The Committee is in session. We’re taking on various issues in gaming, and our word is final. This week, we look the growing 3D trend and settle an old argument about platformer titles.

In support

Shawn Vermette: 3D is the future of gaming graphics because people are always looking for the biggest and best and newest technology they can get. 1080p is just about the maximum level of fidelity that the human eye can discern differences at, so improvement can’t come from that angle. What’s left? 3D or holographic graphics. In my mind, 3D is a step toward the holographic ideal, thus it is inevitable that 3D will become the standard of gaming, rather than a novelty.

Another reason is the standard process of technological adoption. Whenever a new technology, such as HD or 3D is introduced, it takes a while to get set, but when prices drop, adoption rates soar. 3D TV is just beginning to get a foothold in homes, and will skyrocket in adoption rates as soon as prices drop, which should happen within 3-5 years. By then, glasses-free 3D will finally start becoming viable for home TVs, further increasing adoption.

In opposition

Andrew Passafiume: 3D technology is not something I’d consider a fad as much as a gimmick. It’ll still be around for a long time in some capacity, but for video games it adds nothing to the experience. I see the purpose of motion controls and touch screens for games, but 3D does not enhance your gaming experience at all. I haven’t had a chance to try the 3DS yet so my experience is limited, but I fail to see how it can be used for anything more than a cool special effect every now and again. An game with 3D is still a game. It may look cool, it’s a gimmick that might grow old rather quickly and one I find that doesn’t enhance gameplay at all. 

 

In support

Gerry Pagan: Normally, I wouldn’t really care much if something forced me to use glasses or not to watch any kind of media. However, due to the fact that I myself wear glasses and can’t make out things that are closer than a few feet in front of me, wearing a pair of 3D specs on top of my regular glasses is something that usually neither feels right, or hampers the 3D effect on the glasses.

In addition to being problematic for people who already wear a set of glasses, it’s also an extra addition to keep track of and properly store. Unlike a big guitar or drum set peripheral, it’s easy enough to misplace something like a pair of glasses when they aren’t constantly being used. If you were to lose them, it’d hamper your ability to enjoy or even use the product they were intended with, as looking at 3D media that requires glasses looks even worse without them. I personally believe that if 3D is going to expand further in the market, it needs to do something about the shades. They’re more of a liability than they are a good selling point.

In opposition

Lillian Harle: With increasing technology, the days of the old red and blue 3D glasses are long gone. Though you might still see them in the theaters as a cheap way to pander to large audiences, in the home market, where most of gaming would occur, the technology is such so that the glasses are electronic devices in and of themselves, nearly as complex as the actual television sets they’re set to work with. As this technology becomes more and more a part of the market, the high price they are now will drop, just as high definition television sets did.

 

In support

Justin Last: 2D platformers are wonderful. Super Mario Bros. 3 and Sonic the Hedgehog 2 will always hold a special place in my heart. That being said, the 3D platformer has iterated on all of the best concepts from 2D platformers while creating more immersive, impressive, and challenging environments to play in. Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 take everything I love about 2D platformers and crank it up to 11. Items can be well hidden without feeling cheap, power-ups like the ice flower can completely change how a level feels and plays, and the scenery available to the player puts 2D games to shame. I will never forget the first time I saw the MeltyMolten Galaxy, and that aesthetic just wouldn’t have had the same gravitas in 2D.

With the advent of 3D platformer developers have been able to introduce concepts from other genres to breathe new life into platformers, and the genre is better for it. Sucker Punch added stealth to the Sly Cooper series, Insomniac added excellent gunplay and RPG-style progression to the Ratchet & Clank series, and developers like Realtime Worlds and Sucker Punch added platformer gameplay to what should probably be classified as action games first (Crackdown and Infamous respectively). And then you’ve got games that just couldn’t work in 2D like Tomb Raider and Uncharted. Both are action-platformers, and neither would work anywhere near as well when viewed strictly from the side. When I think of my favorite games from the last two generations, one theme stands out more than any other, and that theme is 3D platforming.

 

In opposition

Mike Clark: I like both types of platformers. There’s great things to be found in both, but after reflecting over all the games I’ve played in each I have to say 2D is better. The percentage of good 2D platformers I’ve played is much higher than 3D, and bringing the game into three dimensions allows for the developers to mess things up a lot more than in a 2D game.

