DK's Spectacular Bananzas

How about that Donkey Kong Bananza? Despite taking umbrage with one aspect, I thoroughly enjoyed it! And why wouldn’t I? It not only combines destruction with singing, which surprisingly works, it’s also a great time. It might even be my favourite Donkey Kong game! However, its best element is the Bananza transformations, each of which is a different animal and has a corresponding tune that Pauline sings. Why not rank them?

By the way, spoilers ahead. If you haven’t played it and are on the fence, I suggest trying out Donkey Kong Bananza for yourself first.

5. Zebra Bananza:

This is my least-favourite Bananza. Yes, the design looks bonkers, as zebras don’t walk on their hind legs. Yes, the song that Pauline sings is a banger. And yes, dashing over collapsing bridges is great. But aside from that, what does it truly accomplish?

I know this’ll upset fans of it, but the Zebra Bananza’s lame in relation to the others. It might allow me to run quickly, especially when platforms are flimsy, but still. What does being a ridiculously-shaped zebra offer that other Bananzas don’t? Even in combat, the Zebra Bananza pales to the others. All it can do is punch faster, and that’s not exciting.

I’ll give it this: aside from its design, having a buff marathon runner as a Bananza is neat. It might be impractical for everything else, but it can actually evade attacks. It’s also funny that you acquire it in the Ice Layer, as zebras aren’t cold weather animals. Nevertheless, this is the Bananza I go back to the least. Sorry.

4. Snake Bananza:

Ignoring the Zebra Bananza, the Snake Bananza isn’t all that impressive. It’s the final Bananza you acquire, and it feels like it was included only because the developers had room for one more. However, whereas the Zebra Bananza feels lacking, the Snake Bananza has several advantages. Never mind that it also looks cool, being a coiled snake with arms. What could it have that stands out?

Two features. The first involves slowing down time. It’s not immediate, and it doesn’t last long, but slowing down time in combat can be an asset with fast-moving enemies. I initially found myself using it quite a bit after acquiring it, as many of the enemies moved too quickly in real time. It also allowed me to get past a part that actually required it, as it had many obstacles that forced me to slow down time. It wasn’t perfect, but it helped.

The second feature involves spring jumping/double jumping. This might not seem so big at first, but it comes in handy in hard to reach places. Similarly, the Snake Bananza can shatter through platforms that wouldn’t crumble otherwise while jumping or landing. So while not the best Bananza, feeling like an afterthought, I prefer it to the Zebra Bananza. Also, the matching tune has Pauline rapping lyrics at one point.

3. Ostrich Bananza:

The only bird, the Ostrich Bananza’s a conundrum: on one hand, ostriches can’t fly, making the flying Bananza into one big head-scratcher. On the other hand, I’ve never understood why ostriches are flightless birds, so this is the ultimate power fantasy. Besides, Pauline calls out the ridiculousness of the Ostrich Bananza’s powers, so the game’s self-aware. The Ostrich Bananza being a decent power-up helps.

Perhaps the selling point, as I said previously, is flying. Not long distances, but the ability to fly gives the Ostrich Bananza an advantage with far away platforms. The Ostrich Bananza can also dive-bomb enemies in the air, made easier by being carried higher with fans. It’s nice having the Ostrich Bananza be aviation-friendly, allowing you to avoid attacks in midair. It also has a funky beat to compliment it.

My one critique of the Ostrich Bananza involves its egg bombs. I don’t understand how they work. You get several to use, and while not entirely useless, the eggs aren’t always effective. I found myself preferring to use chunks of broken ground instead, as those are easier to understand. But I guess old habits die hard, right? It’s still a cool Bananza.

2. DK Bananza:

The first Bananza you acquire, the DK Bananza, catchiness of its melody aside, is a beast to have in your arsenal. Not only is it an overpowered brawler, being excellent for hand-to-hand combat, it can also punch through barriers you can’t break otherwise. I found myself switching between it and one other Bananza in the latter part of the game because of how powerful it is, taking out baddies with a charged punch. The DK Bananza can also send boulders flying.

Actually, let’s zone in on that. In a later level, I found myself confronted by a giant boulder I couldn’t move. I needed to get rid of it, but nothing worked…until I used a charged punch. This wasn’t only satisfying, it helped me prepare for the upcoming boss, as my opponent tossed boulders frequently. Using a charged punch from the DK Bananza was, therefore, useful, even if I learned I could do that late.

Above everything, the DK Bananza’s an overpowered and effective brawler. Need to beat enemies quickly? Activate the DK Bananza. Need to break through a wall? Activate the DK Bananza. Need to deliver a powerful punch? You know what to do. Bless the DK Bananza!

1. Elephant Bananza:

The Elephant Bananza’s my favourite. Right when I saw its powers, as well as heard its tune, I knew I was in for a treat. My only regret was not having access to it earlier. Seriously, a Bananza that doubles as a vacuum cleaner? And an efficient one? Sign me up!

The Elephant Bananza’s greatest asset’s its trunk. Why? Because it can inhale matter. This is helpful because some matter, like volcanic ash and thorns, is harmful if you come in contact with it, so inhaling it becomes a priority. It’s super helpful.

Additionally, the Elephant Bananza converts inhaled matter into boulders to toss at enemies. And it can whip out 10 boulders per transformation. This is a necessity later on, especially with more difficult enemies and bosses. I often found myself toggling back-and-forth between the Elephant and DK Bananzas to make my life easier, with the former my immediate go-to for clearing paths. It’s also why the Elephant Bananza’s my favourite one.

And that about does it for this! Now then, about that mysterious Lion Bananza…

Load of Croc!

Originally I wanted to write a review of Donkey Kong Bananza. I recently beat the game, and I really enjoyed it. It felt like Donkey Kong’s answer to Super Mario Odyssey, which I assume was intentional. However, there’s a lingering issue with the game that won’t leave me alone, and I’ve decided it’s worth discussing it. It’ll involve spoiling the game, but that’s inevitable. Because it really bothers me:

I don’t think King K. Rool should’ve been the real villain.

For context, this game follows Donkey Kong and a 13 year-old girl named Pauline as they head to their planet’s core. Along the way, they encounter Void Co., a mining syndicate desperate to get there first. It’s basically a race between DK/Pauline and Void Co., with various shenanigans along the way. Together with Pauline’s singing voice, DK punches his way through enemies and textures, sometimes as animals called “Bananzas”, so as to outwit Void Co. It’s a fun experience with many inventive worlds.

Toward the end of the game, the story makes a bold reveal. Apparently, the leader of Void Co. has mistaken the Banandium Root, the planet’s core, for a sleeping crocodile. Said crocodile is DK’s foe from previous games, King K. Rool. King K. Rool, for some reason, wound up in the planet’s core after a battle with DK, and he’s out for revenge. After discarding Void Co.’s leader like he’s nothing, King K. Rool decides to use the Banandium Root himself. Realizing they’ve unleashed a monster, DK and Pauline chase after him.

Now, I was spoiled by King K. Rool being in this game via a YouTube thumbnail before I’d even encountered him. However, I thought that his presence was a fake-out, perhaps a decoy by Void Co. So when it turned out that King K. Rool was the true mastermind, I was disappointed. Yes, his two battles are as challenging as they are enjoyable, and I appreciate the nod to Donkey Kong Country with the fake credits. But his inclusion was unnecessary. In fact, it’s as bad as the Zant/Ganondorf fake-out in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, except worse because Ganondorf was foreshadowed early on.

For those who remember my ScrewAttack days, I have two rules for whether or not twist reveals are good: they should make sense in the context of the story, and they should progress the story in a good direction. King K. Rool being here fits the latter (somewhat), but fails at the former. It’s a shame, as King K. Rool isn’t a bad villain, even putting up a worthy fight. Nevertheless, I must remain firm in my assertion that his presence wasn’t telegraphed effectively. In fact, it wasn’t telegraphed at all.

I know some of you will disagree, stating that he was “the best part of the game”. To that, I only half-agree. Yes, King K. Rool returning after a decades-long absence was cool. He hadn’t been in a mainline Donkey Kong title since Donkey Kong 64 in 1999. He’s also more threatening than Void Co. But he wasn’t necessary. And his absence wouldn’t have hurt the overall experience.

Some of you might claim that the other baddies would’ve telegraphed his presence. I disagree. Yes, the enemies looked suspiciously like King K. Rool’s goons. But that doesn’t mean anything. After all, up until the final layer, none of them looked like his goons when defeated. They looked like skeletons that turned into gold after being punched by DK.

Truthfully, Donkey Kong Bananza should’ve gone one of two ways with King K. Rool. The first is to have him be the villain from the get-go. Bypass Void Co. altogether, simply have King K. Rool be who DK and Pauline have to stop. It’s not like his inclusion couldn’t work from the start, especially with the wacky shenanigans he’s been up to before. Alternatively, if you wanted to include Void Co., have them as hired goons.

The second option would be axing King K. Rool. Like Bowser and Ganondorf, not every entry, even a mainline one, in the Donkey Kong franchise needs to have King K. Rool as the primary antagonist. Besides, Void Co. was plenty threatening! Their leader even put up a decent fight multiple times! And if the game wanted an epic finale, have Void Co.’s leader, who was already frustrated, head for the Banandium Root and cause chaos himself. It’d make more sense than him as a cheap fake-out.

I suppose it’s too late to remedy this. Irrespective of my thoughts, King K. Rool’s the final boss, and I have to live with that. Though it doesn’t make me any less-frustrated. It feels cheap and unearned, even if many people liked it. I say this despite loving the game and both fights with King K. Rool. Go figure!

Yes, Nintendo isn’t known for their high-grade storytelling. Yes, having Pauline be active, as opposed to a damsel in distress, is a step in the right direction for a company averse to change. But that doesn’t change how King K. Rool being the true antagonist is a cop-out. And if it weren’t for his history with Donkey Kong, he’d also be forgettable. I expect better from Nintendo.

So yes, I’m not happy about King K. Rool’s presence. It doesn’t make Donkey Kong Bananza any worse, but it’s a disappointment.

It's Fantastic, Right?

The Fantastic Four IP, despite being Marvel’s first, hasn’t had much success on film. Despite 4 movies, 5 if you include the Roger Corman venture, the franchise has long been considered a joke. It wasn’t until the most-recent entry that they starred in something critically-acclaimed. The best portrayals of Fantastic Four characters until now were two cameos that were killed for shock effect. Make of that what you will.

The question on my mind was, “What makes this newest Fantastic Four movie different?”. After all, the previous movies were in conversation with one another, yet they all suffered from similar problems. And while you’d think Marvel working directly on The Fantastic Four: First Steps would guarantee a success, if recent years are indication, well…that’s not assured. So what made this work? I think it boils down to something lacking in previous attempts: sincerity. Specifically, respectful sincerity.

I’ll make a disclaimer: I’ve only seen the 2005 movie prior to this one. However, based on how bored I was, as well as word of mouth and clips of the other movies, I can deduce that they suffered from the problem of, “These Fantastic Four characters are lame”. It’s a shame, as their comics suggested otherwise. Even prior MCU cameos, which were comic accurate, didn’t help with this notion, as both Reed Richards and Johnny Storm were murdered. It felt like the films were embarrassed by these characters, to the point of scrubbing anything fun or exciting.

Take the 2005 and 2007 movies. These are part of the same franchise, thus fair game to lump together. However, while the tone might be correct, mostly, the writing’s a mess. The 2005 movie is way too long, and when it doesn’t feature plot-related action, it spends its time with science lessons and pointless hijinks. I love Chris Evans as an actor, but I can only stomach his “immature frat-boy” personality for so long before wanting to punch a hole in his chest. Thank God the movie does that, except without the fatality.

This isn’t helped by the movie routinely stopping to share anecdotes about rocks, fire, rubber, invisibility and metal. Which leads to the second problem, that being its inability to shut up. I like chemistry, even if it was never a subject I excelled at, but I don’t care to hear what happens when rubber’s frozen. Or I’d prefer the movie not shout it out. It’s more satisfying watching Reed Richards freeze and become brittle without the movie spelling it out.

Arguably the movie’s biggest problem is its antagonist. Like Galactus being a storm cloud in the sequel, this movie doesn’t trust the audience buying Victor Von Doom as a mad scientist and dictator. He might be overly-theatrical, but he has potential to be scary. Yet this movie gives Victor a new origin, that being a casualty of the same solar eruption that gave the others their superpowers. It also rips off Spider-Man’s Green Goblin portrayal, with Victor’s transformation being gradual and chaotic. Yes, it’s cool watching his metallic casing slowly cover him, but at what cost?

I haven’t seen the 2015 reboot entirely, even though I’ve written about its production, but it has the same problems as the 2005 franchise and news ones entirely. On one hand, it doesn’t respect Doom’s character, creating an even more convoluted origin for his powers. On the other hand, it’s also overly bleak and dour. Based on what I’ve watched online, Fant4stic, as it’s been called, is gritty and grounded in the vein of Christopher Nolan, except without any life or levity. Nolan’s characters crack jokes and have genuine emotions, even amidst their exposition, and Josh Trank’s movie forgets that. In fact, I don’t think the characters even crack a smile.

Fant4stic seems to have every problem the 2005 and 2007 movies are guilty of, and more. In an attempt to distance itself, it’s learned all the wrong lessons. And this is while adding new ones. There’s a reason Fant4stic’s one of the worst-reviewed comic book movies, surpassing Batman & Robin. Considering some of the slop superheroes have given us, that’s no easy feat! But when you don’t respect the material, that’s what happens. Especially since, outside of X-Men and maybe Blade, 20th Century Fox had no clue what to do with Marvel’s IPs.

Perhaps it’s only fair that Marvel now owns the Fantastic Four characters. We can argue the ethics of their acquisition, which I’ve already done, but considering the abuse many of Marvel’s IPs experienced prior, The Fantastic Four: First Steps being the first well-received entry in the IP’s history was inevitable. And yes, it has issues, as all MCU films do. But when it embraces to looney sincerity of the IP, even down to its antagonists, it’s clear we’d have a winner right from its final trailer. That much was guaranteed.

It also shows that sincerity still works. I like The MCU, but its biggest drawback is not always taking its in-universe story beats seriously. It’s fine to have your characters crack jokes, especially when it helps the world feel lived-in, but at some point that’s too much. The Fantastic Four: First Steps avoiding that works in its favour, surprisingly. Then again, when your movie takes place separate from most of The MCU, I guess you can get away with that.

That’s the secret here. Yes, The Fantastic Four’s a silly IP. But so are most superheroes. That a person with weird powers would fight crime is, in itself, ridiculous, and a good adaptation would acknowledge that. At the same time, it’d treat it with dignity, which this newest movie does. Perhaps some of its writing feels a little sterile, but I’ll take that if the movie’s good.

Now, about that end-credits scene…

Who Am I?

If you’d have asked me in November of 2015 if I thought The Whitly-Verse would survive this long, I’d have probably shrugged my shoulders. After all, the whole reason this Blog started in the first place is because I wanted an avenue to write about pop culture stuff that wasn’t exclusively anime-related. That might sound silly now, but keep in mind that I was still writing for Infinite Rainy Day, a site that shut down roughly 7 years ago. It was all anime-related, so that puts everything into perspective.

Anyway, I probably should’ve waited until November to write this, as that’s this site’s actual anniversary. However, given that I wanted to celebrate my 35th birthday with a bit of reflecting, I figured that now was as good as ever to do so. So let’s reflect. And I mean some genuine introspection. Be prepared for some tough revelations!

I should start by following up on a point that I made 5 years ago: how 20 year-old me would be really disappointed in the path that I’ve chosen since then. I say this because I was hoping to be independent and married with children by now, and neither of those realities have come to fruition. I also say this because 20 year-old me was, and forgive me for being so blunt, a bit of a douchebag. He was constantly picking fights with people as a way of compensating for undiagnosed mental health issues, and he wasn’t happy. 35 year-old me still isn’t 100% satisfied, but at least he has some sort of internal purpose.

To that end, 26 year-old me wouldn’t be happy either. He was hoping to be a celebrated author by the time he hit 30, and that’s yet to happen. That’s not to say that I haven’t been published since then, I have, but it’s not the kind of publishing that he would’ve liked. No, he’d have liked for a book or three to have circulated, and that hasn’t happened yet. I guess, in hindsight, that’s still a bit of a regret.

But that’s okay, truthfully. Because while I’m not on any New York Times Best-Seller lists right now, I’ve come to accept that being overambitious isn’t good for me mentally. I’ve had to take life slowly, and that includes writing. It also includes not biting off more than I can chew, something that I’ve had to learn the hard way on several occasions. Go figure!

Another bitter reality that I’ve had to learn to accept is that people are often not nice, despite putting on the veneer of being nice. It’s a reality that’s only become more apparent in the decade since I started The Whitly-Verse, especially with political nonsense making it okay to say what you want without much ramification. I won’t act like there wasn’t always an undercurrent of douche-y behaviour before that, especially outside of my bubble, but people at least largely tried bottling it. If Trumpism and October 7th, 2023 have taught me anything, it’s that that’s not true anymore. And it’s been genuinely upsetting on a personal level.

That said, I’ve also had to recognize the kindness that’s been on display to counter that. Whether it’s macrocosmic or microcosmic, people have genuinely shown compassion in unexpected ways. They’ve also helped me to show compassion to myself, learning to forgive myself for the undue harshness that 20 year-old and 26 year-old me wouldn’t have been able to forgive. They say that self-love is the most important kind to have, so I guess you can consider that a step in the right direction for me. Thank you to everyone for that valuable lesson.

It's all the more that they’ve taught it, as I’ve discovered that some of my heroes aren’t such great people. I’ve written extensively about it as well, and I’m sure I’ve only begun to scrape the tip of the iceberg on that. In some ways, I guess The Whitly-Verse has served as a personal diary to vent about these frustrating revelations, showing how I’m constantly evolving. Perhaps, in a weird way, this is my novel unfolding in real time? I don’t know.

I realize that I’m getting too esoteric here. Um…my personal relationship to God has changed a lot since my 20’s? I’m not as fervently zealous about my Judaism as I was 10 years ago, even though I understand what I believe more intrinsically. I’ve occasionally wondered why I still believe at all, given what I know about the world at large, but then I’ve caught myself by remembering that humans were given free will. If they wish to screw up their own lives and the lives of those around them, that’s their problem, not God’s. It’s no different than a parent relationship with their adult child, especially when the latter has agency.

Besides, knowing that it’s not inherently God’s fault that people suck has made it easier for me to accept when people misbehave. War? That’s an invention of man. Poverty? That’s a byproduct of man’s neglect for one another. Destruction of the planet’s natural resources? What about it can’t be ascribed to humanity’s negligence?

That’s really what’s at stake here. It’s high-time that we learn to get along, as opposed to divide and conquer, and that’s something I’ve come to appreciate as I’ve gotten older. It’s also tiring to see people make the same mistakes over and over again, but accountability’s important. You can only blame others so many times before it gets tiresome, after all. Especially when accountability’s an important facet of maturity.

I guess it took a global pandemic to put life into perspective for me, didn’t it? But I’m starting to ramble here on my 35th birthday, so I’ll try wrapping everything up. Basically, I’ve learned a lot, and not always by choice, and that’s okay! Because I’m human! And I’ll continue to learn hard life lessons for as long as I keep living, which is also okay! If that’s a problem, then I’d rather not be part of the solution.

Anyway, that’s about it for me. Keep on trucking along for now, and I’ll see you next time!

Sands of Time

(Note: this piece contains spoilers. Read at your own risk.)

Having a cold is a death-knell creatively. Not only can’t you get up and move half the time, but when you do you’re afraid anything you’d write about would get ruined by coughing or sneezing. Fortunately, media helps. And one of the outlets I turned to was The Sandman, which recently finished its run. So let’s discuss it.

I should reiterate that I wish I could appreciate its beauty without being reminded about its original author. I learned a lot in a relatively-short period of time about storytelling from him, even modelling one of my stories on one of his. So that Neil Gaiman has disappointed me? That’s rather tough to swallow. Still, like I said last time, it’s a sin to waste a good dream, of which this show feels like in droves.

Perhaps that’s why the conclusion being about legacy and succession hits home. Though it’s probably unintentional, Dream being forced to find a successor because of his son’s death feels like the show recognizing its creator and trying to move on. It’s like the people in charge knew his baggage and were commenting on that. I think the resolution dragged on too long, with several fake-outs, but at least it had one. Whether or not it’s satisfactory will vary with each viewer.

Nevertheless, Dream reconciling with his mortality asks an interesting question: are aspirations eternal, or are they mortal? Do dreams live forever, or do they not? The answer is twofold and contradictory, like life itself. Because dreams are as frequently cuts short as not, something life has demonstrated frequently. I applaud the honesty.

That The Sandman has an answer at all feels bold. Dream’s end being inevitable is scary, and most stories would consider this a challenge they wouldn’t be able to resolve. But this one isn’t afraid to look mortality in the face with a solution: start fresh. Use a new Dream, a more human one this time. Enter Daniel Hall, and the tribulations foisted on him from birth.

This is most reflected in how Daniel presents his role. He has the coldness of the first Dream in his voice, but the human warmth of someone who was mortal. He initially is unsure of how to do his job, retreading the path of his predecessor, until one of his creations chides him for it. It’s fitting that the wise nightmare known as Fiddler’s Green does that, as he was always the kindly mentor figure. For someone like Daniel, this sagely advice sets him on his way.

In the previous piece I wrote on this show, covering the first-half of Season 2, I said that a scene at the end had me in tears. This centred around Orpheus’s death, the troubled son of Dream who wished for his life to end. Dream granted that wish, much at his own expense. In Season 2’s second-half, I was in tears all throughout the final episode, the funeral scenes particularly. Perhaps it struck close to home, having lost my Zaidy three Summers ago, but the other Endless reminiscing on their relationships with Dream reminded me of the frailties of people, even those we love. That each Endless expresses regrets at not being close with Dream, despite being family, made me cry. Contending with the remnants of a cold didn’t help.

What struck me as the most personal was Desire’s eulogy. The eccentric sibling, Desire and Dream rarely got along. On several occasions, the two were at each other’s throats, threatening to end one another. So to hear that Desire longed for the continuation of that relationship was heartbreaking. It made me think of real-life relationships that were faulty, and how one party often missed the other when they were gone.

Then there’s Delirium. Poor, innocent Delirium. The youngest of The Endless, Delirium’s sincerity meant that Dream’s death would be especially hard. But she was a trooper, and, as her name suggested, she’d be both comforted and upset by his passing in her own way. Considering she was already my favourite Endless, this made like her more.

Above all else, the passing of the torch seals the deal for this show. It’s been a rocky, sometimes messy two seasons, and some of its decisions weren’t my favourites (why give Abel a cross at his grave?). Yet even at its lowest points, creator included, I admired and respected its ambitions. For an adaptation that took forever to get going, only getting a Netflix release through Warner Bros. Television, I don’t know if The Sandman could’ve had a better sendoff. Comic purists will have a field day nitpicking what doesn’t work, or calling out missed storylines, but despite the updates and changes there’s a lot to admire and love here…warts and all. That, I think, is worth the bumps and lumps.

Though it’s a shame about Neil Gaiman. If only he hadn’t done what he done, maybe I’d be more accepting of the show as a whole than I am now?

It's About Israel-Palestine?

One of the annoyances of geopolitics and fiction is when people try to neatly fit the latter into a hot-button conflict with the former. This is the case with Superman. The movie’s quite good, better than anticipated, yet you’d think the themes of optimism and hope would be front and centre. And they are! But some less-than-savoury folks have also speculated about one of its subplots and tied it to real issues unhelpfully. For this, I have to discuss spoilers. You’ve been warned.

The film’s secondary antagonist is the leader of a country called Boravia. An ally to The US, Boravia wishes to annex Jarhanpur, its neighbour, using funds that Lex Luthor’s been secretly funnelling. Initially, its intentions are only known to Superman, making him a threat when he confronts Boravia’s leader. However, when Boravia invades Jarhanpur and threatens to massacre its citizens, the ruse is up. There’s a clever commentary here about genocide, and some people have compared it to the situation in Gaza.

I’m not a fan of what Israel’s doing in Gaza. Like, at all. I’ve been transparent about that for some time. I’m also not making excuses for it, especially when I’ve heard plenty from people in my own community. If what I’ve read from Israeli sources is true, it’s a war crime. This is despite also recognizing that Hamas isn’t helping.

That said, comparing The Boravia-Jarhanpur Conflict to Israel-Palestine, while noble, does a disservice on two levels. Superficially, there have been many genocides historically: Armenia, Kurdistan, Rohingya, Darfur, East Timor, to name a few. In this century alone, there’s been South Sudan and Ukraine. Genocides aren’t hard to find, and while it’s worth calling them out, they’re also carried out for various reasons. Comparing this conflict to Gaza, especially given its circumstances, is disingenuous.

On a deeper level, the comparison fails once you draw parallels. For example, is Boravia invading Jarhanpur because terrorists murdered 1200 of its citizens? Is Jarhanpur being governed by terrorists? And is there an ongoing land dispute between Boravia and Jarhanpur dating back centuries? These are questions that’d have to be asked, and we wouldn’t get any answers.

Even within the film’s text, little details don’t add up: Boravia’s leader speaks English with an accent, while Bibi Netanyahu doesn’t. Jarhanpur isn’t led by a Hamas-like government. And while the citizens of Jarhanpur are dark-skinned, they have more in common with Pakistanis than Palestinians. This isn’t accidental, as I doubt James Gunn’s brazen enough to comment on one specific conflict. Instead, he’s keeping it general.

That’s why the Gaza connections fail. Besides, having a general conflict works better. People seeing two fictional countries going at it, all while broaching a serious subject, will get them to think. Make this a direct parallel, and you get more questions than answers. Not to mention, it doesn’t address the issue fairly.

This isn’t the first time people have conflated works of fiction to Israel-Palestine. The subtext of The Last of Us franchise has been questioned over this, made worse by its creator being Israeli. Even the Ghorman subplot in Andor, particularly its conclusion, has been compared to Israel-Palestine, with the Ghor being stand-ins for Palestinians. This is honourable on the outset, but it always falls apart under scrutiny.

