Well...

For the open-ended one, more focus is placed on the world instead of the stars.

In linear Marios, more creativity can be put towards individual stars as opposed to more creativity being focused on the worlds.

I guess I like both without a preference.

I like both, Mario64 is still my favouite but I like SMG1 and 2 much more than SMS, my only complain about mario 3d games is that they are too easy....(I've got only 88stars in SMG2, I don't know if it will get harder later)

I actually agree with Scottie's thought that SM64 is pretty linear, but disguises it. If you let every star be actually obtainable on a given planet in one run then you would have SM64's open world back. Personally, I prefer it that way too. I like being able to run around and figure out which stars are where. It helps compensate for low difficulty as well. Sure you have obvious star over there behind the bush, but you can keep running around till you see them all. You can't be certain what exactly lays down the path, so you check it out rather than knowing the star you want is there. Seems better to me.

Nice topic MakingMusic, it definitely is an interesting question. ^_^

I've just beaten the final Bowser in Galaxy 2, and I gotta say that the game is the most linear 3D Mario thus far, and that's why the game shines in my eyes. Each star mission has the fat trimmed and knows exactly what it wants to do, so it does it to the utmost perfection.

Each star in a single galaxy is incredibly unique (barring the Prankster Comets), so much so that if Nintendo decided to make each star a different level, I wouldn't notice that some stars come from the same stage.

Ironically enough, I found the weakest galaxy to be the one with the Piantas in it. I arrived and looked around and saw nothing that pointed me in the direction of the star. The openness of the level just left me to wander around until I found something remotely interesting to point me to the star.

In the other galaxies, I knew exactly what I had to do to get to the star, and it was only a matter of quick reflexes and thinking on my feet that would lead me to it. That's what I love about platformers, it's what I loved when I first played Sonic, and it's what I love to this day. Funnily enough, the fast paced gameplay elements like Dash-Pepper Yoshi, Fluzzard's stages, and the Melty Monster Galaxy where you were rock Mario were the ones I loved the most so far. Very reminiscent of the fast paced platforming found in Sonic games.

As for Sunshine... I was ecstatic whenever Bowser Jr. took FLUDD away from me. Those stages were so awesome.

Not to say that I don't love the less linear Mario games like 64 and Sunshine (both of 'em are in my top 50, and 64 is in my top 10.), but there's a love in my heart like no other for the more linear Mario games like Galaxy 1/2 and World.

Smeags said: Nice topic MakingMusic, it definitely is an interesting question. ^_^ I've just beaten the final Bowser in Galaxy 2, and I gotta say that the game is the most linear 3D Mario thus far, and that's why the game shines in my eyes. Each star mission has the fat trimmed and knows exactly what it wants to do, so it does it to the utmost perfection. Each star in a single galaxy is incredibly unique (barring the Prankster Comets), so much so that if Nintendo decided to make each star a different level, I wouldn't notice that some stars come from the same stage. Ironically enough, I found the weakest galaxy to be the one with the Piantas in it. I arrived and looked around and saw nothing that pointed me in the direction of the star. The openness of the level just left me to wander around until I found something remotely interesting to point me to the star. In the other galaxies, I knew exactly what I had to do to get to the star, and it was only a matter of quick reflexes and thinking on my feet that would lead me to it. That's what I love about platformers, it's what I loved when I first played Sonic, and it's what I love to this day. Funnily enough, the fast paced gameplay elements like Dash-Pepper Yoshi, Fluzzard's stages, and the Melty Monster Galaxy where you were rock Mario were the ones I loved the most so far. Very reminiscent of the fast paced platforming found in Sonic games. As for Sunshine... I was ecstatic whenever Bowser Jr. took FLUDD away from me. Those stages were so awesome. Not to say that I don't love the less linear Mario games like 64 and Sunshine (both of 'em are in my top 50, and 64 is in my top 10.), but there's a love in my heart like no other for the more linear Mario games like Galaxy 1/2 and World.

And I was like "man, F this!" lo.l

makingmusic476 said: Smeags said: As for Sunshine... I was ecstatic whenever Bowser Jr. took FLUDD away from me. Those stages were so awesome. And I was like "man, F this!" lol

Hahaha (Why yes, I did laugh. ). Well... at least we both love Mario games in general. Platforming for the win! *hi-5's*

I'm all for exploring, but when it comes to Mario, I just want to grab a controller and start speedrunning through some obstacle courses that are riddled with death traps. I'm a 2-D > Galaxy > 64 type of guy, but I love them all.

I have played every Mario platformer to date. I have to say I actually like the linear play of Galaxy 1+2 compaired to Sunshine and Mario64. I myself like the pace of Galaxy compared to Sunshine or Mario64. You start a level you know what your doing so you can sit back and enjoy the platforming action, way faster paced then Mario64 where you spent alot of the game figuring out where to go.

The only downside is Galaxy 1+2 both are beaten way quicker, but I remember giving up alot on the 64 and with Sunshine I just didn't like having to go around and find the different stars. Also as I believe Smeages said every level in Galaxy 1+2 are essentially different levels set in the same setting. This adds far more value to me as a consumer where as in the past games you would have to go back to the same level four or five times.

I really wouldn't mind seeing a Legend Of Zelda style Mario. But to be honest I like quick platformers, where you rush to complete an objective. Sonic and Mario are too of my favorite franchises.

I'll assert that Sunshine wasn't non-linear. The game encouraged exploration only in Plaza Delfino (where it encouraged a lot of it. Damn that place was riddled with secrets), but the way the Shines were set up, you couldn't get the Shine that you weren't assigned to get, and the level was often modified to reflect the specific Shine assigned.

Only Super Mario 64 really gave you a sandbox to play around in. There were very few stars that you couldn't get unless you were *assigned* it. I think i can list them, actually: King Bob-omb, King Thwomp, the Koopa the Quick races, the Big Penguin race, the first fight against Big Boo, the Submarine, and capturing the monkey on the mountain.

Those stars were really what Sunshine was like, where unique things appeared based on that. Galaxy of course took that off in a whole new way by more totally modifying the world based on what star you were trying to get, so that aside from thematic concerns, you often might as well not be in the same level.

Great thread.

This is a really tough choice for me. I love both styles, and I think there is a place for both of them. If you make me choose though, I think I'll take more linearity over openness in my Mario. But even in my linear Mario, I still want the occasional secret that you need to do a little exploring to find.