Some of the biggest problems in 3D platformers, like cameras, don’t exist in 2D ones. Even though you can still end up making a game bad, there’s fewer things to worry about in a 2D one than a 3D. Take for example Super Castlevania IV and Castlevania: Lament of Innocence. Both are second-generation in their 2D or 3D, and both were launched shortly into their system’s lives. But there’s a clear winner here, and it’s not the 3D title. It’s a time-honored format, a comfort zone, and people know how to make them great.

 

We’ve weighed in. What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

The Committee is in session. We’re taking on various issues in gaming, and our word is final. In our second installment, we look at the world of digital distribution: its past, present and future.

In support

Mike Clark: There’s a variety of reasons as to why physical distribution is superior. First, there’s the fact that we have a physical item in our possession. Something that is a part of a comfort zone, as digital distribution has only been around for a very short time compared to the millenia of acquiring physical things. It’s harder to conceptualize that one owns 40 digital games than it is to look at their shelf and see 40 physical copies.

Then, the matter of purchase. Not everyone has the ability to buy digital items. Like myself, some people are forced to use physical currency to buy things. And in that same area, one cannot resell digital games. All sales are final, no refunds. Bought a bad game digitally? No money back. A physical game? Bring your receipt and return it, pawn it off, or keep it for years then sell it. It’s real, it’s there, and you can still redeem it for some kind of worth if you want to get rid of it.

In opposition

Gerry Pagan: While I can’t deny how good it feels to physically own software, whether it’s on a shiny Collector’s Tin or a sealed console game case, there’s something that can be said for how convenient digital downloads have become. Thanks to services like Steam and Good Old Games, I’ve been able to find and play games that I’d have a hard time hunting down a physical copy, minus any costs involved in shipping said games to my location or the high prices that go with acquiring games that are either rare or had low print runs. While I’ll still opt for a physical copy of a title I want to acquire, Digital downloads have changed the way I purchase games, more so than the used game market. 

 

In support

Graham Russell: Clearly it has. The last few years have seen a resurgence in creativity and innovation, and it’s been driven by the kinds of small games that wouldn’t have seen the light of day before the advent of mainstream digital distribution mechanisms. These tiny companies are putting out all these fresh ideas, but taken on their own, they’re incredibly unpolished and not ready for primetime. That’s why the larger companies have seen success in rounding out these ideas and incorporating them into the things they’d do anyway.

Ultimately, it’s good for both parties.

Then there are the nice side-effects of the industry shift. Digital-only games have made more go online, which helps those communities and allows for fun multiplayer experiences. They’ve pushed game prices down some, which helps the consumer, and they did it by reducing overhead, which means that (with some exceptions) it doesn’t hurt the game makers much in the process.

In opposition

Lillian Harle: If you step back and look at the numbers, digital distribution both helps and hurts the gaming industry. On the one hand, developers can basically ship out an infinite number of copies of their game to a multitude of people for little cost. It gets the company name out, plus it makes it so they don’t have to split costs with a retailer. On the other hand, not all customers can access digital distribution routes, and most of the time, this distribution is at cost, or consumers won’t buy thus said product unless it’s at cost.

A good example would be Steam sales. Though more product is being moved, it is at such a low cost that very little headway is actually be made to make the game profitable. Add on the fact that, even though memory is fairly cheap nowadays, the market for physical copies of games is still very strong, and to take away this strong market would only be a detriment. 

 

In support

Shawn Vermette: Maybe I’m crazy to suggest this, after all, I didn’t exactly wow my teachers in my business classes in college, but I believe that having a sell-back or re-gifting system in place would actually help sales of digital games rather than hurt them.

First, demos are fine and dandy, but not all games have them, and they are oftentimes a poor representation of a game. Due to this, I am hesitant to use them as a measuring stick of the worth of a game that I am stuck with, for good or ill, after I purchase it. Second, if I know that I’m stuck with a game, whether I like it or hate it, I am less likely to take a chance on a game that I’m not 100% sure I’ll enjoy. With physical games, if I feel I’ll probably like the game, I’ll usually take a shot at it, since I know I can get a decent amount of money back for it if I don’t care for it. With digital games? I have to be pretty close to 100% sure in order to buy it. 

The big reason this doesn’t exist is that publishers are afraid to lose money. Fair enough. However, one advantage of digital is that it is easy to record how much someone paid for a game. Thus, it’s easy to make sure that you always refund only a percentage of the game’s purchase price and give it in Steam Bucks, or Microsoft Points or PSN cash, allowing both sides to win.

