Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Super Mario Run

supermariorun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 252 posts

Re: Super Mario Run

#211

Post by hellbanner »

dcw303 wrote: post #46

I played through the first couple of levels and was instantly hit by how much better the level design, gameplay and characters were than the usual mobile game. I happily plonked down my ten bucks. I cleared the game in a single lunch hour, but I'm not disappointed. The game design easily surpasses anything I've ever played on my phone, and there's a bucket of replayability. Pink/purple/black coins to get, speed runs…

As a long time mario player, I was unimpressed. Nintendo clearly doesn't have experience building F2P vortexes and it shows with the surprising introduction of "hey, your castle leveled up!"

EDIT - I didn't realize that the first 3 levels were only what's available. I didn't make it past the 3rd level.

-- this game has dozens of context switches in the first 10 minutes, not even counting the uninteractable tutorial (Even other endless runner games let you run and figure out how to jump by tapping without 4 text boxes).

I will agree that the levels are better designed than the average mobile game.

Maybe my tastes are just changing? I feel that Nintendo has historically innovated in gameplay with their Mario games but I just wasn't sucked in this time.

EDIT

context switches in the beginning about "connecting a Nintendo account" and later, for push notifications - "Push Notifications are important" > User presses OK > Allow Super Mario Run to send you Push Notifications?

What is a Nintendo account & why would I care? What on earth would a push notification for a Mario game tell me? It doesn't feel polished to me.

Re: Super Mario Run

#212

Post by jasonkostempski »

jonathansizz wrote: post #149
dcw303 wrote: post #46

I played through the first couple of levels and was instantly hit by how much better the level design, gameplay and characters were than the usual mobile game. I happily plonked down my ten bucks. I cleared the game in a single lunch hour, but I'm not disappointed. The game design easily surpasses anything I've ever played on my phone, and there's a bucket of replayability. Pink/purple/black coins to get, speed runs…

I absolutely agree with you about paying actual money for a full game. The problem with this though is I've been burned a few times buying a game, only to have it become free with in-app purchases later on: functionality that was previously included is removed and players must now periodically pay to get it back (usually in the form of some kind of temporary 'power boost' pack). I guess the developers reasoning is th…

Like all App Store purchases, you didn't pay for the full game, you paid for access to an app id which points at mutable bits of data that you can't stop from mutating.

Re: Super Mario Run

#213

Post by kbenson »

joslin01 wrote: post #198
kbenson wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In-app purchases are not inherently problematic, it's when they are used as a core mechanism to play the game that they become a problem. I have no problem with in-app purchases to make things easier, or let people skip levels when it's not a direct competition between players. That might even induce some developers to actually put some challenge into the game. The problem is when it's not just challenging, but nearl…

I'm not trying to be pedantic here or unnecessarily argumentative when I disagree and say indeed, in-app purchases are inherently problematic. They open up pandora's box and allow game devs to focus on superficialities to increase revenue (such as a bonus level, ways to skip level, etc..). Were the playing field completely even -- no in-app purchases -- gameplay would necessarily have to win out and people might spen…

> allow game devs to focus on superficialities to increase revenue

But you've defeated your own point by using the word "allow", which while it it accurate, illustrates why it's not inherent. It's not inherent because they aren't forced to. Is it likely? Sure. Are the incentives all screwed up? Sure. But it's possible to use in-app purchases in responsible ways (such as purchasing future "episodes" of more story driven content, extra level packs, etc as long as the core game provided "enough"[1] content).

1: Which is entirely subjective, and I submit that some people that would have been completely happy with content delivered as is without the ability to download more for cost interpret the situation differently when they see extra content available.

Re: Super Mario Run

#214

Post by mitchty »

Insanity wrote: post #128
croon wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an Android phone, so I'll have to wait, but I'll likely buy it regardless if it's good, just to vote with my wallet on the payment model. I despise anything that's not pay-for-cosmetics or buy-the-damn-game-once. I can pay for my entertainment, but I'm not playing a game that's designed around microtransactions, eschewing the game mechanics.

Same here. I would rather just spend money on the game one time rather than being prompted for microtransactions. Just paying for cosmetics is something acceptable for me. In CS:GO, you can pay for the skins but you don't have to. Yet, I'd still prefer the CS:Source model where you just pay the game once and then download any cosmetics you want for free. But well, that model won't come back any time soon.. :-)

I'm sooooo sick of micropayment games. I play plants vs zombies 2 on my phone while in lines. I had a quick look at the cost for all the optional plants. Its almost $90. Even AAA games aren't that bad or at least have a reason for $90 like 3d graphics.

