A Hat in Time is better than Mario Odyssey.

[Evolved]

I'm playing Mario Odyssey now and am about 15 hours in. So far I am not enjoying it nearly as much as A Hat in Time. Has anyone else played both?

[DescipleOfZen]

Escrito originalmente por Tentacle Grape:

Escrito originalmente por The Kid-hearted Gamer:

Maybe if you didn't have fun along the way. Which varies from person to person, admittedly. But what the person you responded to was getting at: the hardest challenge of a game can often be its own reward. Assuming, of course, there is one, and you're the sort that cares about being challenged. For those that don't, might I suggest Kirby's Epic Yarn? Plenty of fun, *zero* difficulty apart from largely incidental side missions.

It does vary from person to person, but then again any bad game can be good in the eyes of the select few. this gives the devs an "excuse" to be bad since they can simply declare that if you don't like it then it's not for you. What's the boundary between good and bad?

case in point off topic: dota 2 is very unbalanced, and yet community there are basically saying "git gud" even if one character is seriously underpowered. comments like "pros can do it, you just suck" without any sort of numerical stats or "everything can be overcome by teamwork" is just very cancerous to say the least. the end result is a very unbalaced game defended by die hard cancer bots.

it's the enablers that kills a game. then again what's the boundary between good and bad in a game?

after i found out you could buy moons for 1000 coins, i stopped playing. worthless.

[Pay Child Suport]

Escrito originalmente por The Kid-hearted Gamer:

Escrito originalmente por Tentacle Grape:

It does vary from person to person, but then again any bad game can be good in the eyes of the select few. this gives the devs an "excuse" to be bad since they can simply declare that if you don't like it then it's not for you. What's the boundary between good and bad?

case in point off topic: dota 2 is very unbalanced, and yet community there are basically saying "git gud" even if one character is seriously underpowered. comments like "pros can do it, you just suck" without any sort of numerical stats or "everything can be overcome by teamwork" is just very cancerous to say the least. the end result is a very unbalaced game defended by die hard cancer bots.

it's the enablers that kills a game. then again what's the boundary between good and bad in a game?

Might want to disclude things like "cancer bots" when trying to make an analytical point with which to convince as many people as possible. It tends to put people on the defensive rather than listening to otherwise thoughtful points.

As for what kills a game: if noone buys it, the game dies. Plain and simple. What you're thinking of is the fun factor of a game. Do you have the fun necessary to keep going? If not, what is preventing you from having fun? Is it the game, other people, perhaps even yourself? All possibilities that I consider when judging such a thing.

Incidentally, devs do not have an excuse to be bad. I would've said die-hard fan sales regardless of quality some time ago and conceded that point, but then EA's Star Wars Battlefront 2 happened. They lost several billion dollars in stock value to their laziness and expectation that people would buy and defend it because "Star Wars". Because of that, it is now clear to me that anyone that believes they can excuse themselves from at least TRYING to make a good product needs to find a different profession, like being a community organiser or something.

I couldn't think of any better descriptor than "cancer bots" while making sure the nuance stays.

as for EA. well, its freaking EA. EA is everything wrong and more. Also BiowEAr (like, why? WHY bioware? how could you do this?). Mass Effect 3 endings, loot boxes, 40 hours of play to unlock something to name a few. dota2 could be seen the outlier as its still profiting from the competitive scene despite being very unbalanced, but as I'm seeing it its audience is getting thinner and thinner because pub games are such a cancer.

[Moe Magi Maxima]

Escrito originalmente por Tentacle Grape:

Escrito originalmente por The Kid-hearted Gamer:

Might want to disclude things like "cancer bots" when trying to make an analytical point with which to convince as many people as possible. It tends to put people on the defensive rather than listening to otherwise thoughtful points.

As for what kills a game: if noone buys it, the game dies. Plain and simple. What you're thinking of is the fun factor of a game. Do you have the fun necessary to keep going? If not, what is preventing you from having fun? Is it the game, other people, perhaps even yourself? All possibilities that I consider when judging such a thing.

Incidentally, devs do not have an excuse to be bad. I would've said die-hard fan sales regardless of quality some time ago and conceded that point, but then EA's Star Wars Battlefront 2 happened. They lost several billion dollars in stock value to their laziness and expectation that people would buy and defend it because "Star Wars". Because of that, it is now clear to me that anyone that believes they can excuse themselves from at least TRYING to make a good product needs to find a different profession, like being a community organiser or something.

