My opinion on this game did probably the biggest 180. At first, I was thoroughly unimpressed with the more on-rails approach this game has become notorious for. However, in hindsight, while Metroid Fusion's formatting takes it out of the running imo for the best metroidvania or the best Metroid, the way that this game subverts the established formula to fit the story/atmosphere is very well executed. The game is overall really solid and I enjoyed it more than I expected to.

Here's some random gripes though:
- I had to consult a map every now and then because the routes you are expected to take to your objective can be painfully obtuse. While it can be argued that you are expected to take notice of your surroundings already, it is a principle of good design to make the way progess to be clear and intuitive, and Fusion has a handful of times where it fails to meet that principle.
- This game tends to discourage non-story-related backtracking, which is fine in concept, but it is also frustrating when the game relatively often locks you out of areas temporarily. Have fun waiting until the last minute to get every upgrade, just to learn that 90% of the game is locked away permanently (still a tad upset).
- Fusion's bosses aren't that good. Either they are pathetically easy, or they are kinda bullshit. I want to focus on the latter, because that it a bold take. A lot of Fusion's harder bosses felt like a mix of two issues, speed and an overabundance of active hitboxes. Samus is not super nimble, and she can't avoid enemies on a dime. However, bosses like Serris and SA-X move just fast enough that they make dodging feel proactive instead of reactive. It feels like bosses like these were designed for a game with a faster character. When it comes to an overabundance of active hitboxes, it comes down to bosses taking up an obscene amount of the screen, like Nettori, Nightmare, and the Omega Metroid. With Nettori in particular, it is excruciating to get through that fight without taking a truckload of damage. When ~70%-80% of the screen hurts you, it makes for some annoying-ass encounters.

I want to like this game. I SEE why people like it, I see what they enjoy about it. The story is decently charming, I like the creepy mysterious entity that is Rudy, It's cool watching the world map evolve, there's a decent sense of a coherent little world, and you get a nice sense of progression as you gain abilities. But I just can't being myself to say that I like it, the game just goes out of it's way to ensure sure you don't have a good time. And I'm going to try and even out the discourse surrounding this thing a bit.

On PAPER the idea of a wario-vania is enticing, but the execution is so problematic that it fails to function as intended. It's a shame too, because most of the issue lives within the level design, which from a philosophy standpoint is so inherently flawed that it would ruin any game, not just a Wario Land. But on top of that, this philosophy impressively manages to run counter to what makes a backtracking metroidvania with unlockable abilities work, and shits on the potential it had. If you're an aspiring level designer, take notes. Because this game wrote the book on how not to do it.

Let's start by addressing the way individual rooms and chunks of content work in Wario Land 3. In almost any area in this game, you are presented with a small gauntlet of tricky platforming navigation impeded by frequent enemy spawns. Sounds normal, but in this game the levels are crafted in a very intentional way to ensure that if any singular enemy nicks you, it is basically guaranteed that you will bounce, float, roll, teleport, or melt your way back to square one, at the start of the gauntlet. This is Wario Land 3's solution to having a character that does not die. You don't pay in health or money, you pay with progression and time. They are so committal to this idea that often the level designers have carefully placed enemies and platforms in just such a fashion as to ensure that this happens.

Ok, sounds like it could be a bit annoying. But what's wrong with a challenge? Plenty of areas in Wario Land 2 share this prospect, even many of the areas in 4. Well what's wrong is that every OTHER aspect of the games design does not support this part of the design philosophy.

So let's break this down, due to being a Wario-Vania, you often enter stages lacking crucial skills and powers that you need to fully explore the level. Now, in a metroid-vania, you probe the map for what you can currently do, eventually stumbling into difficult content and challenges that you can tackle with your available toolkit. All the while, the game foreshadows new abilities that you'll attain later by placing enticing detours out of your reach. Now, Wario Land 3 often does this as well, but there's a catch. A sin other games usually avoid. In other games, normally if your toolkit allows you to access a difficult chunk of content, there is a really strong degree of trust and understanding that completing it will reward you with something, whether it be a progression item or powerup.

But not in this game. No no no, in Wario Land 3, progression gates are often placed at the END of difficult gauntlets, instead of before them. Can you extrapolate why this is an issue? In this game you suffer through a frustrating room only to be greeted by a big middle finger informing you that you'll have to come back later and do it AGAIN. There's a reason most metroidvanias place their progression checks at crossroads or detours, and that's because it prevents THIS scenario.

And it gets WORSE, on top of the possibility that you don't have the ability required to proceed, there's a second level of obfuscation. You may not have the KEY, since every reward is locked in a chest. Meaning that more often than not in this game, you will complete a challenge and be rewarded with NOTHING. And when you're exploring a level for the first time and run across a difficult room, there's really no way to know if completing the room will reward you with a CHEST or a KEY, or if you'll have the ability needed to finish it. Doing anything in this game, ( a game where most challenges are inherently frustrating or annoying by design ) is essentially just rolling a dice with a 2/3'rds chance that you wasted your time.

