Mario fans, how would you rank all of the main series entries?

[gf78]

Not really counting the old Gameboy games or re-releases of older titles for the handhelds.  I absolutely despise Mario 64 and Galaxy bored me to tears so much I never played Galaxy 2.  Super Mario Sunshine would be my #11.

Blllassspheemmmyyy!!! 

You must hate 3D platformers. 

LOL...I don't hate 3D platformers.  Love stuff like Spyro, Crash, Banjo-Kazooie, etc.  Mario 64 had a horrid camera.  The levels were lifeless.  The precision jumping on Goombas and Koopa Troopers was replaced with haggling with an uncooperative camera and running around looking for stars.  To me, it was the complete anti-Mario style that turned me off. 

Maybe it was a bit of my "PlayStation high" as well.  PlayStation came along and released a system that opened up new game types.  Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Final Fantasy VII....things just exploded.  Crash, Spyro and Rayman (among others) showed that the platformer could be done and done very well by teams outside of Nintendo.  We had these huge CD-ROM's (for their time) full of data, real music, voices, video, etc. and games stretched across multiple discs. 

So when Nintendo came along with the N64 and I bought it with Mario 64, imagine my disappointment.  Lousy cartridge format.  The most uncomfortable, unwieldy controller I had ever handled.  Chiptune music.  No real voiceovers.  My view of the game's shortcomings (see above).  Every developer under the sun either completely abandoned Nintendo or their output was a fraction of what they were putting on the PlayStation. 

Suddenly, the N64 became an oddity I barely used.  I tried to like it.  The Rare games of the day were fantastic exceptions to my distaste for the system and it's library.  Arguably the biggest games for the N64...I hated or felt indifferent to.  Mario 64?  Hated it.  Ocarina of Time?  Hated it.  GoldenEye 007?  Meh.  StarFox 64?  Meh.  Star Wars Shadows of the Empire?  Meh.  Turok?  Meh.  I spent ridiculous amounts of money on games for it, trying to find something I liked.  And again, Rare was pretty much the only developer that made games on the thing I liked.  Hell, I picked up a copy of Rayman 2 for it even though I already owned it on another system just so I had something else to play on the damn thing.

PlayStation changed everything.  I still purchased Gamecube, Wii, Wii U, DS, 3DS, etc. and numerous games for them.  But for me, Nintendo has forever been relegated to a supplemental system for my PlayStation gaming.

[Warmsignal]

Not really counting the old Gameboy games or re-releases of older titles for the handhelds.  I absolutely despise Mario 64 and Galaxy bored me to tears so much I never played Galaxy 2.  Super Mario Sunshine would be my #11.

Blllassspheemmmyyy!!! 

You must hate 3D platformers. 

LOL...I don't hate 3D platformers.  Love stuff like Spyro, Crash, Banjo-Kazooie, etc.  Mario 64 had a horrid camera.  The levels were lifeless.  The precision jumping on Goombas and Koopa Troopers was replaced with haggling with an uncooperative camera and running around looking for stars.  To me, it was the complete anti-Mario style that turned me off. 

Maybe it was a bit of my "PlayStation high" as well.  PlayStation came along and released a system that opened up new game types.  Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Final Fantasy VII....things just exploded.  Crash, Spyro and Rayman (among others) showed that the platformer could be done and done very well by teams outside of Nintendo.  We had these huge CD-ROM's (for their time) full of data, real music, voices, video, etc. and games stretched across multiple discs. 

So when Nintendo came along with the N64 and I bought it with Mario 64, imagine my disappointment.  Lousy cartridge format.  The most uncomfortable, unwieldy controller I had ever handled.  Chiptune music.  No real voiceovers.  My view of the game's shortcomings (see above).  Every developer under the sun either completely abandoned Nintendo or their output was a fraction of what they were putting on the PlayStation. 

