Would you like a TRUE open world Mario game?

We all know that Mario's and most loved 3D adventures are the open-world sandbox ones like Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine and the new Super Mario Odyssey; in those games the stages are all like small sandboxes and they all act like a small "world" you can explore.

They aren't however, truly open-world, as you have a lot of freedom of movement (especially thanks to Cappy and the new crazy acrobatic skills Mario has) but the area you can travel, while still RELATIVELY large compared to Mario size-wise, is still limited by boundaries (have them be walls or cliffs) and you can't leave the world you're in unless you use the Odyssey.

With "true open.world" I mean a single huge stage, just one, GIANORMOUS map where all the locations are set and that you can technically walk trough using Mario alone (albeit some areas would be locked from the start and you'd need to find some item to progress, like maybe an item held by a boss of one area that opens another one), kinda like GTA or Zelda:BotW.
DtTTX7sqpgorwHHA5_ms2A.png


All the familiar grassy plain, deserts hills worlds (+ any new ones they might come up with) all conjoined togheter, they could also have transitional areas like one where the grass starts to slowly disappear as the sand takes over while you enter the desert area.

Maybe the final battle with Bowser could be set outside of the world, like in space or in another dimension.
Maybe the story is that Bowser has spent time studying dark magic and improving his magic skills and he managed to create a portal to another dimension AND to use a real powerful form of dark magic, which he uses to cover Peach's castle in darkness and take advantage of the chaos created by it to kidnap Peach and escape to the portal into his own dimension; and maybe there's a smart Toad (or another new side character) that knows that you need **insert thing to collect that is protected by Boss enemies** to open another gate and reach Bowser's dimension so you can can defeat him and save Peach.

The gameplay would be the same of that of other 3D sandbox Mario, except maybe now you can have the extra sense of discovery that having a single huge map can bring, like having small towns of different creatures or Toads you can talk to, maybe there could be a complex pipe travel-system that could allow you to fast-travel trough the island's various biomes. You could gain the items you need (the Power Star-things of this game) by completing missions either by talking to NPCs or by finding them in the open like in Mario Odyssey. Maybe they could also add a simple key inventory that could allow Mario to store keys he can find around and open special doors? (I don't think an inventory is really needed, just a grid-Menu that displays colourful keys is all we need to have=

I think the feeling of the world being one huge island with different themed biomes and different populations of possible allies and various enemy baddies (themed Goombas or your usual enemies) would be so cool! The sensation of exploring and reaching new places would be awesome! What are your thoughts on that? Would you like a Mario game like this? One with just one, gianormous map instead of many smaller ones?
 
Jumping Spider said:
(albeit some areas would be locked from the start and you'd need to find some item to progress, like maybe an item held by a boss of one area that opens another one)
this is easily the stupidest thing about open world games why even do it

"story reasons"

stories in open worlds are dumb as fuck too
 
Even Breath of the Wild required you to acquire the Paraglider if you wanted to leave the Great Plateau; without it, you're pretty much committing suicide with that long drop.
 
Shadowshy said:
Jumping Spider said:
(albeit some areas would be locked from the start and you'd need to find some item to progress, like maybe an item held by a boss of one area that opens another one)
this is easily the stupidest thing about open world games why even do it

"story reasons"

stories in open worlds are dumb as fuck too
Because the games want to have a story? I don't think it's a particularly esoteric idea for gameplay to progress alongside the story. Even in games with threadbare plots, it's not as if every single gameplay option is immediately available to you.
 
idk for me the main attraction of open world games is "go do whatever you want, make your own story." restricting locations behind some unnecessary wall completely breaks that immersion. if its just optional stuff that doesnt really affect where I can go yeah im cool, but not being to go to location X before getting object A at location Y feels so...pointless. take Assassins Creed IV for instance, as you progress through the game you get better/more weapons after getting enough money to buy them. thats cool, gives a sense of progress without restricting my freedom. however, in the same game, I have to spend like an hour or two going through the story missions before actually getting a ship to go places that aren't havanna. thats just dumb
 
I really don't think the idea of a huge open world game meshes well with a quick-paced, action-oriented series like Mario.

The market is also over-saturated with these types games, which doesn't help either.
 
Since Mario is a series that are essentially goal-based, I wouldn't mind if another Mario character gets this treatment. Many people will like Bowser or Rosalina because they are more popular, but my personal choice would be Waluigi because he's mostly uncharted territory so you can be free to do anything about him.

DC4TtysW0AALIIR.jpg


Thank you for reading.
 
So Mario Odyssey but all the Kingdoms are connected in one large landscape? Yeah why not? It would have to probably be limited to the Mushroom Kingdom.

Actually I would rather have a new and greatly improved DK64 that had you freely explore the entire DK Island. I think I got this idea when I saw Link in Breath of the Wild climbing anything and thought "Wouldn't it make more sense if Donkey Kong could do this?"
 
