Where is Super Mario 64 2 Anyway?

In 1996, one of the greatest video games of all-time invaded stores and jump-started the Nintendo 64’s launch. Super Mario 64 would forever change the world of gaming by introducing a new look into 3-D gaming that would set the benchmark for the way platform, adventure, and all 3-D games are made. After years of rumors of a Super Mario 64 2, instead we wait until the Nintendo Gamecube to get another massive Mario adventure. Super Mario Sunshine wasn’t the best of the main Mario titles, but still has its share of fun.


And with the Wii we receive two gems, two masterpieces, two instant classics that tested the graphical and creative limits of the folks at Nintendo. Super Mario Galaxy 2 at one point was placed in a tie as my favorite Mario game, although nowadays it will quietly maintain itself in the top 5. And then we also got the ultra-selling New Mario Bros. franchise that has sold over 48 million copies on two systems. That being said....it has been over 15 years and we still haven’t had a true blue sequel to Super Mario 64. And I am about to explain why, and I am about to explain why it’s been too long and it should happen.


Super Mario 64’s playcontrol has remained the most underrated aspect of the game. Mario 64 has over 30 different moves that you can perform. And remember this was back in 1996, his arsenal of moves were far advanced from the norm. For starters you can choose to walk, run, or crawl. If you were to very lightly move Mario in a certain direction he can even do a sneaky kind of walk. You can jump, double-jump, triple-jump, long jump, backflip, cartwheel, punch, double-punch, kick, wall kick, low kick, high kick, stomp, slide, somersault, climb, do a handstand, sidestep, dive, swim, spin, and just so much more. And this is the list of moves without getting a power-up.

While all of this seems trivial, remember this: Grand Theft Auto to this day still prevents their main characters from doing anything other than a weak combination of punching and kicking. It took over a decade since the debut of the franchise before their main character could even swim. Sonic still can’t do a quarter of the moves Mario did in Mario 64. And you know who else doesn’t do as many moves as Super Mario 64 Mario? Super Mario Sunshine Mario. Super Mario Galaxy Mario. New Super Mario Bros. Mario. And lastly, the upcoming Super Mario 3D Land Mario.

With Mario Sunshine, his waterpack prevented him from doing a variety of the moves from Mario 64. Surely he can hover above the ground with the water pack, but you are limited to the amount of different ways of finding the “stars.” In Super Mario 64, there were many different ways you could locate and collect the star, depending on what moves you were better at doing. Super Mario Galaxy was closer in matching the amount of moves in Mario 64, but still was held back because the Wiimote simply has less buttons. In terms of pure combat, Mario can only jump, throw stars, and spinning. That’s about it.

The 2-D Marios are also limited, but because of the limited space. With a dimension tucked away and not in the foreground, Mario is limited to running, jumping, and a few other moves. While 2-D Mario has come a long way since Super Mario World, he still doesn’t have a developed arsenal of 2-D moves. On a technicality, Yoshi’s Island offered you more moves to do. Super Mario 64 gives Mario the most freedom to run around and do whatever he pleased, defeat opponents however he pleased.


Super Mario 64’s freedom is what I honestly miss the most. And I don’t mean just the levels either. Mario 64’s overworld was massive, as it consisted of the courtyard, the castle, and all the hidden layers of said castle. Remember reaching the balcony? Remember finding the basement? Remember finding hidden paintings inside the castle? There was so much to find, and you could roam around and dictate your pace while exploring. I never felt as free when running around Mario Sunshine and Mario Galaxy. And with Mario Galaxy 2 eliminating it altogether, that game just felt....smaller. Mario 64 was our first glimpse of what it would feel like if Super Mario had a Zelda-quantity adventure. And it felt good.

Even the levels themselves felt more Zelda and less 2-D Mario. Unlike what happened in the Galaxy games and also the Sunshine game to an extent, Mario 64’s stars could usually be collected in a different order. Not only that but the levels could mostly be explored in whatever order you desire---once you get enough stars. Remember the Hazy Maze Cave? Remember Gritzy Desert? Remember Rainbow Ride? These levels were huge, and extremely non-linear. If there was a flaw to Mario galaxy 2, its that sometimes the levels were a little linear, giving it more a 2-D Mario touch.



