Discussion What is more important in a Mario platformer: level design or 'soul'?

[Yzz]

10 years ago Nintendo released two New Super Mario Bros. games on the same year: NSMB2 and NSMBU. These releases kickstarted a backlash against the entire NSMB series, which centered on the aesthetic of said games and often compared them unfavorably to Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World. Unlike Wii Sports and other controversial "Wii era games", not even zoomer Nintendo fans have warmed to the NSMB series yet, as those titles are still regarded as soulless by many. Two other Mario games got similar reactions to the NSMB series: Super Mario 3D Land and Super Mario 3D World, however the backlash to these was not as strong as the one aimed at its 2D siblings.

Although the NSMB games, SM3DL and SM3DW have been criticized for many things, the quality of their level design and game-feel is mostly undisputed. When NSMBU was rereleased for the Switch, Tim Rogers released the most elaborate review of the game, where he claims that the level design of NSMBU is significantly better than SMW, and on the same level of SMB3 (an opinion I fully agree with).

In 2017 the NSMB games found their counterpart: Super Mario Odyssey. In the E3 of that same year, SMO's "T-Rex trailer" amazed many and convinced NSMB critics that the Mario brand finally broke free from its so-called "safe" image of the Wii and WiiU eras. SMO was a massive hit, both critically and commercially, but despite all of this the game found a very vocal group of critics. SMO's critics argue that the game is style over substance, and that it isn't a worthy entry in the Mario series as it lacks the tight level design of its Wii / WiiU predecessors. This sentiment is similar to that around Super Mario Sunshine, where its critics appreciate its atmosphere and art direction, but believe that the game is ultimately subpar because of its poor controls and jankiness.

With all that being said, what is your stance on this issue? Which is the lesser evil: the plastic ungodliness of NSMB or the soulful jankiness of Mario Sunshine?

 

[Derachi]

I think it's not one that's more or less important than the other, it's the careful balance between the two that truly marks a great Mario title.

 

[Tangerine_Cookie]

Rosalina.

 

[Blue Monty]

Rosalina.

So all games prior to Wii are unviable?

Anyway I think great level design that feels great to play it's the more important thing in a Mario game (or any plataformer) so it should always be the 1st priority imo, but it's not one or the other the best Mario games have both.

 

[KC Hazel]

That seems like a pretty false and bias view of Super Mario Odyssey. And Sunshine has bad controls? That's...crazy to me.

Anyway, level design is more important but Mario games all have amazing level design so the 'soul' and creativity aspect is what sets them apart.

 

[YolkFolk]

In 2017 the NSMB games found their counterpart: Super Mario Odyssey. In the E3 of that same year, SMO's "T-Rex trailer" amazed many and convinced NSMB critics that the Mario brand finally broke free from its so-called "safe" image of the Wii and WiiU eras. SMO was a massive hit, both critically and commercially, but despite all of this the game found a very vocal group of critics. SMO's critics argue that the game is style over substance, and that it isn't a worthy entry in the Mario series as it lacks the tight level design of its Wii / WiiU predecessors.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard this. Odyssey is comfortably the best sand box Mario game and by a distance. 64 will always be the more groundbreaking and revolutionary but it can’t really stand up to Odyssey in the 21st century. As for Sunshine I don’t think it had either of the two poll points and is the worst 3D Mario game because of it. As it happens though, I don’t think it had poor controls or jankyness as you put it. To be honest I think your post is extremely abstract and not even close to the popular opinion of how these games are seen.

 

[Raccoon]

good level design is prerequisite, but that doesn't discount presentation

 

[DistractedByPixels]

Odyssey has incredible level design of the obstacle course type in the pipes, especially the post-game stone pipes.

This is why Odyssey is the best Mario game, IMO - it does exploration and tight level navigation in the same game in multiple creative, enjoyable ways.

Well, that and the NDC Festival, which was an amazing spectacle. And it's not like Mario games are new to spectacle (see, oh, like all of Galaxy), but that was something, y'all, really something.

 

[Mekanos]

I will literally play the entire NSMB series before touching Sunshine again

 

[Earthbounder]

Count me in among those who think NSMBU is up there with Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World.

To answer the topic's question, both elements are important, naturally, but level design reigns supreme. Still, if you have great level design but not much soul the game is bound not to leave as big of an impact. NSMBU is the best example of that, since it has peak 2-D Mario design but happens to be overlooked because it not only has a pretty bland soul, but also one that had been worn out by previous releases.

