It was my ultimate decision to play both this game and Super Mario Bros. as if I had owned them on a Famicom in '86.
Thus, no restore points, no saves, and to an extent I even tried to limit my outside knowledge of the game, only using my friend as a faux "helpline" occasionally. Through these stipulations, I recalled my younger days, playing my grandma's NES, trying to beat all her games in one shot... And that's just it; every session was about how far I could get from the designated point at the beginning, not about specifically 'beating' it. This would lead to many unsuccessful sessions where I'm just grinding, grinding and grinding, trying my best to get as far as possible, but knowing in all likelihood.. I would fail to reach the end before I had to turn the console off and go to bed for school.

That is how I see Super Mario Bros. 2. I'd argue engaging with this game in this way forces you to improve, and forces you to understand it on a deeper level. Many players of this day and age simply accept the modern conveniences they have been given, such as restore points, as a part of the experience, but I feel Super Mario Bros. 2 is emblematic of a different age. If you are not the 'Super Player' this game is marketing itself towards from the outset, you must be molded into one from this game's harsh 'teachings', and simply abusing save states to mitigate the parts you don't like feels like it would skip some of the growth I associate with overcoming the hardest challenges in this title. Similarly, angrily knee jerking at some of the traps Super Mario Bros. 2 throws at you and boiling down the entire game to just those moments won't really give you the full picture of what this game was really like for Famicom owners in the 80's, I think...

And make no mistake, if you find SMB1 flimsy and archaic to control, SMB2 isn't going to change your mind: this is essentially a hard levels pack for the first game with some very minor physics adjustments and sparse new gimmicks. I personally find the nuance and difficulty of controlling Mario to be apart of the game's appeal, but a lot of people already bounce off the original because of this very fact. I can't imagine controlling this same character through a set of even harder levels is the most appealing thought... And honestly I didn't think it would be either when I first beat SMB1. After 8-3 and 8-4, I simply believed the game's physics were better suited for simple platforming...

And yet, this is what made Super Mario Bros. 2 so interesting to me. It consistently challenged that notion, and constantly threw me into levels akin to 7-3 from SMB1... Athletic gauntlets that force you to manuever a character controller that feels like it has rocks tied to its feet like an acrobat. This isn't easy at all, and in fact early on this just feels dauntingly impossible . Every jump in Super Mario Bros. Is inherently scarier than other Mario games simply due to the nature of Mario's physics: don't hold the jump button for too short or you're going to drop like a rock.. And don't jump too soon because you're gonna fling yourself past where you needed to land! Situations like these were more sparse in the original game due to the simpler and digestible level design, but Super Mario Bros. 2 requires a much better understanding of the nuances in Mario's movement... And I kind of love it for that. I think it is because Super Mario Bros. doesn't challenge you as strongly, that when it does throw bullshit at you, it feels uncharacteristic, or like an outlier...

But Super Mario Bros. 2 just feels oppressive from the outset. It really does a good job steeling you for the challenge ahead and gradually ramping up in difficulty with each world. I constantly noticed so many jumps throughout the game that were the same as an earlier one but just.. More complex. It had this feeling of gradual layering that I really loved, like there was always a new variable I had to adjust to every time I reached a new world. I really felt myself improving and understanding Mario's physics more and more with each failure, as if I was evolving.

And I get it. It's tough. In some cases, it's unfair. There are multiple points in the game where you can't comfortably gauge what's ahead, creating a sort of trial and error type design... Not to mention stuff like the infamous 6-1 wall that people always rant about. The game is cheeky no doubt, and even 'evil' at times... But I feel like once it gets you once, it really encourages to think out the box and find a solution to your problem, like its silently asking "What will you do this time?". There's also this feeling that the game is quietly teaching you not to trust it, like there's always another way. Perhaps some would consider it bad design, but to me that feels reductive when players can respond to a game in so many different ways. It's a different kind of design, and certainly experimental for the time, but I don't think the designers behind Super Mario Bros. 2 were completely oblivious to what they had created.

