Unpopular opinions about the Mario series

[Yoshi! Yoshi!]

Her and Baby Rosalina makes the fanbase squirm and it's kinda funny.



Super Mario 64 is shit to play today and besides 64 DS is vastly superior anyway because you can play as Wario.

The DS version is the only version I enjoyed because I could be Yoshi and the physics seemed to work better.

 

[Striker Mario Boogaloo]

I think Super Mario 64 is the weakest in the series.

*Ducks into barrel*

This Lakitu is the real villain of that game.

 

[Spawny]

Waluigi has always been cool.

 

[Yoshi! Yoshi!]

This Lakitu is the real villain of that game.

Yeah, talk about a stalker!

 

[Fox McCloud]

I think Super Mario 64 is the weakest in the series.

*Ducks into barrel*

I wouldn't say it's the weakest (there are weaker entries that wound up getting forgotten because of just how weak they were), but it definitely hasn't aged as well as people keep saying it has. The newer Mario titles are simply superior to it in every way. Even Super Mario Sunshine, despite that being the black sheep of the franchise. I believe I commented to this effect earlier in the thread, actually.

I've been confused how Youtubers who used to sing Super Mario Odyssey's praises are now turning around and going "Super Mario 64 was always better, SMO is just heavily flawed actually" and nitpick the hell out of little details about its gameplay that, let's be honest, either no one noticed or were intentionally designed that way for good reason and if anything I think it works out to the game's favor. I guess it's the typical games we like cycle that's been going on for newer entries (a consistent pattern in franchises that's observable in their fanbases) — they start out getting praised upon launch, then suddenly people seem to sour on it, then it becomes "cringy" to like it, and then it turns back around years later to being beloved and people wonder why it was so widely disliked.

This isn't me saying SMO is flawless by any means (I have some small things, such as the fact that both Cloud and Ruined Kingdom, especially the latter, are blatant missed opportunities, and Ruined Kingdom in particular seems rushed, like it was meant to have more in it than it actually does with how much effort was placed into the atmosphere of it), nor that your opinion is invalid if you don't like it as much as the others, but people legitimately complain about some moons being easy to get and I'm like... C'mon, really? SM64 is like that too, some stars are easy as hell to get. It's not bad game design. Nintendo has always had the design philosophy to make the main storyline accessible to pretty much everyone and it's 100% completion that tends to be tougher. (I think Super Mario Sunshine is the one game that strays away from this concept.)

Waluigi has always been cool.

I wouldn't say that's an unpopular opinion lol. Waluigi is really popular, and he's been like that for a long time to my memory. He has a sizable amount of detractors, too, but that doesn't make him unpopular by any means; Sonic has a lot of detractors and yet he's an extremely popular gaming icon.


Since I lightly touched upon it here, I'll just be outright: I have never minded Mario's difficulty and if anything, I think most of the main franchise should stay easy. The pick up and play style of SMO works out wonderfully for the franchise and I think they should keep it for future entries. I like the fact that you could literally play the game for five minutes and be able to accomplish something in it. I'm not saying every game ever should be like this, but to me it's an asset to SMO, not a flaw. It works out a lot for older folks like me who have trouble focusing and thus don't get invested in new games to be able to simply pick up and play the game whenever we want to. I've been put off from a lot of newer games because I have to put a lot of time and energy into it that I don't have to expend.

To be frank, I think people who complain about it aren't considering the fact that there are other people who play games besides hardcore gamers who play them all the time, and this attitude that "casuals" are ruining the franchise (and this goes for other franchises too) is overblown and, quite frankly, strikes me as really elitist. It's not as if the games that you have to grind to get good at and invest in are out of the market, either, and SMO also has challenging spots if you go for 100% completion, which I think can feed that itch anyway.

This is coming from someone who always picks the Hard mode first if it's available, by the way.

 

[Striker Mario Boogaloo]

Well, they're just YouTubers in the end. Maybe some people got over the honeymoon phase of the game (I still remember people thought BRAWL of all games was balanced in the first few months of the game coming out; remember staggered release dates where Japan got Brawl like 5months before the rest of the world??) and now don't like the game as much.