 

[Yzz]

This is the first time I’ve ever heard this. Odyssey is comfortably the best sand box Mario game and by a distance. 64 will always be the more groundbreaking and revolutionary but it can’t really stand up to Odyssey in the 21st century. As for Sunshine I don’t think it had either of the two poll points and is the worst 3D Mario game because of it. As it happens though, I don’t think it had poor controls or jankyness as you put it. To be honest I think your post is extremely abstract and not even close to the popular opinion of how these games are seen.

What I'm saying is that there is a very vocal group of people that believe that SMO has subpar level design (I personally don't agree with them). I'm not sure how big this group of people is, but the controversial "It's no masterpiece" video essay has more than a million views.

That seems like a pretty false and bias view of Super Mario Odyssey. And Sunshine has bad controls? That's...crazy to me.

Anyway, level design is more important but Mario games all have amazing level design so the 'soul' and creativity aspect is what sets them apart.

I was referring to Sunshine's camera and unfinished levels like Corona Mountain and the Pachinko level.

 

[Mr Doggo]

Odyssey for all its great levels doesnt touches galaxy because of galaxy's amazing atmosphere. I hate the term soul.

 

[Clix]

What I'm saying is that there is a very vocal group of people that believe that SMO has subpar level design (I personally don't agree with them). I'm not sure how big this group of people is, but the controversial "It's no masterpiece" video essay has more than a million views.


I was referring to Sunshine's camera and unfinished levels like Corona Mountain and the Pachinko level.

Those people expected a Galaxy/3D World game.

What they got was sandbox Mario 64 like game. Two different styles. Odyssey is more akin to Banjo - but with good platforming segments thrown in in between the exploration as a break.

As for 3DS World, that gane ooooozes style. From the music to the art design. 3D World took a lot from Super Mario 2

 

[Dcubed]

Almost nobody understands or appreciates level design. That’s why open world games are so popular.

Unfortunately, the answer for most people is “soul” (AKA production values and visual design/fidelity).

 

[Heron]

It's an impossible question to answer as "soul" is so abstract, but obviously a Mario game lives and dies on its level design.

I'm one of those who thinks that NSMBU is the peak of 2d Mario level design - that game was incredible. Mario 3's levels are too short to fully iterate on their amazing ideas, SMW's too unfocused and easy to break with power-ups. NSMBU is tight as hell. (And NSMB 2 on 3DS wasn't bad either, unlike the first NSMB which felt like a cheap, nostalgia based cash-grab and NSMB Wii where the multiplayer aspects really spoiled the level design with too much open space.)

But Odyssey was also incredible. The only issues with it is the overabundance of moons and that there's not enough "high-stakes platforming" (ie over pits etc). A lot of the time you remain on the ground, exploring as much as platforming.

I personally think the game with sneaky-poor level design is 3D World. There are a lot of really, really bland, short levels in that game. The shilouette levels are terrible, the big open savannah levels are tottally underdesigned, the beach level with all the power-ups feels like an afterthought, the ghost house levels are mostly boring / bland. The difficulty only gets to an appropriate standard after the credits have rolled, and then most of the levels are repurposed rather than new. Having Bowser's Fury in the re-release package really shines a light on 3D World's failings - because some of the level design in Bowser's Fury is as good as it gets. Hell, the best level design in 3d World is in the Captain Toad levels, which were so good they spawned their own (amazing) game.

 

[KC Hazel]

What I'm saying is that there is a very vocal group of people that believe that SMO has subpar level design (I personally don't agree with them). I'm not sure how big this group of people is, but the controversial "It's no masterpiece" video essay has more than a million views.


I was referring to Sunshine's camera and unfinished levels like Corona Mountain and the Pachinko level.

There are also people that think the Galaxy games are too linear and constrained, and that 3D World isn't a real 3D game. Every game has vocal haters but it doesn't take away from these games.

People who went into Galaxy demanding the sandbox style of Mario 64 probably weren't too happy.
People who went into Odyssey expecting the more linear style of Galaxy probably weren't too happy.

Pretty much all Mario games are top of their class though, so the style matters a lot to determine which is best.

 

[Tangerine_Cookie]

So all games prior to Wii are unviable?