Suddenly, the N64 became an oddity I barely used.  I tried to like it.  The Rare games of the day were fantastic exceptions to my distaste for the system and it's library.  Arguably the biggest games for the N64...I hated or felt indifferent to.  Mario 64?  Hated it.  Ocarina of Time?  Hated it.  GoldenEye 007?  Meh.  StarFox 64?  Meh.  Star Wars Shadows of the Empire?  Meh.  Turok?  Meh.  I spent ridiculous amounts of money on games for it, trying to find something I liked.  And again, Rare was pretty much the only developer that made games on the thing I liked.  Hell, I picked up a copy of Rayman 2 for it even though I already owned it on another system just so I had something else to play on the damn thing.

PlayStation changed everything.  I still purchased Gamecube, Wii, Wii U, DS, 3DS, etc. and numerous games for them.  But for me, Nintendo has forever been relegated to a supplemental system for my PlayStation gaming.

Ah, not a fan of the N64. That makes sense. That's understandable, especially if you were coming from a different console like PS1, which I didn't back then. So I didn't miss things like CD quality music, the PS1 controller, diverse selection of games, etc. In that day, I didn't end up getting a ton of games because we just couldn't afford to, so I didn't notice the lack of quantity on the N64, but I did play the heck out of the games I had.

I think many of your criticisms to Mario 64 can be applied to all early games of the genre. Although, Mario 64 did come before Crash or Spyro, so there was more time to refine those. Pretty much every early 3D exploration based game I can think of in 1995 - 1998 had camera issues for sure. I've never played an early 3D platformer that didn't. I can think of several places in Mario 64 where the camera didn't help matters, but never thought that it ruined the game. Level design was rudimentary yes, as with other games. Tomb Raider is another favorite of mine, but the first game sure feels like you're stranded on the moon with a bad camera guy. That's just how it was back then. But I felt Mario 64 had life in it's environment - in the Bob-omb Battlefield you had the Chomp dog hopping around on the leash, the bob-ombs dancing around, Goombas aimlessly shuffling around, canon balls rolling down a mountain side, canon launchers you could use to blast yourself anywhere, and even wings to just fly. It's hard to expect much more from the experience at that time, especially when there wasn't much of any precedent for that type of game. The soundtrack, chiptune or not, I thought sounded good. Some of my favorite Mario tunes, they're so catchy!

If you come off of Spyro and other PS1 games and play N64 I can see how you might not be so impressed. It is what it is, and I think we all have a slight bias towards whatever it is we had or experienced first. I know I had my criticisms of PS1 when I first adopted it, like load times, pop-in, jagged polygons, though in hindsight it was really nothing to complain about.

[gf78]

Ah, not a fan of the N64. That makes sense. That's understandable, especially if you were coming from a different console like PS1, which I didn't back then. So I didn't miss things like CD quality music, the PS1 controller, diverse selection of games, etc. In that day, I didn't end up getting a ton of games because we just couldn't afford to, so I didn't notice the lack of quantity on the N64, but I did play the heck out of the games I had.

I think many of your criticisms to Mario 64 can be applied to all early games of the genre. Although, Mario 64 did come before Crash or Spyro, so there was more time to refine those. Pretty much every early 3D exploration based game I can think of in 1995 - 1998 had camera issues for sure. I've never played an early 3D platformer that didn't. I can think of several places in Mario 64 where the camera didn't help matters, but never thought that it ruined the game. Level design was rudimentary yes, as with other games. Tomb Raider is another favorite of mine, but the first game sure feels like you're stranded on the moon with a bad camera guy. That's just how it was back then. But I felt Mario 64 had life in it's environment - in the Bob-omb Battlefield you had the Chomp dog hopping around on the leash, the bob-ombs dancing around, Goombas aimlessly shuffling around, canon balls rolling down a mountain side, canon launchers you could use to blast yourself anywhere, and even wings to just fly. It's hard to expect much more from the experience at that time, especially when there wasn't much of any precedent for that type of game. The soundtrack, chiptune or not, I thought sounded good. Some of my favorite Mario tunes, they're so catchy!

