I know this is like, completely unrelated to this site, but I just beat Color Splash, and I'd say it's in my top 10 games of all time. It was friggin awesome.

Art style was fantastic.
Even though most of the characters were just toads, they all seemed to unique and the dialogue was hilarious.
Story was like, a basic Mario story. Bowser steals stuff, takes peach, etc.
And gameplay was terrific. Personally, I kinda like it better than TTYD, which says a lot.

If you've played it, what's your opinion?

If yoy haven't. And if you have a WiiU, I'd recommend it.

Never played it.

9.6/☺ Will play again.

I once bought Sticker Star, because I had enjoyed all the earlier Paper Mario games as well as Mario & Luigi games. My dissapointent was so deep that I was entirely unsure that should I sell the game forward or burn it so nobody has to suffer from it.

When Color Splash came out, I was reading the reviews and seeing all the same issues I had seen with Sticker Star, which included non-exsisting challange, pointless figting, rest of the game being walking simulator which is just filled with bad jokes.

It's still decent game, that's why the reviews are good, but it's not exactly RPG game anymore or anything like it was used to be and feels like I'm playing assets forcifully removed to be used on differend game. Reading what people say about Color Splash, I have been seeing the same signs what was seen with Sticker Star, so I'm just going to give the game a pass.

If Color Splash had existed on it's own, I would see it as a decent, though flawed, game. But the fact that it is a Paper Mario game... the fact that it is basically Sticker Star V2... I just can't treat it as if it stood on its own. It stands among giants - it's shortcomings are all too apparent.

BUT! That said. I am very glad you liked it all the same.

Never played it; maybe I should. I'm one of the very few people that actually liked Sticker Star... It's basically the only somewhat-modern video games that I kept my attention long enough that I didn't abandon it half-way through. If I had to rate the 4 Paper Mario games that I've played:

Paper Mario - best video game ever made (this might just be nostalgia talking)
Paper Mario TTYD - second best video game ever made (I don't think this is just nostalgia talking... Then again, I haven't played it since it first came out and have lost my copy)
Super Paper Mario - Meh.
Sticker Star - Awesome. I refuse to think of it as a Paper Mario game though. It should have been named as "Mario: Sticker Star" or something. About half the criticism it gets is for lacking RPG elements when it was clearly never an RPG in the first place. It was a collectathon.

I'm pretty sure I'm the only person that would rate them in that order (64 > TTYD > SS > Super)

I heard it was mediocre and I'm not interested in playing it.

Hey, thanks for the input guys!

Deh-tiger, if you like Sticker Star, then you'll love Color Splash. I was extremely disappointed with Sticker Star, but the entire time I played Color Splash it made me feel happy.

If you're expecting an experience like the first two Paper Marios, you're not getting it. But if you want a fun game that has a decent amount of content. I'd recommended. 😼

I need to get into the Paper Mario series. I'm well versed in the Mario and Luigi RPG quintet, but not Paper Mario.

Mario69 said:
I once bought Sticker Star, because I had enjoyed all the earlier Paper Mario games as well as Mario & Luigi games. My dissapointent was so deep that I was entirely unsure that should I sell the game forward or burn it so nobody has to suffer from it.

When Color Splash came out, I was reading the reviews and seeing all the same issues I had seen with Sticker Star, which included non-exsisting challange, pointless figting, rest of the game being walking simulator which is just filled with bad jokes.

It's still decent game, that's why the reviews are good, but it's not exactly RPG game anymore or anything like it was used to be and feels like I'm playing assets forcifully removed to be used on differend game. Reading what people say about Color Splash, I have been seeing the same signs what was seen with Sticker Star, so I'm just going to give the game a pass.

Pretty much all of the reviews are just people still butthurt over Sticker Star and looking for excuses to say Paper Mario is dead. Color Splash has far far more character and PM charm than Sticker Star.

I thought it was fine.
It's not bad, not perfect.
People gave it a lot of shit before they even played it.
And the same thing can be said for Paper Jam.
It wasn't as bad as people called it, to be honest.
But hey, that's the Paper Mario fanbase for ya: Full of TTYD whiners with nostalgia goggles glued on their faces.
It was a big improvement from Sticker Star though. I didn't even bother to complete that one.

