Sunshine VS Galaxy? Which Mario Game is the Best?

[iDarkLink]

Hello people of Zelda Dungeon!

Today I shall have a thread on a problem I've been dealing with for a couple of weeks now: which is the better game: Mario Sunshine or Mario Galaxy?

Both of the games have their great things and their bad things. Here I shall put down the pros and cons of each of these two wonderful Mario games for you to see.

:shinesprite:Super Mario Sunshine:shinesprite:​

PROS
1: F.L.U.U.D. was an amazing addition to Mario Sunshine and I wish we could see more usage of this amazing item and helper. Sure, F.L.U.U.D. made a cameo as one of Mario's attacks on :ssb:S.S.B.B.:ssb: but I'm meaning in like a full-on Mario game, kinda like a Mario Sunshine 2.

2: The main hud of Isle Delfino was amazing! The idea that some :shinesprite:s were hidden inside the main hud and that you can collect 100 coins in the main hud to get another :shinesprite: was pretty cool.

3: The level designs make it feel like your at a tropical resort (which you actually are at in this game ) like the park area and the hotel area were really cool.

CONS
1: The difficulty of some levels were so rage-iducing I actually just turned off the game and was legit for a couple of minutes (which I rarely do, even at a really hard game).

2: The secret levels (the ones without F.L.U.U.D. helping you) are the most hardest levels in this amazing game! These make me rage the most.

END OF :shinesprite:SUPER MARIO SUNSHINE:shinesprite: PROS AND CONS

SUPER MARIO GALAXY​

PROS
1: The gravity on certian levels was almost breath-taking! The fact that you can long jump on a small planet and manage to do a complete orbit around that planet was the best thing about the gravity!

2: The main hud of this game was also amazing! The domes were well made (especially the garden, which is my favorite of the domes) and the fun tricks you can do here are also fun to do.

CONS
1: Some levels arr also pretty hard, but a lot of them seem too easy. In just two hours I was already 33% done with the game .

END OF SUPER MARIO GALAXY PROS AND CONS​

well there they are: my pros and cons of both :shinesprite:Super Mario Sunshine:shinesprite: and Super Mario Galaxy!
Now you get to participate! Please reply your own pros and cons of these two games or reply which of these teo games you think is the best!

Thanks for reading,
iDarkLink.

 

[Ventus]

Difficulty is a great thing...but my main problem with both titles is the lack of acrobatics. Like, they're possible to some degree, but they really aren't necessarily OR cool without TASing imo. I pick Sunshine over Galaxy.

 

[DarkestLink]

Neither. SM64 FTW. But between those, probably Sunshine. The blue coins were an *** and FLUDD was annoying, but SMG was needlessly linear, took out all exploration, and was about as repetitive as PoP: SoT

 

[Mercedes]

Galaxy, by a mile. Sunshine was an alright game for me; quite average. I didn't hate it, far from that, but it was never a game I couldn't put-down and had to talk about. Galaxy, on the other end, blew me away. I thought the planets and the gravity gave the game a lot of variety and it was one of them games that was finished across the week-end just because I couldn't put it down.

So, Galaxy!

 

[Hanyou]

Why isn't Super Mario 64 on this list? It's more iconic than both games, and possibly the most important Nintendo game ever made. It's also damn good.

That said, I think Super Mario Sunshine is incredibly weak due to far too many mundane, mandatory objectives and a deeply flawed core platforming mechanic. I do not like being forced to finish many of the extremely difficult objectives, many of which aren't even platforming-focused, that are forced on the gamer.

I can't think of a weaker Mario platformer.

Galaxy 1 and 2 are both fantastic. Both are platforming-focused, with levels patterned around creative ideas that never get old. While there are a couple of weak objectives, they're entirely avoidable. In terms of overall style, they might be the strongest Mario games, with an unrivaled soundtrack. It doesn't get better than this:

[video=youtube;VEIWhy-urqM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEIWhy-urqM[/video]

I compare the atmosphere Super Mario Galaxy to that of a classic Disney, Miyazaki, or Pixar film, and that is no faint praise.

