Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Wii

Mario Might Save Christmas? 127

Posted by Zonk
from the when-you-have-nintendo-power dept.
Last week there was a Nintendo media event giving the gaming press preview experiences for the Christmas season's games. 1up has a look at all the titles on offer, but the one that (understandably) got the most attention was Mario Galaxy for the Wii. Wired's Chris Kohler thinks Mario's bee suit might save Christmas, while MTV's Stephen Totilo has comments from an hour hands-on with the game ala Games For Lunch. From Totilo's comments: "Each planetoid presents a challenge -- squash things, collect things -- that rewards players with the creation of a new launch star. I've launched Mario to a sphere that looks like it's made of wood. A star guy of some sort is in a glass jar. I need to kill all the Goombas to free it. I can jump on their heads, but I can also do the spin move, which knocks them dizzy and sends them spinning themselves. If Mario runs into them while they spin, they die."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mario Might Save Christmas?

Comments Filter:
  • UR MR GAY (Score:4, Informative)

    by samwh (921444) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @02:45PM (#21000603)
  • Re:$5 Says... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Jarjarthejedi (996957) <christianpinch@gmail . c om> on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @03:21PM (#21001123) Journal
    Sub HD graphics - 640p resolution

    That's just flat out wrong, it's 2x 640p resolution, or 1280p equivalent scaled down to 1080i.

    The most unstable/shitty framerates of any fps on any console ...Wait...are we playing the same game?

    Horrendous IQ - AA? what's that? ...Huh? Are we speaking the same language?

    Jarringly bad art direction - day glow? WTF?

    What is Day glow and why is it so bad?

    No dedicated servers like every other modern fps

    No need for dedicated servers like every other modern FPS (you can make any benefit sound like a disadvantage, and visa versa)

    A pathetic 16 player cap per online game - the rest of the fps world is 32,40,64

    Okay...you should know I can't play on more than 16 player servers for BF 2142 with my 3x the price of the 360 laptop. Your point is lost once price is factored in.

    But hey, what would I know, I'm just a PC gamer who owns a Wii and occasionally plays Halo 3 at a friend's house, I'm obviously too much of a Fanboi to comment realistically. Now please excuse me while I go play some Wii Play, wait for the new Guitar Hero, and get depressed about SSB:B being pushed back to February.

    But hey, that's all irrelevant because the quality of a game is less important than it's hype. Personally I thought Goldeneye was a horrible game, I could never get used to it's control and it's graphics were a little pathetic compared to some of the other games of it's time. What I thought about the game, however, is far less important than what the tons of people who enjoyed the game thought, because they were the majority. Halo 3 haters are the minority, by far, and so it's really irrelevant even if you're right. Games get talked about years later because they were well known about, not necessarily because they were good or bad.
  • Re:$5 Says... (Score:2, Informative)

    by sanosuke76 (887630) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @03:48PM (#21001547) Homepage
    > That's just flat out wrong, it's 2x 640p resolution, or 1280p equivalent scaled down to 1080i.

    Actually, they considered 'blooming' (i.e. the day glow you mention) to be important enough, that they rendered each frame twice at 640p. One overexposed frame, one underexposed frame - then combined the two. Were they rendering different pixels, rather than the same ones at two different exposures, you could call it 1280p equivalent. Certainly it's rendering that many pixels, but they aren't rendering that many displayed pixels.

    That having been said, I'm certainly not a fan of the x-box. Just felt compelled to point out what the dual buffering was about.

    The wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_3 [wikipedia.org] touches on the 640p rendering a bit...

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.

Working...