Support NeoGAF

[Vane_MagicCity]

It's only a response to people saying how nothing compares to SM64.

It's an over-reaction.

In 17 years, will as many people still be playing 3D World? Maybe and maybe not but SM64 has stood the test of time and people shitting on it just to justify that they like 3D World is...well it just sucks.

 

[UncleSporky]

I can't imagine you got very far, considering the very second world (Whomp's Fortress) has no real open fields at all.

Yeah, you really haven't played it in a long time, have you?

It's about 20 polygons stretched into a few hundred square feet. Heck, people complain that 3D World feels designed for multiplayer because the platforms are wide? Look at this expanse.

 

[Kageshinzo]

I love 3D World but I really wish they ditched the timer. No need for that in a 3D Mario game.

The timer is a part of the old-school 2D Mario games, of which 3D Land and 3D World are included in (with the only exception being them in 3D this time). The only times the timer is not really a factor is in action-adventure types of Mario games.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Saying SM64 is a better game (which it is) is not the same as saying nothing compares. SM3DW is a good game and I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. I still think 64's style is more fun.

A perfectly acceptable opinion. However, tons of people come in to Mario threads and say how horrible these games are because its nothing like SM64. They can both exist and be good for what they are.

 

[UncleSporky]

A perfectly acceptable opinion. However, tons of people come in to Mario threads and say how horrible these games are because its nothing like SM64. They can both exist and be good for what they are.

And like I said...it sure is a good thing that moving around in Mario 64 is fun.

 

[Skellig Gra]

I can't imagine you got very far, considering the very second world (Whomp's Fortress) has no real open fields at all.

Whomps Fortress was re-made as a single level in SMG2 if I recall. It just shows that peoples perspective can definitely be skewed.

 

[Green Mamba]

Yeah, you really haven't played it in a long time, have you?

It's about 20 polygons stretched into a few hundred square feet. Heck, people complain that 3D World feels designed for multiplayer because the platforms are wide? Look at this expanse.

You have a strange definition of open fields.

 

[entremet]

Yeah, you really haven't played it in a long time, have you?

It's about 20 polygons stretched into a few hundred square feet. Heck, people complain that 3D World feels designed for multiplayer because the platforms are wide? Look at this expanse.

I remember playing throwback galaxy in Galaxy 2 with that stage. It just felt so small in scale.

 

[Kageshinzo]

You really cannot compare Super Mario 3D Land/World with Super Mario 64/Galaxy. They are like apples and oranges.

Super Mario 3D Land//World are action-platformers, regardless of them being in 3D. You can basically put them in 2D sprite form and they'll essentially be sequels of Super Mario World. This is why I'm confused by complaints about the Run button; we've always had that since Super Mario Bros. and no one complained about that there.

Super Mario 64/Galaxy/Sunshine are action-adventures. They are meant for exploration rather than pure platforming. You're better off comparing them with Zelda, because that's precisely what genre they are.

How this is lost on some people is beyond me.

 

[Oblivion]

Describe what makes it so good then.

Play it again and tell me I'm wrong.

The physics/controls for Mario are probably still the best in the series so far.

 

[UncleSporky]

You have a strange definition of open fields.

Allow me to reword then.

Running around is about all you can do in 64 with its minimal polys stretched out into huge, flat, empty platforms...the kind that scream "scrapped multiplayer."

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

You really cannot compare Super Mario 3D Land/World with Super Mario 64/Galaxy. They are like apples and oranges.

Super Mario 3D Land//World are action-platformers, regardless of them being in 3D. You can basically put them in 2D sprite form and they'll essentially be sequels of Super Mario World. This is why I'm confused by complaints about the Run button; we've always had that since Super Mario Bros. and no one complained about that there.

Super Mario 64/Galaxy/Sunshine are action-adventures. They are meant for exploration rather than pure platforming. You're better off comparing them with Zelda, because that's precisely what genre they are.

How this is lost on some people is beyond me.

It's ok to compare Mario games to each other.

Allow me to reword then.

Running around is about all you can do in 64 with its minimal polys stretched out into huge, flat, empty platforms...the kind that scream "scrapped multiplayer."

It's a shame they didn't let Mario jump or ride on invincible turtle shells or fly in SM64. Mario couldn't even auto jump like Link.

Oh wait....

