This is honestly a terrible explanation of the difference between course-clear and exploration-based Mario design.

A Mario game isn't automatically an exploration-based title simply because the game encourages you to go back to levels to get more stars. In fact, the only reason you have to go back and redo levels in Galaxy is because the star challenges are almost always completely linear - stars are sectioned off based on what challenge you are doing in the level. Of course, the act of reloading doesn't automatically disqualify games from being exploration based either, but in Galaxy's case that's the exact opposite of "open ended" level design, you're having to reload the level just to get a different objective because the challenges are so linear. I can not believe that you are seriously implying that the mere act of going back to a level to get a star makes a game exploration-based, when the entire point of Galaxy's framework is that you have to load a specific portion of each level to do a very linear challenge. Sure, there are some levels that are more open ended, but they're rare, and guess what ... 3D World had some of those, too. 

Heck, Galaxy 2 literally has a world map, just like 3D World. If you unraveled Galaxy's 3D planets and made them into a plane, you could just slightly restructure them and they would be perfectly fine as course levels. 

" All four games have the camera follow Mario from behind the back or in some other non-isometric fashion, for the majority of the game."

This is really ironic because the camera in Galaxy is often very different from other 3D Mario games, at times being or almost being a top-down view. If that doesn't mean than Galaxy isn't comparable to 64 or Sunshine or Odyssey, then surely that doesn't mean it's incomparable to 3D World. 

"All four games have big dynamic bosses that don't boil down to just jumping on repeatedly to defeat. "

? Honestly the bosses in Mario Odyssey are not much better. You're still following an incredibly linear pattern, it's just that the presentation is more imaginative this time. Instead of jumping on enemies repeatedly, you're possessing a chomp and hitting the boss with it .... repeatedly. Instead of jumping on enemies repeatedly, you're throwing bombs back at them ... repeatedly. Instead of jumping on enemies repeatedly, you're turning their hat upside down, and then using it to jump on the boss ... repeatedly. Pretty much none of the fights are dynamic, at least not that I can remember. I'm sure there's one boss fight that might break the rule, but it's the exception. Either way, imagine sectioning off Mario game design based off boss encounters, LOL. 

"If Nintendo said that the cape from SMW and the Tanooki Suit from SMB3 were not essentially the same power up would you believe that too? "

No, I wouldn't, but that's also an outlandish claim. Just like the claim that having to repeatedly go to the same level by loading linear challenges so you can collect new stars, somehow makes your game exploration-based because you're returning to levels, even though the entire reason you're returning to levels in the first place is because the challenges themselves are linear....

Here is a chart from Nintendo themselves. Roughly translated the top portion is "Course Clear 3D" and "Sandbox 3D". I think literally it's closer to "Course Clear Type 3D" and "Miniature Garden Exploration 3D"? But you get the point. 

Now, what does make Galaxy more similar to prior 3D Mario games, and Odyssey, is that it's tone is much more adventurous and overall creative. That's hard to deny. Mario 64, Sunshine, Galaxy, and Odyssey all look to try and reimagine what Mario games can be, usually through a filter that is very similar to a grand adventure. But you're kidding yourself if you think that somehow justifies calling Odyssey "a return to form from the Galaxy games", when Galaxy is closer to 3D World from a design perspective than Odyssey ever was. 

Either way, what I find funny about all this is that the only reason I cared about the categorization in the first place, is that you made the incredibly ironic statement that Odyssey was a return to form to the Galaxy days, when in reality Galaxy is much closer to 3D World. But, I'm not arguing that being an exploration-based game, or a course clear game, is better.

So when you say something like "3D world wasn't even a proper 3D Mario", it comes off as very pompous and ignorant, because it's not an argument of quality. Being a "proper" or "improper" Mario game really tells me nothing, it's just an argument of categorization. So congratulations, because telling someone who says 3D World is better than Odyssey that 3D World "isn't even a proper 3D Mario game", is basically the easiest way to instantly lose any credibility in an argument. It isn't substantive at all. Then again, neither was me saying 3D World is a better game ... but that's just stating an opinion, not countering someone elses. 

Great software (first party), and portability...I have found portability to be most important when choosing a third party game. Bought DS remastered (inferior looking ) for Switch simply because portability made it more convenient for me to play it on the Switch than on the PS4. This is coming from some one who initially bought the Switch to plays mostly on the big screen.

Alright, in my defense it has been 11 or 12 years since I last played Galaxy. The illusion of open ended levels was burned into my brain. I take back the open ended statement entirely. At the time it felt like exploration to me, because it was like exploring the same hospital, only with different rooms unlocked at different times. But yeah, at the end of the day the majority of stars were linear affairs. 

If that doesn't mean that Galaxy isn't comparable to 64 or Sunshine or Odyssey, then surely that doesn't mean it's incomparable to 3D World. 

That sentence is grammar soup. I'll take it as "If that doesn't mean that Galaxy is completely different from Sunshine or Odyssey then surely that doesn't mean that it's completely different to 3D world."

Whew! That's better! 

The problem with this is that the camera in Galaxy changes wildly to suit whatever the developers intend for the player. If they wanted to do a Ball guiding level they made it top down. If they wanted to have an underground zone that made it from the side. But it is mostly in a similar view to Sunshine, and 64, for the majority of the game. The main difference is that the camera is just farther away. The camera in 3D World is almost always from an Isometric view, or a NSMB-like side view. 3D World is just a traditional 2D Mario game with the addition of being able to move along the Z axis in a very limited fashion. I would point out all the similarities, between 3D World, and 2D Mario games, but I think you are smart enough to see them for yourself. 

Honestly the bosses in Mario Odyssey are not much better. You're still following an incredibly linear pattern, it's just that the presentation is more imaginative this time. Instead of jumping on enemies repeatedly, you're possessing a chomp and hitting the boss with it .... repeatedly. Instead of jumping on enemies repeatedly, you're throwing bombs back at them ... repeatedly. Instead of jumping on enemies repeatedly, you're turning their hat upside down, and then using it to jump on the boss ... repeatedly.

Yes, exactly. Instead of defeating the bosses in the same old manner you are now doing something different each time you face a boss. Nearly every level in Odyssey allows you to take control of multiple new characters. You then have to use one of those new characters to defeat a boss. Imagine if instead of having a new tool to beat the boss with in Ocarina of time, every boss battle just boiled down to playing orb-baseball ala that one section of the Ganondorf fight! 

https://giphy.com/gifs/idXyBuXpz9eMXqYWuI/html5

No, I wouldn't, but that's also an outlandish claim.

Right, so we've established that Nintendo saying something is true about one of their games doesn't always make it true. I love Nintendo, but they are very often full of BS. "Switch won't replace 3DS!" "3DS won't get an XL model!" http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2012/06/miyamoto_talks_down_idea_of_3ds_redesign

Now, what does make Galaxy more similar to prior 3D Mario games, and Odyssey, is that it's tone is much more adventurous and overall creative.

Yes, it's more creative. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. 3D World is just a 2D Mario game with limited ability to move along the Z Axis (it has more in common with Sonic 3D Blast than it does with Galaxy). 

I liked 3D Land, and I like 3D World. But they are not 3D Mario. They are something else. They are 2.5D Mario. Putting Land onto the 3DS was fine, because it felt like the sort of game design we would get on the 3DS. After all the 3DS probably couldn't handle the crazy camera coming from Odyssey, 64 (at least not with modern 3D Art), and Sunshine. Putting 3D World onto Wii U, and trying to pass it off as a mainline console Mario was not fine, because it was lazy. 

So when you say something like "3D world wasn't even a proper 3D Mario", it comes off as very pompous and ignorant, because it's not an argument of quality. Being a "proper" or "improper" Mario game really tells me nothing, it's just an argument of categorization. So congratulations, because telling someone who says 3D World is better than Odyssey that 3D World "isn't even a proper 3D Mario game", is basically the easiest way to instantly lose any credibility in an argument. It isn't substantive at all. Then again, neither was me saying 3D World is a better game ... but that's just stating an opinion, not countering someone elses. 

It is generally accepted that 3D Mario is better than 2D Mario. 3D World has more in common with 2D Mario than Odyssey, 64, Sunshine, or the Galaxy games. This makes it inferior to all those games. I assumed that everyone would be able to read between the lines here. Somebody not understanding, this implied argument, immediately was just something I could not have possibly imagined.

Your failure to grasp this, implied argument, comes off as clueless. But maybe it isn't clueless. Are there any other users out there that didn't get what I said? I'd like to know. 

Anyway, the exploration argument from my side was a dumb one for sure. 11-12 years can warp the memory at times. I hope you get what I mean with the other arguments though. 

"The problem with this is that the camera in Galaxy changes wildly to suit whatever the developers intend for the player. If they wanted to do a Ball guiding level they made it top down. If they wanted to have an underground zone that made it from the side. But it is mostly in a similar view to Sunshine, and 64, for the majority of the game. The main difference is that the camera is just farther away. The camera in 3D World is almost always from an Isometric view, or a NSMB-like side view. 3D World is just a traditional 2D Mario game with the addition of being able to move along the Z axis in a very limited fashion. I would point out all the similarities, between 3D World, and 2D Mario games, but I think you are smart enough to see them for yourself. "

I would guess that the top down view actually represents a pretty large portion of Galaxy. Either way, the only reason we got to talking about cameras is because you were making a point that Galaxy is closer in design to Odyssey, Sunshine and 64, which you more or less have already conceited to ... at least from a gameplay standpoint, so this is kind of besides the point. 

"Instead of defeating the bosses in the same old manner you are now doing something different each time you face a boss."

? Quite a lot of the bosses in Odyssey have nothing to do with possession. Not only that, but 3D World does have varying activities in bosses - like shooting back projectiles, scaling a massive tower and then using a pow block, or dodging a collapsing floor while a boss tries to crush you. But yes, on a moment to moment basis the bosses are more generic and Odyssey's are generally more varied. Not sure why you said "dynamic" though, because that's what I was arguing against. The bosses in pretty much any of these games aren't dynamic in the slightest, maybe there is an exception or two, but generally they all come down to repeating an obvious pattern - usually three times. Try to understand what you're arguing before you improperly communicate it. 

"Right, so we've established that Nintendo saying something is true about one of their games doesn't always make it true. I love Nintendo, but they are very often full of BS. "Switch won't replace 3DS!" "3DS won't get an XL model!" "

This is incredibly disingenuous and honestly just lazy. You don't bring up a point in a discussion, find no way to tie it back to the main point, and then sloppily try to repeat it as if it's profound. No one said anything about always trusting Nintendo, your original stipulation was incredibly misguided because what I was referencing was a statement from Nintendo that made complete and total sense in terms of the games - something you even acknowledged. 

 "Putting 3D World onto Wii U, and trying to pass it off as a mainline console Mario was not fine, because it was lazy. "

Not any lazier than 85% of the moons in Odyssey. 

"It is generally accepted that 3D Mario is better than 2D Mario. 3D World has more in common with 2D Mario than Odyssey, 64, Sunshine, or the Galaxy games. This makes it inferior to all those games. I assumed that everyone would be able to read between the lines here. Somebody not understanding, this implied argument, immediately was just something I could not have possibly imagined.

Your failure to grasp this, implied argument, comes off as clueless. But maybe it isn't clueless. Are there any other users out there that didn't get what I said? I'd like to know. "

Keep being condescending while you can't even grasp most of the points you're trying to make and have to backpedal about how you haven't played in 11 years or how you meant this completely other thing

Again, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that I can't see how you'd dislike a game that takes more from the 2D styles, it doesn't matter whether or not you think 2D Mario is worse than 3D Mario, because what I was commenting on was how unsubstantial your original reply was. If you said "3D World was more like 2D Mario and I don't like 2D Mario as much, therefore 3D World is not a great 3D Mario game", that would mean something. But just saying 3D World is not a proper 3D Mario game tells me nothing. It's not an argument, it's just a statement without anything supporting it. And it could mean many things, not just that it's too similar to 2D Mario to be a "real" 3D game, it could mean it isn't creative enough, or that it's too buggy, or that it doesn't have enough levels - because the statement again isn't specific and presents no real arguments. What is a "proper 3D Mario game" varies from person to person and people have different criteria, so it tells me nothing.

Besides, this isn't even true. I mean, I suppose that 2D Mario games certainly haven't gotten the acclaim of the 3D ones in a long time, but that's mostly because of a shift in priorities at Nintendo. The NSMB series is cheaper to produce, sells a lot, and for a while was a big driver of systems - there wasn't much reason to put the effort into those titles that the 3D games got because they sold on nostalgia and simplicity. But if you talk about 3D Mario games vs 2D Mario games and just ignore stuff like Super Mario Bros 3., Super Mario World, Super Mario Bros., The Land Series, or even SMW2: Yoshi's Island (if you include that) ... then you're just purposely being ignorant. Sure, maybe the amount of 2D titles that have stood the test of time, or have gotten the same level of acclaim as the 3D games is limited (arguably just 2 games, maybe 3 if you include SMW2). But then again, Sunshine/3D Land and 3D World are nowhere near as acclaimed as 64, Galaxy 1-2 or Odyssey ... but by your own criteria you couldn't even include Galaxy 1 or 2, leaving us only Odyssey and 64. And again, the reason the 2dgames have not gotten that attention to detail has a lot to do with technology and priorities - 2D has only been the king for 2 Nintendo home console generations. I've never heard it implied, as you just did now, that 2D Mario games are just inherently worse than 3D Mario games. Seriously, that just sounds really ignorant. I've heard people say they prefer the 3D ones, or that there are more top tier 3D games, but not that 2D Mario, or the inspiration it provides, is just inherently worse. 

Not only that, didn't you literally just admit a second ago that Galaxy was very similar to the 2D games in terms of design? And you have been speaking highly of it this whole time ... so ... doesn't that disprove your own point completely? 

I'll add to this that they cater for something different. Sony, Microsoft, and the different publishers can make great games, but the scope, in terms of genres, is pretty narrow. You'll find shooters, Action-Adventures, Action-RPG and racing simulations. It's pretty rare that they make games that don't fall into any of these genres.

Nintendo however doesn't follow that rule of thumb and makes many games in genres that the big publishers have since deemed "unprofitable" and is making a killing since outside of themselves, only indies really make such games anymore - and those often sell better on Switch than on the other two combined, reinforcing it's status of giving a different experience. The difference to the past is that back then, Nintendo has been considered kiddie for bringing such games. Now, it's more in the lines of nostalgic of the past, and the increasingly exploitative nature of AAA publishers will certainly only reinforce the yearning for the games (of the past) that don't try to nickel and dime you at every turn

If I understand you, it sounds like you are saying that the Switch is a Blue Ocean product.  I.e. "it's games are so different that it becomes a major selling point in itself".  I am not sure I agree with this.  It is clear that the Wii was a Blue Ocean product, because it's best selling games were things like Wii Sports and Wii Fit, and those games really were like nothing on the PS3 or XBox360 at the time.  I don't think the same can be said for the Switch.  Here are the best selling games on the Switch.

1) Mario Kart (Racing)
2) Mario Odyssey (3D platformer)
3) Smash Bros (Fighting)
4) Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Open World)
5) Pokemon (RPG)
6) Splatoon (Online shooter)
7) Mario Party (Party game)

There are a couple genres there, that are not too popular on the the PS4 and XB1: 3D platformer and party game.  On the other hand: racing, fighting, open world, rpg and online shooter are all the types of games that are popular on PS4 and XB1.  And I do agree that Nintendo has more of a perception of being a family console, but Sony and Microsoft are trying to appeal to all age groups too.  Games like Spider-Man and Forza are designed to appeal to broad age categories.

What I'm saying is that it is true that Switch is more different from the PS4 and XB1 than those latter two are from each other.  But it's really not that big of a difference anymore.  The Wii era, that was an extremely different era where Nintendo really did make games that were extremely different from the mainstream on the other consoles.  Switch software is just not that different anymore.  Zelda: BotW didn't sell because there are no other open world games out there.  It sold because it is arguably the best open world game out there.  Nintendo is relying more on quality this time instead of pure differentiation.

The difference this time is in the versatility of the hardware.  Switch appeals to people who like both home console gaming and handheld gaming.  It isn't really different types of games.  It is genres that are mostly considered orthodox, but they are sent out to more people, because they can be sold to both home gamers and handheld gamers.  It's really one system that can sell to two markets.  Switch is selling well, because it is selling to two markets.

To give my personnal global answer to the question : Why does Nintendo strike back in a so powerfull way now with the Switch :

It is because, the young players who discovered Nintendo in the NES/SNES era, so the 3/4th gen, when they were 6-12 years old, these players are now 30-40 years old so they are in the age to be the current dev and the executive managers at Nintendo, they want to revive what they have known in their childhood and they might be directly responsible of the level of quality that we see today.

That’s about it. The ability to take the Switch in and play local multiplayer at the office is a biggie. While DS and 3DS versions of Mario Kart has local multiplayer too, they had two failings:

1. You couldn’t do TV play later.

2. Connections didn’t work very well with higher numbers.

Connecting Switches to the Internet also means it’s always 12 players since others fill the empty slots.

This is why (at least) my copy of Mario Kart on Switch has a few hundred hours of play on it, but my Wii U version has something like 5.

I don’t think NES/SNES fans are a major factor. It’s more the Wii fans. It was with the Wii that Nintendo gained a significant female audience, and this has continued with the Switch.

I don't believe this for the Wii. For me most of the sales of the Wii were a fake and illusionnal success thanks to the many women who really believed that they could keep occupied children while losing some weight, or grand parents who saw an opportunity to share video games with children...The core fan base of Nintendo was still decreasing and the WiiU shown us what really was the state of the core fan base. These 100+ millions were not a real market occupation, but just a brillant marketing trick succesfully performed.
(sorry I have only found an old graph)