Board 8 > Game of Gen 5: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time vs. Banjo-Kazooie

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lopen posted...

Feels good to be able to root for OoT. Just once.

Couldn't really say that about FFIX, truly felt like a lesser of two evils situation. I mean this is too but it's at least kinda satisfying whereas FFIX was kinda just like "if I have to."

Weird how this contest is sorting out the bottom end of my list of the Gen. Truly the biggest rift I've had with consensus compared to the other contests thus far.

Yeah what is your deal with Banjo?

It's a chore to play and I blame it for the trend of platformers becoming inundated with collectibles rather than just having good level design that can encourage you to explore without forcing you to grab dangling carrots everywhere.

And mind you, chore isn't me using my thesaurus to call it bad. It is quite literally the most apt description of the gameplay.

Banjo

Ocarina of Time

Banjo-Kazooie

It's the better game about ignoring level design to grab dangling carrots compared to genre predecessors.

Banjo-Kazooie

Lopen posted...

Weird how this contest is sorting out the bottom end of my list of the Gen. Truly the biggest rift I've had with consensus compared to the other contests thus far.

Best Zelda game, best Mario game, and best Castlevania game is disappointing? Those are probabaly 3 of the top 5 best gaming series of all time!

Mario 64 and SotN are very good!

Lopen posted...

It's a chore to play and I blame it for the trend of platformers becoming inundated with collectibles rather than just having good level design that can encourage you to explore without forcing you to grab dangling carrots everywhere.

And mind you, chore isn't me using my thesaurus to call it bad. It is quite literally the most apt description of the gameplay.

Man if you applied this to Banjo-Tooie, I couldn't possibly agree more. But I feel like the first Banjo walks the line between collectathon platformer and obstacle course platformer perfectly.

Banjo-Tooie (and worse still, DK64) are definitely worse games for that but Banjo Kazooie is still guilty of it, make no mistake.

Also for the record I think if you were to reverse the release order of Banjo Tooie and Banjo Kazooie, that people wouldn't say there's some huge gulf in the amount of stupid collecting they make you do.

Tooie just pings you that much harder if you've already played through Kazooie and don't suffer from a terminal case of OCD. Like I think people are softer on Kazooie than they really should be because it was more novel at the time, but it still had far too much.

I will say I hate on it possibly a bit more than it deserves for "tainting the genre" but I don't think it's entirely unfair to hold that against the game either.

While I understand the criticism and do agree Kazooie started it, I feel like Kazooie is really well-tuned in making that collection actually matter. Was super easy to hurt yourself, health was limited by non-respawning enemies, and you'd have to start all over if you died, making you route out the levels better. Plus the fact that it both has very stringent conditions on completion (I believe it's 94% of everything to get to the final boss, and 98% for the final upgrade against said boss) makes it less of a carrot-on-a-stick game for me and more "no. No you get ALL of the carrots or you go home." Which is meaner and I like it a lot more.

What I love about collect-a-thons is how the gameplay melds with world design. You're given these cool 3D landscapes to explore and have to figure out the best way to navigate it using the tools at your disposal. It's a great mix of platforming and puzzle solving. Sure it started getting out of hand with games like DK64 and Mario Sunshine, but it also led to Jak & Daxter, Conker, A Hat in Time and Mario Odyssey which are some of my all time favorites. Also for what it's worth collecting notes is way more fun than trying to do the 100 coin stars.

I can understand the frustration though, especially if you prefer 2D platformers, because it did kill the genre until Indie games started popping up.

Oh, no, being forced to get all the carrots is definitely worse for me and why Banjo Kazooie is bad and not "Mario 64 that got a little drunk and wasn't able to say when to stop throwing gimmicks on the stage"

Mario 64 really had the amount of collectables right.