 

[Nekofrog]

Look at this garbage:

This is smaller than most individual levels in 3D World. And you have to go through it 6 times. You can't even go off the beaten path for an optional star and then go grab the real one, no, you have to get dumped out to the menu to go back into the level again from the beginning.

Where is the fun here? If stomping on a goomba on Bob-Omb Battlefield makes you smile to yourself, why aren't you smiling when you do it in a much better game like 3D World?

Wow.

You're comparing the level 1, intro stage from a 1996 early 3d platformer to a 2013 3d platformer.

Do you see where you're going wrong here?

 

[UncleSporky]

Wow.

You're comparing the level 1, intro stage from a 1996 early 3d platformer to a 2013 3d platformer.

Do you see where you're going wrong here?

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that I was the first one in this thread to compare a 1996 platformer with a 2013 one?

And are you aware that you essentially just said "sure it's terrible, but the terribleness is justified?"

 

[Kageshinzo]

It's ok to compare Mario games to each other.

Not when they're of different genres though. I mean, would you compare Dr. Mario with Mario Paint? Because that's essentially what Super Mario 3D World vs. Super Mario 64 is.

 

[Coconut]

No mention of the actual platforming and level design? You know, 99% of the game?

Why talk about real gameplay stuff when you can come up with a list of 5 silly "complaints"? I don't even get what the first one means.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that I was the first one in this thread to compare a 1996 platformer with a 2013 one?

And are you aware that you essentially just said "sure it's terrible, but the terribleness is justified?"

That level is not terrible. It's actually a great tutorial level, especially for a game to get you accustomed to controlling a character in 3D space.

 

[OryoN]

You are way too fixated on what you WANT the game to be, that you can't even enjoy the game for what it IS.

I've seen this plenty of times. I don't likebthat: "ZombiU isn't like other action-shooters," "Tekken moves aren't like Street Fighter," "Gran Turismo isn't more arcadey." While your case isn't quite as bad, the principle is the same; Don't focus on aspects that the game isn't even trying to present, unless the game hurts its own design by doing so. The way Mario 3D World was designed to be, it is definitely not hurt by lacking the inconsequential things you complained about.

Anyway, no one can convince you that x/y/z game is worth your time, but I do know that this attitude toward games will only hurt your own enjoyment. So until you adjust that, this will always be an issue, with any game. Though, it's extremely sad when amazingly well designed games fall victim to this mentality.

 

[UncleSporky]

Not when they're of different genres though. I mean, would you compare Dr. Mario with Mario Paint? Because that's essentially what Super Mario 3D World vs. Super Mario 64 is.

Dr. Mario has falling pills that you match up. Mario Paint lets you draw stuff or make music.

Mario 64 and 3D World both involve controlling Mario as he runs around verdant levels, dark caves, swimming through water, getting a variety of powerups, jumping on goombas and koopa troopas, killing bosses, collecting coins, collecting a couple rare hard-to-find collectibles in each level, going into pipes, hitting question mark blocks, performing acrobatic feats, climbing trees, catching rabbits, sliding down slopes, crouching, backflipping, butt stomping, ultimately defeating Bowser...

Yeah, I think comparing the games is just fine.

 

[evilromero]

I'm tired of hearing it hailed as the greatest thing ever. It's not. It's less fun than SMB3. People were just blown away by the possibilities at the time and now they can't see past their rose tinted glasses.

That other guy was trying to claim it is still the greatest game of all time just because some publications say so. It only deserves such a label in the context of its time. We've surpassed it handily, multiple times over by now.



I wouldn't be saying these things if I hadn't. A replay served to highlight all this.

It really hasn't and damn man what is with this bitter crusade against a game that people still love today? Does it bother you that many of us still legitimately enjoy Mario 64 over 3D World? If so, I feel sorry for you. These games are meant to be enjoyed. It's not your job to convince us that one is better than the other. Our mind is made up. I know myself and a few of my friends still love playing Mario 64 on the Wii VC regularly. It's just a lot of fun to play. It tickles the imagination and encourages all kinds of interaction with the environment. It's great! But you have this bitter resentment as if it's impossible to enjoy something because it's not the new hotness. I find that to be in poor taste.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Not when they're of different genres though. I mean, would you compare Dr. Mario with Mario Paint? Because that's essentially what Super Mario 3D World vs. Super Mario 64 is.

Really?

It's true that Tetris is not comparable to Microsoft Paint but that has nothing to do with run and jump Mario games where you have to collect stars to proceed.

