Played this immediately after Mario 1. This game really does continue with the difficulty curve that Mario 1 left off at, so I wouldn't describe this game as a "Mario 2" or even a "Mario 1.5", it straight up just feels like if Mario 1 continued for 8 more worlds, which is kinda cool in a way.

Anyway, trash. This game is legitimately evil, and not in a fun way. I don't know who at Nintendo thought some of those enemy placements were a good idea. Or whoever designed those fucking maze castle levels that are impossible to beat without rigorous trial and error. And how about the genius who decided to make the falling platforms look identical to the platforms that move from left to right? These feel like shitty Mario Maker levels made by preteens, not levels made by THE Nintendo, immediately after they made Mario 1! And you want me to beat the game 8 times to unlock the special worlds? Lol no thanks.

I do have to give the game props for actually having 32 unique levels (more if you count the extra worlds), unlike Mario 1 which just kinda gave up halfway through and started recycling levels.

I just replayed Mario 1 and Lost Levels back to back yesterday and it was kind of an interesting experience actually. Looking at these two games as two halves of a whole certainly adds a bit of appeal to both games.

Anyway, Mario 1. Super important, super iconic, super... meh. It doesn't even need to be stated that it set the groundwork for the Mario franchise, because that goes without saying, but that also means that most Mario games are literally just better versions of this game. So there's just straight up no reason to play this game today unless you either want a history lesson or a harmless way to spend 45 minutes. The controls are stiffer than they should be, the music gets repetitive, and some of the game's later levels are just copy pastes of earlier levels in the game. It certainly is no Mario 3, let alone Mario Wonder. Still, the Mario fun is there, so I can't hate it too much.

Something I find interesting is that I actually find this game quite fun when I'm speeding through it as fast as I can. I think the game flows really nicely when approaching it in this manner, as opposed to playing the game slowly and carefully since I'll have to deal with the game's annoying momentum more.

Yeah, I dunno. I still don't get it. After just replaying the game (because it's short so why not), I'm really surprised by the overall positive-to-mixed reactions to the game after its addition to NSO. I really thought that its addition would cause more people to look at it in a more critical light, but I guess people truly will eat up any platformer with "Mario" in the title, huh...

People call this game "weird" to justify giving it high scores, but I actually think this is one of the most aggressively bland Mario games out there. It is paint-by-numbers Mario, but it even feels like a pale imitation of that, with uninteresting level design and zero secrets. It's like Mario 1 but even further stripped down to its bare essentials. If having a few unique character designs and two generic space shooter stages constitutes "weird", then those are some extremely low standards of weirdness. If you want weird, play Mario Land 2. That's a game that truly earns its reputation for weirdness, and it's also much higher quality too.

Is having a few weird character designs and some mild historical significance as the first handheld Mario game really enough to single-handedly give this game a passing score? Enough to look past the controls and visuals and everything else that is clearly substandard? Honestly after thinking about it I truly feel confident in saying that this is my pick for the worst mainline Mario game. I'm pretty shocked that it isn't brought up more in that discussion.