I know the general consensus on this board is that Super Mario 64 is the best 3d Mario game, but I don't know why...

I know the general consensus on this board is that Super Mario 64 is the best 3d Mario game, but I don't know why. My favourite mario game has always been Galaxy 2. What am I missing?

Why exactly do people say 64 is the best?

probably that you didn't play it in 1996

Galaxy 2 is better so it's fine, OP.

...

Games that were absolutely amazing for their time will forever be held as "the best" for fanboys who experienced them in their youth.

Morrowind was the first properly 3D Elder Scrolls game, it still suffered from a dumbing down of skills etc from the predessesors yet people shill it as "the best" Elder Scrolls, while bitching about Oblivion and Skyrim continuing along the lines of "streamlining".

Galaxy 2 is a thousand times better than 64 though

sunshine > 64

Because they like it better

>Ctrl-f Nostalgia
>0 results

well this thread is full of shit.

Because of QPUs

Galaxy 2 IS better. It's just an old person thing.

Galaxy 2 is the objective better mario game but 64 will always be my fav since its the first game i remember finishing clearly

The only level i enjoyed in galaxy 2 was throwback galaxy.

Fuck off with that, you ignorant greenskin.

Mostly nostalgia all the 3D mario's have been great though. Sure they all have there strengths and weaknesses. Sunshine is my favourite.

Mario 64 had the advantage of sufficient depth to be challenging, in that you had a lot of potential actions and types of movement you could use, and many ways to traverse different levels. It was very rare for there to be a level with a truly explicit path through it. Flow breaking was extremely common, and was supported by the fact that you could proceed through the game in a lot of different possible orders. You could, if you wanted, skip entire levels while getting seven stars in others.

Now, in a lot of games with that kind of design, it's largely accidental, and I think that was at least partly the case in Mario 64 as well. Which, of course, led to an uneven difficulty curve. That can be a problem, but it was ameliorated to a large extent by the ability to tackle things in various orders.

Moreover, the game had a lot of variety (15 stages or so), but not too much. Each stage had seven stars, and there were a modest number of secret stars. But you didn't have to spent time hunting all over for all sorts of different collectibles. No blue coins, as an example. So there was a lot to do, but you'd rarely be stuck combing over a given stage again and again looking for that one last thing you need to get.

All in all I have to say that a lot of the successes of Mario 64 were probably not intentional, but that nonetheless it kind of ended up in that 'just right' area of 3D platformers, and that even now it can stand alongside the best in the genre. If you can get past the camera controls, at least.

Its essentially free of gimmicks. Its not "the Mario game with (FLUDD/spinning/coop) etc" its just built around doing platforming. And its got pretty memorable stages.
>inb4 A presses

It's the most cohesive of the 3D Marios. It's got the biggest, most explorable environments with the fewest gimmicks. Sunshine has bigger places to explore, but the FLUDD dampens (heh) the central idea of Mario a bit too much for my taste.

Later iterations have more centered on platforming, but the levels are so much more linear.

64 my not be the "best," but it's certainly the most "realized" of the 3D Marios, methinks.

Mario 64 was a game about exploration, puzzle-solving, and sometimes jumping.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a game almost ENTIRELY about jumping.

People like to act like this how Mario is "meant to be", that it was a 2D platforming game that lost its way in the transition to 3D (and only later found it) but that's shit.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, thinks Super Mario Bros is a better game than SMB3 or SMW. Why? They all feature roughly the same amount of jumping.

Because SMB was a game about getting from the start to the end. SMB3 and SMW were games where there were secrets; multiple exits, confusing ghost houses, hidden paths, bonus levels. THAT'S what makes those games so memorable and beloved; they gave you a space to explore and let you feel the joy of finding the secrets inside of it.

Even SMB's biggest, most important gameplay element, the one that set it apart from other platformers, was warp pipes.

Mario has always been a game about exploring as much as it has been about jumping. Mario 64, unlike all of the subsequent 3D games from Sunshine on down, was the one not willing to railroad Mario onto the one and only path that led to his objective.

