Hey kids new
Jim review dropped[
a] on
Princess peach: Showtime!, the latest major IP release from Nintendo. This game has a Metacritic score currently sitting at 74, user score 7.8. I generally say that so long as the critical score and the user score are within 5 points of each other (after ignore that pointless decimal on the user score) then the critics are in touch with the users on the game in question, and it seems to be so here! So what did James Stephanie Sterling give this game! A resounding... 5.5/10! To contrast,
Logan Plant at IGN gave it a 7 [
a]. I picked IGN because they tend to have pretty inflated review scores and they aren't one of the insanely pro-Nintendo websites.
So let's have some fun with this one! Time to shit on Jimbo's new review! I have time so I am going to do a full response to it right here, because fuck it we need ANYTHING to talk about.
DISCLAIMER: I have not played this game and likely never will. I don't really care about this game in particular.
Jim's Shit Review said:
Right, so where should we put the “woke” paragraph?
I have one paragraph in this Princess Peach: Showtime! review, talking about how Peach’s only two solo outings are about crying and wearing clothes. It’s a tiny part of a fully written review on a subject I’m not even that bothered by. It’s just one small observation in an extensively written critique.
The only reason I’m making a massive deal of it is that no matter how throwaway my sentiment is, it’ll be the one thing a bunch of Gamer(tm) commenters hone in on and respond to with long, poorly formatted screeds. I might as well give it the undue attention others will give it, especially when I poke fun at Nintendo’s new thing of Peach needing to daintily lift her dress as she runs.
Another reason to waste so much time baiting and talking utter shit is that Princess Peach: Showtime! doesn’t give me much else of interest to talk about.
I was going to end this quote one line break earlier, but I really wanted that last line there, because I really want to see how much of interest Jim has to talk about with this game for giving this arguably two paragraphs despite saying he is only giving it one. I always treat a line break, even just for including an image, as a new paragraph when quoting Jim. This is because I want to preserve the text flow as best I can, sometimes he splits things up in such a way where it is clearly one paragraph being chopped in half by an image due to his terrible review formatting, but since I don't include his images on this site (I actually use a reader mode plugin for my browser that REMOVES the images entirely when I want to do something like this) I still want the same break in the pacing to exist so as to present his words as accurately and as unmodified as possible. This is also why I try to include all his italics and bolded text as he did and not add my own. I just wanted to point out that his review really more feels like it has two, actually three, paragraphs on the think he is saying he only has one for.
Now this "one" paragraph is Jim lamp shading his bullshit as bait, but that doesn't let him off the hook as he's still just being an antagonistic prick trying to lash out at his readers, but doing so in a way that wins him no extra clicks or in a way that is "in good fun". Though let me be fair, he's actually lamp shading a paragraph later that was also only put in as bait, so fuck it I'll bite.
I would also argue that the entire 2D platformer portion of the Mario franchise has a huge focus on dressing up considering how the powerup portion functions. In this case Peach just got some of the nicest looking power-ups in a Mario game we've seen. Honestly, if this didn't look like one of Nintendo's overly easy games I would pick it up just because I love games with really distinctive costumes that give distinctive power ups. Personal weak spot. I just love when characters have major costume changes to swap how they play. Stupid concepts I like
Also you can tell Jim has never ran in a dress or long clothing before, shit is going to trip you or get caught on something on the ground. It also looks awful if it is just clipping through the floor at a clear angle because it is too rigid. I used to work Halloween haunted houses and forests. A common thing to need in a costume was a robe. Running through the halls or the forest with something close to the ground on is a tripping hazard. Her doing it in a "dainty" way is just royalty trying to show a higher level of grace, you'd think a brit knows that royals practice doing such to an absurd degree. That is just the whole princess schtick.
Now to come back to that last line about there not being much to talk about, didn't he also call this review "extensively written"? Oh we'll judge that soon Jimbo. Oh, also it clocks in at 1,072 words. To compare to his previous
Rise of Ronin review that I covered was 1,622 words and his
Dragon's Dogma 2 review was 1,831 words. I only point out that as of his recent reviews that have been discussed here it is the shortest.
While not a terrible game, it just doesn’t have a lot going on. Peach is in some theater run by the Dozers your mum has at home, some bad guys inevitably turn up, and Peach takes to the stage with a variety of powered-up costumes to fight stuff and save the show. The useless muppets relying on her to fix their every little problem are about as appealing as a dishrag, by the way.