 

In opposition

Graham Russell: Digital titles have forced prices down, and a lot of the reason publishers let it happen was the assurance that one sold game meant one sold game. The industry is reeling from the used game boom, as when GameStop sells you a pre-owned title, they don’t see a dime. The other way publishers have tried to combat this? Ventures like Project Ten Dollar, where they hold parts of a game hostage to those who buy used. Generally, people don’t like this, but it’s understandable for a company to want to make money when its product is sold. I’d much rather see the digital route become more common, as prices can beat pre-played boxed versions and the developers still get their share.

Besides all that, there’s no reason for online stores like Steam or XBLA to refund players for purchases. If you want to try before you buy, that’s what the demo’s for. Playing through a whole game? You’ve gotten your money’s worth out of that. If someone else wants to play it, there’s no reason they should get a discount for a “used” digital copy (as it’d be identical to a “new” one).

When Steam and other places have such a lenient policy on use for multiple systems and a tendency to sell at a large discount, I just don’t see why there’s a push to make them give up the few advantages they have for publishers.

 

In support

Andrew Passafiume: Downloadable games will eventually become the dominant future for gaming simply because publishers want to cut costs and developers want to be able to try new options. We’ve already seen a larger focus on the downloadable space with games this generation, and bigger publishers pushing for less and less focus on boxed games. Ubisoft has eliminated instruction manuals, eco-boxes have become prevalent for most major companies; it’s only a matter of time before the boxes are gone altogether.

Well, not altogether, but they will become less of a focus when the next consoles hit. New consoles will have bigger hard drives and focus on promoting downloadable games and content even more so than now. This will also be a huge blow to stores like GameStop that thrive on used games sales, something publishers like EA have been trying to do for the past year or so.

Physical copies of games will continue to be available for a long time, but they will slowly start becoming less of the focus for developers and publishers. It would take some getting used to, and it is a future I personally do not want to see, but it’s also one I feel is inevitable. Maybe not in five years, or even ten, but it will happen sooner than some may realize. 

In opposition

Justin Last: I’m going to start strangely – I love Steam, XBLA, and PSN. I think they are great services, and I buy quite a bit from each of them. That being said, there’s a trade-off to be made. 

Things have to be dirt-cheap before I’ll buy them because once I do I’m stuck with them forever. There is no secondhand market for digital distribution purchases so I’m less likely to take a chance. No demo, no purchase has become my motto for PSN, and I’m sure I’ve missed some good games because of it, but that’s my $15, and after I hit “purchase” there’s no going back like there is when I buy a dud from Best Buy and trade it in to GS a week later.

Given the choice, people like to own things, and that makes sense. My books are never inaccessible due to battery failure, my disc-based games are never toyed with when Good Old Games pretends to close its doors, and I can sell or loan that physical thing to a friend. Maybe I’m in the minority, but I don’t want to live in a future where I can’t loan Batman: Arkham Asylum to my best friend..

We’ve weighed in. What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

The Committee is in session. We’re taking on various issues in gaming, and our word is final. In this first installment, we decide where every Mario platformer belongs in the history of the series.

In support

Graham Russell: Let’s be clear: Super Mario Land is not great. But it’s not horrible, either. It was made in an era when developers weren’t afraid to experiment with how a game feels, an era when sequels didn’t have to have the same gameplay and when the principles of the industry were still getting figured out. Land was a fun game, despite being on the most limiting system the series has ever been on at the beginning of its life cycle. Indeed, many Mario games are home runs, and this one was simply a solid single. At least it didn’t strike out.

In opposition

Andrew Passafiume: Super Mario Land does not at all feel like a Mario platformer. It feels like a generic game with Mario thrown into it for good measure. I could easily call this the worst game in the main Mario series, but nothing about it ever feels distinctly like a Mario game, so it even fails at that. 

 

In support

Mike Clark: Take Super Mario Bros. and design a whole new set of levels around it that are more challenging than anything the game had to offer. This is The Lost Levels. We get more of what made the original so great while upping the difficulty. It also gives us Luigi and his defining traits in the original Super Mario Bros. style, at least for America. Being able to play with his looser traction and different jumping style created a paradigm shift.

