That was exactly the reason I gave up on finishing Sunshine

PEAK MARIO!! Its the best of both worlds!!

2D Mario and 3D are both good. How can you like the 2D more? You make no sense

@@LilXancheX Because I prefer the simple fast paced linear platforming action type of gameplay in the 2D games over the more explorative slow paced open world (or semi-open world, I should say) type of gameplay in the 3D games. You also don’t have to deal with the camera angle and depth perception in the 2D games which is a plus.

The FLUDD-less levels of Sunshine are some of the best in Mario's entire library, imo. Really showed off how good the movement in that game was.

Eh. I'm gonna get flop here. But Sunshine isn't that great. It looks beautiful. Sure. But the game is an step down from 64 in terms of the structure & many design choices. The controls is slippery and janky at times; which the ones with an Fludd-less levels will demonstrate how floppy it is, the physics are broken as heck; again the best example is the Fludd less levels, the levels & missions based are more obnoxious & repetitive and the fact u have to go through every main courses & do all 7 episodes to reach the final level in the game rather than collecting the amount of Shine Sprites you only need like u can with the Power Stars in 64, as well as doing an mandatory ones in the hub world like getting the rest of the Nozzles and an Yoshi to reach other levels to progress is absolutely tedious. And the 100% completion and reward sucks. The game is also very rushed, which leads to messy glitches, broken physics and content that was scrapped. So yeah. An C Tier is fair. It's not an bad game. But it's the worst 3D Mario game ever.

​@@jaretco6423 yeah, you just described how I feel about Mario Sunshine. I didn't 100% it. I just finished the story and I was excited to move on. I did miss the summer beach vibes of the game though...but that's not gonna be enough to make me want to boot it up again.

@mistermastermind528 Same. If Sunshine ever gets an remake, I hope they fixed & improved on the gameplay, levels, missions, structure & pacing, polished the game way up and add more content that was scrapped from the original. And maybe we would've have something better.

They already have a perfect formula for modern galaxy. Levels could be structured exactly like Bowser's Fury, just without the lake so you glide through planet to planet.

This is literally my dream game announcement. Galaxy gameplay & Music + Odyssey Controls + Bowser's fury openness = perfection

@@JsYTA Maybe give the Red Star more actual use, it's too good and fleshed out for how little it was utilized.

Yeah, I do not understand where "FLUDD is complicated" sentiment is coming from. Sunshine isn't perfect but its movement and controls is easily its strongest suit in my opinion.

Same, except I didn't grow up with the game and instead grew up with the Galaxy games, having only seen some KZfaq playthroughs of Sunshine as a kid and that was my only "experience," as I didn't play it myself until the end of 2016 when I finally got a copy. But when I started playing then, Fludd clicked instantly and controlled exactly how I expected it to based solely on the old playthroughs I had seen years prior, it felt incredibly natural and I had no problem mastering it almost immediately. In fact Mario's base control threw me off more than anything, it felt kinda weird and more unpolished and janky compared to Galaxy and 64 at first (I've since gotten used to it and grown to like it), but Fludd was the one thing that _didn't_ feel weird, confuse me, or throw me off, it was exactly how I expected it to feel. Wasn't "too complicated" at all.

@@DMan_AAGameCube era is where Nintendo wasn’t cool anymore so everyone started hating on them instead of actually playing the games and trying the experience I honestly don’t believe they gave the game a legit shot and tried to learn it

That's like the only good about Sunshine. U don't have to play the game all the way. U can just sit back and view the visual. Maybe do some playthroughs. But not entirely. It's an game where I can stay rather than continuing on to complete the game.

It's the only Mario game that completely lacks typical Nintendo polish. I think the design is pretty great overall but it's such a janky mess through and through.

I think it gets unfairly hated on. There’s definitely some irritating levels, but I’m pretty sure most of those are optional anyway. I think the electric stingray is mandatory, and trying to hurt it while floating in the air isn’t great because you basically have no horizontal movement. But overall the game is still fun. And at least it’s fun and new. Haven’t played 64DS, but “Mario 64 with worse controls” sounds horrible. Don’t know why anyone would willingly subject themselves to that if they have the original.

@@mrshmuga9 Of the annoying ones, the first one at the Hotel is the one that is mandatory. Other ones are optional. The funny thing is that if you do the forward spray instead of hovering, it's a piece of cake.

