| wfz said: The OP makes a really great point and I agree with it. I hate the linearity in games. Uncharted 1 and 2 are both fantastic and amazing games to play through, but their replay value for me is insanely low due to the fact that there is only one very specific path to take the entire game and only one way to do everything. There is no exploring. You keep going in the same direction and jump from rock to rock..shooting guys as you go. The second Uncharted game did an amazing job at working around this, however. They did it a lot better, and I felt like I was exploring the world even while I was on an insanely linear track. It's weird. I definitely do enjoy games that let you explore the worlds and wander around more. I love Super Mario 64 for that fact. In Super Mario Galaxy, you are restricted constantly in everything you can do depending on what star you get. There are very few stars were actual exploration is necessary. in SM64, you had the entire world in front of you and you could bounce around and do anything you wanted in that world as you completed the stars. |
Galaxy 1 is definitely the most linear 3D Mario out there as far as the level design goes. But I'd say the brilliance of the level design comes from the multitude of ideas that surround each and every galaxy. I mean, for the most part every galaxy is unlike the one before and after it, and that's what makes it so refreshing. Though I do believe that they realized that Galaxy was a lot more linear than the two previous 3D games, so they added playing as Luigi afterwards (changing the physics of the jumping and running) to increase the replay value. So with that said, I do agree with you that 64 has more replayability to it than Galaxy does, being that its more open.
Many consider Sunshine the weakest 3D Mario because while it has a very non-linear playstyle like Super Mario 64 (maybe even moreso thanks to the movement freedoms that FLUDD provided), the locations and methods of getting the stars were very similar to one another, even across different worlds (Which were also very similar to one another. After all you're not going to find an ice world or a cloud world on a Tropical Island. I think they really limited themselves with Delfino Island). Super Mario 64 had a great balance of being very open ended but also provided levels that provided very different experiences from one another (and thus made things have a better flow). But I would argue that both Galaxys have the most diverse set of worlds to explore and ideas that were executed extremely well.
Galaxy 2 is also very linear in level design (though I'd say not as linear as the first Galaxy) but once again provides a multitude of ideas for each and every galaxy present. You'll rarely find yourself finding a star in a similar fashion to a galaxy you've already beaten. We've had reviewers say that they've encountered more new ideas in a single galaxy in Galaxy 2 then they've seen in some full-priced games in their entirety. You're always kept on your toes, always placed in a new situation and faced with a new way to get to the goal. I'd say that these constant flow of new ideas make both Galaxy's very much unlinear (according to Pullus' definition at least). And let's not forget about Galaxy 2's addition of the Green Star Hunt. This great addition shows that each level has a level of explorability seen in 64 and Sunshine. Some of those stars were very well hidden, and took searching every nook and cranny (and listening for that jingle when a star was nearby) to find. Brilliance man, sheer brilliance! 
