The Rise and Fall of Paper Mario

The title of this series is Really Passionate Gaming, and with initials like those, the most obvious subject of my analyses would probably be “action-adventure games,” which, you know, is what Nintendo likes to call Paper Mario nowadays. There are some who would argue otherwise, however, as the first two installments of the series were structured more like light Role-Playing Games rather than puzzle-solving-centered, superfluous combat exercises in tedium that evoke nothing but disappointment...

Sorry. I got a bit ahead of myself, there. See, the Paper Mario series in general is one that I consider to be “good,” and yet, its best installment has one of the most satisfying turn-based combat systems I have ever encountered. Sadly, this combat system appeared in the second of the five games released, The Thousand-Year Door (TTYD). Before I get into the features of TTYD's combat system, I'd first like to talk about Paper Mario's identity crisis. I'm not just talking about its genre identity crisis, as the series has bounced from role-playing, to action-platformer, and now to action-adventure, I'm also talking about its aesthetic, and how it has more recently informed choices made with the series. Paper Mario has unfortunately regressed since TTYD, as an emphasis on paper-based gimmickry has grown while a focus on depth of gameplay and systems has diminished. While the last two Paper Mario titles have been structurally and fundamentally similar, they suffer from an unfortunate lack of consequence resulting from more bite-sized design structure, leading to vignettes that are easily-consumed, yet feature no real stakes. Coincidentally, the shift towards simplified gameplay, aesthetics, and scenarios has been accompanied by heavier leaning upon the most superfluous aspect of the series, which is its paper-based “universe.”

Paper Mario was originally a spiritual sequel to Squaresoft's Super Mario RPG, a Super Nintendo isometric RPG with a combat system that focused on timed hits. While many cherish this title, Squaresoft's departure from development on Nintendo systems left Intelligent Systems with the burden of creating a similarly beloved Mario RPG. Paper Mario was very much a traditional Mario “story” with RPG mechanics tied in, largely focused on the fundamentals of the Mario franchise- jumping is a very free sort of action, and is able to flip enemies like Koopa Troopas on their backs and rob flying enemies of their wings. It introduced a hammer as a grounded melee option for Mario, and gave him partner characters based on traditional Mario Bros. enemies with their own unique quirks, aesthetics, and abilities. Although the first Paper Mario did have a number of boss encounters that relied on puzzle-like solutions that exploited partner abilities, the majority of the gameplay revolved around delving into dungeon-like environments in order to defeat the boss of each chapter.

It might surprise you to hear that, outside of its basic aesthetic, Paper Mario never really overemphasizes its “stationary” nature. Its sequel, The Thousand Year Door, would gift Mario with a number of paper transformations and allow players to jump into the backgrounds of the diorama environments. Even Super Paper Mario- the action-platforming (some might even say action-RPG) black sheep of the series- utilized a mechanic that played on Mario's 2D traditions, but at its core, Paper Mario was never supposed to be about paper. In other words, it was not a Kirby's Epic Yarn, but rather a Yoshi's Woolly World. That somewhat abruptly changed, however, with the release of Paper Mario: Sticker Star. Soon after, a Mario and Luigi title would “guest star” Paper Mario, implying that the entire world of the character existed within a magic book- an alternate, paper universe. Later, Color Splash would play with the idea that Paper Mario characters could loose their color and that the environments would need to be re-painted.

Listen, I don't really want to get into the lore of the Paper Mario series, but with the drastic change, or rather, embracing of Paper Mario's paper nature, the series also decided to lean more heavily on puzzle-solving gimmicks and game-by-game motifs rather than deep combat fundamentals. To put it simply, combat in Paper Mario has become inventory-based, and while I love Intelligent Systems' work with resource management games (which I'd love to expand upon at length in the future), the execution of the concept is heavily flawed, namely because it doesn't encourage mastery in any way. I largely cite the transformation into a “paper-based action-adventure” with the change in quality that has turned out a number of “good” games in comparison with the series' prior “great” installments. This isn't nostalgia, either- I recently played the original Paper Mario to completion for the first time, and while it does share some similarities with the more recent iterations, they are minuscule and largely overshadowed by its heaps of personality and its depth of combat- it's still a “great” game.

This brings us back to the features of TTYD's combat system. As stated before, the jump and hammer commands of the original are present, as well as and the action command system- a reinterpretation of Super Mario RPG's timed hits- which allows players the opportunity to deal extra damage while also “appealing” to the audience watching the battle. This appeal is similar to the mechanic from the first game, which was a method of gaining energy for executing story-unlocked special moves. The appeal motif becomes more active and engrossing thanks to another addition, however: stylish commands. Therein lies the hidden depth of TTYD, as stylish commands boost the appeal of successful action commands even further, but the player is never made aware of their input period. For example, Mario's basic Jump command has one action command and two stylish commands that occur between the bounces he performs. Gombella's Headbonk command has one action command and a stylish command that takes place before executing her normal action command. These are commands the player must discover through experimentation and master through practice.