In opposition

Lillian Harle: The Lost Levels has only come out in the US three times: Super Mario All-Stars on the Super Nintendo, on the Virtual Console, and Mario All-Stars on the Wii. And for good reason – the game is brutally hard. (And people complain about the difficulty of Sunshine?) The game’s best explained this way: it’s an official romhack of the original Super Mario Bros. Those in the Super Mario romhacking community know that games like that can be absolutely brutal.The Japanese SMB2 is along those lines, requiring such feats as Bullet Bill-bouncing, perfect frame jumps, and quite a few tricks involving springboards and Paratroopas. The game simply isn’t fun, especially when it suffers from the same flaw that the original SMB does: when you game over, you have to start all over. There’s a reason the phrase “Nintendo hard” exists: to explain this game.

 

In support

Shawn Vermette: Super Mario 64 is the best of the entire Mario franchise. Not only did it propel Mario into the 3rd dimension, it did so better than any other legacy franchise made the conversion from 2D to 3D. The creativity used to create the world; the smoothness of the controls and the camera; and the sheer joy one felt while playing SM64 puts it ahead of the pack. I don’t know what’s worse, the fact that, despite serving as the inspiration behind Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy, everyone else here has forgotten the joy of playing SM64, or the possibility that they never experienced it to begin with. There has to be something wrong with them to have ranked it as one of the worst Mario platformers.

In opposition

Mike Clark: I’ll give credit to this game launching us into the world of 3D. The transition is historic and the game should be commended for it. But to actually play this is only a good experience if the player has firmly affixed a set of nostalgia glasses on their face. The gameplay and physics are lackluster, the camera is bloody horrible, and the controls are revolting, especially for flying and swimming. If you played it before quality came around you probably like this. If you didn’t, this just isn’t worth the time.

 

In support

Justin Last: Every Nintendo platform needs a Mario title, and the DS was no exception. New Super Mario Bros. managed to take the original Super Mario Bros. formula and update it for the modern gamer. Controls are as tight as ever, levels are replayable thanks to the three optional coins scattered throughout each level, and some worlds feature branching paths. The Koopa Suit makes for a great risk vs reward power-up, and the ability to retain an item returns (though in a diminished capacity) from SMB3. Handheld gamers are used to high-quality Mario titles like Super Mario Land 2 and Nintendo delivered with NSMB.

In opposition

Graham Russell: New Super Mario Bros. tried to strike this balance between two-dimensional gameplay and a three-dimensional engine, and it just didn’t sit right. While its successor on the Wii had much looser level design for the sake of multiplayer, NSMB was clearly a tight single-player experience, and it just lacked that precision it needed. It’s certainly forgivable, but without a compelling twist on the gameplay, it just doesn’t deserve to climb up this list.

 

In support

Gerry Pagan: Although it shouldn’t really be included with these other Mario games, I liked Wario Land for the change in perspective from the more agile plumber to his bigger, tougher counterpart. The power-ups were fun, the platforming was entertaining and it had a nice premise that set the stage for Wario’s personality in his later appearances.

In opposition

Shawn Vermette: None of the Super Mario Land games were particularly good, and I only really spent much time playing Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. I can recall being not at all interested in Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land when it first came out. Seriously, who wanted to play a Mario game where you didn’t get to play Mario? Sure, Wario provided for a completely different playing experience, but in a Mario game you expect to play as Mario and rescue princesses, not run around trying to get enough coins to build your own castle and make Mario jealous.

 

In support

Graham Russell: Okay, okay, it wasn’t originally a Mario game. Let’s all get over that, shall we? It was still an EAD-developed side-scroller, and why it wasn’t always a Mario game is really beyond me anyway. What makes the game great, though? Multiple characters. Sure, there were usually clear choices for each level, but the fun of SMB2 was that playing a level with Toad felt totally different from traversing the same level with Peach. It’s a concept that hasn’t been fully revisited (let’s forget about SM64 DS, shall we?), and one that I’d heartily support a return of.

In opposition

Lillian Harle: The game isn’t Mario. Plain and simple. The only thing that makes it like Mario is that it uses characters from that universe. Enemies that first appeared in Doki Doki Panic do end up appearing in later Mario games (like Shy Guys, Tweeters, and Birdo), but otherwise, the game has almost no impact on the series as a whole, unlike SMB3, Mario 64 or Mario Galaxy. It’s wholly unremarkable and, to be honest, not really all that fun. Sure, it can be interesting to lift up enemies and use them to kill its brethren, but on the whole, there’s very little to the game itself. It’s a side game series that Nintendo thought would be nice to include Mario characters in. I’m not saying that we should’ve gotten the original SMB2 over this one – far from it. In fact, Mario probably would’ve died in the US if they had done that. 

