I know I am on record that my disappointment with R&CF is pretty legendary. But I think my disappointment with Galaxy is even legendarier. It all comes down to the one thing that defines a great gaming experience for me: R&CF lets me explore 90% of the game at my own pace without overt direction, while Galaxy forces me to do 90% of the game in the linear platforming tradition.

It all started when I got my new HDTV. I had finished Ratchet months earlier (like, maybe even in November) and really had no inclination to play it again. In fact, three weeks ago I distinctly recall seeing it on my game shelf and thinking "Well, there's $60 forgotten."

But I wanted to see some genuine HD graphics fidelity, so about a week-and-a-half ago, I popped Ratchet back into the PS3. I only planned on playing a level or two, but I ended up playing through the entire game a second time over the next week. The whole thing. What kept it interesting for me was that, early on in this HD-inspired Ratchetfest, I happened to check the weapons store and discovered that additional weapons and weapon upgrades (up to level 10, compared to a max of 5 on the first playthrough) were now available for purchase. So then I kept playing just to see the new abilities. Then I bought the infinite Groovitron. Then I went after all the Gold Bolts. Then I found I could get a few more of the Skill Points. Unbelievably, tonight I did the first two or three worlds on a third playthrough, just because I was still enjoying all the amped-up weaponry.

In contrast, I fired up Mario Galaxy a couple weeks ago (again, to see it on the new TV) with the idea to do that one last planetoid on my list that remains star-less (the timed catch-the-bunnies world). Even though I've had people tell me that you just have to herd the rabbits into the crater, I still couldn't do it in the time alloted. So I gave up in disgust and I had no desire to jump into any of the other levels to chase a few more stars.

The differences between the games are minute, but meaningful. In both games, you have to fly to a planet to get into the level. Both games present worlds that have set paths. But in R&CF, you can travel back and forth throughout the entire path; you're not constantly pushed forward. You can rotate the camera in any direction you wish; you're not limited a few spare viewpoints. In Ratchet, the gameworlds all feel like living, natural environments. In Mario Galaxy, the levels are all intentionally constructed mousetraps.

Maybe that's your bag. It is certainly more in line with the classic Mario games. But it's not my preference at all. Given that Mario Sunshine had that free-roaming persistence, it just pisses me off all the more that I can't properly explore Galaxy's gorgeous, creative, nostalgic universe.

And there are other issues. I hate how Galaxy makes you choose which star you're going after, dropping you into limited alternate paths inside the same world. Why can't all the stars just be in one world and whichever ones I find, I find? Ratchet is much better about collectible incentives, letting you level up the weapons of your choice without it feeling like a grind. Having so many weapons keeps things interesting all the way through, whereas Mario's mushroom upgrades are sparsely utilized, often require you to re-learn the control scheme... and a couple of them just plain suck. If you die in Ratchet, you just spawn in at the last checkpoint, which was not that far back... no loss of money or lives. Mario's 1-UP system is awful and insulting; why should any modern game live off the tired old Run Out Of Lives And It's Game Over model? Then consider that Galaxy is definitely harder to play, particularly the final quarter of stars. I think it all adds up to R&CF being a far more accessible and rewarding game than Mario Galaxy. Which is ironic, given that accessibility is one of Nintendo's guiding directives.

Not that Galaxy doesn't have its fine points. Galaxy's boss battles are far more interesting (I LOVE Bouldergeist!) The level design is clever and impressive. The co-star mode is limited in scope but at least it's a try. Mario's nostalgia factor is unbeatable. And the challenge curve isn't necessarily a bad thing, I just never felt like the super-hard stuff was worth the pain of running out of 1-UPs a dozen times.

And of course, I still say that the Ratchet team is coasting; they haven't done anything to improve the series since the second game. It's become dependable, not innovative. The only significant feature added to Future: Tools of Destruction is the HD graphics. But, pound for pound, I had a lot more fun and a lot less frustration playing it, compared to Mario Galaxy. I would much rather play an easier game that gives me more to do (particularly when you're allowed to go back and gather EXP or whatever to help you through the hard parts), than a difficult game that hems me into one unyielding path.

Both series have a LOT more that they could be doing. In that respect, they're both failures. But there's no way that I could call Galaxy one of my all-time greats. Even after sadly realizing that R&CF was doing nothing to move the needle on the franchise, the game was still fun to play... whereas Galaxy just became a chore and a lot of fail/repeat/fail/repeat/fail/repeat/F Spring Mario right in the A.

I love Nintendo, but when it comes to adventure games I just want to be able to explore virtual worlds, and fiddle with customization junk as I go. They can do this... Chibi-Robo, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Mario Sunshine, Legend of Zelda... the back-to-the-roots Mario Galaxy is a huge step down for me. I'm going to watch the next core Mario release very carefully, because if it's more Galaxy than Sunshine, I may have to take a pass.