Bottom Line: We have had a lot of Mario games since the 1996 gaming jewel, but none have been a spiritual sequel. As opposed to expanding upon the adventurous, non-linear Super Mario style of gameplay, we get Mario with a water pack, we get Mario back in 2-D form, and we get Mario with a smaller set of moves in a new art style. And like I said before, don’t get me wrong, all the following Mario games were great in their own right, but none can become called true sequels. They don’t have the spirit of Super Mario 64, even if they have the Super Mario magic.

I want to see Super Mario in not just a larger environment, but a larger environment in which you can explore every single cranny of it. Of course Galaxy seems bigger, but the planets and stars themselves are a bit smaller than they could have been. Can you imagine if they had incorporated Mario 64 elements to Galaxy? We would have Mario exploring entire planets looking for stars. Imagine spending an entire gaming session browsing around a planet you just unlocked. Imagine a Mario game in which you leave the confides of the castle and explore the Mushroom Kingdom the size of an Elder Scrolls area. It might not be the direction that the Nintendo folks want to engage in, but it’s a direction I’d love to see explored at least once more. Give us at least one true, blue, sequel to Mario 64. Give Mario his freedom back. The WiiU can accomplish this. It’s just a matter of if Nintendo wants to.

So what is it? Mario 64 2? Or Super Mario Universe?

Nevermind: The Album that Musically Started the 90s

It was 1991 and the music scene consisted of 80s pop crossing over to the new decade with minimal competition. Artists like Michael Jackson, Paula Abdul, Janet Jackson, Guns n’ Roses, Bon Jovi, and others rocked the 80s and were prepared to run away with the 90s as well. Pop pretty much dominated all as r&b had not yet really caught on; rap had just got only their second #1 hit in the Billboard charts in history (Ice, Ice, Baby), and rock music really was reduced to the glam rock that the underground was growing tired of. There had not been a big new musical wave since Led Zeppelin and the Arena Rock scene back in the mid-late 70s. Music at the time was sugar-coated candy that’s enjoyable in small bursts until the next new pop song comes along. And then came Nevermind.

It has been 20 years since Nirvana’s legendary breakthrough album quietly popped into stores and jump-started a new wave of music, a new sound, and a new voice for a generation that had been shunned musically for quite some time. Under their worldwide smash “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” Nirvana’s Nevermind became arguably the first alternative rock album to fluctuate away from the college and underground crowd and seep into the entire musical mainstream. And Nirvana didn’t just become a huge popular band, but opened the door for dozens of other rock bands that had been under-the-radar in the 80s and also for up-and-coming bands within the same region.


R.E.M., Metallica, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots, Weezer, Bush, Radiohead, Oasis (whether you guys like it or not punks), and Blur (among many many others) rose in popularity at around the same time period as Nevermind’s Billboard and worldwide reign. One band is coincidence. Two bands, perhaps coincidence. More than a dozen? Beginning of a revolution. Beginning of something new. Nevermind started out small and by the end of 1992 was outselling Michael Jackson’s latest album by a longshot. Not only did this instant smash destroy the career of many pop and rock acts, it would sell over 30 million copies worldwide and remains one of the most influential and important albums in the last 30 years. This album set the benchmark for the sound of 90s rock—alternative or not. The 90s didn’t start in 1990, but in 1991 when Nirvana truly arrived.


So just what makes this album so special? What allowed it to hit such a nerve in the music industry? Well, we can start with what listeners had been dealing with for years. 80s glam rock consisted of your overblown, over-produced music that had lyrics abut rampaging around, having fun, messing around with the ladies, taking drugs, among other crazy things everyone did in the 80s. Surely some of it was great (Van Halen anyone?) but none of this music truly touches the soul, truly strikes emotional nerves. Glam rock is to rock fans what pop music is to the mainstream---good, but ultimately forgettable candy-coated minutes of amusement to the ears. 80s metal actually was happening as a way to combat this glam rock---Metallica, Anthrax, Slayer, Iron Maiden, and others were playing music as loud, fast, and ferocious as possible to appeal to those sick of the Van Halen-Poison-Bon Jovi sound.