Anyways, let's hope Nintendo makes great use for the Switch.
And why the fuck is MK8D not released with the Switch...?

Deh-tiger said:
Never played it; maybe I should. I'm one of the very few people that actually liked Sticker Star... It's basically the only somewhat-modern video games that I kept my attention long enough that I didn't abandon it half-way through. If I had to rate the 4 Paper Mario games that I've played:

Paper Mario - best video game ever made (this might just be nostalgia talking)
Paper Mario TTYD - second best video game ever made (I don't think this is just nostalgia talking... Then again, I haven't played it since it first came out and have lost my copy)
Super Paper Mario - Meh.
Sticker Star - Awesome. I refuse to think of it as a Paper Mario game though. It should have been named as "Mario: Sticker Star" or something. About half the criticism it gets is for lacking RPG elements when it was clearly never an RPG in the first place. It was a collectathon.

I'm pretty sure I'm the only person that would rate them in that order (64 > TTYD > SS > Super)

eh, i still like legend of the seven stars. it's hard to top the Smithy gang. :)

oh and our old friend Culex.

Going to be honest, I don't like how the folks who likes the game completely dismiss those who are bothered by it as "blinded by nostalgia" or whatever.

Clawdragons said:
Going to be honest, I don't like how the folks who likes the game completely dismiss those who are bothered by it as "blinded by nostalgia" or whatever.

When most of their criticisms are blatantly false and don't apply any more than very superficially, it's an accurate dismissal.

FibS said:
When most of their criticisms are blatantly false and don't apply any more than very superficially, it's an accurate dismissal.

Well okay. So the comment you responded to included four claims:

1. The game presents no real challenge.
2. The fighting is pointless.
3. Much of the game is a "walking simulator".
4. The jokes are bad.

Now, not all of these would be my criticisms. But from what I know of the game, I'd have to say that (1) is pretty unambiguously true. (2) is false (there is progression gained from fighting in the form of hammer scraps, though we can argue about whether or not that's significant enough), though I'd put in my own (2) to say "fighting is tedious". (3) I really don't know what it's saying, so I'm going to have to throw that one out for now. And (4) is... Well, humor is and isn't subjective... it's a complicated topic... But because of that it would be very difficult to claim that it is blatantly false.

I'm not seeing overwhelming blatant falsehood here.

Color Splash is not a Paper Mario game. Nintendo needs to get it through their head what made Paper Mario and Thousand Year Door so popular and use a similar engine when using the Paper Mario name.

That said, Colorado Splash was fun, but as has been said: combat and the amount of walking you have to do get tedious. Some sort of Dash out of combat, and more rewarding in combat, would have made it better.

Clawdragons said:
1. The game presents no real challenge.

(1) is pretty unambiguously true.

Define "real challenge". I very rarely take that criticism seriously as it's almost always said by someone who has over 5 years of gaming experience and whose skill levels are beyond the level expected for the game. Unless you can find or create a somewhat objective scale for difficulty, the difficulty level of any challenge will depend on the skill level of whoever is undertaking that challenge.

Also, being easy isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not all games are meant to be controller-snappingly difficult or suited to your skill level specifically. Games that are easy by design are meant to be for the newer and less skilled players.

Furrin_Gok said:
Color Splash is not a Paper Mario game. Nintendo needs to get it through their head what made Paper Mario and Thousand Year Door so popular and use a similar engine when using the Paper Mario name.

So you're saying a game series can't have multiple game types within it?

BlueDingo said:
Define "real challenge". I very rarely take that criticism seriously as it's almost always said by someone who has over 5 years of gaming experience and whose skill levels are beyond the level expected for the game. Unless you can find or create a somewhat objective scale for difficulty, the difficulty level of any challenge will depend on the skill level of whoever is undertaking that challenge.

Also, being easy isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not all games are meant to be controller-snappingly difficult or suited to your skill level specifically. Games that are easy by design are meant to be for the newer and less skilled players.

So you're saying a game series can't have multiple game types within it?

I certainly agree with being easy not being a bad thing. When I play nintendo I don't expect intense fights I'm playing for the whimsy.