 

In support

Lillian Harle: A lot of people don’t seem to like Super Mario Sunshine very much. From what I’ve heard, a lot of people cite FLUDD (the water-spewing backpack machine that’s basically the core of the gameplay) as the reason. Still others say the difficulty is the reason for their distaste. But I felt that Sunshine was a great entry in the series for one reason alone: the introduction of right stick camera control. Sure, the actual concept of using the right stick for camera control had been around for a while before Sunshine came out (in fact, once the DualShock was released, I’m pretty sure most games took full advantage of it), but it was the first Mario game to do so. Mario 64‘s camera was, for lack of better words, absolutely asinine. To be able to control the camera yourself made what might otherwise be very difficult 3D platforming much easier. That’s not to say that the game isn’t challenging. But it’s a good kind of challenging. At no time did I find myself overly frustrated by the game. The graphics are absolutely beautiful for a GameCube game – the only game I can think of rivaling its look is Metroid Prime and Prime 2: Echoes. The water effects in particular are pretty stunning, even in standard definition. Sunshine is certainly the black sheep of the 3D Mario platformers, but it is by no means bad. For the only “true” Mario game on Nintendo’s sixth-generation console, it’s a lot of fun.

In opposition

Justin Last: Mario is at his best when faced with myriad environments, challenges, and power-ups. Super Mario Sunshine took that and destroyed it. Where SMB3 had the desert, the sea (with its horrible, no-good, giant gulping fish), the sky, the ice, and a world inhabited by giants, SMS has only Delfino Plaza with its tropical paradise theme. Where Super Mario Galaxy has the Boo Suit, the Spring Suit, and the Ice Flower, SMS has only the FLUDD. Super Mario Sunshine is a clear misstep for the series, and I was glad to see Nintendo abandon the FLUDD in favor of the different suits in Super Mario Galaxy.

 

In support

Gerry Pagan: Basically a mix of Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World on the Game Boy, the game is a fun portable version of the tried and true Mario formula. Some of the smaller changes like the minigames at the end of each level are a nice enough addition to make the game worth playing.

In opposition

Andrew Passafiume: While this definitely feels more like a traditional Mario platformer than the first, 6 Golden Coins still feels out of place in the series. It’s definitely a way more enjoyable experience than its predecessor, but one that just isn’t very memorable. 

 

In support

Gerry Pagan: Do I really have to get too into this? Super Mario Bros. is considered one of the best games of all time for a reason. Stages are expertly designed down to the precise enemy placement in every stage, cleverly hidden shortcuts and secret rooms can make the game last either a few hours or just a few minutes. There’s a reason why 25 years later, people are still playing the game over and over.  The game is accommodating to every type of gamer, from the more casual player looking to kill time to the more intense people looking to improve on their speed run times. Best of all, it’s still fun all the way through. This is one of the ultimate cases of a game surviving the test of time, with gameplay that has proven to be a timeless and a true classic. 

In opposition

Justin Last: Super Mario Bros. is a first effort, and it shows. Yes, the game is a classic, but the difficulty ramp is too steep (I’ve never made it past World 5 personally), and the game constantly struggles with artificiality. Score is kept but not rewarded. Time is treated similarly. Arcade roots are easily seen and the Mario series has still not grown past the pointless need for lives. I’m not pumping quarters into an arcade machine anymore, and the game experience should be indicative of that.

 

In support

Graham Russell: I’m really floored by the lack of support for Yoshi’s Island. (Okay, probably not as floored as Shawn.) When the “best game of all time” talk starts up, the Super Nintendo is usually well-represented. We hear three names: Super Metroid, Super Mario World and Yoshi’s Island. And all have valid claims. No offense to the Donkey Kong Country games, but it’s clear that Miyamoto’s team is the master of the platformer genre, and Yoshi’s Island was their last great achievement before moving on to three dimensions. True, it doesn’t play like Mario, but the variety of the different transformations, as well as the relatively-forgiving “protect Mario” life system, made for the most pleasant game I’ve ever experienced.

In opposition

Mike Clark: The concept and visual style seemed attractive and a change from the norm that had made Mario prevail for years. Execution was painful and annoying. Listening to Mario whine incessantly while having to collect tons of odds and ends for no real purpose made Yoshi’s Island a much weaker game than its predecessor. We went from a great platformer to an annoying collect-a-thon where the slightest screw-up meant a screaming baby. Ugh.

