I'd just like everyone to keep in mind that I still think Galaxy 2 is a fun game. I just don't really like it AS MUCH as the other Mario games. There's not really a Mario game I look at and say "wow, what a load of garbage." I'd play any of them and have a good time. I just like some more than others.
I know some will hate me for this,but I look at sunshine and I’m like I just can’t play it. I haven’t even beaten it. I can’t stand the game Mario controls horribly and you can tell me to get good but it just doesn’t feel like it’s worth putting in the effort. I don’t like sunshine even after giving it so many chances. Sue me
Most of the changes Galaxy 2 I find makes it a better game. I feel Galaxy 1 vs Galaxy 2 a matter of how important aesthetics are, and in my case I don't feel Galaxy 1's aesthetic is enough to carry its weaker design and find the "exploration" factor of it to be grossly overstated. Also they really should port Galaxy 2. As someone with cerebral palsy I get a lot of cramps with the way I'm forced to hold the Nuncon combo.
@@Cfreezy12 I find Sunshine to be really annoying. While the aesthetics are strong, I feel it has a ton of blunders. Really weak level design and the levels themselves are surprisingly small and there are very few of them. I think the difficulty of the platforming areas is overblown, I do agree that they're the highlight of the game. I don't think such a minor part of a game should be the highlight though, especially when I feel that the mission design is really repetitive (boring bosses and red coins galore). I think it's a good game but I don't really find it fun. I'd rather go back to every other game first, and even then there is a lot of boring or annoying shines that I usually just fish for the good parts and cut my runs short.
Galaxy 2 is critically acclaimed because when it released, the level design blew most of galaxy 1’s levels out of the water and that is partially why I’m ok with the game lacking a huge emphasis on narrative and atmosphere. Galaxy 1 was a great game that is actually one of my favourites but saying it’s design wasn’t flawed and didn’t have potential to expand is just lying to yourself. Galaxy 2 took the gameplay flaws of galaxy, refined them and expanded on them like it was on steroids. This game does not miss any opportunity’s to demonstrate its creativity and the faster pace lends well to its stunning gameplay. The fast paced game is what differentiates galaxy 1 and 2’s gameplay so the complaint that galaxy 2 should be slower is very contradictory to the entire premise of the video because that would just make it stand out as “more Mario galaxy” even more than it already is. The blue sky is also what creates a distinction between the 2. Many things he points out as negatives for the game are actually things that make the 2 games stand out from each other. This was all compensated by removing the story elements of the game (which frankly are not what appeal to me in Mario game) and the lack of atmosphere that I actually agree with and think could have been done better. Still, the positives of this game *heavily* outweigh the negatives which makes for a superior sequel in almost every way imo. I respect KingK’s opinion though and honestly he’s not really shitting on the game in any way.
Adding to that Miyamoto rambling, the other side of the coin would be Yoshiaki Koizumi, the one responsible for the Rosalina story and Majora's Mask, the one always putting deeper stories in Nintendo games was him, and Galaxy was when he argued with Miyamoto, making that basically his last game and appearance until the Switch era. To this day he wants to write those stories again, but Aonuma and Miyamoto keep him away for baffling reasons, how they never understand how he made such memorable games with his darker stories, is something I will always hate about Nintendo.
Its true that his story setups are interesting. But its also true that too many developments can lead to messy results, even if the story is actually handled well as a whole. Just look at the Sonic series, they tried so hard to develop a continuity that it became a joke, and don't even make me started on Kingdom Hearts, where no game makes sense on its own. So honestly, I'm glad that Miyamoto is there to keep things in check.
Nintendo is great because of Miyamoto. Yoshiaki koizumi is incredible for his storytelling and is the reason my favourite game of all time is so good (majoras mask). But saying you hate that Nintendo puts gameplay over story is something I can never agree with. If I want a good story, there’s countless novels out there that can provided a significantly better narrative experience then any game can provide but gameplay is some exclusive to video games and that’s what Nintendo excels at. If it weren’t for Miyamoto, Nintendo wouldn’t have all the amazing games it does because honestly if a narrative in a game is bad but the gameplay is amazing thats MUCH MUCH BETTER than if the narrative is good but the gameplay is trash. I prefer galaxy 2 over galaxy 1 because I don’t care for a Mario story, if I wanted a Mario story I have 2 different paper Mario games to play. What makes me prefer galaxy 2 is the gameplay and level design. It beats galaxy 1’s level design in almost every way and provides a significantly more fun experience for me then galaxy 1. Nintendo’s ideology of “gameplay > story” is what prevents them from falling into the traps so many gaming companies have fell into where the game itself sucks but it has a good story.
@@rebrand7802 Story is the driving force and motivation that allow people to continue being invested in progressing a plot line which in turn allow gameplay to keep being engaging. I wouldn't being truely engaged to a game like SMT Strange Journey if the base plotline is completely boring or wouldn't want to kick metal face ass if we didn't have the scene of the beginning of the game in which he destroys your district. Everybody treats gameplay and story seperate when they are more interlinked unless you are talking about multiplayer games which are pure gameplay or visual novels, which are pure story.
@@rebrand7802 I didn't say I hate Nintendo's ideology, why would I? Galaxy 1 is a perfect example, gameplay is the focus but there is story there for those who want. I hate them not letting even that small drop of interesting storytelling go into their games, or when there is story, it is subpar due to the wrong people writing it, as in the latest Zelda games.
The way I kind of see it right now, Galaxy 2 kinda marked a turning point in how Nintendo viewed their biggest IPs. During the 2nd half of the Wii era up to the release of the Switch you could feel Nintendo being very conservative with their IPs in terms of how they presented themselves. Specific mechanics and gimmicks might be new but the actual content, settings, story set-ups, etc were more often than not very derivative of previous games to a fault. You see it mostly with Mario, but I'd say it's also there in Yoshi, Star Fox Zero and to a lesser extent, Pikmin, and some Zelda titles. The Mario spin-offs, in particular, got a lot more "on brand" during this era too with a lot of the flavoring in the party, sports and especially in the RPGS. The games didn't necessarily get any worse but, it can feel like they didn't do as much to stand out to players compared to previous entries.
You have to give credit to Nintendo for allowing an indie company to handle a Legend of Zelda rhythm game though, Cadence of Hyrule was the result of one of the largest companies allowing an indie company handle their largest franchise and it turned out amazing
SO SOMEONE ELSE NOTICED I always said that in the Gamecube era, Nintendo didn't even have a consistent look for the fire flowers But after New Super Mario Bros., they got the Mario "look" together They realized the power of branding around the mid 2000s and by 2010, they kinda knew what a mario game "looked like" I think that's why so many people like the Gamecube era, because Nintendo wasn't shy to get experimental with their IPs Now they're safer, for better or for worse I'm glad I'm not crazy
@@randomplaceinruralamerica9618 I believe the switch era has loosened up considerably for a lot of Nintendo's IPs. That said, the people managing Zelda have seemed to be a lot more willing to let Zelda spin-offs do their own thing with Hyrule Warriors and Cadence. Mario still seems like it has a pretty tight grip with how characters can be portrayed even in things like Mario + Rabbids. Most of that game's personality comes from the Rabbids rather than Mario itself.
Miyamoto has a very interesting approach that would be hilarious in nearly any other field. I can see him staring in confusion at an apple pie, then tearing out a handful of filling, declaring it the part that matters, and shunning the crust for getting in the way. He would make the world's best batch of chocolate chips, and look in horror as you make them into the world's best chocolate chip cookies.
You know who else would have done that is Steve Jobs. They're fanatics and yet, in their respective fields they've been directly responsible for pushing the technology forward to revolutionary places. Visionary ones even.
Geoffrey Wilson: I think that's a bit of a false comparison. The reason is because video games are unlike literally anything else in the world that could be considered artistic, movies, music, animation, and even food, and that's the interactivity of the medium. The reason I think gameplay should always be considered the most important element to any game, especially Mario games, which are the quint essential video games, is because without pushing the envelop forward with the gameplay, you essentially strip it of the one thing that makes it unique. You can find innovative stories and scenarios in lots of other places. Movies, TV, animation, even music. But none of them have the ability to interact with the story created. Sorry if this was a bit rambly and unfocused, I kind of just wrote it up in a minute or so. Regardless, I very much respect Miyamoto's approach to gaming. I'd recommend watching Nitro Rad's video about this game if you want a better explanation on my thoughts on this subject.
issue with this comparison is that story in a game boils down to presentation, not gameplay miyamoto's making the best food around but it all looks awful despite tasting great
@@aurthurpendragon1015 Gameplay is the most important thing in a video game, yes. Is it the only good thing that should be fully developed in a video game? Fuck no. Also, the comparison with the pie seems pretty fair to me. It is interactive because you can also eat the pie.
Finally someone gets it. I will never understand why Miyamoto fought so hard to include fewer story elements in Galaxy 2. Galaxy's story made it feel so much more magical. Galaxy 2 is fun but I don't feel nearly as motivated to play it as I do the original.
Plus despite the nice ending and good point she made that this game is beautiful (at least, AT THE very least, the presentation), Princess Peach owes the people that know her (which is so many she’s the most famous woman in gaming. Why? Because she’s a girly stereotype? Sexist!) much better writing than being a helpless young woman when she can fight for herself like the Mario Bros.!
He thinks that Zelda games should have story elements but Mario shouldn't. He claimed that Rosalina's deep and tragic backstory would weigh down the gaming experience, even though it was optional.
I think Shiggy's problem is that he's like me. I'm not very good at appreciating or enjoying anything other than gameplay in most games. Unlike me however, he's unwilling to accept that the fact that just because you don't appreciate something doesn't mean it's nonessential. Different people have different talents and interests. Let other people do what they're good at, and don't stop them because it's not your thing.
I can understand people not caring about the story and atmosphere, but it doesn't really get in the way of the game itself. Even without that, I still kinda liked Galaxy 1's overall design more because it was a lot more centrally focused. Space was the core design. In Galaxy 2, space was very obviously an afterthought, and almost all of the levels felt incredibly scattered.
And people defending him always act like as soon you add some atmosphere it turns into one of those cinematic games with more story than game play like there is no in-between
I also think hes just trying to play it safe. Look at nintendo, a multibillion dollar company which has been on fire for decades in a row, and, possibly he thinks, things are good now, not great, but good, so why take a risk?
1 get a wii (they're extremely cheap) 2 mod it if it isn't already (easiest console to softmod handsdown) 3 get a crt (someone is probably giving one away for free in your hometown) And done you got yourself a much better experience than modern day nintendo can provide
Lubba originally had a purpose. Galaxy 2 was gonna tell us more about Rosalina's past and how she met Lubba, until Miyamoto shot the idea down. I really want to know how Galaxy 2 would have been if the development was as free as it was during Galaxy 1
There's not a single thing to point towards this though? Miyamoto AND Koizumi came to the agreement that it should focus less on story, and Miyamoto was perfectly fine with the story beats in Galaxy 1. Miyamoto in particular shooting it down is gonna need an actual source, my man.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 has the better levels. Lacks in presentation. So I always play both games back to back, like a really long game that you need to catch almost 500 stars.
18:07 Yes, it is almost impossible to talk about Galaxy 2 without bringing up Miyamoto. I will just say, that philosophy is one he *used to* have; his current philosophy now is essentially, "I'm going to take a step back and encourage the next generation of developers, who have different philosophies from the ones I had, so that the franchises I created can survive long after I'm gone."
Yes, I believe his time is up. Every time he made something back then, you could expect a massive fun and creative fest that’ll last throughout eternity. From the WII onwards, has he done anything remotely as fun as he used to do? Now that you mention he’s now letting new developers take the grinds, that may explain how Switch is basically “Make Nintendo Great Again”. WII left me such a bad taste in my mouth that it took me about a year after launch to buy myself a Switch
Galaxy 1 is a beautiful journey that really makes me _feel_ the beautiful expanse of space. It's a game that makes me think about my place in an infinite universe and the emotional weight of navigating that. Galaxy 2 is an expansion pack. Which is fine--I love the feeling of mastery I get every time I play the challenging endgame galaxies--but I can't help missing the quiet stillness the first game allowed you to sit with. I can't help missing how earnest and engaged it was.
So many people saying “Nobody plays Mario for the story.” This is a very ignorant argument. You may be correct in the sense that nobody plays Mario EXCLUSIVELY for the story but It adds to the experience for some people.
Yes but it’s idiotic to act like a game is somehow missing something for not including those elements. They were neat bonuses in 1 but it’s by no means a staple of the series to have an interesting story.
@@Shyontheinternet99 those are RPGs not platformers. And there’s so much more wrong with sticker star than simply having a meh story. When you get right down to it, PM64’s story isn’t all that either.
I just always considered Galaxy 2 more of the same with bonus gimmicks, and that's all I really wanted from it. Aside from outliers like the NSMB series, Nintendo's prone to moving their series onto something else, and that usually leaves me unsatisfied when I only get a taste of something that really wowed me. It's fantastic how they try to innovate so often, but I still think there's value in exploring the depths of what you already made. Though I'll fully admit they could have done more with the story and theming
Agreed. They often kill off cool ideas way too quickly before they can even begin to fully flourish. Whether it be some new gimmick or theme for a game. Or an entire app itself such as Miiverse, Check Mii out, Nintendo Labo and Flipnote studio
@@slenderfoxx3797 F.L.U.D.D. was a cool idea, shy of being used to its true potential, and yet they nuked that and haven't brought it back after almost 20 years. I'll always lament that until the possible day they do bring it back.
The problem with SMG2, is that I didn’t feel like they truly exploited SMG’s potential rather than merely copy-pasting it, and also sacrificing some of the main things that made SMG great, like the side story
yeah, wii at least has the excuse that for its barebones nature as a game, as a multiplayer game its a totally different experience. the future titles aint got no excuses, even u, for stickin so close to safe territory
Since you were 10 at the time, you probably weren't aware that there was something of a sigh of relief when Galaxy was announced. Coming off Sunshine and its extremely rigid adherence to its tropical island theme, the variety on display in Galaxy's first trailer alone put a lot of fears to rest. That's how I remembered it as a 15 year old at least. :P
@@Poefredgalaxy has way more themes flowing around but at the same time I don’t feel like that sunshine going full on the “tropical island” theme isn’t bad either. Playing on a sunset beach with an hotel is really cool, same with the Luna park on the beach setting or the harbour
Played both as a kid, and revisited them recently. The best way I can put it: with Galaxy 2, I was always aware that I was only playing a video game. It was only ever "that level was fun." But nothing could match Spacejunk Galaxy. That starry purple background with the musical ambiance gave me the chills.
as weird as this sounds, i agree with pretty much every point you make in this video but i still like 2 more. i think what really does it for me is the replayability. galaxy 1 is an absolutely incredible experience the first time you play it but i find myself revisitng 2 more and more cause the sharper level designs make it so much more replayable imo. the difficulty is much better handled in 2 which makes playing these games as an adult much more enjoyable. when i play 2 i find myself still slightly struggling with certain sections and it's fun to play around that and the game's unique mechanics. but when i replayed 1 recently i pretty much breeze through everything. it's still an amazing game and if we're comparing first experiences 1 absolutely left the bigger impression on me, but i can't deny how much more fun i have playing 2 nowadays.
Yeah, I agree. When I started replaying Mario Galaxy 1 as part of 3D All Stars I dropped it quickly. Without the draw of the unknown, because I had already experienced it, I felt bored waiting for the truly mechanically fun levels. Where as SMG2 I feel pretty much hits the ground running when it comes to the level design, without any moment feeling wasted to me.
That's true. The only parts that kicked my ass in Galaxy 1 were the purple coin levels but I had so many lives at that point that it became more of a game of attrition.
I played both when I was around 7, and I enjoyed both. I like the first better, since. Was so immersive. The second one is good, but the levels seem more like obstacle courses, rather than real places in the Mario universe.
this is my exact thought. in the first game you actually went to different planets . in the second game it was flatter and like you said more obstacle course like the best example is grand Master galaxy
@@Shyontheinternet99 a handful of them do, like Cosmic Cove and Starshine Beach, but I agree that the majority of them don't and it is one of the reasons that the 2nd game is inferior to the first.
rosalina is one of my favorite characters in any media, her story book makes me cry every time i genuinely cant believe miyamotos response to hearing the idea was basically "nah fuck that, just make her big space woman"
Eh. It's Mario. If I wanted a deep story or whatever, I'd replay Metal Gear and Ace Attorney. Gameplay always should come first when talking about Mario.
@@SmashSSL The video wasn't just about story. Yes, that's a part of it, but there was also a lot of discussion about the level design and atmosphere of SMG1. That might not be mechanical gameplay, but that very much influences how you play the game.
I feel like this is almost an arguement of what makes something a better "game". Is it the raw gameplay and technical polish or is the emotional gratification you get from the whole thing in retrospection?
I feel like making something innovative is important. You could write the greatest technically written story ever, but if it still followed the Hero's Journey pattern, then everyone is going to be able to see every beat coming from previous exposure
@@dlaniganohara I think that depends on who you are though. I don't really care if something is a stereotype if it's done well. I appreciate innovation but I don't see it as the end all be all of quality.
@@PleasantLeech I don't think it's the end all be all. Sky Kids 3 is unique but also an awful movie. That being said though, I find it hard to call something a masterpiece if it doesn't have anything new to offer, but that's my take.
@@dlaniganohara But what about games like Nier, No More Heroes, or even Deadly Premonition which are games that feel like they care more about what they tell than how they function.
@@Vvonter haven't played the other two, but in all fairness to my point a lot of people hate Deadly Premonition because of its disfunctionsl mechanics. I know it has a cult status because of its weirdness and people enjoy it, so I Wouldn't say it's objectively bad or anything. I mean, at the end of the day it's all subjective. The act of enjoying something is to be able to look past its flaws, and so if you can do that with those games then good on you. I'm a pretty big Kingdom Hearts guy and I love a lot about it even though I know there are many people who act like the story is a big jumbled mess, even though I disagree with it. It's all subjective
After watching this video, I decided to give mario galaxy a chance. It's perfection. It's so soothing and calm even though has a lot of really upbeat moments. In that sense, it scratches the same botw itch; i can really focus and explore all the nooks and crannies, but I also can enjoy the scenery, the music, the ambience... Thanks a lot for the video (one of your best), Dan! Hugs from Brazil.
One question, one brazilian to another. How did you set up dolphin, did you use a wiimote and sensor bar or did you configure a standard controller? If so for the latter, what button scheme did you choose, I just couldn't settle with the combinations I tried and that's the main reason I haven't tried most wii games :/ PS: It is a compound question, for the grammar n4z1s reading this.
@@astr0sauce oh yeah? You mean the one that is not commercialized anymore? Only if I download illegally, and if I'm going to pirate either way, dolphin is more refined... 👍🏼
Thank you for putting into words how I've felt about these two games for a long time now. It's hard to describe, but I feel like for me, Galaxy 2 was a fun distraction, and Galaxy 1 was a fun experience.
Just rewatched Nitro Rads video about Galaxy 2 after watching this, and I’m kinda fascinated that there can be such a difference of opinion between people about these two games. And both videos make legitimately convincing arguments. I think that’s a sign that they’re really great games, probably ones people are gonna be talking about for decades to come
@Lejeune Le Prof The immersion and theming in Galaxy are stronger than the sequel, but even though Odyssey had varied locations they'll often feel like empty sandboxes with the same Sunshine bonus courses and repetitive chore missions. Kinda like Crash 4... it seems a strictly Anti-Completionist Game, unlike Galaxy 1 & 2. I agree with most of the Joseph Anderson video on it. But unlike him I love Sunshine too. Odyssey has some fun stuff while the levels still adapt to their linear completion, and it's certainly not as much of a misstep for Mario as SwSh is for Pokemon, but whenever I see people praise it I remember my own experiences with it don't match theirs. It's just never happened for a 3D Mario like that before.
@@runningoncylinders3829 On the surface, Odyssey seems like a game for completionists, what with all the checklists, but then you factor in the backtracking, repetition, filler moons and lack of rewards for getting the moons, and it turns out to be a nightmare.
What I didn't like about his review is that he called galaxy 1 a "tech demo". In my opinion that shows that he didn't understand the game because it succeeds better than galaxy 2 in creating a memorable experience. It's not just about the levels, it's also about everything around it
Something that wasn't mentioned during the struggle for identity is that most "normal" galaxies in MG1 has 3 stars (plus comets & secret stars) while MG2 only has 2 (plus comet & secret stars) and I think it is one of the main element that makes them so different because the levels don't have the same scope which probably why you feel that they aren't as grand as in the first title.
They're a good concept, but some of them are poorly hidden and the amount of time it takes to enter a level again once you've collected a green star can take up to a minute, making them feel a lot more tedious.
The more I keep thinking about this, the more I realize how the opportunity that Bowser's Fury presents is incredible. Having a 3D Mario without as much rigid segmentation that's more open would allow for a giant mess of connected areas for the player to explore that also has plenty of more concentrated platforming challenges. The reason I didn't like the hybrid nature of Galaxy was because that rigid segmentation made me mentally approach all the levels in the same way. They're all linear platforming gauntlets, so you get kicked out of levels.... right? But if there's just an overworld for the player to explore, then it's not putting these neat tidy boxes around each section that trick you into taking the same approach.