A slow and broken pace turns the game’s simplistic levels into a more sluggish affair than they ought to be. Despite featuring collectible items that are supposed to encourage replaying stages, many of them have next to zero replay value, especially when you factor in the many unskippable scripted sequences that play in full every time you do them.
This is his first condemnation of the game, and it is actually a fair complaint. I have found that Nintendo has felt like it has gotten far more simplistic than they traditionally have been for most of the Switch's lifespan, with the exceptions being things like the two new style Zelda games and Mario Odyssey. A simple or easy game isn't necessarily a bad one, I have made the argument before that easy games can still be good, so long as the pacing and the gameplay is fun. I adore the Kirby series, and those games are hardly difficult, but the gameplay and level design tends to make them quite fun. An easy and comfy game can be just as enjoyable as something that makes you want to throw your controller in frustration as the difficulty, but both can be done very wrong and the fastest way to do so in both cases is if the game feels sluggish.
Mario games tend to be quick and snappy, they rarely feel like the action is ever stopping for long before you are immediately onto the next thing, and despite the name on the box this is is part of the Mario franchise. Messing that up is a surefire way to mess up a Mario game, and if they did that then I can suddenly see how this game is scoring so low for a Nintendo game. IGN backs up this issue.
This isn’t a straightforward platformer, either. Detective Peach stages, for example, play out more like tiny adventure games featuring a lot of walking slowly while following footprints with a magnifying glass. It’s dull as heck the first time - not helped at all by how rudimentary it is - and I have absolutely no desire for a second crack at it.
Same goes for the cooking levels, which involve squirting patterns on cakes and tapping buttons to whisk cookie gloop. Each outfit stars in multiple stages, and the cooking levels are so similar even fresh stages feel like a replay. Segments like these feel like a stripped down version of a minigame you've seen done better elsewhere.
This here explains the issue pretty well, if they oversimplified these systems then they would feel slow, sluggish, and like inferior version of another game. I almost want to put in the time to hunt down videos to compare these to things like Mario Party minigames to see if they are some rethemed and stripped down version of those minigames, just to see if Jim is onto something or not, but taking his criticism at face value there's really no issue with this critique unless it is objectively wrong and I am not spending the money to figure out if it is.
I should also point out that IGN also backed up the complaint about these being the types of levels that you don't want to replay, despite that being an option to do so and encouraged with collectables.
Part of the problem is how intensely limited Peach’s abilities are.
Most costumes have one or two basic actions, and even the best stages apply these abilities in mundane, repetitive ways. Cowboy Peach has a lasso. She uses it to lasso objects and enemies. That’s it. Superhero Peach does an electric punch and picks up heavy items, so she can hit goons and carry stuff to make bridges, shelters, and other predictable things. A section playing out like the least energetic scrolling shooter in the world hardly deviates from monotony.
Coming off the back of
Super Mario Bros. Wonder, which spewed up almost
too much variety and weirdness, a game this barren is disappointing. I don’t know if they assume it's for little girls who “can’t play games” but even kids tend to expect more than this. They’re the same kids that played Wonder, after all.
This complaint seems odd, as he compares it to
Super Mario Bros. Wonder, a game that he gave a 8.5/10 when he reviewed[
a] it. Mario power ups work the same as the Peach costumes function, unless of course I am missing a nuisance here that makes the more egregious than just par for the course. It seems like each level is focused on a single power up that it grants you for the stage, so I think his argument that the toolkit you have for the level isn't enough to keep it interesting and varied. IGN disagrees on this point seeing the simplistic nature of these abilities as selling point as they create a beginner level variety show of a variety of game genres, and disputes the repetitive feeling by talking about how you Switch between these different game modes.
The real complaint would be how the game makes use of these power ups, but Mario has never felt like it has made good enough use of its power ups in the level design as that type of thing is normally left up to the player to find ways to exploit the power ups they find and hold onto despite certain levels doing a bit to encourage the use of certain power ups based on when they give them to you. The same holds true for the Kirby series which I quite like. Perhaps the level design itself just isn't very good and that is what is making these costumes not feel particularly great to Jim.
