither game innovated. neither game was bad.

This wouldn't have happened if tanooki mario was in galaxy

I agree.

havent played mario galaxy but id agree with halo 3. i thought it was bad.

Super Mario Galaxy is about as innovative as they come.
The NYT is clearly staffed by brainless, clueless, souless hacks.

It's those goddamn liberals complaining again.

I'll start out by saying that I definatly disagree with the NYT here. However, they, unlike us, look at these titles with no bias, at least I hope so. Granted I believe they are dead wrong, especially about SMG, but part of me went hmm maybe on some small level they have something here.

Was your opinion biased of SMG because after all it is a mario game? Would you have liked it as much if it was a different title? I say no, but at least it provoked me to think more on it. Also halo3, were you a fanboy that would have loved it even if someone from bungie came to your house and killed your pet? We all know how great the multiplayer is and how short the single player is, but did it really deserve as much praise as it got?

At the very least it provoked me to think about how I judge or pre-judge games that I've been looking forward to. Also, its interesting to see people get so miffed when someone says something that you don't agree with about video games. HOW DARE YOU SAY SOMETHING BAD ABOUT MY HALOS!!! /calmdowntherechief

Dosn't anyone else want to point out how many sequals the Ratchet & Clank franchise has had, yet that isn't considered Unambitious?

Dont people on this site say the same stuff all the time?

"calls them both out for being more of the same"

Well, you could make the argument that they are the improved and updated versions of their predecessors, i.e. they are sequels. sequels. If they are a re-imagining of the games before them, then they have done a good job because, again, these are sequels.

not broken = don't fix.

Just report the news like I expect you to NYT. Judging, judging, always judging.

There's only 2 reasons I want a Wii...

SuperMarioGalaxy & SuperSmashBrothersBrawl



I see the videos for these two and I salivate!

@Rucksack

I agree with your comments re: NY Times and their reviews of books and games, but their news is top notch :)

Haha...Pwned by the New York Times.

There's no denying that Super Mario Galaxy relies a lot on its traditional platforming roots. There's the return of collecting coins and stars, classic characters and enemies, Mario's familiar jumping moves, a hub world, 3 hits to beat a boss, and classic power-ups and other franchise signature items. I personally don't have much of a problem with this because these are basically what make Mario games so great and iconic.However, some of the best parts of SMG are new and ambitious.

Galaxy is the first Mario game to introduce the concept of mixed and separated traditional and spherical level design, gravity gameplay mechanics and the interactive launch star mechanic that doubles as a navigation device that cleverly connects each stage of a galaxy together. The game is more linear than the other 3D Mario games and there's also the epic, original orchestrated music. There's the new and intuitive starbit shooter mechanic that has not been done in a platformer game before as well as the unconventional co-op mode all thanks to the unique Wii controls.

The game's space theme makes for a refreshing change that feels like a proper Mario game due to the variety of familiar Mushroom Kingdom environments. Heck, Galaxy actually has 2 stories in it. There's the Princess Rosalina story which is optional and what the main story lacks in originality, it makes up for with it's epic and impressive presentation of the cut scenes.

As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo introduced enough new and significant stuff to step outside of their comfort zone. Galaxy still plays out like any other platformer game to get from point A to point B. However, what Nintendo did with Galaxy is it redefined the platformer genre in the process and so it did take a big risk in doing so. Of course, it's not a huge change when compared to the what Super Mario 64 managed to accomplish. Of course, Mario 64 had the advantage of being the first of the 3D games. My point is, while Mario 64 was a big struggle to make it into the success that it is, Galaxy is more of a challenge in that Nintendo has to find new ways to make the platformer genre feel refreshing which is a problem for any franchise that a developer continues to make games when the fundamental game design concepts have already been established in previous titles.

Dammit, Jim wins teh internets again. If only because the time of his post was 13:37.

Also, fortnight ;)

For once I'll have to agree completely with the New York Times.

This was the perspective he was writing from:

http://www.slate.com/id/2179398/entry/2179592/

I guess from that perspective, mario and halo might seem like more of the same thing.

But of course, bioshock was fucking boring, and i love mario galaxy so far.

Of course Halo 3 is unambitiuos. Is just Halo, good online experience, thats all (fueled by a gigantic expenditure in marketing)

Now I havent played SMG but for what I have read is a good game at it innovates in many levels.

Innovation will come to a end soon and it will all be re-makes and copied ideas so get fucking used to it!

Ok, no reason to attack them. That's true. But then again, why the love for Ratchet and Clank? I personally believe the Times has no credibility left. They are completely left leaning, in every aspect of their works. They are total liberals. They never ever show a Republican in a "good" light, but they love that bitch Hillary Clinton so much they suck her cock right on the front page.

Anyway, back to Ratchet and Clank. I remember their article about that one, when it was released in October. It was raving, talking all this jive about the games "Pixar-quality graphics" and the "amazing gameplay". Bullshit. Game was fun and pretty, but not quite Pixar. Funny how no Sony games were mentioned as lacking innovation, only praised.

I sometimes seriously think that Sony has the NYT in their pockets or something. I certainly wouldn't put it past the Times. Fucking liberals.

I'll say this about Nintendo and Mario. They're good at making something old seem new again. Even though its the samething disguised as something new and innovative.

I agree with king3vbo's (large fonted) point. I'm enjoying it too much.