Nevermind’s sound consisted of music that you swear was played in a garage with no production value whatsoever. Three people were in this band: a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer; nothing more, nothing less. In an age when dozens of people worked on Michael Jackson’s music or when 5-6 people were involved in the same rock band, Nirvana’s simplified sound can be attributed to the fact that there was no rhythm guitar, no keyboard, no extra bassist, no extra drumming in the background, and very minimal cleansing of the guitars. That’s what grunge is, very distorted, very edgy, very raw rock music that is unpredictable, unfocused, unorganized, but just catchy enough to grab your attention and force you to adapt. They didn’t sound like a band set out to make ishloads of money, they sounded like a band that just loved to play. And they didn’t make music for the mainstream, the mainstream adapted to their music.


And they didn’t just play, they played from the heart. While they aren’t the first band to write all the lyrics with their hearts on the sleeves, they popularized the technique for a new generation. Glam rock avoided the emotions and tribulations of life; Nirvana hit it straight-on with full intentions. Vague and constantly-questionable lyrics plagued the entire album, as its mystique and vague aura of it all actually contributed to the unique sound that struck all the right nerves to a new generation of rock fans and wanna-be rock stars. Grunge isn’t ever limited to just one consistent sound either, Nevermind and the best grunge music out there (Pearl Jam’s Ten, Nirvana’s In Utero, Stone Temple Pilots’ Core) features a wide range of vocals, guitars, and moods.


Smells Like Teen Spirit is a 5-minute anti-everything medley that features a great guitar solo, a screaming finale, and a very catchy riff. Something in the Way is a purposely quiet tune that rarely ever increases in noise, as if they are performing this in a secluded, isolated part of town. Come as You Are is a guitar-heavy track that sounds like more bass than anything else, while incorporating a very slow pace and of course, vague lyrics. Drain You is a very dirty song in terms of production value, and for that it works well. In Bloom, arguably their best song in the album is an extremely ironic song about people singing along to songs despite not knowing what it means with an excellent guitar solo, a very catchy guitar/bass riff, and of course, a roller-coaster like transition between light and heavy sounds. And another one of my favorites, Lithium, is just a crazy sinister song with lyrics bouncing all over the place, a wide range of vocals and volumes, and all wrapped up with a great chorus.

The album has so many influential tracks, sounds, moments, and innovative techniques that to this very day we see bands constantly trying to hammer out the same type of sound produced in this made-for-$500,000 medley of Northwest rock. While most of its modern-day success can be attributed to the fact that Kurt Cobain became a martyr of the rock star life with his suicide, you can’t deny its power back when he was alive, Nirvana was alive and strong, and all these new bands were bursting with anticipation for a chance to shine. Massive musical revolutions like this one do not happen often (Beatlemania, Rise of British Metal in the 70s, Arena Rock /New Wave in the early 80s, The Backstreet Boys Pop Group Takeover of the late 90s, The Latin Revolution of 1999, the Flower Power Pop Scene of today) but it’s even rarer to see a whole portion of the population represent itself through the music of one band.

One can only imagine what would have happened if Kurt had stayed alive and been around for the continuing domination of alternative rock and the eventual rise of nu-metal. The question is would the music scene be totally different had Kurt Cobain not killed himself and brought down all these grunge bands with him? Would we have the music of today reigning supreme if Nirvana had still existed? Nirvana was a few steps away from becoming the next Beatles, whether you like it or not.

The Beatles, love them or hate them, definitely did not keep the same sound. They started out as a pop group and evolved into a psychedelic rock band in a mere couple of years. But as they evolved, their fans were intently following, eating up any music the Beatles were throwing at them. That band couldn't miss. Despite their eternal influence on an entire generation of people, the band barely lasted over half a decade before the unfortunate breakup. With In Utero, Nirvana’s third album, being (purposely) dramatically and extremely different from Nevermind, how much longer would Generation X follow this band? Its one of the great mysteries of music history, and all we can do is ponder because after Cobain pulled that trigger, escaping all the fame he didn’t want, Nevermind and its revolutionary tale of success came to an end.