Anyway I think great level design that feels great to play it's the more important thing in a Mario game (or any plataformer) so it should always be the 1st priority imo, but it's not one or the other the best Mario games have both.

Yes.


(Only half /s)

 

[Soul Skater]

Normally for virtually any other game I’d say level design but at this point I’d take 2D Mario ANYTHING over another New Super Mario Bros. with the same music, same graphical style same pretty much everything since 2006. It’s too much. I can’t take the BAW BAW anymore.

Id take a more experimental artistically even if it meant less cohesive level design.

 

[DistractedByPixels]

I think for me, I'd also class soul as "trying shit," as in "does this Mario game try shit, or is it bland?"

For example, I don't like Galaxy very much as a game (though as a spectacle, it is amazing), but it tries shit. There is undeniable creativity in the level design. It doesn't work for me on a gameplay level much of the time, but I can't deny that it's there.

I think NSMBU, on the other hand, is terrible. This is for multiple reasons, but one of them is that I don't think it really tries shit. Sure, it has tricks and pulls out some different stuff, but it's really pretty standard boilerplate Mario level design to me.

The best Mario games to me throw everything at the wall and boss either the exploration or platforming (or both) that they're trying to center. SMB3 is the perfect example because that game does everything it possibly can with 2D platforming level design and with the tools that Mario is given to use. I also think that most of what it tries is amazing. Galaxy, not so much, but I respect that it's out here throwing everything from flip-swap panels to beat blocks to up/down magnets to whatever else the devs could think of.

My big issue with NSMB as a series is how conservative it feels in many aspects, but especially the level design. I would argue that if you stick NSMB DS or NSMBU next to SMB3, SMB3 still feels like the considerably more creative game, and it's 30+ years old.

(This is not to say that NSMB games don't have their hooks, like the mega mushroom or multiplayer, but I think they're really reserved overall in terms of creativity in design and items compared to SMB3, Odyssey, SMW, Galaxy, etc.).

I am also not a fan of SM3DW at all, which re-uses a lot of ideas from past Marios without really anything interesting to say about most of them. I mean, it was great to see flip-swap panels back in the end game, but it's just a borrowed idea, not one that's been iterated on in a very interesting way.

I know that's all controversial, but that's my take on why I like and dislike the Mario games that I do. Of course, YMMV because we all have different tastes, and I wouldn't have it any other way!

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

I think for me, I'd also class soul as "trying shit," as in "does this Mario game try shit, or is it bland?"

For example, I don't like Galaxy very much as a game (though as a spectacle, it is amazing), but it tries shit. There is undeniable creativity in the level design. It doesn't work for me on a gameplay level much of the time, but I can't deny that it's there.

I think NSMBU, on the other hand, is terrible. This is for multiple reasons, but one of them is that I don't think it really tries shit. Sure, it has tricks and pulls out some different stuff, but it's really pretty standard boilerplate Mario level design to me.

The best Mario games to me throw everything at the wall and boss either the exploration or platforming (or both) that they're trying to center. SMB3 is the perfect example because that game does everything it possibly can with 2D platforming level design and with the tools that Mario is given to use. I also think that most of what it tries is amazing. Galaxy, not so much, but I respect that it's out here throwing everything from flip-swap panels to beat blocks to up/down magnets to whatever else the devs could think of.

My big issue with NSMB as a series is how conservative it feels in many aspects, but especially the level design. I would argue that if you stick NSMB DS or NSMBU next to SMB3, SMB3 still feels like the considerably more creative game, and it's 30+ years old.

(This is not to say that NSMB games don't have their hooks, like the mega mushroom or multiplayer, but I think they're really reserved overall in terms of creativity in design and items compared to SMB3, Odyssey, SMW, Galaxy, etc.).

I am also not a fan of SM3DW at all, which re-uses a lot of ideas from past Marios without really anything interesting to say about most of them. I mean, it was great to see flip-swap panels back in the end game, but it's just a borrowed idea, not one that's been iterated on in a very interesting way.

I know that's all controversial, but that's my take on why I like and dislike the Mario games that I do. Of course, YMMV because we all have different tastes, and I wouldn't have it any other way!

My favourite posts are the ones that have a thesis statement and where the post itself serves to reinforce said thesis statement.

Because this post definitely tries shit.

 

[DistractedByPixels]

My favourite posts are the ones that have a thesis statement and where the post itself serves to reinforce said thesis statement.