And just to add needless insult to injury, KEYS ARE NOT KEPT WHEN YOU LEAVE A STAGE. I can't comprehend why this is, but nothing stung worse then completing a hard room, getting a key, and then later opening a different chest, only to realize you'll have to re-collect that other key later. WHY!?

It's such an inherent failing to capitalize on the strengths of a metroid-vania progression structure that it's pretty hard to believe that nobody identified the problem while making it. This is the primary issue with Wario Land 3, but I can nitpick more. Frankly Wario Land 2 is just so superior that it makes my job a simple act of comparison.

In Wario Land 2, the design of rooms and enemy placement is actually pretty reserved. Most enemies are placed such that you can see the threat coming and adequately respond, and generally most exist not to merely obstruct you, but serve as a mechanical key to a puzzle or challenge, they are there because you need them, or as a navigational test. Seeing an enemy enlists the thought "hmm, wonder what I need to do with this guy?"

In 3, most rooms are lousy with more enemies then need be. Not only that, but often they cheekily attack the moment they come on screen. There's the ceiling guys who fire a bullet the frame they spawn, the zombies who simply jump scare the player by spawning with a delay ( and often right next to Wario ) , and plenty of guys placed in just such a fashion that when you jump to a platform off screen they will greet you as you land, etc, etc. And may I remind you that the punishment for being so much as nicked by any one of these cheekily placed bastards will be almost guaranteed to reset your progress on the room. Hell, why stop there? Often times not just that room! But the previous room too! And perhaps even the one before that if the designers are feeling saucy! You'll fall to your dismay in some sort of masochistic nightmare dreamed up by Bennett Foddy. The act of getting reset is often times long and obnoxious to boot, and running around on fire, bouncing uncontrollably, or toddling around slowly while fat or a zombie gets incredibly old the 100th time. And don't you dare forget that actually suffering through the experience might present you with nothing to show for your anguish.

This gung-ho enemy distribution also has the knock-on effect of often obscuring that some of those enemies might ACTUALLY be important for solving a puzzle or progressing, making it easy to overlook. Whereas in 2 it was so consistently assumed to be the case simply through the diligent consistency of minimal design.

Levels in 2 are also full of fun secrets, tunnels, coins, and even alternate routes and exits, such that exploring and prodding the bounds of the level is fun and rewarding. Somehow 3, despite being billed as a metroidvania which should be about exploring while recalling cool hidden routes you should backtrack too, manages to feel less open and satisfying.

2 also rewards you for finding those secrets with bonus levels, alternate routes, more bosses, more versions of the story, additional cutscenes and endings, AND makes going for 100% of the treasures a natural joy that I felt compelled to do. And to top it off the game rewarded me for THAT as well, with an ultimate level and final ending to really provide a sense of closure. 3 rewards you for suffering through it's schlock with a single screen saying "perfect!" and nothing else of note.

Wario Land 3 also has no top down convenient way to track your collection progress across the entire game, without having to check every level individually. ( Unlike... 2, surprise! )

The game also inherits one of the few misses in the design of Wario Land 2, that being the bosses, which in having a 1 strike you're out philosophy were always a slight pain. The same goes here, but I find it forgivable in both games at the end of the day.

The day-night mechanic was a missed opportunity. A few cute changes in a few stages but largely left me wondering why they bothered. At it's worst it's yet another vector by which the game could say "oh sorry you did this room, you wasted your time! come back later!".

I feel like people complain about the Golf Mini-Game all the time, but it's not awful in a vacuum and I think the reason people dislike it is the often overlooked weirdest part about it. It's randomized. I don't get why they did this. It'd be nice to fail and master a set golf challenge that is tied to the location, but you have no opportunity here to do so since as soon as you think "ok I know what swings to do to beat this stage next time", you remember that when you go back down that pipe it will be different. But also, why golf? It's so thematically dissonant and weird.

Also what's the point of money in this game??? There's no end game ranking really, and I guess golf is the only money sink? But I always had 999 coins by halfway through and there isn't THAT MUCH golf? Sure makes exploring even more boring since why should I even be excited to find coins??? In 2 I was DEFINITELY glad to find coins, making every small secret a treat. Did I miss something????

I also didn't find the game to have much of a thematic through-line. I prefer the enemies in 2 which all have a bit of a pirate theming to tie in with Captain Syrup, as do some of the levels. 3 lacks a bit in having any kind of identity. I will say I like Rudy, he's creepy and fun, but isn't really in the game much, and none of the enemies even foreshadow his clowniness in any sort of way.