Because Sunshine is an downgrade from 64 in terms of it's structure, levels, missions & the rest of the gameplay. Not to mentioned it was rushed that is buggy as heck, broken physics & many content that was scrapped.

@@jaretco6423 I remember enjoying it and 💯 percenting it. The only issue I vaguely remember is sometimes the camera wouldn’t cooperate. Loved the challenge. Love the gimmick. Just think it’s a masterpiece of a game. 64 has tons of bugs too.

I thought Galaxy 1 started playing like an Crash Bandicoot.

@@jaretco6423 It really doesn't, people these days like to lump Galaxy 1 in with 3D Land for whatever reason and I just don't see it. Sure, the structure of many of Galaxy's missions are _more_ linear than 64 (but that also applies to Sunshine really but no one seems to mention that), but that's about it, nearly everything else about Galaxy 1 has 64 and Sunshine DNA in it more than anything in terms of design, progression structure, moveset, mechanics, etc., and even then Galaxy still features several more open sandbox-y stages (5 of its 15 main stages [which is the same number of main stages as 64] or a whole third, are straight up sandbox stages in the same vein as 64 and Sunshine, and even parts of other stages are more like that too). And even in the more linear missions, a lot of them are hopping between round planetoids which are kinda like mini-sandboxes of sorts, or at any rate still don't remotely play like Crash Bandicoot even if the ultimate objective is still Point A to Point B. Now some 1-star galaxies and specific planets ARE more Crash Bandicoot-esque, sure, but 64 also had those and so did Sunshine (like Sunshine's fluddless stages), so in that sense 3D Mario has always had parts that play like that anyway. Whereas 3D Land is full on hyper-linear Crash Bandicoot-esque and is really just the NSMB formula with a Z-axis added, which Galaxy 1 is very much not. Galaxy 2 however is a bit of a weird one, it's kinda in the middle and doesn't directly conform to any box perfectly. Many of its levels ARE more Crash Bandicoot-esque unlike Galaxy 1 and takes a lot from NSMBWii, but it still has other DNA elements from the sandbox titles too, so that one's much more debatable.

@legoboy7107 I understand what your saying though. But here's the thing. Galaxy isn't really an open sandbox game compared to the likes of 64, Sunshine & Odyssey. Yeah. It's got mission and collectables like the open world 3D Mario games have. But structurely, it is basically point A to Point B. U still collect stuff while your also reaching the end goal and there are branches to where u can explore more for more goodies or take shortcuts. Same with the 3D series; only without the missions and the only collectables to get are the Green Stars or Star Coins & such that u need to unlock some optional or mandatory levels to progress. It's works well because it is an linear game. 64 doesn't have much linear progression. The only time is has is some extra mission like the slide ones and race with the Koopa. And aside from the Fludd-less levels, Sunshine is only linear because the game requires you to beat all 7 episodes in every main course to reach the final level rather than collecting the amount of Shine Sprites you only need like u can with the Power Stars in 64 and even the Galaxy games. That and u have chase Shadow Mario every single time he does something like stealing an Nozzles or Yoshi that u need to access other levels or whatever shenanigans he does in order to proceed the game, which is not a good design choice. Especially since Sunshine is an spiritual successor to 64 in terms of structure and layout. There's an difference between making an game that is an linear game ( for example Galaxy, 3D World & Crash Bandicoot ) and making an game that tries to be on an linear side that isn't ( like 64, Sunshine and something like A Hat in Time ).

