What Wario game would be the worst introduction to the series?

CM30

CM30

Diamond City Mayor
Diamond City Leader
Coins
1,000,003,579
WarioCoin™ (x0.1)
Wario's portrait
User Name Style Change
Postbit Highlight (Pre-Defined)
Gold Necklace
Well, we've already talked about Wario Land games that'd be good ways to introduce people to the Wario franchise, but what about the flip side?

What Wario Land games (if any) wouldn't be good choices for a beginner?
 
Wario Master of Diguise is awesome, creative, unique and somewhat fun, but it's the worst we have so far.

Wario World was perfect until it the end of the game, but that's the problem, it's too short, and playing the game again is kinda useless.

Wario Land Super Mario Land 3 is heavily based on the Super Mario formula, plays nice, has funny graphics and a good soundtrack, but it feels slow and heavy... some powerups are just a pain and feel more like a hazard than a reward.

WarioWare Smooth Moves was one of the most fun experiences I had on the Wii! However it's not the kind of game you really go back to unless you like to move all the time, some controls are irresponsive and compared to others, this title drags a bit. It just get boring.

WarioWare Snapped is basically a short showcase demo. It was short fun, nice concept but that's it. You play it once and you're done. Plus the camera capture is bad... very bad.

Wario Land 4, although it's my favourite, it's short, like Wario World. But at least you can play it on the go at least 3 times on each difficulty.

Now I could go on, the Wario series isn't perfect, but what makes a game good or bad is what people like or dislike in the experience.
 
Robin Wario said:
Wario Master of Diguise is awesome, creative, unique and somewhat fun, but it's the worst we have so far.

Wario World was perfect until it the end of the game, but that's the problem, it's too short, and playing the game again is kinda useless.

Wario Land Super Mario Land 3 is heavily based on the Super Mario formula, plays nice, has funny graphics and a good soundtrack, but it feels slow and heavy... some powerups are just a pain and feel more like a hazard than a reward.

WarioWare Smooth Moves was one of the most fun experiences I had on the Wii! However it's not the kind of game you really go back to unless you like to move all the time, some controls are irresponsive and compared to others, this title drags a bit. It just get boring.

WarioWare Snapped is basically a short showcase demo. It was short fun, nice concept but that's it. You play it once and you're done. Plus the camera capture is bad... very bad.

Wario Land 4, although it's my favourite, it's short, like Wario World. But at least you can play it on the go at least 3 times on each difficulty.

Now I could go on, the Wario series isn't perfect, but what makes a game good or bad is what people like or dislike in the experience.
Click to expand...
You are not allowed to praise Master of Disguise, in fact I'm tempted to report this post! THIS IS UNTHINKABLE! Unheard of! Disgusting! Putrid! Vile! More things I wish I could express but I can't because it is a children's internet forum!

Think about the sins you have committed in this thread and repent. Only then will you find true salvation in the land of Warios.
 
Kokonoe said:
You are not allowed to praise Master of Disguise, in fact I'm tempted to report this post! THIS IS UNTHINKABLE! Unheard of! Disgusting! Putrid! Vile! More things I wish I could express but I can't because it is a children's internet forum!

Think about the sins you have committed in this thread and repent. Only then will you find true salvation in the land of Warios.
Click to expand...
Sorry I agree Wario Master of Disgust is utter shit. Kek
 
Crescent-Moon Villager said:
I'm gonna play :red: advocate and say Wario land 1 or 2. I don't think those games hold up well at all these days. WL 3 and 4 did everything they did better, and even MoD and Shake Dimension are more interesting.
Click to expand...
Really? I agree that Land 3 and 4 improved upon the ideas introduced in the first two games, but I don't get how you can possibly think that the first 2 aged poorly, especially if you think that 3 is perfectly fine and 2 falls way below that. I mean 2 and 3 are so similar that it seems odd to say that only one of the two "doesn't hold up well". And maybe WL1 is pretty different and simpler by comparison to 2 and the rest that followed but it's still a really fun, charming and impressive game considering that it was made for the original goddamn Game Boy. Compare it to most other platformers on the GB and see just how much more polished and expansive it is (SML2 is definitely a good game but man is it short compared to SML3). And of all the Land games, I actually find myself returning to 1 the most often.

