Sonic# wrote:^ The voices don't annoy me, the soundtrack is cleanly designed (and I'm not allergic to "childish"), they reuse good graphics while adding new touches, the power-ups add fun ways to play the levels, and the stages are the same left-to-right business they've always been. The issues you cite are not issues for me. I know that some people have complained about the loss of novelty, but many of those same people loved these games anyhow. So it seems a little much to argue, almost without qualification, that these games are the "least interesting."
This reminds me of the differences of perceiving romance novels between readers and nonreaders. Nonreaders will point out every reductive and boring similarity and claim that nothing interesting is going on. Readers will perceive the plots of every book they like individually, distinguishing between different protagonists. Both acknowledge the form; one holds the form as a problem and can't see past it, and the other accepts the form. One's not better than the other. They just have different expectations.
So it sounds like you're coming at these games as someone on the outside of these games. I come at them from the inside. It's fine that you don't like them. I was even interested to hear why. I guess I object to the presentation of preference as argument.
Lol, I completely get the point about "someone from the outside who just wants to point out the bad".
You mean like those guys that don't play RPGs and just judge by graphics or the plot about saving the world?
Nope, I don't think I'm that kind of person at all!
Now, I respect people's taste, even if they like a bad product. For example I LOVED Lunar DS, and that's considered crap by the majority! So it's not like I think you are wrong in liking the game. My main problem is the product itself.
Me, I sound like i'm coming from the outside of these games, you say? You mean as in like, I was never a Mario fan, and am judging because I never cared? Is that what you mean? Well, Nope. That is very untrue for me.
Super Mario was my #1 favorite. Just in case, here are the main platformer Super Mario games I have played (and finished, of course)
On NES: SMB1, SMB2 (USA), SMB2 (JAP), SMB3.
On SNES: SMW1, all the ALL-STARS remakes, SMW2
On GB: SML1, SML2, SML3, DK.
On GBA I played the ports, but they have Mario's voice now. Wtf? Mama-mia every time you die? >< crap. "Just what I needed!" when you get power ups? >< ugh. It didnt ruin it, but it was the beginning of the problem. Mario had changed.
I also played non platformer games like Mario Kart and Mario RPG on SNES. All these games are Favorite games ever! I played each as I grew up.
Sooo do I still come from the outside judging blindly?
Look how lovely SML1 was. Each world had its music. And they were all masterpieces. Then they upgraded everything incredibly in SML2.
Same upgrade happened to SMB3 after SMB1 and The Lost Levels.
(Even though SMB1 and 3 reused music, oh it was nooooowhere near as silly as New SMB jeeze >.<)
So OK. I accept New SMB as that one mario game i dont like. There had to be at least 1, right? But WHY is New SMB getting so many sequels and they all look the same? It's like expansion ports. Why didnt they make expansions of SML1 instead? or SML2? or SMB3?
SMB1 had its "expansion" sequel and thats The Lost Levels, but thats it.
Why does New SMB, my least favorite one, get 3 versions or maybe even more? I ran out of luck with Mario =)
(BTW, I did play New SMB on DS to completion, I got all the hidden coins and completed all worlds. So I CAN judge.)
I will move on to all those many other platforms that still want to give me something new, interesting, fun, and more to my taste.