Meh, the novelty of open worlds has largely lost itself on me these days.
 
puerto rico and wake islands, of course

alabama can be the land bowser resides in
 
Alabama? That's would be more likely to be the tutorial area if this was based on the alphabetical way with Bowser in Wyoming. Though, this doesn't exactly work. Just stating what I think. We are should know that the proper place where Bowser should be is Arizona. Or was that a different dessert state. Pretty sure it is Arizona where Death Canyon is.
 
YTSSM said:
Alabama? That's would be more likely to be the tutorial area if this was based on the alphabetical way with Bowser in Wyoming. Though, this doesn't exactly work. Just stating what I think. We are should know that the proper place where Bowser should be is Arizona. Or was that a different dessert state. Pretty sure it is Arizona where Death Canyon is.

it's called death valley and nah, it's in california :X

damn it, why can't it be in Hell, Michigan instead
 
YTSSM said:
Alabama? That's would be more likely to be the tutorial area if this was based on the alphabetical way with Bowser in Wyoming. Though, this doesn't exactly work. Just stating what I think. We are should know that the proper place where Bowser should be is Arizona. Or was that a different dessert state. Pretty sure it is Arizona where Death Canyon is.
nah the entire southeast is hell
 
Baby Luigi said:
YTSSM said:
Alabama? That's would be more likely to be the tutorial area if this was based on the alphabetical way with Bowser in Wyoming. Though, this doesn't exactly work. Just stating what I think. We are should know that the proper place where Bowser should be is Arizona. Or was that a different dessert state. Pretty sure it is Arizona where Death Canyon is.

it's called death valley and nah, it's in california :X

damn it, why can't it be in Hell, Michigan instead
if any part of michigan, bowser would be located in detroit
 
Whatever this game would be called, we can’t call it "Super Mario USA" because Japan already has that. We can also forget about calling it "Mario Takes America".

But Bowser would have to be in Yellowstone.
 
Shadowshy said:
idk for me the main attraction of open world games is "go do whatever you want, make your own story." restricting locations behind some unnecessary wall completely breaks that immersion. if its just optional stuff that doesnt really affect where I can go yeah im cool, but not being to go to location X before getting object A at location Y feels so...pointless. take Assassins Creed IV for instance, as you progress through the game you get better/more weapons after getting enough money to buy them. thats cool, gives a sense of progress without restricting my freedom. however, in the same game, I have to spend like an hour or two going through the story missions before actually getting a ship to go places that aren't havanna. thats just dumb
The reason they do it, other than story reasons, is also to create escalating difficulty: if you could go literally ANYWHERE then the difficulty would escalate really quickly as you can basically go from the areas that are easier to those that are harder relatively fast, so blocking them forces you to execute whatever objective/mission you are supposed to do and gain experience so that you can take on the harder challenges in the next area(s).
It's unfortunately the easiest and most effective way of balancing out difficulty in open-world games that are about exploring the world, usually purely mission-based ones simply have NPCs give you harder missions as they're not about the stage but the tasks you do.

So in a Mario game, which is a platform where the stage's layout is the real focus, using the "Y area is locked and you have to do X first" would be the only way to give the game a fair and escalating difficulty, there could be 2-3 areas that you can access that give you all access to more areas so you still have some freedom but having 100% liberty of movement would make difficulty a huge mess and an incredibly big issue to fix due to it being easily unbalanced.
 
Jumping Spider said:
So in a Mario game, which is a platform where the stage's layout is the real focus, using the "Y area is locked and you have to do X first" would be the only way to give the game a fair and escalating difficulty, there could be 2-3 areas that you can access that give you all access to more areas so you still have some freedom but having 100% liberty of movement would make difficulty a huge mess and an incredibly big issue to fix due to it being easily unbalanced.
so basically mario 64
or galaxy
or sunshine
 
Jumping Spider said:
So in a Mario game, which is a platform where the stage's layout is the real focus, using the "Y area is locked and you have to do X first" would be the only way to give the game a fair and escalating difficulty, there could be 2-3 areas that you can access that give you all access to more areas so you still have some freedom but having 100% liberty of movement would make difficulty a huge mess and an incredibly big issue to fix due to it being easily unbalanced.

I don't think restricting difficulty would be a problem in a Mario platformer in the first place. I mean, obtaining anything from that higher difficulty would be the same thing as anything lower. I do think that locking away a higher difficulty is good so that the player has a reward for doing what it takes to get it. But, the order to obtain that would be chosen by the player. Super Mario 64 without any star limits save for star limits for Bowser (to restrict the player from just beating the game) and 3rd floor and the keys to unlock the basement and 2nd floor would be more open world then any Mario game and just as much (but a little bit less technically) than Breath of the Wild... maybe.
 
Back