SMG Vs. SMG2

[Weegee]

While they're both excellent titles, we all know that no two games are created equal. So, which Galaxy do you believe is superior, and why?

[ShadowBrain]

The first one, by the virtue of not being a glorified expansion pack.

[Toad]

I'm with stupid Rather, I agree with SB, and here are some things of my own..

I've only played a quarter of the way through, but many of the galaxies felt like galaxies from the first game with a shiny cloud background attached.

The inclusion of Yoshi and the drill "power up" didn't actually add that much to the game. (I say "power up" because it felt to me like it was the opposite: Mario had even more limited mobility and couldn't attack regularly when holding the drill, aside from when you wanted to drill into the ground)

It seems like Mario moves slowly. This was my one complaint about the first SMG too. Slower than SM64 and SMS, somehow. I guess you move slowly in space..

Really, to feel all the feelings that I felt as I played SMG2, I could have just started a new file in SMG1. That game still amazes me, even though I know what's coming. Now if only they would add a true multiplayer mode to a title that isn't a spinoff, but that's a rant for another time..

[Turtlekid1]

The first one is better.

The first one had a better soundtrack, bigger levels, and an actual storyline to speak of.  I was hoping we'd get SM64-esque, open, get-the-stars-in-whatever-order levels in this one, but was sorely disappointed.  I barely got to know the levels in the sequel before it was time to move on to the next one.  Or maybe there just wasn't that much to know, since the levels are so much smaller and minimalistic?

It definitely doesn't deserve a perfect score on IGN when something like Uncharted 2 gets a 9.5.

[Weegee]

I didn't take a side in my first post so as not to bias the poll, but I agree with the majority here.

I was hoping we'd get SM64-esque, open, get-the-stars-in-whatever-order levels in this one, but was sorely disappointed.  I barely got to know the levels in the sequel before it was time to move on to the next one.  Or maybe there just wasn't that much to know, since the levels are so much smaller and minimalistic?

This. I was expecting more grandeur in the sequel, not straightforward romps through worlds barely expansive enough to contain two Stars. I would rather have a few enormous worlds than a boatload of forgettable ones.

[ShadowBrain]

I got unnerved by how accurate the Zero Punctuation review was, really.

[Black Mage]

Super Mario Galaxy was amazing.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 was refined amazing.

I don't really understand this "every game has to be novel and unique" mentality that I've been seeing a lot these days. There's nothing wrong with a game being derivative, in my opinion, as long as it's fun. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is definitely that, and it just so happened to keep the quality of the first game while adding more variety. If that's a "glorified expansion pack" then I say keep on expanding.

[ShadowBrain]

Replacing a reasonably fleshed-out plot, hub world, and supporting characters with storybook-style cutscenes, barebones world maps, and an obese, overbearing Luma was refined?

[Black Mage]

You're being disingenuous.

The storyline in Super Mario Galaxy is far from "reasonably fleshed out" and is more of the same we get in every Mario game. "Mario, please come to the castle for a festival. Oh no, it's Bowser! He's taking Peach! Go get him Mario!" Only this time, it's in space. Super Mario Galaxy 2 does the same, but streamlines it into a much shorter and simpler form. I'm not in-love with the storybook-style personally, but it's so short and unimportant that I don't see how it matters. The storyline in either game serves no more purpose than to give you a reason to go to a bunch of worlds and collect stars. I think Mario Galaxy tried harder in regards to its story, but I don't think it gave me anything more for that effort. If you're looking for what I would consider "a reasonably fleshed out" story, then you're playing the wrong kind of game.

I actually did not care for the hub world in Super Mario Galaxy. It's not overly complicated or anything, but it becomes tedious to get to certain areas quickly and as a whole seemed to get in the way more than it helped. I'm not saying it's bad or detracts from the game in any respect, but it serves the purpose of acting as a gateway to the actual levels. I found Mario Galaxy 2's "bare bones world maps", or classic 2D Mario world map to be much more efficient in navigating to the actual levels. I feel like it also presented relevant information (such as comets and discovered/undiscovered stars) in a more readable and immediately recognizable fashion. Super Mario Galaxy 2 also has the "Star ship Mario", which sort of takes the place of the free-roaming "hub world." It's much smaller, has some minor explorable sections as you gain power-ups, and is more-or-less optional. I like that approach, myself.

Let's be fair here, Super Mario Galaxy's "supporting characters" really only boils down to Rosalina. Sure, there's the Toad Brigade, Luigi, and the star-sprites or whatever but they're all in Super Mario Galaxy 2 and serve essentially the same purpose. Rosalina is a decent addition, and I did actually enjoy the story-book sequences in the first Mario Galaxy, but outside of those she serves the exact same purpose as everyone's favorite Luma in Super Mario Galaxy 2.

So, yes, ShadowBrain, I would say Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a refined experience. Of your grievances listed above, I would personally say only one is really substantial and that being the hub vs world map complaint. Super Mario Galaxy 2 streamlined the experience, making it faster, easier, and I would argue a smoother experience getting you to the meat of the game from start to finish. On top of that, it offered fewer and less intrusive story cut-scenes, a smaller and optional "hub" world, and a quickly readable and accessible world map.

