Unfortunately I don't typically enjoy most of the Zelda titles (I'm not really interested in listing reasons because at the end of the day this is a personal preference but it can be summed up as I really really loath being stuck in a game also the fact that you can't jump on demand (regardless of how useless it is bothers the crap out of me).

So Mario 64 gets my vote.

As I'm not really committed to either series I can't reasonably vote on which series has been best overall so I'm simply not going to cast a vote on the bonus question.

Ocarina of Time is much better than Super Mario 64. Though Mario was the reason I bought a 64, Ocarina of Time is what made me fall in love with the Zelda series. Before that, all I had to go by were Legend of Zelda 1 and 2, neither of which really ever captivated my imagination. I think that the transition to 3D was much more easy on Link than on Mario.

Bonus Answer: Though Super Mario 64 was easily my favorite from that series, the Legend of Zelda games have continuously impressed me from Ocarina of Time and beyond. Mario Sunshine and Mario Galaxy were sub-par in my opinion. This all has to do with Nintendo's notable shift away from hardcore gamers (fans of Zelda) towards casual gamers (fans of Mario).

If I had to go back and play one... it'd be Mario 64. OoT was great back, but I think I've only actually played it totally through once. I think I've gotten 120 stars on Mario 64 three times.

you sir, are a sick man for trying to pick which arm i like best.

i'm not gonna write a huge thing about my choice, because all you need is a vote. if you would like a discussion, anyone, please do contact me.

vote: Zelda:OOT

bonus vote: mario series

Ocarina of Time managed to take advantage of the Nintendo 64 and all, a few years after Super Mario 64 set the building blocks. For a head-to-head, I choose OCARINA OF TIME . . . as a series, it's MARIO . . .

Can anyone honestly say that Mario 64 was a step forward from the likes of Super Mario World? Or that OoT in any way improved on Link to the Past?

Both of these games can suck one, they traded away awesome gameplay for 3D graphics.

*O.C.A.R.I.N.A O.F T.I.M.E*

Mario 64 is *not a good game.* It exemplifies the worst aspects of gaming's first steps into designing for 3D, and barely resembles a Mario game in any sense other than graphical.

Mario 64 was where shitty 3D cameras got their start. The much-maligned N64 controller was actually designed to facilitate Mario's unwieldly camera system. With a zoom-out button, two camera-swing buttons, and the inexplicable first-person-view button, the C-buttons ALMOST resemble the right analog stick system we use today, but are too rigid to offer useful adjustment and fight the player every step of the way. Most players wind up using the Z-button to orient the camera on Mario's ass in order to keep the camera showing them where they're going, and that leads us to our next problem: 3D Jumping Puzzles.

In 2D, Jumping worked A-OK. You could see where your character was, you could see how big the pit was, and you jumped all the damn time so you knew pretty much how far you could jump. With Mario 64, foreshortening and the ass-pointed camera prevented you from seeing how big the pit was, unwieldly camera controls kept it so you couldn't move it to a side view and still manage to run straight, and about five different jumping mechanics made just figuring out which way to make Mario go "Wahoo!" a challenge. 3D Jumping Puzzles went on to be the bane of the first-person shooter genre, but for some reason, Mario 64 gets a pass for it.

And why are you solving those jumping puzzles in Mario 64? To get stars and red coins and yellow coins. Why are you getting stars? To unlock new levels. Why are you collecting red coins? To get more stars. Why are you collecting yellow coins? To unlock stars. Mario 64 invented the Collectathon. Collectathons aren't fun, they're annoying--a way of saying "We made this big ol' 3D level, now go explore every inch of it before you go to the next part of the game so it seems like there's more content."

And worst of all, it just doesn't feel like a Mario game. 2D Mario games involve running through a timed 2D level, trying to avoid or kill enemies by jumping. In a 3D Mario game, you avoid enemies by... running around them, and kill enemies by... punching them while on the ground. The only reason to jump in a 3D Mario game is to solve jumping puzzles. You're not running and jumping to get through the level, and there's no timer to keep you moving. There's no sense of tension, no excitement, and no joy of movement--2D Mario feels nimble and spry while 3D Mario feels like a tank.

In 2D Mario games, there are some secrets, to make things fun for the explorative type or the veteran, and there are collectables, which you almost can't NOT collect and are there to reward you with a larger protection against failure the longer you play. In Mario 64, there are practically no secrets, because you have to collect everything to progress and you have to go to the out-of-the-way areas where secrets normally would be in order to collect everything.