If I'll give Wario Land 3 anything, it's that it's problems start to sting less as you round out your ability list, since you'll find yourself unequipped to complete a challenge less frequently... although this does nothing to address the key situation. But I can admit that I was enjoying myself a smidge more towards the end of the game. So pour one out for WL3.

To start wrapping this review up, I'll say that at time of writing, there is currently a resurging discourse surrounding this game heralding it as brilliant, and a lost treasure in the Nintendo catalogue. I don't really understand it. I can only chalk it up to it's recent release on the switch virtual console subscription service, coinciding with a current Wario backed revitalized interest in puzzle platformers sparked by the success of indie darling Pizza Tower.

But I can't see it as any more than a combination of rose-tinted nostalgia from the veteran fans, and a bias of omission by new players for whom this is the only currently available Wario Land on the switch... Playing anything else in this series paints it in a very bad light, I would argue that of even Wario Land 1, as there's nothing wrong with a simple and well executed romp that lacks major flaws. Whereas by comparison I found 3 to mostly be defined by those flaws.

Ultimately the praise 3 gets is largely undeserved. Despite Wario Land 3 having some inspired but undelivered upon concepts, it's not awful by any means. Still better than most games, particularly on the Gameboy. But actually playing it is far to often a futile exercise in frustration.

Although I have seen people talk about Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins just a bit more than its predecessor due to it being the last 2D Mario game until the release of New Super Mario Bros. in 2005, as well as it featuring the first appearance of Wario, I would still consider these two to be some of the most overlooked games in the entire franchise right alongside those Game Boy Color ports of Mario Tennis and Mario Golf that are actually sports-themed RPGs. On its own, Super Mario Land didn't age all that gracefully, but it was still a fun enough experience, but I was genuinely excited to play the sequel, even if it took me well over a year to actually get around to playing it. Even with that in mind, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins still managed to surprise me, and it worked as both a direct improvement on Super Mario Land and as a solid Mario game in its own right.

Super Mario Land had a number of features and mechanics that never made it to any other games in the series, and the same can be said for its sequel thanks to the amount of creative and interesting ideas that it brings to the table. Pretty much every level here in Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins manages to stand out without feeling gimmicky with their different platforming challenges, and while none of the changes to the formula were as drastic as the bouncier fireballs, exploding koopa shells, and shoot-em-up levels of the previous game, their implementation still made the game as a whole feel unique. On top of having almost three times as many levels as the first game, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins is also much more consistent in its level design, and while Mario still felt a little slippery with his movements, the zoomed in screen and larger platforms made jumps feel a lot more precise. My favorite element of this game would easily be its world themes, because whereas Super Mario Land had worlds based on real-life locations, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins had a world based around a giant tree, a level set inside of a whale, a set of levels taking place within a giant mechanical Mario statue, and even some space levels a whole 15 years before Super Mario Galaxy. The sheer amount of variety and imagination in this game's world and level themes could arguably rival that of the Mario games on home consoles, and the ability to approach the levels in any order was a nice touch as well.

The first Super Mario Land has some of the best music in the whole series, and while the sequel's soundtrack didn't reach those heights for me, I still quite liked the songs here in Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, as they were all catchy and fit the laid-back atmosphere of the levels quite well. Mario games were never exactly known for being challenging, but even then, the easiness of this game's levels paired with the game's bite-sized length still caught me off guard, and if you compare the steadily increasing difficulty of something like Super Mario Bros. 3 to the bosses in Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins dying in less than five seconds (and occasionally less than even one second), the difference is night and day. I also felt that it really wasn't necessary for the game's final castle to have absolutely zero checkpoints, because while that level wasn't all that hard, it was still annoying to have to do everything from the beginning whenever you died. Despite its flaws, I still really enjoyed my time with Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, and I might even give the first four Wario Land games a go at some point.

Legends: Arceus is incredibly fortunate that it's a Pokémon game, as there's a lot here that would be nearly unforgivable in any other context.

The story has some nice moments, and a handful of enjoyable characters, but is achingly plodding, tedious in its repetitions, and ultimately overstays its welcome. The core gameplay loop often feels like it amounts to little more than making numbers go up and ticking boxes. The boss fights were actually pretty enjoyable to me just because they broke up the core gameplay loop, but they do amount to an E-Grade Souls rip-off with some pretty bad game-feel. In general I think game-feel is something Legends: Arceus really struggles with, especially when this aspect collides headlong into some of the ways where the game feels unfinished (attempting to traverse hills and edges of terrain makes this really obvious).

The game also feels like it is suffering a bit of an identity crisis at times; a common occurrence for the first half of the runtime is that you'll end up in a battle with some story character, you'll have six monsters to their one or two meaning you can never really lose no matter what happens, and then as soon as you win your party is healed for you. It's like they didn't want the trainer battles to define the game, but were too scared to move away from them to a more dramatic extent in case the lack of them might disappoint long-time fans.