If you come off of Spyro and other PS1 games and play N64 I can see how you might not be so impressed. It is what it is, and I think we all have a slight bias towards whatever it is we had or experienced first. I know I had my criticisms of PS1 when I first adopted it, like load times, pop-in, jagged polygons, though in hindsight it was really nothing to complain about.

Yeah, it's just preference and where I was coming from.  I picked up the N64 in '98.  At that time, I had already played many of the games I mentioned earlier.  Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon were already out as was Final Fantasy VII, Castlevania Symphony of the Night and Metal Gear Solid by the time I bought the N64.  The polygon models on the N64 weren't as jagged as the PS1, but the textures were blurry instead of grainy.  Lol. 

I was always a huge, huge fan of the NES and SNES and the games available on those systems.  Both from Nintendo and from 3rd parties.  The PlayStation-aside from the lack of the Nintendo-made titles, was the natural progression to me.  All of the big 3rd party developers who's games I loved on the NES and SNES kept making great games....just on PlayStation now. 

So from my POV, all the 3rd party games moved to PlayStation and the continuation of beloved series like Mario and Zelda took a direction that I didn't care for on the N64.  To add fuel to the fire, as an avid comic book reader I hated the Turok reboot by Valiant and the N64 game just shoved it in my face.  Then you have Pierce Brosnan's mug on the cover for GoldenEye 007 who I thought was one of the worst Bond's to disgrace the silver screen.  LOL...I guess me & the N64 were destined to be enemies.   

I had high hopes with Gamecube and I was pleasantly surprised by it.  Bought it at launch and loved Rogue Leader, Luigi's Mansion, Metroid Prime, Super Smash Bros., etc.  But then Nintendo sold Rare off, 3rd party support quickly dried up (with a few notable exceptions) and what games were left that were multiplatform were usually lower quality than the PS2 or Xbox because of the limited storage space on those dinky little discs. 

But...I'm an optimist and when the Wii rolled out, I bought it within a few weeks of launch despite my less than stellar experiences with the N64 and Gamecube.  And I hated it.  The games were all hindered by forced motion controls that never felt natural to me and for me, made controlling the games more difficult.  Mario Galaxy was a preorder, day-1 pickup for me complete with bonus commemorative gold coin.  But I found the game tedious and hated rocketing from planetoid to planetoid.  Again like Mario 64-the core elements that made Mario games so fun to me were missing.  A few shining stars like Donkey Kong Country and New Super Mario Bros. Wii (among others) were the system's only saving grace to me.  I absolutely hated Nintendo's newfound focus on the casual crowd and rolled my eyes every time I saw some grandma's bowling with Wii Sports. 

Enter the Wii U.  I resisted for awhile, but broke down and bought the Wind Waker limited edition system.  I was pissed that I got a download code, even for the Zelda book.  For me, packaging a download code in lieu of a physical game is a cop out and only saves the manufacturer a buck.  But...ok.  Got some good 1st party stuff, but after an initial batch of 3rd party games, they dried up.  Releases have been a trickle at best and even Nintendo-published games like Bayonetta 2, Devil's Third and Fatal Frame seem to be shunned by Nintendo like they are ashamed of them.  Now Nintendo seems to be pretty much giving up on the Wii U in favor of the NX, their next system rumored to be weak sauce compared to the PS4 and Xbone and their completely bone-headed handling of the Amiibo situation.

Sorry to go on so long, but I just want you to understand where I am coming from.  And...I'm at work and bored.   

[burningdoom]

No deep understanding needed why he didn't like Super Mario 64: Super Mario 64 was a big, empty game. A big empty game where you repeated the same levels over and over again.

I understand the technical aspect of it, as it was one of the first 3D platformers with big, open levels to explore. Rather than just rooms, caverns, and canyons, and corridors like others had been. But there just wasn't much there in those big open levels. So much open space.

Personally, that wouldn't be so bad for me if I was able to explore a new area each stage. But instead, you have to play the same level like 5 times over, which is just plain lazy game design. But since it's Mario, nobody ever mentions that it's lazy game design.