@@ThatLandonSmith Mario Odyssey separates its kingdoms over a linear world map that only has two "choices" (and then you get taken to the same kingdom after you beat both of them regardless of what order you beat them in anyway), so the choice of which order you play each level is entirely lost. In Bowser's Fury, you unlock three at once, and every level is all interconnected, restoring the amount of choice. The kingdoms themselves do contain multiple sub-areas which house platforming challenges, but none of them come close to approaching the level of brilliance of those in 3D Land/World or the Galaxy games. There are also hardly any mission-based moons - there are one or two in the main story, but they're vastly outweighed by the non-mission moons which are only there to pad out the game. If there was more of an emphasis on missions after you'd beaten the main one, I expect the game would've been much more enjoyable. Bowser's Fury, on the other hand, _does_ have a mission system much more akin to the tried and true formula of the previous sandbox exploration 3D Marios, making it a much less tedious experience to complete.
@@Markiplier2 Your first paragraph doesn’t make any sense. In both games you eventually see all the content anyway, making the choice one of “Where would you like to go first”, if anything. I’m not sure how having the worlds interconnected in BF makes any difference, especially since those interconnected parts don’t offer much of anything. You could warp around to the start of the islands and it wouldn’t make much difference. I also completely disagree with your second point about Odyssey’s lack of missions making it tedious. I enjoyed its open exploration sense of platforming and The visual variety in the levels keeps you more then interested in seeing what new platforming challenges come next.
@@ThatLandonSmith 1. You can't warp in Bowser's Fury until you've beaten the game. After this point, it's similar to Odyssey in that you can choose wherever, but there's also the option of riding Plessie around between each area and collect coins and cat shines. Imagine if there was something similar to do in the Odyssey whilst travelling between SMO's kingdoms? (Speaking of "not making any sense", I have no idea what the OP means by "putting these neat tidy boxes around each section that trick you into taking the same approach." If you're reading this discussion, could you please clarify with an example?) 2. Seems like you skipped my point about the sub-areas being inferior to 3D World or Galaxy. Bit difficult to argue against that one, though, so I don't blame you. 3. The problem with SMO's "filler moons" comes in two main components - the lack of value, and the lack of reward. I will admit that the first time I played through to get the moons, I did enjoy it quite a bit, since I never knew exactly what challenge I would face next. However, it's that exact variety in the types of challenge that make it such a chore for me to replay (which I haven't done in years, actually - perhaps my opinions would change again if I replayed it, but I doubt they would). If they were all "platforming challenges", then I'd probably enjoy it a bit more (although that still wouldn't amount to very much if they aren't as genius as they are in the other 3D Marios), but then the game deviates into things like fishing and whatever tf bound bowl is, other than the worst, most inconsistent racing minigame I've ever played). On top of that, much like with people and animals, not every challenge is created equally; one moon could take 20 minutes to collect while another is just "ground pound a spot" or "touch the moon to pick it up". This makes the value of each moon inconsistent and almost discourages you to go out of your way to get them. To this, I've heard people say, "Just leave those moons!" but that argument doesn't really hold up when you remember that this is meant to be a collectathon, and therefore you shouldn't feel discouraged to get half of them. The easiest solution to this would be to cull all of the moons that are way too easy and offer more moons for overcoming tougher challenges. (Another thing they could do is have extra missions after you beat the story ones, like I mentioned previously.) Even then, you would have to fix the reward system; moons are essentially useless anyway because there are only two kingdoms you can unlock after the game (both of which are underwhelming anyway) which only require 250 and 500 moons respectively out of a total of 880. This means that you only need to get just over half the moons to get to the final area, and that's not factoring in how quick it is to nab really easy moons, nor the fact that you can literally buy infinite of them from shops. After that, there's no reward at all until you get all of them, at which point your sail changes colour slightly, (big deal), you get a slightly different version of the final boss (they didn't even change the escape sequence!) and a picture. This wouldn't be so bad if the game didn't go on as long (which is why I give Bowser's Fury a pass despite doing something incredibly similar, although I am worried that this will become the norm in future), but 100%ing Odyssey takes AGES, so it feels like a rip-off. Alternatively, there could've been more short-term goals leading up to this point - Gamechamp3000 has an excellent video about this: th-cam.com/video/nlUAI984L1U/w-d-xo.html All in all, while it isn't a bad game, Odyssey has more than a few significant flaws that really ruin the experience for me, but if you can look past them and enjoy the game despite that, that's great! I actually envy that, since I _really_ wanted to enjoy SMO, but I suppose I set my expectations too high - after all, it's just a game.
@@Markiplier2 Holy shit, I appreciate the long and well thought out reply. I don’t think I have much of a counter argument, I do agree with your points about the bulk of the moons in Odyssey being far too simple to acquire, I actually did replay the game recently and much of the magic was lost when you know every exploration opportunity yields the same rewards. That said I do think it’s a better game over all then Bowsers Fury with the creativity of the stages. But to each his own. I’ll check out the video you posted as I always enjoy game analysis.
Have to admit, revisiting the Galaxy intro sequence, storybook, and other narrative elements really pulled on some heartstrings I had all but forgotten about. Thank you for that.
For the longest time I've never been able to fully explain why I prefer Galaxy 1 to 2, and you did it perfectly. The Galaxy games are my all time favorite games, and I love them nearly the same, but if I had to choose a definitive winner, it's 1, for many of the reasons you pointed out. The cinematic, grandiose and epic feeling of the first game, as well as embracing the space idea a lot more just make it feel like a much more meaningful journey. I'm doing my 6th playthrough of it right now, and I've lost count of how many times I just stop in the middle of a galaxy to appreciate the scenery and atmosphere. Galaxy 2, by comparison, feels like your average Mario game, but in space. The idea of spherical planets is used a lot less, and galaxies often use the same clear cloudy skyboxes. The game has world maps and set paths. (Though the World Map backgrounds and settings are gorgeous.) However, the parts where it does try to evoke that grandiosity of the first game it does really well, such as Cosmic Cove, Starshine Beach and some of the World Maps. It might sound like I hate Galaxy 2 based on the comparison, but even with all that I love it nearly the same as the first game. It's more Mario Galaxy, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. If SMG3 does ever happen, I hope it's more on the style of the first game than the second. Anyways, amazing video! Keep up the great content, it's always really insightful. :)
@@averagejojofan8649 I kind of disagree on level design, it's of course subjective, but to me Mario Galaxy's thematic progression from star-to-star and has way more gameplay variety. I agree on pretty much everything else, especially endgame. The green star challenge was one of my favorite post-game events in any game ever, way better than "replay the exact same game again but Mario is green and slippery"
16:00 galaxy 1s ending straight up makes me start WAILING. it is such a MASSIVE contrast of emotions. You go from this supermassive blackhole is going to eat the entire fricking universe, to all the cute adorable lumas SACRIFICING THEMSELVES to RESTART THE ENTIRE WORLD. It is such a powerful moment...
I would say my main problem with Galaxy 2, is the overexcesive use of the cloud flower. A good power up yes, but i would've rather used the bee or boo mushroom on some stages instead of BARELY using the old ones
John 3.16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
I also hated that they didn’t bring back the Ice Flower nor the Red Star… the Ice Flower would’ve been so fun to use in levels, like Cosmic Cove Galaxy.
@@elijahtorres2688 I know, right? You'd think with the twin waterfalls, they'd have introduced the Ice Flower, right? Nope! Instead, you just freeze the water's surface in a Deus Ex Machina! There's no context to freezing the water. You just press a switch and BAM! Surface frozen! Not only that, but there were penguins swimming at the time you did this! So I hope you're happy with yourself! You just doomed those penguins to drown!
You make the best reviews in the history of games. I swear, I re-listen to the retrospective series once every 6 months. No game should be reviewed in 10 minutes. These are amazing.
Galaxy 1 and 2 are so interchangeable to the point that I often have false memories of things from one game happening in the other and vice versa, just like the first two Harry Potter movies, where I always mix up the Quidditch scenes from each movie due to how similar they are.
I dunno, they always felt very different to me. I have very vivid memories of each and every galaxy in 1, whereas I can barely remember anything from 2
Don’t agree with this at all. They’re two very different games to me. The second game is a good Mario game but it doesn’t feel like a Mario Galaxy game at all. It doesn’t feel like you’re in space or on planets. It just doesn’t have the atmosphere the first game has.
I can understand Miyamoto not wanting cutscenes that go on forever but this game could have seriously benefited from a better story. It wouldn't have taken that long to add a better one.
Or, you know, just make the cutscenes skippable? I don't understand why Nintendo can't seem to grasp this simple concept. All of the Pokémon games suffer for it.
Interestingly, Miyamoto has walked back on his game philosophy in recent years; he's not only expressed regret for some of his past actions, but his current philosophy now is essentially, "I want these franchises I created to still be around long after I'm gone, so I'm going to take a back seat and trust & encourage the next generation of developers." And, sure enough, he's been barely involved in the Switch era of games, with his role essentially just amounting to giving advice every now-and-then and only when directly asked for it.
@@matthewmuir8884 I love Miyamoto he's created my favourite franchises ever but I think even at a younger age that the same premise cannot survive forever it doesn't need ridiculously dark stories but Zelda is an example of the storytelling that nintendo can make.
They're two different games for two very different players with only one thing in common: their love for the general galaxy format. If you want to be invested in the world, or rather the universe of Galaxy, them you play the first one, if you're someone who plays games just for the love of the actual gameplay and couldn't care less about the story, then play Galaxy 2. Personally, I think that Galaxy 1 is an overall better game, Galaxy 2 does just feel like the expansion it was meant to be with a pointless story just tacked on, but I don't hold it against anyone for having a differing opinion, they're both Mario games at the end of the day. Brilliant video nonetheless, I adore hearing others opinions of games, especially opinions you don't hear all too often, it always sparks some interesting conversations.
Or, play *both.* It's not like first one's level design isn't good and it got the base game and formula just real right and satisfying. They're both mastaapeeces, but you have a point.
I don't know if I agree with the sentiment. The way I see it, if you're making a sequel to iterate on the first rather than take the series in a new direction, then I believe that the sequel should work to improve and expand upon the original in every possible way.
@@NeckBreakingStunts the name definitely should not have a "2" in it, that was a scummy thing for Nintendo to do as they fully knew that people would expect something more from a game with such a title.
@@MrDiana1706 the first ones level design is horrendous are you serious? KingK tries to say going from course clear to sandbox is good but considering it half asses both and doesn't know what it wants to be its terrible level design. Galaxy 2 refined it and made levels actually fun to play.
@@astar1124 Nah I think it did good on both, I wouldn't call it horrendous. They're both very similar games but if you find one super unfun then that's okay, everyone always have that one game
I hope BotW 2 doesn't feel to safe or similar, I'm worried about it because they're using the same world as a base but with all this time they're taking I'm sure they're crafting something phenomenal...
@@Round_Slinger it's not going to be called BOTW 2. The Announcement for the game purposely calls the game "The Sequel to Breath of the Wild" and not "Breath of the Wild 2"
I feel like my opinion of both Galaxy 1 and 2 always are very conflicting towards each other, and i think the reason is simply because both of them focus on different things for a video game. Galaxy 1 focuses on immersion, atmosphere, and feeling like these levels are designed for a spacious galaxy in mind, while galaxy 2 is just a masterclass in terms of design and ideas for how far mario game can go in terms of it's gameplay. I don't think one game is better than the other. Both of them are just doing something different and doing it exponentially well. I do prefer Galaxy 2 because of just how much fun the levels are and how exciting it is whenever i see a level in the game that i remember having an awesome time with. Even then, though, i can absolutely understand why people love the first game despite that. That game is such a magical experience from beginning to end. The story feels so grand and epic. The levels literally feel like you're in space and adventuring through all these lived in planets. It's still fun on top of that, but i think it's just that Galaxy 2 just has more of that fun factor that makes me happy to always revisit it. At the end of the day, this is my favorite duology in gaming, and both of them compliment each other so well.
Galaxy 2 was fun. It really did feel like an epic DLC pack. Yoshi was awesome. But that's all it felt like. No story, less coherence with galaxy themes and powerups, and a whole host of other random elements. Mario Galaxy 1, on the other hand, felt like a true masterpiece. It still kicks ass too. In my opinion, greatest video game made to date.
Back to your example; NSMB2 and NSMBU are pretty derivative in nature, but NSMBWii did a lot to change the multiplayer co-op landscape, and people tend to kind of forget about that in favor of bunching it up with the games that followed.
I agree with your sentiment. DS to Wii feels like a fairly sized step up, with new graphics, higher fidelity music, multiplayer, and more. On the other hand, Wii to the other two is a very gentle slope, having pretty similar graphics and flat out reusing music, in addition to multiplayer being nothing new.
@@Trianull Actually, NSMB2's versions of NSMBWii music do add certain elements, but as a whole the game is largely derivative in nature. NSMBU on the other hand is pretty much a second revision of NSMBWii, where they only went halfway with concepts that could have been interesting, like starting the game in a typical grassy world but getting kicked onto the other side of the world map.
I mean yes, but that's all ot realistically added. A multiplayer(which means emptier levels to accomodate for it) can't ne the only selling point of an otherwise identical sequel, can it?
Galaxy 1 has a bunch of great moments, and quite a few really good levels, but also a bunch of levels I just don’t care about in between. Galaxy 2 never reaches the heights of Galaxy 1 in terms of memorable moments, but it also never bored me. Barely a single time in the whole game of SMG2 on my 2nd play through did I look at the next level I was going to play and thought “Oh no, it’s this one. I don’t really like this one.” Nearly every time I was excited to play the next level, while in Galaxy 1 I stopped feeling that way consistently about 40% of the way through the game. I wasn’t motivated to keep going beyond the final boss because I was only playing the game for the main story and nothing else. In Galaxy 2 I was motivated to continue because I was playing the game to PLAY the game, and that to me is why I prefer the second game more than the first.
@Thélos Sensei Honestly the Green Stars were fun for me to figure out how the fuck I’m supposed to get Mario in that one location. It tests your commitment to the game by giving you an interesting challenge. One befitting of a platformer. It may be a chore for some but not me.
For me Galaxy 2 is the pinaccle of the linear Mario games. 3d World went back to things that were not necessary, like the timer, the side camera, 8 direction movement, the pole at the end, a button to run, little and big Mario instead of life points and generic visual design. In Galaxy 2, you really feel in a real 3d Mario, but with linear design. I liked to fetch the green stars, because it needs you to use advanced mechanics, like combining reverse jumps with rotating jumps (don't know the name in english) and wall jumps all at once to reach specific areas. You truly feel that you have solid gameplay right there.
@@jytvreal lol, clearly you know absolutely nothing about either game's fanbases. most online polls are 60 - 40 for galaxy 2, which is definitely not a minority for the 1st games. heck, sometimes the 1st game obliterates it on 2. most smg1 fans don't talk too much compared to galaxy 2 fans either. take more notice to things before writing stupidity. i do agree galaxy 2 is the game of the 2010-2020's tho
Yeah. _A simple story that does something new and more theming to make the game feel less like it's just a game (an epic journey for example)..._ it should be very hard to damage anyone's experience by adding those elements! I understand why one could be scared of adding slower paced levels... but this is just baffling.
Miyamoto: “This is my artistic view!! To make games simpler and not make anything new at all, I only make gameplay new but when it comes to creativity in level theming and stages I just like to reuse themes and make them as simple and enjoyable as possible. This is my vision”
He seems the be the type that enjoys doing cool things in games not experiencing cool things in games, its a very old style of gaming thought. "I just want to play!" Type of thought. It makes sense hes hard on mario because that was the core of mario but mario is more than that now.
Everything you describe about the first Galaxy is exactly why I don't like it as much as the second. It's why I couldn't even bother returning to it in Super Mario 3D All Stars. What you describe as "letting the player take everything in" I call "painfully slow pacing." For example: Comet Observatory. I get people like the idea of a large hub world, as I love them as well… when there's actually something to do in them that involves some sort of progression in the game. The reason why Peach's Castle and Delfino Plaza were great in my mind was because, aside from being well designed areas, they didn't *just* serve the purpose of getting you from one level to the next. They had their own secrets, and thus people had an incentive to want to explore every nook and cranny. Comet Observatory doesn't have any of this. Okay, there's the storybook, and that's fine for those who love a good backstory, but there's nothing about it or anything else in the entire hub that involves progressing through the game. The game has "secrets" in the form of the hungry Lumas… but you don't find these guys under a rock or anything. They just show up, and you *buy* your extra levels with star bits. Comet Observatory does have wonderful music (one of the only ones provided by longtime veteran composer Koji Kondo), but aside from that, there's really nothing to do here. As a result, the observatory just feels unnecessarily large, and getting from one set of levels to the next is a real pain; again, it *KILLS* the pacing, because there's just an unnecessary amount of walking. With Starship Mario, Nintendo downsized it, likely thinking "we didn't do anything with the last one, we're not even gonna bother this time." Now, I certainly prefer an actual hub world, however, given what Comet Observatory had to offer… I prefer Starship Mario in this case. And I think part of this is also the fact that a lot of the things that I found "cool" about Galaxy have been done better in later games. Yeah, Galaxy was the first to up the quality by going with a live orchestral soundtrack, but being first doesn't necessarily mean it's the best. I like some of the tunes that Mahito Yokota wrote like Gusty Garden Galaxy… but much of his other orchestral music sounds rather predictable and doesn't do much to violate the listener's expectations (Actually, I found that much of his non-orchestral music did this better). Furthermore, the first Galaxy doesn't really have a "main theme." It has that six note motif that's used in the opening and other fanfares (and then iterated on in the credits theme), but it doesn't really have a "main level theme" like Super Mario World, Super Mario 64, and Super Mario Sunshine did. Galaxy 2, however, did. Because of this, I happen to remember Galaxy 2's music more. Not to mention, some great level themes for Bowser Jr. and a new Yoshi theme (both also written by veteran Koji Kondo) Another big issue I have with Galaxy 1 is that didn't quite know what it wanted to be. Yoshiaki Koizumi later classified it as the beginning of the "course-clearing" 3D Mario games when unveiling Super Mario Odyssey. Yet, they tried injecting some "Mario 64/Sunshine" into Galaxy when it came to the unnecessarily large hub world, the postgame purple coin missions which involved some minor exploration… but this really wasn't the core experience of Super Mario Galaxy. Super Mario Galaxy 2 trims all of this out and focuses it I'll admit, I do actually prefer the older sandbox 3D Marios, and so I would normally appreciate this in theory… I'd much rather have the game firmly be a linear game than the game try and placate both fanbases. Rather than give me some superficial sense of exploration, similar to the hub world which offered little to nothing in terms of actual gameplay… I'd rather have a more focused linear adventure… than a linear game that's also trying to placate those of us who prefer the sandbox style. I don't *necessarily* mind when a company rests on their laurels a bit… up to a point.I was okay with Galaxy 2 because it was already out of the norm for Nintendo to even do a direct sequel on the same console in the first place (Yoshi's Island does not count. The original Japanese title was "Super Mario: Yoshi's Island," the "World 2" was added by the localization teams), and because at this point in time, the Mario series by no means felt derivative. I figured Nintendo would shake things up on their next console, and use Galaxy 2 as an opportunity to take what worked with Galaxy 2 and refine the hell out of it. This, of course, did not happen, as we ended up getting Super Mario 3D World… which is a whole other rant. But yes, I will concede that Galaxy 1 has the better presentation with its actual cutscenes… but in terms of the focus and all the little refinements… this is the main reason I'd much rather replay Super Mario Galaxy 2 and not the first game.
Old, but I find your points are very fair. I actually didn't realize I find the music from Galaxy 2 more memorable. It's specifically that Bowser Jr. level theme. Like yeah, of course the Comet Observatory is good and I enjoy it, but if we're going with my own personal tastes, Galaxy 2 probably would have the better songs. I find i actually like a lot of Galaxy 2 and end up attributing it to the first game because I just kinda blend them together in my mind. But often times a lot of stuff I liked came from the second game minus the Rosalina content.