In 2D Mario games, there are power-ups that completely change the way you either locomote or fight, and you get to keep them as long as you can avoid getting hit. In Mario 64, there are power-ups that... let you fit through doors you couldn't go through before, change little about the way you move or fight, and disappear after a minute. (Except the flight cap--which lets you play a "collect midair coins" minigame for a minute.)

In 2D Mario games, your life is precious--one hit and you lose your power-up, two hits and you're dead. In Mario 64, you have eight bars of life that can be refilled by running through coins or JUMPING IN WATER. And without time constraints, and enemies being sparse and slow, you can take your sweet time doing it.

Simply put: Mario 64 is not a Mario game. It is a shitty 3D Platformer. Being the first 3D Platformer does not excuse it being a shitty 3D Platformer, especially when it inspired bad game design choices that we're STILL trying to excise from games today. The fact that it had a Mario skin slapped onto it despite playing nothing like a Mario game just makes it worse.

Ocarina of Time, on the other hand, took the Mario 64 engine and managed to build a good Zelda game out of it--and fixed the camera issues and the combat issues in the process. Lock-on targeting allowed for combat to be as fast-paced and complex as the top-down 2D combat was--if not moreso. Camera positioning based on context and location in the room was a major improvement over C-button camera navigation. Simple, isolatable puzzle-room dungeons transitioned from 2D to 3D perfectly, negating many of the issues with the increased difficulty of 3D content creation. With one large, cohesive, persistent overworld, exploration was fun and made sense. And there were NO JUMPING PUZZLES.

Ocarina of Time feels like a Zelda game and is one of the greatest titles of its generation. Super Mario 64 feels nothing like a Mario game, is one of the worst games of its generation (even if it is one of the first), and inspired a legion of imitators to copy the same poor gameplay decisions that made it a bad game just because nobody had come up with anything else.

Ocarina of Time is easily the better game.

As far as which one is the better series... that's a bit more difficult. The Mario franchise has certainly been more experimental, even without considering side projects, and I do have to give it credit for that. But the two of the three 3D main-franchise titles have been pretty bad. It's only with Galaxy, where the spin attack for combat (and double-jumping) manages to integrate into 3D combat like jumping on heads did with 2D combat and the abstracted planetoids manage to replicate the fun of running through a level in 2D Mario, that Mario has begun to become fun again. In my eyes, the Mario franchise came to a screeching halt in 1996, and it's taken over a decade to begin recovery.

Zelda games follow the Zelda formula. They're not risky, but they're polished to a mirror-sheen. And if anything, the Zelda franchise kicked into high gear after its first 3D entry while Mario ground to a standstill--there's been seven great games in the Zelda franchise since the beginning of the 3D era, compared to two good ones and two poor ones in the Mario franchise.

Super Mario World may be near the top of my list of all-time favorite games to play and replay, but my votes go to Ocarina of Time and the Legend of Zelda franchise for the bonus.

Ocarina of Time. As much as I loved running and jumping around individual levels as Mario, OoT gave me an entire kingdom to explore in 3D. That game blew me away when I first played it.

@awa64: I disagree with most, but not all, of what you said.

You argued against Mario 64 with "We made this big ol' 3D level, now go explore every inch of it before you go to the next part of the game so it seems like there's more content." I like exploring big ol' 3D levels. It's part of why I loved Zelda. It was back with the "Action Adventure" genre was more adventure than it was action. In many ways, I see Mario 64 as one of the first Adventure Platformer games.

Also, you say jumping was undermined by being able to punch enemies? As a rule of thumb, I never punched enemies because it was less efficient and more dangerous for a valid reason you listed -- perspective causing distance judgments to be difficult. However, why is jumping forward a bad thing? Would you seriously rather play and jump forward while pressing up on the joystick while also simultaneously looking from the side? Almost all of the examples of this dilemma were with wall jumps in small spaces which were easy to handle since it was left and right movements. Not that challenging except in a few cases late in the game.

As for not enjoying the 3D movements compared to its 2D movement predecessors, I completely disagree with you for 100% of the reasons Chad lists here:
http://www.destructoid.com/the-memory-card-38-running-outside-the-castle-89303.phtml

I can see where you're coming from with the time limits, although they do incorporate a few races to cater to that missing aspect of the game. Not to mention many levels that function the same way: get to the end (Bob-omb Summit, Tall Tall Mountain, Tick Tock Clock all gave you a star for getting to the top (the end of the level) to name a few).