And where's all the power-ups?!

I'm also with him when it comes to games like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, and even Pac-Man World. Those were fun 3D platformers. Granted, many of them didn't have the big open levels of Mario, but they were jam-packed with enemies, items, and secrets and such that kept you going. And you weren't forced to repeat levels.

[gf78]

No deep understanding needed why he didn't like Super Mario 64: Super Mario 64 was a big, empty game. A big empty game where you repeated the same levels over and over again.

I understand the technical aspect of it, as it was one of the first 3D platformers with big, open levels to explore. Rather than just rooms, caverns, and canyons, and corridors like others had been. But there just wasn't much there in those big open levels. So much open space.

Personally, that wouldn't be so bad for me if I was able to explore a new area each stage. But instead, you have to play the same level like 5 times over, which is just plain lazy game design. But since it's Mario, nobody ever mentions that it's lazy game design.

And where's all the power-ups?!

I'm also with him when it comes to games like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, and even Pac-Man World. Those were fun 3D platformers. Granted, many of them didn't have the big open levels of Mario, but they were jam-packed with enemies, items, and secrets and such that kept you going. And you weren't forced to repeat levels.

Ah...Pac-Man World.  How could I forget that one when I just bought it the other day?     Add in great games like Pandemonium!, Klonoa Door to Phantomile and MediEvil among others to the fun platformers/2.5D/3D games of that time. 

[Warmsignal]

No deep understanding needed why he didn't like Super Mario 64: Super Mario 64 was a big, empty game. A big empty game where you repeated the same levels over and over again.

I understand the technical aspect of it, as it was one of the first 3D platformers with big, open levels to explore. Rather than just rooms, caverns, and canyons, and corridors like others had been. But there just wasn't much there in those big open levels. So much open space.

Personally, that wouldn't be so bad for me if I was able to explore a new area each stage. But instead, you have to play the same level like 5 times over, which is just plain lazy game design. But since it's Mario, nobody ever mentions that it's lazy game design.

And where's all the power-ups?!

I'm also with him when it comes to games like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, and even Pac-Man World. Those were fun 3D platformers. Granted, many of them didn't have the big open levels of Mario, but they were jam-packed with enemies, items, and secrets and such that kept you going. And you weren't forced to repeat levels.

That argument seems pretty unfair. They repeated the basic formula on Sunshine and Galaxy, except there was more objectives and more enemies. Still, it was open worlds with objective based gameplay. The same argument could be made for anything like GTA. Massive open worlds that are mostly empty and repetitious still the objective based gameplay is fun (to some).

 I think Mario needed a change of pace as many games do. People complain about Sonic trying to change but it needed to change as well. Perhaps the dullest Mario experience for me is the Super Mario 3d World on Wii U. We've repeated that same experience since 2006, and it's just not exciting for me anymore. I want more of the open world objective based games.

 I don't think I'd be as fond of Mario 64 if it had been a Crash Bandicoot type of game. Obviously it couldn't be Hyrule Warriors or Elder Scrolls being a cartridge based game in 1996, but had the potential to be something entirely different from the past games and I'm glad they took that opportunity because I like the style of gameplay.

[maximo310]

No deep understanding needed why he didn't like Super Mario 64: Super Mario 64 was a big, empty game. A big empty game where you repeated the same levels over and over again.

I understand the technical aspect of it, as it was one of the first 3D platformers with big, open levels to explore. Rather than just rooms, caverns, and canyons, and corridors like others had been. But there just wasn't much there in those big open levels. So much open space.

Personally, that wouldn't be so bad for me if I was able to explore a new area each stage. But instead, you have to play the same level like 5 times over, which is just plain lazy game design. But since it's Mario, nobody ever mentions that it's lazy game design.

And where's all the power-ups?!

I'm also with him when it comes to games like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, and even Pac-Man World. Those were fun 3D platformers. Granted, many of them didn't have the big open levels of Mario, but they were jam-packed with enemies, items, and secrets and such that kept you going. And you weren't forced to repeat levels.

