Super Mario 64 vs. Super Mario Galaxy

[Iridescence]

IMO, SM64 was much more influential but SMG is an overall better game.

64 has the exploration elements and sense of discovery I love but Galaxy is just significantly better in visuals, sound, level design, bosses, creativity, concepts, sheer amount of content, pacing, flow in combat. SM64 just lacked the rhythm of the earlier Mario games and enemies (for example) weren't as threatening in large wide-open areas.

SMG does fail Miyamoto's 30-minute rule (the opening isn't exciting with the barrage of cutscenes), the story is perfunctory and the overworld isn't as exciting as the 64's or Sunshine's, but the levels themselves are perfect and that's like 95% of the game.

 

[Snow Queen]

I kind of like that SMG isn't open. Mario is a game series where linearity is fine. I don't really care much to explore in a Mario game. Mario is a Point A to Point B kind of thing.

 

[Mercedes]

It's kind of the age-old argument about what game is "greater"; the game which pioneered a concept, or the game which took it and made it incredible. 64 set the foundation for Galaxy, but Galaxy's execution was so much better.

I'd have to vote Galaxy as the game I actually prefer, though. The original was just an amazing game, such a fun experience. Definitely the best Mario game I've played!

 

[Iridescence]

Yeah, that's definitely a pattern here. Like with Half Life 1 and 2, there's always the better concept/innovation and then theres the execution.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

Well, Super Mario 64 was the first Mario game in a 3D world, and one of (if not the) earliest 3D platformers, so it's just natural that it's going to have problems. Luckily, most of its problems are things that were fixed in Galaxy, which automatically makes Galaxy the better game. Plus I just find Galaxy harder and more fun.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Super Mario 64 is definitely nostalgic, it did set the stage for Galaxy later on, SM64 compared to Galaxy is a no brainer, Galaxy is better, but SM64 standing alone is still a great game in its own right. I mean no matter what you still have to give SM64 its credit, without it Galaxy wouldn't exhist. So it is kind of hard to choose, you want to say SM64 just out of respect and stuff, plus it is a legitimate good game, but at the end of the day when it comes down to it Galaxy surpassed it, and that is what is supposed to happen.

 

[Salem]

I'm sorry I can't vote, I love both so much, I think I like both the exploration aspect of SM64 and SMG's linear straightforward gameplay, both are entertaining, I don't have preference for one style or another.

 

[RedLink]

IMO, SM64 was much more influential but SMG is an overall better game.

64 has the exploration elements and sense of discovery I love but Galaxy is just significantly better in visuals, sound, level design, bosses, creativity, concepts, sheer amount of content, pacing, flow in combat. SM64 just lacked the rhythm of the earlier Mario games and enemies (for example) weren't as threatening in large wide-open areas.

SMG does fail Miyamoto's 30-minute rule (the opening isn't exciting with the barrage of cutscenes), the story is perfunctory and the overworld isn't as exciting as the 64's or Sunshine's, but the levels themselves are perfect and that's like 95% of the game.

What do you mean by Miyamoto's 30 minute rule? I've never seen an interview addressing this.

And I have to go with SMG 1.

 

[Iridescence]

In a Star Fox 64 interview, he said "The most important part of the game is the first 30 minutes".

 

[misskitten]

I'm surprised to see I'm the first to cast a vote for SM64. Yes, SMG looks better, has a lot of variation and challenges, it just didn't thrill me the way SM64 did. I love how each world in SM64 has different challenges to beat, different things to discover and uncover. The star's name hints on what you have to do and where you have to go, but you aren't led down a linear path that maybe forks once or twice. I like that.