 

[fred]

Yeah, what's with the handheld thing? Why not mobile? no reason except for graphics that any game couldn't be on tablets.

I think Nintendo should do a Mario 3d RPG to satisfy the requests for an "open-world Mario" as a more tight level design is so much better for a real platformer.

I don't really get the complains about the jumps, I haven't had any issues with that (except for bad timing on my side) but it might be because I didn't play 3d Land for more than couple of levels on a friend's 3ds so I'm not "ruined" by 3d.

Forget about a 3D Mario RPG, after playing Lego City Undercover I want to see a Mushroom Kingdom GTA style game. You've already got Karts to throw in and it won't take much for EAD to design some suitable planes and boats. Have Peach and Rosalina as whores too lol. And what with the Fungi narcotics problem over there there is plenty of scope for drug-based missions.

Fucking hell, I'd buy that day one lol

 

[Kageshinzo]

Dr. Mario has falling pills that you match up. Mario Paint lets you draw stuff or make music.

Mario 64 and 3D World both involve controlling Mario as he runs around verdant levels, dark caves, swimming through water, getting a variety of powerups, jumping on goombas and koopa troopas, killing bosses, collecting coins, collecting a couple rare hard-to-find collectibles in each level, going into pipes, hitting question mark blocks, performing acrobatic feats, climbing trees, catching rabbits, sliding down slopes, crouching, backflipping, butt stomping, ultimately defeating Bowser...

Yeah, I think comparing the games is just fine.

Mario 64 allows you to fully explore a set of stages in an overarching world, encouraging you to get every last one of its secrets without any pressure; precise platforming is not as penalized due to this gameplay style and you can take your sweet time for the most part in order to take everything in. It's an adventure.

3D World pressures you to get through the level as fast as possible, either through a timer or having the screen force you to move forward, or both. Exploration is kept to a minimum and, for the most part, can be discovered without having to accomplish intricate and specific tasks, owing to how the levels and the games are structured. It's a precise platformer.

Just comparing the two by how they look, by what the character does, or by the elements found in each level WITHOUT taking into account the underlying gameplay style of both games is both disingenuous and a disservice to each game.

 

[shiftplusone]

I totally understand the shitting in Mario 64, but not to defend later games.

It's still a "good" game but I feel every mario since has improved in some way. Even sunshine feels more complete compared to 64. They've built on ideas and imo have gotten better and better at making a great game each time

The most I've enjoyed 64 in recent years have been because of speedruns, and they work so perfectly because that game is so fucking busted mechanically that they can do this crazy stuff

Edit: I also really hate the "go through this exact level 6 times to get one star each visit"

Galaxy had you taking different routes and stuff through those levels at least to get new stars and that changed it up in a way I liked

 

[Freezie KO]

An important thing to consider about Mario 64's level design is that it's not only about jumping from A-to-B. Mario 64 is an objective-based game, so having a few wider stretches of ground isn't as damnable as one might imply by labeling it a strict platformer.

Even in Bob-omb Battlefield and Whomp's Fortress, which happen to be two of the very first levels, fight a bomb boss, race a koopa, you fly through rings air with a wing cap, fight the whomp boss, fly with an owl, and fire yourself at a wall with a cannon.

Again, these are just the introductory levels as well. Sure, those playground levels wouldn't be great if you were simply going from A-to-B to grab a flagpole, but that's not how you actually play Mario 64.

 

[spookyfish]

No they are not. This is the type of game many of us WiiU owners want. I complexly agree with OP. I also don't like the timer. I wish I could roam around without a time limit.

The only difference I have with the OP is we really like it. It's basically the 3D version of a super mario bros game and I'm okay with that.

Yeah - I think you have to see this game as a logical extension of the 2-D Marios.

 

[cyberheater]

Yeah - I think you have to see this game as a logical extension of the 2-D Marios.

Yes. And it's brilliant. We've been playing it a lot over the last couple of days. It's an amazing game. Simply put. If have a WiiU. You must get this game.

 

[UncleSporky]

It really hasn't and damn man what is with this bitter crusade against a game that people still love today? Does it bother you that many of us still legitimately enjoy Mario 64 over 3D World? If so, I feel sorry for you. These games are meant to be enjoyed. It's not your job to convince us that one is better than the other. Our mind is made up. I know myself and a few of my friends still love playing Mario 64 on the Wii VC regularly. It's just a lot of fun to play. It tickles the imagination and encourages all kinds of interaction with the environment. It's great! But you have this bitter resentment as if it's impossible to enjoy something because it's not the new hotness. I find that to be in poor taste.

