I'm very conflicted about this one. As much as I liked Donkey Kong '94, I feel like playing this made me realize one way in which both that game and this one could be better.
In general I think these games would lose nothing but some unnecessary frustration if lives weren't a thing. In '94, progress is only saved after every fourth level. This ends up being considerably more punishing than in Mario vs. Donkey Kong, where progress is saved after every level, but because nearly half of the levels have two parts to them, you can be forced to start back in the first part of a stage if you run out of lives in the second part. This can be frustrating at times, as some of the later levels can be much harder or take much longer to complete the first part than the second.
Running out of lives in the two-part stages can be somewhat frustrating, but the boss fights and the back half of the game are all singular levels where running out of lives means absolutely nothing beyond seeing the game over screen for a couple seconds before jumping back in. This also makes the bonus games where you get a chance at extra lives if you obtain all three presents in the level (just like in '94) feel more tedious here, because they just don't matter all that much. While I feel like both games would be better off doing away with lives in general, at least in '94 the lives feel like a more deliberate choice, if not a good one.
I have a few minor gripes with some of the mechanical changes and additions in this game (like how they took out rolling to avoid faceplanting from long falls), but overall I could maybe recommend this game for those who like Donkey Kong '94 and just want More Of That. That is the mindset I had going into Mario vs. Donkey Kong and while the game massively outstayed its welcome, I still had fun with it for a while. I suspect that replaying '94 might have been more rewarding, however.
Also the art direction in this game sucks ass.
In general I think these games would lose nothing but some unnecessary frustration if lives weren't a thing. In '94, progress is only saved after every fourth level. This ends up being considerably more punishing than in Mario vs. Donkey Kong, where progress is saved after every level, but because nearly half of the levels have two parts to them, you can be forced to start back in the first part of a stage if you run out of lives in the second part. This can be frustrating at times, as some of the later levels can be much harder or take much longer to complete the first part than the second.
Running out of lives in the two-part stages can be somewhat frustrating, but the boss fights and the back half of the game are all singular levels where running out of lives means absolutely nothing beyond seeing the game over screen for a couple seconds before jumping back in. This also makes the bonus games where you get a chance at extra lives if you obtain all three presents in the level (just like in '94) feel more tedious here, because they just don't matter all that much. While I feel like both games would be better off doing away with lives in general, at least in '94 the lives feel like a more deliberate choice, if not a good one.
I have a few minor gripes with some of the mechanical changes and additions in this game (like how they took out rolling to avoid faceplanting from long falls), but overall I could maybe recommend this game for those who like Donkey Kong '94 and just want More Of That. That is the mindset I had going into Mario vs. Donkey Kong and while the game massively outstayed its welcome, I still had fun with it for a while. I suspect that replaying '94 might have been more rewarding, however.
Also the art direction in this game sucks ass.