Hell I kinda got a honeymoon phase with Odyssey, but that's only for how Mario LOOKS. Somehow, the more I look at Odyssey Mario's model, the less I like it. Like, I don't *dislike* it but I compare its proportions with the proportions in Mario & Sonic at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games and I realize how stubby Odyssey Mario is, how short his limbs are, and how his wrists aren't defined at all? Same for his chin, it's not defined as I'd like it to be.

That being said, this is a huuuuge aesthetic nitpick that I just prepared to explain why I prefer Mario spinoffs Mario. I still LOVE Mario in Super Mario Odyssey. Super Mario Odyssey, I'd rather play again compared to Super Mario 64. It's still my favorite of the Mario platformers. It's still fairly common to see people prefer Galaxy and 3D World over it, which is fair enough, but Odyssey was what I really wanted out of Mario platformers, especially after my big disappointment with Galaxy 2 (which I was hoping they'd expand the scale of the levels, but it's just more of the same). I prefer Odyssey's worlds overall since Super Mario 64 DID have some stinkers for worlds. Hell some of their levels are glorified linear platforming that gets repetitive in its power stars, notable offenders include Tick Tock Clock, Rainbow Ride, Tall Tall Mountain, and Dire Dire Docks.

Power Moons being easy to get is a complaint I can dig but it's mostly clustered in early game iirc (ground-pounding in a spot in plain sight is like only in the second world of the game) and it doesn't REALLY bother me. The post-game is not very good, however. It would be much better if we got more of those unlocked moon pipes and got harder platforming gauntlets there and less of the "spot the thing in the sky", "catch the flying bird", "where is the picture located?" I played through Super Mario Odyssey BARELY using warps, actually preferring walking/jumping to whatever destination I wanted, and I found those post-game moons mostly chores and didn't even get all of those while painstakingly getting every other Power Moon and purple coin.

---

I don't mind Mario's difficulty either but I'd disagree with people who think Mario games are getting too easy. It just sounds like people who grew up playing games got hand-eye coordination and experience that transferred to the newer games and they didn't really play the older games for a refresh. IF older Mario games are harder, it's entirely fault of game design (say restarting an entire game after losing all your lives) or archaic stuff that wouldn't pass for acceptable level design.

 

[Flygon64]

I enjoyed collecting gems in Dark Moon more than I enjoyed collecting the portrait ghosts in the first game
Even though the portraits ghosts are kinda fun in their own right

 

[Yoshi! Yoshi!]

I wouldn't say it's the weakest (there are weaker entries that wound up getting forgotten because of just how weak they were), but it definitely hasn't aged as well as people keep saying it has. The newer Mario titles are simply superior to it in every way. Even Super Mario Sunshine, despite that being the black sheep of the franchise. I believe I commented to this effect earlier in the thread, actually.

I've been confused how Youtubers who used to sing Super Mario Odyssey's praises are now turning around and going "Super Mario 64 was always better, SMO is just heavily flawed actually" and nitpick the hell out of little details about its gameplay that, let's be honest, either no one noticed or were intentionally designed that way for good reason and if anything I think it works out to the game's favor. I guess it's the typical games we like cycle that's been going on for newer entries (a consistent pattern in franchises that's observable in their fanbases) — they start out getting praised upon launch, then suddenly people seem to sour on it, then it becomes "cringy" to like it, and then it turns back around years later to being beloved and people wonder why it was so widely disliked.

This isn't me saying SMO is flawless by any means (I have some small things, such as the fact that both Cloud and Ruined Kingdom, especially the latter, are blatant missed opportunities, and Ruined Kingdom in particular seems rushed, like it was meant to have more in it than it actually does with how much effort was placed into the atmosphere of it), nor that your opinion is invalid if you don't like it as much as the others, but people legitimately complain about some moons being easy to get and I'm like... C'mon, really? SM64 is like that too, some stars are easy as hell to get. It's not bad game design. Nintendo has always had the design philosophy to make the main storyline accessible to pretty much everyone and it's 100% completion that tends to be tougher. (I think Super Mario Sunshine is the one game that strays away from this concept.)