For instance in kirbys epic yarn you can't get hurt unless it's something sharp and the waddle dees don't have an attack they just trip and squeak it's delightful. That game has no challenge but it's one of my favorites because I enjoy the setting and the music, plus I like all the colorful beads.

Basically I don't play games just to fight everything sometimes it's fun just to enjoy the scenery and look at cute shit.

All I have to say is that I found the humor to be on point. I went through almost all the game with a big smile on my face and it made me laugh a whole lot, even to the point of having to put the controller down sometimes because I was laughing so hard. It was very relaxing and a huge stress relief from college life. So personally for me, Color Splash is in my top 10 games that I have ever played, maybe even top 5.

BlueDingo said:
Define "real challenge". I very rarely take that criticism seriously as it's almost always said by someone who has over 5 years of gaming experience and whose skill levels are beyond the level expected for the game. Unless you can find or create a somewhat objective scale for difficulty, the difficulty level of any challenge will depend on the skill level of whoever is undertaking that challenge.

Also, being easy isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not all games are meant to be controller-snappingly difficult or suited to your skill level specifically. Games that are easy by design are meant to be for the newer and less skilled players.

So you're saying a game series can't have multiple game types within it?

Not when it's defined the type. The Mario series, for example, includes many types, but the Paper Mario series only has three games in it: Paper Mario 64, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, and Super Paper Mario. They changed things up a bit in Super, but it still kept the defined type the previous two games gave it, where battle was the focus, not collecting stupid stickers or cards.

Furrin_Gok said:
Not when it's defined the type. The Mario series, for example, includes many types, but the Paper Mario series only has three games in it: Paper Mario 64, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, and Super Paper Mario. They changed things up a bit in Super, but it still kept the defined type the previous two games gave it, where battle was the focus, not collecting stupid stickers or cards.

The Paper Mario series is defined by its art style and world, not it's battle mechanic. Other series have changed types over time yet still count as part of their respective series.

Enjoyed Sticker Star to some extent, so I might like this one. (Have very little interest in it right now.

Also a Super Paper Mario fanboy, so I'm biased when it comes to Paper Mario games.

Clawdragons said:
Going to be honest, I don't like how the folks who likes the game completely dismiss those who are bothered by it as "blinded by nostalgia" or whatever.

Well, it can also be the other way around.
"It's not the same as my favorite one so I hate it."
Talk about judging a book by it's cover. I understand them but sometimes they really go too far and don't even look into the game that much.
I can't really take other Nintendo fans seriously anymore.
It's like one half wants the exact same games and the other half wants fresh new games.
I myself don't mind any of these options, only if they don't fuck it up.
Yes PM:SS and MP10/9, looking at you...

WarCanine said:
It's like one half wants the exact same games and the other half wants fresh new games.
I myself don't mind any of these options, only if they don't fuck it up.
Yes PM:SS and MP10/9, looking at you...

At least in MP9's case, MP1-8 still exist so you can still play the old format if you want to. It would be ideal if MP9-10 had the option to play the old way, though.

WarCanine said:


Well, it can also be the other way around.
"It's not the same as my favorite one so I hate it."
Talk about judging a book by it's cover. I understand them but sometimes they really go too far and don't even look into the game that much.
I can't really take other Nintendo fans seriously anymore.
It's like one half wants the exact same games and the other half wants fresh new games.
I myself don't mind any of these options, only if they don't fuck it up.
Yes PM:SS and MP10/9, looking at you...

Some changes are fine, but when you make a theme in the mechanics, people expect that theme to be what's present more than the art style.
This does not apply to the vaguer titles, such as "Mario" as a whole (We instead have Mario Bros. for the platformer style, though a lot of games use "Super Mario" instead), but to the subseries.

Take the Metal Gear series: It has a mechanical theme of stealth. The big game to take away from this is Rising, but I can consider "Metal Gear Rising" a separate branch.
"Metal Gear Acid" doesn't follow the "Solid" naming theme, but it does still incorporate stealth into it; it simply does so while playing card games (Card games, on Metal Gear!).

Furrin_Gok said:
"Metal Gear Acid" doesn't follow the "Solid" naming theme, but it does still incorporate stealth into it; it simply does so while playing card games (Card games, on Metal Gear!).