The biggest complaint I have with your criticisms is the effort to paint Galaxy 2 has a more forgettable experience in terms of it's gameplay compared to Galaxy 1. Throughout your review you describe Galaxy 2's level design as not sticking with you and being rather forgettable, almost portraying it as dumb fun. You liken the game to the New Super Mario Bros games, although there's a clear problem in comparing the two series. The NSMB not only reused the same style of gameplay, but even the same music and same mechanics and level themes as well. In my opinion, Galaxy 2 expands on the style of gameplay found in Galaxy 2 to create unique platform challenges never seen before in Mario, ones that utilize the style of gameplay established in the original but in new and refreshing ways. The Flip-Swap Galaxy, Flipsville Galaxy, and the Upside-Dizzy Galaxies are all great examples of taking concepts from the original, such as the shaking and gravity mechanic, and finding new and interesting ways to utilize them; furthermore, nearly every Galaxy in the game has some sort of unique idea that creates fun and interesting platforming challenges that rise above merely being a gimmick. Puzzle-Plank Galaxy, Cloudy Court Galaxy, Beat Block Galaxy, Cosmic-Cove Galaxy, Spin-Dig Galaxy, or Flip-Out Galaxy all present fun platforming challenges that push the original's gameplay forward. None of these are fun because you're mindlessly jumping around and jumping on platforms. Each idea is refreshingly unique, so saying that the gameplay in 2 doesn't stick with you is misleading, I feel. Saying Galaxy 2 is a "grab-bag of completely random ideas that all taste the same" feels disrespectful to the amount of effort the game puts in to differentiating each and every level and presenting new ideas that test the player in a variety of ways. Where I agree with you is that the design in each game succeeds for very different reasons. Each game has noticeably different priorities, which is something you acknowledge. The ways you progress in Galaxy 1's levels that align thematically with each level is one of Galaxy's best traits. Galaxy 2 is more interested in moving on to the next idea, and I can see why that may be disappointing to fans of the original. In that way, Galaxy 2 doesn't feel like a true sequel, although I believe the ways in which the sequel expands on the original's core mechanics are what shows the immense respect Galaxy 2 has for the original. What I won't deny whatsoever is the game is vastly different in tone and atmosphere. In most instances, the games feel completely different in the emotions they're attempting to convey to the player. Galaxy 2 feels more interested in keeping the experience consistently fun, while Galaxy 1 seems more interested in making the player feel more than that. Story and atmosphere can absolutely add to a game and can be what differentiates a bad game from a good game, but in this case, the strengths of Galaxy 2 that I've mentioned before still push through to make it a pretty fantastic game and an interesting sequel. There a couple other things I wanted to mention but couldn't figure out when to mention them. The comparison between Starship Mario and The Comet Observatory feels strange, as your argument that there's nothing to do on Starship Mario can be applied to the Comet Observatory as well. Aside from Rosalina's storybook, something that only very occasionally updates throughout your adventure, the only thing to do is proceed towards your next star. At least with Starship Mario, there's a mini game you can complete to earn extra lives, you can play around with the Cloud Flower power-up, Yoshi is available to ride, and anyone you may want to talk to is in immediate vicinity to you. Where the Comet Observatory shrines through is that Galaxy 1's atmosphere and music makes this hub very iconic compared to the original. Aside from that particular strength, neither feel necessarily better than the other. Lastly, some of the efforts you make to show how similar the sequel is to the original feel like a stretch; to elaborate, the only similarity Cosmic-Cove Galaxy in Galaxy 2 has with Deep Dark Galaxy in Galaxy 1 is that they're both caves with water. Galaxy 2's level is mysterious, yet mystical and elegant, while Galaxy 1's level is brooding and dark. They're both completely different in tone and approach. And when Freeze-Flame Galaxy's similarities to Shiverburn Galaxy are concerned, Shiverburn actually drastically improves upon the original's approach, as each level here actually incorporates both ice and fire motifs and mechanics, unlike the original where one level was solely ice and the other was fire, and the fire-and-ice theme was only thematic. I have a few disagreements with you and criticisms of your analysis, but this was a great review otherwise and I hope I didn't come off too harsh in what I said, haha. This has always been a discussion in the Mario community that I've been invested in and it's fun to see both sides of the spectrum when it comes to comparing these two games. I really enjoyed watching your review and I can clearly see the effort you made in articulating your points. This was awesome and I can't wait to watch the next one.
Although galaxy 2 had many unique challenges, I found that despite that, it was far more forgettable for me. I feel like the atmosphere makes all the difference and I feel like 2 was less memorable in that front. All of those galaxies that you mentioned had interesting mechanics from a technical level, but they felt the same because of the similarity in atmosphere (except cosmic cove, which felt the closest to 1 in atmosphere). I don't think the variety in mechanics makes up for the experience of galaxy 1. I agree with the idea of it being a grab bag of mechanics. Although the mechanics are unique and have a lot of effort put into them, they end up being more forgettable for creating a similar emotion. Nothing in 2 gripped me like the feeling of infiltrating a massive fortress in battlerock, the quiet solitude of space junk, or the foreboding mystery of deep dark. There might be examples that feel that way for you in galaxy 2, but my experience playing 1 is far more important to me and king than any technical gameplay. I don't think he's being misleading, we just had fundamentally different experiences with how the game made us feel. Although the fire and ice level in 2 used it's fire and ice mechanics to a greater effect, freeze flame has such a unique atmosphere and feeling that makes it far better (for me and king) than the one in 2.
@@aidansilli4257 I totally understand that, and I guess the difference comes from what you’re looking for in a game. For me, personally, atmosphere only plays a factor in what makes a level unique. When I play Galaxy 2, the variety of challenges the game presents to you is what makes the game fun and constantly surprising. Although I understand why coming from the first game, someone may not feel that way. Even still, Galaxy 2’s levels aren’t identical in atmosphere, despite Galaxy 1 doing the best in this department, and the music has a lot to do with it. Cloudy Court Galaxy is grand and huge, Slimy Spring Galaxy is soft and muted, and all the Bowser levels are intimidating and climactic. The game values gameplay over everything else for sure, but there is an effort to make each level feel distinct both in atmosphere and gameplay.
I agree with you on pretty much every point I just don’t experience the same disappointment as you about Galaxy 2. It is lesser as a whole but I enjoyed it for what it was.
This makes me appreciate Galaxy 1 more, and simply be happy it was the only one to reach the Switch. I would still like to play Galaxy 2, but at the same time I can (after viewing this video) notice the subtle details which made Galaxy 1 so unique, and what made Galaxy 2 more of an expansion pack. Just to clarify, I can’t for definite know which I prefer as I have only played Galaxy 1 on Switch via 3D All-Stars, and have not ever played the “sequel”. But, what I can say is, from what I’ve seen, Galaxy 2 feels like reheating a KFC. It still tastes somewhat good, but doesn’t quite hit the same as when you first bought it. Now, I would LOVE to get my hands on the sequel to see why people love it. And hey, I may play it, and love it way more than Galaxy 1, but when I play Galaxy 1, I feel so immersed because of how (as you put it) it blends the ‘course clear’ style AND the collectathon 3D platformer genres together in one package.
I read an old article recently. It was some of the old guard at Naughty Dog reflecting on the development of Crash Bandicoot and the mission statements they had for the first three games. Obviously the first was super ambitious - create a mascot for the Playstation where it was lacking one, create a GOOD 3D platformer where one didn't exist whilst keeping the elements that made 2D platforming so good intact, do it using state of the art techniques to show off the full power of the Playstation hardware. But something always struck me about the sequel's statement. "Capitalize on what made the first game so much fun, fixing its problems, while not feeling like just more Crash Bandicoot". Crash 3, meanwhile, had a 9 month dev cycle, and they focused so heavily on characterization, comedy, and ideas that, while the core was still Crash 2, it had an entirely unique and different vibe from it. Looking at Galaxy 2 now and thinking of that, it just amazes me how a company with so much less experience and even less time compared to Galaxy 2 was able to put their thinking in a totally different direction and create a unique experience. You're absolutely right - Galaxy 2's strength is in the moment to moment, whilst it loses the big picture completely. If there were a Super Mario Galaxy 3, you can almost guarantee that this game would be completely forgotten and buried unless G3 somehow completely screwwed itself, while Galaxy 1 would retain the same place it always has. There are some standout levels, but the overall experience is almost tragically replaceable, and I don't think you can say that about any other mainline Mario game until New Soup 2. It's a commodification of the "Mario magic", which is good for short-term gains, but loses its impact in the long run. I feel like Galaxy 2's exclusion from the 3D All-Stars pack is as much about its failure to exist on its own, separate from Galaxy, as much as it is Nintendo's increasingly normal scummy practices. And that's a shame for all the fun Galaxy 2 has, the good ideas it has, the neat species it introduces and then does very little with. It's there, waiting to be made into more, and will probably just be left drifting in space, if I may get grossly pretentious. And, for all your worries on the subject of communicating your feelings, you do an excellent job illustrating that emptiness. Really nice to watch this one.
it's interesting, because while I agree that Galaxy 1's story, characters, narrative design, and so forth, are all stellar (pun intended), probably the best the series has to offer, and deserve to be a template for how games in the series are done going forward, I also don't really... care? When it comes to actually playing the game, I mean. Which is why I don't see Galaxy 2 as "worse" in that regard, even though it is objectively less good - because regardless of which of the two I'm playing, all I want to do is get into a level and start exploring the galaxy and the game's physics. The framing stuff in the first game is great and all, but it's not even remotely why I'm there.
Nah, Galaxy 2 is better than Galaxy 1 because it picked up Galaxy 1's concepts and made actually good levels with it. The best example I can give is the purple coins, remember how Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bolts started with a line of Jiggies as a joke? Well Galaxy 1 actually does that unironically on a bunch of stages, while Galaxy 2 doesn't.
Another point is that Galaxy 1 has around 6 stars per stage while Galaxy 2 has 3. That means that Galaxy 2 doesn't burn completionists with any single stage, and keeps things varied constantly, while Galaxy 1 starts to feel extremely repetitive if you go for 100%, which is tiring.
Yeah to be honest, I play Mario because it’s a safe choice in terms of having a consistently good/fun platformer. In the grand scheme of things, I don’t care about the story or presentation. I just want good platforming, so Galaxy 2 is better for me. Not to say Galaxy 1 isn’t good but 2 just takes it further.
I think the big thing I’ve found as a Galaxy 2 defender is it seems like a question of how effectively you feel that Super Mario Galaxy accomplished its goals. I’ve always felt like Galaxy was at odds between what the mechanics could do and what the level design wanted to be. I never felt like the mechanics of Galaxy 1 could effectively handle what people say it’s good at. The game never really feels like it’s tasking you to understand the mechanics in a way say Mario Sunshine or Odyssey do, it’s more interested in these bland cinematic moments and forcing half built Super Mario 64 style design even when it’s always felt unfitting. For a lot of people Galaxy 1 is much more of an aesthetic game than a mechanical one so whether or not it accomplishes a control of level design doesn’t really matter Galaxy 1 is a spectacle but in terms of anything Mario is actually doing it’s hollow and never really feels like it understands how to add challenge or interesting puzzles without adding arbitrary side mechanics. Galaxy 1 feels incredibly on rails and I don’t feel like I gain much from actually playing it because the interesting stuff is the visuals music and tone. When you explained the cool elements of the galaxies from the first game I agree with you but I don’t really feel like any of how you’re describing them is all too important to what I’m actually PLAYING Mario Galaxy for. It’s not really important to me how Gusty Garden looks cause the level is boring and nothing is happening mechanically it’s very autopilot and the aesthetics feel like they’re done as a blanket to hide the bland blueprint underneath. I guess that just shows a difference in what we’re here for. Galaxy 2 feels like refining the level design in Galaxy 1 in a way that actually fits the scope of what Mario can do. I understand what you’re saying about the expansion but I think as an expansion it shows that they realized the game was designed poorly for what the controls are made for and refined it. I felt myself thinking more critically about how Luigi’s jumps work (cause Luigi is more fun to play as) and the scope of my movement to truly see how far I can push the game to what I need it to go, something I find best in Mario Odyssey and 3D Land (underrated and massively better than 3D World) but also good in this game and is infinitely more satisfying to me than just showing me something explode in the background while I watch a loading screen where Mario flies in space while I can’t control him Plus Galaxy 2 has Whittles which is better than anything from the first game.
Yeah I definitely agree with this. To me, galaxy 2 is galaxy 1 but realized. Galaxy 2 levels are just more fleshed out, and frankly more fun to play, to the point than galaxy 1 levels felt more like a tech demo, ambitious but unrealized. They were impressive, sure, but had some much unused potential. In addition, some of galaxy 1 ideas was just flat out undercooked (PURPLE COINS), but where given more time in the oven with 2 ( the coments where WAY better in 2) Now although galaxy 2 atmosphere is rather different from its predecessor. I believe that both are really good but in completely different ways (akin to Lm 1 and Lm 2). I really can't explain why, but something about Galaxy 2 atmosphere really resonates with me, and that something is COMPLETELY different from the reasons on why I fell in love with galaxy 1 atmosphere. Both are about space, but they each capture a different feel to it. Now although I enjoyed 2 more than one, that margine of love isn't really that big. There are somethings one did kinda of better two, and there are something 2 did better than 1. Either way both these games are very dear to me, and I believe that they are some of the best platformers ever made.
@@antimatter3084 3D Land vs 3D World is tricky to me. I will concede 3D World is better made but the levels felt too similar in idea to me, in that New Super Mario Bros style where every level adds an idea, reinforces the idea, then has one big final puzzle. Well designed but by the end feels a little rote and over designed where it felt like I was doing the same things every level and doing them exactly the way Nintendo had specifically designed. 3D Land by contrast is less on rails and controlled so I felt like I was able to really get Luigi to do fun things with the game. I admit this is entirely on me but I felt more freedom in 3D Land and it was a more fun experience, even if I will never deny that it’s a sloppier game
Galaxy 1 has a generally slow pace and I get some people like that more relaxed experience, I think since the gravity mechanics and progression through the levels were distinct and like nothing that had been done in a 3D platformer before, they thought it would be difficult for players to get used to the new gameplay and simplified most of the level design and mechanics. Some people did have trouble getting used to the controls when gravity is reversed, upside-down, ect so I can't say it was the wrong approach. For me I got used to the new mechanics quickly and felt the game has such low stakes and introduces new mechanics slowly enough that I didn't really get into it. I think the hub area has good atmosphere but the pacing between levels it causes and it's emptiness doesn't make it as fun to travel through, that said SMG2 hub is kind of disappointing too it feels unfinished or not fully realized. The green stars aren't worth playing everything again and there are some less fun levels in SMG2, both games have definite flaws so it really depends on preference.
@@wiiztec Explain how a story would "corrupt" the mario series, please. Especially when there are already plenty of games with stories that people love.
@@wiiztec Story would "corrupt" the Mario series? Have you heard of the Paper Mario series, Mario and Luigi series, or Super Mario RPG? In comparison, Mario Galaxy 1 was just a dip in the water, and people still love it.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 isn’t just one of my favorite games, *it is my favorite game* I remember coming come from school every Friday and playing it all day and all night 😄
It’s funny that you mention Majora’s Mask in this video, because that game and Galaxy are both my favorites in their series. I think the reasoning is pretty similar for both of them: they have the things I love from their respective franchises, but there’s this certain atmosphere about them that I can’t get enough of. Both of them have always felt like they have this melancholy mood that just pervades every facet of them. They’re both top 10 of all time for me. As far as Galaxy 2 goes, it’s probably my second favorite 3D Mario. The levels are so much fun (probably better than 1 overall, to be honest) and the music is great, like you said. But the atmosphere of 1 just isn’t there for me. Sure, there are exceptions (Cosmic Cove, Shiverburn, Slimy Spring, Flashblack, etc.) but it just doesn’t feel all-encompassing like in 1. They both have their strengths, but that indescribable feeling 1 gives me puts it ahead. At this point I just like to consider them as one long game though, as was intended. I’m sure none of this rambling made much sense, but I always like to hear opinions on games I love, even if I don’t necessarily agree with them. Excellent work KingK, as always.
I think if they wanted to make a Mario game with a story-like structure, repeating the Galaxy theme would have been redundant. Galaxy 2 manages to keep the theme and improves on it, while not making Galaxy 1 obsolete.
I mean, there are several Paper Mario games with storylines centered around being paper, more so now than before. I'd even say most story-driven sequels keep the theme of the original, while also expanding on its different elements. Galaxy 2 kept the theme of Galaxy 1. But instead of expanding on as much as it could, it decided to mostly abandon story, characters, atmosphere, and other non-mechanic elements - and then pumped all that energy into mechanics and level design. While this definitely made for more fun levels, and much more solid gameplay, it arguably lost some important aspects that its predecessor held in high regard.
This is how I think about it too. The major games in this series all have different names and themes. 64, Sunshine, Galaxy, Odyssey. So just the name of SMG2 alone, to me, screams "extras".
The transition from your Intro to the second chapter hit me in my heart. I remember being 10 and playing this game. I remember how fun it was. How it affected me. I played it over and over again and I never stopped loving it. I think it's my favorite game of all time. Explaining why it's "better" than Galaxy 2 is tough, but I think you did a good enough job. I agree with all of your points and have always felt odd when people say that it's their favorite Galaxy game. My wife grew up with Galaxy 2 so it'll always be her favorite, which I can understand, but... I don't know... Galaxy 1 has a magic to it that Galaxy 2 lacks. They're both fun. Galaxy 2 is a solid 8/10. But Galaxy 1 is, in my opinion, a masterpiece.
A lot of people like mario galaxy 2 more because of its more focused and tighter level design, more satisfying difficulty and better realised ideas. To many people, that’s what’s ultimately the most important thing in a mario game.
One thing that’s always felt off to me is the aesthetics of Galaxy 2. It’s stuffed to the brim with skies and clouds, to the point where it’s even on the title screen, despite the fact those things aren’t very indicative of outer space.
I was not going to make this comment at first but after rewatching the retrospective, I can see that many of your arguments are lacking and I would like to address them. So this is going to come from the perspective of someone who’s second favourite video game ever created is Super Mario Galaxy 2 (behind Majoras mask, ironic right?), and I would like to stress that galaxy 1 is also among my favourite games of all time. To start, I respect the opinions in this video and many things you are trying to say but I gotta say, a lot of your points did not make much of an argument to me. Let me start off with what I agree with. Your point about booting out Mario from every green star stages is something that also annoyed me and it’s a reason the green stars feel like such a chore to get through (which would otherwise be an amazing post game) but, I disagree on not booting you out of every stage. Both the galaxy games are different from the the other 2 collectathons because many times you will see the entire level design change which you can’t just do without the boot out system. I also feel this is a much bigger problem in galaxy 1 because it’s so much more of a hassle to get back into the stage in that game vs in galaxy 2 where it’s so seamless to get right back into the game. I also agree with you on galaxy 2 having more cinematic scenes with a grand feel to it and making bowser the antagonist again was sort of a missed opportunity and that is one decision I am still confused why Miyamoto made. All that being said these are HEAVILY outweighed by what makes Galaxy 2 good in the first place. Now what I disagree with you on is many of your complaints. For one, many of your arguments were stressing about how galaxy 2 is missing the slow paced feel of galaxy 1 and how it gave you a second to breath but that’s something I disagree with because that’s not what galaxy 2 is trying to be. Galaxy 2 is a fast paced game and that’s one reason people love it. Galaxy 2 separates itself from 3D Land and world by having the unique gravity gimmick from galaxy 1 and it separates itself from galaxy 1 by having a much faster pace and it uses its ideas a lot more effectively than galaxy 1. Galaxy 2 is a game that wants you to get on with it and will constantly throw innovative ideas after innovative ideas and thats one reason it’s considered one of the greatest platformers of all time. Galaxy 1 was an amazing platformer but it failed in many areas as a platformer by not using its potential to the fullest. The power ups were also lacking compared to previous Mario games. Galaxy 2 used the older power ups from galaxy 1 to their potential and introduced much more innovative power ups like the rock mushroom, the drill, my personal favourite power up in any Mario game, the cloud flower and last but CERTAINLY NOT least, Yoshi. All these power ups in juxtaposition with their levels are used much more efficiently than the power ups in galaxy 1 and Yoshi in galaxy 2 still has so much potential that if galaxy 3 were to ever come out (which it probably won’t), that should be one of their main priorities. As someone who prefers gameplay over story in a Mario game, galaxy 2 fixed the flaws of the first game and it not having the same atmospheric feel of galaxy 1 is what manages to differentiate itself from the first game. Otherwise you can just imagine a scenario where galaxy 1 and 2 felt the exact same and looked the exact same where everyone would be complaining there isn’t much to differentiate the games based on feel and look. Mario games were never designed to be renowned for their story because we have 2 separate series for that being Paper Mario and the Mario and Luigi games. You also should have brought up the fact that galaxy 2 is supposed to be a story book retelling of galaxy 1 so it having a relationship with galaxy 1 would not have made sense in the context of the game. I do agree that an optional story would have been a nice touch but when playing the first game, Rosalina’s story almost did nothing to enhance the game for me. This is why I understand Miyamoto’s vision on gameplay over story for a Mario game because the focus on gameplay is what makes Mario games as critically acclaimed as they are and that’s what galaxy 2 executed better than galaxy 1 in almost every way (but I still don’t understand why he thought having optional story was a bad idea). Every level in this game is filled with excitement and wonder just because you can never predict what genius idea is around the corner. This game emphasizes “fun” more than any other game I’ve ever played and this is what gives galaxy 2 it’s own charm. The draw back of this was the game lost some of its atmosphere but it managed to make up for it by having some of the best level design ever seen in a video game. Something else I want to point out is the hub worlds. Galaxy 1 is often praised for having a hub world while galaxy 2 doesn’t really have one but contrary to what many think, the hub world in galaxy 1 was a big waste of time for me. Comparing Galaxy’s hub world to something like Sm64 or SmS makes galaxy’s hub world look like a joke. All it did was get annoying having to keep returning to levels with such a lengthy process. Unlike the huge worlds of sunshine and 64, galaxy’s hub world has nothing to do on it besides walking around and it doesn’t even utilize Mario’s move set like in other 3D Mario games. Heck, Galaxy 2’s hub world actually helps you understand the gravity concept of the game by being a planet which gives you a reason to walk around opposed to galaxy 1 where I’m just rushing to get to the level because the hub world is so bare bones. Galaxy 2 understands this by having the level select right in front of you which adds to the games fast pace. You could replace Galaxy 1’s hub world with galaxy 2’s and place Rosalina’s back story in the head area of star ship Mario and that makes the experience significantly better. So when I played galaxy 2 and realized how seamless it was to get back to the levels, I felt very relieved. Now, Your complaint about the memorability of the levels was one of your weakest arguments. First I would like to point out that this is something that is very subjective when it comes to the galaxy games and there are just as many people who remember galaxy 2’s levels more fondly than galaxy 1’s. Galaxy 2’s levels aren’t remembered for the atmosphere and connectivity of the levels (despite many galaxy 2 levels having these traits), they are remembered for the insane creativity those levels demonstrated and how well these ideas it introduced were executed. Let’s use your argument of freeze flame galaxy. Sure it has a better tone but really the galaxy just feels like it’s a ice level and a fire level that have nothing to do with each other. It’s potential of being a ice level is wasted because it needs to use half that galaxy for its fire level section. This could have been resolved by actually sticking to the name of the level “freeze flame galaxy” and using both fire and ice to merge the mechanics of both to make a unique level. This is where galaxy 2 shines, shiverburn galaxy is what freeze flame galaxy should have been. It starts off with fire but then we realize that the whole mechanic of the level is to use both the fire and ice part of the level to create a truly unique experience and actually put a spin on the “fire and ice levels”. This is the case with many galaxies in smg2. It uses the pre existing concepts in Mario and expands on them to create a fresh experience. Galaxy 1 had a problem with its gravity where the camera and Mario would get all confused when traversing around a planet. Galaxy 2 fixes its camera and makes it so you have a lot more control on Mario. The same could be said for the commet stages. Galaxy 1’s comments felt like a chore to go through because it felt like you were just doing the same thing. The timer comments gave you so much time that you could comfortably go through the level and still have a lot of time left. Compared to galaxy 2 that had a very strict timer and actually required using strategies you would otherwise never try in a level. Cosmic Mario was basically the same thing as the timed stages but a little harder vs the cosmic clones where you really needed to plan all your movements and actually consider routes in levels that were never necessary before but now could be used creatively to outsmart the clones. The difference is that galaxy 2’s comments actually feel different from the original levels whereas galaxy 1’s comments feel like just doing the same level over again. This is why the Luigi stages were such a chore to do because it was just playing the same damn level again. **Continued in the reply section**
My conclusion is that galaxy 2 has a different appeal then galaxy 1. Galaxy 1 had so much potential that galaxy 2 perfected it and that’s the reason many love it more than the first including myself. It does not waste any opportunities to create a innovative idea and expand that idea as much as it can. Saying it’s “just more galaxy” is a very lacklustre argument because it’s not just “more galaxy”, its a game that never tried to separate itself from the series like Majora’s mask or change the plot like dkc2. It’s a game that just try’s to prefect Mario galaxy 1’s gameplay, fill in the areas the first game was lacking, speed up the pace to fully utilize the creatively genius ideas the developers had and put heavier emphasis on gameplay than atmosphere and story, giving the game a different feel than galaxy 1. Your arguments are more against why the game isn’t the way you want it to be when that’s not what the game was trying to be. I believe both are equally good when you get down to it but, most people who prefer one over the other usually have played one game first then felt the other one was underwhelming. I played galaxy 2 first so when I played the galaxy 1, the gameplay didn’t feel as strong to me which kind of soured the experience. That is why I understand your complaints with galaxy 2 since honestly the things you felt were lacking in galaxy 2 were the exact opposite for me of what was lacking in galaxy 1.
