- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is an interesting question, and one that has a lot of layers to it.
I think if I had to choose, I'm on the line of tight level design. But it's not as straightforward as that. For example, let's look at Galaxy 1 vs Galaxy 2, a great example of the "level design vs soul" debate. Galaxy 1 creates a vast, mysterious, and often melancholy atmosphere through its music and environments, and the character of Rosalina became a fan favorite in large part thanks to her backstory. From the intro to the ending, Galaxy 1 succeeds in being grand and epic. Galaxy 2 famously deemphasizes these aspects, removing most of the storytelling and going for a more familiar, Mario style atmosphere. Detractors of Galaxy 2 point these out as negatives against the game while its proponents focus on the qualities of the level design. And the argument for the level design is a cogent one. Galaxy 1 is a fantastic first play, but upon replay the game's higher focus on simplicity combined with its sluggish and more restrictive movement compared to 64 and Sunshine really show. Meanwhile, Galaxy 2 is a more focused game, refining mechanics from the first game and presenting them in novel contexts while also introducing many of its own ideas. That being said, while the atmosphere is different in Galaxy 2, I also wouldn't say it lacks "soul." As mentioned before, Galaxy 2 adds plenty of its own mechanics to make the game stand out, and it's presentation is on the same high quality as the first. The sunny skies and bombastic music give the game a familiar yet confident feel, which I feel reflects the experience of many players - any player who played Galaxy 1 should be familiar with the mechanics and have some form of mastery of them. You're not exploring a totally new world here, you're returning to one, a more skilled and more confident adventurer. It's the combination of level design and the game's "soul" that makes Galaxy 2 one of my favorite Mario games, more so that the also great first game.
All that being said, the term "soul" is really nonspecific. I feel like what is being described with NSMB and a lot of the later Wii/Wii U era Mario titles is that to detractors they are, in comparison to other games in the series, stale and derivative. Perfectly functional games that don't "push" the franchise in new directions, are too close in style and execution to previous games in the series, and lack that key buzzword: "ambition". Couple that with New Super Mario Bros. effectively becoming the Mario brand in general and the fact that NSMB2 and NSMBU were very similar games releasing only months apart, and I can see why, regardless of any level design praise, people find them by the numbers. I suppose we would also have to determine how we are judging "level design" as a quality - is it in how it introduces mechanics? How it hides secrets? How levels are presented? The flow of levels? But that's a topic for another thread.
I'm very interested in the Splatoon points brought up. Splatoon is a game where the central mechanic came first. From there, the style of the game was built with that in mind. But like @Raccoon said, it's a synthesis of gameplay and presentation, all different pillars supporting one another to form the core of Splatoon. "Gameplay first" does not inherently mean ignoring world or story or character. Heck, a gameplay concept to start doesn't necessarily need to be a specific mechanic. It can be something you want to do, or a mood you want to set, or a feeling you want a player to experience, or a way you want players to enjoy a concept. I don't think things are as simple as "gameplay above all" or similar terms.
If we have to single Miyamoto out and his design philosophies, though, I'd say play is a big focus of it. Just look at the Nintendo theme park he spearheaded. Beyond the rides, the whole place is stuffed with interactive play elements. It's not strictly "game" play, but as a toymaker I bet Miyamoto wants people to play.
I think if I had to choose, I'm on the line of tight level design. But it's not as straightforward as that. For example, let's look at Galaxy 1 vs Galaxy 2, a great example of the "level design vs soul" debate. Galaxy 1 creates a vast, mysterious, and often melancholy atmosphere through its music and environments, and the character of Rosalina became a fan favorite in large part thanks to her backstory. From the intro to the ending, Galaxy 1 succeeds in being grand and epic. Galaxy 2 famously deemphasizes these aspects, removing most of the storytelling and going for a more familiar, Mario style atmosphere. Detractors of Galaxy 2 point these out as negatives against the game while its proponents focus on the qualities of the level design. And the argument for the level design is a cogent one. Galaxy 1 is a fantastic first play, but upon replay the game's higher focus on simplicity combined with its sluggish and more restrictive movement compared to 64 and Sunshine really show. Meanwhile, Galaxy 2 is a more focused game, refining mechanics from the first game and presenting them in novel contexts while also introducing many of its own ideas. That being said, while the atmosphere is different in Galaxy 2, I also wouldn't say it lacks "soul." As mentioned before, Galaxy 2 adds plenty of its own mechanics to make the game stand out, and it's presentation is on the same high quality as the first. The sunny skies and bombastic music give the game a familiar yet confident feel, which I feel reflects the experience of many players - any player who played Galaxy 1 should be familiar with the mechanics and have some form of mastery of them. You're not exploring a totally new world here, you're returning to one, a more skilled and more confident adventurer. It's the combination of level design and the game's "soul" that makes Galaxy 2 one of my favorite Mario games, more so that the also great first game.
All that being said, the term "soul" is really nonspecific. I feel like what is being described with NSMB and a lot of the later Wii/Wii U era Mario titles is that to detractors they are, in comparison to other games in the series, stale and derivative. Perfectly functional games that don't "push" the franchise in new directions, are too close in style and execution to previous games in the series, and lack that key buzzword: "ambition". Couple that with New Super Mario Bros. effectively becoming the Mario brand in general and the fact that NSMB2 and NSMBU were very similar games releasing only months apart, and I can see why, regardless of any level design praise, people find them by the numbers. I suppose we would also have to determine how we are judging "level design" as a quality - is it in how it introduces mechanics? How it hides secrets? How levels are presented? The flow of levels? But that's a topic for another thread.
I'm very interested in the Splatoon points brought up. Splatoon is a game where the central mechanic came first. From there, the style of the game was built with that in mind. But like @Raccoon said, it's a synthesis of gameplay and presentation, all different pillars supporting one another to form the core of Splatoon. "Gameplay first" does not inherently mean ignoring world or story or character. Heck, a gameplay concept to start doesn't necessarily need to be a specific mechanic. It can be something you want to do, or a mood you want to set, or a feeling you want a player to experience, or a way you want players to enjoy a concept. I don't think things are as simple as "gameplay above all" or similar terms.
If we have to single Miyamoto out and his design philosophies, though, I'd say play is a big focus of it. Just look at the Nintendo theme park he spearheaded. Beyond the rides, the whole place is stuffed with interactive play elements. It's not strictly "game" play, but as a toymaker I bet Miyamoto wants people to play.
Last edited: