Didn't Mario 64 had worlds because of tech restriction? The plan was for the Bowser-Styled courses to dominate the game IIRC. 64 is great and super fun to play, but besides maybe two/three levels a LOT of missions recquired retreating the same ground which isn't my cup of tea.
Yes the 'traditional 3d mario' Is a spinoff that arose from tech restrictions.
Galaxy (2 in particular) is JUST like 3D world, except levels start in the same place and there's a lot more spectacle. Most of the stars in galaxy take you to a whole different area that could be its own individual 3D World level, so really, there have been more examples of games like that than exploration ones.
No, it is not, this is only applicable if you only use an extremely narrow look, and only focus on the level progression setup, and completely ignore everything that happens inside the levels.
The games are fundamentally different from a design standpoint.
For example, the way 3dworld is setup, is exactly like the 2d games, the camera is pulled back and up high, so you have all the information you need on screen, instantaneously. There is no thinking about how you are going to get somewhere, just reacting as you get there.
in the 'traditional 3d' marios, the first thing any experienced player does in a new area is figure out what the area is. They get a decent vantage point, and they look around, and make a plan. This is why many constantly complained about the galaxies occasionally removing camera control, even though they had control most of the time. Because of the cameras default angle behind the character, and its closer proximity to the ground and a more normal viewing angle, and the different way the levels are designed, occlusion becomes a major factor, the player first has to see WHERE he can go, often times from different angles, then he can decide HOW he wants to try to get there, and then comes the act of actually doing it.
in 2d mario/3dworld, all of that is removed, as the player instantly has a vantage point of everything they need to see, and instantly knows how to get there (Go right/towards where the screen is scrolling), all they do is react to the stimulus thrown at them, dont get hit, dont fall in a pit.
BK is a much better examples of Open-World Collectathon but then again it's not a Mario 3D platformer so it's not really something about 'Nintendo stopped doing' because, well, they never did it in the first place. As much as I'd love another exploration-based platformer, 3D Mario isn't really the place to look for it.
Well they definately did it at one time, and then they stopped for an extended period of time. Thats, not something you can really argue, but... the idea that its something they never really
meant to do definitely can be argued, and looking at all the evidence, I have no doubt that is the case.
People keep harping on it because it was a solid and reliable entry with the kind of gameplay style, even in smaller self contained nugget style with the galaxies, that just kept getting increasingly rare as each years went on.
And now, look at the wii u, the regular entries these people enjoyed, often understood as the only regular entries they could get their fix, have dissapeared.
Metroid is nowhere to be seen, with the only mention being a multiplayer arena co-op game that has nothing of what they seek, the only Zelda game is a warriors game in a costume (Its great, but it does not have what they are looking for), while the actual Zelda game is perpetually dangled in the future along with Xenoblade, another game that heavily dives into the sense of engaging exploration and adventure they are desperately trying to get anywhere.
If you look at the wii u, there is not a single game for somebody who would have bought this system for these experiences, and this is not a matter of not doing research, up until this generation, these kind of experiences were guarunteed to be on Nintendo systems, in the form of one of their banner franchises, often along with many more lower profile titles.
