I mean okay, they're not hugely alike in terms of storyline (at least Partners in Time has one with new villains and some humour in), but in terms of their flaws and game structures, you could arguably say they're pretty similar.
To start, both were kind of linear games with little in the way of sidequests, little in the way of villain interaction and little in the way of exploration, with the former having actual levels on a map and the latter having a Mario 64 style hub with a few super linear areas (think 3D World linear in some cases) branching off of it. Indeed, some might even compare Partners in Time to Skyward Sword in terms of world structure, just with Peach's Castle replacing Skyloft and the Sky.
And interestingly, both seem to have the same problems in terms of combat. Namely, bosses with far too much health (which in the case of Partners in Time, was basically doubled from that in the other regional versions), attacks being consumable (Sticker Star had Stickers, Partners in Time had Bros Items) goods rather than based on stats/magic meters and bosses requiring strategies than left you with only one way to 'win' (aka Sticker Star requiring odd strategies with 'Thing' Stickers and Partners in Time having bosses with guarded cores and other defence systems you had to take out first). So to a degree, you can say they're both fairly similar games in structure.
So what made one better than the other?
I'd say it's simply a mix of having some semblance of a story and uniqueness (Partners in Time at least introduced the Shroobs as villains and made the world a post apocalyptic wasteland) and not overdoing it with the mechanical changes (at least in Partners in Time, you had basic attacks that didn't involve items).
But what do you think? Are both of the respective 'black sheep' games in the Mario RPGs series pretty similar in terms of basic structure? Does Partners in Time show some of Sticker Star's flaws many years earlier?
To start, both were kind of linear games with little in the way of sidequests, little in the way of villain interaction and little in the way of exploration, with the former having actual levels on a map and the latter having a Mario 64 style hub with a few super linear areas (think 3D World linear in some cases) branching off of it. Indeed, some might even compare Partners in Time to Skyward Sword in terms of world structure, just with Peach's Castle replacing Skyloft and the Sky.
And interestingly, both seem to have the same problems in terms of combat. Namely, bosses with far too much health (which in the case of Partners in Time, was basically doubled from that in the other regional versions), attacks being consumable (Sticker Star had Stickers, Partners in Time had Bros Items) goods rather than based on stats/magic meters and bosses requiring strategies than left you with only one way to 'win' (aka Sticker Star requiring odd strategies with 'Thing' Stickers and Partners in Time having bosses with guarded cores and other defence systems you had to take out first). So to a degree, you can say they're both fairly similar games in structure.
So what made one better than the other?
I'd say it's simply a mix of having some semblance of a story and uniqueness (Partners in Time at least introduced the Shroobs as villains and made the world a post apocalyptic wasteland) and not overdoing it with the mechanical changes (at least in Partners in Time, you had basic attacks that didn't involve items).
But what do you think? Are both of the respective 'black sheep' games in the Mario RPGs series pretty similar in terms of basic structure? Does Partners in Time show some of Sticker Star's flaws many years earlier?