To be fair, people are mostly thinking of MGS, not just Metal Gear in general. "Metal Gear" on its own would include the NES titles, which are a combination of "stealth", survival horror, and Sierra-Tier "Puzzles". Sort of like how Mario Bros. didn't quite fit in with "Super Mario" because it was still, metaphorically speaking, finding itself.

BlueDingo said:
The Paper Mario series is defined by its art style and world, not it's battle mechanic. Other series have changed types over time yet still count as part of their respective series.

This is a bit of a necro, but this has been bothering me and I want to get it off my chest, so... Yeah. Bumping a thread I really shouldn't be, and I apologize for that.

Anyway, this is, I think, precisely how Nintendo sees it, but I don't see it this way, and I know that some other people don't either... And really, I think that the reality of the situation at least somewhat supports my contention.

You see, Paper Mario wasn't called Paper Mario in Japan. It was called Mario Story. The reason it was called Mario Story is because the original name that they wanted to go with resulted in some legal disagreement with Squaresoft. You see, they wanted to call the game Mario RPG 2, following Super Mario RPG, which was created for the Super Nintendo by Squaresoft for Nintendo. Mario RPG, Mario Story. What do you think the focus was?

Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door was known as Mario Story 2 originally, but the name was later changed to Paper Mario RPG, and that is the title it goes by in Japan. Again, Story and RPG.

This is important to understand. Paper Mario was not created based on the art style. It was created as a successor to Super Mario RPG. It's working name makes that connection and the original intent clear. Paper Mario was fundamentally not about the art style, but about the gameplay. Paper Mario: TTYD continued that trend, as evident both by the name and by the game itself.

To claim that Paper Mario is simply defined by its art style is to ignore the history of the games. The series certainly has moved in that direction, and that is how Nintendo currently sees the series, but that is not the roots of the game.

Personally, despite the difference in graphics, I consider Super Mario RPG to be more of a Paper Mario game than I do more recent games in the series. And I've heard that sentiment echoed by others, at times.

I'm probably not going to change your mind on this, and honestly that doesn't bother me. I just wanted to explain my thoughts on this, and not doing so would have been what would have bothered me.

Oh not this again.

Yes, Paper Mario was originally previewed as effectively a sequel to Super Mario RPG - because it is the 2nd big Mario RPG ever and Super Mario RPG was the first one.

Ignoring that this was obviously a placeholder / project title, this was effectively marketing to profit off of the popularity of SMRPG, similarly to "Tales of Destiny II" (Tales of Eternia) being marketed as a sequel to Tales of Destiny, one of few pre-Symphonia Tales of games to see success in the West. (The real Tales of Destiny 2 came out later, Japan-only.)

I cannot in good faith accept this ordinary marketing strategy as evidence that Paper Mario somehow defines itself by an older, much less interesting game when absolutely nobody I've ever met who has ever played it remembers it as "AW YEAH SUPER MARIO RPG 2".

It's clear that some mild styling and mechanic premises were kept from SMRPG to Paper Mario - most iconically Flower Points and Timed Hits - but Paper Mario changed essentially everything from SMRPG other than these few individually insignificant callbacks, and all of these changes were vast improvements.

The most important of these, of course, is the paper theme, which has been mistakenly dismissed above as merely an "art style".

The characters and levels are actually made out of paper, not merely rendered that way. This affects the gameplay in both puzzles and combat, quite blatantly in TTYD, and even facilitates the core story in Color Splash.

The other defining feature for me is the partners. They were all lovable parodies of what were normally Mario enemies. The fact you could only have one at a time and were forced to start battle with whoever you were using on the field - in which each had a special ability - was distinct, and their constant accompaniment provided colorful and humorous commentary which Square's clumsy SNES-era writing was not able to provide.

After TTYD, none of these partner-related graces have remained - partially thanks to Shiggy bitching about "too much like the old games" in between New Super Mario Bros. rereleases - and this has bothered me endlessly. As far as I understand it, Paper Mario has been largely shafted in favor of pumping up Mario & Luigi.

And I like that series, but I would like having both of them better.

FibS said:
The most important of these, of course, is the paper theme, which has been mistakenly dismissed above as merely an "art style".