I wouldn't say that's an unpopular opinion lol. Waluigi is really popular, and he's been like that for a long time to my memory. He has a sizable amount of detractors, too, but that doesn't make him unpopular by any means; Sonic has a lot of detractors and yet he's an extremely popular gaming icon.


Since I lightly touched upon it here, I'll just be outright: I have never minded Mario's difficulty and if anything, I think most of the main franchise should stay easy. The pick up and play style of SMO works out wonderfully for the franchise and I think they should keep it for future entries. I like the fact that you could literally play the game for five minutes and be able to accomplish something in it. I'm not saying every game ever should be like this, but to me it's an asset to SMO, not a flaw. It works out a lot for older folks like me who have trouble focusing and thus don't get invested in new games to be able to simply pick up and play the game whenever we want to. I've been put off from a lot of newer games because I have to put a lot of time and energy into it that I don't have to expend.

To be frank, I think people who complain about it aren't considering the fact that there are other people who play games besides hardcore gamers who play them all the time, and this attitude that "casuals" are ruining the franchise (and this goes for other franchises too) is overblown and, quite frankly, strikes me as really elitist. It's not as if the games that you have to grind to get good at and invest in are out of the market, either, and SMO also has challenging spots if you go for 100% completion, which I think can feed that itch anyway.

This is coming from someone who always picks the Hard mode first if it's available, by the way.

I meant weakest in the main branch of Mario titles.

SMB is Golden
SMB 2 JPN (Lost Levels US) is Weak
SMB II (US) is Good
SMW is Golden
SM64 is Weak
SMS(unshine) is Great
SMG1 is Golden

To me Super Mario 64 banked on the the tech, on the graphics, but it didn’t feel likw a complete Mario Game to me. It felt like open world exploring game with Mario elements tacked on.

I understand its some people’s favorite. But it just didn’t capture what makes a Mario Game to me.

 

[Striker Mario Boogaloo]

I enjoyed collecting gems in Dark Moon more than I enjoyed collecting the portrait ghosts in the first game
Even though the portraits ghosts are kinda fun in their own right

Did you play Luigi's Mansion 3, though? There's a lot of gem collecting there too.

I meant weakest in the main branch of Mario titles.

SMB is Golden
SMB 2 JAP (Lost Levels US) is Weak
SMB II (US) is Good
SMW is Golden
SM64 is Weak
SMS(unshine) is Great
SMG1 is Golden

To me Super Mario 64 banked on the the tech, on the graphics, but it didn’t feel likw a complete Mario Game to me. It felt like open world exploring game with Mario elements tacked on.

I understand its some people’s favorite. But it just didn’t capture what makes a Mario Game to me.

But how did you feel about the more linear levels, such as Lethal Lava Land and Rainbow Ride as well as the Bowser Levels? Not much room to explore in those levels, they're just platforming gauntlets.

 

[Flygon64]

Did you play Luigi's Mansion 3, though? There's a lot of gem collecting there too.

I've been! I haven't beaten it yet though.
I'm really loving it so far.
I spent hours trying to find the gems on the first floor lol, I was pretty spooked when different music played and ghosts appeared because I was taking so long.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I enjoyed collecting gems in Dark Moon more than I enjoyed collecting the portrait ghosts in the first game
Even though the portraits ghosts are kinda fun in their own right

Honestly in general I think Dark Moon is a really fun and good game and I don't mind that it has a tonal shift from the first game. It got a lot of flack for some reason, and it seems like a lot of people who really like the first game dislike it? I never understood that because I like both games. Yeah, Dark Moon is different from the first one, but I don't think it's in a bad way.

I triple medaled Dark Moon, so you can imagine how much I like it. lol

I suppose for a lot of people the tonal shift was a massive hang up as was the mission-styled gameplay, but I think it was great for what it is and I think it's been unfairly judged for not being what people wanted it to be, rather than for what it actually is.

I meant weakest in the main branch of Mario titles.

