Poll of the Day > So why is Super Mario 64 the best?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It looks like crap, the controls are clunky, and by all measures each of its sequels should be miles better than it.

Yet today's poll shows most people, including me, think SM64 is the best one. Can someone explain this to me?
---

I'm sure nostalgia's a major factor.
---

Here's an old post of mine that's pretty relevant: "When I was Young, Sunshine was my favorite Mario game."
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/198848-super-mario-64/75287898

Between the epic scale of the game, its advancements from SM64, graphical and control-wise, its overall excellent design, and the general hard-on I have for the GameCube, Sunshine has always had a legendary status to me.

Moreover, SM64 was always overshadowed by Rare's adventure platformers, to the point where I never even collected the 70 stars needed to face Bowser (my older brother did, so I had access to the whole game). But I've recently played both games as an adult.

And oh man was SM64 amazing. I'd actually put it in my top 10 games of all time, and that's with no nostalgia factoring in.

Sunshine, indeed, was a great adventure collect-a-thon. But it felt closer to Banjo-Kazooie than Super Mario. It was very story driven, with a robust, lively world and many different styles of objectives. (not that those are bad things!) But SM64... between its basic, straight forward objectives, which basically consisted of straight platforming, and the design theory and atmosphere of the levels and worlds, felt 100% Mario from begining to end, and you bet I didn't stop till 120 stars. I will never even have the notion to go for 100% on Sunshine.

Don't get me wrong, Sunshine was great. A solid 8/10 for its time, which is a score I'd give some I'd my all-time favorite games. But for it's time, SM64 was a total 10/10. Sunshine had a lot wrong with it. I won't get into it, this list the place. But the only real criticism I have for 64 is its camera, and its design is completely justifiable for two reasons:

A) the idea was not to have a free moving camera. The camera was supposed to emulate the static camera of 2D Mario games, which is why you could only rotate in 90 increments. So, once you resign to the idea that you can't really control the camera and play the whole game without touching the camera buttons, you get an experience closer to a static camera, and the camera stops fighting you and works with you, quite smoothly. (usually)

B) this should go without saying, but SM64 was pretty much the first fully realized 3D world with a dynamic camera system. This was the industry's first attempt, and while it was a little rough around the edges, it worked, and his been improved upon ever since.

So, yeah. I can safely say Super Mario 64 is, hands down, my favorite Mario game. And I'm glad I can confidently say that without nostalgic hang-ups.

Before I go, one final shout out for a feature that went entirely unappreciated: the Mario cam. To those unaware, at any time, you could press the R button to put the camera up close, right behind Mario. I don't think anyone who didn't get SM64 around release can appreciate it's application, but when you'd grown up with Mario's 2D outings, and now in this new, huge 3D adventure, you have the option to experience it from Mario's point of view? Holy cow! It was mesmerizing. If SM64 was released on this day and age, you can be sure it would've just been an FPS view button, like Bethesda games have.
---

Nostalgia, 90s games dominate on this website.
---

bigstar66 posted...

It looks like crap

That's hardly a valid criticism 21 years later...

Personally I don't know how to vote. Mario 64 is the only one I spent a lot of time on and liked enough to call it a favorite in any regard. Sunshine is too weird and I never got into the Galaxy games. The 3D games are good but I don't know if I'd call them better than 64.

However 64 is dated, there's no denying it. I probably wouldn't care if it had dual-analog controls like Super Mario Sunshine but it doesn't so that's a handicap.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

I'm sure nostalgia's a major factor.

This. Galaxy is miles better
---

I picked Sunshine because I knew everyone was gonna pick 64
---

I'm not saying it's the best, but SM64 is certainly my favorite. Nostalgia is a factor, sure, but I wouldn't have that nostalgia if I didn't greatly enjoy the game.
---

I'm guessing it's the one most people played.

Personally 64 is my second or third favorite. 3D Land/World games are an entirely different style; I still like them them but I prefer the other games, aside from Sunshine which has some issues.

