• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Was Mario Odyssey worthy of its 97?

Is Mario Odyssey worthy of its 97?

  • Yes, it is the pinnacle of gaming

    Votes: 122 37.8%
  • Eh, It’s a good game but I’d rate it much lower

    Votes: 129 39.9%
  • No, it was just ok

    Votes: 59 18.3%
  • Honestly I didn’t enjoy it at all

    Votes: 13 4.0%

  • Total voters
    323
I feel like usually when games score in such a high percentile like this its because they completely flipped the gaming landscape on its head. Games that score in the above like a 93 are usually games that are talked about for years to come with a lot of reverence, it spawns passionate die hards that would go to war for it. Yet, I feel like Mario Odyssey doesn’t get spoken about like that, I don’t think many people bring it up in big gaming discussions at all. Compared to something like Breath of The Wild which people still hold on a very high pedestal and compare to other games endlessly.

I personally didn’t enjoy the game much, ti was one of the first games i picked up with my switch. It felt like I was playing the same Mario game i’ve been playing for years already, with a slightly new twist. I thought most of the levels were kind of uninspired and the collect-a-thon felt way too tedious. There were some things i enjoyed, obviously cappy was a neat idea and the transition to 2d levels was good but I don’t feel like any part of this game was as memorable as even Mario 64.

Seems like a game that was overshadowed by other nintendo games that year and I can’t help but feel like the 97 was Mario Tax.


29qBZD9.jpg
 
Last edited:

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
I feel like usually when games score in such a high percentile like this its because they completely flipped the gaming landscape on its head. Games that score in the above like a 93 are usually games that are talked about for years to come with a lot of reverence, it spawns passionate die hands that would go to war for it. Yet, I feel like Mario Odyssey doesn’t get spoken about like that, I don’t think many people bring it up in big gaming discussions at all. Compared to something like Breath of The Wild which people still hold on a very high pedestal and compare to other games endlessly.

I personally didn’t enjoy the game much, ti was one of the first games i picked up with my switch. It felt like I was playing the same Mario game i’ve been playing for years already, with a slightly new twist. I thought most of the levels were kind of uninspired and the collect-a-thon felt way too tedious. There were some things i enjoyed, obviously crappy was a neat idea and the transition to 2d levels was good but I don’t feel like any part of this game was as memorable as even Mario 64.

Seems like a game that was overshadowed by other nintendo games that year and I can’t help but feel like the 97 was Mario Tax.


29qBZD9.jpg
make a poll you dense skeleton.
anyways i agree it should be more like a mid-high 80s. 97 is really really pushing it
 

analog_future

Resident Crybaby
No, not at all.

It was a really fun, polished game, but it did nothing to push the industry forward or to revolutionize anything about gaming.

Felt like a game that deserved scores in the high 80s/low 90s rather than the "Best Game Ever Made" type scores it received.


I personally preferred 3D World and even Sackboy: A Big Adventure to this game.
 
Last edited:

SafeOrAlone

Banned
I don't know how to gauge Metacitic scores, but I do think the game is worthy of the highest praise. I owned a Switch for only a few months, before realizing I didn't enjoy Breath of the Wild and couldn't play retro games, but it was worth it to play through Odyssey. It's easily the most charmed I've ever been playing a game and I love it for that.
 

ChazAshley

Member
I think a couple of factors, people's scale of what 93 or a 97 means to them differ. And I think the core gameplay elements of Mario are always fun (at it's core) So by default, you're going to have a higher score in general.

But I agree - I don't find myself popping in Mario Odyssey for a replay, other than to show other people the game. Collecting the moons were WAY too frequent so they lost their appeal. However, I will also say that the good points in the game WERE spectacular. The exploration in some of the worlds alongside the great callbacks such as in New Donk City made me super happy to be a gamer. For me, knowing number grades are fairly arbitrary, 93 is probably accurate as to what I'd give it.
 
Last edited:
I am a huge fan of Galaxy 2... I saved it for when times got particularly hard for me as an insurance policy and they did.

The game did exactly what I was saving it for and even exceeded my expectation... I was so happy I started counting any minimal real life achievements as getting stars and I tried to collect as many possible.