​@@jaretco6423 What I was saying though is that each objective in a level ultimately being Point A to Point B is also true of Sunshine as well, Galaxy is no different from Sunshine in that regard at all. Most objectives in a Sunshine level are also like that (a handful aren't but that's also true of Galaxy), unless you're doing the Blue Coins (which are also the most criticized part of the game and many consider them padding [not my own opinion].), 64 is the only one that's not quite like that until you get to Odyssey. It's not just the fluddless stages or the dumb 7th shine in each stage endgame requirement (which like you said Galaxy doesn't have, Galaxy has the same non-linear progression requirements as 64 except you only need 60 stars instead of 70, and _main_ missions in a given galaxy are only unlocked in order which is exactly how it works in Sunshine too), it's nearly every mission in Sunshine besides some secret shines (something Galaxy's main stages also have) or the blue coins and 100 coins (and some of Galaxy's 100 [purple] coin missions are also sandbox collectathon styled too in a similar fashion), even if Sunshine had a normal endgame star count requirement. Most shines in Sunshine are also "end goals," and 5 of Galaxy's 15 main levels, the sandboxy ones I mentioned before, are no different at all from Sunshine stages other than reverting the stage size and mission count to be more in line with 64's levels; the more linear progression of each mission in them is no different from Sunshine. And if we're talking structure and layout, in many ways Galaxy is more like 64 than Sunshine in that regard: 15 main levels with 6 stars each (one of which is a 100 purple coin star, some of which are non-linear/timed collectathon missions), the hub world having 3 main sections with each containing one of 3 linear Bowser stages that are exactly like 64's (even having the same music), several single-star side Galaxies that do tend to be more linear (though there's more of them now, replacing some of 64's pointless throwaway stars), unlocking the final one by collecting 60 stars rather than completing specific missions, etc., nearly exactly like 64's structure, and none of which apply to Sunshine's structure which is virtually nothing like that. Though really I'd say a lot of Galaxy 1's structure is kinda like meshing 64's and Sunshine's together while also doing a bit of its own thing too. But sure, the other 10 of the 15 main stages in Galaxy are even more linear than some Sunshine ones, but if you factor in everything else about how Mario himself works (actually having the entire Mario 64 moveset in _some_ form except the dive [which was originally going to be in the game since it has an animation in the files], which not even Sunshine has), the mechanics and behaviors of most things, the structure I just outlined before, etc., it's effectively what you'd get if you take a game like 64 or Sunshine and then streamline and simplify things, ultimately making most missions more linear (though again that also applies to most Sunshine missions) but change virtually nothing else, and thus it's still nothing like 2D Mario or Crash Bandicoot other than having Point A to Point B missions. The level structure may be more linear but that's its only main difference from the first two games. Whereas again, 3D Land is completely different in that nearly everything it does is an exact translation of NSMB into the Z-axis, has almost none of the 64 and Sunshine DNA that Galaxy still contains and is hyper-linear unlike Galaxy, which again is more of a mix between sandbox and linear but still in 64/Sunshine style core gameplay. If you take 64 and make individual missions in each stage more linear and add Sunshine's 1 mission at a time system, but still keep around a third of the main levels sandboxy stages, and change nothing else especially with the core gameplay, you definitely do not get 3D Land or Crash Bandicoot, but you do basically get what Galaxy is minus the gravity and space theme. Whereas if you take 2D Mario or DKC and add a Z-axis, you basically get 3D Land or Crash Bandicoot, but definitely not Galaxy 1. The Point A to Point B missions are the only thing Galaxy 1 really has in common with them besides being in the platformer genre (and again those kind of missions also apply to most of Sunshine's), everything else about Galaxy 1 is either the same DNA as 64 and Sunshine or brand new stuff unique to Galaxy like the spherical planetoids. But again, that's just Galaxy 1, Galaxy 2 is a different weirdness.

@legoboy7107 Hmm. Ok. Maybe I'm just seeing different things or something. But I get your case. It's just I'm not used to see 64 & Sunshine as an linear style as the Galaxy games and 3D series were nor doesn't see Galaxy as open sandbox as 64, Sunshine or Odyssey in an weird way.

3D Land and 3D World are more fun to play through imo.

Disappointment in comparison to 64

Exactly! Sunshine alongside games such as Luigi's Mansion and Wind Waker were harshly judged because of what they weren't and not because of their merits.

Sorry to tell you. But Sunshine is nowhere near an S Tier, A tier or even B tier. The visuals are pretty and I do like that the world they went of is taken place outside from the Mushroom Kingdom. But gameplay wise, it is an downgrade from 64. From the gameplay, to the structure, the levels and missions are all frustrating and repetitive to do and the fact u have to go through all 7 episodes instead of just collecting the amount of Shines u only need to reach the final level is very tedious. I think an C or D tier sounds fair.

Yeah I’m with ya there. I’m over halfway through getting the shines, and my love for it just keeps growing. I miss the challenge this game had in the newer titles.

The level design is so much better than SM64. And the inertia of the controls is too weird, yes, but SM64 has much more slippery controls but they don't want to talk about it. Still, the controls of Mario, mechanically speaking, in Sunshine are sublime.

Y'all need to wake up and realize the game has many problem. Yes. The movesets you can do is cool and the themes of each world are unique. But the way that most of these level designs, mission & structure are obnoxious & repetitive and an huge step down from 64. Even the Mario controls isn't all that great. He's just as slippery & wonky as he was in 64 and the physics or collision around the platforms makes it even worst. Don't believe me. Try out the secret levels without Fludd and you'll see why it's not that great. The game isn't challenging. It's frustrating & tedious. And lastly, the game is severely rushed. Leaving to many bugs and some content scrapped off. Mario Sunshine isn't that great and I think 64 is an better game. And with that, it should be at an C tier.