Your problem is assuming that this is about 3D World when that's just a side note here. 3D World is what it is. 64 is what it is too, but a lot of people believe that it is what it's not.

I totally understand the shitting in Mario 64, but not to defend later games.

Exactly.

 

[Calamari41]

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on your camera complaints. I went through the entire game never once needing to touch the camera outside of the Captain Toad levels. It is always exactly where it needs to be.

Maybe you're subconsciously blaming a severe lack of skill on the cameras?

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I totally understand the shitting in Mario 64, but not to defend later games.

It's still a "good" game but I feel every mario since has improved in some way. Even sunshine feels more complete compared to 64. They've built on ideas and imo have gotten better and better at making a great game each time

The most I've enjoyed 64 in recent years have been because of speedruns, and they work so perfectly because that game is so fucking busted mechanically that they can do this crazy stuff

Edit: I also really hate the "go through this exact level 6 times to get one star each visit"

Galaxy had you taking different routes and stuff through those levels at least to get new stars and that changed it up in a way I liked

64 had this. I also think 64 controls better then any other 3D Mario game, so I don't agree that other games have improved everything.

 

[NeonZ]

I think it's funny how people are now shitting on SM64 just so they can defend 3D World.

Complaints about Super Mario 64 have existed since Galaxy. You have to understand that for a while it seemed like Mario 64's format of 3d platforming was the only one possible due to the amount of content required - so they had to make the exploratory areas constantly revisited due to the restricted amount of content they could make for a game. Sunshine and games like Banjo Kazooie only reinforced that notion.

Galaxy showed that it wasn't the case though. They could basically give almost each star their own unique paths reusing little content from other ones, making unique levels in a 3d platformer.

The 3d World/Land series goes a step further though - changing the basic gameplay controls of 3d Mario titles, eliminating objective based missions and also changing the level design considerably.

Super Mario 64/Galaxy/Sunshine are action-adventures. They are meant for exploration rather than pure platforming. You're better off comparing them with Zelda, because that's precisely what genre they are.

Galaxy did focus on platforming though. It just didn't throw away the base gameplay of the 3d Mario games, dump objectives nor made the world design almost entirely gameplay focused, with little effort to make the locations actually resemble locations, not just obstacle courses. To be fair though, Galaxy 2 in some ways seemed to be going in this direction (just compare the ghost galaxies there with the ones in Galaxy 1), but it's throwing away a lot for little benefit. Galaxy was the best way to handle 3d platforming. The path 3d Land/World took is mostly unnecessary and doesn't really bring significant advantages.

 

[Hale-XF11]

Heh, those are pretty much all the same reasons why I can't stand 3D Land. I will add that I hate how sluggish Mario feels compared to previous games. I think the fixed camera angles are the worst offense though. So rage inducing.

 

[Kageshinzo]

Really?

It's true that Tetris is not comparable to Microsoft Paint but that has nothing to do with run and jump Mario games where you have to collect stars to proceed.

Saying that both games are essentially the same because they are both "run and jump Mario games where you have to collect stars to proceed" is like saying CoD and Metroid Prime are similar because both are played on a first-person perspective and involve shooting things.

 

[Freezie KO]

Maybe you're subconsciously blaming a severe lack of skill on the cameras?

Is there any complaint in any game that cannot be dismissed by this shit comment? You don't like the camera in a game? You suck. You don't like the timer? You hate platforming. You don't like the controls of a game? Low-skilled player.

Anyone who makes this "skill" argument is akin to this guy that everyone wants banned in the Call of Duty thread.

 

[Kageshinzo]

Galaxy did focus on platforming though. It just didn't throw away the base gameplay of the 3d Mario games, dump objectives nor made the world design almost entirely gameplay focused, with little effort to make the locations actually resemble locations, not just obstacle courses. To be fair though, Galaxy 2 in some ways seemed to be going in this direction (just compare the ghost galaxies there with the ones in Galaxy 1), but it's throwing away a lot for little benefit. Galaxy was the best way to handle 3d platforming. The path 3d Land/World took is mostly unnecessary and doesn't really bring significant advantages.