That argument seems redundant. They repeated the basic formula on Sunshine and Galaxy, except there was more objectives and more enemies. Still, it was open worlds with objective based gameplay. The same argument could be made for anything like GTA. Massive open worlds that are mostly empty and repetitious still the objective based gameplay is fun (to some).

 I think Mario needed a change of pace as many games do. People complain about Sonic trying to change but it needed to change as well. Perhaps the dullest Mario experience for me is the Super Mario 3d World on Wii U. We've repeated that same experience since 2006, and it's just not exciting for me anymore. I want more of the open world objective based games.

 I don't think I'd be as fond of Mario 64 if it had been a Crash Bandicoot type of game. Obviously it couldn't be Hyrule Warriors or Elder Scrolls being a cartridge based game in 1996, but had the potential to be something entirely different from the past games and I'm glad they took that opportunity because I like the style of gameplay.

I thought that Super Mario 3D world was the same thing as Super Mario 3D land( probably one of the most boring Mario games considering some of the game design) just with levels built with multiplayer support in mind. I'd really like to see a Sunshine 2 that gives more complexity in game mechanics/levels and lets you switch between more then 2 nozzles in a single level.       

Mario 64 defenitely hasn't aged well in some aspects, but I think that's mostly to the system limitations ( textures are blurry because of the system design flaw) and being the first 3-d platformer that let you move in any direction instead of being confined to a set path. It set up the template for other 3-d platformers to follow on, and maybe that's why they decided to change the game mechanics and level design to reflect the move to 3-D, and perhaps to give you the space to explore I guess.  The DS remake does have a few differences in new levels as well.

[burningdoom]

Mario 64 is completely different than GTA and Elder Scrolls. Those are entire living worlds to explore and interact with. Mario 64 were open levels, that were far more limited. And while your GTAs and ESs are objective-based, they aren't repeating those same limited spaces (or levels) over and over. One feels like legitimate exploring, the other feels like repetition; to me at least.

[kamikazekeeg]

I love Mario 64 

I wish 3D Mario games would go back to the 64/Sunshine style of open worlds, but now they can add a lot more to everything.  Even if you didn't care for how empty and repetitive Mario 64 was, it was certainly the more interesting direction to take the series with the likes of Sunshine and even some of Mario Galaxy 1, even if Mario 64 wasn't fully realized.  Leave the standard Mario stuff for the 2D games and use the 3D ones to actually do something interesting.  I enjoyed my time in 3D World, but it's just way too much of the same thing Mario has been doing for years and it wasn't all that different from 3D Land down to repeat bosses.

[gf78]

Everyone has their own opinions on games and judging by Metacritic and GameRankings averages, a great many people love Mario 64 and the Galaxy games.  My reasons for disliking them has already been stated and Burning Doom added a few more points I neglected to mention like no power-ups.

And in contrast to what some here have said about Mario 3D World and 3D Land, I absolutely love those games.  The cat suit, multiplayer, carrying around your friend on your head...my daughter and I had a blast with these games.   

[olly88]

1) Yoshi's Island
2) Super Mario World
3) Super Mario 64
4) Super Mario Bros. 3
5) Super Mario Bros. 2

I can't rank the rest, it would be ridiculously hard. It was hard enough ranking 2-5 since I could easily do it again with them in a different order.

[Warmsignal]

Mario 64 is completely different than GTA and Elder Scrolls. Those are entire living worlds to explore and interact with. Mario 64 were open levels, that were far more limited. And while your GTAs and ESs are objective-based, they aren't repeating those same limited spaces (or levels) over and over. One feels like legitimate exploring, the other feels like repetition; to me at least.