Because this post definitely tries shit.

I'm not sure whether this is meant as an insult, a compliment, or merely a neutral statement, so I'll do what I always do in these situations: Take your response as proof of the undeniable genius of my post and then start calling major universities to see if they want me to spin this idea into a Ph.D thesis on their dime.

 

[Mekanos]

I am also not a fan of SM3DW at all, which re-uses a lot of ideas from past Marios without really anything interesting to say about most of them. I mean, it was great to see flip-swap panels back in the end game, but it's just a borrowed idea, not one that's been iterated on in a very interesting way.

This is actually why 3D World is my favorite Mario game, it really feels like a celebration of the franchise and pulls a little bit from almost every significant game in the series' history. Though I must bristle at the suggestion that it doesn't have unique concepts of its own because it definitely does, even if less so than most other 3D Mario games. The stealth Bullet Bill level was particularly novel in my mind.

I think "soul" would be better categorized as "theme" or "creativity" perhaps.

 

[Twilight]

"Soul", just because I take for granted that Mario games are going to be well designed, so they have to stand out in their music, environments, atmosphere, the surprise moments, etc.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

I'm not sure whether this is meant as an insult, a compliment, or merely a neutral statement, so I'll do what I always do in these situations: Take your response as proof of the undeniable genius of my post and then start calling major universities to see if they want me to spin this idea into a Ph.D thesis on their dime.

If you can't tell, what does that say about the clarity of your thesis?

Spoiler

It was a very neutral statement but don't let that deter you

 

[Yoshifan31]

I don’t think that the poll is really representative of this debate, especially considering that both “soul” (aesthetics) and level design aren’t really measurable.

While it’s easy to point out how bland looking NSMB and 3D Land/World are, the main issue people have with those games isn’t even about preferring open Mario over linear Mario. The problem is that these games simply did nothing to push the series forward besides adding coop. Sure you could say that the individual level design is still good or write essays about how the level design is actually better than SMW’s or whatever but at the end of the day, why do I care about games retreading SMB3? They have the exact same structure and pacing. You could argue that the level design in SMW is worse but at least that game was unique in terms of progression, the world map and unlockables/hidden exits broke the monotony of going from one world to another and collecting every bonus in each level. While level design discussion is overall neglected from videogame discussion aside from a few specific series (especially Nintendo), there are still other important gameplay related aspects to value alongside level design.

Prior to the NSMB-adjacent games, every mainline Mario was a huge event, they always showed the advantages of the new hardware and had pretty different settings. Meanwhile, those games are essentially SMB3 rehashes with worse aesthetics than a game from 1988.

 

[totofogo]

I think this question is a bit oddly stated as it's comparing two very different types and sub-series of games - linear (course clear) vs sandbox (open world).

Nothing about the game design requirements of a Course Clear mario says it can't have soul or creativity, they've just happened to play it safe with that series lately. With the right creative team and effort behind a 2D mario, it can easily have more. Though, in brief it will always remain true that:

good level design is prerequisite, but that doesn't discount presentation

 

[Brock Reiher]

Level design generally doesn't matter, especially in platformers. That's where a lot of indie games go wrong imo, since they're often made by programmers without a real artist involved. You can tinker all day on your perfect level design but it doesn't matter if your game looks horrible and has bad vibes. This is why a game like Mario Land 2 is always gonna be better than say NSMBU.

 

[Clov]

Level design generally doesn't matter, especially in platformers. That's where a lot of indie games go wrong imo, since they're often made by programmers without a real artist involved. You can tinker all day on your perfect level design but it doesn't matter if your game looks horrible and has bad vibes. This is why a game like Mario Land 2 is always gonna be better than say NSMBU.

I gotta agree overall! Mario Land 2 might overall be easy, but the levels have such a wide variety of unique themes and enemies. Both it and the original Mario Land still are among the best Mario games because of things like this!

 

[Brock Reiher]

I gotta agree overall! Mario Land 2 might overall be easy, but the levels have such a wide variety of unique themes and enemies. Both it and the original Mario Land still are among the best Mario games because of things like this!

Both can be beaten on a single train/plane ride too. Perfection

 

[Clov]

Both can be beaten on a single train/plane ride too. Perfection

That's the other key to the winning formula! Short but very replayable.

 

[Crusters]

What?

Level design IS the soul of a platformer.

 

[dyle]

Level design is king, always will be.