I disagree with you on one important point, that being that calling it super mario galaxy more would change things, as for me when I heard super mario galaxy 2, I just thought more of mario galaxy perfect, the same way the mega man 2, is just mega man with more polish with bosses, more weapons, better controls, but mega man x is different, as it plays vastly different to the "normal" rockman games. You also mentioned the new super mario series and i think they are a great example of over saturation, but of course if you had enough of galaxy after one game than that's more than just understandable.
@@JJLarge More importantly is that all mario games with numbers or pretty much the same title always haven been extremely similar (mario 1 2 and 3), whilst a different name shows a different game. While other series have done it it differently, like final fantasy changing huge parts of the game between titles with numbers.
The thing here is that, with Mega Man, do you get what Galaxy provides, like the atmosphere and the story? When you play Mega Man, it's mostly just gameplay, with any story just being an excuse for gameplay. As such, a sequel that just expands on gameplay isn't unprecedented. Galaxy is different, when it has more reasons to play it beyond just gameplay
17:32 this is one of the reasons why i love super paper mario. count bleck is fucking amazing. i wish there were more villains with an actual character in mario games
So you prefer SMG and don't like that people generally consider SMG2 better for the exact opposite reason you think ALTTP is overrated? If you were to pick up both games as somebody new to the series, you'd probably prefer SMG2.
Its about time someone spoke about this. This is something I've been thinking for a while now, which is how much less... I guess... engineering there in Galaxy 2. I always compare the two games using Honeyhive and Honeyhop Galaxy. Both galaxies introduce the concept of the kingdom of bees to the universe, Honeyhive Galaxy shows a massive Kingdom that is wide open and full of life, while Honeyhop is a 2d platformer level where the fact that this is the bee kingdom is just window dressing to a level whose sole purpose is to just have a ton of 2d bee mario challenges. One exists for world building while introducing a new powerup, while the other one is just, more level. As a result its a lot more difficult to connect to these galaxies and make them stand out.
@@callinater6133 I think the difference is pretty glaring, Honeyhive galaxy presents a full story in 3 acts : the first star introduces the bee kingdom, starting at the main area with bees talking about the castle where the queen resides, then the lower area with the worker bees carrying honey, and then bringing you to the castle the earlier npcs were talking about to meet the queen. Then, the second star introduces the bees' enemies : the mandibugs that have invaded the observation deck. Those same mandibugs come back in the final star and invade the whole kingdom instead, leading the queen to send you to defeat their leader. Honeyhop and Honeybloom from Galaxy 2 on the other hand have almost none of that, they're just simple platforming challenges with the bee aesthetics serving only as a background and the only thing resembling world building in those galaxies being one of the bees in honeybloom saying that they're looking for a star for the queen. Honeyhive shows a fully realized society of bees with a neighboring enemy while honeybloom and honeypop only have bees there because the aesthetics fit with the gameplay ideas they had in mind. And then what I think is even neater about Honeyhive is how it manages to tie this mini narrative into the gameplay by having the first star introduce the bee powerups through the bee npcs talking about their flying, and then the second act introducing the groundpound through the same npcs talking about the groundpound rocks and the mandibugs, and then unify both of these concepts in the third star where you have to use the bee powerup to groundpound the boss. I feel like this is pretty representative of how both games handle their stages : galaxy 1 wraps its gameplay concepts around neat world building that makes the galaxies evolve as you get all the stars, in a manner reminiscent of sunshine, while galaxy 2 even when it has more interesting ideas, doesnt really pay attention to details in the same way galaxy 1 does which leads to its different stars often feeling pretty disconnected from each other like for example honeyhop's second star that is just a high score mini game with the monkey, following the first star which was about finding silver stars with the bee powerup.
@@magnus3727 calling that a story is pretty hilarious. I really don’t understand why people try to add meaning to something that doesn’t have any of that.
I, too, often find myself comparing the two bee galaxies. One actually is a 3D platformer level and the other is a reject from _New Super Mario Bros. Wii._
The game's theme and narrative isn't any different from the first game when you look at it upon closer inspection. The Observatory in the first game was a representation of a house with the usual home remedies, which had fit that feeling of coming back from collecting a Star, coming home from a long day of dealing with scary bullshit. Starship Mario in this game was a representation of a rental RV, being used to go on a road trip and the galaxies themselves were tourist traps that just so happen to have petrol (Power Stars) for the RV and borders to cross (the Bowser and Bowser Junior levels). The problem comes with there being no deep underlying throughline that leads to a moment of self reflection as a road trip film like Stand By Me would have that bell and whistle. Lubba is a helpful character who acts as a de-stresser for Mario and Luigi in the game after they do what they do in the galaxies that they travel in and even the player to a certain extent, so it feels arbitrary to not have something beyond that for him. If he made certain comments about more characters taking a ride on the Starship reminding him to what it was like to have a family, and then by the sixth world, he reflected on his journey with Mario, reminding him of what it was like to have a son who would be popular with the other kids, then the characters coming on board Starship Mario would have had a bigger meaning than before.
I totally agree, especially on the fact that a very large majority of the levels do not seem to take place in space, unlike the first in the game. Perhaps they could have added a space pirate side to the history and the environment with why not the return of Tatanga as main villain, that could have been very interesting.
I disagree. I think that within the core idea of "Mario galaxy" there was enough remaining for them to explore, to the point that a sequel was justified. To me, what sets galaxy two apart from 1 is Yoshi, the spaceship, the higher level of difficulty and the stronger focus on levels over story. I played both these games as a kid and I remember them both as positive experiences, each one in its own rights.
wdym by remaining to explore? There are areas to explore like cosmic cove, starshine and whomp's fortress, but other than that there's close to nothing. this is most noticeable with the heavy increase of 2d sections in the 2nd game and the heavy decrease of star chips and pull star chips along with fewer secret star missions overall. i also believe that galaxy 1 was a harder game too, all things considered. mainly because the difficulty in galaxy 2 was non-existent without comets. whilst the comets here are harder than in the original, the main stars in the game are very easy. meanwhile in galaxy 1, lots of normal stars had plenty of challenge, and followed with a smooth difficulty curve, the levels continuously adapted to your skill. take going from freezeflame galaxy to toy time galaxy. both are challenging in their ways, and build off of ideas from the other. these levels are far more difficult than the normal missions in smg2, and these only appear halfway into the game
@@Albert_Pecanio remaining to explore in terms of mechanics and themes, not in terms of location. By difficoulty here I don't necessarily mean just how difficult it is to beat, but the overall complexity of the challenges.
I feel the same way about Galaxy 1 vs 2 in that Galaxy 1 totally clicks and 2 just doesn’t. The point about the original Galaxy being more “somber” was a lightbulb moment for me. I always chalk my preference for the original up to atmosphere but a big part of that is the way that it moves at a slower pace and gives you time and space to take in the places that you’re in. I feel like Galaxy 2 tries to be more go go go, gameplay gameplay gameplay, fun fun fun. Even if the gameplay is “better”, when it’s moving so fast you don’t appreciate it nearly as much.
I may be biased since Galaxy 2 was the first game I was truly excited for (preordered it for my birthday), but I think this video is way too harsh. Galaxy's atmosphere can't be beat, but I don't think it fully explores the gravity mechanic. There are really promising sections of levels that are fun, but they are also really short and quite easy, especially playing it back now. The 2D parts of Battlerock Galaxy come to mind, as do practically all of the games powerups. I mean, the Boo shroom is used for all of a quarter of one level. I find the sequel much more replayable and satisfying.
Man every time people talk about Super Mario Galaxy 1 or 2 and they speak about it’s setting with the soft melody of space themes the games have, it just really outlines the feeling of aloneness but it’s not a bad thing, it’s just relaxing
i completely agree. galaxy 2 is an add on that you play AFTER galaxy 1 in my opinion. galaxy 1 felt bombastic, the music alone makes you feel like your doing the work of a true heroe. it's the only mario game with an actual story to it, that fits the game and its style. it is almost perfect, except for some levels that could have been improved or replaced. but this game is an adventure, an experience. mario galaxy 2 is an almost arcade 3d platformer. an excellent one with better level design but there is almost no excitement in experiencing it. its rather challenging your platforming skills.
i was gone for a year and came back to see your videos have improved tenfold, seriously this is some amazing stuff man. also knowing that someone else feels the same way i do about MG 1 and 2 has put me in a state of absolute euphoria. keep up the good work man!
I think Mario Galaxy is exactly the reason _why_ Mario games should have at least some focus on story. Galaxy's story isn't hard to understand by any means, It's for kids so it's not supposed to be, it's a generic plot of 'bowser stole peach, meet new character, help new character while saving peach" like practically every other Mario game occasionally minus the second step. What makes Galaxy stand out from the other games is not it's story, particularly, but rather its presentation _of_ its story. It goes to show that even the most basic and generic of stories can be some of the most memorable with good writing. I haven't even mentioned the optional storytelling yet either such as the storybook which in itself is a masterpiece but the levels too. Galaxy has so much love put into it and you can really feel that throughout the levels, they tell a story. Some levels feel sad or empty, reminding you that you're wandering through the depths of space but others are full of action and reminding you that you are not alone. The point is that there's so much variety in aesthetic you never get tired of going back in. As a kid I sunk countless hours into Galaxy and was hyped when I heard that it had a sequel but... it just wasn't the same. I've always been more story-oriented in my approach to games, that is to say, I generally prefer a good story over gameplay but Galaxy 2 was just felt so soulless in its story compared to the original that it turned me away and I didn't even finish Galaxy 2, I just couldn't get immersed in the game like I always was with the original.
38:02 Color Splash is a good example of this. You'd have to go through an entire level again to get a secret exit. Instead of letting you just walk and find the other exit, you'd be booted out and forced to retread the same level all over again. This was one of my biggest gripes with Color Splash.
*"It doesn't want to be its own thing. It wants to be more Mario Galaxy."* Well, yes, that is actually how it got started: As an expansion pack for Galaxy 1! So yes, that it is absolutely, 100% what it was originally intended to be!
And KingK spends the entire video explaining why if it had stayed as an expansion pack, that would have been fine. But as a sequel, it could have been so much more.
y'know what, KingK, one thing I really like about your retrospectives is that they always make some mention of the soundtrack in some way shape or form!! i think that for many people this is what sets apart one game from another and really adds to the experience of what makes a game great!
I've always preferred Galaxy 1's atmosphere and story, but to me, Galaxy 2 is a lot more fun. I find its levels more memorable, and it also provides more of a challenge. I found the first game to be pretty easy, and it was borderline insulting to unlock an even easier playthrough upon 100% completion. I wouldn't call myself a huge fan of the Green Stars, but I'd take those any day over just doing the game again. I also found the Prankster Comets and Luigi to be better implemented, but that's just me.
Man you hit the nail on the head with this one. The first Mario Galaxy feels very complete and balanced in a way that very few games can emulate. It has such a rounded mix of crisp gameplay, striking atmosphere, and gripping story/purpose, while also having a full flavor of emotions ranging from exciting, relaxing, unsettling, and somber. I agree that Galaxy 2 fails to deliver such a rounded experience, the ingredients are there but the balance is off. Without the contrasting elements, the game becomes just a bit monotonous, but when it’s all there, each element elevates the impact of its counterpart, making you feel every moment.
Every now and then, I see a video essay that is so PERFECT that it simultaneously inspires me to make my content better, and disheartens me because I’ll never make anything anywhere near as good. This is one such video. You’ve earned a subscribe, and I’ll have to look back through your catalogue. As for the actual subject of the video, I don’t even necessarily agree with you about everything, but you put your ideas forward so clearly and persuasively that it doesn’t matter. I grew up playing both Galaxy and Galaxy 2 pretty interchangeably, so it’s hard to remember where one ends and the other begins in my memory. And I guess that’s kind of the problem...
@@Joe_Brennan_ nice man, I subbed :) btw I completely agree with what you said about the Galaxy games, I grew up playing them as well and so I kinda see them as one big game. They’re both the same to me,
I could never articulate why I preferred the first Galaxy, and yet again KingK's attention to detail and trademark idiosyncratic POV makes it so simple. Great video man keep up the high calibre of content!!
Hey, look! It's yet another good Mario game that Nintendo wants us to forget about! Super Mario RPG: "One of us!" Mario Strikers Charged: "One of us!" Thousand Year Door: "ONE OF US!"
The way this video perfectly embodies my fears about BotW 2. I'm scared it'll basically be Mario Galaxy 2 where there's plenty interesting level design and mechanics refined from the original, but the story is just "uhhh Ganon is back and kidnapped Zelda again" in the laziest way possible. Basically these fears stem from the 2nd teaser that was all "Look, Link is in the sky now!" but the story bits were just "Ganon scary, Zelda fell in a hole I guess."
I'd just like everyone to keep in mind that I still think Galaxy 2 is a fun game. I just don't really like it AS MUCH as the other Mario games. There's not really a Mario game I look at and say "wow, what a load of garbage."
I'd play any of them and have a good time. I just like some more than others.
I know some will hate me for this,but I look at sunshine and I’m like I just can’t play it. I haven’t even beaten it. I can’t stand the game Mario controls horribly and you can tell me to get good but it just doesn’t feel like it’s worth putting in the effort. I don’t like sunshine even after giving it so many chances. Sue me
Most of the changes Galaxy 2 I find makes it a better game. I feel Galaxy 1 vs Galaxy 2 a matter of how important aesthetics are, and in my case I don't feel Galaxy 1's aesthetic is enough to carry its weaker design and find the "exploration" factor of it to be grossly overstated.
Also they really should port Galaxy 2. As someone with cerebral palsy I get a lot of cramps with the way I'm forced to hold the Nuncon combo.
@@Cfreezy12 I find Sunshine to be really annoying. While the aesthetics are strong, I feel it has a ton of blunders. Really weak level design and the levels themselves are surprisingly small and there are very few of them. I think the difficulty of the platforming areas is overblown, I do agree that they're the highlight of the game. I don't think such a minor part of a game should be the highlight though, especially when I feel that the mission design is really repetitive (boring bosses and red coins galore).
I think it's a good game but I don't really find it fun. I'd rather go back to every other game first, and even then there is a lot of boring or annoying shines that I usually just fish for the good parts and cut my runs short.
Galaxy 2 is critically acclaimed because when it released, the level design blew most of galaxy 1’s levels out of the water and that is partially why I’m ok with the game lacking a huge emphasis on narrative and atmosphere. Galaxy 1 was a great game that is actually one of my favourites but saying it’s design wasn’t flawed and didn’t have potential to expand is just lying to yourself. Galaxy 2 took the gameplay flaws of galaxy, refined them and expanded on them like it was on steroids. This game does not miss any opportunity’s to demonstrate its creativity and the faster pace lends well to its stunning gameplay. The fast paced game is what differentiates galaxy 1 and 2’s gameplay so the complaint that galaxy 2 should be slower is very contradictory to the entire premise of the video because that would just make it stand out as “more Mario galaxy” even more than it already is. The blue sky is also what creates a distinction between the 2. Many things he points out as negatives for the game are actually things that make the 2 games stand out from each other. This was all compensated by removing the story elements of the game (which frankly are not what appeal to me in Mario game) and the lack of atmosphere that I actually agree with and think could have been done better. Still, the positives of this game *heavily* outweigh the negatives which makes for a superior sequel in almost every way imo. I respect KingK’s opinion though and honestly he’s not really shitting on the game in any way.
@ELI BONHAM I’ve kinda enjoyed it but like not as a Mario game. It doesn’t feel like Mario to me idk if that makes sense
Adding to that Miyamoto rambling, the other side of the coin would be Yoshiaki Koizumi, the one responsible for the Rosalina story and Majora's Mask, the one always putting deeper stories in Nintendo games was him, and Galaxy was when he argued with Miyamoto, making that basically his last game and appearance until the Switch era. To this day he wants to write those stories again, but Aonuma and Miyamoto keep him away for baffling reasons, how they never understand how he made such memorable games with his darker stories, is something I will always hate about Nintendo.
Its true that his story setups are interesting.
But its also true that too many developments can lead to messy results, even if the story is actually handled well as a whole.
Just look at the Sonic series, they tried so hard to develop a continuity that it became a joke, and don't even make me started on Kingdom Hearts, where no game makes sense on its own.
So honestly, I'm glad that Miyamoto is there to keep things in check.
I think that koizumi would make some great Nintendo stories
Nintendo is great because of Miyamoto. Yoshiaki koizumi is incredible for his storytelling and is the reason my favourite game of all time is so good (majoras mask). But saying you hate that Nintendo puts gameplay over story is something I can never agree with. If I want a good story, there’s countless novels out there that can provided a significantly better narrative experience then any game can provide but gameplay is some exclusive to video games and that’s what Nintendo excels at. If it weren’t for Miyamoto, Nintendo wouldn’t have all the amazing games it does because honestly if a narrative in a game is bad but the gameplay is amazing thats MUCH MUCH BETTER than if the narrative is good but the gameplay is trash. I prefer galaxy 2 over galaxy 1 because I don’t care for a Mario story, if I wanted a Mario story I have 2 different paper Mario games to play. What makes me prefer galaxy 2 is the gameplay and level design. It beats galaxy 1’s level design in almost every way and provides a significantly more fun experience for me then galaxy 1. Nintendo’s ideology of “gameplay > story” is what prevents them from falling into the traps so many gaming companies have fell into where the game itself sucks but it has a good story.
@@rebrand7802 Story is the driving force and motivation that allow people to continue being invested in progressing a plot line which in turn allow gameplay to keep being engaging. I wouldn't being truely engaged to a game like SMT Strange Journey if the base plotline is completely boring or wouldn't want to kick metal face ass if we didn't have the scene of the beginning of the game in which he destroys your district. Everybody treats gameplay and story seperate when they are more interlinked unless you are talking about multiplayer games which are pure gameplay or visual novels, which are pure story.