You also say that "In Mario 64, there are practically no secrets" -- that was the entire purpose of the red coins! I'll admit that on many levels most of the red coins weren't that hard to find at all, and more of an eight notched design crutch for leading the player from point A to H where a star would be, but I still remember some of the more fun red star hiding places, and I still wish more games would have hidden items for me to look for.

As for bashing the lack of power ups, I'll agree that not having the star and fire power felt odd, and should have been added even if scarcely, but how can you mention the flight cap so damn casually? having it be temporary almost even made it better because of the fear and suspense it could evoke, as early as even the first level.

As for the easy health reheal by jumping in water, i agree with what you said, but i still wouldn't change the game if i had the choice. Mario NES was as fun as it was challenging, and since it was the only game most kids had for 6 months back then (for many it was their only NES game), so making it hard was acceptable. Mario 64 was made a glorious tech demo that millions of people of all ages and backgrounds would play. do you think making it a 2 hit kill game would have been a wise decision? do you really? because you even mention how frustrating jump-camera-induced deaths were, so aren't you glad the game was lenient on you with occasional auto heal? I think they made the right design choice.

All your Zelda points are valid, and of course all of this is just my opinion, but I felt like sharing since that's the point of these debates. To let your opinions be heard and back them up with some evidence for your argument. Thanks a ton for sharing your vote with a wide variety of details and support.

I'm gonna have to jump on the train here and vote for Ocarina of Time. It's been a really long time since I played either of those games, but I remember OoT blowing me away much more than Super Mario 64 did.

Ocarina.

Zelda.

I vote Mario 64. While OoT was a great game I think mario 64 had more freedom. Mario could run, jump and swim. It felt like you had total control of his movements. Zelda on the hand not being able to move very freely having to target enemies not being able to jump. They are both great games but with Mario 64 I can jump right into the game and start doing some crazy acrobatics which I love so very much.

Zelda, no questions about it

Oh man, I hate this one.

I love both, but I'm gonna have to go with OOT by a short margin.

very cruel. OOT, without a doubt. the first time i've ever felt completely immersed in an RPG.

Mario 64, it's the game that solidified my purchase of an N64 as well.

Ocarina of Time. As for the series, that's an even harder pick... I think I'm going to have to go with Zelda on this one, but it's damn close.

I have to cast my vote for Zelda for both OoT and overall series.

I admit that in Mario 64 it was much more fun to just run around and do nothing, but it lacked the incentive to actually progress through the story that OoT provided. It was an amazing game, but I had zero urge to make it through to the ending (I did beat it, though.)

OoT on the other hand, did a brilliant job of never allowing too much downtime (except in parts involving the Zora since they were so out of the way) and installing the fun parts IN the main story.

Easy vote for OoT. Love it.

My opinion is that Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is the better of the two games.

The music, 3D controls (auto-jumping), story and open-world aspect of OoT really seal the deal for me. I admit that I've never enjoyed (or finished) a 2D Zelda game (with the exception of Phantom Hourglass, if you count that as 2D), but OoT completely got me hooked on Zelda. Windwaker was a close second, but far above Twilight Princess - I've sadly never had the chance to play Majora's Mask (please release on VC).

Mario 64 never caught my interest. Although many claim it has close-to-perfect controls, I could never get comfortable with them. I feel as if I am wrestling with the camera and positioning. The Mario series (and controls) really shine in 2D, and I've happily played all of those (although I do not love Super Mario World nearly as much as most). Super Mario Galaxy was an excellent game in my opinion - far better than Mario 64. SMG was not the sterile, bland, difficult-to-control world of Mario 64, but rather a living world filled with color, shapes, motion, music, and character. If this poll was between SMG and OoT, then it would be a harder choice.

I will put in Mario 64 and literally run around in circles. It's fun to fucking jumping in that game. Jumping! The most basic movement in all gaming besides walking is so amazingly well done that you actually just love doing it. Zelda is amazing but it doesn't do that.

Mario

This is another easy one M64 set the standard, opened up a whole new era of games!! Zelda was good but 3D had blown our minds on M64!! Now if you had saind Zelda LInk to the past there may have been some trouble!!

Mario 64 wins!