> The one thing that stood out of Mario64 was the controls and how a 3D platformer
> should be. If you look at what had been tried before, controls were not very
> good. Remember Jumping Jack Flash for PSX? I think it was advertised as the
> first 3D platformer... but you had to keep moving your camera manually to figure
> out where you would land...

Actually if you just looked down in that game and aimed yourself with your shadow you could do pretty good. I still like playing those games, they should definitely have an update for new consoles. But Mario 64 is a different game, it's 3rd person and it's really a true mascot platformer. I don't think there's really anything like Jumping Flash except Metroid Prime right now, and that's a far stretch.

> Then you had 2 1/2 D games a la Pandemonium which were not really 3D
> platformers, but rather 2D gameplay with 3D graphics. That's not bad (many
> better games have been made with the same concept, e.g. Viewtiful Joe, New Mario
> Bros, Smash Brosh Brawl Subspace levels, etc) but it didn't force you to "think"
> 3D.

Yeah those weren't that great, they didn't have the best control or level design and it was hard to judge where you could stand sometimes. They definitely have gotten better recently with Viewtiful Joe and Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins. Even Wild 9 for PSX had a better grasp on the gameplay than those early ones like Pandemonium.

> Mario64 did not have the best graphics (some due to the limitations of the N64
> hardware or its textures) but it did get the right feeling. I clearly felt 3D
> platform games improved after it because they were copying the gameplay elements
> of it.

I agree that Mario 64 pioneered the 3D platformer and their camera and gameplay controls and the feel of moving Mario around and making him jump and bounce off walls did help show how a 3D paltformer should be. But as a Mario game, it was not what I expected because it was so different. Suddenly Mario was punching his enemies. At least the spin in Galaxy is more Mario-like, and he gets the fire flower (and the way you fly in this game is a lot more sane but that's something else). The gameplay was odd because of the free roaming nature of the levels as well, in Mario games you just used to have to get to the end. I at least find Mario Galaxy's goals more straightforward and the action is a lot more hectic which makes me think of true Mario games. Mario 64 couldn't have as much on the screen or do as much with the enemies and instead relied more on puzzles in its levels. Mario is an action game at its core and Galaxy captures that much more because the action is emphasized due to the fun of controlling Mario with physics that react so well and the more action oriented levels with a lot more enemies and obstacles.

> Many people compared Mario Galaxy to SMB3... and yes it's fair to say it's a
> worthy successor. It's still missing the sense of grandeur when you first played
> SMB3 (where each world felt very different as you discovered them) but that
> could just be that I'm jaded after 25+ years of videogaming. THey could have
> brought back the Koopalings and not make everything down to Bowser and the son.
> (I always wondered where the son came from btw. His own claims of maternity are
> slightly disturbing - makes you wonder how long Mario took to save the princess
> back in SMB3...)

I wished they brought back the kids from SMB3 as well. It would have been perfect if Galaxy were built around defeating them. Galaxy could have used more levels, although there is quite a bit to do. Just wish there were more.