I couldn't think of any better descriptor than "cancer bots" while making sure the nuance stays.

as for EA. well, its freaking EA. EA is everything wrong and more. Also BiowEAr (like, why? WHY bioware? how could you do this?). Mass Effect 3 endings, loot boxes, 40 hours of play to unlock something to name a few. dota2 could be seen the outlier as its still profiting from the competitive scene despite being very unbalanced, but as I'm seeing it its audience is getting thinner and thinner because pub games are such a cancer.

Indeed. I wish more Gacha games in particular took after FE Heroes. Good gameplay, free to play, plenty of ways to get everything without having to pay or rely on sheer luck. And the only thing you even can pay for? Orbs. And you can do just fine without relying on those, anyway. Not that you even NEED to pay for them if you're sufficiently skilled, as they're oftentimes winnable.

[Poefred]

Escrito originalmente por COOLSKELETON95:

Escrito originalmente por ⎛⎝Poefred⎛⎝🔫:

Well, you do get more on the WAY to 100% in odyssey. But the actual 100% reward is definitely even worse than sunshine's lol

This is...kinda a disingenuous comparison though?
Super Mario Sunshine had no post-game unlocks besides some sunglassees, a t-shirt, and the 100% completion screen.
Super Mario Odyssey's post-game gives you new challenges to complete in every single kingdom, a new area to explore, dozens of new costumes, a boss rush level that also has a bunch of extra moon challenges on the side that are harder than what came before, Yoshi, a harder version of every boss battle, and a Champion's Road-style challenge level.
This is a lot of stuff to reward the player with. Yes the reward for actually getting every single moon possible is just a badge of honor. Why wouldn't it be? You think Nintendo would lock significant content behind getting 999 moons? That's crazy.

SMG2 ended it's post-game with The Perfect Run. What was the reward for beating The Perfect Run? A badge of honor. Of course it is. The Perfect Run WAS the reward, a final satisfying challenge to conquer. What, should they reward you with another challenge? But then what will be the reward for beating THAT challenge?

SMO's post-game goes above and beyond what other Mario games had to offer to reward dedicated players, it's silly to complain about it not giving you even more.

Sure but that's partly due to how mario games are structured now. It used to be just beating the game and it's over unless you want to go back to get stuff you missed. But now it seems the main game is getting shorter and shorter in favor of putting harder missions after the game. Though I'd personally say Mario Odyssey didn't ever get much harder during the post game stuff.

But like I said, I don't really expect any extravagant reward for 100% in this genre or really most games to begin with. It's about the fun you had doing it and the badge of honor. And Odyssey certainly is very fun, but I didn't really feel like I really did much upon 100% completion. It was kinda just figuring out the last few places to ground pound. And really as far as I know there isn't much in terms of the "badge of honor" in odyssey either. Sunshine at least gave you a symbol next to your save slot. Not sure if I should say what odyssey does because of spoilers, but at the same time it's almost literally nothing.

I feel like the post game doesn't really amount to much once you're done with the new kingdom. It gives an excuse to revisit all the kingdoms and play the game more and that's cool. But the moons are even less memorable or interesting than the moons before you beat the game. And there were already some just laying out in the open in the first place anyway. You unlock a few new costumes once you get a certain amount of moons I think, so not even getting a single costume for completing every mission and then buying the rest of the moons was kinda underwhelming.

[Sammy]

Escrito originalmente por WontonBOI:

Escrito originalmente por Tentacle Grape:

It does vary from person to person, but then again any bad game can be good in the eyes of the select few. this gives the devs an "excuse" to be bad since they can simply declare that if you don't like it then it's not for you. What's the boundary between good and bad?

case in point off topic: dota 2 is very unbalanced, and yet community there are basically saying "git gud" even if one character is seriously underpowered. comments like "pros can do it, you just suck" without any sort of numerical stats or "everything can be overcome by teamwork" is just very cancerous to say the least. the end result is a very unbalaced game defended by die hard cancer bots.

it's the enablers that kills a game. then again what's the boundary between good and bad in a game?

after i found out you could buy moons for 1000 coins, i stopped playing. worthless.

Except there is only a set amount of moons you can buy with coins. You can't just buy all the rest of the moons with coins.That's not how it works. But since you stoppled playing I guess you didn't realise that.

[DescipleOfZen]

Escrito originalmente por Darkie:

Escrito originalmente por WontonBOI:

after i found out you could buy moons for 1000 coins, i stopped playing. worthless.

Except there is only a set amount of moons you can buy with coins. You can't just buy all the rest of the moons with coins.That's not how it works. But since you stoppled playing I guess you didn't realise that.

After 800 moons, i don't want to play anymore. I am sick of it.