That's what made it great. That in any given world, there were 6 "exits", most of which (not always all) to find and reach, and it was on the player to make that happen.

simply eric

Throwback Galaxy was instructive as fuck about the differences between Galaxy 2 and 64. The world felt so much smaller and less interesting in Galaxy, because the power-ups, movement mechanics, and enemy design made it easier (in fact, one silver star mission made it mandatory) to just skip whole chunks of the level. The lack of objectives deprived the world of depth, in that the details really mattered a lot less.

Just another example of nostalgia goggles. If some of you took them off for even one second, you'd see that all the later 3D Mario games are improvements in every way.

People aren't hype for Yooka Laylee because of its nostalgia value.

It's because games about exploring 3D worlds (of which Mario 64 was one of the first and most important) died and never came back, and people miss them.

64 love isn't just about nostalgia, it's about appreciating the nonlinear level design, something NO other 3D Mario game has ever done

>Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, thinks Super Mario Bros is a better game than SMB3 or SMW. Why? They all feature roughly the same amount of jumping.
This is where I knew to stop reading.

You could argue that Sunshine had somewhat non-linear levels. It just wasn't to the same extent.

64 is great but completely outclassed by the galaxies and even 3d lw.

A lot of people have already explained most of the reasons, so I'm just gonna add my own personal comparison. To me, SM64 is to 3D platformers what the original Thief is to stealth games. Both are very pure experiences, where you're given the reins and left to figure your way through the game. You're never railroaded completely when working towards any objectives, and are given a lot of freedom to really experiment with the game.

I just realize, what I have loved about Nintendo games for so long and why recently I don't seem to like them anymore. I knew that was always the case for the Zelda games, but you could say the same about all their games I enjoy.
Most of them always had that perfect balance between (somewhat) free exploration and linear puzzle solving/platforming that just feels exactly right to me. DKC2/3 were so much fun in finding all the hidden shit that actually led to exploring even more of the world, while in the DKCR games the collectibles and secrets lead only to a few meh challenge levels.

Lately their games seem to get more and more linear and the exploration parts feels a lot more formulaic rather than organic. Exploring in their games does not feel as rewarding anymore and you most likely only get some useless collectibles.

It's probably why I like the Souls games as much as I do, since they also hit a very good sweetspot of incentivising level exploration but also guiding you along a clear path.

TL;DR:
Nintendo can't into leveldesign anymore.

It has no bullshit holding it back and Mario is so much fun to control the primitive level design doesn't really bother me

The level design in both the Galaxies is fantastic, and 3D World's level design is still miles ahead of Sunshine's.

SO LONG GAY BOWSER!

Sunshine had nonlinear maps, true, but the objectives were structured so that once you started, there was exactly one win condition.

That was what made Mario 64 special; if 64 had been Sunshine, the Chain Chomp wouldn't have appeared in Bob-Omb battlefield until star 6.

64 was the only game to really capture the feeling of finding secret exits in SMW; SMW and 64 are my two favorite Mario games of all time so I know that's at least why I love them.

both galaxy are meh games with bad cameras and atrocious controls

People can't seem to differentiate a game's impact from its quality.

Because the level design is much more open, and Mario's movement options have never topped Mario 64. In fact with each new installment they take away movement options instead of add new ones. The levels in 64 were truly a Mario WORLD, whereas in the Galaxy games and 3D World the overwhelming majority of the levels are fairly linear.

Ironically best camera

Galaxy 1 = Galaxy 2 > 64 > 3D World > Sunshine

I could have loved Galaxy if only the levels had been open.

What's with the linearity?

Movement mechanics and a nice playground to use them in. In terms of straight platforming and level design, the Galaxy games and the FLUDD-less stages in Sunshine are the best in the series to date, though to be completely fair 64's endgame stages are also pretty high tier in this regard.

