No they're not the whole approach is different, M64 is an open exploration in not only the hub but also the levels, SMG has better design in the levels but they're more of a closed linear approach, the latter was straight forward in dealing with the level's task while SM64 required exploration and puzzle solving. The only similarities are that they're 3d mario games.

You can explore the levels, they are (mostly) completely non-linear and you can explore the castle grounds (secrets everywhere). What about that could not be considered exploration?

Although I agree with him to some extent, a lot of his audience now want him to try some new settings for games and some new characters to love. What were the last ones? Pikmin and Miis?

This tells us that you haven't really played SM64 if either of these games, the levels in SM64 require exploration to not only locate the star but also solve puzzles, Jolly Roger Bay an early level is an example of this, these aren't stars being openly presented to you either, these are levels where you'd have to explore the level to find a location then often solve a puzzle based on the hint given. Galaxy requires you to work the levels design to get to the star, this is a completely different approach in Galaxy you can't get stars out of order in a level either. This isn't even an opinion it's how both games play and going by your description you haven't really played either past the first level.

 It's quite elementary my dear boy.

The Wii's success is too obvious, and it explains why the NES, SNES, N64, NGC, and (most likely) Wii-U, were nowhere near as successful. While all previous Nintendo consoles attempted to appeal to the hard core games audience while still using the same classic Nintendo names. The consoles didn't do poorly for that reason, but that part of the market was already covered almost entirely by Sony, and let's be honest, the PS1/PS2 just did it so much better. So here comes along the Wii. What does Nintendo do? They created a yet a simple, yet enjoyable, new way to play for all ages, that appealed very heavily to the very large casual market. So what happens? Families with young children all across see this cheap new device that they can all enjoy and they eat it up like candy, and the fact that a name like Mario is there is a bonus. 

The Wii didn't sell so well because Nintendo suddenly became awesome overnight. It sold so well because Nintendo saw a window of oppurtunity and they took. It was all in the peripheral, not the name. It pretty much explains why the Wii-U is doing so horribly. That window of oppurtunity was pretty much a once in a lifetime thing, and Nintendo knew this. It's why they're attempting to go back to appealing to the hard core audience with the Wii-U, but, once again, it's a market that's already heavily invested in Sony and, more recently, Microsoft. Unfortunately the hard core audience doesn't agree with Miyamoto. They want actual new experiences, stories, worlds, and characters. And grandma doesn't care to buy a system with a complicated tablet controller that advertises Call of Duty and Assassins Creed. 

I apologize for any errors I have in this. I think alot faster than I type, and I don't feel a forum post on a video game site really justifies a readover.

This post put a smile on my face. ROFL. I can't stop smiling.

Oh really.

i completely agree with you. dont waste your time explaining.

i will admit that i like chad kroeger and nickelback... i dunno why so much hate going on that band

lol did i just read that tlous and mgs have the same gameplay?