5 stars based on level objectives
8 red coins as a once off star objective per level
100 coins as a once off star objective per level (with well over 100 coins available to grab per level, so it didn't become an annoyance like Notes do)

The Notes being implemented as they are really is the vast majority of the problem with the formula. The number of things to grab (which is taken to an even worse level in other games) is just a symptom, but the fundamental issue is not knowing how to design levels that are interesting to explore and navigate without throwing garbage everywhere to force you to look at it and walk over specific parts.

Ocarina

Lopen posted...

Mario 64 really had the amount of collectables right.

5 stars based on level objectives
8 red coins as a once off star objective per level
100 coins as a once off star objective per level (with well over 100 coins available to grab per level, so it didn't become an annoyance like Notes do)

Banjo has less tho?

120 stars - 100 Jiggies
120 Red Coins - 45 Jinjos
1500 Coins - 900 Notes

Banjo also has much more streamlined level design since it doesn't maker you restart the level after every Jiggie and won't soft lock you out of collecting all the notes like Mario does. BK jusy values your time better.

BK > 64 has always been true! 64 is a classic because it paved the way but its not more fun to play than Banjo.

Very disingenuous statement.

1. Mario 64 has nearly twice as many levels as BK
2. Mario 64 makes a lot less of the collectables mandatory, even within sub-objectives.
3. Banjo has more collectables (honeycombs, mumbos, etc) that you aren't listing.

It's not really in the number or even the number of types, it's about how they're implemented. That was my point. The fact that you can completely ignore 1670 of the 1740 "collectables" in Mario 64 (you can ignore even more, really, because there are way more than 100 coins per level available to grab) and still beat it is a huge deal.

I've been waiting for Rare Replay to get ported to PC so I can give BK another shot. Wonder if it'll ever happen...

BetrayedTangy posted...

BK jusy values your time better.

Saying this about a game that forces you to tediously dredge over every inch of its insipid level design to progress is hilarious btw.

Mario 64 absolutely values your time better because it doesn't force you to do more than you want to in stages. You can completely ignore the 8 red/100 coin objectives if that isn't your thing and beat the game, which is great!

If you really like a stage you can do all the stars in it. And if you hate one you can basically skip it entirely because you only need 70/120 stars to complete the game.

People got 120 stars in Mario because they enjoyed it. People get 1200 jumbagafaloos in Banjo Kazooie because the feedback loop of the game trains you to with all the mandatory item grabbing. (and because you need to basically get all of it to get to the final boss anyway, so why not stretch and get the last bit)

Lopen posted...

Very disingenuous statement.
1. Mario 64 has nearly twice as many levels as BK
2. Mario 64 makes a lot less of the collectables mandatory, even within sub-objectives.
3. Banjo has more collectables (honeycombs, mumbos, etc) that you aren't listing.
It's not really in the number or even the number of types, it's about how they're implemented. That was my point. The fact that you can completely ignore 1670 of the 1740 "collectables" in Mario 64 (you can ignore even more, really, because there are way more than 100 coins per level available to grab) and still beat it is a huge deal.

Banjo has abilities and transformations.

For the record, I slightly prefer Mario 64.

Anyway I didn't really mean to derail the topic that much with design discussion but people saying "it didn't overdo it until Tooie" or "Mario 64 has more collectables" or "Banjo values your time" makes me want to explain why "yes it did" and "no Mario 64 was not even close" and "no it doesn't"

Like I can design Mario 64 as a Banjo game and make it a considerably worse game too.

Cutting coin count to a hard 100 each level, making the coin star of each level mandatory to progress, would be about half of the work speaking honestly. But you'd actually need to make some considerable design changes in the placement of the coins themselves (and for the worse) because Mario 64 levels don't put the coins the same way Banjo does because the coins aren't meant to be used as road cones there. That's not to say routing through stages for the 100 coins doesn't matter in Mario 64, but just that you're doing it on an efficiency basis more than anything. But that you can skip literally every 100 coin star if you so choose is a huge deal too and is why Mario 64 absolutely values your time more.

Ocarina of Time

Lopen posted...