 

In support

Lillian Harle: Though some people may call New Super Mario Bros. Wii a rehash of the original DS game, the game itself is distinctive enough to stand on its own. Whereas the original NSMB paid homage to the original SMB, NSMBWii pays tribute to SMB3, to great effect. Add to that the multiplayer aspect (plus the fact that you can throw, lift, eat, and otherwise terrorize the other players) and you’ve got a recipe for party hilarity. Though it was a strange design decision to make players 3 and 4 Toads (as opposed to including, say, Wario or Daisy), the additions to the game (such as collecting the Star Coins like in NSMB, and the Penguin Suit and Propeller Hat) make this game stand out on top of the plethora of Mario games out there. Let’s not forget the fact that 2D platforming is almost a dead art nowadays, yet Nintendo keeps its roots alive. Bravo.

In opposition

Andrew Passafiume: New Super Mario Bros. Wii is a very well-made game that harkens back to the days of Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES. But it never felt like it reached the same levels of excellence that the classic platformers did. While I enjoyed my time with it, the game just feels almost like a rehash more than a re-imagining or a new game altogether. The co-op is fun, but it can also be more intrusive and bothersome than enjoyable during certain levels.  

 

In support

Gerry Pagan: Mario’s debut on the Wii still holds strong even with its sequel’s release. One would think camera problems would be all over this style of game, but even among all the flips, planet flipping and soaring, the experience is always fun and hardly ever frustrating. Galaxy 2 just couldn’t blow me away like this game did. The presentation and premise is excellent, the gameplay is solid and even the story segments are enjoyable. Does it raise the bar for good 3D platformers? I think so.

In opposition

Shawn Vermette: Super Mario Galaxy is considered by many to be one of the best games of the decade. Unfortunately, those people are overrating the game. Yes, Super Mario Galaxy is a great game. But one of the best of the decade? It isn’t even one of the best 5 Mario games I’ve played. Sure, it has its roots in Super Mario 64, the best Mario platformer, but unfortunately it fails to live up to the standard set by its forbear in one important criteria: it isn’t as fun to play. 

 

In support

Mike Clark: Take a game that excelled in just about every aspect and make it better. That is Super Mario Galaxy 2. Overall superior level design, from a ton of new features and ideas to remade stages from past games. The inclusion of Yoshi, a series staple and a welcome change to the Galaxy formula. Improved level access over the first game’s, while keeping or upgrading the game as a whole. This is what 3D Mario is meant to be.

In opposition

Shawn Vermette: Super Mario Galaxy 2 is, like its predecessor, considered to be one of the greatest Mario platformers of all time. But, while it is a great game, it is just barely better than Super Mario Galaxy, which leaves it well below the threshold set by the top Mario platformers. It has a lot of game available to play, but yet fails to be as enjoyable to play as it should be. And that is ultimately what Mario games are measured by.

 

In support

Justin Last: Super Mario Bros. 3 may be the finest NES game ever made. Much of what was new in SMB3 is now commonplace in Mario games. We now have new and interesting power-ups in each iteration of the series, and SMB 3 with its inclusion of Kuribo’s Shoe, the Tanooki Suit, the Raccoon  Suit, the Hammer Brother Suit, and the Frog Suit are to thank for that. We’ll always be able to throw fire, but if Nintendo hadn’t taken a chance with SMB3 you might not be able to transform into Cloud or Boo Mario today. SMB3 also introduced the overworld map which went on to make Super Mario World and Super Mario Galaxy 2 better for including it.

In opposition

Gerry Pagan: I’ll be frank here, just because I don’t rate this game very highly compared to the other Mario titles doesn’t mean I neither dislike it nor think lowly of it. That said, I’ve never been of the side that considers SMB3 the best in the series. While fun, I didn’t find it as memorable as some of the later titles. The Koopalings are kind of just there, with the flying airship levels themselves feeling like more of the same. There’s very little I can say against the game, but it just didn’t wow me like others did.

 

In support

Andrew Passafiume: Super Mario World is the closest thing to perfection the Mario series has seen. While the original games on the NES are great, with Super Mario Bros. 3 being the best of the bunch, World just does everything better. The level design is flawless, the difficulty finds the perfect balance, and the game boasts a plentiful number of secrets to find. There has never been a better Mario game. 

In opposition

Graham Russell: I can’t really knock Super Mario World. The stakes this far up the list are high, though, and I just don’t feel like World ever had the transcendent quality of a game like Super Mario 3, Galaxy or Yoshi’s Island. It’s a great game, but it feels just a bit too derivative to be that magical experience worthy of the #1 ranking. 

What do you think of our picks? Let us know in the comments.