93143 wrote:
Or is your opinion of Super Mario 64's gamefeel so low that you consider it an insult to SMB to compare them?
I don't have a wide experience base in terms of classic platformers. I mostly only played top-tier games, and not all of those. I'm not saying either SMB or SM64 had bad controls. I'm just saying that to me it seems like there was an element of "this is the first time we've tried this" in both of them, that got polished out in later games.
I'm not sure where SM64 got into the picture, but unlike SMB it definitely has the "it's the first time we're doing this" feel, even if I think it's good enough to not require any major alterations.
Jedi QuestMaster wrote:
Honestly, after trying to replicate the SMB physics for a game engine, I have to agree that it feels a bit stiff. So I started to opt for SMB3 physics instead.
I'm really not sure I understand what your issues with SMB is. I don't think I can think of any other platformers where I feel like I'm as much in control as in the first SMB, even more so than SMB3 though the difference between them is merely a question of habit (SMB3 has that "skip" betwen running at P speed or not, that's a little awkward, but it works perfectly for wha they wanted)
In SMB I can run at full speed, immediately adjust my inertia, stop on a dime at any time, and easily handle everything the game throws at me. It is, in fact, amazing how well they got it for a "first attempt" (if stuff like Donkey Kong and Mario Bros. doesn't count).
That said, I'm certain there's some reason you have your opinions, so there's probably some thing you could argue could have been better, but "stiff" is definitely not the word you are looking for. Mario is anything but.