SMB is Golden
SMB 2 JP (Lost Levels US) is Weak
SMB II (US) is Good
SMW is Golden
SM64 is Weak
SMS(unshine) is Great
SMG1 is Golden

To me Super Mario 64 banked on the the tech, on the graphics, but it didn’t feel likw a complete Mario Game to me. It felt like open world exploring game with Mario elements tacked on.

I understand its some people’s favorite. But it just didn’t capture what makes a Mario Game to me.

Gotcha, yeah, I pretty much share this sentiment too. (Not the complete Mario game sentiment, but everything else.) SMG1 is definitely a step up in lots of ways, and SMW is a big nostalgia game for me in particular.

(Also, I would advise shortening Japanese to "JP", "JN", "J", or "JPN" in the future. I won't explain here because this is not the thread for that, but you can look into the subject if you're interested.)

 

[Yoshi! Yoshi!]

Honestly in general I think Dark Moon is a really fun and good game and I don't mind that it has a tonal shift from the first game. It got a lot of flack for some reason, and it seems like a lot of people who really like the first game dislike it? I never understood that because I like both games. Yeah, Dark Moon is different from the first one, but I don't think it's in a bad way.

I triple medaled Dark Moon, so you can imagine how much I like it. lol

I suppose for a lot of people the tonal shift was a massive hang up as was the mission-styled gameplay, but I think it was great for what it is and I think it's been unfairly judged for not being what people wanted it to be, rather than for what it actually is.



Gotcha, yeah, I pretty much share this sentiment too. (Not the complete Mario game sentiment, but everything else.) SMG1 is definitely a step up in lots of ways, and SMW is a big nostalgia game for me in particular.

(Also, I would advise shortening Japanese to "JP", "JN", "J", or "JPN" in the future. I won't explain here because this is not the thread for that, but you can look into the subject if you're interested.)

When you compare Ocarina of Time to Super Mario 64 its most jarring. Orcarina feels like a Zelda Game and uses the transition to 3D flawlessly, but Super Mario 64 feels like a Beta rushed to market.

Thanks for the advice, I wondered how you are suppose to abbreviate that. I ammended my original post to your suggestion.

 

[Xananab]

My dislike for the mission-based structure has nothing to do with it being different or whatever. I just don't think it's a good fit for Luigi's Mansion. Luckily Next Level Games listened to the feedback and removed it in LM3.

 

[Ray Trace]

I really don't think the original Luigi's Mansion aged well at all. It has a ton of missable content that don't give you a second chance of getting unless you save scum the game if you want a good ending. If you're aiming to A rank, say, a particular portrait ghost, you have only one chance of doing it. Same think with the Spooky Speedsters. I know the game itself can be completed in under a day, but redoing parts of the game just to attempt to get a good ranking at the end is cumbersome. Additionally, walking to a Toad just to save your game is needlessly time-consuming when in the modern era, you can save wherever you please. I think the 3DS remake, however, fixed these issues.

Still would rather play Dark Moon over it, and I had zero problems with its mission-based structure. What I do have problems is requiring to use gyro to complete certain segments, such as balancing on beams/catwalks and the Secret Mine boss fight.

 

[Muscle]

MK64's Bowser Castle is the worst thing ever and those Thwomps are my WoRsT nightmare dsfgjhgsdfsa.

 

[Ray Trace]

N64 Bowser's Castle is fine, it's the game that it was originally on that's shit.

 

[Muscle]

I could beat the previous levels. You can call Wario Stadium ass but it was playable lol.

 

[Plankton]

Rainbow Road is worse

 

[Striker Mario Boogaloo]

I really don't think the original Luigi's Mansion aged well at all. It has a ton of missable content that don't give you a second chance of getting unless you save scum the game if you want a good ending. If you're aiming to A rank, say, a particular portrait ghost, you have only one chance of doing it. Same think with the Spooky Speedsters. I know the game itself can be completed in under a day, but redoing parts of the game just to attempt to get a good ranking at the end is cumbersome. Additionally, walking to a Toad just to save your game is needlessly time-consuming when in the modern era, you can save wherever you please. I think the 3DS remake, however, fixed these issues.

