Dr. Mario World is more like Candy Crush than the classic NES game

Super Mario World is a legendary Nintendo game that has taken over the original Super Mario concept from the NES and has extended it to a whole new evolution of the franchise, which no doubt helped lay the foundation for what Mario's games are today. Unfortunately, despite his name, Dr. Mario World – the next mobile evolution of the original title NES – does not have the same pedigree, getting close to free mobile puzzles like Candy Crush Saga.

For starters, the basic concept of Dr. Mario does not even manage to Dr. Mario World. The game is a match-three instead of a match-four, so any strategies or game styles you have developed for years Dr. Mario are rendered useless. It does not really matter because Dr. Mario World It's more of a stage-based free gaming experience than a serious puzzle game.

The game is also played exclusively as the alternative "Virus Buster" in drag-and-drop mode from more recent iterations of the game. TetrisIn the style of the capsules, the players slide and deposit them, and can even continue to move half-capsules to a more advantageous place, if they correspond to the first capsule. (Standard Dr. Mario play more like a Tetris variant: players drop blocks into a virus field, but no drag-and-drop mechanism is added.)

I was lucky to try a few levels and the game is not bad. Constantly moving nature means you need to think a little more than other puzzle games, and some of the puzzles are really tricky. We do not really feel like a Dr. Mario Game. There is also a multiplayer component (which Nintendo has detailed here), but I have not been able to try it in person.

Some changes are positive. The entire game board is reversed from the usual orientation, so players drag caps to a range of pending viruses, not the other way around – probably, because players' thumbs can Easily reach the bottom of the smartphone screen than the top. . It's a little shocking at first, but it makes sense for the mobile nature and touch screen of the game. It's a similar philosophy to the changes to Mario's formula for Super Mario Run, which has similarly tried to adapt the classic gameplay to a more mobile format.

Instead of the simpler gameplay "clear the scene," there are tricks that seem to be drawn directly from candy Crush: bombs and objects scattered on the boards, blocks to destroy (or totally forbidding your way), frozen viruses to be mapped repeatedly to remove them from the board. It's really a puzzle, step by step, rather than the infinite gameplay of Tetris or the original Dr. Mario. But the added puzzle elements should help change the formula over time.

None of this is inherently bad. Of course, this is an evolution of the formula and a change of focus to some alternative game modes of the series rather than the puzzle mode. But it's with Nintendo's implementation of free monetization schemes that cracks begin to form.

We have come a long way since Nintendo's initial idealistic approach to mobile gaming with Super Mario Run. Instead of, Dr. Mario World follows in the footsteps of the most (and most lucrative) farmers Hero of the fire emblem, Crossing animals: pocket camp, and Dragalia lost.

There are timers, which limit the number of players that can play at the same time, although they can spend paid money in the game to play more. There is a random gacha system to unlock new characters, wizards, and to enhance your existing lists. Players can either wait to accumulate the currency they have earned in the game to pull the wheel, or they can pay for premium currency to try more often. Each character has different abilities (erase a column at random or knock out the top row of blocks), which can dramatically change the gameplay. The character upgrade boosts these abilities, but locking it behind a random and remunerated booty system gives the impression of shaking the players to get real money.

In other words, these are exactly the same strategies used by Nintendo in some of its other mobile games, all of which have been extremely lucrative for the company. But it's a bit more disappointing here for some reason. Maybe because Emblem of fire and Crossing of animals It still looked like their original franchises despite the additional monetization, or perhaps because it was starting to look more like Nintendo monetization schemes that actually changed the gameplay of a classic title to extract more.

Again, none of this is really new at the moment – for Nintendo or the mobile gaming industry in general – but it's a little disappointing. After all, if even Nintendo can not find a way to run its beloved mobile franchises without sticking small price tags everywhere, what chance does the rest of the industry have?

Source link