I initially thought that it is, too, but upon further reflection, I think Galaxy does lean more on the action-adventure side, but with the platforming given a little more focus than Super Mario 64. I realized this when I played some of the levels with the Speedy Comet on. That's when I realized how vastly different it plays as opposed to the exploratory version of most of the galaxies (e.g., Honeybee Hive Galaxy).

 

[qbkorso]

I don't really like you. You're crazy, this game is amazing.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Saying that both games are essentially the same because they are both "run and jump Mario games where you have to collect stars to proceed" is like saying CoD and Metroid Prime are similar because both are played on a first-person perspective and involve shooting things.

I am saying that your bullshit comparison of Dr Mario vs Mario Paint is not the same as comparing 3D World to SM64 whereas the latter are comparable and the former are not.

 

[BigDug13]

I drove for miles to a local game store to play the Japanese Mario 64 at an import store months before the US launch. I played nothing but Mario 64 for a week straight at US launch and was completely enthralled by it. I was 20 at the time.

It was a brilliant product of its time and during the absolute pinnacle of Miyamoto's career which was the N64 days. You youngins can't just play Mario 64 for the first time now and expect to see that game in the same light. It was a 3D platforming revelation.

As great as Mario 3D World is as a game, as an overall achievement and revelation in gaming, it simply is never going to be what Mario 64 was.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Scratching my head at this one. The run button makes it playable with a D pad, but control still feels much better with the analogue. I've not experienced anything close to a camera screw in the game and the camera is adjustable anyway. The run button is necessary for this type of game where you have to reach the goal before time expires. The point about the graphics doesn't deserve comment.

I'll give you the last point that the touch/microphone uses feel unimportant, at best. They're not broken or anything, they just feel unimaginative and the few levels that use them seem thrown in. That's a problem with a lot of Wii U games, really.

Sounds more like OP is complaining about linear, fast paced, obstacle course style games in general then SM3DW specifically. If so, then what is the problem with that kind of game? I thought they were universally loved. Would you levy the same complaints against, say, Super Mario 3?

 

[Kageshinzo]

I am saying that your bullshit comparison of Dr Mario vs Mario Paint is not the same as comparing 3D World to SM64 whereas the latter are comparable and the former are not.

And I'm saying they're not comparable because their core genre is not the same. And if you read my posts in this thread explaining why, you'll understand instead of dismissing my comparison as bullshit.

 

[UncleSporky]

Saying that both games are essentially the same because they are both "run and jump Mario games where you have to collect stars to proceed" is like saying CoD and Metroid Prime are similar because both are played on a first-person perspective and involve shooting things.

The games can indeed be compared on that basis, though. We can easily talk about what's different between the two, what's similar, and everything in between.

For example you could say the shooting in CoD feels a lot tighter, more quick and twitchy, whereas the shooting in Prime is more deliberate. Or you could say the opposite, I don't care. The point is that you can legitimately and maturely talk about it and compare the two.

Maybe one has a tighter FOV than the other and we could talk about how that changes the feel of the areas that you go through, makes it easier to see enemies out of the corner of your eye etc. Or you could talk about how the storytelling compares between the two games and how you prefer one over the other.

Whereas you cannot say that the drawing functionality in Mario Paint is better than the drawing functionality in Dr. Mario because there is none in the latter.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Is there any complaint in any game that cannot be dismissed by this shit comment? You don't like the camera in a game? You suck. You don't like the timer? You hate platforming. You don't like the controls of a game? Low-skilled player.

Anyone who makes this "skill" argument is akin to this guy that everyone wants banned in the Call of Duty thread.

I don't know man. The point in the game he said he was up to is incredibly easy to reach. He claimed the camera killed him a bunch of times. Something about it sounds off.

 

[Sciz]

Galaxy was the best way to handle 3d platforming.

There are no genres with a specific "best" approach to design.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

And I'm saying they're not comparable because their core genre is not the same. And if you read my posts in this thread explaining why, you'll understand instead of dismissing my comparison as bullshit.

I've read your posts, I disagree. You can compare 3D World and SM64.

 

[entremet]

I drove for miles to a local game store to play the Japanese Mario 64 at an import store months before the US launch. I played nothing but Mario 64 for a week straight at US launch and was completely enthralled by it. I was 20 at the time.

It was a brilliant product of its time and during the absolute pinnacle of Miyamoto's career which was the N64 days. You youngins can't just play Mario 64 for the first time now and expect to see that game in the same light. It was a 3D platforming revelation.