In GTA you have to do so many objectives before it will usually allow you to access more of the world. Regardless, I don't see anything lazy about a game design that has you achieving multiple objects before moving on to the next level or world in the game. Jak and Daxter Precursor Legacy is IMO probably the best platformer on PS2 and it plays the same way minus transitions, having you to run around finding orbs and giving them to people in order to get a power cell and move on to the next area. But it's PS2, so the worlds are more animated, more enemies and more things to explore.

I can think of a lot of games and platformers that have this set-up, and I don't see it as a problem.

[kamikazekeeg]

Everyone has their own opinions on games and judging by Metacritic and GameRankings averages, a great many people love Mario 64 and the Galaxy games.  My reasons for disliking them has already been stated and Burning Doom added a few more points I neglected to mention like no power-ups.

And in contrast to what some here have said about Mario 3D World and 3D Land, I absolutely love those games.  The cat suit, multiplayer, carrying around your friend on your head...my daughter and I had a blast with these games.   

They are fine Mario games for sure, I wouldn't have played them if they weren't, but to me, the 3D games were about doing more with the series, having a bigger story and worlds.  I hated them dropping the hub world mostly by Galaxy and then pretty much completely by Galaxy 2.  I mean Mario has had multiplayer since 2009, so it's not a new addition and while the cat suit is a fun little thing, it doesn't really change up the game.  To me, they aren't trying to do anything that Mario hasn't done since Super Mario 3.  They've regressed the series since the Galaxy days.  It's why I've felt that if they just want to rehash the old Mario style, leave that to the 2D and let the 3D be the one where they can show off stuff that is really new and fun.  I want to see cool bosses again lol

[gf78]

In GTA you have to do so many objectives before it will usually allow you to access more of the world. Regardless, I don't see anything lazy about a game design that has you achieving multiple objects before moving on to the next level or world in the game. Jak and Daxter Precursor Legacy is IMO probably the best platformer on PS2 and it plays the same way minus transitions, having you to run around finding orbs and giving them to people in order to get a power cell and move on to the next area. But it's PS2, so the worlds are more animated, more enemies and more things to explore.

I can think of a lot of games and platformers that have this set-up, and I don't see it as a problem.

Mario 64 just sucked IMO.  I don't have a problem fetching items and actually quite enjoyed Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie.  But Mario 64 was the same, small levels that you just had to keep repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating ad nauseum to find a stupid star.  It was baren.  Power-ups were basically non-existent.  The camera was a chore to control and drove me insane trying to do flips & jumps. 

I don't view Nintendo and their games with rose colored glasses.  They have made some great stuff, but for me some of it is crap.  I don't give them a free pass.

[gf78]

They are fine Mario games for sure, I wouldn't have played them if they weren't, but to me, the 3D games were about doing more with the series, having a bigger story and worlds.  I hated them dropping the hub world mostly by Galaxy and then pretty much completely by Galaxy 2.  I mean Mario has had multiplayer since 2009, so it's not a new addition and while the cat suit is a fun little thing, it doesn't really change up the game.  To me, they aren't trying to do anything that Mario hasn't done since Super Mario 3.  They've regressed the series since the Galaxy days.  It's why I've felt that if they just want to rehash the old Mario style, leave that to the 2D and let the 3D be the one where they can show off stuff that is really new and fun.  I want to see cool bosses again lol

I think a lot of my enjoyment with the 3D (World & Land) has to do with the context in which I played them.  A lot of it was probably my daughter and I doing it together.  There was a certain amount of joy in that itself.

Mario has never been much on story.  It's been "the princess has been kidnapped!" basically since the first game.  I know various games in the series deviated from this, etc. but I'm just putting the general gist out there.  As soon as I fired up New Super Mario Bros. Wii U and Peach gets kidnapped...I rolled my eyes.  It's the same stuff that's been happening since day one.  But the controls were spot-on and I got to run gloriously from left to right and fuel my nostalgia.

I guess I had preconceived notions of what Mario 64 was going to be.  And when my expectations weren't met, I resisted the change.  Same with Zelda.  I've tried to pick these games up much more recently, thinking that my opinions may have changed.  Unfortunately, they haven't.