The characters and levels are actually made out of paper, not merely rendered that way. This affects the gameplay in both puzzles and combat, quite blatantly in TTYD, and even facilitates the core story in Color Splash.

If you're going to say that it's a defining characteristic that things are made out of Paper, and it's not just an art style, I'd like you to provide supporting evidence of that from the first game.

Because outside of a few visual gags, I can't think of any time in that game where it is actually relevant.

I'd agree on the Partner thing, though that's one of the reasons I consider Super Paper Mario to be closer to a Paper Mario game than later entries in the series.

Clawdragons said:
If you're going to say that it's a defining characteristic that things are made out of Paper, and it's not just an art style, I'd like you to provide supporting evidence of that from the first game.

• Every time you sleep in a bed.
• The way the walls fold when you enter/exit buildings.

BlueDingo said:

• Every time you sleep in a bed.
• The way the walls fold when you enter/exit buildings.

And that qualifies as a defining characteristic, key to gameplay and story, does it?

Clawdragons said:
And that qualifies as a defining characteristic, key to gameplay and story, does it?

It's evidence from the first game of the characters and features from that world being made of paper. There are several others, such as when characters turn around (they're perfectly flat) and entering pipes (Mario's body curves and spins around the inside of it). Just because paper-specific mechanics hadn't been implemented into gameplay yet, that doesn't mean those don't count. Also,

Clawdragons said:
Personally, despite the difference in graphics, I consider Super Mario RPG to be more of a Paper Mario game than I do more recent games in the series. And I've heard that sentiment echoed by others, at times.

So according to you, a game with no paper references or mechanics of any kind is closer to a Paper Mario game than a game loaded with them and implements stickers (made of PAPER) into its mechanics? A scrappy mechanic doesn't stop a Paper Mario game from being a Paper Mario game.

This is like when Zelda fanboys say that Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon aren't Zelda games just because they're shit. Whether they like it or not doesn't change what it is or whether it counts.

BlueDingo said:
It's evidence from the first game of the characters and features from that world being made of paper. There are several others, such as when characters turn around (they're perfectly flat) and entering pipes (Mario's body curves and spins around the inside of it). Just because paper-specific mechanics hadn't been implemented into gameplay yet, that doesn't mean those don't count.

Maybe you don't realize what you're trying to argue for right now.

The point that you are defending is this:

FibS said:
The most important of these, of course, is the paper theme, which has been mistakenly dismissed above as merely an "art style".

The characters and levels are actually made out of paper, not merely rendered that way. This affects the gameplay in both puzzles and combat, quite blatantly in TTYD, and even facilitates the core story in Color Splash.

Do you see where FibS says "affects the gameplay"? Do you see where he says not just an art style?

You are giving examples of things that would fall under art style.

I can give some others, off the top of my head. For instance - at a couple points, when you fall (from Bowser's Castle, and from the broken veranda in Goomba Village), you fall like a piece of paper. In the intro, Kammy Koopa is taped into the screen.

None of those have anything to do with gameplay, combat, puzzles, or story.

That is the point you are trying to defend right now. If you didn't want to defend that point, and if you're not going to defend it, you shouldn't have responded to my request for someone to defend that point.

BlueDingo said:
So according to you, a game with no paper references or mechanics of any kind is closer to a Paper Mario game than a game loaded with them and implements stickers (made of PAPER) into its mechanics? A scrappy mechanic doesn't stop a Paper Mario game from being a Paper Mario game.

This is like when Zelda fanboys say that Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon aren't Zelda games just because they're shit. Whether they like it or not doesn't change what it is or whether it counts.

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking. I quite liked Super Paper Mario, but I consider it similar to a spinoff game.

As another example: the original Final Fantasy Tactics is literally my favorite Final Fantasy game, and one of my favorite games of all time. But that doesn't mean it's a mainline Final Fantasy game just because I like it.

Similarly, I'm a big fan of the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games, but I draw a pretty big distinction between those and the mainline Pokemon games.

Liking it or disliking it is literally not even a factor here.

Clawdragons said:
Do you see where FibS says "affects the gameplay"? Do you see where he says not just an art style?

You are giving examples of things that would fall under art style.