 

[samouraï]

soul and level design are the same thing, hence why 3dw is ludo and super soulless odyssey isn't

 

[Brock Reiher]

soul and level design are the same thing, hence why 3dw is ludo and super soulless odyssey isn't

This is a strange post to me. Mario scholars generally agree Odyssey has much better level design than 3DW.

 

[Benzychenz]

Voted soul because you say NSMBU had great level design but I played it 2 years ago to 100% and hardly remember a thing about it.

 

[totofogo]

Level design generally doesn't matter, especially in platformers. That's where a lot of indie games go wrong imo, since they're often made by programmers without a real artist involved. You can tinker all day on your perfect level design but it doesn't matter if your game looks horrible and has bad vibes. This is why a game like Mario Land 2 is always gonna be better than say NSMBU.

Level design is an art and isn't handled by the programmer. A level designer is a creative role.

Further, it very, very much matters. That's the reason gameplay always comes first in Nintendo's book. Eg. creative new mechanics for each level.

 

[Brock Reiher]

Level design is an art and isn't handled by the programmer. A level designer is a creative role.

Further, it very, very much matters. That's the reason gameplay always comes first in Nintendo's book. Eg. creative new mechanics for each level.

Nintendo's priority isn't gameplay. Miyamoto is an artist and toy maker first.

 

[Raccoon]

This is a strange post to me. Mario scholars generally agree Odyssey has much better level design than 3DW.

no? no no no no no. introduce me to these mario scholars so that I may bite my thumb at them

 

[totofogo]

Nintendo's priority isn't gameplay. Miyamoto is an artist and toy maker first.

Nintendo starts with a core gameplay mechanic and works to exhaust its potential.




GMT explains it better than I ever could

 

[GamerJM]

Other: Movement mechanics for 3D Mario and alternate exits for 2D Mario

 

[Brock Reiher]

Nintendo starts with a core gameplay mechanic and works to exhaust its potential.

That's what they say but there's a reason the Wii was so successful and it's not because of gameplay complexity.

 

[totofogo]

That's what they say but there's a reason the Wii was so successful and it's not because of gameplay complexity.

Gameplay first =/= gameplay complexity though, Nintendo always keeps it simple and accessible

The wii is precisely a demonstration of that mentality. It is a novel new way to play, creating novel new game experiences. The wii/ds era decidedly focused on gameplay over "soul" time and time again, NSMB is a literal relic of it

 

[MetalLord]

Nintendo's priority isn't gameplay. Miyamoto is an artist and toy maker first.

 

[Brock Reiher]

Gameplay first =/= gameplay complexity though, Nintendo always keeps it simple and accessible

The wii is precisely a demonstration of that mentality. It is a novel new way to play, creating novel new game experiences. The wii/ds era decidedly focused on gameplay over "soul" time and time again, NSMB is a literal relic of it

NSMB is the opposite of a new gameplay experience. The Wii puts the focus on something that looks cool and fun and stands out over gameplay.

 

[Raccoon]

Nintendo's priority isn't gameplay. Miyamoto is an artist and toy maker first.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue this before, but I find it very fascinating. A big part of the appeal of the Famicom was its graphics. Compared to its contemporaries, Nintendo's home software really focused on providing visually appealing games with great sound. Gameplay was often a lot better than what was expected at the time though, too.

Putting history aside, I think this is difficult to argue these days. The development history of Splatoon was predicated on creating an entirely new experience, with art coming second. That being said, the project struggled because it needed a compelling visual identity, and it was in fact Miyamoto who rejected rabbits and endorsed squids. So, even if gameplay came chronologically first, it could be argued that style was ultimately the priority.

The notion that "Nintendo's priority isn't gameplay" might be discounting the quality of the games, but it's definitely an interesting perspective that reframes a lot of their projects. A lot of the greatest strengths of Nintendo games has been their style, whether that be visuals, sound, or setting. Splatoon, Pikmin, and Star Fox all come to mind.

 

[Brock Reiher]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue this before, but I find it very fascinating. A big part of the appeal of the Famicom was its graphics. Compared to its contemporaries, Nintendo's home software really focused on providing visually appealing games with great sound. Gameplay was often a lot better than what was expected at the time though, too.

