Unpopular opinions about the Mario series

Well, they're fine games for the most part. But that's also the problem people have with them: they're fine, and they don't offer anything much more than that. People have been given bigger expectations for the titles because Mario has been known for having legendary platformers that defined the genre, so it's a bit heart-breaking to see games eventually reduced to just being "fine", especially when the competition has advanced past that.

New Super Mario Bros. these days just feel like they have the DNA of a 30 year old game at points. They still use lives, they still use points, they still use timers, they reuse the same world themes, they still use 2D tilesets with 3D characters, they have worn-out boss battles derived from 3 and World, and those contribute to how archaic they feel, especially 2 and U.

3D Mario had moved past that thanks to Odyssey, so I want the same for the 2D Mario games as well.
 
The first New Super Mario Bros. is the only one really worth playing imo, it has more colorful visuals and music compared to its successors.

It also has a really fun battle mode that should absolutely come back and way more enjoyable than the claustrophobic mess in Wii and U.
 
The multiplayer minigames and VS mode in the first NSMB game is awesome. I was disappointed when the 3DS one didn't bring either mode back and had a more restrictive co-op mode.
 
They need to do minigames in the main series like the ones in Super Mario 64 DS and New Super Mario Bros. again. Sure it doesn't really add to the main adventure but it's fun side content.
 
I agree with the fact that NSB1 is the best out of the games. I wish they kept the more colorful feel to the games.
 
i havent played u or 2 but i like the first 2 nsmb games. i dont totally love them like i do smm1 but i definitely prefer them to their predecessors. in terms of progression for mario however theyre much less powerful than smb1, smb3, and smw were (i havent played the last two of those three games, but i mean from what everyone else says i highly doubt they werent really revolutionary games too)
 
To think that Kirby's been doing that for every one of his main adventures since 1993.
Kirby, Donkey Kong Country, and even indie titles have been pushing the genre with new ideas and even just... doing the basics better. Mario pioneered the genre of 2D platformers... and this is all they want for it? They're totally fine with the games not doing a single thing they couldn't do in the NES or SNES days that isn't graphics?
 
I mean, I wouldn't say anything Kirby or DKC does couldn't be done in the past either.
 
8-Bit Mario looks like shit, I agree.

There's a lot of 8-bit Mario sprites I like more. I guess they're more complex
Mario_SMB2_sprite.png
TennisGBMarioSprite.png
Super_Mario_Land_2_Mario.png
Mario_MarioClash.png


Peach and Bowser also look ugly in SMB1
PrincessToadstoolSMB.png
SMB_Bowser_Sprite.png
 
Eh, they were acceptable for their first game.
 
SMB1 itself looks good but even Dk Mario looked better than SMB1 Mario lol. Why is he green and red you know?

It's the shape what really bothers me though.
 
Sprawling Savanna is overrated, the open part that everyone goes on about is just a long, flat, square area with a bush here or tree there, far from the peak of level design.

also 3D World is still bad
 
Last edited:
There's really no level in Super Mario 3D World I could call my favorite. None of them really stand out to me as any more fun or pretty than the other levels.

Music is still great though.
 
Sprawling Savanna is a great level to learn what "draw distance" is.
 
Not yelling about him about 3D World here, it IS the unpopular opinion thread after all.
 
I do agree that 3D World can be flawed. The multiplayer at points gets irritating because the developers decided to map the pick-up and throw button to the same button as the fire ball and jumping on each other's heads can screw others over and the Cannonbox can friendly fire which is an awful design choice.
 
Back