I think an C tier sounds fair. If not, than it's definitely not gonna be an S Tier or even an A tier. It's not an bad game by any means. But it is the weakest 3D Mario game.

@@jaretco64233D World is the weakest 3D Mario

@ItsSegggy I disagree. 3D World is amazing and deserves an S tier more than Sunshine ever will.

@@jaretco6423 3D world is a sad excuse for a 3D Mario game, practically 2D and a boring Cat gimmick with the same old boring style of just get to the flag

@ItsSegggy Well that's your problem. Not the game. If u don't like it, than don't say anything.

I hate to tell you. But Sunshine is very linear as well. Having to go all 7 episodes in each main courses and bow it changing the level designs that u have to progress that is boxed in is not what I call an open sandbox. 64 & Odyssey aren't linear in the slightest. The only times they are linear is something like an slide or other secret levels or progressing to the next world. But u don't have to do all the missions in order nor u don't have to complete the story that is happening. U can just get whatever stars or Moons u collect and proceed. U can't do any of that in Sunshine. In addition, the way it's structure and many design choices is worst because there really obnoxious & repetitive. And again. Having to go all 7 episodes and chase Shadow Mario throughout the entire game isn't freedom. It's very handholding. The controls is actually just as bad in 64. It's slippery, wonky and many platforms has an weird physics and collision that can screw u over. With all these problems, Sunshine is very at the bottom of the barrel of any 3D Mario games.

@@jaretco6423 I'm talking about being an open sandbox within each level's design. Not how linear or open it is to progress through the game in terms of which shines you go for, which is not something I personally care about.

@MajoraZ Oh ok. My bad.

Ocarina of Time got a remake on 3DS

and 64 on ds

I’m waiting for it to be done. I think they’ve said they released a 1.0 version, but there’s still textures and things I think they haven’t fixed and I’d rather wait. That tease at the end of Odyssey was nice, but cruel, lol. Who knows, they’re making a bunch of other remakes so maybe.

⁠@@mrshmuga9What are you talking about? It’s been done for years…

@@Melonposting They released "1.0" a few years ago, but it wasn't really finished. If you check their pinned tweet on @Render96 ("current progress") you'll see how much stuff they've been working on after 1.0. Multiple remodels of characters, finding original textures, fixing animations, and so on. But even though by 2.2 a lot has been addressed, they're still working on a number of fixes, years later, including more major ones like remodelling Bowser again. Heck, just a month ago they showed a new Mario model they're using. I'm sure it's "good enough" especially since 1.0, but they're still clearly working on a bunch of things. _They're_ not even done with it, so what are _you_ talking about? lol.

@@mrshmuga9 Oh, I’m not talking about Render96. I mean the PC port in general; it has plenty of forks and mods

@@Melonposting Oh, alright. Well I don’t have a 4K monitor or one that supports higher frame rates than 60fps, so there’d be no difference to me than playing it emulated on or console than this native port. I’d only bother if there’s a substantial visual change like with Render96.

It is much more polished than SM64 imo. And the controls are less slippery than 64 as well, which isn't saying much, but still.

@rafaelc.c. Uh. No it's not. Sunshine is alot more messy and unpolished compared to 64. It was so rushed that has many bugs and content scrapped. In terms of structure and many design choices, it's an downgrade from 64. The controls are just as slippery & wonky as in 64 and it's worst in Sunshine due to alot of bad physics and collision around the platforms that can screw u over. The Fludd-less is the best demonstration for the control problems. Most of the levels and missions built around it are more obnoxious & repetitive than it was in 64. The way they design it and for you to progress is abysmal. It ain't fairly challenging. It's annoying. And lastly, the game is so linear. Having to chase Shadow Mario throughout the entire game and completing all 7 missions in each main course is absolutely tedious and takes away your freedom of choices and pacing that 64 did well to begin with. Another reason why this game was rushed is because they were gonna add more levels into the game, but was scrapped as well. Also the 100% completion is bad. So yeah. Sunshine isn't better than 64 nor better than most Mario games. It's rough and mediocre at best.