Needless to say I was gonna be in line day one for Odyssey and there was no way I was not going to be disappointed... I'm always gonna support Mario games, that movie looks trash tho

Odyssey was about an 80 for me
 
I´m like halfway through the game and to me it lived up to the hype so far. Easily one of the best games I´ve played in years and it has that Nintendo magic.
 

PhaseJump

Banned
Not an exceptional or groundbreaking game like most Mario releases.

I liked what I played of it well enough, but I'd still rather play 3, World, 64, Galaxy.

Gamecube mod, Sunburn is pretty good too.
 
Pretty close. I truly loved it.

Some of the stars are bit weak because there's so many but the game is a pure joy to play. Been several years since I played it but I loved it. Amazing movement and moveset. Tons of varied levels. Lots of content. I dont think I could go below a 9.5 personally.
 

Paltheos

Member
Not at all.

Way, way too many garbage collectibles. Only a fraction of the moons are worth your time but hell if you'll find them amidst a sea of filler moons. The point of contrast I like to draw is to A Hat in Time, a 3D platformer that came out the same year (to near-universal acclaim, to those who played it lol). A Hat in Time has far fewer main collectibles (time pieces in that game vs. moons) but each one has a ton of work put into it and feels special.

I also don't like that Mario's moveset still feels gimped compared to Mario 64 of all things. Odyssey Mario has some cool, new moves but he still doesn't have the flexibility of 64 Mario - More stringent conditions for wall jumping and heavily reduced wall jump distance come to mind as examples. This is kind of a preference thing though.

I also thought the levels were uninspired outside of not-New-York-City. I don't expect much out of aesthetic from a Mario game (although, damn, New Dunk is stylish). The levels just felt mostly half-baked to me. Probably a consequence to how many filler moons are loaded everywhere that limited the number of complicated courses the designers could put into the game for moons.

I'd say 5 or 4 out of 10, personally. I'm a harsh critic.
 

nial

Gold Member
It's great but way too overrated, and to be fair I think the same with 100% of the games with scores of 9 and 10 (lmao).
 

Nautilus

Banned
Odyssey is a return to form for Mario, and an absolutely masterpiece. Its also easily better than BOTW, and that game somehow got an 97.

Honestly, the question we should be asking is if BOTW deserved a 97. Its a great game, don't get me wrong, but it has too many flaws to be a 97 game.
 

Kacho

Gold Member
It absolutely deserves the score. Probably the best Mario ever if I’m being honest.

Looks great, outstanding level design with fun bosses. The controls and how carefully crafted everything is is nothing short of amazing. You can play super casual to complete the game, or utilize the mobility mechanics to do all sorts of crazy shit. Then there’s the countless moons to collect which is perfect for those quick play sessions on Switch.

It’s an expertly made game from top to bottom.
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
I also thought the levels were uninspired outside of not-New-York-City. I don't expect much out of aesthetic from a Mario game (although, damn, New Dunk is stylish). The levels just felt mostly half-baked to me. Probably a consequence to how many filler moons are loaded everywhere that limited the number of complicated courses the designers could put into the game for moons.
i couldnt disagree more

New donk city is great, but i feel like the levels are some of the most unique ever seen in mario history, artistically. It isn't just 'grass area' or 'sand area' or 'water area' it's actually inspired locations that frankly feel a bit out of place, but really unique for mario.

cascade kingdom is probably the best opening area since bobomb battlefield (and frankly i feel the size of that kingdom is what all of the kingdoms should have been rather than gigantic areas with tons of pointless plentiful moons)

Lake kingdom is a very beautiful realization of the water area, an underwater paradise that's beautified and glorified to look like it came straight out of the little mermaid

seaside kingdom too being one of the most fun water levels in mario, you can zip around super fast on the water like a maniac

and i shouldnt need to describe what makes luncheon kingdom so unique, it should be so obvious lol

if theres anything great that odyssey does, it's give mario a ton of new locations and ideas that it desperately needed after the early-mid 2010s reverted his art direction back into "bing bing wahoo grassy sand spooky etc"
 
Last edited:
Odyssey is a return to form for Mario, and an absolutely masterpiece. Its also easily better than BOTW, and that game somehow got an 97.