I am also sick of AHIT.

both games are just annoying to me now.

[100% lob juice]

I prefer this game to Mario Odyssey too.

A Hat in Time has better variety, more platforming-focused level design, and although I think that Odyssey also has a great movement system, the feeling of the movement in Hat in Time is probably the tightest and most responsive I've seen in a 3d platformer.

Also a Hat in Time is a lot less grindy. Sure, Mario Odyssey might have a much longer 100% completion time than this game, but most of the extra content in Odyssey is just repetitive grindy activities. They both have the same amount of "killer" content.

Keep in mind that I usually prefer more linear games over open world ones with lots of filler content. The Super Mario Galaxy games and 3D World are my favourite 3D mario games for this reason. A Hat in Time had a nice mix between linearity and some areas of open exploration. It struck the same balance that I like in Galaxy 1.

The characters in Hat in Time had a ton more charm too. Each of the "races" have unique personalities, and overall the game had really memorable characters. On the other hand none of the characters in Odyssey have any personality whatsoever besides maybe Pauline. The vast majority of dialogue is generic guidance messages.

On the other hand Mario Odyssey felt empty at times and most of the linear challenges were lazily-designed from a visual and sometimes even mechanical standpoint.

(I still 100%'d Odyssey though lol)

[100% lob juice]

Escrito originalmente por WontonBOI:

Escrito originalmente por linnense:

I currently have 700 moons in Odessey. I actually find the levels in A Hat in Time more challenging to an enjoyable degree, while Mario is just frustrating; especially since I'm trying to do 100% completion. Both are great, like i love the open world aspect added to mario and there are so many in universe minigames and easter eggs. However, A Hat in Time was very refreshing to play, I didn't know what to expect, even though it is very short, there's still a lot of time spent because of level difficulty, but again, it was enjoyable. Someone had mentioned it earlier, but I agree that A Hat in Time is like a love letter to platformer video games.

you wasted your time getting 700 moons. once you reach the mushroom kingdom, you can buy endless moons lmao. pointless.

You need to get all of the "proper" moons for the 100% ending, however the 100% ending is underwhelming af

[DescipleOfZen]

Escrito originalmente por lob:

Escrito originalmente por WontonBOI:

you wasted your time getting 700 moons. once you reach the mushroom kingdom, you can buy endless moons lmao. pointless.

You need to get all of the "proper" moons for the 100% ending, however the 100% ending is underwhelming af

All you get is a top hat on the damn castle.

[100% lob juice]

Escrito originalmente por WontonBOI:

Escrito originalmente por lob:

You need to get all of the "proper" moons for the 100% ending, however the 100% ending is underwhelming af

All you get is a top hat on the damn castle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWHyD0Ukrp4

You also get an alternate ending if you get all of the non-shop moons. It's more than the top hat, but it's still quite underwhelming.

It unlocks a secret painting in the honeylune ridge chapel, which is the ending sequence repeated except with a slightly harder but not much harder bowser boss fight, and a postcard after the credits SMS style.

[TreeTrunk]

good to know

[mel celeste]

I hate Mario so rip

[VeeKain]

I've still got a lot to do here in a Hat in Time but my impressions up to world 4 are definitely not that it's better than Odyssey. I don't think it's even close. I feel like I can land Mario on an ant playing a game through a mirror because of how much control I have and it's intoxicating. And in this game any platform the size of Hat Kid or smaller is slightly annoying to land on.

Even Odyssey's big criticism of difficulty, I haven't found anything tough here yet so it's not like this is Ghosts N Goblins in comparison. Maybe I'll change my mind later but for now I am not seeing this at all. It's just been a "decent" game that I am enjoying and being better than Odyssey sounds insane to me.

[MrBerserk]

A Hat in Time is worse than literally any Mario game, sorry. Mario Odyssey has vastly better level design, gameplay variety, interesting enemies, and just blows A Hat in Time away graphically.

[Lexi Lunarpaw]

Yes and i also prefer A Hat in Time
its Moddable and Hat Kid isn't addicted to Spaghetti
and there's Online Party in A Hat in Time there's no such thing in Mario
Hat Kid's Spaceship is bigger then the Odyssey as well
There's Mustache Girl and your not forced to save the same Princess for the billionth time
Bow Kid doesn't get captured every other week like Peach
There's Co-op in Hat where your partner is actually apart of the Adventure instead of just a floating hat that does nothing but freeze enemies
Hat is more accessible the Mario and your not forced to have a Nintendo Switch to play

TL;DR A Hat in Time is more flexible then Mario has better co-op and isn't corporate and is on more devices