they might only hate mario galaxy because its not on there system

I've yet to play it, but I think it looks like fun, like Mario 64 was.

I pretty much agree with your complaints.

Swimming is a pain. I felt it worked so well in Twilight Princess, but it's just painful in Galaxy. Luckily you don't have to do it a lot.

The camera is well... inevitable in a game made by the Japanese. They're always confident they can do the camera angles than the player could do it himself, and when Shigeru Miyamoto does it, he's usually correct. Usually. Aside from boss battles etc where it's important to see what's happening with something else, the camera should always show me where I'm going. In Galaxy I often find that I'm trying to go in one direction, but have to slow down because I can only see like 2 meters in front of Mario. Sure the wiimote is low on buttons, but they could've had either C or Z on the nunchuck center the camera behind me, like in all the 3d Zelda games.

It starts of pretty easy, but I'm very satisfied with how the difficulty starts to rise at around 50 stars. The notch up was pretty noticable with the rock-head-and-two-rock-hands-dude boss, but I guess I went through the levels in a funny order anyway.

Linear levels is a huge minus. I only played a few levels of SM64, but I loved how I could select one star and got the instructions, but the levels were so open that I could go for whichever I want, or just wander around until I find something (is this possible, or is my memory acting up?). There were a few cases of going for one star and finding another in Galaxy, but I'm under the impression that a lot of the levels are totally different depending on which star I go for, which is a turn-off for me.

I thought the first Bowser fight was pretty cool, but it's pretty annoying how all of them (so far) are completely the same. More variety would've been nice.

UR MR GAY is definitely not my game of the year, but it's still clearly a 5/5 in my books, and I'm glad I bought it (well traded for 3 crappy games anyway ^^).

I like the game even though I didn't play it. And I have a 360...I'm planning on buying Super Mario Galaxy once I find a copy 8)

 not entirely sure what you mean with the third point, but what did you want them to do, make him skip instead of run?

I'm confused on the last one what the hell was that 3rd reason for..Is he suppose to jump and skip to diffrent places....WTF!

I think outlawauron just would've preferred if Nintendo had changed more of Mario's animations, as most of them are the exact same as in SM64 AFAIK. I never played it enough to get bored, so it's not a problem for me.

After playing through most of Galaxy, I decided last night to dust off my copy of Mario 64 -- played half way through it in a little under 4 hours (60 stars).

I keep hearing people comment about the swimming in Galaxy, about how it is worse than it was in Mario 64. I had thought the same thing, until I went back and played Mario 64 again last night. Sorry folks, but swimming in Mario 64 sucked worse. The camera was just as bad, occasionally even getting caught between the surface of the water if you didn't dive deep enough, and simply climbing out of the water was hit or miss.

I think our memories of Mario 64 are more powerful than the game really was. At least mine were, before last night. At around 8:00 PM, I still thought Mario 64 was the superior title. After midnight, I'd become convinced that Galaxy trumps 64 in most every aspect, including swimming.

However, I do think one disappointment with Galaxy is the linearity of the levels. There is nothing in Galaxy (at least, that I've seen yet) that compares to 64's Tick Tock Clock or Wet-Dry World, two of my favorite courses in that game.

I agree with most of the complaints listed by Fuzzmosis and others. Super Mario Galaxy is a fantastic game, but it's not perfect by any means. My two biggest complaints are lack of control over the camera (there really seems to be no reason why you couldn't have a LITTLE more freedom!) and the linear nature of the levels. The latter is essentially a game design decision; Nintendo's folks decided to create a 3D version of Super Mario Brothers 3 rather than a new version of Super Mario 64. Personally I prefer the more open-ended gameplay of Mario 64... but that's one man's opinion, and I actually give the design team credit for doing something different than rehashing Mario 64 once again.

The game shines best in level design, where it should get a score higher than 10/10, if that were possible. I certainly do not regret my purchase at all. I don't think that the game is any easier than Mario 64, for that matter; some of the later stars are easily as difficult as anything in the N64 game. My guess is that reviewers didn't play far enough to reach that point, and only concentrated on the early parts of the game.

Overall, this game won't appeal to everyone, but should please most. I would probably score it around 9.5/10 in total (all the perfect scores are another good example of the rampant "score inflation" going on with today's games).

After reading your complains about the camera (personal opinion, so i don't argue about that). It does feel strange from time to time. At least until you get used to it. I do understand, why the camera is what it is, although in some places it would be better to have control over the camera, in some places it's better that you don't (or, that the camera is what it is), since you, who have played SM64 or Sunshine, propably remember how hard some places were, just because the camera couldn't offer the angle you would have needed, so you had to go pretty much blindfolded from time to time. In this case, i think the camera in Galaxy works better. In some places you do have control over the camera in SMG.

Like Sullla said, the game takes elements from SM64 and SMB3. Despite it's similarities, i think it should not be thought as a sequel to SM64, but a sequel for SMB 3.