Review: Super Mario Galaxy 2

[VGFreak1225]

Two things I want to know:

1. How many of the SM64 levels do they showcase? Is Whomp's Fortress the only one?

2. Do we get to see Rosalina again?

I don't know about the SM64 levels, but I do know that Rosalina does not return, in name anyway. The Cosmic Witch (Super Guide) looks suspiciously like her though.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Looks pretty awesome. I'll defiantly have to find the funds to pick this up.
However, I must say this series needs some innovation, and by innovation, I mean Bowser needs to stop with the kidnapping Peach thing. He had a good scheme going in the first Super Mario Galaxy, what with the whole create his own Galaxy thing; but he had to make a pit stop to kidnap Peach fist. *facepalm*

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Gooooooood. Though Susan's puns are both amazing and cringeworthy. Well done!

 

[Weaver]

I'm super excited for this!

 

[Susan Arendt]

Gooooooood. Though Susan's puns are both amazing and cringeworthy. Well done!

My work here is done. *claps hands in a "that's that" motion*

 

[ThisNewGuy]

You certainly meant that, but what you said, was more of a "This game has bad controlls and camera, that's why I don't like it" instead of "I don't like the controlls and the camera in this game, that's why I don't like it".

It would only be an oxymoron if there were no objective criteria for a good 3D Plattformer, but there are objective criteria for a good 3D Plattformer, because of that it is possible, that a good 3D Plattformer can still not be liked by someone, because he or she doesn't like certain aspects of the game and not because of the bad quality of the said game. However, if you like a game or not depends 100% on your personal taste, since the objective criteria for liking or not liking something do not exist.

First off, I believe that all reviews are based on opinions. And that means that it's an oxymoron to say that any negative opinion towards a game is pure opinion, but all positive opinions towards a game are pure facts.

If someone doesn't like some aspects of a game, it means that to that person, certain aspects of the game are bad in quality. If someone like some aspects of a game, it means that, to that person, the certain aspects of the game are good in quality.

I was going by quality, not healthy, per se, though the two do go often go together. Obviously good and bad are sliding scales, and I'm not really looking for an argument about it. My point was simply that there's nothing wrong with not liking a good game, and that whether or not you like something is not a determination of whether the thing in question actually has value. The example I typically use is my own dislike of GTA. I don't like the games, does that mean they're not good? Of course it doesn't. Same thing applies here.

That means, to you, GTA is not a good game in your opinion; while to others, GTA is a good game in their opinions. Liking or not liking a game, whether or not it's "good," is a matter of opinions. To some people, Harry Potter is a good book, but to others, it's not. To some people, Star Wars prequels are good movies, but to others, it's not. I hope I'm making myself clear.

 

[Brainst0rm]

Well, I never liked 3D mario since the camera and the platforming don't work well together, but I still gave SMG a try due to its high praise. And I was utterly disgusted and disappointed by that game due to the same poor control dressed up with interesting looking but ultimately the same level designs.

Hearing that this game is just more of the same still has me pretty skeptical. I guess I just gotta try it out at Bestbuy or something.

...what kind of games DO you enjoy? And you know you can change camera modes (and have been able to in every 3D mario game, ever). You're not impressing anyone by not jumping on the bandwagon here.

Sounds like someone's mad that I don't like a Mario game. I kind of expected this, but not from this forum actually. Um, how do I explain this, changing camera modes doesn't help solve the camera problems. In fact, the game is even more annoying to play when it's in first person view.

It's actually very interesting that you think that there's actually an anti-SMG bandwagon to jump into. The way I see it, your opinion is that people have to either love this game, or they're just wrong.

Edit: Oh, and what kind of games I enjoy. I enjoy 2D mario games, Contra, Pong, Tetris, NMH, MGS, Uncharted 2, GT series, Mario Kart, etc. I know it's shocking that I can not like SMG and still like playing other games.

The bandwagon I was referring to was the pro-SMG bandwagon, because you're the only person I've encountered who doesn't love SMG. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, and if you've decided that 'camera angles' are going to keep you from enjoying a fantastic game, I'm just going to have to get over it.

And, it is somewhat shocking that you can enjoy other games. There are flaws in everything. Whether or not they're deal-breaking flaws is pretty much up to the player.

 

[Susan Arendt]

I was going by quality, not healthy, per se, though the two do go often go together. Obviously good and bad are sliding scales, and I'm not really looking for an argument about it. My point was simply that there's nothing wrong with not liking a good game, and that whether or not you like something is not a determination of whether the thing in question actually has value. The example I typically use is my own dislike of GTA. I don't like the games, does that mean they're not good? Of course it doesn't. Same thing applies here.

That means, to you, GTA is not a good game in your opinion; while to others, GTA is a good game in their opinions. Liking or not liking a game, whether or not it's "good," is a matter of opinions. To some people, Harry Potter is a good book, but to others, it's not. To some people, Star Wars prequels are good movies, but to others, it's not. I hope I'm making myself clear.

It's a slightly different way in thinking, but no, that's not what that means. I mean that GTA is a good game that I don't like. My not liking it does not affect the fact that it is good.

Naturally, understand your point of view, and think it's a perfectly valid one, it's just not one I happen to share.

 

[droppingpenny]

You certainly meant that, but what you said, was more of a "This game has bad controlls and camera, that's why I don't like it" instead of "I don't like the controlls and the camera in this game, that's why I don't like it".

It would only be an oxymoron if there were no objective criteria for a good 3D Plattformer, but there are objective criteria for a good 3D Plattformer, because of that it is possible, that a good 3D Plattformer can still not be liked by someone, because he or she doesn't like certain aspects of the game and not because of the bad quality of the said game. However, if you like a game or not depends 100% on your personal taste, since the objective criteria for liking or not liking something do not exist.