Also something about the way he says the game is for "little girls" instead of "little kids" here just rubs me the wrong way. Like he's trying to make a statement, but is too cowardly to just say it. Nintendo is one of those companies that tends to not really come off as having a gendered targeting of their products, instead they tend to feel very gender neutral in their games so I don't really get the point he is trying to hint at here unless he is trying to say "Nintendo thinks the pink princess is for girls and girls are bad at video games"? The thing is, almost all little kids are bad at video games, the skill gap in gaming between male and female players doesn't become noticeable until around middle school and high school due to the fact that we are still seeing that girls bully other girls out of playing video games so we aren't in the range where this statement makes sense to me unless you're just trying to force sexism into everything. Which he does do in this.
Despite frontloading my review with negativity (I try not to but sometimes you gotta go with the flow), I should point out that Princess Peach: Showtime! isn’t a terrible game. It’s just something of a non-entity. It never really picks up steam, gets exciting, or offers memorable moments. It can be moderately enjoyable, but I always had to play in short bursts because I would easily tire of its schtick.
This is the second time he points out the game isn't "terrible", and he does recognize that so far he has frontloaded this view with his negative impressions first, though I can say he absolutely does do so on purpose with many reviews despite trying not to, as I know he knows it drives clicks to do so. That said, what this paragraph says to me is really the first sign of why he is giving it a 5.5/10 and not even lower. It isn't terrible, but it is mediocre and Jim is someone who actually uses scores below 5/10 rather than treating a 7/10 as mediocre like most reviewers have a history of doing. This also marks a shift to a more positive tone for the review.
Ninja Peach is by far the standout. Her stealth stages, while still straightforward, feel like a more diverse experience - Peach hides in water with a cute little breathing reed, holds up a sheet that mimics whatever’s behind her to blend into the environment, and platforms around with wall jumps. Like I said, it’s not pushing the boat out with features, but it’s at least more interesting.
Much as I’m disappointed with Cowboy Peach’s single dull ability, those stages at least feature some fun horse riding sections with all the jumps and lane changes you’d expect. Again, it’s nothing you haven’t seen before, but it’s neat enough and it provides a modicum of excitement.
Ice Skater Peach is also a nice time, with Peach sliding around the rink and collecting fellow skaters to form a synchronized line. I’m relatively fond of the Mermaid alter ego, who sings to control schools of fish and solve little puzzles with them, though the real selling point is how beautiful the water-themed environments are.
This gives us honestly one of the better glances into the gameplay and while IGN seems to be more positive on this aspect they seems to back up this description. I really wish Jim just went into this more extensively (yes I am calling him out here) to give a better idea of why these aspects seem to be falling short as well as the other costumes, really giving his opinions of each of the game modes in depth. I am left wondering what the issue is due to how surface level these statements are. Rip into it Jim! Tear into the meat and really point out what is so lacking about these systems! Critique them!
Is the curve through these levels not enough to ever fully explore these mechanics? Are the mechanics themselves too simple? Are they simply too basic in their execution? Personally I get the sense that this is the first real game that is its own style for Peach, and that Nintendo just hadn't had enough time to experiment with the formula yet resulting in an underwhelming execution.
Showtime! is a very pretty game, as one expects from a Mario-related release. The visual designs of each level, which resemble theatrical productions, are where all the genuine creativity was sequestered. Large enemies often swoop in with wires holding them up, fire is clearly painted wood, and stage lighting illuminates everything. I’m a big fan of the Mario series’ brightly colorful artistic direction, and the showbiz aesthetic works great with it.
I only point this bit out because I found it funny that while Jim is praising this game for its artistic direction and style in the visuals department, IGN was busy complaining about the technical capabilities of the Switch and how the game is from a graphical standpoint rather than an artistic standpoint in the same department.
Peach and her simpering star-faced sidekick can spend coins to get new skins for their default clothing, and while the cosmetic fan in me enjoys the idea of changing Peach’s look, the majority of options are just her usual pink dress with some patterns on them. There’s also nowhere near enough of the things, and pretty soon you’ll be rolling in coins with nothing you want to buy.
This is another play I would like further detail from Jim. While I would like to say Mario Odyssey had the same issues with its cosmetic aspects of rapidly running out of things you would
want, it took a significant amount of coins to get everything if that was your goal and I just want to know if that is true here. If you are buying everything do you still run out of things to buy quickly while still rolling in coins? Jim really doesn't talk much about this feature other than mention it.
Welcome to the “woke” paragraph: Peach’s only two solo outings are about crying and wearing clothes, which is something something genders, and I find her daintily lifting her dress both charming and worth a side-eye. This is the end of the “woke” paragraph.