Still would rather play Dark Moon over it, and I had zero problems with its mission-based structure. What I do have problems is requiring to use gyro to complete certain segments, such as balancing on beams/catwalks and the Secret Mine boss fight.

Are these problems unique to Luigi's Mansion or are they like a typical issue of "final ranking for the end of the game" designs that are in games, such as Wario Land 4?

 

[Ray Trace]

Are these problems unique to Luigi's Mansion or are they like a typical issue of "final ranking for the end of the game" designs that are in games, such as Wario Land 4?

I'm not sure if you can replay the levels in those types of games to get a better score.

 

[Borp]

You can indeed replay stages for a better score in Wario Land 4.

 

[Yoshi! Yoshi!]

I really don't think the original Luigi's Mansion aged well at all. It has a ton of missable content that don't give you a second chance of getting unless you save scum the game if you want a good ending. If you're aiming to A rank, say, a particular portrait ghost, you have only one chance of doing it. Same think with the Spooky Speedsters. I know the game itself can be completed in under a day, but redoing parts of the game just to attempt to get a good ranking at the end is cumbersome. Additionally, walking to a Toad just to save your game is needlessly time-consuming when in the modern era, you can save wherever you please. I think the 3DS remake, however, fixed these issues.

Still would rather play Dark Moon over it, and I had zero problems with its mission-based structure. What I do have problems is requiring to use gyro to complete certain segments, such as balancing on beams/catwalks and the Secret Mine boss fight.

I played Luigi’s Mansion and tried to get all A scores and perfect paintings. It at least gave the game some replay-ability.

 

[Fox McCloud]

My dislike for the mission-based structure has nothing to do with it being different or whatever. I just don't think it's a good fit for Luigi's Mansion. Luckily Next Level Games listened to the feedback and removed it in LM3.

But this is exactly what I mean. "I just don't think it's a good fit for [x] franchise" is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Rather than enjoying the game for what it is, the mission-based structure is seen as a bad thing only specifically because it's not what they'd want out of that particular franchise. I don't have expectations at all for what Luigi's Mansion is "supposed" to be or what "fits" for LM, and as a result I enjoyed the mission-based gameplay a lot. Besides, the structure that the first game uses was only used for one game; even LM3 doesn't use the same structure, it has its own unique one that's different from both games.

The idea that a franchise always has to stick to the same or similar structure is what stifles creativity. I'm the odd one out here in saying that I think experimenting with the structure is a good thing. It's riskier for sure, and not everyone will like what you do with it after, but I don't actually want to play the same game Electric Boogaloo with every franchise. I'd like to see something new out of each entry.

Ultimately, I can't make you like the mission-based gameplay and it's fine, I'm just not satisfied with the criticism that it's bad specifically because it's in Luigi's Mansion in particular.

I'm not sure if you can replay the levels in those types of games to get a better score.

You can in, funnily enough for the purposes of this thread, Dark Moon (I know you mentioned that type of game, I'm just mentioning that this is a strength Dark Moon has over the OG). All missions are replayable and you can keep playing them for gems and a better rank as many times as you'd like. It's one thing the mission-based structure has over the structure in the original game.

You can also lose out your A-rank if you forget to water the plant during each "segment" in the OG title, which can be very easy to forget because the game never instructs you on it.

(By the way, I agree with you that gyro sucks. Gyro sucks in every game it's present in. Dark Moon is one of the less egregious examples imo, but it was very annoying in Dream Team where sometimes the gyro could outright break and leave a Giant Luigi segment unplayable until it fixes itself.)

I played Luigi’s Mansion and tried to get all A scores and perfect paintings. It at least gave the game some replay-ability.

The problem is you have to replay every single bit of the game to get back to those segments or otherwise reset the console and lose save progress. It's not really fun replayability.

 

[Yoshi! Yoshi!]