Linearity is not inherently bad in platformers, and even then Galaxy still has branching paths and hidden objectives from time to time.

>tfw I never played Galaxy 1 or 2 because I hate motion controls
Am I missing out?

>FLUDDless stages
Fucking meme levels, utterly shit design.

The entirety of the challenge comes from rotating platforms, AKA "good luck guessing when the slope is too steep for Mario's step traction to register". They're imprecise and finicky and IMO the worst thing about Sunshine. Galaxy's levels and even shit like Rainbow Ride or Tick Tock Clock are infinitely better than the Secrets in Sunshine

this board says LoZ: Majora Boredom is better OoT

So, don't worry

For the most part it's just normal controls + move your wrist slightly to spin
There are a few gimmicky motion control levels especially in the first one but I didn't really have any problems with them

And yeah they're pretty great games

It's at least worth checking out. Super Mario Galaxy 1 can be skipped as Galaxy 2 is just a more polished version

They deprive the game of charm and replayability.

You could "unwrap" 60% of Galaxy 2 into a straight line with single jumps across pits/obstacles. The level design is uninspired and forgettable. The only levels I really remember across both Galaxy games are the nonlinear ones; the penguin swimming hole, blue yoshi beach, the honeyhive galaxy (and the autumn variant), Throwback... I always wanted a Galaxy that was 100% THOSE levels.

>What's with the linearity?
I had the same problem with it until I realized they weren't trying to make a "3D Mario" in the style of Mario 64 or Sunshine. They were making a regular platformer. In the old Mario games, you start at the beginning, run right to the end, go to the next level. There isn't really anything wrong with it, it's just a different kind of game

All three are so fucking good, I don't really differentiate between them.

I just mapped the motion controls to the buttons on my PC.

>In the old Mario games, you start at the beginning, run right to the end, go to the next level

As I mentioned earlier ITT, the stuff we all remember fondly from SMB3/SMW is the secret exits and hidden missions, not the ending flagpoles.

Making the game a straight line is like reverting from SMW to SMB1.

Just look at that artwork

People sure are showing their ages here. I'm an oldfag and I will admit that Galaxy 1 & 2 are perfect games that I have been happy to own since release. With that said there is something special about the way mario transitioned into 3d and the worlds created in 64 that put it into a different league entirely.

>You could "unwrap" 60% of Galaxy 2 into a straight line with single jumps across pits/obstacles.

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with a platformer being precisely this. I can understand wanting Galaxy to be 64 with gravity shenanigans but that's not the only way to make a platformer. Far from it.

>favorite
>the best
There's a difference there OP. My favorite is SM64, but Galaxy 2 was better in many categories (it is probably one of my top 20 games). I just prefer SM64 over the rest, it's all a matter of taste and preference. Good tastes on Galaxy 2, normally I see people arguing Galaxy was better (which I'll never understand).

I wouldn't say a different league, just a different design philosophy. 3D was the hot shit at the time of 64's creation so it set out to make use of 3D space. Later games presumably got that out of their system and shifted more into being closer to traditional Mario game design, but in 3D and while still retaining some of 64's basic elements. In the case of Galaxy, it still has some open levels and retains the general mission structure but also shifts a bit closer to how older Mario games used to flow, with the 3D games that followed pushing even further into older Mario design territory, only in 3D.

It's a personal thing. I consider all 3 games 10/10 in their quality and production values but like I said... 64 has something that is missing from G1&2. I was just happy as hell that mario 64 finally got a true sequel that it deserved and then some.

Galaxy had more effort put into its aesthetic. The hub world, story, original compositions, stuff like that are all generally better than in 2. However, 2 is definitely better from a sheer gameplay perspective - it's both more varied and consistently challenging than the first game is. That said, because of the relative lack of effort elsewhere it can feel like playing a glorified level pack, and I think some people prefer the first game over 2 for that. Personally I prefer 2 though.

Perfected the controls, basically. A lot of games owe a lot of things to Mario and Zelda.