This is the paragraph that he wrote two more about at the start. Really it is only three sentences. Two if you disregard the part announcing it. Only one if you disregard the sentence declaring the end of it. All of that baiting and sheering at the start for this one single sentence that doesn't even seem worthy of being included. In fact I think he wrote this
after he wrote the initial bit of bait.
I will take the bait though and ask, is this game actually about wearing clothes? To me that isn't what the game came off as. Rather it came off as a game about playing the role of a character in a production. It was about the magic of theatre and performance making events come alive. The costumes are just one part of that, but so are the thematic stages and the heroinic skills that Peach assumes when she wears these costumes to play her role in these stories. At least that is what I got from the trailers every time they were playing when I stopped by GameStop to check out what was in the used games bin on my way pass. I didn't look at this game and go "Oh, Peach got a game about playing dress up" I thought "Oh, that looks like a neat concept and the theme of it being a giant stage performance is a bit interesting, but nothing is really jumping out enough to justify the price of it to me."
Jimbo, I also identify as non-binary, but the difference between you and I is that I don't see everything as being about gender like you do, especially since you "came out" a few years back. To me this is Nintendo just trying to give Peach her thing for her spin offs. Luigi got spooky houses and ghosts, Yoshi gets the arts and crafts thing, so Peach seemed like she'd get the performative arts. I think that is all that is happening here.
Also, he keeps bringing up her other solo outing as being about "crying", so I should address that. The other solo Peach game is
Super Princess Peach, a game that was a more traditional 2D platformer on the Nintendo DS. It was a decent enough little game, but it just came off as the role flipped Mario game in the marketing where the gimmick was that Mario was kidnapped and Peach was going to save him. There was very little discussion at the time (way back in 2005/2006 depending on region) about the unique mechanics of the game, and myself and others assumed from the marketing that it would just play like a normal Mario game, except feminist. That isn't actually the case. In this game the core mechanics were Peach's use of the powers of different emotions. It wasn't about just crying. It called these different emotional states "vibes" and each vibe gave her different abilities. With joy she would literally float around with happiness while blowing things away with her happy little twirls throwing out gusts of wind. With rage she would stomp around in rage smashing everything and catching fire in her anger, and yes the fire cold light up the darkness as well as light things on fire. Her gloom would make her run faster her tears could be used to produce water for everything water could be used for in puzzles from growing plants, to spreading ice, to operating water wheels or putting out flames. When using calm she would heal to max HP. The other gimmick of the game is peach had a helpful talking parasol with a face called "Perry" who had special abilities and forms he could take to help her on her adventure. It was a thing that existed. It was pretty good, but nothing amazing.
So no Jim, you trying to stretch for a statement about Peach's solo outings both being sexist because "haha women cry and like clothes" doesn't hold up. Nor is your stretching over the "daintily lifting her dress" thing doing any better. You're just projecting your own sexist views onto things to try and seem like you having the higher woke ground.
This is the end of me taking the bait.
All the way down, the theme of “not enough” pervades Princess Peach: Showtime! The costumes Peach wears look cute but their gimmicks are limited both in terms of their abilities and the game’s implementation of them. The lack of imagination is unbecoming of Nintendo, and it’s a real shame because Peach deserves a much better game. It’s like nobody’s heart was in the making of this, and while there are some entertaining moments, Showtime! simply has very little to show for itself.
So here it is, Jim's closing statement. In the end what he really seems to be saying is that this game is not bad, it is just mediocre. It seems, at least this time, Nintendo has yet to figure out how to give Peach her own game with its own identity in a way that stands out and is enjoyable and fun to play. At least in Jim's estimation.
Honestly, outside me feeling he could've gone far more in depth with his critiques and his baiting for the sake of being a nobhead, I really can't complain much about this review. It has a bit more of Jim's style to it than the last one, though still lacked his signature linguistic flourish, and felt like it was just him genuinely giving his option even if I think he should've explained himself better. This review is fine, but it isn't particularly good either.
Now, everything between the two horizontal lines where I give a review of his review comes to 2,755 words. This is not including the portions where I quoted him nor the disclaimer about me not playing and likely never playing the game in question. I just figured I would give my word count after taking the piss out of his word count. I feel like one of us was a bit more extensive than the other, though that might just be due to my verbose style of writing such things. I have over two and a half times his word count just talking about his review than his "extensively written" review has.
