The problem I have with this is that movie tie-ins are generally mean to be cash-ins, so I'm not sure the same inspiration is there. They're also generally made by people who have little insight on what makes a good game, from my understanding of it.

If you look at it from a very very high level, sure they'll all look the same. It's like looking at two cities from very very high they'll look relatively similar. But when you actually look at how the worlds are constructed and the small details that make the worlds come to life, you'll see that OoT shits all over NSMB, just as an example.

Graphics.

Your body is ready, come in.

Gameplay is very important in videao games, but I love to play games with some addicting storyline. It sounds stupid, but by playing this kind of games i feel like some actress ;)

Gameplay >>>>> story.

Great gameplay and a bad story produces a great game.

Bad gameplay and a great story produces a terrible game.

In my opinion the gameplay is the core part of a videogame, so I vote for gameplay.

If the gameplay is great and fun, then I don't care if the story is bad or very simple (for example Super Mario Galaxy). But if the gameplay is bad or frustrating, then I won't play the game even if the story is excellent.

For real, I value gameplay more than story due to the fact that if it had a good story, but bad gameplay... the gameplay would discourage me from finishing, and I would just watch someone play it instead.

If the gameplay is good but has a bad story, at least I'm able to finish the game.

Mario is just one of the games that shares that same basic story concept, as I mentioned. Take the first Assassin's Creed game, which also has that concept; "the world" was expertly realised, but it got mind numbingly repetitive really quickly. The series was improved in later games by fixing the gameplay, not "the world".

The most I've played of Assassin's creed was some two levels in. I couldn't continue because it is a very violent game and I don't enjoy highly violent games, so I couldn't get my enjoyment out of it.

One thing I can tell you from my brief time with it is that it brings you into many different environments very quickly. At first in modern times, and then in the middle-east(?). We're not sure who the people are that captured him in the present, and there is the whole idea of Al-Tair getting somewhat rejected by the brother hood due to his midly arrogant behavior. Early on in the game, there is a lot going on that you're not sure why or who's in charge of the various political currents.

That's already that. Then you have the total immersion in a highly-detailed ancient world that is based off of much historical research (it would seem, I'm not a historian so I couldn't say, but that's at least my impression of it).

And that's all in the world. I'm sorry but unless you're talking about Galaxy, which is a good start but still a far cry from AC, the mario series can't even hold a candle.

If you can't talk story/worlds and are really a fan of gameplay, it's best not try.

For example, I also love gameplay, and I would never say that NSMB and AC can fully compete in terms of replayability. However I will say that AC still has very enjoyable movement and physics, but I will admit that the stealth and missions did get a bit grinding (well I'm a completionist too so that didn't help, and I probs didn't get far enough to judge either). The swordfighting was so-so as well I'll admit.