With that being said, what I was really referring to originally was the actual game play and level design. Super Mario Galaxy 2 took the foundation built by Super Mario Galaxy and distilled it to its purest form while also bring in new and different elements for a large portion of the game. You've now got 2-D style levels, neat ideas like flipping between two sides of a planet, worlds built specifically for the old and new power-ups, and plenty more. Also, Super Mario Galaxy 2 doesn't make any one world over-stay its welcome, with each Galaxy having fewer stars to gather, but more Galaxies to explore. Often, galaxies that do have more than one star change dramatically in structure between those stars as well, offering further variety.

Both games are amazing, but I still feel Super Mario Galaxy 2 improved upon the original.

[Alisbet]

SMG2 obviously. It has all of the elements of a great Mario game that you can ask for.

[Turtlekid1]

It has all the elements of a good 2D Mario game.  It's nothing compared to the open worlds of Super Mario 64, or heck, even Sunshine.  As much as I like to mock Sunshine for what it got wrong, it did, at least, get right the concept of having nonlinear levels.

[Weegee]

Also, Super Mario Galaxy 2 doesn't make any one world over-stay its welcome, with each Galaxy having fewer stars to gather, but more Galaxies to explore.

You're right about that: In fact, most galaxies understayed their welcome. Some worlds were so brief that they should have been incorporated into larger ones.

As much as I like to mock Sunshine for what it got wrong, it did, at least, get right the concept of having nonlinear levels.

64 was the best in terms of openness. The only aspect in which Sunshine excelled was having the best hub of any Mario game.

[Kimimaru]

It also excelled in having smoother, better controls, a much better camera, and more moves.

[Turtlekid1]

The only thing I didn't like about Mario's moves in Sunshine was that one could no longer jump from a crouch to gain near-Triple Jump height.

[ShadowBrain]

The storyline in Super Mario Galaxy is far from "reasonably fleshed out" and is more of the same we get in every Mario game.

What I mean is, yeah, SMG wasn't plot-heavy--and I didn't really expect it to be--but at least it had the Rosalina backstory, and didn't imply that the events of its predecessor never happened. I mean, Bowser kidnapping Peach again is one thing, but doing so under virtually the exact same circumstances as before with not a single character in the entire game making even so much as an ironic joke about the situation... well, that made it pretty clear they were going for literally fulfilling the sequel's title, nothing more or less.

I actually did not care for the hub world in Super Mario Galaxy. It's not overly complicated or anything, but it becomes tedious to get to certain areas quickly and as a whole seemed to get in the way more than it helped. I'm not saying it's bad or detracts from the game in any respect, but it serves the purpose of acting as a gateway to the actual levels. I found Mario Galaxy 2's "bare bones world maps", or classic 2D Mario world map to be much more efficient in navigating to the actual levels. I feel like it also presented relevant information (such as comets and discovered/undiscovered stars) in a more readable and immediately recognizable fashion. Super Mario Galaxy 2 also has the "Star ship Mario", which sort of takes the place of the free-roaming "hub world." It's much smaller, has some minor explorable sections as you gain power-ups, and is more-or-less optional. I like that approach, myself.

Well, in retrospect, the half-assed hub of clustered Galaxies in SMG was mildly improved by basic map screens, but I still feel like it's one more area of the game that defeats the whole point of it being 3D.

Let's be fair here, Super Mario Galaxy's "supporting characters" really only boils down to Rosalina. Sure, there's the Toad Brigade, Luigi, and the star-sprites or whatever but they're all in Super Mario Galaxy 2 and serve essentially the same purpose. Rosalina is a decent addition, and I did actually enjoy the story-book sequences in the first Mario Galaxy, but outside of those she serves the exact same purpose as everyone's favorite Luma in Super Mario Galaxy 2.

Well, shoot, if there's going to be a character floating around the hub world who provides redundant information and mimes having conversations with you, it might as well be a chick with emo hair, a magic wand, and a maternal complex.

With that being said, what I was really referring to originally was the actual game play and level design. Super Mario Galaxy 2 took the foundation built by Super Mario Galaxy and distilled it to its purest form while also bring in new and different elements for a large portion of the game. You've now got 2-D style levels, neat ideas like flipping between two sides of a planet, worlds built specifically for the old and new power-ups, and plenty more. Also, Super Mario Galaxy 2 doesn't make any one world over-stay its welcome, with each Galaxy having fewer stars to gather, but more Galaxies to explore. Often, galaxies that do have more than one star change dramatically in structure between those stars as well, offering further variety.

I'll agree that having more Galaxies was good, but I wish both games had decided to crap or get off the toilet on whether they were straightforward platformers or mission-based free-roamers. I loved SM64 but, looking back, it was an odd choice for the series to switch from Levels-within-Worlds to singular Worlds, with slight variations depending on the Star/mission chosen. Then SMG came along, and there were still individual Worlds, but the Stars/missions were usually separate, very linear paths; with SMG2's more, smaller Galaxies, the rift became more prominent. Not that I mind--in the end, that's more like traditional Mario--but why bother with the Stars anymore, then?