Game Vs. Game! This week: SA1 Vs. SA2

[recme]

basically, all you have to do is talk about how which game is "better." i say "better" because sometimes, this isnt the case. sometimes, it can be about whether the game made a bigger impact, its gameplay, or even sale numbers. whatever works really!

when you finish talking about each side, you then pick a side and write it as your last sentence. i specifically say the last sentence so that i can count each vote and show the results next week.

lastly, i urge you guys to discuss as much as possible! one sentence post saying why you like a game is generally boring. give us some insight on why you like the certain game!

this week is super mario world vs super mario 64! begin picking sides!

[E-Man]

This might be a stupid reason, but I'm siding with Super Mario 64 out of childhood nostalgia.

On a more serious note, I like SM64 because it encourages exploration, lacks any time limit, and allows the game to be played in a non-linear fashion. Plus, they were a lot more creative with this game (the powerups, worlds, and several enemies speak for themselves on that one).

[Kosheh]

Yikes - this is like asking me if I like chocolate or cookie dough ice cream. They're both good; but good in their own, unique ways. Both games felt like huge, pivotal games to me which both hold a monolithic, large amount of sentimental value.


I'm gonna have to go with Super Mario World on this one - but it's partly because the nostalgia goggles are thick on this one. It's the first videogame I've ever played. But in all honesty and truth, I don't think another platformer I've played since has level design that can match it and with such variety, too. I've cleared and 100%'d the game about 4 times (*96) and it seriously never gets old. It took me about two years to beat the original and I needed some help with a Game Genie. Eventually, I went back and played it like I should have again twice.
I beat the GBA one once, but I don't think I 100%'d it - I'll have to take a look around for it the next time I go home. It didn't leave my GBA for a long time, I remember that much.

Mario 64 on the other hand I started playing when I was like, 12. Another good transitional part of my life. u_u;
But that's also another pivotal point because that's when I realized Oh Shit Platformers Don't Need To Move Sideways
Honestly though, the first time I played through it was a blast. Everything was new, awesome and was really impressive. It didn't really keep up its greatness over time for me...like, it took me three months to beat Mario 64 and defeat Bowser for the third time, and another two months to get all 120 stars.
When the DS version of the game came out for the DS as a launch title, nothing felt new, and I beat the game with all of its extra 30 stars and new characters in only 5 days. :/

EDIT: Seriously guys even KOOPAUL likes Mario 64 better! What the HECK!!!!!!!!!!

[MoneyMan]

As good of a game as it was, Super Mario World was pretty much taking the mechanics of Super Mario Bros 3, tweaking them, adding new enemies and stuff then making new levels with them. While it did have a lot of variety, with each level having something that stood it apart from the others, on the whole the design was pretty lackluster and consisted primarily of flat expanses of land with some enemies put on to get in the way.

Super Mario 64 on the other hand, while it has some flaws, was something completely different than anything that had come before. Its levels were expansive, varied, and interesting, and the mission based system of it really encouraged exploration. Plus, something I think that gets overlooked is how influential the player controlled camera was (it pretty much changed 3d platforming forever).

[Gwen]

Super Mario 64. Nostalgia boner. Also the best music


For real doe.

[Koopaul]

Gonna have to go with 64 since I prefer exploration based platformers.

[Goemar]

SMW was Nintendo's polish, shine with some sprinkles on top on what had came before.

Super Mario 64 was just something else, an unbelievable something else. Hell the intro alone just made my heart swell as a kid...

Mario 64 hands down.

[daemoth]

First, let me say that i have played Mario games between Commodore 64 and Nintendo 64, so mostly 2ds.
Alright let me be the devil advocate:
Sm64 is a great game but its not a Mario game, in fact it has almost nothing to do with Mario. If you would change the texture in the game, it would be very hard to see it is a Mario game. None of the usual power up, a life bar and most importantly, controls with a steep learning curve and no clear goals in levels. 
For the time, it was awesome to explore and discover a 3d world with Mario jumping all around, but the stage can be really confusing and not kid-friendly, especially compared to the original. I made my 7 years old nephew play Sm64 and he had fun jumping around, but was hardly able to accomplish anything, and he has played a lot of 2d Mario and he is not bad at all. Often, your only hint about where the star is, is at the start of the level. If the game was remade with todays standards, there would be quest markers everywhere. 
Also, there so little differences between some stars that it feel like padding. For example, in the first water world, you get to go to the same ship 2-3 times and just solve a different puzzle. Where in Smw your always exploring new areas, and there are a lot of them. Your act doesnt seem meaningful in Sm64 cause your just collecting stars to a open a door that says it need X stars, your not (directly) going to a boss.  
Also, Smw has multiplayer.
So yeah, to me, Smw > Sm64