Anyway I didn't really mean to derail the topic that much with design discussion but people saying "it didn't overdo it until Tooie" or "Mario 64 has more collectables" or "Banjo values your time" makes me want to explain why "yes it did" and "no Mario 64 was not even close" and "no it doesn't"

Like I can design Mario 64 as a Banjo game and make it a considerably worse game too.

Cutting coin count to a hard 100 each level, making the coin star of each level mandatory to progress, would be about half of the work speaking honestly. But you'd actually need to make some considerable design changes in the placement of the coins themselves (and for the worse) because Mario 64 levels don't put the coins the same way Banjo does because the coins aren't meant to be used as road cones there. That's not to say routing through stages for the 100 coins doesn't matter in Mario 64, but just that you're doing it on an efficiency basis more than anything. But that you can skip literally every 100 coin star if you so choose is a huge deal too and is why Mario 64 absolutely values your time more.

Your entire argument is dependent on the idea that wanting to a complete a game is bad. However, there is a very large amount of people who love the feeling of completing games. It's fun to see everything a game has to offer and Banjo is one of the most streamlined ways to get this experience (especially after the Xbox remaster).

If that's not your preferred kind of gameplay that's fine, but it also doesn't mean BK is the horrendouy designed game you make it out to be.

Zelda

Absolutely not what I'm saying

Wanting to complete a game is fine
Being compelled to do so in order to beat the game is not

A Super Mario 64 that requires 114/120 stars and to get every 100 coin star to complete the game is not nearly as good

A Banjo Kazooie where you can completely ignore notes and still beat the game is... well, still not good as the level design is so contingent on caring about pathing through the notes, but better.

Collectibles are a crutch for designing interesting worlds to explore and interact with. I have no problem with them being there if there's any meat to the gameplay or any incentive to explore the world without them though.

Like I've beaten Mario 64 with 120 stars twice. I've gotten all the stupid frogs in MGS3 too, all the Dog Tags in MGS2. (The former was kinda dumb, the latter is actually awesome)

Collectable elements to the gameplay can be fun, and completing them can be rewarding. But if the gameplay depends on them to make you want to check out random features in the environment or try different routes around obstacles, it's lazy. And I hate that so many platformers go so hard on them when they shouldn't need to.

I like Banjo-Kazooie but the way it handles notes is absolutely disastrous and the last couple worlds are way too much.

What I like about Banjo though is there are very few annoying objectives, everything else is fun. Clanker's Key and Mr. Vile are the only two I find consistently annoying and even then they aren't nearly as bad as the worst stars in Mario 64.

On top of that I honestly just enjoying the Rare aesthetic. They give the game a great sense of humor and personality and for me that's the real motivation to explore these levels. Not to find a Jiggy, but to see what wacky situation they're throwing me into this time.

I find them very zen to play.

I'm not saying you're wrong to like it I'm just saying what the game does wrong.

It's completely possible to enjoy the game , quite a bit, in spite of that if you're really into what it does right or the things it does wrong don't bug you much. But I do think you could make an objectively better (and I don't say this lightly) version of Banjo Kazooie by torching notes entirely (hard to say objectives aren't annoying when notes exist) and changing the level design in spots to account for that.

But if it was a one and done and didn't have its influence bleed into so many other platformers I definitely wouldn't be so passionate about disliking it, to be sure.

(I AM saying you're wrong if you don't think it has too many collectibles, or that Mario 64 has more and/or respects your time less, however)

Lopen posted...

It's completely possible to enjoy the game , quite a bit, in spite of that if you're really into what it does right or the things it does wrong don't bug you much. But I do think you could make an objectively better (and I don't say this lightly) version of Banjo Kazooie by torching notes entirely (hard to say objectives aren't annoying when notes exist) and changing the level design in spots to account for that.

More often than not Notes are just on the way to the objective, so it never feels like I'm really going out of my way to get them.