Honestly, the question we should be asking is if BOTW deserved a 97. Its a great game, don't get me wrong, but it has too many flaws to be a 97 game.
I think they both killed it. One of the biggest 1-2 punches in gaming history. The craziest aspect though is that I think the scores are deserved, but there's also room for improvement on both games. Breath of the Wild with better story, bosses and dungeons could hit like a 99 or something nuts. Mario Odyssey with even more movement options, variety and even better consistency on the moons could hit 98 or something.

People will disagree, but I think those teams are just that good and have been for decades now. They don't really make too many games below that level of quality. And it's not like they're graphical showpieces or even story showpieces. It's just top tier game design. A celebration of the interactive medium.

Breath of the Wild did utilize Ubisoft style design, but basically revolutionized open world design. The actual shape of the land, the mountains, the careful attention to placing objects of interest in the short distance, medium distance, and long distance that are all organically visible and clear without a map or tracking icons required. These are the elements Elden Ring emulated 5 years later and look at the score on that.

Both Mario and Zelda deserved it imho.
 
Last edited:

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
It was a very fun and polished game, and I rrally enjoyed my time with it. One of the best games on the Switch.

Couldn't care less about it's score, some of you seem to have Metacritic living rent free on your heads.
 

ResurrectedContrarian

Suffers with mild autism
Very fun and polished, and I understand their attempt to make it different from prior games (weird locations, etc). Definitely a great game.

But I'd still place it lower than Galaxy 1, and also lower than 3D World.

The changes to the format are great, overall. But there is something a bit off about the aesthetic sometimes--I think it's too ungrounded, and I'd prefer that they keep the gameplay innovations while going back to more of a consistent Mushroom Kingdom style.
 
Last edited:

93xfan

Banned
No. Not as good as Mario 64. Also, nothing as fun and nuanced as Mario 64’s flying. Also, some “slide” levels could’ve been a nice addition. Simply put, nothing felt as fun and fresh as Mario 64 or arguably even Sunshine’s new abilities. And the levels didn’t match the quality of those games imo (for the most part). And the music wasn’t to the same level as well.

Still a great game though.

Oh, and Bowser’s Fury is the way forward. That was definitely worth a 97.
 
Last edited:

RoadHazard

Gold Member
It's a good game, but no, it's not that amazing. It has some amazing highs, but also a lot more lows than most Mario games. It's the second worst 3D Mario after Sunshine (which is also a good but flawed game) IMO.
 

Nautilus

Banned
I think they both killed it. One of the biggest 1-2 punches in gaming history. The craziest aspect though is that I think the scores are deserved, but there's also room for improvement on both games. Breath of the Wild with better story, bosses and dungeons could hit like a 99 or something nuts. Mario Odyssey with even more movement options, variety and even better consistency on the moons could hit 98 or something.

People will disagree, but I think those teams are just that good and have been for decades now. They don't really make too many games below that level of quality. And it's not like they're graphical showpieces or even story showpieces. It's just top tier game design. A celebration of the interactive medium.

Breath of the Wild did utilize Ubisoft style design, but basically revolutionized open world design. The actual shape of the land, the mountains, the careful attention to placing objects of interest in the short distance, medium distance, and long distance that are all organically visible and clear without a map or tracking icons required. These are the elements Elden Ring emulated and look at the score on that.

Both Mario and Zelda deserved it imho.
I do have to admit that I was a little salty about the BOTW comparison done by the OP, but I am being sincere that I think BOTW did deserve to score 2 or 3 points less.

Odyssey, while it didn't (truly) revolutionize anything, brough a game structure that Mario and the gaming industry haven't seen at that level of quality in what, 20 years? Honestly, the game has not one single flaw in what it sets out to do. Hell, it even manages to have a decent narrative, in which the prior games basically boiled down to "save the princess!" and little else.Whenever people talk about an Odyssey sequel, its about how they want more of what the game had already done, and not how to fix its flaws, because honestly there are any. I always love when Nintendo does something completely unique with Mario. But if they did Odyssey 2, which is basically the first game with a few more moviment options with more realms, I'll hyped beyond belief.