@@rebrand7802 I didn't say I hate Nintendo's ideology, why would I? Galaxy 1 is a perfect example, gameplay is the focus but there is story there for those who want.
I hate them not letting even that small drop of interesting storytelling go into their games, or when there is story, it is subpar due to the wrong people writing it, as in the latest Zelda games.
The way I kind of see it right now, Galaxy 2 kinda marked a turning point in how Nintendo viewed their biggest IPs. During the 2nd half of the Wii era up to the release of the Switch you could feel Nintendo being very conservative with their IPs in terms of how they presented themselves. Specific mechanics and gimmicks might be new but the actual content, settings, story set-ups, etc were more often than not very derivative of previous games to a fault. You see it mostly with Mario, but I'd say it's also there in Yoshi, Star Fox Zero and to a lesser extent, Pikmin, and some Zelda titles. The Mario spin-offs, in particular, got a lot more "on brand" during this era too with a lot of the flavoring in the party, sports and especially in the RPGS. The games didn't necessarily get any worse but, it can feel like they didn't do as much to stand out to players compared to previous entries.
HOW ARE YOU HERE SO EARLY
You have to give credit to Nintendo for allowing an indie company to handle a Legend of Zelda rhythm game though, Cadence of Hyrule was the result of one of the largest companies allowing an indie company handle their largest franchise and it turned out amazing
SO SOMEONE ELSE NOTICED
I always said that in the Gamecube era, Nintendo didn't even have a consistent look for the fire flowers
But after New Super Mario Bros., they got the Mario "look" together
They realized the power of branding around the mid 2000s and by 2010, they kinda knew what a mario game "looked like"
I think that's why so many people like the Gamecube era, because Nintendo wasn't shy to get experimental with their IPs
Now they're safer, for better or for worse
I'm glad I'm not crazy
@@connorzicari6126 Patreon access
@@randomplaceinruralamerica9618 I believe the switch era has loosened up considerably for a lot of Nintendo's IPs. That said, the people managing Zelda have seemed to be a lot more willing to let Zelda spin-offs do their own thing with Hyrule Warriors and Cadence. Mario still seems like it has a pretty tight grip with how characters can be portrayed even in things like Mario + Rabbids. Most of that game's personality comes from the Rabbids rather than Mario itself.
Miyamoto has a very interesting approach that would be hilarious in nearly any other field. I can see him staring in confusion at an apple pie, then tearing out a handful of filling, declaring it the part that matters, and shunning the crust for getting in the way. He would make the world's best batch of chocolate chips, and look in horror as you make them into the world's best chocolate chip cookies.
You know who else would have done that is Steve Jobs. They're fanatics and yet, in their respective fields they've been directly responsible for pushing the technology forward to revolutionary places. Visionary ones even.
Geoffrey Wilson: I think that's a bit of a false comparison. The reason is because video games are unlike literally anything else in the world that could be considered artistic, movies, music, animation, and even food, and that's the interactivity of the medium. The reason I think gameplay should always be considered the most important element to any game, especially Mario games, which are the quint essential video games, is because without pushing the envelop forward with the gameplay, you essentially strip it of the one thing that makes it unique.
You can find innovative stories and scenarios in lots of other places. Movies, TV, animation, even music. But none of them have the ability to interact with the story created.
Sorry if this was a bit rambly and unfocused, I kind of just wrote it up in a minute or so. Regardless, I very much respect Miyamoto's approach to gaming. I'd recommend watching Nitro Rad's video about this game if you want a better explanation on my thoughts on this subject.
issue with this comparison is that story in a game boils down to presentation, not gameplay
miyamoto's making the best food around but it all looks awful despite tasting great
@@aurthurpendragon1015 Gameplay is the most important thing in a video game, yes. Is it the only good thing that should be fully developed in a video game? Fuck no.
Also, the comparison with the pie seems pretty fair to me. It is interactive because you can also eat the pie.
@@fancyhat_ it would be more accurate to say he’s making great food that look painfully generic
Finally someone gets it. I will never understand why Miyamoto fought so hard to include fewer story elements in Galaxy 2. Galaxy's story made it feel so much more magical. Galaxy 2 is fun but I don't feel nearly as motivated to play it as I do the original.
Plus despite the nice ending and good point she made that this game is beautiful (at least, AT THE very least, the presentation), Princess Peach owes the people that know her (which is so many she’s the most famous woman in gaming. Why? Because she’s a girly stereotype? Sexist!) much better writing than being a helpless young woman when she can fight for herself like the Mario Bros.!
Diasgree
He thinks that Zelda games should have story elements but Mario shouldn't. He claimed that Rosalina's deep and tragic backstory would weigh down the gaming experience, even though it was optional.
@@D14MBK Something that I know about.
@@D14MBK I'm not the one who thinks it will weigh down they experience, that would be Miyamoto.
I think Shiggy's problem is that he's like me. I'm not very good at appreciating or enjoying anything other than gameplay in most games. Unlike me however, he's unwilling to accept that the fact that just because you don't appreciate something doesn't mean it's nonessential. Different people have different talents and interests. Let other people do what they're good at, and don't stop them because it's not your thing.
I can understand people not caring about the story and atmosphere, but it doesn't really get in the way of the game itself. Even without that, I still kinda liked Galaxy 1's overall design more because it was a lot more centrally focused. Space was the core design. In Galaxy 2, space was very obviously an afterthought, and almost all of the levels felt incredibly scattered.
And people defending him always act like as soon you add some atmosphere it turns into one of those cinematic games with more story than game play like there is no in-between
I also think hes just trying to play it safe. Look at nintendo, a multibillion dollar company which has been on fire for decades in a row, and, possibly he thinks, things are good now, not great, but good, so why take a risk?
I just wish this game was included in 3D All Stars
Join the club
@@bobloblaw4361 there's a club?
They want you to buy this for $60 later
The one reason i didnt buy 3d all stars. If it had galaxy 2 i was in but i can emulate the others if i want and ive played my fair share of og galaxy
1 get a wii (they're extremely cheap)
2 mod it if it isn't already (easiest console to softmod handsdown)
3 get a crt (someone is probably giving one away for free in your hometown)
And done you got yourself a much better experience than modern day nintendo can provide
Lubba originally had a purpose. Galaxy 2 was gonna tell us more about Rosalina's past and how she met Lubba, until Miyamoto shot the idea down.
I really want to know how Galaxy 2 would have been if the development was as free as it was during Galaxy 1
Leave it Miyamoto to suck out all the interesting story ideas out of a game
Quite the statement u got there. What's the source?
source?
@Sparky 07 if its very well known wheres the source
There's not a single thing to point towards this though? Miyamoto AND Koizumi came to the agreement that it should focus less on story, and Miyamoto was perfectly fine with the story beats in Galaxy 1. Miyamoto in particular shooting it down is gonna need an actual source, my man.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 has the better levels. Lacks in presentation. So I always play both games back to back, like a really long game that you need to catch almost 500 stars.
Now THIS is a good take :)
But I still like Galaxy 2's bluer aesthetic. Personal preference
@@internetguy7319 at the end of the day, it’s what it all comes down to: personal preference.
@@carvman217 As I said
@@internetguy7319 ah, I missed the period after aesthetic, my bad
18:07 Yes, it is almost impossible to talk about Galaxy 2 without bringing up Miyamoto. I will just say, that philosophy is one he *used to* have; his current philosophy now is essentially, "I'm going to take a step back and encourage the next generation of developers, who have different philosophies from the ones I had, so that the franchises I created can survive long after I'm gone."
Yes, I believe his time is up. Every time he made something back then, you could expect a massive fun and creative fest that’ll last throughout eternity. From the WII onwards, has he done anything remotely as fun as he used to do? Now that you mention he’s now letting new developers take the grinds, that may explain how Switch is basically “Make Nintendo Great Again”. WII left me such a bad taste in my mouth that it took me about a year after launch to buy myself a Switch
@@burra007 This is ridiculous to say ngl
@@Casual_Luke why?
@@burra007 because the wii was peak nintendo
@@Casual_Luke in sales maybe, but that wasn’t Nintendo
Galaxy 1 is a beautiful journey that really makes me _feel_ the beautiful expanse of space. It's a game that makes me think about my place in an infinite universe and the emotional weight of navigating that.
Galaxy 2 is an expansion pack. Which is fine--I love the feeling of mastery I get every time I play the challenging endgame galaxies--but I can't help missing the quiet stillness the first game allowed you to sit with. I can't help missing how earnest and engaged it was.
So many people saying “Nobody plays Mario for the story.” This is a very ignorant argument. You may be correct in the sense that nobody plays Mario EXCLUSIVELY for the story but It adds to the experience for some people.
Exactly my point
Yes but it’s idiotic to act like a game is somehow missing something for not including those elements. They were neat bonuses in 1 but it’s by no means a staple of the series to have an interesting story.
@@Shyontheinternet99 those are RPGs not platformers. And there’s so much more wrong with sticker star than simply having a meh story. When you get right down to it, PM64’s story isn’t all that either.
I just always considered Galaxy 2 more of the same with bonus gimmicks, and that's all I really wanted from it. Aside from outliers like the NSMB series, Nintendo's prone to moving their series onto something else, and that usually leaves me unsatisfied when I only get a taste of something that really wowed me. It's fantastic how they try to innovate so often, but I still think there's value in exploring the depths of what you already made. Though I'll fully admit they could have done more with the story and theming
Agreed. They often kill off cool ideas way too quickly before they can even begin to fully flourish. Whether it be some new gimmick or theme for a game. Or an entire app itself such as Miiverse, Check Mii out, Nintendo Labo and Flipnote studio
Thank you. Games like crash and spyro got an entire trilogy for fans to try out that style, while Mario usually gets one main game a console.
@@slenderfoxx3797 F.L.U.D.D. was a cool idea, shy of being used to its true potential, and yet they nuked that and haven't brought it back after almost 20 years. I'll always lament that until the possible day they do bring it back.
@@k-leb4671 just play super mario 63 to get a good experience with fludd
The problem with SMG2, is that I didn’t feel like they truly exploited SMG’s potential rather than merely copy-pasting it, and also sacrificing some of the main things that made SMG great, like the side story
"Each game was unique"
New super mario bros series: *sweats profusely*
NSMB2 and U are to blame. If those two didn't exist I'd bet nobody would be so eagar to call all the games copies of themselves.
@@Trianull - I dunno, Wii already was a carbon copy of DS, and that was just the second game.
@@julianx2rl i guess mario wii had the whole console and local multiplayer thing going for it
yeah, wii at least has the excuse that for its barebones nature as a game, as a multiplayer game its a totally different experience. the future titles aint got no excuses, even u, for stickin so close to safe territory
@@Trianull
What? NSMBU was amazing, why is it so underrated- it wasn't generic by any means, 2 and Wii were more generic. And I LOVE Wii.
Since you were 10 at the time, you probably weren't aware that there was something of a sigh of relief when Galaxy was announced. Coming off Sunshine and its extremely rigid adherence to its tropical island theme, the variety on display in Galaxy's first trailer alone put a lot of fears to rest.
That's how I remembered it as a 15 year old at least. :P
you're older then this fool
People had such bad takes about gamecube at the time. Sunshine absolutely has better theming and variety than galaxy.
@@Poefred that’s straight up impossible. That’s not even something you can debate
@@Poefred i haven’t seen an objectively wrong take before this
@@Poefredgalaxy has way more themes flowing around but at the same time I don’t feel like that sunshine going full on the “tropical island” theme isn’t bad either. Playing on a sunset beach with an hotel is really cool, same with the Luna park on the beach setting or the harbour
Played both as a kid, and revisited them recently. The best way I can put it: with Galaxy 2, I was always aware that I was only playing a video game.
It was only ever "that level was fun." But nothing could match Spacejunk Galaxy. That starry purple background with the musical ambiance gave me the chills.
2 words : cosmic cove
Galaxy 1: has better theming
Galaxy 2: has better levels
*has WAY better levels
@@carolinasleeper4484 **has way WORSE levels
@@shimreef ***Has YOSHIII
And power ups and Yoshi
And a much better difficulty curve.
Those ending scenes of Galaxy 1 still gets me to this day...
i get such a fat wave of nostalgia of remembering playing the game as a kid and going to my friends house to play it
as weird as this sounds, i agree with pretty much every point you make in this video but i still like 2 more. i think what really does it for me is the replayability. galaxy 1 is an absolutely incredible experience the first time you play it but i find myself revisitng 2 more and more cause the sharper level designs make it so much more replayable imo. the difficulty is much better handled in 2 which makes playing these games as an adult much more enjoyable. when i play 2 i find myself still slightly struggling with certain sections and it's fun to play around that and the game's unique mechanics. but when i replayed 1 recently i pretty much breeze through everything. it's still an amazing game and if we're comparing first experiences 1 absolutely left the bigger impression on me, but i can't deny how much more fun i have playing 2 nowadays.
Yeah, I agree. When I started replaying Mario Galaxy 1 as part of 3D All Stars I dropped it quickly. Without the draw of the unknown, because I had already experienced it, I felt bored waiting for the truly mechanically fun levels. Where as SMG2 I feel pretty much hits the ground running when it comes to the level design, without any moment feeling wasted to me.
That is EXACTLY my opinion. Couldn't have summed it up much better.
Galaxy 1 is a better experience
Galaxy 2 is a better game
That's true. The only parts that kicked my ass in Galaxy 1 were the purple coin levels but I had so many lives at that point that it became more of a game of attrition.
Yup, win take.
I played both when I was around 7, and I enjoyed both. I like the first better, since. Was so immersive. The second one is good, but the levels seem more like obstacle courses, rather than real places in the Mario universe.
this is my exact thought. in the first game you actually went to different planets . in the second game it was flatter and like you said more obstacle course like the best example is grand Master galaxy
@@Shyontheinternet99 a handful of them do, like Cosmic Cove and Starshine Beach, but I agree that the majority of them don't and it is one of the reasons that the 2nd game is inferior to the first.
rosalina is one of my favorite characters in any media, her story book makes me cry every time
i genuinely cant believe miyamotos response to hearing the idea was basically "nah fuck that, just make her big space woman"
SMG1 wants to give you an experience
SMG2 wants to give you a game
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Well I love games
Eh. It's Mario. If I wanted a deep story or whatever, I'd replay Metal Gear and Ace Attorney. Gameplay always should come first when talking about Mario.
@@SmashSSL The video wasn't just about story. Yes, that's a part of it, but there was also a lot of discussion about the level design and atmosphere of SMG1. That might not be mechanical gameplay, but that very much influences how you play the game.
Yeah, what he said!
I feel like this is almost an arguement of what makes something a better "game". Is it the raw gameplay and technical polish or is the emotional gratification you get from the whole thing in retrospection?
I feel like making something innovative is important. You could write the greatest technically written story ever, but if it still followed the Hero's Journey pattern, then everyone is going to be able to see every beat coming from previous exposure
@@dlaniganohara I think that depends on who you are though. I don't really care if something is a stereotype if it's done well. I appreciate innovation but I don't see it as the end all be all of quality.
@@PleasantLeech I don't think it's the end all be all. Sky Kids 3 is unique but also an awful movie. That being said though, I find it hard to call something a masterpiece if it doesn't have anything new to offer, but that's my take.
@@dlaniganohara But what about games like Nier, No More Heroes, or even Deadly Premonition which are games that feel like they care more about what they tell than how they function.
@@Vvonter haven't played the other two, but in all fairness to my point a lot of people hate Deadly Premonition because of its disfunctionsl mechanics. I know it has a cult status because of its weirdness and people enjoy it, so I Wouldn't say it's objectively bad or anything. I mean, at the end of the day it's all subjective. The act of enjoying something is to be able to look past its flaws, and so if you can do that with those games then good on you. I'm a pretty big Kingdom Hearts guy and I love a lot about it even though I know there are many people who act like the story is a big jumbled mess, even though I disagree with it. It's all subjective
I’m surprised there was no mention of Slimy Spring galaxy, that galaxy’s atmosphere is fantastic. Good video tho
Oh yeah, that galaxy! That’s easily one of the most memorable galaxies in 2 and definitely gives off the same vibe as the best parts of Galaxy 1.
Slimy spring and shiverburn are the best atmospheric galaxy’s in both games
You know, he needs to cherrypick to get his biased point across
He would have to acknowledge that what he's saying makes no sense if he did that
Also says Galaxy 2 levels have less atmosphere, but then shows the giant Tree level with the light streaming through the leaves.
After watching this video, I decided to give mario galaxy a chance.
It's perfection.
It's so soothing and calm even though has a lot of really upbeat moments. In that sense, it scratches the same botw itch; i can really focus and explore all the nooks and crannies, but I also can enjoy the scenery, the music, the ambience...
Thanks a lot for the video (one of your best), Dan!
Hugs from Brazil.
Galaxy is my favorite 3D Mario game for the level design, so I’m happy you got to experience it
One question, one brazilian to another. How did you set up dolphin, did you use a wiimote and sensor bar or did you configure a standard controller? If so for the latter, what button scheme did you choose, I just couldn't settle with the combinations I tried and that's the main reason I haven't tried most wii games :/
PS: It is a compound question, for the grammar n4z1s reading this.
@@Raymander97 just get mario 3d all stars man. galaxy in hd with button controls is way better than dolphin, trust me.
@@astr0sauce oh yeah? You mean the one that is not commercialized anymore? Only if I download illegally, and if I'm going to pirate either way, dolphin is more refined... 👍🏼
@@Raymander97 look at your headass profile pic
Thank you for putting into words how I've felt about these two games for a long time now. It's hard to describe, but I feel like for me, Galaxy 2 was a fun distraction, and Galaxy 1 was a fun experience.
Just rewatched Nitro Rads video about Galaxy 2 after watching this, and I’m kinda fascinated that there can be such a difference of opinion between people about these two games. And both videos make legitimately convincing arguments. I think that’s a sign that they’re really great games, probably ones people are gonna be talking about for decades to come
@Lejeune Le Prof The immersion and theming in Galaxy are stronger than the sequel, but even though Odyssey had varied locations they'll often feel like empty sandboxes with the same Sunshine bonus courses and repetitive chore missions. Kinda like Crash 4... it seems a strictly Anti-Completionist Game, unlike Galaxy 1 & 2. I agree with most of the Joseph Anderson video on it. But unlike him I love Sunshine too. Odyssey has some fun stuff while the levels still adapt to their linear completion, and it's certainly not as much of a misstep for Mario as SwSh is for Pokemon, but whenever I see people praise it I remember my own experiences with it don't match theirs. It's just never happened for a 3D Mario like that before.
@@runningoncylinders3829 On the surface, Odyssey seems like a game for completionists, what with all the checklists, but then you factor in the backtracking, repetition, filler moons and lack of rewards for getting the moons, and it turns out to be a nightmare.
E
@@Helicopter7 "E" is for "Epic contribution"
What I didn't like about his review is that he called galaxy 1 a "tech demo". In my opinion that shows that he didn't understand the game because it succeeds better than galaxy 2 in creating a memorable experience. It's not just about the levels, it's also about everything around it
That “Super Mario Galaxy 2 is Panera Bread” clip was too good
Timeframe?
Something that wasn't mentioned during the struggle for identity is that most "normal" galaxies in MG1 has 3 stars (plus comets & secret stars) while MG2 only has 2 (plus comet & secret stars) and I think it is one of the main element that makes them so different because the levels don't have the same scope which probably why you feel that they aren't as grand as in the first title.
I feel like I was one of the few people that really enjoyed Galaxy 2’s green stars.
I think they're great. It provided the need for exploration that the main game lacked.
They're a good concept, but some of them are poorly hidden and the amount of time it takes to enter a level again once you've collected a green star can take up to a minute, making them feel a lot more tedious.
Same here @BizerkPixel
I thought that they were fun, just because it’s more Galaxy. You still do the same running, jumping and killing enemies that we love.
I loved em, made secrets actually fun to look for
The more I keep thinking about this, the more I realize how the opportunity that Bowser's Fury presents is incredible. Having a 3D Mario without as much rigid segmentation that's more open would allow for a giant mess of connected areas for the player to explore that also has plenty of more concentrated platforming challenges. The reason I didn't like the hybrid nature of Galaxy was because that rigid segmentation made me mentally approach all the levels in the same way. They're all linear platforming gauntlets, so you get kicked out of levels.... right? But if there's just an overworld for the player to explore, then it's not putting these neat tidy boxes around each section that trick you into taking the same approach.
You mean Mario Odyssey?
@@ThatLandonSmith Mario Odyssey separates its kingdoms over a linear world map that only has two "choices" (and then you get taken to the same kingdom after you beat both of them regardless of what order you beat them in anyway), so the choice of which order you play each level is entirely lost. In Bowser's Fury, you unlock three at once, and every level is all interconnected, restoring the amount of choice.
The kingdoms themselves do contain multiple sub-areas which house platforming challenges, but none of them come close to approaching the level of brilliance of those in 3D Land/World or the Galaxy games. There are also hardly any mission-based moons - there are one or two in the main story, but they're vastly outweighed by the non-mission moons which are only there to pad out the game. If there was more of an emphasis on missions after you'd beaten the main one, I expect the game would've been much more enjoyable. Bowser's Fury, on the other hand, _does_ have a mission system much more akin to the tried and true formula of the previous sandbox exploration 3D Marios, making it a much less tedious experience to complete.
