I've said this before, but those who seriously and still do consider the sequels to be the worst are the same entitled people that still cannot get past the one game that, nowadays didnt age all that well as they claimed it did. What I mean is these people to this day still act like 64 is the absolute masterpiece of the entire series, unbeknownst that both the genre the game is on top of the game itself aging very poorly. Rail shooters lost all popularity practically everywhere that only a small handful of special enthusiasts make em, but even then the audience is very niche, though while vertical and horizontal shooters are more popular even those are niche. As someone here said, development advances made this genre obsolete.
I dont hate 64, but I damn well know that it's not what I used to think it is, I bought a used copy of the 3D version, and I only did three rounds of it, after that I just never bothered with it again. I know about the medals, but I refuse to put myself through such trial and error to get something that doesnt serve any significance, a harder difficulty that IMO that should've been there from the start or after beating the hard course isnt worth it to me.
This is why I appreciate the sequels more because they not only have newer or improved gameplay elements, but they go past the Andross war and expand the universe and show what else happens with the crew. Falco left after a dispute with Fox, Fox and crew with Katt and her team stop a corrupt captain resurrecting Andross, Fox on a freelance mission goes to Sauria and ends up paired up with Krystal with Falco returning less irritated after saving the planet, and Fox and crew deal with a borg insect race.
I would mention Command events but we all know how awful and inconsistent that games story is, the cast were out out character