Easily the most damning problem though, and the one I really can't shake, is the world design. These environments are just so lifeless, so lacking in intrigue. Big, bland, bumpy, and ultimately distractingly ugly, expanses that exist solely to plonk down critters upon. If you removed the Pokémon themselves from the equation it's hard to imagine people actually wanting to exist in these spaces, or having any real desire to explore them.

Legends Arceus has a lot wrong with it, and yet despite this it is still a Pokémon game and this does some serious heavy lifting in its favour. Despite all my many complaints, sometimes you just see the most perfect, adorable little critter wandering around in the wild, you crouch down in the grass to try and sneak up on it, and in that moment it's hard to harbour any ill-will against what's going on here. Pokémon has always been a franchise that carries with it an incredible amount of charm and the best moments in Legends Arceus are the ones where that charm shines through, and for all the game's faults I was left smiling more than this review might suggest just because it's hard to feel too bad when you get to spend your time vibing around all these lovely monster-friends.

(Review originally written in December of 2019)

I had originally posted a largely positive review of this game. I was legitimately having a good time with it, and had put about 50 hours in at the time. A few days before writing this review, I completed a Living Dex, with 400/400 catchable Pokemon sitting in my boxes. After nearly 90 total hours, I took a break from the game and had a depressing realization.

I hadn't actually enjoyed most of it.

So why did I think highly of the game at first? Was I deluding myself in to thinking the game was better than it was just because I wanted to like it? Were my 21 years of fandom blinding me to the game's flaws?

Well yes, but actually no.

For much of the game, I was filled with that sense of childlike wonder that I really crave when it comes to gaming. I was playing with my kids, and we were having a great time. But I can pinpoint the part of the game where that stopped: When we had seen all the new Pokemon.

I made a point to not look at any of the leaks, or even most of the official news releases regarding the game. I made that commitment because playing Blue Version in 1998 was the only time I had played a Pokemon game without already being intimately familiar with every Pokemon in the game. I wanted to recapture some of that sense of discovery. And it worked! Discovering brand new Pokemon regularly was incredible. I was having the best time I'd had with the series in a long time.

But that was exclusively because I was being surprised regularly. Once the new Pokemon had all been seen, the game had nothing else interesting or new to show.

I truly love Pokemon as a franchise. It's been dear to me since I was a kid. My wife and I have played Pokemon games together throughout our relationship. Now I play with my kids. And because of that, I LOVE seeing new Pokemon. And I made Pokemon Sword all about that sensation. But that only works once.

The HD facade really just hides a Game Boy game, and that feels weird. Quite similar to what I said in my review of the remake of Link's Awakening, the game feels like it should be on more primitive hardware. When a game is simple due to hardware limitations, it makes sense. Gold and Silver were incredible because they were on the friggin' Game Boy. They were MASSIVE adventures in context. Platinum and Black 2/White 2 were impressive RPGs for the DS. But once the series hit the third dimension, it felt empty. I enjoyed XY. I really liked ORAS. I had an okay time with the four Alolan games. But the simple, repetitive gameplay of Pokemon just doesn't feel fulfilling when you KNOW the hardware is capable of so much more.

I've been a Pokemon main series apologist for a long time. But suddenly, I don't know if I've been honest with myself. So why would I play through all of these games?

It's the same reason I enjoyed my first 40-or-so hours with Sword. Because I really just like Pokemon. I love their designs, I love the new moves, I love their abilities, I love evolution (and Mega Evolution, RIP), I love crafting a team of six, and I love games that give a sense of adventure. That last point is especially important. I think it’s what’s really missing from the 3D Pokemon titles. Somehow, Pokemon entered the third dimension and it made things feel smaller. Instead of opening the world up, it became claustrophobic. Instead of growing up with the fan base, the games got simpler and easier. Instead of having a region you explore, Galar is the most linear region we’ve ever had.

I dunno, man. This has been a big ol’ word vomit, and I’ll probably have to revise it later after taking some more time to think about it. But Pokemon games need to be reworked in one way or another. I don’t know if I’m quite to the point where I’ll completely skip the next game. We’ll have to see what it looks like when it comes out. I don’t even care about Dexit. I just want the games to be interesting again. Because I played this game the same way I played Pokemon Rumble World, Pokemon Shuffle, and Pokemon Picross: giving in to my compulsion to “Catch ‘em All”. And in the end, I didn’t feel happy with my accomplishment. I didn’t look back fondly on my time with the game. I felt as hollow as the games themselves.

And that really sucks.

At this point, I don’t even know what it would take for a new Pokemon game to be great. I can’t even imagine it happening. But I do still love those absurd critters. You know what Pokemon game announcement would really do it for me?

Pokemon Snap 2. (Again, review originally written in December of 2019)