I will also admit the remaster absolutely skews my opinion of the game. It controls so much better and does away with the note score. Since 64 doesn't have an equivalent the clunkiness of the platforming and camera stick out so much more to me when I go back to play it.

Lopen posted...

or that Mario 64 has more and/or respects your time less, however)

This is another one that boils down to preference. Banjo letting you stay in the level after every Jiggy is huge to me. It's super helpful on replays and doesn't force you to play the same section over again like Mario does. Hell even according to HLTB the games are nearly equal in playtime.

I don't think either game is bad and I don't think it's wrong to enjoy one over the other. I just think Banjo does a lot to counter many of the flaws you have with it.

Zelda

It's not a matter of personal preference to say that Mario makes you spend less time doing tedious repetitive things, and less time on things you don't want to do (if you don't want to do them) in general.

Like you're talking about specific stars in SM64 when you only need 70/120. Banjo if you want to skip a quarter of the jiggies or not bother with note collection you're SOL. You're not going to get the concept of respect for time when you're approaching games with a completionist mindset by default.

Restarting the stage functionally doesn't matter all that much. So many stars have you go in wildly different paths, share paths through engaging sections, or change the level substantially. The only time I'd say it matters much is if you're trying to do the 100 coin star and accidentally grab a different star. That's pretty annoying. Otherwise it's just nitpicking.

Lopen posted...

Like you're talking about specific stars in SM64 when you only need 70/120. Banjo if you want to skip a quarter of the jiggies or not bother with note collection you're SOL. You're not going to get the concept of respect for time when you're approaching games with a completionist mindset by default.

And? You only need to do like 60% to beat DK64.

The percentage a game requires is completely irrelvant. It's all about how much you want to do. When I playthrough Banjo I don't mind doing 95%, because I genuinely enjoy playing that much of the game. With Mario I only enjoy about 75% of it.

Like that's where I'm having issues with your argument. I just enjoy Banjo better, I never have to worry about how much I need to beat the game. Hell, we all dunk on DK64, but I'm sure there's some people who like having all that stuff to collect and enjoy it better than the other two.

(As an aside I do honestly enjoy having debates like this. I appreciate your time Lopen)

If you enjoy only 75% of Mario 64 you only have to play 75% though. You can't say that for Banjo. You have to get the stuff it makes you get. Mario 64 you can skip annoying objectives if you don't want to do them. You only need to get 58% of the stars.

Further, speaking on a purely collectible level, if you so choose Mario 64 can be beaten by obtaining less than 4% of the collectibles. So for someone who likes platforming elements but not collection elements, there is no comparison whatsoever between the two.

I stress I'm not saying you shouldn't like the game, just that it has questionable design decisions that it would be better off not having speaking strictly from a 3d platformer angle. I in fact don't really even consider them the same genre of game in some ways. But for someone into the collectathon genre, sure it's one of the best. But don't be bringing it into discussions about platformers because collecting all that crap is not necessary for the genre in general to function whatsoever if the areas are designed well.

DK64 is a whole nother can of worms but suffice to say only needing 60% doesn't give it a pass due to the raw glut of gameplay devoted entirely to collecting.

And yeah as an aside no ill will here. I've considered this more of a discussion than an argument personally. You're explaining what you like about it, I'm explaining why I begrudge its influence on the genre. That's it. I've definitely enjoyed an excuse to rant, personally.

I get what you're saying. I just think of Banjo the way I think of non platformers. Notes might be kind of annoying, it's just something you gotta deal with. Like the Water Temple. Ocarina wouldn't be the same without the Water Temple. In fact I'm sure more people would rather have there than not.

Actually what are your thoughts on Odyssey? I feel like it's really just the best of both worlds.

Lopen posted...

Further, speaking on a purely collectible level, if you so choose Mario 64 can be beaten by obtaining less than 4% of the collectibles. So for someone who likes platforming elements but not collection elements, there is no comparison whatsoever between the two.

Funnily enough so can DK. I will also say if I want good platforming I go to J&D or THPS