RolStoppable said:
You can get away with that in the two proper Paper Mario games. You don't even need items to pull it off, you just need to manage your other resources intelligently. Your point was that Sticker Star solved a potential problem, hence why its direction could be seen as a good thing. But the problem it solved never existed for the IP in the first place, hence why it isn't a good argument. Especially because it leads to Sticker Star being broken at its core. There are no drawbacks to skipping battles (you aren't forced to step up your game in mandatory battles like in the first two Paper Mario games). Actually, skipping battles is a win-win scenario. That puts it into Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood territory and that's a place where no game should strive to be. Thankfully Sticker Star's rest of the game has redeeming qualities, so it's not an absolutely god awful game. |
I wasn't trying to say Sticker Star had a system that solved a problem that existed in the other Paper Mario games. I was simply putting into perspective why a decision for not having levels would be implemented. I would also argue that Sticker Star's battle system has incentives besides just getting coins. However that's really besides the point anyway. I was trying to explain it from a viewpoint outside of "this is a Paper Mario game" and more into the mechanics of RPG's (especially what some people call "JRPG's"). I also am not speaking from my own personal view, as I am merely mirroring what I have seen some people complain about in other RPG games.