@@Markiplier2 Your first paragraph doesn’t make any sense. In both games you eventually see all the content anyway, making the choice one of “Where would you like to go first”, if anything. I’m not sure how having the worlds interconnected in BF makes any difference, especially since those interconnected parts don’t offer much of anything. You could warp around to the start of the islands and it wouldn’t make much difference.
I also completely disagree with your second point about Odyssey’s lack of missions making it tedious. I enjoyed its open exploration sense of platforming and The visual variety in the levels keeps you more then interested in seeing what new platforming challenges come next.
@@ThatLandonSmith 1. You can't warp in Bowser's Fury until you've beaten the game. After this point, it's similar to Odyssey in that you can choose wherever, but there's also the option of riding Plessie around between each area and collect coins and cat shines. Imagine if there was something similar to do in the Odyssey whilst travelling between SMO's kingdoms? (Speaking of "not making any sense", I have no idea what the OP means by "putting these neat tidy boxes around each section that trick you into taking the same approach." If you're reading this discussion, could you please clarify with an example?)
2. Seems like you skipped my point about the sub-areas being inferior to 3D World or Galaxy. Bit difficult to argue against that one, though, so I don't blame you.
3. The problem with SMO's "filler moons" comes in two main components - the lack of value, and the lack of reward. I will admit that the first time I played through to get the moons, I did enjoy it quite a bit, since I never knew exactly what challenge I would face next. However, it's that exact variety in the types of challenge that make it such a chore for me to replay (which I haven't done in years, actually - perhaps my opinions would change again if I replayed it, but I doubt they would). If they were all "platforming challenges", then I'd probably enjoy it a bit more (although that still wouldn't amount to very much if they aren't as genius as they are in the other 3D Marios), but then the game deviates into things like fishing and whatever tf bound bowl is, other than the worst, most inconsistent racing minigame I've ever played). On top of that, much like with people and animals, not every challenge is created equally; one moon could take 20 minutes to collect while another is just "ground pound a spot" or "touch the moon to pick it up". This makes the value of each moon inconsistent and almost discourages you to go out of your way to get them. To this, I've heard people say, "Just leave those moons!" but that argument doesn't really hold up when you remember that this is meant to be a collectathon, and therefore you shouldn't feel discouraged to get half of them. The easiest solution to this would be to cull all of the moons that are way too easy and offer more moons for overcoming tougher challenges. (Another thing they could do is have extra missions after you beat the story ones, like I mentioned previously.)
Even then, you would have to fix the reward system; moons are essentially useless anyway because there are only two kingdoms you can unlock after the game (both of which are underwhelming anyway) which only require 250 and 500 moons respectively out of a total of 880. This means that you only need to get just over half the moons to get to the final area, and that's not factoring in how quick it is to nab really easy moons, nor the fact that you can literally buy infinite of them from shops. After that, there's no reward at all until you get all of them, at which point your sail changes colour slightly, (big deal), you get a slightly different version of the final boss (they didn't even change the escape sequence!) and a picture. This wouldn't be so bad if the game didn't go on as long (which is why I give Bowser's Fury a pass despite doing something incredibly similar, although I am worried that this will become the norm in future), but 100%ing Odyssey takes AGES, so it feels like a rip-off. Alternatively, there could've been more short-term goals leading up to this point - Gamechamp3000 has an excellent video about this: th-cam.com/video/nlUAI984L1U/w-d-xo.html
All in all, while it isn't a bad game, Odyssey has more than a few significant flaws that really ruin the experience for me, but if you can look past them and enjoy the game despite that, that's great! I actually envy that, since I _really_ wanted to enjoy SMO, but I suppose I set my expectations too high - after all, it's just a game.
@@Markiplier2 Holy shit, I appreciate the long and well thought out reply. I don’t think I have much of a counter argument, I do agree with your points about the bulk of the moons in Odyssey being far too simple to acquire, I actually did replay the game recently and much of the magic was lost when you know every exploration opportunity yields the same rewards. That said I do think it’s a better game over all then Bowsers Fury with the creativity of the stages. But to each his own. I’ll check out the video you posted as I always enjoy game analysis.
Have to admit, revisiting the Galaxy intro sequence, storybook, and other narrative elements really pulled on some heartstrings I had all but forgotten about. Thank you for that.
Beautiful isn't it
For the longest time I couldn't figure out why I liked 1 over 2 but I think you've just told me why
For the longest time I've never been able to fully explain why I prefer Galaxy 1 to 2, and you did it perfectly. The Galaxy games are my all time favorite games, and I love them nearly the same, but if I had to choose a definitive winner, it's 1, for many of the reasons you pointed out. The cinematic, grandiose and epic feeling of the first game, as well as embracing the space idea a lot more just make it feel like a much more meaningful journey. I'm doing my 6th playthrough of it right now, and I've lost count of how many times I just stop in the middle of a galaxy to appreciate the scenery and atmosphere. Galaxy 2, by comparison, feels like your average Mario game, but in space. The idea of spherical planets is used a lot less, and galaxies often use the same clear cloudy skyboxes. The game has world maps and set paths. (Though the World Map backgrounds and settings are gorgeous.) However, the parts where it does try to evoke that grandiosity of the first game it does really well, such as Cosmic Cove, Starshine Beach and some of the World Maps. It might sound like I hate Galaxy 2 based on the comparison, but even with all that I love it nearly the same as the first game. It's more Mario Galaxy, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. If SMG3 does ever happen, I hope it's more on the style of the first game than the second. Anyways, amazing video! Keep up the great content, it's always really insightful. :)
Yeah but SMG2 is pretty much better in everything else. Curving, difficultly, level design, endgame, and replay ability
@@averagejojofan8649 Either way, some people might still prefer the 1st. I definitely do :]
@@averagejojofan8649 I kind of disagree on level design, it's of course subjective, but to me Mario Galaxy's thematic progression from star-to-star and has way more gameplay variety.
I agree on pretty much everything else, especially endgame. The green star challenge was one of my favorite post-game events in any game ever, way better than "replay the exact same game again but Mario is green and slippery"
16:00 galaxy 1s ending straight up makes me start WAILING. it is such a MASSIVE contrast of emotions. You go from this supermassive blackhole is going to eat the entire fricking universe, to all the cute adorable lumas SACRIFICING THEMSELVES to RESTART THE ENTIRE WORLD.
It is such a powerful moment...
I would say my main problem with Galaxy 2, is the overexcesive use of the cloud flower. A good power up yes, but i would've rather used the bee or boo mushroom on some stages instead of BARELY using the old ones
John 3.16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
@@christopher9727 Get Reported For Spam Lol
I also hated that they didn’t bring back the Ice Flower nor the Red Star… the Ice Flower would’ve been so fun to use in levels, like Cosmic Cove Galaxy.
@@elijahtorres2688 I know, right? You'd think with the twin waterfalls, they'd have introduced the Ice Flower, right? Nope! Instead, you just freeze the water's surface in a Deus Ex Machina! There's no context to freezing the water. You just press a switch and BAM! Surface frozen! Not only that, but there were penguins swimming at the time you did this! So I hope you're happy with yourself! You just doomed those penguins to drown!
@@christopher9727 nobody cares
You make the best reviews in the history of games. I swear, I re-listen to the retrospective series once every 6 months. No game should be reviewed in 10 minutes. These are amazing.
Galaxy 1 and 2 are so interchangeable to the point that I often have false memories of things from one game happening in the other and vice versa, just like the first two Harry Potter movies, where I always mix up the Quidditch scenes from each movie due to how similar they are.
I dunno, they always felt very different to me. I have very vivid memories of each and every galaxy in 1, whereas I can barely remember anything from 2
if you feel like you are in outer space, then you are playing the frist one
Don’t agree with this at all. They’re two very different games to me. The second game is a good Mario game but it doesn’t feel like a Mario Galaxy game at all. It doesn’t feel like you’re in space or on planets. It just doesn’t have the atmosphere the first game has.
Wow, that was the slickest sponsor ad transition I've ever seen.
5:20 "..and catch everyone completely off guard." *FALLS OFF SANDBIRD* 😭
I can understand Miyamoto not wanting cutscenes that go on forever but this game could have seriously benefited from a better story. It wouldn't have taken that long to add a better one.
Or, you know, just make the cutscenes skippable? I don't understand why Nintendo can't seem to grasp this simple concept. All of the Pokémon games suffer for it.
@@jimjam7347 ikr just add a skip cutscene button
Interestingly, Miyamoto has walked back on his game philosophy in recent years; he's not only expressed regret for some of his past actions, but his current philosophy now is essentially, "I want these franchises I created to still be around long after I'm gone, so I'm going to take a back seat and trust & encourage the next generation of developers." And, sure enough, he's been barely involved in the Switch era of games, with his role essentially just amounting to giving advice every now-and-then and only when directly asked for it.
@@matthewmuir8884 I love Miyamoto he's created my favourite franchises ever but I think even at a younger age that the same premise cannot survive forever it doesn't need ridiculously dark stories but Zelda is an example of the storytelling that nintendo can make.
They're two different games for two very different players with only one thing in common: their love for the general galaxy format. If you want to be invested in the world, or rather the universe of Galaxy, them you play the first one, if you're someone who plays games just for the love of the actual gameplay and couldn't care less about the story, then play Galaxy 2. Personally, I think that Galaxy 1 is an overall better game, Galaxy 2 does just feel like the expansion it was meant to be with a pointless story just tacked on, but I don't hold it against anyone for having a differing opinion, they're both Mario games at the end of the day. Brilliant video nonetheless, I adore hearing others opinions of games, especially opinions you don't hear all too often, it always sparks some interesting conversations.
Or, play *both.* It's not like first one's level design isn't good and it got the base game and formula just real right and satisfying. They're both mastaapeeces, but you have a point.
I don't know if I agree with the sentiment. The way I see it, if you're making a sequel to iterate on the first rather than take the series in a new direction, then I believe that the sequel should work to improve and expand upon the original in every possible way.
@@NeckBreakingStunts the name definitely should not have a "2" in it, that was a scummy thing for Nintendo to do as they fully knew that people would expect something more from a game with such a title.
@@MrDiana1706 the first ones level design is horrendous are you serious? KingK tries to say going from course clear to sandbox is good but considering it half asses both and doesn't know what it wants to be its terrible level design. Galaxy 2 refined it and made levels actually fun to play.
@@astar1124 Nah I think it did good on both, I wouldn't call it horrendous. They're both very similar games but if you find one super unfun then that's okay, everyone always have that one game
I hope BotW 2 doesn't feel to safe or similar, I'm worried about it because they're using the same world as a base but with all this time they're taking I'm sure they're crafting something phenomenal...
I sure hope that it's called something else. Zelda games shouldn't be named that way.
Other than dungeons, underwater, caves, and maybe the sky. Not much to add
@@ddsjgvk I'm personally predicting a type of Dark World in Breath of the Wild 2 or maybe you get to explore the ancient caves of Hyrule.
I forgot Botw was getting a sequel.
@@Round_Slinger it's not going to be called BOTW 2.
The Announcement for the game purposely calls the game "The Sequel to Breath of the Wild" and not "Breath of the Wild 2"
I feel like my opinion of both Galaxy 1 and 2 always are very conflicting towards each other, and i think the reason is simply because both of them focus on different things for a video game. Galaxy 1 focuses on immersion, atmosphere, and feeling like these levels are designed for a spacious galaxy in mind, while galaxy 2 is just a masterclass in terms of design and ideas for how far mario game can go in terms of it's gameplay. I don't think one game is better than the other. Both of them are just doing something different and doing it exponentially well. I do prefer Galaxy 2 because of just how much fun the levels are and how exciting it is whenever i see a level in the game that i remember having an awesome time with. Even then, though, i can absolutely understand why people love the first game despite that. That game is such a magical experience from beginning to end. The story feels so grand and epic. The levels literally feel like you're in space and adventuring through all these lived in planets. It's still fun on top of that, but i think it's just that Galaxy 2 just has more of that fun factor that makes me happy to always revisit it. At the end of the day, this is my favorite duology in gaming, and both of them compliment each other so well.
Galaxy 2 was fun. It really did feel like an epic DLC pack. Yoshi was awesome. But that's all it felt like. No story, less coherence with galaxy themes and powerups, and a whole host of other random elements. Mario Galaxy 1, on the other hand, felt like a true masterpiece. It still kicks ass too. In my opinion, greatest video game made to date.
Had to stick through the credits cause buoy base is my jam.
Back to your example; NSMB2 and NSMBU are pretty derivative in nature, but NSMBWii did a lot to change the multiplayer co-op landscape, and people tend to kind of forget about that in favor of bunching it up with the games that followed.
I agree with your sentiment. DS to Wii feels like a fairly sized step up, with new graphics, higher fidelity music, multiplayer, and more. On the other hand, Wii to the other two is a very gentle slope, having pretty similar graphics and flat out reusing music, in addition to multiplayer being nothing new.
@@Trianull Actually, NSMB2's versions of NSMBWii music do add certain elements, but as a whole the game is largely derivative in nature.
NSMBU on the other hand is pretty much a second revision of NSMBWii, where they only went halfway with concepts that could have been interesting, like starting the game in a typical grassy world but getting kicked onto the other side of the world map.
@@Mini-ze6sl maybe
Yeah, NSMBWii was a true sequel to the original. NSMB2 was an alright sequel but too gimmicky. NSMBU was a boring, safe waste of time.
I mean yes, but that's all ot realistically added. A multiplayer(which means emptier levels to accomodate for it) can't ne the only selling point of an otherwise identical sequel, can it?
Galaxy 2 was the answer to Galaxy 1s story focused slower pace. Both do a great job with what they focus on. They compliment each other perfectly.
Galaxy 1 has a bunch of great moments, and quite a few really good levels, but also a bunch of levels I just don’t care about in between.
Galaxy 2 never reaches the heights of Galaxy 1 in terms of memorable moments, but it also never bored me. Barely a single time in the whole game of SMG2 on my 2nd play through did I look at the next level I was going to play and thought “Oh no, it’s this one. I don’t really like this one.” Nearly every time I was excited to play the next level, while in Galaxy 1 I stopped feeling that way consistently about 40% of the way through the game. I wasn’t motivated to keep going beyond the final boss because I was only playing the game for the main story and nothing else. In Galaxy 2 I was motivated to continue because I was playing the game to PLAY the game, and that to me is why I prefer the second game more than the first.
@Thélos Sensei Honestly the Green Stars were fun for me to figure out how the fuck I’m supposed to get Mario in that one location. It tests your commitment to the game by giving you an interesting challenge. One befitting of a platformer. It may be a chore for some but not me.
I really like how you begin each segment after Mario lands on the ground and the level begins haha
For me Galaxy 2 is the pinaccle of the linear Mario games. 3d World went back to things that were not necessary, like the timer, the side camera, 8 direction movement, the pole at the end, a button to run, little and big Mario instead of life points and generic visual design.
In Galaxy 2, you really feel in a real 3d Mario, but with linear design. I liked to fetch the green stars, because it needs you to use advanced mechanics, like combining reverse jumps with rotating jumps (don't know the name in english) and wall jumps all at once to reach specific areas. You truly feel that you have solid gameplay right there.
Personally this is still my favorite 3D Mario game, but I understand why some people aren’t as big of a fan.
Wait, Galaxy 1 or 2? 😂😂
@@Electrix21 Obviously, he meant 2
what do you mean? those guys are a vocal minority, galaxy 2 is the game of the decade of the 2010 - 2019
@@jytvreal lol, clearly you know absolutely nothing about either game's fanbases. most online polls are 60 - 40 for galaxy 2, which is definitely not a minority for the 1st games. heck, sometimes the 1st game obliterates it on 2. most smg1 fans don't talk too much compared to galaxy 2 fans either. take more notice to things before writing stupidity.
i do agree galaxy 2 is the game of the 2010-2020's tho
@@Albert_Pecanio I believe we met before
I'm sooo happy that you brought Miyamoto to the conversation. Never understude his vision...
Myamoto noooooo D:
th-cam.com/video/a5ZHuEZhKPc/w-d-xo.html
Yeah. _A simple story that does something new and more theming to make the game feel less like it's just a game (an epic journey for example)..._ it should be very hard to damage anyone's experience by adding those elements! I understand why one could be scared of adding slower paced levels... but this is just baffling.
Miyamoto: “This is my artistic view!! To make games simpler and not make anything new at all, I only make gameplay new but when it comes to creativity in level theming and stages I just like to reuse themes and make them as simple and enjoyable as possible. This is my vision”
He seems the be the type that enjoys doing cool things in games not experiencing cool things in games, its a very old style of gaming thought. "I just want to play!" Type of thought. It makes sense hes hard on mario because that was the core of mario but mario is more than that now.
So your only criticism of Galaxy 2 is that it doesn’t have good enough cutscenes?
Everything you describe about the first Galaxy is exactly why I don't like it as much as the second. It's why I couldn't even bother returning to it in Super Mario 3D All Stars. What you describe as "letting the player take everything in" I call "painfully slow pacing."
For example: Comet Observatory. I get people like the idea of a large hub world, as I love them as well… when there's actually something to do in them that involves some sort of progression in the game.
The reason why Peach's Castle and Delfino Plaza were great in my mind was because, aside from being well designed areas, they didn't *just* serve the purpose of getting you from one level to the next. They had their own secrets, and thus people had an incentive to want to explore every nook and cranny.
Comet Observatory doesn't have any of this. Okay, there's the storybook, and that's fine for those who love a good backstory, but there's nothing about it or anything else in the entire hub that involves progressing through the game. The game has "secrets" in the form of the hungry Lumas… but you don't find these guys under a rock or anything. They just show up, and you *buy* your extra levels with star bits.
Comet Observatory does have wonderful music (one of the only ones provided by longtime veteran composer Koji Kondo), but aside from that, there's really nothing to do here. As a result, the observatory just feels unnecessarily large, and getting from one set of levels to the next is a real pain; again, it *KILLS* the pacing, because there's just an unnecessary amount of walking.
With Starship Mario, Nintendo downsized it, likely thinking "we didn't do anything with the last one, we're not even gonna bother this time." Now, I certainly prefer an actual hub world, however, given what Comet Observatory had to offer… I prefer Starship Mario in this case.
And I think part of this is also the fact that a lot of the things that I found "cool" about Galaxy have been done better in later games. Yeah, Galaxy was the first to up the quality by going with a live orchestral soundtrack, but being first doesn't necessarily mean it's the best. I like some of the tunes that Mahito Yokota wrote like Gusty Garden Galaxy… but much of his other orchestral music sounds rather predictable and doesn't do much to violate the listener's expectations (Actually, I found that much of his non-orchestral music did this better).
Furthermore, the first Galaxy doesn't really have a "main theme." It has that six note motif that's used in the opening and other fanfares (and then iterated on in the credits theme), but it doesn't really have a "main level theme" like Super Mario World, Super Mario 64, and Super Mario Sunshine did. Galaxy 2, however, did. Because of this, I happen to remember Galaxy 2's music more. Not to mention, some great level themes for Bowser Jr. and a new Yoshi theme (both also written by veteran Koji Kondo)
Another big issue I have with Galaxy 1 is that didn't quite know what it wanted to be. Yoshiaki Koizumi later classified it as the beginning of the "course-clearing" 3D Mario games when unveiling Super Mario Odyssey. Yet, they tried injecting some "Mario 64/Sunshine" into Galaxy when it came to the unnecessarily large hub world, the postgame purple coin missions which involved some minor exploration… but this really wasn't the core experience of Super Mario Galaxy. Super Mario Galaxy 2 trims all of this out and focuses it
I'll admit, I do actually prefer the older sandbox 3D Marios, and so I would normally appreciate this in theory… I'd much rather have the game firmly be a linear game than the game try and placate both fanbases. Rather than give me some superficial sense of exploration, similar to the hub world which offered little to nothing in terms of actual gameplay… I'd rather have a more focused linear adventure… than a linear game that's also trying to placate those of us who prefer the sandbox style.
I don't *necessarily* mind when a company rests on their laurels a bit… up to a point.I was okay with Galaxy 2 because it was already out of the norm for Nintendo to even do a direct sequel on the same console in the first place (Yoshi's Island does not count. The original Japanese title was "Super Mario: Yoshi's Island," the "World 2" was added by the localization teams), and because at this point in time, the Mario series by no means felt derivative. I figured Nintendo would shake things up on their next console, and use Galaxy 2 as an opportunity to take what worked with Galaxy 2 and refine the hell out of it. This, of course, did not happen, as we ended up getting Super Mario 3D World… which is a whole other rant.