And then there is the pay money for currencies shenanigans.

Re: Super Mario Run

#215

Post by kin »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #93
dcw303 wrote: post #46

I played through the first couple of levels and was instantly hit by how much better the level design, gameplay and characters were than the usual mobile game. I happily plonked down my ten bucks. I cleared the game in a single lunch hour, but I'm not disappointed. The game design easily surpasses anything I've ever played on my phone, and there's a bucket of replayability. Pink/purple/black coins to get, speed runs…

I'm surprised by how much your experience differs from mine. For me this is like every other auto running side scrollers with a Nintendo skin and nothing more. It's the same mechanics as almost everything else with a lower amount of difficulty with the auto running and jumping (I mean he even automatically jumps over enemies!!). It seems so...tangential to what Mario games are and so much like every other side scroll…

Have you dropped the $9.99 yet? I actually felt rewarded by the ramp up in difficulty. If you've only gone through the 1st 3 levels, you've only just played the demo. Have you tried collecting up to the black coins?

Re: Super Mario Run

#216

Post by kin »

bobbles wrote: post #15

I like the game but unfortunately Nintendo really does suck when it comes to online accounts. I had signed in on my iPhone then also set it up on my ipad. After finishing a few levels on the iPad i went back to my phone. The phone let me finish a level, THEN came up and said 'cant progress as you're signed in on another device' and the app crashed. what the fuck is the point of signing up for an account if it doesnt…

It's always been bad. Navigating through all of their hardware menus is such a pain. Compare downloading games and updates on a Wii U or 3DS vs. a PS4. It's like navigating an ATM machine. But I tolerate it 'cause their games are always so damn charming.

Re: Super Mario Run

#217

Post by kin »

mysterydip wrote: post #145

I wonder how successful this game would have been if it was the exact same but with non-mario graphics and without the nintendo hype. I would imagine most people would see "$10 for yet another runner game" and dismiss it out of hand. I have yet to find a good solution for finding the gems and avoiding the cruft of the various stores.

It's not just a runner game though. I think calling it Super Mario "Run" gives it the stigma of other run games that copy Temple Run. But, it's more akin to Rayman.

Re: Super Mario Run

#218

Post by kin »

josefresco wrote: post #195

Another 'Run" game - just what mobile gaming needed! This will fit right along my daughters' other 96 run games. /sarcasm

Now that your sarcasm has ended, if you give it a shot, it actually plays just like any of the DS versions but w/ auto run. It's definitely much more than just a runner. The level design is very polished too.

Re: Super Mario Run

#219

Post by kin »

ronnier wrote: post #3

I tried it and didn't enjoy it. It largely comes down to tapping the screen when you want to jump... nothing else. Not having a real controller cripples this type of game.

I disagree. For the form factor this is the perfect game. If you wanted to play a Mario game on a portable device, you can invest in a 3DS. But for mobile games, these controls are perfect and tight. I've played dozens of games on my iPhone w/ a digital joystick and I am very happy w/ their decision to go with a tap control.

Re: Super Mario Run

#220

Post by Aldo_MX »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #165
jonathansizz wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree with you about paying actual money for a full game. The problem with this though is I've been burned a few times buying a game, only to have it become free with in-app purchases later on: functionality that was previously included is removed and players must now periodically pay to get it back (usually in the form of some kind of temporary 'power boost' pack). I guess the developers reasoning is th…

Are you describing a situation where you initially pay for the full experience only to later have some of those features you specifically paid for become in-app purchases again which you have to re-purchase? If so, surely that's not legal? I've seen apps where something similar to this happens before but people who bought the original full price purchase are grandfathered in.

It certainly should not be legal...

  If you do not have a backup available to restore to, we regret that we have no
  alternate method for preventing the ads from being displayed. However, we will
  be happy to make it up to you with in-game currency for Bejeweled Blitz,
  Plants vs. Zombies 2, Solitaire Blitz, or Zuma Blitz. Please contact support
  and provide the receipt from your original purchase of Bejeweled or Bejeweled
  HD.
https://help.ea.com/en-us/help/bejeweled/bejeweled-classic/s...
Post reply on HN