Putting history aside, I think this is difficult to argue these days. The development history of Splatoon was predicated on creating an entirely new experience, with art coming second. That being said, the project struggled because it needed a compelling visual identity, and it was in fact Miyamoto who rejected rabbits and endorsed squids. So, even if gameplay came chronologically first, it could be argued that style was ultimately the priority.

The notion that "Nintendo's priority isn't gameplay" might be discounting the quality of the games, but it's definitely an interesting perspective that reframes a lot of their projects. A lot of the greatest strengths of Nintendo games has been their style, whether that be visuals, sound, or setting. Splatoon, Pikmin, and Star Fox all come to mind.

Splatoon is a great example! Maybe what I'm talking about can primarily be attributed to Miyamoto, but I think he's a huge part of the company and the impact they've made. I would also point to the old story of NES only going to store shelves because it came with a funny robot. Another example that comes to mind are amiibo which basically do nothing in game (and in fact when they do something people get kind of pissed off lol)

 

[totofogo]

NSMB is the opposite of a new gameplay experience. The Wii puts the focus on something that looks cool and fun and stands out over gameplay.

The quality of gameplay or level design is entirely unrelated to whether or not it is a new experience. As noted in OP, NSMB is nearly universally applauded for its level design above all else.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue this before, but I find it very fascinating. A big part of the appeal of the Famicom was its graphics. Compared to its contemporaries, Nintendo's home software really focused on providing visually appealing games with great sound. Gameplay was often a lot better than what was expected at the time though, too.

Putting history aside, I think this is difficult to argue these days. The development history of Splatoon was predicated on creating an entirely new experience, with art coming second. That being said, the project struggled because it needed a compelling visual identity, and it was in fact Miyamoto who rejected rabbits and endorsed squids. So, even if gameplay came chronologically first, it could be argued that style was ultimately the priority.

The notion that "Nintendo's priority isn't gameplay" might be discounting the quality of the games, but it's definitely an interesting perspective that reframes a lot of their projects. A lot of the greatest strengths of Nintendo games has been their style, whether that be visuals, sound, or setting. Splatoon, Pikmin, and Star Fox all come to mind.

Mm very interesting and well put. You've made me realize for the first time that it's important to discern that while Nintendo's development process may put Gameplay first, that doesn't mean that the final product weighs it highest. That however, does not discount the importance of level design or gameplay at some root level as suggested here:

Level design generally doesn't matter, especially in platformers. That's where a lot of indie games go wrong imo, since they're often made by programmers without a real artist involved. You can tinker all day on your perfect level design but it doesn't matter if your game looks horrible and has bad vibes. This is why a game like Mario Land 2 is always gonna be better than say NSMBU.

That, I still strongly disagree with and am curious if you could expand on and sway me haha.

 

[Raccoon]

Splatoon is a great example! Maybe what I'm talking about can primarily be attributed to Miyamoto, but I think he's a huge part of the company and the impact they've made. I would also point to the old story of NES only going to store shelves because it came with a funny robot. Another example that comes to mind are amiibo which basically do nothing in game (and in fact when they do something people get kind of pissed off lol)

I think the least objectionable framing of this idea (which I recognize isn't something that usually concerns you lol) would be to say that Nintendo games generally prioritize the synergy of presentation and gameplay, and that this arguably but the former above the latter. The simple visuals of NSMB don't really do much to support the game, and they aren't very interesting on their own, leading to an overall uninteresting product.

I'm surprised that I had never really thought about this, given how enduring and substantial Nintendo's worlds and characters have been, even over gameplay models

 

[Yzz]

soul and level design are the same thing

I disagree? both of these games have soul, but are mediocre in the gameplay department

 

[hologram]

I think some are slightly over-rating the level design in NSMBU. It's fine. Good, even. But it's nothing special.

I somewhat suspect this "NSMBU is peak 2D Mario level design, actually" narrative initially started as pushback towards the backlash the game has received. I get it, to an extent. Since the bar for Mario games is so high, the negative aspects of an overall solid if unremarkable game meant people would exaggerate how bad it was (myself included; only the other day someone here rightly called me out for saying the game was "terrible"). So then those who like the game felt the need to defend it, and the level design became the go-to defense. And the level design is certainly better than the presentation and music, but I would still say by modern platformer standards it's fairly average. Hell, I would argue Mario Maker basically makes the game obsolete, since (as long as you're willing to wade through garbage) you can find plenty of levels with the same presentation and far more creativity.