Of course I can. It doesn't matter if it's a matter is it's a matter of taste. Better is a subjective word. Using it in any context already implies taste.

Linear doesn't mean flagpoles. SMB2/3/World all had no flagpoles. It would have still been stars. You'd just get one per level, and there'd be way more unique levels instead of a few recycled ones, and it would actually have tight level design that actually utilizes interesting platforming gimmicks in challenging and satisfying ways that don't overstay their welcome. But, you know.

And I'm 100% sure you would. Mario 64 wasn't memorable because it had good level design – it was memorable because it was one of the first games that did traversal in a 3-D world well. As long as it did that, you would've been blown away by anything, including something linear. Super Mario World, and people loved that, was what came before it, so the expectation was pretty straightforward.

One star per level sounds pretty boring to me. :P It's fun to look for a path to the finish yourself, rather then being told by the game where to go. But, you know, to each his own.

You're probably right that I would have been blown away by anything at that age. I definetly was blown away by Crash Bandicoot, too, which had pretty linear level design. However, if I replay it nowadays, Super Mario 64 is still genuinely fun because of the nonlinearity and because I can discover many things in the levels that I have already forgot about. Crash, on the other hand, well, it's just a good platformer.