Topic: Super Mario Galaxy vs 2.

Is there anyone else out there who thinks that the original Super Mario Galaxy was better than it's sequel in a lot of ways? SMG2 seems to get all the praise and accolades, but as I'm playing through the original again, I can't help but feel that because of the amazing, cinematic storyline (similar to the original Paper Mario's, right down to the ripping of Peach's castle out of the ground), Rosalina's more prominent presence, and the general fact that it was first make it the superior game. Basically just slap Yoshi, all of the new powerups from the sequel, and a few of the more memorable Galaxy 2 levels onto the original and I do believe that the perfect Mario game would exist. Anyone else agree? Or do you feel differently?

moar thr0wb4ck l3v3lzzz

They were both on par with me. I loved Galaxy for it's story, and Galaxy 2 for it's vast amount of worlds. Both introduced a multitude of new things to Mario as a whole. If anything, I want a game that blends the best of all his adventures into one huge game. :3

Edit: Lissen to GuardianAcorn gaiz. He ish teh smrtnss.

I like this idea. Just one big throwback Mario game?

Definitely. A game that mashed up the two AND included more throwback levels would be INCREDIBLE. Imagine playing Bob-Omb Battlefield Galaxy Style? RIDING YOSHI! And eating Bob-Ombs! *nerdgasm

I just loved the first one so much for its story though. It really could have made for a great CGI Super Mario movie.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 is better, because of the added powerups and Yoshi, as well as some amazing galaxies. My cousin likes the first more just because it was original.

They both suck!
Mario is Missing is the best mario game ever made!

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I hate to say it, but Galaxy was so close to the absolute perfection of Mario — even incorportating into its story a kind of meta-narrative explaining the eternal rebirth of these strange worlds, and linking it to childhood and loss — that I doubt any Mario game can top it anytime soon.

Galaxy 2 had some great levels, but just didn't compare overall. I also felt that Galaxy had a better mix of open "playground" levels versus linear "stage" levels, whereas Galaxy 2 went too far towards the latter.

Galaxy 1 easily. While the actual quality of the games aren't that different, Galaxy 1 just had...something that made it so much more fun an experience. I'd agree with Wariowoods, but I thought the ending was good only for how entertainly dark it was for a Mario game.

I enjoyed the first one more. After getting all the stars, unlocking Luigi actually made me want to keep playing, even though the only difference was slightly altered physics. Once I did it all the second time, I still wanted to keep playing. In Galaxy 2, I wasn't motivated to find all the green stars. I just barely managed to do it without losing interest, and I think that was just because I wanted to see the last galaxy.

Oh, and after I finished the first game, I was expecting the second one to feature the red star as a power-up throughout the adventure. To my disappointment, it was removed instead.

I enjoyed the new elements of Galaxy 2 (looking at you, Yoshi infinite flutter jump) more but I loved the story of Galaxy 1, especially the heart-wrenching ending. I also liked the levels of the original more; they had more of an impact because they were truly new.

The original game felt like a new Mario experience where the sequel, while amazing, was just the same experience but more refined. So it makes total sense if someone is more fond of the original than the sequel.

This. Exactly.

The original game completely blew me away with its sense of wonder and imagination. Being a direct sequel, it was nearly impossible for SMG2 to re-capture those feelings. Still, I would argue that the sequel had better (and more challenging!) level design, though the levels seemed more linear as a whole.

Personally, I'm equally fond of each game, for different reasons. Technically, the sequel is the better game, but the original game carries a stronger impact, if that makes sense.

I think Galaxy 2 is a better game overall, but the impact that Galaxy 1 had on us makes the first one such a more memorable experience. Plus Galaxy 1 was created from scratches (while the second is just a sequel), which makes it an even more remarkable effort.

It's hard to analyze them separately because they are so meant to be one HUGE Mario experience (such as Shenmue I and II - I'm not talking plot-wise though!).

I will go so far as to say that the level menu in Galaxy 2 was a huge step backwards for the 3D Mario games. It makes the entire experience feel disjointed, and throws away everything Nintendo has invented and learned regarding hub-worlds.

Mario 64 introduced the hub-world concept in a 3D platformer, and did so beautifully. Sunshine created one of the most enjoyable play-spaces ever, with so many things to do around the square and beach. Mario Galaxy simplified a bit, but still gave us an original hub that expanded and lit up over time. Then Galaxy 2 comes along and pretty much throws it all out the window. Disappointing, to say the least.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 for me.
It's double the game length compared to Super Mario Galaxy 1.

All of SMG1's levels were kinda linear.
Yeah, SMG2 was the same for the first half, but it had an additional 121 extra stars in classic Super Mario 64 fashion, which I prefer much more.
Unfortunately SMG1 was totally lacking in the - for me extremely important - exploration aspect of 3D Mario games, but SMG2 did it all perfectly right for everyone. 121 quest stars + 121 hidden stars = win.

I don't even need Yoshi and the new items,
or the much better 2player co-op,
or the better graphics and music,
or the bigger challenge,
to weigh in on my decision.
These are just some bonus factors that are slightly more important to me than overworld hubs and Mario-plots.

I like them both but I think Galaxy 2 is better because it's essentially the first game with new features and more stars.