In that Gamasutra writeup of Yoshiaki Koizumi 's discussion on Galaxy I did and have since been nattering about, he explained the challenges of transitioning Mario to 3D -- there were physical issues, like conceptualizing the character in an additional dimension, and there were design issues. Koizumi correctly noted that in Mario 64, players had issues judging depth and distance, making it difficult to jump on Goombas. I'll quietly put my hand up here. I hate Mario 64 -- actually, I hate the entire Nintendo 64 episode, for similar reasons. It was grueling when it didn't need to be; 3D was just frustrating to me, back then, with those games, with that controller.Koizumi also mentioned that players could easily become disoriented or lost; it's not so easy to keep a mental map of a polygonal world when one's perspective is always shifting. It was these things he says he had in mind when conceptualizing the spherical design of Galaxy -- it solved a lot of those issues that have made 3D Marios more pain than pleasure. Adding the spin attack and allowing the seminal plumber to shoot Star Bits removes the need to jump, for those like me who don't like scrutinizing shadows, lip bitten down, hoping to land on a monster's head and not at that infuriating point directly in front of its face that results in certain injury.
I ended up playing a lot of older games, mostly Virtual Console stuff, over the weekend. Bonk's Adventure, Donkey Kong Country, and Super Mario World. I also recently played pretty much every portable Castlevania there is, including that rather excellent translation of Symphony of the Night on PSP as part of the Dracula X chronicles. This is kind of an odd pastiche, but the one thing they all have in common is they're all 2D (DK Country has 3D objects, but it's still a left-to-right with no level depth). I've been sick over the past few days, and I was just too fatigued for Galaxy or Mass Effect, both of which I'm not optimistic about actually completing.
Playing Mario World, I realized several things: first, new games really have effed my reflexes. Second, games that take skill are a lost art. Third, I don't really like Mario all that much. And finally, there is no good reason whatsoever for Mario to be 3D. Ever, at all.
I have to assume that the third dimension evolved into gaming to create immersion and realism. Those two words -- immersion and realism -- seem to have ended up clasping hands quite tightly over the ages, but do they really need to? Take another series occupying lots of my time lately, Castlevania. It's 2D and realistic is probably the last word I'd use to describe it, but immersive is one of the first. It has a few things in common with Mario; consistent themes that persist in the series' lifetime and are used to define it, familiar level designs, a single distinctive look and style, to name a few. And consistently, over the past few weeks, I continually preferred playing Symphony to Galaxy, even though according to the evolution of games such a preference flies in the face of reason. After all, it's 2D, it's old, and, here's the kicker -- I've played it already.
If you look objectively at my gaming behavior over the last month or so, you could make the case that I'm having one of those blind nostalgia-fests to which those of us who play for years are sometimes unfortunately susceptible. But the certain fact has become clear to me that making games 3D actually causes them to lose something; that in this quest for "realism" in our fantasy exploits (time paradox?) we're sacrificing a lot. It's like that generally unfortunate period in the history of PC gaming when suddenly everything was being done with live actors. Logic and the natural progression of the medium would dictate that going in this direction was a great thing to do, and yet, in practice, it didn't quite turn out that way. Now all we have to remember that era by are a bunch of old Youtube videos that look like Cinemax.
Koizumi's right that Galaxy's spherical design keeps me from ever getting lost. But it also deprives me of the satisfaction of mapping things out in my head, of creating a sense of having explored every corner. That's what I absolutely love about Castlevania -- watching my map fill out and spread from the point at which I began, seeing the ways disparate rooms eventually end up linking together, and finally, by the end, realizing I've looked at absolutely everything.
The fact it's played in two dimensions works for it. And I'd really defy anyone to state that Castlevania's sprites aren't visually compelling, piquant to the imagination, almost unparalleled in that respect. There's just something about them it's just not possible to achieve in 3D.
Mario's never been particularly visually interesting. Distinctive, sure, but the background, I think, was always meant to be exactly that. I remember first playing Super Mario World and loving the way the clouds and weird green hills layered over one another in the background, but thematically, it's been the same forever. But Mario's also never been about flashy looks, deeply interactive environments or riveting stories. It's about starting at the beginning of one level, navigating its hazards, and getting to the end.
I've realized, I think, why Galaxy leaves me feeling teased, perpetually unsatisfied -- in a sphere, there is no beginning, and no end.
I don't think I've been playing old games because I'm on some kind of nostalgia trip. I think it's that there are elements of 2D gameplay that can't be replicated in three dimensions. And I'm not saying I hate 3D or we need to immediately go back to 2D; there are a good deal of games -- maybe the majority -- that hinge on that dimension and do a fine job of it. But I didn't like Castlevania in 3D, and I don't like Mario in 3D, either. It's an excessive amount of trussing for a nonsense character in a nonsense world. I don't want Mario to be lifelike. I want Mario to be Mario.