BOTW is different. It completely changed how a Zelda game plays, and it did revolutionized how to make open world games, but it has some glaring and frankly deep flaws. The story is as thin as a paper. Honestly it kind of feels that Miyamotto wrote the story. "Story? Nah, just make Ganondorf destroy everything, kidnap Zelda, and have Link fix Hyrule". Its such a dissapointment compared to previous Zelda games. The dungeons are also a dissapointment. The first time you enter one of the Divine Beasts is cool, but it becomes a bore later.The music is also a huge letdown, even if I understand why they went with that.

Amd that's the difference. When Odyssey sequel is talked about, the focus is on what else it could do, since the first one is so good. With BOTW, the focus is on how to fix is flaws, and not on how to expand what is already there.

But both games are masterpieces, there is no denying that.
 

SF Kosmo

Al Jazeera Special Reporter
Somewhere between the first two choices. It's an excellent game and a strong contender for GOTY that year. I like it more than BotW.

But it isn't like top 10 of all time or anything and even in the Mario series I put it behind the Galaxy games. It has its flaws. But it's just so discoverable and fun to play, and it's easily my favorite of the more open 3D Marios.
 

Mr Hyde

Member
Absolutely not. It was a good game but it didn't reach the highs of the previous entries. Even Sunshine were better. Nintendo needs to switch up the formula, they've been running with this since Super Mario 64. Imo, the score should be around 80-85.
 

SCB3

Member
No, it’s like the 4th best 3D Mario imo but it’s still a decent game, especially for kids
 

Kacho

Gold Member
But there is something a bit off about the aesthetic sometimes--I think it's too ungrounded, and I'd prefer that they keep the gameplay innovations while going back to more of a consistent Mushroom Kingdom style.
Yeah this would be my only complaint with the game. Odyssey + 3D World aesthetics would = perfect IMO.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
No, not at all.

It was a really fun, polished game, but it did nothing to push the industry forward or to revolutionize anything about gaming.

Felt like a game that deserved scores in the high 80s/low 90s rather than the "Best Game Ever Made" type scores it received.


I personally preferred 3D World and even Sackboy: A Big Adventure to this game.
If the requirement for a score like that is to move the industry forward or revolutionize gaming then there are a lot of games that need to be re-rated because creativity and innovation in the AAA space has pretty much been a corpse for a while now.
 
Last edited:
If the requirement for a score like that is to move the industry forward or revolutionize gaming then there are a lot of games that need to be re-rated because creativity and innovation in the AAA space has pretty much been a corpse for a while now.

How many games even score that high though?
 

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
better consistency on the moons
this is the main issue with mario odyssey, the areas are too open and as a result so many of them just jam pack craptons of moons into random places. In Super Mario 64 the 5-6 star count in each level meant that each mission was a creative, unique one made specifically to take advantage of the stuff they put in the level (except for the red coin ones LMAO)

In Mario Odyssey however there's only really one of these big giant missions, and in every single level it's "get to the end" or "beat the boss" which isn't much different from a regular ass 2d mario. Besides that you just collect simple moons all the time, not feeling like you accomplished anything other than do some random task that the game decided to reward you for. Just because the game is a collectathon doesnt mean it has to give you ten thousand different things to collect, as a matter of fact if the thing you're collecting becomes too plentiful, it stops becoming special and is just mundane... that's how i feel about these moons

Not to mention that the entire 'gimmick' of the game is IMO one of the worst in the mario series, the whole gimmick being you can possess other enemies and control them.... but none of the enemies control nearly as good as Mario. For some moons you have to play as some slow ass dinky goomba just to get one insignificant moon. Mario's movement in odyssey is arguably the best in the series but the game basically wants you to... not use it because you need to possess a giant slow t rex to get this next star.

Also, people have brought up this criticism but the game is way too fucking easy. Mario 64 wasn't "i wanna be the guy" but it was certainly challenging and precise when it needed to be, the new movement babyproofed almost all of the platforming challenge and you don't even get booted out of a level when you lose too much. The only time it got really challenging was at the end, but that felt less like a gradual difficulty curve and more like a giant spike that poked you in the butt

TL: DR the oversaturation of the moons in odyssey makes collecting 10 of them not nearly as satisfying as getting one star in mario 64.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom