I strongly preferred Sonic at the time, as it was new and different. I felt like it moved gaming forward much more than Mario World.

Today, I can better appreciate that, taken in and of themselves, SMW is the higher quality game.  

But, if I had to choose one to erase from history, it would have to be SMW.  Without Sonic 1 there is no Sonic.  But, Mario was already here, and would exist with or without SMW.  

In my personal life experience, SMW was an era defining game to me, and I cant say the same of Sonic 1 regardless of its influence.

You’re not answering the question: It’s not asking whether you’d want SMW or the entirety of Sonic the Hedgehog to exist, it’s asking whether Sonic 1 is better than Mario World. I understand nuance should be had when answering the question of whether something fits some broad label such as “better than”…but you would need to justify such nuance.

Maybe a better interpretation of the question (as I have interpreted it, at least): Is Sonic 2 better than Mario World? If Mario World, then is Sonic 1 better than Sonic 2? If not, then apply transitivity (math talk: Sonic 1

It's a bit surprising that back in the 90s, Sega went to retail stores all across the U.S with Sonic 1 & SMW play booths and asked gamers across the country which game they liked better, and 80% of gamers actually said Sonic 1 was better than SMW.

But tbh, I felt like gamers at the time preferred Sonic cause of the presentation, he was a new platformer, looked and played faster than SMW, had better graphics, and had a character with a cool personality, plus these kids probably only played a few minutes of each game so they couldn't really have the time to see that Mario World had so much more depth and exploration than Sonic. Nowadays I'm sure if those same gamers fully played through both games they'll say SMw was definitely better.

Taking into account that Sonic 1 completely dips after it's first stage into a somewhat average/mediocre platformer while Mario World is one of the best of it's genre from start to finish.

This is literally a no-contest zone.

Super Mario World I've beaten numerous times. Sonic I played at a friends house for about 5 minutes, ran fast lost my rings, ran fast, lost my rings ran fast beat a boss fight, ran fast lost my ring, thought this game sucks and quit. Tried Sonic again somewhat recently on the Sega Gensis Classic, and the results went about the same. Oddly enough I I enjoyed Sonic 3D blast the most of the Sega Gensis Classic Collection of Sonic games.

I just don't hear anyone talking about Sonic 1, so I think Sonic 2 would have made for a more interesting comparison.

But for me, Sonic 1 isn't close to Mario World.

Guess I'm in the minority.

I played my first Mario game before Mario 2 (US) had even released, so there is no bias here. Mario is still my favorite platforming franchise by far. But I felt--and still feel--that Super Mario World was underwhelming. For one, it was the first really easy Mario game. Before then, you had to have at least some skill to beat it, even with warps. But Super Mario World... it just turned the difficulty down to zero. And yes, I know there's all these optional worlds, but they're optional, and kids at the time weren't going to do anything but what was required. This meant Super Mario World was a cake walk for most. Also, for the SNES, the graphics are bland, the level design is uninspired, there's slow-down galore and well... let's just say that it's nothing compared to SMB3. That game felt like a call to arms, and its sales and popularity made it a cultural phenomenon. You can't say that about Super Mario World. That game came and went with little fanfare. It was just a game. A good game, but still, just a game. 

Sonic was, at the time, what SMB3 had been. It's graphics were light years ahead of the NES, it's music was brilliant, it's level design amazing, and it's characters were what gamers wanted at the time. By 1992, most kids polled in the US preferred Sonic. Hell, Sonic was even more recognizable than the president at one point. So to compare it to Super Mario World, which was paint-by-the-numbers... no. I know how different people's sensibilities are these days, but I was there. Sonic was revolutionary. SMW was not.

This is tricky question for me because while both games came out around the same time, (at least I think) they belong to two separate eras and styles.

Where Super Mario World beats Sonic the Hedgehog is that it's a more robust game with a lineage of practices and traditions carried down from previous games. But I also see that as a weakness for SMW because (again, at least for me) it was post-climactic, as it followed the megaton impact of Super Mario Bros 3 - which is the first "hyped-to-the-moon" game I can remember in my lifetime. Think of SMB3 as the Ocarina of Time or Breath of the Wild of its day, and Mario World is something more like Celda, well regarded, but not nearly as hyped or impactful as the other two.

Sonic 1's weakness... it's a bit bare bones. Its strength is the other side of the coin to Mario World's in that it doesn't rely on tried and true methods, but goes for a much fresher feeling approach. The sprites are bigger, the levels are bigger, freer, and platforming feels a lot more slick and connected.

Overall, Super Mario World was one of the top games of an era that was coming to a close, while Sonic 1 was the crack of dawn on a new era. If there was a "Both are great" or "Can't decide" option, that's what I'd pick.


To follow up, the era of Sonic 1 got a lot better. I think Sonic 2 was a spectacularly well done follow-up that maintained the freshness while feeling like a much more robust experience. The DKC trilogy is, in my opinion (and I don't think this is a controversial one), where the 16-bit style platforming game peaked. I think Kirby Superstar came out a couple of years to late, but that game was also fantastic, and did a lot of fresh things.

Nailed it.