I feel these aspects of the game were entirely intentional, and even innovative in some respects. You feel inklings of rage games and even Mario Maker troll levels... But also just genuine challenge. Its a very odd little game, and despite how frustrated I got playing it, I just couldn't put it down from start to finish. It's addictingly masochistic while also presenting many genuine challenges that are vastly difficult but entirely skill based... Because once you get in the mentality the game is trying to instill you, can start predicting how levels are going to play out, and prepare yourself.
It actually DOES feel rewarding.
The castle mazes, while I hated them at first, are actually a pretty good example. You can genuinely just ask yourself "which path is the most bullshit to go through?" And 9 times out of 10, that's the path you need to go! It's hilarious, but while this game is evil, it's evil in a consistent way you can adapt to as a player.... And again, I'm not gonna defend the shitty mazes with my life, but that's low key kinda cool.

Like, again, I get why people don't like this game.. And im not just trying to be like "It's a skill issue", because IT IS a grind, and IT does throw some weird shit at you; but on the whole, I feel its not as simple as "this game is badly designed", because there is a method it's madness. There's a truly unique Mario experience buried here that I feel could be tuned into something brand new for the franchise, and despite the sense it makes, I think I am genuinely going to miss the sheer difficultly and frustration I experienced coming out of this game into future titles... But perhaps its for the best that's what makes this game 'unique'.

I like when a game is more than just a fun distraction. To me, as corny as this may sound.. this is art! Its ellicting so many different emotions from me and interacting with me on a deeper level than I ever could've anticipated from a game like this, and I can't help but appreciate it deeply through that lens.

I do want to reiterate this game pissed me the hell off. This is some of the most anger and exhaustion I've felt playing a game in years, just grinding away over and over, trying desperately to make it to the end and maneuver Mario in just the right ways and make the tightest jumps I can. It's tiring. It might drive you mad, even. Hell, I made it more gruelling by resetting from THE BEGINNING every time I turned off the game... But the satisfaction of completing a game while playing by it's rules like this is just absolutely priceless to me, no matter how much suffering I endure. Apologies for the shade i'm about to throw, but I'm certain I'll remember and even cherish these struggles more than I will one of the random New Soup games down the line, even if those are much more accessible and 'fair'.

Super Mario Bros. 2 is actually kinda fire, but it is ABSOLUTELY an acquired taste. So, all in all, don't bother with this game if you don't have a tolerance for the grind, the rage, or you expect it to be a cakewalk in any sense of the word.. Because if you aren't the "Super Player" this game is looking for, you're gonna have a real bad time.

Also again, if you don't jive with SMB1... You're probably
not gonna jive with this either, just saying.

Penny's Big Breakaway commits to its vision very hard that it might push people away from it. Which I don't see as inherently bad, a game for everyone is a game for no one. I clicked with this game, I love how relatively demanding to chain moves while maintaining momentum and especially combos. I'm not saying that this game is some insurmountable cliff to play, but the learning curve is higher than what someone who just wants a casual jaunt through a cutesy world would expect. However, if you do get the hang of things, you will see how much this move set shines and how awesome you'll feel when maintaining a high combo. It's also a quite small set of moves but they flow into each and have purpose without making each other redundant.

I also really enjoyed the levels, nothing stood out to me as mind-blowingly memorably but nothing was bad. Although I did get frustrated during the space-looking world. Looked cool but my hairline went back a couple inches. Perhaps just a case of "mad-cuz-bad" but this was when I started encountering the jank. This game, at least at the time I played it, (patches seem to have tackled my problems), had a notable bugginess. Bugs weren’t common but they happened frequently enough to put a damper on things. I would fall into weird tumbles that would defy the laws of gravity and take away my control. I would have times where I don't ledge grab when I feel I should've and, on the flipside, I would grapple onto ledges but Penny would fail to pull herself up. A lot little issues that kept building up that took my enjoyment down a notch towards the ends of the game. I haven't jumped back into the game but I saw a patch note or two that mentioned fixes for the specific problems I ran into so you'll probably fare better than I did.

The aesthetics are very much up my alley. It gives me the same vibes of a Sega Saturn or Dreamcast game but with polished up visuals. It all feels like something Sega would make back in the day, which I guess makes sense since the devs are the Sonic Mania team. Although, I do have one major issue...

