Current Events > Are the Galaxy games the best Marios?

(+) Yeah! (+)

They're like the perfect blend of 2D and open 3D designs, with great new music and classic remixes, great natural controls, all highly polished.
---

The first one is my favorite 3d Mario
---

It's a matter of opinion.

I personally think they are, mwahaha.
---

no

they fake being open while being extremely constrained, sideflip spin walljump spin is way too good, they're slow moving, many of the stars are not challenging in any way for how long they take, momentum and movement feels very off

They've got nice bgm and look pretty cool though
---

No
---

SuperMario Bros 3 is the best and its not even close. If you say Super Mario World is better I laugh at your face.
---

kirbymuncher posted...

no

they fake being open while being extremely constrained, sideflip spin walljump spin is way too good, they're slow moving, many of the stars are not challenging in any way for how long they take, momentum and movement feels very off

They've got nice bgm and look pretty cool though

How is it faking?
---

I preferred 64 and Sunshine. Galaxy was too linear.
---

Go_Totodile posted...

I preferred 64 and Sunshine. Galaxy was too linear.

> Galaxy was too linear
> prefers Sunshine

wut
---

Sunshine felt far more like 64 than either Galaxy game.
---

Distant_Rainbow posted...

Go_Totodile posted...

I preferred 64 and Sunshine. Galaxy was too linear.

> Galaxy was too linear
> prefers Sunshine

wut

He likes having open levels I'm guessing. Doesn't matter if you're limited on which Shines you can get.
---

Short answer is yes.
---

I prefer Sunshine. The movement is much more fast-paced and fluid, and you have a lot more freedom to move through the levels the way you want.
---

I think, ultimately, yes. They're amongst the most perfectly formed videogames ever crafted.

SharpX68000 posted...

SuperMario Bros 3 is the best and its not even close. If you say Super Mario World is better I laugh at your face.

While I agree, laughing might be a bit much. I think it's debatable. Three wins, but World still puts up a good fight.
---

Go_Totodile posted...

I preferred 64 and Sunshine. Galaxy was too linear.

This. Patiently waiting for Odyssey.
---

mario 64 was just as linear as galaxy. In both games you needed to beat certain levels to unlock further regions, then you could choose to continue your world or go to the next galaxy/level of the castle.

64DS is the best 3D Mario game.

World is the best 2D one. (Unless we can count Yoshi's Island. Then it's that.)
---

Hexagon posted...

mario 64 was just as linear as galaxy. In both games you needed to beat certain levels to unlock further regions, then you could choose to continue your world or go to the next galaxy/level of the castle.

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.
---

I personally like sunshine and mario land 2 on gameboy

megamanzero1000 posted...

mario land 2

Pretty great, one of my favorites too.
---

What aspect of Mario Galaxy is 2D platforming?
---

Manocheese posted...

fluid

omg get it? because there's water in that game
---

Go_Totodile posted...

Hexagon posted...

mario 64 was just as linear as galaxy. In both games you needed to beat certain levels to unlock further regions, then you could choose to continue your world or go to the next galaxy/level of the castle.

I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.

What do you mean? You just need to rename the castle floors as galaxies. There is the foyer galaxy, the upstairs galaxy, the downstairs galaxy, the three boss room galaxies, and the secret slide room galaxy. You cannot start mario 64 and head to the upstairs galaxy; you need to collect some stars before you can open the door. In mario galaxy you cannot go to a different room in the observatory until you collect some stars in order to gain access to a boss at the end of the galaxy you're in. It's literally the same thing except in mario galaxy you need to defeat a mini-boss and in mario 64 the doors simply unlock.

On_The_Edge posted...

What aspect of Mario Galaxy is 2D platforming?

It has straight up 2d levels
---

Hexagon posted...

mario 64 was just as linear as galaxy. In both games you needed to beat certain levels to unlock further regions, then you could choose to continue your world or go to the next galaxy/level of the castle.

I think anyone talking about the linearity of Galaxy vs. the openness of SM64 is talking about inside the levels themselves, not how you access them.

kirbymuncher posted...

no

they fake being open while being extremely constrained, sideflip spin walljump spin is way too good, they're slow moving, many of the stars are not challenging in any way for how long they take, momentum and movement feels very off

They've got nice bgm and look pretty cool though

Your first point I don't get because I don't see how the games faked being open. They were pretty clearly on the linear side to me. And there's nothing wrong with that.

As for difficulty, I don't think it's that much different than SM64 or Sunshine. Maybe the first Galaxy was a little easier than them, but Galaxy 2 was harder. Spinning helping out with jumps didn't change that.

I also disagree with the movement feeling off, but that's your opinion I guess.
---

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

inside the levels themselves

Bingo. I prefer 64's hub world anyway, but the main meat of the game, the levels themselves, are so linear in Galaxy compared to 64 and Sunshine.
---

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

Hexagon posted...

mario 64 was just as linear as galaxy. In both games you needed to beat certain levels to unlock further regions, then you could choose to continue your world or go to the next galaxy/level of the castle.