Not anymore. Super Mario Odyssey is the best Mario game ever made.
---

Because opinions.
---

Because it is
---

I'm not entirely sure. I don't think it's all nostalgia (though that's a big element of it), particularly where Sunshine should be nearly as nostalgic (15 years is old enough to warrant nostalgia). I do know that I replayed it and Banjo Kazooie fairly close together a few years ago, and I found that, while BK was objectively the better example of the genre, I walked away from SM64 feeling better about the game than I did with BK. Something about it is just plain fun, in a very subtle, charming way.

Granted, I think part of that is just that SM64 has better credits music than BK, and I often find that has a major impact on my lasting impression of the game (particularly if I don't play much past the credits, since it ends up being one of my last experiences with the game before walking away from it).
---

Try playing any 3D platformer made at the time and tell me that it's better. Actually I'll go even further and say, try playing any other 3D platformer made at the time and tell me it is even a 3D platformer.

I replayed the game recently. I wasn't expecting the game to hold up TBH because so many of those old N64 games don't, but I played through the whole thing and the game to my surprise still works. Really fun, fair challenge, a few of the stars suck but the variety in the play experience is there so you keep going all the way to 120 stars. That was one quality I really liked about it too - that there was still a hunger to do everything in the game. I feel like a lot of later Mario games just load your plate with busywork bulls*** that you have no interest in doing because it's boring (blue coins in Sunshine, or getting the top of the flag bonus in 3D World).

Galaxy 2 is severely underrated, or people didnt play it.

People are blinded by nostalgia for Mario 64. Its a great game for the time it came out, but its definitely worse than Galaxy or Galaxy 2.
---

You can throw that baby penguin right in front of the penguin mom
---

Lueshis_Story posted...

Galaxy 2 is severely underrated, or people didnt play it.

People are blinded by nostalgia for Mario 64. Its a great game for the time it came out, but its definitely worse than Galaxy or Galaxy 2.

Galaxy was good. A better game than Sunshine but that's not saying much (although I need to replay Sunshine so I can know if that game is really as disappointing as I remember it being). I'd have to replay Galaxy again, I remember enjoying it but it didn't spark an obsession that Mario 64 did.

I'll agree with you that Galaxy 2 is just an awesome game. It was the first Mario game since 64 that gave me that feeling like I had to do everything in the game.

A hub world full of secrets does wonders for increasing the quality of a game. Galaxy shit the bed on that.
---

Boobsicle posted...

A hub world full of secrets does wonders for increasing the quality of a game. Galaxy shit the bed on that.

Secrets in a platforming game are overrated. I don't want to be walking around trying to find shit in a platforming game. A little bit of that is OK because it helps you get a lay of the land. Too much of it and it's just feeding on compulsive personalities.

I did love Peach's Castle. Not just cool to walk around in the area where Peach actually lives, but an innovative solution to the N64's lack of disc space.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Boobsicle posted...

A hub world full of secrets does wonders for increasing the quality of a game. Galaxy shit the bed on that.

Secrets in a platforming game are overrated. I don't want to be walking around trying to find shit in a platforming game. A little bit of that is OK because it helps you get a lay of the land. Too much of it and it's just feeding on compulsive personalities.

I did love Peach's Castle. Not just cool to walk around in the area where Peach actually lives, but an innovative solution to the N64's lack of disc space.

Secrets are overrated to you. But to most, no, they arent.
---

Maybe you had not been born yet, or were too young to appreciate the game when it came out.

Mario 64 was not only the first 3D Mario, it was also the birth of a genre. At the time, the graphics, the game play, and environments were revolutionary.

The jump from SNES Mario to N64 Mario is extraordinary and with all technical aspects aside, the game is actually fun!
---

Even 3D World is a better game than 64 is.
---

wah_wah_wah posted...

Lueshis_Story posted...

Galaxy 2 is severely underrated, or people didnt play it.

People are blinded by nostalgia for Mario 64. Its a great game for the time it came out, but its definitely worse than Galaxy or Galaxy 2.

Galaxy was good. A better game than Sunshine but that's not saying much (although I need to replay Sunshine so I can know if that game is really as disappointing as I remember it being). I'd have to replay Galaxy again, I remember enjoying it but it didn't spark an obsession that Mario 64 did.

I'll agree with you that Galaxy 2 is just an awesome game. It was the first Mario game since 64 that gave me that feeling like I had to do everything in the game.