As great as Mario 3D World is as a game, as an overall achievement and revelation in gaming, it simply is never going to be what Mario 64 was.

True. 64 was revolutionary, much like SMB1. However, SMB3 surpassed SMB1 for me and many others, but we're not going to crap on SMB1 and its influence and excellence.


64 was amazing, but it was surpassed by the Galaxy games for me.

 

[Anth0ny]

The run button is really awful. The camera is bad too.

3D World is still one of the greatest games of the past 10 years, if not ever made.

 

[Panajev2001a]

True. 64 was revolutionary, much like SMB1. However, SMB3 surpassed SMB1 for me and many others, but we're not going to crap on SMB1 and its influence and excellence.


64 was amazing, but it was surpassed by the Galaxy games for me.

I can understand why you feel that way and realistically speaking, it is normal if level and game design for 3D platformers improve... it also makes me wanting a big and boldly produced new Super Mario 3D game which expanded on the SM64 formula using the accumulated experience and know-how built over about 20 years. I can understand Nintendo streamlined Mario more and more to make it more accessible to people, but I would like to get another Mario game made for people who have some experience with 3D Mario games (with Galaxy, SM3DW, or SM64, or Sunshine, etc...) too.

 

[Kageshinzo]

The games can indeed be compared on that basis, though. We can easily talk about what's different between the two, what's similar, and everything in between.

For example you could say the shooting in CoD feels a lot tighter, more quick and twitchy, whereas the shooting in Prime is more deliberate. Or you could say the opposite, I don't care. The point is that you can legitimately and maturely talk about it and compare the two.

Maybe one has a tighter FOV than the other and we could talk about how that changes the feel of the areas that you go through, makes it easier to see enemies out of the corner of your eye etc. Or you could talk about how the storytelling compares between the two games and how you prefer one over the other.

Whereas you cannot say that the drawing functionality in Mario Paint is better than the drawing functionality in Dr. Mario because there is none in the latter.

But in this discussion, people are directly comparing the 3D World games against Super Mario 64/Sunshine/Galaxy games by virtue of each games' gameplay design and mechanics, when it is apparent that both cater to a different style of gameplay or genre (pure platforming vs. adventure). Like others here have said, people are treating 3D World and PLAYING it like the free-roaming 3D world games of the franchise when they should be looking at it like the 2D side scrollers. Saying a game sucks because you are not playing it the way it's designed to be played is not giving the game a fair shake at all. Sure, you can compare, say, the fluidity of how Mario moves in one game or another, but they should never be used as points for or against the game in comparison with the other, when in reality, the games are not really comparable at all.

 

[-MB-]

You are way too fixated on what you WANT the game to be, that you can't even enjoy the game for what it IS.

I've seen this plenty of times. I don't likebthat: "ZombiU isn't like other action-shooters," "Tekken moves aren't like Street Fighter," "Gran Turismo isn't more arcadey." While your case isn't quite as bad, the principle is the same; Don't focus on aspects that the game isn't even trying to present, unless the game hurts its own design by doing so. The way Mario 3D World was designed to be, it is definitely not hurt by lacking the inconsequential things you complained about.

Anyway, no one can convince you that x/y/z game is worth your time, but I do know that this attitude toward games will only hurt your own enjoyment. So until you adjust that, this will always be an issue, with any game. Though, it's extremely sad when amazingly well designed games fall victim to this mentality.

I can only applaud this post.
Exactly my sentiments.

 

[jroc74]

You really cannot compare Super Mario 3D Land/World with Super Mario 64/Galaxy. They are like apples and oranges.

Super Mario 3D Land//World are action-platformers, regardless of them being in 3D. You can basically put them in 2D sprite form and they'll essentially be sequels of Super Mario World. This is why I'm confused by complaints about the Run button; we've always had that since Super Mario Bros. and no one complained about that there.

Super Mario 64/Galaxy/Sunshine are action-adventures. They are meant for exploration rather than pure platforming. You're better off comparing them with Zelda, because that's precisely what genre they are.

How this is lost on some people is beyond me.

I agree, I feel this way too...thats why some are saying they want another Mario game like 64 (or Sunshine, Galaxy.) I almost caught myself from posting "ppl want a Mario game with a Zelda feel to it"

Whats odd tho is those of us that played Mario games on the NES all the way up to today.....are kinda divided on 64 and the newer ones.