But yes, I will concede that Galaxy 1 has the better presentation with its actual cutscenes… but in terms of the focus and all the little refinements… this is the main reason I'd much rather replay Super Mario Galaxy 2 and not the first game.
hah I though that im the only one who have your points
great job you perfectly explained why I prefer galaxy 2
his biggest mistake was that he criticized just the theory the idea not the execution
Old, but I find your points are very fair. I actually didn't realize I find the music from Galaxy 2 more memorable. It's specifically that Bowser Jr. level theme. Like yeah, of course the Comet Observatory is good and I enjoy it, but if we're going with my own personal tastes, Galaxy 2 probably would have the better songs. I find i actually like a lot of Galaxy 2 and end up attributing it to the first game because I just kinda blend them together in my mind. But often times a lot of stuff I liked came from the second game minus the Rosalina content.
just wanted to say your nintendo switch profile picture enrages me
The biggest complaint I have with your criticisms is the effort to paint Galaxy 2 has a more forgettable experience in terms of it's gameplay compared to Galaxy 1. Throughout your review you describe Galaxy 2's level design as not sticking with you and being rather forgettable, almost portraying it as dumb fun. You liken the game to the New Super Mario Bros games, although there's a clear problem in comparing the two series. The NSMB not only reused the same style of gameplay, but even the same music and same mechanics and level themes as well. In my opinion, Galaxy 2 expands on the style of gameplay found in Galaxy 2 to create unique platform challenges never seen before in Mario, ones that utilize the style of gameplay established in the original but in new and refreshing ways. The Flip-Swap Galaxy, Flipsville Galaxy, and the Upside-Dizzy Galaxies are all great examples of taking concepts from the original, such as the shaking and gravity mechanic, and finding new and interesting ways to utilize them; furthermore, nearly every Galaxy in the game has some sort of unique idea that creates fun and interesting platforming challenges that rise above merely being a gimmick. Puzzle-Plank Galaxy, Cloudy Court Galaxy, Beat Block Galaxy, Cosmic-Cove Galaxy, Spin-Dig Galaxy, or Flip-Out Galaxy all present fun platforming challenges that push the original's gameplay forward. None of these are fun because you're mindlessly jumping around and jumping on platforms. Each idea is refreshingly unique, so saying that the gameplay in 2 doesn't stick with you is misleading, I feel. Saying Galaxy 2 is a "grab-bag of completely random ideas that all taste the same" feels disrespectful to the amount of effort the game puts in to differentiating each and every level and presenting new ideas that test the player in a variety of ways.
Where I agree with you is that the design in each game succeeds for very different reasons. Each game has noticeably different priorities, which is something you acknowledge. The ways you progress in Galaxy 1's levels that align thematically with each level is one of Galaxy's best traits. Galaxy 2 is more interested in moving on to the next idea, and I can see why that may be disappointing to fans of the original. In that way, Galaxy 2 doesn't feel like a true sequel, although I believe the ways in which the sequel expands on the original's core mechanics are what shows the immense respect Galaxy 2 has for the original.
What I won't deny whatsoever is the game is vastly different in tone and atmosphere. In most instances, the games feel completely different in the emotions they're attempting to convey to the player. Galaxy 2 feels more interested in keeping the experience consistently fun, while Galaxy 1 seems more interested in making the player feel more than that. Story and atmosphere can absolutely add to a game and can be what differentiates a bad game from a good game, but in this case, the strengths of Galaxy 2 that I've mentioned before still push through to make it a pretty fantastic game and an interesting sequel.
There a couple other things I wanted to mention but couldn't figure out when to mention them. The comparison between Starship Mario and The Comet Observatory feels strange, as your argument that there's nothing to do on Starship Mario can be applied to the Comet Observatory as well. Aside from Rosalina's storybook, something that only very occasionally updates throughout your adventure, the only thing to do is proceed towards your next star. At least with Starship Mario, there's a mini game you can complete to earn extra lives, you can play around with the Cloud Flower power-up, Yoshi is available to ride, and anyone you may want to talk to is in immediate vicinity to you. Where the Comet Observatory shrines through is that Galaxy 1's atmosphere and music makes this hub very iconic compared to the original. Aside from that particular strength, neither feel necessarily better than the other. Lastly, some of the efforts you make to show how similar the sequel is to the original feel like a stretch; to elaborate, the only similarity Cosmic-Cove Galaxy in Galaxy 2 has with Deep Dark Galaxy in Galaxy 1 is that they're both caves with water. Galaxy 2's level is mysterious, yet mystical and elegant, while Galaxy 1's level is brooding and dark. They're both completely different in tone and approach. And when Freeze-Flame Galaxy's similarities to Shiverburn Galaxy are concerned, Shiverburn actually drastically improves upon the original's approach, as each level here actually incorporates both ice and fire motifs and mechanics, unlike the original where one level was solely ice and the other was fire, and the fire-and-ice theme was only thematic.
I have a few disagreements with you and criticisms of your analysis, but this was a great review otherwise and I hope I didn't come off too harsh in what I said, haha. This has always been a discussion in the Mario community that I've been invested in and it's fun to see both sides of the spectrum when it comes to comparing these two games. I really enjoyed watching your review and I can clearly see the effort you made in articulating your points. This was awesome and I can't wait to watch the next one.
I couldn't agree more! Thank you!
Yeah I definitely agree with this. You perfectly worded how I felt about some of king k arguments.
Although galaxy 2 had many unique challenges, I found that despite that, it was far more forgettable for me. I feel like the atmosphere makes all the difference and I feel like 2 was less memorable in that front. All of those galaxies that you mentioned had interesting mechanics from a technical level, but they felt the same because of the similarity in atmosphere (except cosmic cove, which felt the closest to 1 in atmosphere). I don't think the variety in mechanics makes up for the experience of galaxy 1. I agree with the idea of it being a grab bag of mechanics. Although the mechanics are unique and have a lot of effort put into them, they end up being more forgettable for creating a similar emotion. Nothing in 2 gripped me like the feeling of infiltrating a massive fortress in battlerock, the quiet solitude of space junk, or the foreboding mystery of deep dark. There might be examples that feel that way for you in galaxy 2, but my experience playing 1 is far more important to me and king than any technical gameplay. I don't think he's being misleading, we just had fundamentally different experiences with how the game made us feel. Although the fire and ice level in 2 used it's fire and ice mechanics to a greater effect, freeze flame has such a unique atmosphere and feeling that makes it far better (for me and king) than the one in 2.
@@aidansilli4257 I totally understand that, and I guess the difference comes from what you’re looking for in a game. For me, personally, atmosphere only plays a factor in what makes a level unique. When I play Galaxy 2, the variety of challenges the game presents to you is what makes the game fun and constantly surprising. Although I understand why coming from the first game, someone may not feel that way.
Even still, Galaxy 2’s levels aren’t identical in atmosphere, despite Galaxy 1 doing the best in this department, and the music has a lot to do with it.
Cloudy Court Galaxy is grand and huge, Slimy Spring Galaxy is soft and muted, and all the Bowser levels are intimidating and climactic. The game values gameplay over everything else for sure, but there is an effort to make each level feel distinct both in atmosphere and gameplay.
I think you’re forgetting about Freezeflame’s third star, that one combined ice and fire. Fair points otherwise tho
I agree with you on pretty much every point I just don’t experience the same disappointment as you about Galaxy 2. It is lesser as a whole but I enjoyed it for what it was.
Same
@@atumegaenter9139 same. One of the reasons why I prefer Galaxy 1.
This makes me appreciate Galaxy 1 more, and simply be happy it was the only one to reach the Switch. I would still like to play Galaxy 2, but at the same time I can (after viewing this video) notice the subtle details which made Galaxy 1 so unique, and what made Galaxy 2 more of an expansion pack. Just to clarify, I can’t for definite know which I prefer as I have only played Galaxy 1 on Switch via 3D All-Stars, and have not ever played the “sequel”. But, what I can say is, from what I’ve seen, Galaxy 2 feels like reheating a KFC. It still tastes somewhat good, but doesn’t quite hit the same as when you first bought it. Now, I would LOVE to get my hands on the sequel to see why people love it. And hey, I may play it, and love it way more than Galaxy 1, but when I play Galaxy 1, I feel so immersed because of how (as you put it) it blends the ‘course clear’ style AND the collectathon 3D platformer genres together in one package.
I read an old article recently. It was some of the old guard at Naughty Dog reflecting on the development of Crash Bandicoot and the mission statements they had for the first three games. Obviously the first was super ambitious - create a mascot for the Playstation where it was lacking one, create a GOOD 3D platformer where one didn't exist whilst keeping the elements that made 2D platforming so good intact, do it using state of the art techniques to show off the full power of the Playstation hardware. But something always struck me about the sequel's statement. "Capitalize on what made the first game so much fun, fixing its problems, while not feeling like just more Crash Bandicoot". Crash 3, meanwhile, had a 9 month dev cycle, and they focused so heavily on characterization, comedy, and ideas that, while the core was still Crash 2, it had an entirely unique and different vibe from it.
Looking at Galaxy 2 now and thinking of that, it just amazes me how a company with so much less experience and even less time compared to Galaxy 2 was able to put their thinking in a totally different direction and create a unique experience. You're absolutely right - Galaxy 2's strength is in the moment to moment, whilst it loses the big picture completely. If there were a Super Mario Galaxy 3, you can almost guarantee that this game would be completely forgotten and buried unless G3 somehow completely screwwed itself, while Galaxy 1 would retain the same place it always has. There are some standout levels, but the overall experience is almost tragically replaceable, and I don't think you can say that about any other mainline Mario game until New Soup 2. It's a commodification of the "Mario magic", which is good for short-term gains, but loses its impact in the long run. I feel like Galaxy 2's exclusion from the 3D All-Stars pack is as much about its failure to exist on its own, separate from Galaxy, as much as it is Nintendo's increasingly normal scummy practices. And that's a shame for all the fun Galaxy 2 has, the good ideas it has, the neat species it introduces and then does very little with. It's there, waiting to be made into more, and will probably just be left drifting in space, if I may get grossly pretentious. And, for all your worries on the subject of communicating your feelings, you do an excellent job illustrating that emptiness. Really nice to watch this one.
it's interesting, because while I agree that Galaxy 1's story, characters, narrative design, and so forth, are all stellar (pun intended), probably the best the series has to offer, and deserve to be a template for how games in the series are done going forward, I also don't really... care? When it comes to actually playing the game, I mean. Which is why I don't see Galaxy 2 as "worse" in that regard, even though it is objectively less good - because regardless of which of the two I'm playing, all I want to do is get into a level and start exploring the galaxy and the game's physics. The framing stuff in the first game is great and all, but it's not even remotely why I'm there.
Nah, Galaxy 2 is better than Galaxy 1 because it picked up Galaxy 1's concepts and made actually good levels with it.
The best example I can give is the purple coins, remember how Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bolts started with a line of Jiggies as a joke? Well Galaxy 1 actually does that unironically on a bunch of stages, while Galaxy 2 doesn't.
Another point is that Galaxy 1 has around 6 stars per stage while Galaxy 2 has 3.
That means that Galaxy 2 doesn't burn completionists with any single stage, and keeps things varied constantly, while Galaxy 1 starts to feel extremely repetitive if you go for 100%, which is tiring.
@@julianx2rl and the purple comet only appears at the end. so the last few stars in galaxy 1 are the same boring challenge over and over again
Yeah to be honest, I play Mario because it’s a safe choice in terms of having a consistently good/fun platformer. In the grand scheme of things, I don’t care about the story or presentation. I just want good platforming, so Galaxy 2 is better for me. Not to say Galaxy 1 isn’t good but 2 just takes it further.
@@julianx2rl I only meant 1 is better in terms of story, not necessarily on other points
I think the big thing I’ve found as a Galaxy 2 defender is it seems like a question of how effectively you feel that Super Mario Galaxy accomplished its goals. I’ve always felt like Galaxy was at odds between what the mechanics could do and what the level design wanted to be. I never felt like the mechanics of Galaxy 1 could effectively handle what people say it’s good at. The game never really feels like it’s tasking you to understand the mechanics in a way say Mario Sunshine or Odyssey do, it’s more interested in these bland cinematic moments and forcing half built Super Mario 64 style design even when it’s always felt unfitting. For a lot of people Galaxy 1 is much more of an aesthetic game than a mechanical one so whether or not it accomplishes a control of level design doesn’t really matter
Galaxy 1 is a spectacle but in terms of anything Mario is actually doing it’s hollow and never really feels like it understands how to add challenge or interesting puzzles without adding arbitrary side mechanics. Galaxy 1 feels incredibly on rails and I don’t feel like I gain much from actually playing it because the interesting stuff is the visuals music and tone. When you explained the cool elements of the galaxies from the first game I agree with you but I don’t really feel like any of how you’re describing them is all too important to what I’m actually PLAYING Mario Galaxy for. It’s not really important to me how Gusty Garden looks cause the level is boring and nothing is happening mechanically it’s very autopilot and the aesthetics feel like they’re done as a blanket to hide the bland blueprint underneath. I guess that just shows a difference in what we’re here for.
Galaxy 2 feels like refining the level design in Galaxy 1 in a way that actually fits the scope of what Mario can do. I understand what you’re saying about the expansion but I think as an expansion it shows that they realized the game was designed poorly for what the controls are made for and refined it. I felt myself thinking more critically about how Luigi’s jumps work (cause Luigi is more fun to play as) and the scope of my movement to truly see how far I can push the game to what I need it to go, something I find best in Mario Odyssey and 3D Land (underrated and massively better than 3D World) but also good in this game and is infinitely more satisfying to me than just showing me something explode in the background while I watch a loading screen where Mario flies in space while I can’t control him
Plus Galaxy 2 has Whittles which is better than anything from the first game.
Yeah I definitely agree with this. To me, galaxy 2 is galaxy 1 but realized.
Galaxy 2 levels are just more fleshed out, and frankly more fun to play, to the point than galaxy 1 levels felt more like a tech demo, ambitious but unrealized. They were impressive, sure, but had some much unused potential. In addition, some of galaxy 1 ideas was just flat out undercooked (PURPLE COINS), but where given more time in the oven with 2 ( the coments where WAY better in 2)
Now although galaxy 2 atmosphere is rather different from its predecessor. I believe that both are really good but in completely different ways (akin to Lm 1 and Lm 2). I really can't explain why, but something about Galaxy 2 atmosphere really resonates with me, and that something is COMPLETELY different from the reasons on why I fell in love with galaxy 1 atmosphere. Both are about space, but they each capture a different feel to it.
Now although I enjoyed 2 more than one, that margine of love isn't really that big. There are somethings one did kinda of better two, and there are something 2 did better than 1. Either way both these games are very dear to me, and I believe that they are some of the best platformers ever made.
Agree mostly but 3D Land was so bland and boring in comparison to 3D World that I feel iffy calling it a better game
@@antimatter3084 3D Land vs 3D World is tricky to me. I will concede 3D World is better made but the levels felt too similar in idea to me, in that New Super Mario Bros style where every level adds an idea, reinforces the idea, then has one big final puzzle. Well designed but by the end feels a little rote and over designed where it felt like I was doing the same things every level and doing them exactly the way Nintendo had specifically designed. 3D Land by contrast is less on rails and controlled so I felt like I was able to really get Luigi to do fun things with the game. I admit this is entirely on me but I felt more freedom in 3D Land and it was a more fun experience, even if I will never deny that it’s a sloppier game
Galaxy 1 has a generally slow pace and I get some people like that more relaxed experience, I think since the gravity mechanics and progression through the levels were distinct and like nothing that had been done in a 3D platformer before, they thought it would be difficult for players to get used to the new gameplay and simplified most of the level design and mechanics.
Some people did have trouble getting used to the controls when gravity is reversed, upside-down, ect so I can't say it was the wrong approach.
For me I got used to the new mechanics quickly and felt the game has such low stakes and introduces new mechanics slowly enough that I didn't really get into it.
I think the hub area has good atmosphere but the pacing between levels it causes and it's emptiness doesn't make it as fun to travel through, that said SMG2 hub is kind of disappointing too it feels unfinished or not fully realized.
The green stars aren't worth playing everything again and there are some less fun levels in SMG2, both games have definite flaws so it really depends on preference.
I'm glad someone finally talks about Miyamoto's flaws and dumb decisions.
I mean the the Internet has been shitting on him for quite some time now lol
th-cam.com/video/a5ZHuEZhKPc/w-d-xo.html
Not allowing story to corrupt the mario series is not a dumb decision
@@wiiztec Explain how a story would "corrupt" the mario series, please. Especially when there are already plenty of games with stories that people love.
@@wiiztec Story would "corrupt" the Mario series?
Have you heard of the Paper Mario series, Mario and Luigi series, or Super Mario RPG? In comparison, Mario Galaxy 1 was just a dip in the water, and people still love it.
Tldr: Super Mario Galaxy: Amazing story progression and cohesion
Super Mario Galaxy 2: Good levels and mechanics showcase
Super Mario Galaxy 2 isn’t just one of my favorite games, *it is my favorite game*
I remember coming come from school every Friday and playing it all day and all night 😄
It’s funny that you mention Majora’s Mask in this video, because that game and Galaxy are both my favorites in their series. I think the reasoning is pretty similar for both of them: they have the things I love from their respective franchises, but there’s this certain atmosphere about them that I can’t get enough of. Both of them have always felt like they have this melancholy mood that just pervades every facet of them. They’re both top 10 of all time for me.
As far as Galaxy 2 goes, it’s probably my second favorite 3D Mario. The levels are so much fun (probably better than 1 overall, to be honest) and the music is great, like you said. But the atmosphere of 1 just isn’t there for me. Sure, there are exceptions (Cosmic Cove, Shiverburn, Slimy Spring, Flashblack, etc.) but it just doesn’t feel all-encompassing like in 1. They both have their strengths, but that indescribable feeling 1 gives me puts it ahead. At this point I just like to consider them as one long game though, as was intended.
I’m sure none of this rambling made much sense, but I always like to hear opinions on games I love, even if I don’t necessarily agree with them. Excellent work KingK, as always.
I think if they wanted to make a Mario game with a story-like structure, repeating the Galaxy theme would have been redundant. Galaxy 2 manages to keep the theme and improves on it, while not making Galaxy 1 obsolete.
I mean, there are several Paper Mario games with storylines centered around being paper, more so now than before. I'd even say most story-driven sequels keep the theme of the original, while also expanding on its different elements.
Galaxy 2 kept the theme of Galaxy 1. But instead of expanding on as much as it could, it decided to mostly abandon story, characters, atmosphere, and other non-mechanic elements - and then pumped all that energy into mechanics and level design. While this definitely made for more fun levels, and much more solid gameplay, it arguably lost some important aspects that its predecessor held in high regard.
This is how I think about it too.
The major games in this series all have different names and themes. 64, Sunshine, Galaxy, Odyssey.
So just the name of SMG2 alone, to me, screams "extras".
Galaxy 2 doesn't make the first game obsolete because IT is the one that's obsolete.
The transition from your Intro to the second chapter hit me in my heart. I remember being 10 and playing this game. I remember how fun it was. How it affected me. I played it over and over again and I never stopped loving it. I think it's my favorite game of all time.
Explaining why it's "better" than Galaxy 2 is tough, but I think you did a good enough job. I agree with all of your points and have always felt odd when people say that it's their favorite Galaxy game. My wife grew up with Galaxy 2 so it'll always be her favorite, which I can understand, but... I don't know... Galaxy 1 has a magic to it that Galaxy 2 lacks. They're both fun. Galaxy 2 is a solid 8/10. But Galaxy 1 is, in my opinion, a masterpiece.
A lot of people like mario galaxy 2 more because of its more focused and tighter level design, more satisfying difficulty and better realised ideas. To many people, that’s what’s ultimately the most important thing in a mario game.
Everyone seems to be talking about Odyssey 2 for the Switch's successor console but honestly what I want the most is Galaxy 3.
One thing that’s always felt off to me is the aesthetics of Galaxy 2. It’s stuffed to the brim with skies and clouds, to the point where it’s even on the title screen, despite the fact those things aren’t very indicative of outer space.
I’ve been saying this a lot and I haven’t seen anyone else bring that up. The game is less of a Galaxy and more of a whacky 3D world type thing
This is because galaxies contain clouds.
??? it's because galaxies can have an atmosphere? Are you new to space and how planets work orrr...
I was not going to make this comment at first but after rewatching the retrospective, I can see that many of your arguments are lacking and I would like to address them. So this is going to come from the perspective of someone who’s second favourite video game ever created is Super Mario Galaxy 2 (behind Majoras mask, ironic right?), and I would like to stress that galaxy 1 is also among my favourite games of all time. To start, I respect the opinions in this video and many things you are trying to say but I gotta say, a lot of your points did not make much of an argument to me. Let me start off with what I agree with. Your point about booting out Mario from every green star stages is something that also annoyed me and it’s a reason the green stars feel like such a chore to get through (which would otherwise be an amazing post game) but, I disagree on not booting you out of every stage. Both the galaxy games are different from the the other 2 collectathons because many times you will see the entire level design change which you can’t just do without the boot out system. I also feel this is a much bigger problem in galaxy 1 because it’s so much more of a hassle to get back into the stage in that game vs in galaxy 2 where it’s so seamless to get right back into the game. I also agree with you on galaxy 2 having more cinematic scenes with a grand feel to it and making bowser the antagonist again was sort of a missed opportunity and that is one decision I am still confused why Miyamoto made. All that being said these are HEAVILY outweighed by what makes Galaxy 2 good in the first place.