I replayed Sunshine for the first time since 2003 earlier this year. It wasn't as bad as I remember but it's definitely flawed.

Boobsicle posted...

A hub world full of secrets does wonders for increasing the quality of a game. Galaxy shit the bed on that.

Unfortunately the hub world full of secrets in Sunshine was ultimately pointless since none of those Shines count towards unlocking the final stage, just towards 100% completion which also require you doing the annoying coin missions. I personally loved Galaxy's hub world for the atmosphere and music. Having more secrets would've been nice but it's not really a deal breaker.

it has the best grabbling them by the tail and spinning them techonlogy.
---

Well, looking at the results, the only two games that come close to matching Mario 64 are Sunshine and Galaxy, so you've got half the poll that people don't seem to like that much. On top of that, Sunshine is generally seen as somewhat divisive due to it's FLUDD mechanic, and Blue Coins, while Galaxy.....I dunno, perhaps people just didn't like it as much?

Boobsicle posted...

A hub world full of secrets does wonders for increasing the quality of a game. Galaxy shit the bed on that.

It does wonders for increasing the amount of exploration there is to do, but it's far from being necessary to have a good game. Galaxy didn't try to do that. It was a shift from an exploration-heavy collectathon to a purer 3D platforming game, meaning the whole game didn't have as much exploration (a trend which Galaxy 2 further built upon, and then 3DL/W completed the transition). An exploration-heavy hub world (or even a hub world at all) isn't really necessary in that new paradigm, so it was dropped.

Basically, Galaxy wasn't supposed to be like 64 or Sunshine. It was a different kind of game, and it was a shining example of that kind of game, with platforming level designs that were just a joy to play through in lieu of having exploration get in the way of platforming. Galaxy 2 offered even better level designs, while cutting down the exploration even further, and it was similarly a joy to play.
---

I think this poll is a good example of the difference between "favorite" and "best". I think the Galaxy games are much better, but I played them for the first time just a few months ago. Even if I did play them when they came out, I would've been basically an adult at that point. Super Mario 64 is my favorite out of the list because it was the one I played first and the most. I didn't even really like it that much at the time, and sometimes still don't like it now, but it always had its moments. Discovering the invisible painting in the mirror, the painting height trick for Wet-Dry world, and the different entrances to Tiny-Huge Island were mesmerizing as a kid.

adjl posted...

Basically, Galaxy wasn't supposed to be like 64 or Sunshine. It was a different kind of game

This is what some people don't seem to get. It's fine if you prefer open exploration games, but a 3D game having linear level design doesn't automatically make it suck.

Lireal2401 posted...

adjl posted...

Basically, Galaxy wasn't supposed to be like 64 or Sunshine. It was a different kind of game

This is what some people don't seem to get. It's fine if you prefer open exploration games, but a 3D game having linear level design doesn't automatically make it suck.

I think part of the problem was that it wasn't presented as being clearly a different game. Galaxy 1 in particular still had a hub world, so one could be forgiven for expecting another game like 64/Sunshine, but it was a very limited hub world that would have disappointed that expectation. Looking at it after finishing it, I can see the evolution of the series and the genre shift that started with Galaxy and reached completion with 3DW, but there wasn't really any reason prior to release to expect anything other than a sequel to Sunshine (despite widespread complaints that Sunshine had very little real platforming outside of the FLUDD-less sections, which a more platforming-centric game would have addressed), so I can understand the disappointment.
---

Parallel
Universes
---

Because I'm 28 and get off my fucking lawn

Black_Assassin posted...

Parallel
Universes

I don't want to live in a world where that video ever gets old.
---

It's not. It's just the most popular since it was a peak era for Mario and nostalgia.

Galaxy was a vocal favorite and still is for anyone who's played both.

Right now, nostalgiacs are on a high because Odyssey "returned" to the larger world format that 64 had.
---

Honestly I just hated traversing those round planets and how it changed the direction you had to point to walk properly. I got used to it but it was still annoying and I'd rather just walk on flat ground

Black_Assassin posted...

Parallel
Universes

Loool
---

Rango posted...

Galaxy was a vocal favorite and still is for anyone who's played both.

Wow. No. What an ignorant thing to say.