No contest, really. At best, Sunshine is uneven. Every good thing about it is tainted by its flawed ideas. In every department, Super Mario Galaxy excels.

Now, if you tried to stack up Galaxy against Mario 64, it would be much more difficult to argue the quality of one over the other, but Galaxy remains my personal favorite.

 

[JuicieJ]

but SMG was needlessly linear, took out all exploration, and was about as repetitive as PoP: SoT

Right, because platformers totally need to be non-linear, and... wait, what? Repetitive? Galaxy? I think you just broke my brain.

 

[DarkestLink]

Right, because platformers totally need to be non-linear, and... wait, what? Repetitive? Galaxy? I think you just broke my brain.

Yes. This isn't an action/adventure or an RPG. This is a platformer. There is no reason to make it linear.

As for repetitiveness...name 3 bosses that you defeat without using the spin move.

 

[BoxTar]

Super Mario Sunshine, for sure. I love Galaxy to pieces, but there's a special place in my heart for Sunshine. The graphics, the location, the music, the levels and the missions are all so brilliant. The difficulty wasn't THAT bad, just right in my opinion. It was a unique take on a game that I really hadn't seen before. I mean, a water gun? How could we use THAT as a weapon?

And I really don't get all the hype behind SM64. I get it, it helped form the genre and was one of the first of its kind, but...there are so many other platformers that look, play, and feel better than SM64. Banjo Kazooie is a similar style game that has a MUCH better layout, level design, character design, music, etc. than I see in SM64. I know its a slightly different game, but at its core, its a platformer. Also, DK64, a much more memorable game for similar reasons. I know that SM64 was made earlier than these games, and thus the others had time to develop, but I feel like it just didn't...age well. Eh, prolly just me, but I still don't see what the big deal was about SM64.

As for repetitiveness...name 3 bosses that you defeat without using the spin move.

Name three bosses in SM64 you don't take out by punching. Its not the action you defeat them with, but the method in which you defeat them, aka the way you exploit and defeat their weakness.

 

[DarkestLink]

Name three bosses in SM64 you don't take out by punching.

King Bomb Omb, Bowser, Bowser 2, Bowser 3, Wiggler, Whomp, Fire Bully, and Ice Bully...I think this had less bosses too.

 

[BoxTar]

King Bomb Omb, Bowser, Bowser 2, Bowser 3, Wiggler, Whomp, Fire Bully, and Ice Bully...I think this had less bosses too.

Okay, it may not be punching, but you throw them do you not? Now that I think about it, the only other one you actually punch is the Golem in the sand world. For God's sakes, you fight Bowser in the same way each time. King Bomb Omb, ya throw him. Wiggler, ya ground pound. Whomp, ya ground pound, Fire Bully, ya punch him. Ice bully, ya punch him. See the system here? To be fair, I'm sure Galaxy has a similar system of spin attack usage, but like I said before, its the method, not the action that made the bosses different.

 

[DarkestLink]

Okay, it may not be punching, but you throw them do you not? Now that I think about it, the only other one you actually punch is the Golem in the sand world. For God's sakes, you fight Bowser in the same way each time. King Bomb Omb, ya throw him. Wiggler, ya ground pound. Whomp, ya ground pound, Fire Bully, ya punch him. Ice bully, ya punch him. See the system here? To be fair, I'm sure Galaxy has a similar system of spin attack usage, but like I said before, its the method, not the action that made the bosses different.

Bomb omb you throw, Bowser you spin, Whomp you ground pound, Eyerok you punch, Wiggler you normal jump...as for Big Boos and Bullies...you do w/e...but punching them isn't a good idea, really. Jumping is more efficient.

And it's not just bosses. There's other elements...how many times did I rush to a star spin myself an launch? Heck, how many times you spin in this game is ridiculous. How many times did I see the "collect 5 of this to make this appear" challenge? The comets themselves were repetitive, not only of each other but of the level they were based off of.