[Gwen]

So are Super Mario Sunshine, and the Galaxy games not Mario games either?
It introduced it's own power ups, which were the bees knees, and going into the same world presented different challenges and puzzles.

[Jermungandr]

I never much liked comparing the 3D Mario titles to the 2D ones. They may both have Mario in the name, but they are so vastly different from each other that it's like comparing apples to oranges, to use a common cliche. Since every single aspect of the games are so different from each other aside from the characters included within, any comparitive opinions are basically going to fall back entirely on one's preference in gameplay style as well as personal nostalgia.

For instance, my personal nostalgia dates back pretty far compared to a lot of people here, so it's not really too surprising that my preference tends to lean more in the side-scrolling platformer camp, making Super Mario World the clear winner for me. But is it really fair for me to claim that it's the "best" out of the two? I honestly couldn't tell you, because to decide that I would first have to see the games as being on a level playing field, which I find too difficult because they have nothing in common with each other. It's not a very fair match-up.

But I guess my vote is going to have to be for Super Mario World, but I don't really have a good reason beyond personal preference.

[daemoth]

So are Super Mario Sunshine, and the Galaxy games not Mario games either?
Well, i can hardly speak for them as i didnt play them, but i saw some playthrough and speedrun, but indeed, they seem to feel less Mario than the others. Although, Galaxy make it a lot more linear if i remember correctly.
It introduced it's own power ups, which were the bees knees, and going into the same world presented different challenges and puzzles.
The world didnt change enough. Most of the time, you had to go through the same level and with just a puzzle or a mini-boss appearing.

Also, the 2d games always has sold better.

[Shade]

Mario is Nintendo's play thing. You can't weigh him down with a 2D side-scrolling chain anymore. The way we play a Mario game has been reimagined multiple times for years now. Mario will always be there to show improvement and new functionality between Nintendo consoles and gaming experiences. Saying that something doesn't "feel" like a Mario game just makes you seem ignorant to the constant reinvention of Mario games themselves. You can favor a specific type of gameplay, but you shouldn't say that the 3D games are any less Mario.


As for the Game Vs. Game, I'm gonna have to say 64 just for pure memory sake. 

[psychospacecow]

Heck, when it comes to mario, I've personally probably put more time in the kart racer and tennis games than all the platformers combined.

[daemoth]

Mario is Nintendo's play thing. You can't weigh him down with a 2D side-scrolling chain anymore. The way we play a Mario game has been reimagined multiple times for years now. Mario will always be there to show improvement and new functionality between Nintendo consoles and gaming experiences. Saying that something doesn't "feel" like a Mario game just makes you seem ignorant to the constant reinvention of Mario games themselves. You can favor a specific type of gameplay, but you shouldn't say that the 3D games are any less Mario.


As for the Game Vs. Game, I'm gonna have to say 64 just for pure memory sake. 

 Might i remind you the sale of the games? Innovation isnt what Mario need, they needed their entry game to be the kid friendly and easy to play for their new console.
Ill let the game theorist explain, @4:48:

Also, note that im speaking about when Mario 64 was released.

[Goemar]

Daemoth this is the stupidest argument I have heard in a long time. Yes 2D and 3D Mario games are completely different. But 3D Mario still distinctively plays like a 3D Mario game and not just a 3D game with Mario in it.

It's like how Zelda OoT, MM and WW are completely different from the 2D Zelda games but they still play like 3D Zelda games. If a game played just like OoT you'd be like "this feels like Zelda"

I get that the 2D ones can be seen as the "true" Mario games as he was 2D first but today's NSMB doesn't feel a damn like classic Mario to me. Every Mario game is going to feel different but that doesn't mean one major Mario title is more or less Mario than another.