If you like the exploration aspect more, SM64 and Sunshine are much better. If you just want a 3D platformer for platforming's sake, then the Galaxy games do it wonderfully. I prefer exploration (favorite genres are collectathons and metroidvanias), so I prefer SM64 and Sunshine.
---

Boobsicle posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

Boobsicle posted...

A hub world full of secrets does wonders for increasing the quality of a game. Galaxy shit the bed on that.

Secrets in a platforming game are overrated. I don't want to be walking around trying to find shit in a platforming game. A little bit of that is OK because it helps you get a lay of the land. Too much of it and it's just feeding on compulsive personalities.

I did love Peach's Castle. Not just cool to walk around in the area where Peach actually lives, but an innovative solution to the N64's lack of disc space.

Secrets are overrated to you. But to most, no, they arent.

Most? I mean the games are called platforming games. There should be an emphasis on action rather than discovery. That's for Zelda.

Lireal2401 posted...

adjl posted...

Basically, Galaxy wasn't supposed to be like 64 or Sunshine. It was a different kind of game

This is what some people don't seem to get. It's fine if you prefer open exploration games, but a 3D game having linear level design doesn't automatically make it suck.

Galaxy wasn't either linear or non-linear. It was a smart game that adopted aspects of the 2D platforming games into 3D design. It didn't shy away from design elements that worked because "no that's for 2D"... Mario 64 didn't do that either, but Mario 64 was trying to do something entirely different than what was done before and not crutch on the 2D formula (which is what many platformers did at the time, a psuedo 3D style that wasn't truly 3D). That doesn't mean all games had to be like Mario 64 going forward.

avatarmight posted...

Wow. No. What an ignorant thing to say.

If you like the exploration aspect more, SM64 and Sunshine are much better. If you just want a 3D platformer for platforming's sake, then the Galaxy games do it wonderfully. I prefer exploration (favorite genres are collectathons and metroidvanias), so I prefer SM64 and Sunshine.

Don't be a pretentious ass.
---

if not already mentioned some people have this mindset that its all about how big of a impact the game had at the time of its release instead of how well it held up years later. 64 was amazing for its time. but not so much by todays standard.

not my mindset though I liked the game back and surely could enjoy it today, but the flaws would be much more noticeable to me nowdays.

like a few years ago I went back and played a bunch of retro games I missed growing up. and while I enjoyed them, the flaws where super obvious. just recently I played the original kid icarus for the first time. I loved it, thought it was an amazing game, but there was one flaw I couldn't help but notice. the game starts off challenging and keeps getting easier as you go along, kind of backwards of how you expect a game to go.

had I played that as kid I probably wouldn't have given that fact much thought at all and just enjoyed it for what it was.
---

I hate all of the 3D Mario games except Sunshine, which still isn't great but at least it was an okay 3D platformer for the time.
---

love mario 64, still one of the best 3d collect-a-thons

mooreandrew58 posted...

if not already mentioned some people have this mindset that its all about how big of a impact the game had at the time of its release instead of how well it held up years later. 64 was amazing for its time. but not so much by todays standard.

not my mindset though I liked the game back and surely could enjoy it today, but the flaws would be much more noticeable to me nowdays.

If you're going to have a discussion of how great a game is, it is fair to put it in context of its time. Obviously the progression of time and technology will enable games to do more. That is obvious to anyone who chooses to think about such questions rather than avoid them.

Nostalgia.

wah_wah_wah posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

if not already mentioned some people have this mindset that its all about how big of a impact the game had at the time of its release instead of how well it held up years later. 64 was amazing for its time. but not so much by todays standard.

not my mindset though I liked the game back and surely could enjoy it today, but the flaws would be much more noticeable to me nowdays.

If you're going to have a discussion of how great a game is, it is fair to put it in context of its time. Obviously the progression of time and technology will enable games to do more. That is obvious to anyone who chooses to think about such questions rather than avoid them.

people have differing opinions on what counts as making a game great though. don't get me wrong I understand the mindset, and I do consider it, but it takes a back burner to other aspects for me. at the end of the day though I go with what I have more fun playing "today" and sometimes older games still make that list.

I almost feel like whats considered the greatest game and what had the most impact/influence should be two different arguments altogether.
---