What about the "curses" given in TTYD by the original four heroes? These things are not only affecting the gameplay, but the story itself.

BlueDingo said:
It's evidence from the first game of the characters and features from that world being made of paper. There are several others, such as when characters turn around (they're perfectly flat) and entering pipes (Mario's body curves and spins around the inside of it). Just because paper-specific mechanics hadn't been implemented into gameplay yet, that doesn't mean those don't count. Also,

So according to you, a game with no paper references or mechanics of any kind is closer to a Paper Mario game than a game loaded with them and implements stickers (made of PAPER) into its mechanics? A scrappy mechanic doesn't stop a Paper Mario game from being a Paper Mario game.

This is like when Zelda fanboys say that Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon aren't Zelda games just because they're shit. Whether they like it or not doesn't change what it is or whether it counts.

Actually, no. Those two games seem to follow the Zelda mechanics. This is more like saying "Other M" is not a "Metroid Prime" game. Which, hey, what do you know? It's not. There's a reason they didn't put "Prime" in the game's title for that one. Metroid's general theme follows Samus Aran around as she combats the Space Pirates, Metroids, Ing, or whatever else is threatening the galaxy at the time. "Metroid Prime" takes this into a first person view, removing the "Straight direction" feel of the original line. Other M, however, keeps the third person view, as well as straight-directional movement of the 2D games, all while being in 3D.

So, yes, they made a visual change, but it still fell in line with the original series. Does Paper Mario Sticker Star do this? Not at all, it does the opposite: Keeps the visual style, but loses the defining mechanic.

The confusion perhaps lies in Super Paper Mario: While they kept the RPG mechanic, they changed how it worked. The world took on a much more paper-ish mechanic, as well. Despite these two changes, it did still operate as an RPG centered around Mario (& co) with his partners (The Pixls). Nintendo perhaps saw some complaints over the loss of the turn-based system, and decided to bring that back... But then got rid of the entirety of the RPG mechanics. Color Splash brought back a teeny tiny bit of RPG with "Hammer Scraps," but, c'mon, that's lame. Color was the equivelant of FP, and had some seriously diminishing results as you "leveled up." There weren't any options for what to boost upon levelling up, either; heart ups were a separate item. And, sure, badges are gone, but you know what you could have used in place of "Badge points"? Card slots. More space in your card deck for levelling up. Of course, hammer scraps were also not guaranteed. I don't mind a boost in experience, but I should at least get a single point every battle.

kamimatsu said:
What about the "curses" given in TTYD by the original four heroes? These things are not only affecting the gameplay, but the story itself.

Sure. But that's TTYD. I asked about the original Paper Mario.

If the whole paper thing is supposed to be a defining feature of the games rather than just an art style, and has an impact on gameplay, combat, puzzles and whatnot, surely there should be some example of that in the first game in the series?

That seems like a reasonable request to me.

Clawdragons said:
Sure. But that's TTYD. I asked about the original Paper Mario.

If the whole paper thing is supposed to be a defining feature of the games rather than just an art style, and has an impact on gameplay, combat, puzzles and whatnot, surely there should be some example of that in the first game in the series?

That seems like a reasonable request to me.

Sometimes artists will take their work in a different direction. It might be new, but there's a big difference between adding something new and that new thing directly conflicting with what's already there. If it doesn't conflict and isn't a last-minute Deus ex Machina, what's the problem?

kamimatsu said:
Sometimes artists will take their work in a different direction. It might be new, but there's a big difference between adding something new and that new thing directly conflicting with what's already there. If it doesn't conflict and isn't a last-minute Deus ex Machina, what's the problem?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say.

I'm trying to say that a focus on paper mechanics with respect to gameplay, combat, puzzles, etc., isn't a defining characteristic of Paper Mario, and it's not wrong to call it an aesthetic choice, and that can be seen by looking at the first game in the series.

TTYD makes it a bigger focus, and I'm fine with that. Super Paper Mario made the 2D/3D mechanic a thing, but beyond that, paper itself isn't really a factor. Sticker Star and Color Splash make it a big focus, and again, I'm fine with that. None of that actually bothers me.

I'm not saying it's bad, or its in conflict. I'm just saying it's not a defining characteristic of the games.