Now what I disagree with you on is many of your complaints. For one, many of your arguments were stressing about how galaxy 2 is missing the slow paced feel of galaxy 1 and how it gave you a second to breath but that’s something I disagree with because that’s not what galaxy 2 is trying to be. Galaxy 2 is a fast paced game and that’s one reason people love it. Galaxy 2 separates itself from 3D Land and world by having the unique gravity gimmick from galaxy 1 and it separates itself from galaxy 1 by having a much faster pace and it uses its ideas a lot more effectively than galaxy 1. Galaxy 2 is a game that wants you to get on with it and will constantly throw innovative ideas after innovative ideas and thats one reason it’s considered one of the greatest platformers of all time. Galaxy 1 was an amazing platformer but it failed in many areas as a platformer by not using its potential to the fullest. The power ups were also lacking compared to previous Mario games. Galaxy 2 used the older power ups from galaxy 1 to their potential and introduced much more innovative power ups like the rock mushroom, the drill, my personal favourite power up in any Mario game, the cloud flower and last but CERTAINLY NOT least, Yoshi. All these power ups in juxtaposition with their levels are used much more efficiently than the power ups in galaxy 1 and Yoshi in galaxy 2 still has so much potential that if galaxy 3 were to ever come out (which it probably won’t), that should be one of their main priorities.
As someone who prefers gameplay over story in a Mario game, galaxy 2 fixed the flaws of the first game and it not having the same atmospheric feel of galaxy 1 is what manages to differentiate itself from the first game. Otherwise you can just imagine a scenario where galaxy 1 and 2 felt the exact same and looked the exact same where everyone would be complaining there isn’t much to differentiate the games based on feel and look. Mario games were never designed to be renowned for their story because we have 2 separate series for that being Paper Mario and the Mario and Luigi games. You also should have brought up the fact that galaxy 2 is supposed to be a story book retelling of galaxy 1 so it having a relationship with galaxy 1 would not have made sense in the context of the game. I do agree that an optional story would have been a nice touch but when playing the first game, Rosalina’s story almost did nothing to enhance the game for me. This is why I understand Miyamoto’s vision on gameplay over story for a Mario game because the focus on gameplay is what makes Mario games as critically acclaimed as they are and that’s what galaxy 2 executed better than galaxy 1 in almost every way (but I still don’t understand why he thought having optional story was a bad idea). Every level in this game is filled with excitement and wonder just because you can never predict what genius idea is around the corner. This game emphasizes “fun” more than any other game I’ve ever played and this is what gives galaxy 2 it’s own charm. The draw back of this was the game lost some of its atmosphere but it managed to make up for it by having some of the best level design ever seen in a video game. Something else I want to point out is the hub worlds. Galaxy 1 is often praised for having a hub world while galaxy 2 doesn’t really have one but contrary to what many think, the hub world in galaxy 1 was a big waste of time for me. Comparing Galaxy’s hub world to something like Sm64 or SmS makes galaxy’s hub world look like a joke. All it did was get annoying having to keep returning to levels with such a lengthy process. Unlike the huge worlds of sunshine and 64, galaxy’s hub world has nothing to do on it besides walking around and it doesn’t even utilize Mario’s move set like in other 3D Mario games. Heck, Galaxy 2’s hub world actually helps you understand the gravity concept of the game by being a planet which gives you a reason to walk around opposed to galaxy 1 where I’m just rushing to get to the level because the hub world is so bare bones. Galaxy 2 understands this by having the level select right in front of you which adds to the games fast pace. You could replace Galaxy 1’s hub world with galaxy 2’s and place Rosalina’s back story in the head area of star ship Mario and that makes the experience significantly better. So when I played galaxy 2 and realized how seamless it was to get back to the levels, I felt very relieved. Now, Your complaint about the memorability of the levels was one of your weakest arguments. First I would like to point out that this is something that is very subjective when it comes to the galaxy games and there are just as many people who remember galaxy 2’s levels more fondly than galaxy 1’s. Galaxy 2’s levels aren’t remembered for the atmosphere and connectivity of the levels (despite many galaxy 2 levels having these traits), they are remembered for the insane creativity those levels demonstrated and how well these ideas it introduced were executed. Let’s use your argument of freeze flame galaxy. Sure it has a better tone but really the galaxy just feels like it’s a ice level and a fire level that have nothing to do with each other. It’s potential of being a ice level is wasted because it needs to use half that galaxy for its fire level section. This could have been resolved by actually sticking to the name of the level “freeze flame galaxy” and using both fire and ice to merge the mechanics of both to make a unique level. This is where galaxy 2 shines, shiverburn galaxy is what freeze flame galaxy should have been. It starts off with fire but then we realize that the whole mechanic of the level is to use both the fire and ice part of the level to create a truly unique experience and actually put a spin on the “fire and ice levels”. This is the case with many galaxies in smg2. It uses the pre existing concepts in Mario and expands on them to create a fresh experience. Galaxy 1 had a problem with its gravity where the camera and Mario would get all confused when traversing around a planet. Galaxy 2 fixes its camera and makes it so you have a lot more control on Mario. The same could be said for the commet stages. Galaxy 1’s comments felt like a chore to go through because it felt like you were just doing the same thing. The timer comments gave you so much time that you could comfortably go through the level and still have a lot of time left. Compared to galaxy 2 that had a very strict timer and actually required using strategies you would otherwise never try in a level. Cosmic Mario was basically the same thing as the timed stages but a little harder vs the cosmic clones where you really needed to plan all your movements and actually consider routes in levels that were never necessary before but now could be used creatively to outsmart the clones. The difference is that galaxy 2’s comments actually feel different from the original levels whereas galaxy 1’s comments feel like just doing the same level over again. This is why the Luigi stages were such a chore to do because it was just playing the same damn level again. **Continued in the reply section**
My conclusion is that galaxy 2 has a different appeal then galaxy 1. Galaxy 1 had so much potential that galaxy 2 perfected it and that’s the reason many love it more than the first including myself. It does not waste any opportunities to create a innovative idea and expand that idea as much as it can. Saying it’s “just more galaxy” is a very lacklustre argument because it’s not just “more galaxy”, its a game that never tried to separate itself from the series like Majora’s mask or change the plot like dkc2. It’s a game that just try’s to prefect Mario galaxy 1’s gameplay, fill in the areas the first game was lacking, speed up the pace to fully utilize the creatively genius ideas the developers had and put heavier emphasis on gameplay than atmosphere and story, giving the game a different feel than galaxy 1. Your arguments are more against why the game isn’t the way you want it to be when that’s not what the game was trying to be. I believe both are equally good when you get down to it but, most people who prefer one over the other usually have played one game first then felt the other one was underwhelming. I played galaxy 2 first so when I played the galaxy 1, the gameplay didn’t feel as strong to me which kind of soured the experience. That is why I understand your complaints with galaxy 2 since honestly the things you felt were lacking in galaxy 2 were the exact opposite for me of what was lacking in galaxy 1.
@@rebrand7802 I appreciate this so very much.
Very well put out!
Just make a video man, I'd watch it
My eyes hurt... omg so much text lol
I disagree with you on one important point, that being that calling it super mario galaxy more would change things, as for me when I heard super mario galaxy 2, I just thought more of mario galaxy perfect, the same way the mega man 2, is just mega man with more polish with bosses, more weapons, better controls, but mega man x is different, as it plays vastly different to the "normal" rockman games. You also mentioned the new super mario series and i think they are a great example of over saturation, but of course if you had enough of galaxy after one game than that's more than just understandable.
Yeah it's not meant to be different, it literally has 2 in the name, it's a sequel, they're supposed to be similar
@@JJLarge More importantly is that all mario games with numbers or pretty much the same title always haven been extremely similar (mario 1 2 and 3), whilst a different name shows a different game. While other series have done it it differently, like final fantasy changing huge parts of the game between titles with numbers.
The thing here is that, with Mega Man, do you get what Galaxy provides, like the atmosphere and the story? When you play Mega Man, it's mostly just gameplay, with any story just being an excuse for gameplay. As such, a sequel that just expands on gameplay isn't unprecedented. Galaxy is different, when it has more reasons to play it beyond just gameplay
@@lalonmallosson208 Thats a good point, but idk for me it was just clear that 2 would only be more gameplay and not have such a focus on atmosphere.
However Megaman especially the NES games are strictly mechanical games. Mario Galaxy was not that and actually had a sense of scope and impact.
17:32 this is one of the reasons why i love super paper mario. count bleck is fucking amazing. i wish there were more villains with an actual character in mario games
Galaxy 1 ending: 😢
Galaxy 2 ending: 🙄
So you prefer SMG and don't like that people generally consider SMG2 better for the exact opposite reason you think ALTTP is overrated?
If you were to pick up both games as somebody new to the series, you'd probably prefer SMG2.
This
Its about time someone spoke about this. This is something I've been thinking for a while now, which is how much less... I guess... engineering there in Galaxy 2. I always compare the two games using Honeyhive and Honeyhop Galaxy. Both galaxies introduce the concept of the kingdom of bees to the universe, Honeyhive Galaxy shows a massive Kingdom that is wide open and full of life, while Honeyhop is a 2d platformer level where the fact that this is the bee kingdom is just window dressing to a level whose sole purpose is to just have a ton of 2d bee mario challenges. One exists for world building while introducing a new powerup, while the other one is just, more level. As a result its a lot more difficult to connect to these galaxies and make them stand out.
I don’t see how those galaxies are any different in terms of world building.
UHHHHH
Honey *bloom* is the 2d stage.
Honeyhop is not that. Its two large somewhat explorable planets with silver stars.
@@callinater6133 I think the difference is pretty glaring, Honeyhive galaxy presents a full story in 3 acts : the first star introduces the bee kingdom, starting at the main area with bees talking about the castle where the queen resides, then the lower area with the worker bees carrying honey, and then bringing you to the castle the earlier npcs were talking about to meet the queen. Then, the second star introduces the bees' enemies : the mandibugs that have invaded the observation deck. Those same mandibugs come back in the final star and invade the whole kingdom instead, leading the queen to send you to defeat their leader.
Honeyhop and Honeybloom from Galaxy 2 on the other hand have almost none of that, they're just simple platforming challenges with the bee aesthetics serving only as a background and the only thing resembling world building in those galaxies being one of the bees in honeybloom saying that they're looking for a star for the queen.
Honeyhive shows a fully realized society of bees with a neighboring enemy while honeybloom and honeypop only have bees there because the aesthetics fit with the gameplay ideas they had in mind.
And then what I think is even neater about Honeyhive is how it manages to tie this mini narrative into the gameplay by having the first star introduce the bee powerups through the bee npcs talking about their flying, and then the second act introducing the groundpound through the same npcs talking about the groundpound rocks and the mandibugs, and then unify both of these concepts in the third star where you have to use the bee powerup to groundpound the boss.
I feel like this is pretty representative of how both games handle their stages : galaxy 1 wraps its gameplay concepts around neat world building that makes the galaxies evolve as you get all the stars, in a manner reminiscent of sunshine, while galaxy 2 even when it has more interesting ideas, doesnt really pay attention to details in the same way galaxy 1 does which leads to its different stars often feeling pretty disconnected from each other like for example honeyhop's second star that is just a high score mini game with the monkey, following the first star which was about finding silver stars with the bee powerup.
@@magnus3727 calling that a story is pretty hilarious.
I really don’t understand why people try to add meaning to something that doesn’t have any of that.
I, too, often find myself comparing the two bee galaxies. One actually is a 3D platformer level and the other is a reject from _New Super Mario Bros. Wii._
I can't even count the amount of times I played through SMG2 with my siblings back in the day...
The game's theme and narrative isn't any different from the first game when you look at it upon closer inspection. The Observatory in the first game was a representation of a house with the usual home remedies, which had fit that feeling of coming back from collecting a Star, coming home from a long day of dealing with scary bullshit. Starship Mario in this game was a representation of a rental RV, being used to go on a road trip and the galaxies themselves were tourist traps that just so happen to have petrol (Power Stars) for the RV and borders to cross (the Bowser and Bowser Junior levels).
The problem comes with there being no deep underlying throughline that leads to a moment of self reflection as a road trip film like Stand By Me would have that bell and whistle. Lubba is a helpful character who acts as a de-stresser for Mario and Luigi in the game after they do what they do in the galaxies that they travel in and even the player to a certain extent, so it feels arbitrary to not have something beyond that for him. If he made certain comments about more characters taking a ride on the Starship reminding him to what it was like to have a family, and then by the sixth world, he reflected on his journey with Mario, reminding him of what it was like to have a son who would be popular with the other kids, then the characters coming on board Starship Mario would have had a bigger meaning than before.
I totally agree, especially on the fact that a very large majority of the levels do not seem to take place in space, unlike the first in the game. Perhaps they could have added a space pirate side to the history and the environment with why not the return of Tatanga as main villain, that could have been very interesting.
I disagree. I think that within the core idea of "Mario galaxy" there was enough remaining for them to explore, to the point that a sequel was justified. To me, what sets galaxy two apart from 1 is Yoshi, the spaceship, the higher level of difficulty and the stronger focus on levels over story. I played both these games as a kid and I remember them both as positive experiences, each one in its own rights.
wdym by remaining to explore? There are areas to explore like cosmic cove, starshine and whomp's fortress, but other than that there's close to nothing. this is most noticeable with the heavy increase of 2d sections in the 2nd game and the heavy decrease of star chips and pull star chips along with fewer secret star missions overall.
i also believe that galaxy 1 was a harder game too, all things considered. mainly because the difficulty in galaxy 2 was non-existent without comets. whilst the comets here are harder than in the original, the main stars in the game are very easy. meanwhile in galaxy 1, lots of normal stars had plenty of challenge, and followed with a smooth difficulty curve, the levels continuously adapted to your skill. take going from freezeflame galaxy to toy time galaxy. both are challenging in their ways, and build off of ideas from the other. these levels are far more difficult than the normal missions in smg2, and these only appear halfway into the game
@@Albert_Pecanio remaining to explore in terms of mechanics and themes, not in terms of location.
By difficoulty here I don't necessarily mean just how difficult it is to beat, but the overall complexity of the challenges.
I feel the same way about Galaxy 1 vs 2 in that Galaxy 1 totally clicks and 2 just doesn’t. The point about the original Galaxy being more “somber” was a lightbulb moment for me. I always chalk my preference for the original up to atmosphere but a big part of that is the way that it moves at a slower pace and gives you time and space to take in the places that you’re in. I feel like Galaxy 2 tries to be more go go go, gameplay gameplay gameplay, fun fun fun. Even if the gameplay is “better”, when it’s moving so fast you don’t appreciate it nearly as much.
As Somecallmejohnny once says in his Galaxy 1 & 2 review. Doesn't matter which is better. They're both amazing games at there own right.
I may be biased since Galaxy 2 was the first game I was truly excited for (preordered it for my birthday), but I think this video is way too harsh. Galaxy's atmosphere can't be beat, but I don't think it fully explores the gravity mechanic. There are really promising sections of levels that are fun, but they are also really short and quite easy, especially playing it back now. The 2D parts of Battlerock Galaxy come to mind, as do practically all of the games powerups. I mean, the Boo shroom is used for all of a quarter of one level. I find the sequel much more replayable and satisfying.
Man every time people talk about Super Mario Galaxy 1 or 2 and they speak about it’s setting with the soft melody of space themes the games have, it just really outlines the feeling of aloneness but it’s not a bad thing, it’s just relaxing
i completely agree. galaxy 2 is an add on that you play AFTER galaxy 1 in my opinion.
galaxy 1 felt bombastic, the music alone makes you feel like your doing the work of a true heroe. it's the only mario game with an actual story to it, that fits the game and its style. it is almost perfect, except for some levels that could have been improved or replaced.
but this game is an adventure, an experience.
mario galaxy 2 is an almost arcade 3d platformer. an excellent one with better level design but there is almost no excitement in experiencing it. its rather challenging your platforming skills.
nintendo watched this video and decided never to rerelease or mention the game again
It's so wild to me how much I disagree with your theses yet find your videos extremely compelling anyway
i was gone for a year and came back to see your videos have improved tenfold, seriously this is some amazing stuff man. also knowing that someone else feels the same way i do about MG 1 and 2 has put me in a state of absolute euphoria. keep up the good work man!
I think Mario Galaxy is exactly the reason _why_ Mario games should have at least some focus on story. Galaxy's story isn't hard to understand by any means, It's for kids so it's not supposed to be, it's a generic plot of 'bowser stole peach, meet new character, help new character while saving peach" like practically every other Mario game occasionally minus the second step. What makes Galaxy stand out from the other games is not it's story, particularly, but rather its presentation _of_ its story. It goes to show that even the most basic and generic of stories can be some of the most memorable with good writing. I haven't even mentioned the optional storytelling yet either such as the storybook which in itself is a masterpiece but the levels too.
Galaxy has so much love put into it and you can really feel that throughout the levels, they tell a story. Some levels feel sad or empty, reminding you that you're wandering through the depths of space but others are full of action and reminding you that you are not alone. The point is that there's so much variety in aesthetic you never get tired of going back in. As a kid I sunk countless hours into Galaxy and was hyped when I heard that it had a sequel but... it just wasn't the same. I've always been more story-oriented in my approach to games, that is to say, I generally prefer a good story over gameplay but Galaxy 2 was just felt so soulless in its story compared to the original that it turned me away and I didn't even finish Galaxy 2, I just couldn't get immersed in the game like I always was with the original.
38:02
Color Splash is a good example of this.
You'd have to go through an entire level again to get a secret exit. Instead of letting you just walk and find the other exit, you'd be booted out and forced to retread the same level all over again. This was one of my biggest gripes with Color Splash.
*"It doesn't want to be its own thing. It wants to be more Mario Galaxy."*
Well, yes, that is actually how it got started: As an expansion pack for Galaxy 1! So yes, that it is absolutely, 100% what it was originally intended to be!
Thank you for restating my point?
And KingK spends the entire video explaining why if it had stayed as an expansion pack, that would have been fine. But as a sequel, it could have been so much more.
@@godminnette2 But as a sequel it was so much more. It was mario galaxy but now more sure footed, better platforming. It was mario galaxy perfected.
and i dont see how thats a negative at all
@@breadordecide It didn't do much more new. It just had slightly better levels
y'know what, KingK, one thing I really like about your retrospectives is that they always make some mention of the soundtrack in some way shape or form!! i think that for many people this is what sets apart one game from another and really adds to the experience of what makes a game great!
I've always preferred Galaxy 1's atmosphere and story, but to me, Galaxy 2 is a lot more fun. I find its levels more memorable, and it also provides more of a challenge. I found the first game to be pretty easy, and it was borderline insulting to unlock an even easier playthrough upon 100% completion. I wouldn't call myself a huge fan of the Green Stars, but I'd take those any day over just doing the game again. I also found the Prankster Comets and Luigi to be better implemented, but that's just me.
Exactly.
Man you hit the nail on the head with this one. The first Mario Galaxy feels very complete and balanced in a way that very few games can emulate. It has such a rounded mix of crisp gameplay, striking atmosphere, and gripping story/purpose, while also having a full flavor of emotions ranging from exciting, relaxing, unsettling, and somber. I agree that Galaxy 2 fails to deliver such a rounded experience, the ingredients are there but the balance is off. Without the contrasting elements, the game becomes just a bit monotonous, but when it’s all there, each element elevates the impact of its counterpart, making you feel every moment.
im just gonna say now that the sponsor transition was incredible smooth
Every now and then, I see a video essay that is so PERFECT that it simultaneously inspires me to make my content better, and disheartens me because I’ll never make anything anywhere near as good. This is one such video. You’ve earned a subscribe, and I’ll have to look back through your catalogue. As for the actual subject of the video, I don’t even necessarily agree with you about everything, but you put your ideas forward so clearly and persuasively that it doesn’t matter. I grew up playing both Galaxy and Galaxy 2 pretty interchangeably, so it’s hard to remember where one ends and the other begins in my memory. And I guess that’s kind of the problem...
I’m sorry, this is unrelated, but are you from TARDISposting?
arcanehornet I am, yes! I also run a video essay channel, been mostly Doctor Who focussed so far
@@Joe_Brennan_ nice man, I subbed :) btw I completely agree with what you said about the Galaxy games, I grew up playing them as well and so I kinda see them as one big game. They’re both the same to me,
I could never articulate why I preferred the first Galaxy, and yet again KingK's attention to detail and trademark idiosyncratic POV makes it so simple. Great video man keep up the high calibre of content!!
Hey, look! It's yet another good Mario game that Nintendo wants us to forget about!
Super Mario RPG: "One of us!"
Mario Strikers Charged: "One of us!"
Thousand Year Door: "ONE OF US!"
Also, Peach’s castle in this intro (before it gets beamed outta the ground) LOOKS SO DARN GOOD!!! LIKE JUST LOOK AT THE WINDOWS.
The way this video perfectly embodies my fears about BotW 2. I'm scared it'll basically be Mario Galaxy 2 where there's plenty interesting level design and mechanics refined from the original, but the story is just "uhhh Ganon is back and kidnapped Zelda again" in the laziest way possible. Basically these fears stem from the 2nd teaser that was all "Look, Link is in the sky now!" but the story bits were just "Ganon scary, Zelda fell in a hole I guess."
You are the first person to have described Galaxy in a way that makes me actually want to play it.