First off, I believe that all reviews are based on opinions. And that means that it's an oxymoron to say that any negative opinion towards a game is pure opinion, but all positive opinions towards a game are pure facts.

If someone doesn't like some aspects of a game, it means that to that person, certain aspects of the game are bad in quality. If someone like some aspects of a game, it means that, to that person, the certain aspects of the game are good in quality.

Nope, that's not what I've said. I said, that there are objectively good games, and objectively bad games (also all the quality grades in between), but whenever a person likes a game or not depends solely on his/her opinion of that specific game. If a person likes a game it is based on an opinion as well as when a person doesn't like a game. Though many people confuse their own opinions with objective facts and because of that state their opinions as such facts. I personally don't think, you are one of those people, you just happen think differently than I am about this subject, and that's perfectly fine. I can see where you are coming from, since I used to think the same way about other topics. I just hope you understand my point of view as well, despite my poor English.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

I was going by quality, not healthy, per se, though the two do go often go together. Obviously good and bad are sliding scales, and I'm not really looking for an argument about it. My point was simply that there's nothing wrong with not liking a good game, and that whether or not you like something is not a determination of whether the thing in question actually has value. The example I typically use is my own dislike of GTA. I don't like the games, does that mean they're not good? Of course it doesn't. Same thing applies here.

That means, to you, GTA is not a good game in your opinion; while to others, GTA is a good game in their opinions. Liking or not liking a game, whether or not it's "good," is a matter of opinions. To some people, Harry Potter is a good book, but to others, it's not. To some people, Star Wars prequels are good movies, but to others, it's not. I hope I'm making myself clear.

It's a slightly different way in thinking, but no, that's not what that means. I mean that GTA is a good game that I don't like. My not liking it does not affect the fact that it is good.

Naturally, understand your point of view, and think it's a perfectly valid one, it's just not one I happen to share.

Hmm, I see what you mean. I'm just having a hard time understanding what is "objectively good" in comparison to something that's "opinionated good." Who gets to say if a game is a "good" game then?

 

[docbox1567]

Toadstool really loves his stars. Naughty stars that must be...porned. I guess why it is always stars, because they are so damn sexy. I think the new one-liner will be, "Damn baby, you are sexier than a star in Mario Galaxy". Or "I want to hold you like Toadstool holds stars". Welcome to the world of starsexuals.

 

[Endocrom]

Are those spiffy Red Stars back? and usable in anything other than pointless unloosable situations?

 

[CD-R]

]Good review as always.
This game might finally give me a reason to dust off the Wii and take it out for another go.
Will there be any chance that the next review on the Escapist will be Red Dead Redemption?

Oh, and the banktoad changes his appearance depending on how many star bits you've deposited. At 1000, he switches to glasses, at 2000, he switches to a spear and shield. So he's not always being...friendly...with a star bit.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Grahav]

So much creativity for everything except for the plot...

 

[darkroot]

I bet John Funk is upset that he didn't get to do this review.

Yeah I am to, the jokes were kinda sad.

 

[ahiddenfigure]

Oh god, that Toad!! *cringe*

Well I know I'll be getting it. Except...

The UK doesn't get this until the 11th June

Hah, that's nothing! Release date for me in Australia is July 1st [http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/05/aussie-mario-galaxy-2-date-wont-make-you-woo-hoo/]. July... 1st!

On the bright side, at least I now have a timeframe with which to complete Monster Hunter Tri's single player.

 

[MortisLegio]

nice review

Starbit: Why?(cries) I feel so cheap!

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Gooooooood. Though Susan's puns are both amazing and cringeworthy. Well done!

My work here is done. *claps hands in a "that's that" motion*

And the work done is well done. Can't wait to compare moments of all-out dorky puns once I can play it.

 

[MissAshley]

Hmm, I see what you mean. I'm just having a hard time understanding what is "objectively good" in comparison to something that's "opinionated good." Who gets to say if a game is a "good" game then?

Consensus.

Consensus thinks Halo 2 is good because it likes it. I do not like it, but can concede others do, so my not liking it has nothing to do with the quality of the title. Also, games do contain many qualitative elements.

To use the previous poster's camera issues with 3D Mario titles: Those very same camera designs have not prevented many others from effectively playing and unabashedly enjoying those games. Compare the effect of the camera in those games to, say, Bubsy 3D.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

Hmm, I see what you mean. I'm just having a hard time understanding what is "objectively good" in comparison to something that's "opinionated good." Who gets to say if a game is a "good" game then?

Consensus.

Consensus thinks Halo 2 is good because it likes it. I do not like it, but can concede others do, so my not liking it has nothing to do with the quality of the title. Also, games do contain many qualitative elements.

To use the previous poster's camera issues with 3D Mario titles: Those very same camera designs have not prevented many others from effectively playing and unabashedly enjoying those games. Compare the effect of the camera in those games to, say, Bubsy 3D.

Hmm, that's a very dangerous approach to reviews then, especially if you need to publish a review before the game is even out. How do you say that a game is objectively good when there is no consensus yet?

Also, consensus is a dangerous way to validate an objectively good "truth" because there may be a consensus amongst 18 year olds in one way, but there may be a consensus amongst 40 year olds in another way, who is the objective "truth" then?

Also, I do concede that others may like this game, I'm just saying that I didn't like SMG and will remain skeptical of its sequel until after I play it myself or if some reviewers actually address some problems that I have with the SMG.