Oh God, this makes my want to edit the OP with an "April Fools" at the end so badly, lol.

I think SM3DW is amazing too. I think it's better than Mario 64, and I think it's better than Sunshine. But I definitely don't think it's original, I don't think it has its own identity outside of being an IsoMario game, and that's the point of the post. I respect 64 and Sunshine more, because they aren't merely "3D Mario games." Mario 64 is the Mario with the castle and the magic paintings. Sunshine is the one with the water gun and the vacation island. The best SM3DW can muster is being the one that's isometric with the cat power up and the jazz sound track, which franckly doesn't count, because I could add music and power ups to describe each Mario game.

We definitly disagree here.

3d world is a clear evolution of galaxy but one that changes the camera to one that will never mess up and allows multiplayer but, as a trade off, confines and limits how the levels are design. Both 3d world and galaxy are linear mario games, where you traverse a range of elaberate obsicals on the way to the goal. Thay play very simalour fashion. A behind mario camera is more emersive and alows for more interesting levels, whilst a isometric style camera of 3d world arguably allows more precise control over mario.

I'm more into the exploration based Marios of 64 and Sunshine, but I don't see how 3d world should get such crit from galaxy fans. Half of what they say against 3d world can apply equally to galaxy. I don't object to two 3d world games as I don't object to 2 galaxy games. Both galaxy 2 and 3d world did enough to justify their existance to my mind and both play in the same linear fashion.

I think it's more likely they'll release a third galaxy game and then we can complain about the galaxy series.

No, 3D World, and Land, are just isometric platformers. It's not an evolution of anything. It's an entirely different concept. They don't play similarly at all. It's more than just a camera angle. One is isometric, and one isn't. There's literally nothing more to it. It's not isometric "to be like Galaxy," it's isometric to be like isometric games. It's isometric level design has absolutely no bearing on being multiplayer, just like NSMBW being 2D has no bearing on it being multiplayer. Nintendo has a gamepad now, and they popularized split screen co-op in the first place. If they really wanted multiplayer in 3D Mario, they could have done it without creating an isometric game. They didn't, because they didn't. 

And I've already said that I'm not criticizing it for being isometric. I'm criticizing it for being unoriginal and almost entirely derivative. I criticized Galaxy 2 for the same reason, a fact I've already reiterated. I also spent most of the OP talking about the first four 2D Mario games when talking about the games with identity, and not the 3D ones like Galaxy. This is not coming from a "Galaxy fan;" this is coming from a Mario fan. SM3DW, SM3DL, Galaxy 2, and the NSMB series all don't deserve to be spoken in the same breath of the other core Mario games, because they boldly reject what makes those games instant classics to begin with. Their individuality. And if they really do make a Galaxy 3, I'll have as little respect for those games as I do for the NSMB and IsoMario series. When Mario World had a direct sequel, it was so unique that it spawned an entire spin off franchise. When OoT got a direct sequel, we got the most unique Zelda game in the franchise. When Galaxy got a direct sequel, it was just a level pack.

I love this topic and the OP because I fully agree. With the NSMB part, at least. While 3D Land and World don't reach the heights of 64 or Galaxy 1 for me, I do love them still.

This is a good point, but im going to play devil's advocate anyway. IMHO I like the 3dland/world games better than 64 and Sunshine not only because i think they are better games but because they FEEL like Mario games. 64 and Sunshine kind of feel like a game with Mario in it instead of a Mario game.

Come flame me! But seriously, they should innovate but how far do you take the game and still have it feel the same? I dont have an answer.

I don't know. The isoMario games "feel" like Mario games in much the same way Frankenstein's monster "feels" like a man. It's just bit's and pieces of other, more real, things to make something less authentic. Doesn't mean Frankenstein's monster isn't stronger than a real man; just doesn't feel as significant when most of it is because the best parts were copy-pasted from something else.

I think that 64 and Sunshine feel like Mario games precicely because they feel like a game with Mario in it. That's how Mario games were always done. Each new game was something completely different. One may have been a stage play, another a dream, another a journey through a magic castle, and another in space.

Now I do think there's an argument to be made about how the less linear level design of 64 and Sunshine stands sharply against the core fundementals of Mario, which is supposed to be a very linear platformer with a clear end goal. I think that the argument also can be made that 3D Land and World achieve that goal better than even the more linear Galaxy, and are better Mario games than any of the 3D Mario games in that reguard because of that adherence to linearity, but that's not the purpose of this thread.

Maybe... in... another... one... ;)

yeah i think that entire last paragraph is what i feel. For instance as cool as the castle was in 64 and the whole island thing in Sunshine was an even better version of that. They are essentially hub worlds and i dont like hub worlds in my platformers (looking at you too Sonic Adventure) Mario at least for me is supposed to be pick up and play and a hub world is the opposite of that. And i REALLY hate going to the same levels over and over again to get a bunch stars it feels like artificially making the game longer, but thats just my personal rant and it isnt the purpose of the thread, which i agree with for the most part.

We do need ot get back to NES/SNES days where they werent just glorified level packs. I love Super Mario Land 2 that game had quite different aesthetic with it still being a Mario game. We need something like that.

Well I do disagree with the hub world thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a hub world, and I think that they are the farthest exploration should go in a Mario game. I think their application in 64 and Sunshine were more than fine, and I think it would be wise for future, more original, 2D and IsoMario games to continue to carve their own identities through the use of things like unique hub worlds.

My problems arises when that exploration and non-linearity seeps into the actual levels and tamper with the quality of the platforming. The repeated levels thing is exactly how this quality is tampered with. The fact that you beat levels by completing obtuse tasks instead of through a platforming challenge is when it starts to harshly decrease the quality as a Mario title. Mario isn't about racing against a Koopa to get a star; Mario is about completing a linear set of platforming challenges to complete a stage. If your ideas aid that objecting, put it in. If they detract from that, leave it out. I play Zelda for exploration. I play Metroid for revisiting areas. I play Mario to platform. That's why I like things like the green stars in the IsoMario games. They add a layer of exploration through a platforming challenge, and they never sacrifice the overall design of the linear stages to achieve it. They also make the game more difficult for the same reasons.

But yeah... That's for another thread.

A change in perspective does not constitute a completly diffrent gameplay style. A switch to linear level from open exploration based levels as we got with galaxy was a dramatic change in gameplay. 3d world is 80% galaxy with a diffrent perspective, mulitplayer,  and some new ideas thrown in. They play very similar. I've already covered the diffrences the camera angle create, and the pros and cons, so I won't repeat.

In regards to galaxy 2, though I perfer earily 3D Mario games I can totally understand there was much more they could do with the galaxy formula and it was worth making. Overall galaxy 2 was an improvment to galaxy and they pushed forwards the ideas. There is a world of diffrence between the creativity and identity of SMG2 and the NSMB series.

Still, I'd be disapointed if the next mario was a galaxy 3 unless they made some signifcant changes. However, I'm also disapointed they never made a Mario 64 2 as I think there was a lot of protential to take that game further that was never explored. I would also have liked a true sequal to Super Mario World. Yoshi's Island is a sequal in name only to me, regardless how nintendo thinks of it. Sonic 3 had more in common with SMW than Yoshi's Island did.

NSMBU is probably the closest to a true sequal to SMW as it's apes a great deal about it. But that suffers from the stylistic issues of the NSMB series in that it's just reguditated everything from the past NSMB games and added a few details.