 

[JuicieJ]

Yes. This isn't an action/adventure or an RPG. This is a platformer. There is no reason to make it linear.

.........Surely you're trolling. You MUST be trolling. There's no way you can believe that the former two should be linear and the latter should be non-linear. That is completely bass-ackwards.

 

[BoxTar]

Bomb omb you throw, Bowser you spin, Whomp you ground pound, Eyerok you punch, Wiggler you normal jump...as for Big Boos and Bullies...you do w/e...but punching them isn't a good idea, really. Jumping is more efficient.

And it's not just bosses. There's other elements...how many times did I rush to a star spin myself an launch? Heck, how many times you spin in this game is ridiculous. How many times did I see the "collect 5 of this to make this appear" challenge? The comets themselves were repetitive, not only of each other but of the level they were based off of.

I feel like this is more of convincing yourself than me...

SM64 had a bunch of repetitive challenges as well. As I recall, the red coin challenge was in that game. Every single level had a red coin challenge. Plus, collecting 100 gold coins was a tedious challenge, still implemented in the newer games as well. I didn't MIND that they had these. But telling me and yourself that they are soooooo different because of that "god-awful" spin is completely asinine. Mario can do three things in Galaxy: Spin (like a punch), ground pound, and jump (counting all the fancy jumps). Mario did the same amount of stuff in SM64: Punch, Ground Pound, and jump. There is no base for your argument, really. I can agree with maybe better challenge, more unique level design in places like Tick Tock Clock, but in terms of mechanics, SM64 is barely any different than Galaxy. Except Galaxy is a bit easier to control. A bit.

 

[DarkestLink]

.........Surely you're trolling. You MUST be trolling. There's no way you can believe that the former two should be linear and the latter should be non-linear. That is completely bass-ackwards.

No you're trolling.

But seriously, try to come up with more substance than that if you want to make an argument. With most action/adventures and RPGs, there is some form of journey you're going on. Things MUST be done in order to complete the journey. Some RPGs can't be completed, but even these RPGs often have building quests, quests that build off each other so the story(ies) can continue. In Zelda's case, dungeons MUST be done. And the fact that you HAVE to do them makes real freedom impossible, making non-linearity pointless.

In a game like Super Mario 64, you don't HAVE to do everything. There's very few things you do need to do (like Bowser). Don't like collecting 100 coins? Forget about it. Can't wall jump? That's fine. Never found that mysterious mountain side? Go on past it or try a difference course. Keeping nearly everything optional gives a purpose in non-linearity and together, the game is filled with freedom.

You can make an RPG or an action adventure non-linear...but you sacrifice progression and you don't gain freedom. It's pointless--it's less that pointless, it's counterproductive.

 

[Justac00lguy]

With most action/adventures and RPGs, there is some form of journey you're going on.*

No this is the case for "most" games, progress is essential to any game that revolves around reaching a specific goal, which in, most cases, games of any genre have in some sort of fashion.

In Zelda's case, dungeons MUST be done. And the fact that you HAVE to do them makes real freedom impossible, making non-linearity pointless.

Well Zelda is an example of a linear game for sure but is "real" freedom truly necessary? Well for any game, is true freedom necessary? I fact I don't think any game is truly free, if you can name a game which one can access, every area/level, every quest point, every item etc. without having to go though some sort of structure then we can talk.

You can make an RPG or an action adventure non-linear...but you sacrifice progression and you don't gain freedom. It's pointless--it's less that pointless, it's counterproductive.Share|Like

A game can still be nonlinear while maintaining progression, look at Fallout 3 for example; this game is largely open, you can access pretty much most areas from the outset (if you wish isn't to get mauled that is), however you also have a very structured and progressive plot. The game combines great freedom with a solid main quest and still manages to gain the best out of the both. Nevertheless, a game doesn't have to be fully nonlinear in order to achieve such freedom, it just needs to be reasonably flexible.