Additionally, I think it's actually a really good introduction to the series for most people. WL1 is a good bridge between the linear Mario design and the puzzle-platformer-ish style of the core Land games, so for people who have trouble getting right into the meat of a typical Wario game it's actually a good warm-up, I think.
Oh, and you have to give the first 2 games credit for pioneering that PERFECT Wario theme used throughout the soundtrack. And then they dropped it for all subsequent games. . . damn it Nintendo.

And if you think that Shake It and Master of Disguise are "more interesting", uh. . . No, sorry. Shake It had a few good points but it played nothing like the other games, and Master of Diddlysquat shouldn't even be considered a Land game.

Wario World is probably my choice for worst introduction because of how un-Wario it is. Always thought that game was really off. I get that Wario games started getting "randem" and "wacky whoa haha!!" in the 2000s, but World was just too weird. And short. And repetitive. And had so few ties to the rest of the Land games. Do we even call World a Land game?
 
Locomotive Mania said:
impressive game considering that it was made for the original goddamn Game Boy. Compare it to most other platformers on the GB and see just how much more polished and expansive it is (SML2 is definitely a good game but man is it short compared to SML3).
Click to expand...

Sure, WL1 was great for the original Gameboy standards, but I don't judge games differently based on which system they were for. I loved it then, but find it boring now, hence me saying it doesn't stand up well. There's nothing at all about it that differentiates it from the hundreds upon hundreds of move-right 2D platformers out on the market now.

Locomotive Mania said:
I mean 2 and 3 are so similar that it seems odd to say that only one of the two "doesn't hold up well".
Click to expand...
​

WL2 had the cool transformation system but that was the only thing that differentiates it from other move-right 2D platformers out there. WL3 on the other hand has puzzles, nonlinear levels and nonlinear level-progression based on unlocking upgrades, which makes it much more interesting than WL2, IMO. The only other 2D platformer that I know of that is similar to WL3 is Metroid. I don't think WL2 and WL3 are at all similar aside from graphics and transformations, I'm not sure why you feel that they are that similar.

As for MoD, I personally really liked the environments and dialogue/story, but that's the only aspect of it I can defend, lol. I think its more interesting than WL1 and 2 but I can definitely see why others would not feel the same.
 
So by that logic, would you say that games like the early Zeldas, original Marios, Metroid, Kirby's Adventure, etc. aren't very good games just because we've allegedly outdone them since then? I'm not saying that we should worship all of those games only because they were very influential, since there are still plenty of popular games from back then that actually sucked, (coughdragonwarriorcough) but I still respect games like WL1 for how innovative and influential they were. I mean, if you genuinely find older games boring just because they don't have as many bells and whistles as games do today, then alright, I guess I can understand that. I won't try to sway you from your opinion or anything.

And about my comparing Land 2 and 3, I don't really see what's so odd about that. They were developed closely together by the exact same team, run on the same engine, and generally play very very similarly. I really don't see how 2 is so much more linear than 3, in fact I think the level design is one of the biggest similarities between the two games. They're so similar that I sometimes mix up some levels, thinking that a level from 2 is actually from 3 and visa versa. But that's just me.
 
My logic is; if I showed my friend WL1 or 2 I might anticipate that they'd say something like "It's not that different from Mario, Sonic, Megaman, Kirby, Super Left-to-Right Man, etc. so I've seen this all before, and I assume all other Wario games are like this. I therefore am not interested in playing other games in the series. I don't think those games are bad, but the market is super saturated with them and I want to play something I haven't seen countless times before."

On the other hand if I showed them WL3 I think they'd say something more like "the only other 2D platformer I've played that is similar to this is Metroid and Axiom Verge. This is relatively fresh and something I haven't played much of, so I'd be interested in playing other Wario Land games as well."

So I think WL3 is the best game to get new people interested in Wario Land, and WL1 and 2 not so much. This is assuming they have plenty of experience playing 2D platformers. If they have absolutely no experience with 2D platformers (like maybe my 4 year old niece), then sure, WL1 and 2 would absolutely be excellent introductions to the series, cuz she's never experienced moving left to right before.
 