Why would he? It’s literally all rumours and speculation. Doesn’t matter what some “expert leaker(s)” claim, nothing is officially confirmed. We’re not even sure if whoever’s making DK is doing a 2D or 3D game.

@@mrshmuga9 Kit and Krista have already announced it on their channel, they just forgot in the moment of this video because it was from a few years ago. It was Koizumi himself who said he's working on a new Donkey Kong game and not Mario.

Fair grade at least. C is harsh.

@@lordlamb2 yes. I enjoyed Sunshine for its difficulty and fluid (no pun intended) controls. I’d say it’s the hardest 3D Mario game imo

I disagree. Galaxy 1 & 2 should stay in S tier cause they are amazing. But I would change 64 into A or B tier. I don't care how important or influential the game might be. It had many dated design choices and gets an little obnoxious towards the middle and end of the castle. It's still good for the most part. Just not an S tier.

64 DS cannot be so low. The game itself is better than the original 64. And yes, the dpad controls are worse than the analog stick, but it isn't that significant. I played the DS one before the original one. I haven't played it since, but I beat the game 100% when I was 6 or 7 and I'm not very skillfull. I don't think the dpad should have that much weight on its score.

@@rafaelc.c. You say the controls being worse are not that significant, but that is incorrect, it is hugely significant. Mario 64 is special because of the wide variety of movement options available to you, and how seemlessly you can pull off each of them. They are quite simply not as seemless to pull off. Both the Dpad and the Touch Screen controls fail to allow the Flip Jump, the most key part of the game's movement to be done reliably in the direction you so choose, often in ways that cause misaligned angles that force wider Wall Jump angles which make stars like Wall Jumps Will Work far less fun than they were originally. Also, the game is by no means better than Mario 64. Sure at a layman's glance it has "more content" than vanilla 64, but scrutinize that and you'll fine that's not even true. The biggest draw of the game are the new characters, but as most of the stars and course layouts are the same as the original these characters fundamentally do not add to the experience in meaningful ways. 3/4 of them play roughly the same, but they aren't each given access to 100% of Mario 64's original toolset, they each only get one cap ability via the Power Flower. The Mario 64 cap powers were already incredibly underwhelming as they were solely used as keys due to their underutilization in Mario 64. Yoshi is the only interesting character mechanically by fundamentally changing how you interact with the world of Mario 64, but you also lose so much of the original way to interact with the courses that it is required that Yoshi stop being Yoshi to progress. Furthermore, the only courses added to the game are sublevel courses with only 1-2 stars in each of them, which are fine enough additions but extremely underwhelming. The new stars added to the original 15 courses and the Bowser levels are generally pretty good but they are just slight additions. Mario 64 DS, while technically having "more content" has to divvy up Mario's original set of powers to make these characters able to feel useful to specific stars, rather than truly rework the courses and level layouts to make them all truly feel unique. That is the fundamental failure of Mario 64 DS. It isn't a bad game by any means, but it is a remix of Mario 64 that is frankly a lot worse than the original's uncompromised vision. Compare Mario 64 DS to Super Mario Galaxy 2 to see the remix concept done properly

Funny how many people think "People don't agree with me" = "Bad". Especially when most of the internet pretty universally agrees with a lot of this placement.

I’m not sure what they could add to it in that case. I kind of felt worse of the game over time, as a lot of moons are randomly placed which downplays their value and the satisfaction from getting one. You could find a visible/secret area and do a platforming challenge… or you could find one in an absolutely random box that you’d only ever assume would have a coin. There’s no consistency in where/how to find them, so it never feels like you’re learning. That, and the challenges are usually short compared to previous games. Usually done within one small area. Which is why I’m worried about peoples reaction to Bowser’s Fury. I haven’t played it yet (maybe if they released it as a stand-alone), but it looks similar. Spread out a bit more, but you have your one challenge in one corner. Or the moon/shine (heh) is just out in the open to grab. But I’m even more worried about the world design. It’s much less interesting. You have areas in this big map, each with their own “jungle gym” but it’s not as unique as seperate, individual worlds. Could just be from the budget being lower, but I don’t like this notion getting spread that open-world is automatically better seperate world/biomes. It’s like saying “3D is better than 2D”. One isn’t better, they’re just different styles with their own benefits and drawbacks. You likely wouldn’t have all the creative worlds from Odyssey if it was all part of one open world. They wouldn’t really fit together, but when they’re seperate, there are no constraints in trying to make it feel interconnected.

Liked SM64 DS but the controls were awful.