I really wanted to like this one. After playing through Super Mario 64 for the first time, I was a bit shocked by how many people claim that the game still holds up, even though I ignored its primitive controls to notice more of its flaws in its overall structure and design. So I went into Super Mario Sunshine hearing mixed opinions on it from all sides of gamers, while also hoping it would be at least a slight improvement from Super Mario 64.
Unfortunately, it's tough for me to see that.
I get it. This was 2002, a time where Nintendo experimented a lot and tried doing new things with their popular IP, hence the introduction to F.L.U.D.D. as the main gimmick. In execution, this design screws up the traditional 3D platforming physics that were being established slowly with the previous 3D Mario entry, as it relies more on the fluidity of everything than the accuracy. This is extremely apparent in the secret levels, some of which remove the F.L.U.D.D. mechanic entirely and are required to progress through the game, where one slight angle in the wrong direction or timing of the jump button can cause you to a lose a life, making it an annoyance with the main checkpoint system of everything. And even when you can use F.L.U.D.D., the game for some reason limits most of your movement mid-air. For example, trying to hover in basic directions often leads to missing platforms, and even getting damaged by enemies or lava will result in you just hopping towards a falling death without the ability to prevent it. Everything just feels either slippery or stiff, which is unacceptable for a 3D platformer in this era. This isn't a "get good" mentality, because if I know exactly what to do but can't execute on it in a way that feels right, then that's a detriment to the game design, not the player.
Another thing frustrating about all of this, matching the constant deaths due to the game's own physics, is how checkpoints are handled. It's the same issue I had with Super Mario 64, so you would think and hope Nintendo would try to tweak it a bit after 6 years, right? Nope... it's the same crappy system; every death kicks you out of the world, and every "Game Over" takes you all the way back to the beginning of the hub world. This just makes the experience a drag, because you're essentially wasting time trying to get BACK to where you were, again after dying because of a slight miscalculation, and becomes more irritating with later worlds that require you to pick up different nozzles to reach them.
And speaking of worlds, I'm actually quite underwhelmed by the selection here. I understand that they wanted to go for a completely tropical theme here, with each world representing different parts of a large island, but I think that hurts it in comparison to previous games in the series. There's barely any variety in unique design here, with a few worlds feeling nearly the same just with different layouts. The only two worlds that I found to be ever slightly different were Sirena Beach and Pianta Village, which offer more compact experiences than open ones, although they're the last two worlds you'll probably reach in the set. The variety lacks, and is a far cry from Super Mario 64's range of fire, ice, cavernous, desert, clock worlds.
I don't think Super Mario Sunshine is an awful game by any means. Of course, I adore the vibrant GameCube-era art direction and overall tropical setting of it all, but that's really about it. This game takes one step forward and two steps back from Super Mario 64, due to its execution on something a bit different. While it feels slightly better to play, it ultimately lacks the variety that what makes the series great in the first place. It's another point to the argument that both this and the previous game absolutely need remakes, if they want to truly thrive in the modern age. And I would even argue that, for its time, this is in a rough state.
Another case of nostalgia blinding the gaming community, I guess.
Unfortunately, it's tough for me to see that.
I get it. This was 2002, a time where Nintendo experimented a lot and tried doing new things with their popular IP, hence the introduction to F.L.U.D.D. as the main gimmick. In execution, this design screws up the traditional 3D platforming physics that were being established slowly with the previous 3D Mario entry, as it relies more on the fluidity of everything than the accuracy. This is extremely apparent in the secret levels, some of which remove the F.L.U.D.D. mechanic entirely and are required to progress through the game, where one slight angle in the wrong direction or timing of the jump button can cause you to a lose a life, making it an annoyance with the main checkpoint system of everything. And even when you can use F.L.U.D.D., the game for some reason limits most of your movement mid-air. For example, trying to hover in basic directions often leads to missing platforms, and even getting damaged by enemies or lava will result in you just hopping towards a falling death without the ability to prevent it. Everything just feels either slippery or stiff, which is unacceptable for a 3D platformer in this era. This isn't a "get good" mentality, because if I know exactly what to do but can't execute on it in a way that feels right, then that's a detriment to the game design, not the player.
Another thing frustrating about all of this, matching the constant deaths due to the game's own physics, is how checkpoints are handled. It's the same issue I had with Super Mario 64, so you would think and hope Nintendo would try to tweak it a bit after 6 years, right? Nope... it's the same crappy system; every death kicks you out of the world, and every "Game Over" takes you all the way back to the beginning of the hub world. This just makes the experience a drag, because you're essentially wasting time trying to get BACK to where you were, again after dying because of a slight miscalculation, and becomes more irritating with later worlds that require you to pick up different nozzles to reach them.
And speaking of worlds, I'm actually quite underwhelmed by the selection here. I understand that they wanted to go for a completely tropical theme here, with each world representing different parts of a large island, but I think that hurts it in comparison to previous games in the series. There's barely any variety in unique design here, with a few worlds feeling nearly the same just with different layouts. The only two worlds that I found to be ever slightly different were Sirena Beach and Pianta Village, which offer more compact experiences than open ones, although they're the last two worlds you'll probably reach in the set. The variety lacks, and is a far cry from Super Mario 64's range of fire, ice, cavernous, desert, clock worlds.
I don't think Super Mario Sunshine is an awful game by any means. Of course, I adore the vibrant GameCube-era art direction and overall tropical setting of it all, but that's really about it. This game takes one step forward and two steps back from Super Mario 64, due to its execution on something a bit different. While it feels slightly better to play, it ultimately lacks the variety that what makes the series great in the first place. It's another point to the argument that both this and the previous game absolutely need remakes, if they want to truly thrive in the modern age. And I would even argue that, for its time, this is in a rough state.
Another case of nostalgia blinding the gaming community, I guess.