Those island secrets are hard and frustrating for sure. But don't they also exist in the same space as blue coins, in that they're optional? So the problems are interface, in that the game doesn't give you enough information about where the remaining blue coins are, or with unfair difficulty spikes, and both of these problems only really comes to bear in a 100% run. So if you aren't purposefully doing a 100% run, and aren't interested in the challenge the optional stages present, you can let them be and still satisfactorily complete the game. And if we recognize that 100% is a specific challenge that is going to require a higher level of effort, or engagement, or whatever you want to call it, it bears through that 100% will include parts that are annoying. I would say any 100% approach to a game would come with the expectation that you're in it for the long haul and there's going to be some bumpy road.
I want to interject and just say this isn't directed anyone here but is just in general how I feel about the whole "Sunshine is Bad" sentiment as embodied by the Polygon review
"Super Mario 3D All-Stars review: Not even Sunshine can ruin this collection," the general sentiment that Sunshine was a mistake or is seriously flawed. I understand that it's an odd step in the Mario lineage, a step far enough from the trail to feel like a misstep. And the last thing I want to do is make anyone feel bad because the game didn't connect with them, feel like they're being reprimanded for having an unpleasant feeling experience. I've been there with many games myself. If the game just feels weird and doesn't connect with you, I get it. So please, if I'm going too far and coming across as judgey, let me know. I don't want to be that kind of person. However, I want to speak honestly to the way I think and see things, and sometimes I'm not sure if my language is matching my intentions. Also I find Sunshine to be a pretty interesting game. I am finding it frustrating as my interest keeps butting up against the dismissive sentiment regarding the game. And again, this frustration isn't aimed at anyone here, but at the situation in general.
When I see blanket statements about the game sucking in general, or criticisms aimed at bumpy optional content, I find them weighing far less on the scale than all the ways that Sunshine is an interesting step: the island environment, unique even then not only as a Mario platformer but for the whole genre; the attention to 3D movement, an exploration of how it might articulate and expand from 64's possibilities; the interest in how a 3D platfomer could express, with levels that can be seen from others and logical connections between them, and all other small, unique, and flavorful details that are infused throughout the game.
When I see a wealth of interesting and unique stuff casually dismissed over a couple of rough patches in optional content, I feel annoyed. Preciously when I see the optional content as a considered aspect of the design. Nintendo had a goal of making a game that would appeal to a large range of people. They knew that as the follow-up to Mario 64 there was going to be a big audience of a wide range of players, from people who had been playing Mario since the arcade to younger or inexperienced players whom perhaps this was their first Mario. So you have the base challenge of moving through the levels, getting the minimum amount of shines to progress, and defeating Bowser. There's some criticism that Mt. Corona is too basic and not difficult enough. This is why. It needs to be the cumulative stage of that base of level of minimum progression. Then past it you have this whole wealth of trickier content, including the special stars. I know the pachinko board and leaf stages have some physics that can make it feel like the outcome is out of your hands, and that isn't' fun, but I also see these stages as positioned in that high-skill level arena, and therefore can be understood as challenges to overcome. I think this includes the implication that these stages are going to require multiple attempts. If Nintendo didn't quite nail the difficulty of these high-end challenges, or didn't telegraph them enough, I think I can forgive them in the attempt. They clearly learned from the experience as they got better at delineating the base game, post-game, high-end tiers in later games.
I guess that comes around to why I like the game as a whole, because that step off the path wasn't a stumble, it was a deliberate striking out. That step could have been the first in a totally different direction for the series. As it turned out it was a bit too odd for enough people that Nintendo struck out in another unexpected direction which resulted in the wonderful Galaxy. That's the thing with striking out, you're not sure where it will take you. I think that there's something to be admired in Nintendo taking that choice, even if it didn't work for everyone. They were following up the revolutionary and beloved 64, and yet they still chose to step off the path. I'm happy they did.