PENNY FOR GOD'S SAKE, KEEP THE DAMN HAT ON! No one wants to see your Founding Father looking-ass hair. Or maybe it's a wig, then that would change quite a lot. She would be one of three things, she's either high status, balding, or suffering from syphilis. Penny clearly isn't high status, she's just some nobody shlub street performer so that leaves us with the final two, balding or syphilis. Women typically don't go fully bald when suffering hair loss. Female pattern baldness is fairly common though. Penny isn't given an age but aesthetics and impressive acrobatic ability would suggest she is fairly young so age likely isn't a factor. The other two culprits of female pattern baldness would be issues regarding a particular hormone, dihydrotestosterone, and genetics. However, these are both things we can't really answer without more information on Penny herself.

That leaves us with one final possibility, syphilis. One symptom of syphilis when left untreated is baldness. During the late 16th century, syphilis became one of worst epidemics to strike Europe. Being bald during these times were considered "hella cringe" by the people of the era so wigs became the "solution" to hiding your syphilis since proper treatment didn't exist at the time. The wigs were also powdered to hide the stench of one's effectively decaying head. Powdered wigs became a sign of status during the mid-17th century when then King of France, Louis XIV, suffered from baldness. Louis wanted a bougie-ass wig and hired 48 wigmakers to save him from being considered some bald loser. Other nobility also followed in Louis XIV's footsteps and got themselves fancy powdered wigs to hide their decaying smelly heads. This led to an increase in wig prices making wigs a way to flaunt wealth and show status which is where the term bigwig originates from. Wigs also happened to be good for dealing with lice since it's easier to take off and boil a wig than delousing from hair attached to your head.

So, my theory is that Penny has severe syphilis which is why she wears both a wig and a hat to serve as a dual-layered shield against the eyes of the masses. She also probably purchased this style of wig with the pittance of money she makes being some no-name street-performer to appear as high class, to appear as a somebody...

Or maybe she just has a terrible taste in hairstyles.

I finally did muster through Super Mario Sunshine after about three and a half years of leaving it on the backburner, and I must say I still don't get it. It's not all bad but it's like, not very fun to me at all. I found its best moments to be pretty decent, and put up against Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy I don't really think it stands a chance in most if not all fields. I did not gel with the aesthetic, controls, or level design nearly as much as in either of them.

The biggest thing that irks me about Sunshine, though, is it doesn't feel as open as it lets on. You can beat the game with a minimum of 50 shines (I completed it with 53), but rather than a basic threshold to close off the final level, like how you can get any 70 stars in 64 to reach the end, you are required to do all the first seven missions of each level. In order, too. You can't go out of order like you can in 64, you have to do mission 1, then mission 2, etc. This works fine in Galaxy because the level design reflects it better, it's already more linear to begin with in its design and progression. Sunshine's level design does not reflect its linearity, it presents itself as a lot more open and implies a lot more freedom than you're actually provided. The end result takes away the feeling of free exploration, and it begins to feel more like crossing off a checklist than finding things yourself and reaping the rewards for doing so. Some of these required missions are frankly quite awful as well. A few of the bosses (Petey Piranha 2, Manta) are super tedious and slow, and some other missions littered around are bordering on unacceptable. I could not locate any enjoyment to be found in the "chuckster" mission, for example, and there's just no way to get around it without enduring it. If you have a star in 64 you really hate, chances are you can just work around it, but such is not the case this time.

I figure you can warm up to this with enough playthroughs, but the first is deeply unsatisfying and unrewarding. A competently made and designed game for the most part, but mundane and unenjoyable especially in comparison to the high points surrounding it in the series. Why would I want to play it some more in order to warm up to it if the first playthrough was so consistently rough? How often do you want to replay something you thought was lame, especially with people breathing down your neck about how you're wrong? I dunno, man. It just doesn't really make sense to me. I really see now why this seems to be the most divisive of the 3D Mario entries, and try as I might to enjoy myself during its runtime, I can't seem to do so often enough to really call it something I like as an overall experience. I'm just glad I at least have it off my back now.