This feeds into the battery recharging nature of the special moves even further, as specials act as effective tide-turners, with massive damage outputs and clerical abilities. But the first time the player completes the game, they may only master several kinds of action commands, and have no idea of where their stylish inputs occur. TTYD's combat system encourages mastery through its stylish system, which feeds into the customization systems of the game that offer even greater amounts of stylish commands, and therefore recharge potential. There are videos of players completing level zero runs, in which they invest all of their level-ups into badge points so that they can face down the final boss at the starting HP and FP. The combat system enables players to play “okay-” where they sometimes pull off action commands and utilize badges and other mechanics, “good-” where they execute all of their action commands and utilize partner roles economically, and “great-” where they consistently hit stylish inputs and utilize all of their tools on a regular basis. And hey, if you like turn-based combat, then all of that is great. There are further levels of depth that I could go into, such as partner characters, the badge system, and the various vignette scenarios both Paper Mario and TTYD possess that re-contextualize its combat in humorous and unique ways, but those are additional layers beneath the action command motif, which is already complex and satisfying enough to build a number of encounters around.

Intelligent Systems decided to overhaul this system after taking Shigeru Miyamoto's comments about Sticker Star's early development build being too similar to previous Paper Mario titles into consideration. The combat system was stripped down, and the result is an inventory-based replacement that discourages player choice and mastery because of its basic nature. Each attack is a separate inventory item within the player's limited catalogue, and while each one features its own string of action commands, they all have significant damage boosts in comparison with the earlier games' low-digit attacks. Because of inventory limitations, avoiding and escaping combat scenarios is often more beneficial than wasting resources within them, although defeating more enemies within its vignette mini-dungeons does gift more money.

To buy more attacks.

To go to the next stage.

...Something of an unnecessary loot cycle. Aside from completing the admittedly flashy action commands and potentially opening up the opportunity to perform a second or third attack per turn, combat itself is rather dull. No matter the size of their group, enemies share a health bar, so targeting specific members of their party with certain kinds of items is only necessary when the player has prioritized certain inventory items over others. Mario himself has an equally gross amount of HP, used to balance out the tiers of damage that each chapter offers in its inventory-based attacks. The most the combat has going for it is its expanded set of status effects, as some Goombas take on a “pointed” status that makes them immune to jump attacks (a pointless reformat of the series' previous Spiked Goombas), as well as other gimmicky statuses like tacky, soaked, and crumpled effects. Again, fitting for the aesthetic, but not necessary. At its most offensive, however, the potential strategy of inventory management is tossed out of the window with “Things,” real-life structures strewn throughout environments that can be condensed into weapon form. These act as the game's summons, dealing massive damage upon usage, except they are also utilized to subvert the unreasonably high HP and unfair tactics present in boss encounters. The “adventure” of Paper Mario's new action-adventure genre. As a series once designed with the player's resourcefulness and preparation in mind, these Things instead trivialize bosses and turn the game into an attempt to guess how the developers intended these real-world items to overcome their imposed challenges. Likewise, that later chapters gift inventory attacks that deal higher amounts of damage means that retreading former ground is useless, unless you are searching for a well-hidden Thing. It is a warped sense of progression, gifted not by the mastery of systems, but the continuation of the narrative, which has featured similar sterilization. In terms of presenting something new, yes, Intelligent Systems did transform the series from an RPG to something “new and different,” but that doesn't always equate to “better,” or even “great.”

There is, perhaps, another reason Paper Mario has changed. Alpha Dream's Mario and Luigi series is now five games deep, itself, and to many, its combat system offers just as much depth and variety as Paper Mario's, to the point where two Mario RPGs might seem superfluous. It is a shame, however, that Paper Mario needed to be sacrificed, when its scenarios were far more varied, and the depths of its combat were only scratched, while a number of critics have cited a lack of new ideas as Mario and Luigi's greatest flaw. I don't want to start an argument over which series is better, because there are plenty of Mario and Luigi fans out there. I also don't want to discredit the continuously high quality presentation that Intelligent Systems has put into more recent Paper Mario games, or the Nintendo Treehouse's excellent localization- seriously, the games look great and have snappy animation and writing. I would also argue that, although the combat motifs have taken a heavy blow, Paper Mario's environmental design is stronger than ever, with its diorama-nature being pushed to more enjoyable extremes, although a certain amount of eye-rolling, paper-themed set pieces have tagged along for the ride. The purpose of this article is not to debate the amount of work or quality present in Intelligent Systems' recent Paper Mario games- but it does seek to address the somewhat baffling lack of effort dedicated to upholding the high standards of its combat and character.

Gone are the quirky character designs of the first two (okay, three) titles, replaced with loads of Toads and predictable narrative beats. Gone is the complex, nuanced combat that hides behind low-digit damage. If you're like me, you are pining for a similar turn-based combat system that promotes mastery, precision, and player choice. Those are the elements that made me fall in love with Paper Mario, and it's why I see the last two games in the series as simply “good.” Mario and Luigi's character-specific button inputs and exceedingly silly combination attacks are all well-and-good, but they fail to capture the same sort of snappy, stylish gameplay that TTYD teased players with. While it may seem strange to bemoan the status of a niche series, my objective is to highlight the regression in design that the Paper Mario series has suffered since its highest point. Yes, Paper Mario and TTYD are not perfect games- they possess some issues with backtracking over the same regions a number of times- but I would greatly prefer their combat motifs over the lack of enthusiasm I feel towards the series' current state.

Even so, I look to Paper Mario for Switch with hope and fear.

Do you know about a game with a similar action command combat system? If so, I want to play it. Desperately. Oh, and yes, I am aware that Xenoblade Chronicles 2 has a similar system. Trust me. Leave a comment below!