Is Super Mario Galaxy 2 really a bad thing?

Like many of you, upon the announcement of Super Mario Galaxy 2 at Nintendo's recent E3 press conference, I let out a groan.  Since when have new Mario games consisted of being nothing more than a map pack with Yoshi thrown in on the side?  OK, so the exact same thing happened with the release of Yoshi's Island on the SNES but that was the age of 2D.  The rules are different now that we have brought Mario into the third dimension; you can only do so much in 2D, but the options are limitless in 3D.  However, something happened in the past week.  I played Super Mario Galaxy and it has become my favorite game of this generation, and I'm not someone who constantly says that (FFVII has been my favorite ever since its release).  The game has a polish and spirit, while representative of all Nintendo titles, that is far removed of anything we've seen before.  Who wouldn't want more of a good thing?

This all brings me to a different state of mind with a refreshed view on what Nintendo is doing.  What was the highlight of SMG?  The endlessly creative level design, of course!  Now that Nintendo isn't going to have to recreate a whole new world with all new assets--although I hope there is plenty to separate the two games from looking too much alike--they will be focusing entirely on new levels and what the player can do within them.  This opens the gates to all sorts of possibilities that the average player can't even think up on his own; Thankfully the people at Nintendo can...I hope.



Of course, I have my doubts about SMG2 presenting the same level of creativity and variety of its predecessor.  For those of you who played Super Mario Galaxy, you know how many ideas were run through in just a single interpretation (or star mission) of a single stage--which begs the question just what else can Nintendo do?  It might seem like a cop out, although no worse then Valve's Left 4 Dead 2, but I still hold high hopes that Nintendo will pull through and take advantage of the extra time they can dedicate toward making the levels as tight, imaginative and fun as possible.  What else do they have to concern themselves with anyway if the groundwork has already been done, and the groundwork is the 2nd most highly reviewed game of this generation. 

It makes you wonder if this sort of design is forward thinking for games.  Instead of putting so much pressure on developers to make sequels with new weapons, enemies, and updated graphics, what if the next Gears, Half-Life, or Zelda focused only on delivering new levels and story.  After all, that's what those games do best.  Don't get me wrong; I love a big budget sequel that moves a franchise in a new direction (such as The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker), but when Gears of War 2 only takes baby steps forward then what's the point?  I'd much rather have an expanded chapter that has as much care as the original package, whether retail or DLC (although, I've never played DLC I've been impressed with).  Would you be willing to sacrifice a couple bullet points on the back of the box for a game that is just as fun and focused that will come out 2 years earlier because of this unconventional thinking?