But this is exactly what I mean. "I just don't think it's a good fit for [x] franchise" is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Rather than enjoying the game for what it is, the mission-based structure is seen as a bad thing only specifically because it's not what they'd want out of that particular franchise. I don't have expectations at all for what Luigi's Mansion is "supposed" to be or what "fits" for LM, and as a result I enjoyed the mission-based gameplay a lot. Besides, the structure that the first game uses was only used for one game; even LM3 doesn't use the same structure, it has its own unique one that's different from both games.

The idea that a franchise always has to stick to the same or similar structure is what stifles creativity. I'm the odd one out here in saying that I think experimenting with the structure is a good thing. It's riskier for sure, and not everyone will like what you do with it after, but I don't actually want to play the same game Electric Boogaloo with every franchise. I'd like to see something new out of each entry.

Ultimately, I can't make you like the mission-based gameplay and it's fine, I'm just not satisfied with the criticism that it's bad specifically because it's in Luigi's Mansion in particular.



You can in, funnily enough for the purposes of this thread, Dark Moon (I know you mentioned that type of game, I'm just mentioning that this is a strength Dark Moon has over the OG). All missions are replayable and you can keep playing them for gems and a better rank as many times as you'd like. It's one thing the mission-based structure has over the structure in the original game.

You can also lose out your A-rank if you forget to water the plant during each "segment" in the OG title, which can be very easy to forget because the game never instructs you on it.

(By the way, I agree with you that gyro sucks. Gyro sucks in every game it's present in. Dark Moon is one of the less egregious examples imo, but it was very annoying in Dream Team where sometimes the gyro could outright break and leave a Giant Luigi segment unplayable until it fixes itself.)



The problem is you have to replay every single bit of the game to get back to those segments or otherwise reset the console and lose save progress. It's not really fun replayability.

I thought you could have multiple save files like Paper Mario 64?

 

[Xananab]

But this is exactly what I mean. "I just don't think it's a good fit for [x] franchise" is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Rather than enjoying the game for what it is, the mission-based structure is seen as a bad thing only specifically because it's not what they'd want out of that particular franchise. I don't have expectations at all for what Luigi's Mansion is "supposed" to be or what "fits" for LM, and as a result I enjoyed the mission-based gameplay a lot. Besides, the structure that the first game uses was only used for one game; even LM3 doesn't use the same structure, it has its own unique one that's different from both games.

The idea that a franchise always has to stick to the same or similar structure is what stifles creativity. I'm the odd one out here in saying that I think experimenting with the structure is a good thing. It's riskier for sure, and not everyone will like what you do with it after, but I don't actually want to play the same game Electric Boogaloo with every franchise. I'd like to see something new out of each entry.

Ultimately, I can't make you like the mission-based gameplay and it's fine, I'm just not satisfied with the criticism that it's bad specifically because it's in Luigi's Mansion in particular.

You don't get what I'm saying. I don't dislike the mission-based structure because it's "it's different," I dislike it because I don't find it fun. Even if Dark Moon was the first entry in the series, and I didn't have any other game to compare it to, I would feel the exact same way about it. That's not me hating on "creativity," that's just me having an opinion about a game.

I never said I wanted Luigi's Mansion to stick to the same structure for every entry. That's absurd. Like you said, LM1 and LM3 both have different structures, yet I enjoy both those games a lot. Why is that? Because I find both their structures fun. It's that simple.

I'm fine with game series changing up their formulas. I like many games that are different than its predecessors. Mario Galaxy ditches the sandbox style I prefer, simplifies Mario's moveset, and has linear "get to the end" levels with minimal exploration. Yet I still like Galaxy a lot more than other Mario games. Why is that? Because I really enjoy Galaxy's gameplay style. Metroid Fusion is a much more linear game compared to Super Metroid. It removes sequence breaking, bomb jumping, and has long dialogue moments that breaks up the gameplay. So why do I still enjoy Fusion? Because I appreciate the things that makes Fusion unique, most of which aren't in other Metroid games.

I never write off a new entry in a series just because it's different. I do believe that sequels should try new things, otherwise there's no point in making a sequel. But the idea that "new" automatically means "good," and that anyone who dislikes it just hates creativity is stupid.