Last edited:
While I love Wario Land 3, I feel like it's a game that's better suited to experienced Wario players. It builds on the foundation that Wario Land II established, and it's a lot easier for novice players to get lost or confused.

As others have said, Master of Disguise - despite me quite enjoying it - is just so fundamentally unlike the other Wario platformers that it's a pretty bad introduction to the franchise as well.
 
The only things I like about Master of Disguise is it is aesthetically better than Shake It. Yeah Shake It has beautiful artwork... but none of it is memorable in a Wario sort of way. None of the character and enemy design stands out as something that says "Wario". But do you know what does? Stuff like Buffy the Dolphin!

buffy-the-dolphin-wario-nintendo.png


Now THAT is distinctly Wario!

That is the kind of absurdity I hope to see in a Wario game.

But asside from the aesthetics of the game... It sucked. Big time. Having to draw tiny doodles on a tiny screen while action is going on? Having to play a dumb touch screen mini game everytime I open a treasure? Pressing Up to jump in a platformer because your other hand has to hold a stylus!?

Awful! Awful! Awful! And it's such a shame. The game had so much potential and so many great new characters and environments.

So Master of Disguise is my pick for worst introduction to the series.
 
Locomotive Mania said:
So by that logic, would you say that games like the early Zeldas, original Marios, Metroid, Kirby's Adventure, etc. aren't very good games just because we've allegedly outdone them since then? I'm not saying that we should worship all of those games only because they were very influential, since there are still plenty of popular games from back then that actually sucked, (coughdragonwarriorcough) but I still respect games like WL1 for how innovative and influential they were. I mean, if you genuinely find older games boring just because they don't have as many bells and whistles as games do today, then alright, I guess I can understand that. I won't try to sway you from your opinion or anything.

And about my comparing Land 2 and 3, I don't really see what's so odd about that. They were developed closely together by the exact same team, run on the same engine, and generally play very very similarly. I really don't see how 2 is so much more linear than 3, in fact I think the level design is one of the biggest similarities between the two games. They're so similar that I sometimes mix up some levels, thinking that a level from 2 is actually from 3 and visa versa. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
Out of all this, and as a fan of Metroid, I'd say the original Metroid on the NES is not only the worst introduction to the series but the worst game in the series as well. Some games have bad first games and even if the game was good and became a classic, it doesn't mean the game is still a good introduction to the series nowadays.
Super Mario Bros and Wario Land can work well as introductory games, but in the case of Wario Land, it may feel too heavy and boring compared to the other entries in the series. Wario MoD is still the worst intro for Wario, but Wario Land SML3 wouldn't be the best intro either (unless you're a fan of the Mario platformers gameplay).
 
Honestly, Wario is a weird example here, because every game or two completely changes the mechanics. So while Wario Land 1 may not be a good intro to 2 or 3, it'd be a good intro to VB Wario Land or what not.

Koopaul said:
The only things I like about Master of Disguise is it is aesthetically better than Shake It. Yeah Shake It has beautiful artwork... but none of it is memorable in a Wario sort of way. None of the character and enemy design stands out as something that says "Wario". But do you know what does? Stuff like Buffy the Dolphin!

buffy-the-dolphin-wario-nintendo.png


Now THAT is distinctly Wario!

That is the kind of absurdity I hope to see in a Wario game.

But asside from the aesthetics of the game... It sucked. Big time. Having to draw tiny doodles on a tiny screen while action is going on? Having to play a dumb touch screen mini game everytime I open a treasure? Pressing Up to jump in a platformer because your other hand has to hold a stylus!?

Awful! Awful! Awful! And it's such a shame. The game had so much potential and so many great new characters and environments.

So Master of Disguise is my pick for worst introduction to the series.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point about Master of Disguise and Shake It. The latter certainly played it safe with a lot of the world themes and basic enemies/concepts, perhaps a little too much.

But I wouldn't say the latter is lacking in charm or memorability throughout. The bosses seemed rather memorable to me, to the point it seemed kind of weird how 'vanilla' the standard enemies were by comparison. Something like Large Fry is absurd/strange, something like the generic mooks in various Shake It levels... less so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top