I think anyone talking about the linearity of Galaxy vs. the openness of SM64 is talking about inside the levels themselves, not how you access them.

SM64 also gives you a lot more freedom in the order in which you play the levels and stars.

Another thing I can't stand about the newer Mario games is how much downtime there is between stars. You have to watch this stupid cutscene, advance through this stupid text, etc. SM64 is much faster. The same is true of other Nintendo franchises like Zelda, but they moved in the right direction with ALBW.

pojr posted...

Manocheese posted...

fluid

omg get it? because there's water in that game

;)
---

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

I think anyone talking about the linearity of Galaxy vs. the openness of SM64 is talking about inside the levels themselves, not how you access them.

---

Manocheese posted...

SM64 also gives you a lot more freedom in the order in which you play the levels and stars.

Well, while you have fun with the minute of enjoyment when you do some other task by accident and get a star, I'll enjoy the adventure and the work that went into the redesigned stages for specific objectives and the fun of the completing mini-objectives to proceed.

Besides, there is no logic to "I'll pick objective star 1, but I'll do objective star 4" other than a conservative budget. The fact that they had objectives before starting the game and in some levels redesigned it (for example the turtle race in bob-omb fields, the ship in jolly roger bay, big small world) mario galaxy was most likely the intended vision.

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

Your first point I don't get because I don't see how the games faked being open. They were pretty clearly on the linear side to me. And there's nothing wrong with that.

As for difficulty, I don't think it's that much different than SM64 or Sunshine. Maybe the first Galaxy was a little easier than them, but Galaxy 2 was harder. Spinning helping out with jumps didn't change that.

I dunno, they sort of felt like they were pretending to be open to me. You've got these massive planets, smaller planets, stars connecting them and stuff, but usually you just go from one to another in those launch stars, can't go backwards, don't really need to look around at all, etc. They give you space to run around but very rarely give you any reason to do anything other than just go straight to the next launch star. Launch stars themselves compartmentalize the levels in a way I am not very fond of because it means you can have a ton of level fragments without any effort to make them connected on a gameplay or even just on a graphical/spatial level. The worlds themselves contain multiple stars but don't really feel like they're the same world beyond the visual themeing and (if applicable) the world's gimmick.

Green stars in galaxy 2 were very cool though, made you look off the beaten path a little bit


Difficulty I guess I agree but I guess what bugs me more about it is often the very easy stars in SM64 are also very short. You can probably enter a level, grab a star, and get back out just in the time it takes you to exit/re-enter a course in galaxy. galaxy's levels are very long even when they are not difficult at all, which makes them feel like some boring slog that you have to get out of the way to get to more interesting courses.
---

Galaxy 1 was good. Galaxy 2 was probably the best 3D Mario game I ever played. I really should play through that one again sometime this fall...

kirbymuncher posted...

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

Your first point I don't get because I don't see how the games faked being open. They were pretty clearly on the linear side to me. And there's nothing wrong with that.

As for difficulty, I don't think it's that much different than SM64 or Sunshine. Maybe the first Galaxy was a little easier than them, but Galaxy 2 was harder. Spinning helping out with jumps didn't change that.

I dunno, they sort of felt like they were pretending to be open to me. You've got these massive planets, smaller planets, stars connecting them and stuff, but usually you just go from one to another in those launch stars, can't go backwards, don't really need to look around at all, etc. They give you space to run around but very rarely give you any reason to do anything other than just go straight to the next launch star. Launch stars themselves compartmentalize the levels in a way I am not very fond of because it means you can have a ton of level fragments without any effort to make them connected on a gameplay or even just on a graphical/spatial level. The worlds themselves contain multiple stars but don't really feel like they're the same world beyond the visual themeing and (if applicable) the world's gimmick.

Green stars in galaxy 2 were very cool though, made you look off the beaten path a little bit


Difficulty I guess I agree but I guess what bugs me more about it is often the very easy stars in SM64 are also very short. You can probably enter a level, grab a star, and get back out just in the time it takes you to exit/re-enter a course in galaxy. galaxy's levels are very long even when they are not difficult at all, which makes them feel like some boring slog that you have to get out of the way to get to more interesting courses.

Yeah you have a point with the pace. Most stars in SM64 can be collected quickly even if you're not a speedrunner.
---

ArchiePeck posted...

I think, ultimately, yes. They're amongst the most perfectly formed videogames ever crafted.

Agreed
---

64 & World are tied for my favorite Mario games, though the Galaxy games are extremely close.
---

The SMG1 star where you collect purple coins on the Luigi-shaped squares is kicking my ass, if anyone has any advice.
---

There are significantly more than 100 coins (iirc there are 150?) so yoy don't need to worry about grabbing every single one. Just do a big loop around the stage picking up coins where you can and you should get enough easily
---

I like SMG2 probably just as much as SMB3 and SMW, but I loved the latter games as a kid so I might prefer them forever because it brings me back to a much simpler time.
---

3D World is my favorite.
---

No. 64 is the best 3D Mario. SMB3 is the best 2D, closely followed by World. The NSMB games are terrific for multiplayer, though.
---