But we are not here to be saddened by his death, we are here to preserve and continue his legacy by recognizing the greatest work from one of the best bands in recent decades. While they didn’t spend much time together in the music scene (and stopped performing way too soon), their few albums paved the way for an influx of music that would temporarily kill the pop scene, usher in a lot of wonderful music, and end the careers of many artists from the 80s, rendering them as afterthoughts. Nevermind is a masterful album that has honestly aged quite well. Its tunes are still catchy, its lyrics are still crazy and sometimes unstructured, and Kurt Cobain despite not being the best singer, or guitarist, or writer, dug deep into his soul and still managed to create beautiful music. Great music can come from anyone, and Nevermind was the defining example of this. They were three men in Seattle with an underground audience that worked together to make something that didn’t just hit, but struck pure gold. And started something new.





Happy 20th Anniversary, Nevermind.

And rest in peace, Kurt Cobain.

Drive: 0/10

A Multi-Layered Abuse to the Film Industry,
19 September 2011

So I walked out of the movie Drive. This is the first time I've ever done such a thing. I've seen a lot of bad movies in my day but there has never been one that infuriated me to a point in which I couldn't continue. And being a film lover, I sat down and analyzed just why exactly this movie ticked me off so much. What was it about this movie that drove me up the wall to a point in which I walked out before I even got to see the conclusion? It wasn't the acting. It wasn't the music. And it wasn't the lush cinematography. What irked me the most was that Drive was disguising itself as an indie flick when in actuality it wanted to become an action movie so badly.

And this strategy while an insult to the entire institution of filmmaking, worked. It got rave reviews at film festivals here and there and got nice reviews from critics, lavishing the acting, supposed tension, and cinematography. I watch this movie because of the rave reviews and literally saw the Transporter movie wrapped in an indie flavor, nothing more. The first half, where we supposedly see "character development," consists of characters engaging in extremely minimal small talk and the rest of the time just staring at each other. I am not kidding. After the tense opening which reveals our main character's secret job (which is familiar to the opening of Transporter), we get nothing for about 40 minutes. Except a lot of pointless scenes.

Drive is about a very good stuntman that doubles as a secret driver at night (Ryan Gosling) who silently falls for his new neighbor (Carey Mulligan) while at the same time gets mixed up in a mob scene (which loosely is a Transporter plot). The first half has all the development, only in the second half is when we see all the action and driving you've been observing in the previews. Based off a novel of the same name, the script must have been easy to write, because it barely has any dialogue while the story is pretty much a mashup of Tarantino-like violence with Transporter-like symptoms.

The movie is so inconsistent, and amongst the small pieces that don't fit together they are all sparkles of what we've seen before—and what we've seen before has all been superior. The supposed amazing chase sequences? Bourne and Ronin does them better----and to a similar budget extent, The Transporter. The supposed amazing violent tension? I can name dozens of movies that do it better. And the extreme violence that is inconsistent with the theme, tone, pace, and characterization of the first half of this slum? Of course, while it doesn't quite match the plot it's been perfected years upon years ago by Tarantino and even to an extent Robert Rodriguez.

But another big reason why I dislike this film so much is because with Drive, we've seen it all before, and yet the critics will not point this out—or choose to avoid it. We've seen these types of movies before (quiet men that has their actions do all the talking), we've seen this type of ultra-action before, and we've seen these stupid attempts at conflicting and blending genres far too many times in the indie and mainstream scene. Drive was originally billed as blockbuster during development so what do they do? Hide the fact that it's the clichéd low-caliber blockbuster that's trying so hard to be a European Tarantino hybrid. They trimmed the dialogue, screen time, and for the Cannes Film Festival nixed the action billing and called it an independent film. They literally were changing the packaging and tone of the movie based off of box office numbers. That's disgusting. They were trying to sway the critics by changing the entire genre.

Bottom Line: Drive, you are a pathetic, pointless, stupid, trite, slow, muggy, grudgy, tasteless, senseless, disposable, forgettable movie with abysmal pacing, abysmal writing, and no sense of direction whatsoever from the first second to the last second I watched before deciding to walk away. You don't know what movie you want to become, as you literally spit yourself through at least three different genres that actually repeal each other like a magnet. You barely clock in at 100 minutes, yet it felt like two hours the first half in. I will not blame the acting, for they had next to nothing to work with. I will not blame the cinematography, which wasn't bad either. I will blame the fact that your crew decided to pretend like your movie was artsy, underground, and indie, when in actuality your movie is this ultraviolent action movie that rears its ugly head long after the audience has fallen asleep through the numbing first half.

Your movie sucks.

Bad.