I dunno, I just don't get it.

Does having an interesting combat system in theory mean that a game has interesting gameplay? Pokémon has an extremely fascinating combat system, but it makes awful use of it.

Does having some undeniably charming moments mean that a game has good story? Lots of games have those things, but fall flat on their storytelling.

Does being visually interesting mean that a virtual world feels lived in? Heh, just look at Hover.

I think Paper Mario 1 worked with its basic locales because they played to the strengths of what the franchise had already established. Goombas and Koopas having peaceful establishments was an interesting twist, it makes sense that a series focused around Stars (Star World, Power Stars, Starmen, Star Road... all that before Super Mario Galaxy) would have Star Spirits as deities, Bowser's immature personality implied through Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario 64 was elaborated upon, making him a really likeable villain...

Thousand-Year Door throws that all out of the window in a certain overconfidence that its own storytelling is going to stand just as strong, but it just... doesn't land right?

I won't pretend I didn't like Vivian, but "I like this one character" is not a real reason for GOTY (game of thousand years) status.

Reviewed on Mar 22, 2021


1 Comment


3 years ago

took the words right out of my mouth. whilst the original paper mario was like an epic play theatre, this one was more like an episodic saturday morning cartoon lacking any cohesive narrative.
people like to harp on super paper mario from straying from the norm and not getting the (lol) rpg experience they were expecting, but id argue that the world design and the characters were no different there.