Above everything, it’s also tiresome. Not every genocide in fiction is Israel-Palestine-related. Not every oppressive regime in fiction is Israel-Palestine-related. Not everything is Israel-Palestine-related, period! Israelis and Palestinians aren’t the main characters of everything that goes on, and claiming otherwise feels like “Getting Boss Baby vibes from this!” in its analysis.

If a work of fiction could be better used to parallel Israel-Palestine, it’s Romeo & Juliet. Think about it: two families, The Montagues and The Capulets, in a generations-old feud centred on trauma, one that annoys everyone and can’t transcend the love of its youngest members? Ignoring that last point, wouldn’t that fit better? It’s still tone-deaf and falls apart under scrutiny, but there’s something there! And it’s more tangible than what people normally use!

I’m sure some of you are ready to chastise me for deconstructing this headcanon. “Let people enjoy stuff!”. Here’s the problem, though: this isn’t harmless. Calling Drax from the Guardians of the Galaxy films “Autistic-coded” is harmless. Suggesting that Perfuma from She-Ra and the Princesses of Power is trans is harmless. Taking a real conflict with history and trying to force in 1:1 parallels isn’t harmless. Real people have died over Gaza, some not even living there, and comparing the Boravia-Jarhanpur situation from Superman to it is an example of poor media literacy.

I get it: you feel helpless about Gaza. You feel like our political system’s making it worse. You feel as though speaking up is putting a target on your back. Welcome to being Jewish. Take a number and have a seat.

However, if you want to help? If you want to feel useful? If you wish to make positive change? There are avenues. It won’t get better right away, nothing worthwhile does, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have outlets. And they’re more effective than shoehorning a real situation into a movie to score brownie points. Life doesn’t work that way.

Exploring Free Roam

As I’ve stated before, I’m not a fan of 100% completing video games. Occasionally I make exceptions, but it has to be really enticing. The primary reason is that it feels like homework. And given that I play video games to escape from reality, that’s not something I want to think about. Once I’ve beaten the campaign, that’s usually where my investment ends.

However, what happens when the entire point is to collect stuff? What if there’s no main story? What if the game’s about traversing the world and collecting everything at your own leisure? That’s the hook of Mario Kart World, a game for the Switch 2 that has little in its main game, but a lot in its Free Roam mode. That includes its collectibles.

I’m as surprised as you. Normally, throwing me into an open world with no guidance is a good way to piss me off. It’s one of the many frustrations I have with Zelda games, especially in 3D entries. But this feels like an exception. Between the Hidden ? Blocks, P-Switch Challenges and Peach Medallions, the first group being the only ones I know the exact number of, I’ve spent a good month playing Mario Kart World and have yet to acquire everything. And I’m not mad.

Perhaps the reason I’m so invested is that this game allows me to collect everything at my own pace. With many collect-a-thons, I find they fall into two categories: obnoxious side-quests, or optional-yet-somewhat-mandatory. In both cases, they break the flow and become a hinderance. Sometimes, as with the LEGO Star Wars games, sections are purposely closed off so that you have to come back later. I get the appeal, but when you make collecting a chore, then there’s little incentive to return.

That’s what makes Free Roam unique here: sure, I can play the different cups, or even engage in Battle Mode, but that’s not the bulk of the game. Rather, it’s Free Roam where it truly shines. Because while the aforementioned is fun, Free Roam’s where most of my time is spent. And it helps that Free Roam’s the first option available when I boot the game up. Forget racing, especially when you can drive around and see what has and hasn’t been accomplished!

This progress is monitored through stickers, which are accessible in the home screen. Whenever you collect a Peach Medallion, find a Hidden ? Block or complete a P-Switch Challenge, you earn a sticker. Sometimes, you even earn stickers for driving long enough, collecting enough coins or doing a certain number of tricks. The variety of stickers as you traverse the overworld keep me coming back constantly. In that sense, Nintendo’s made me feel like a child again.

While the overworld’s massive, comprised of many areas and connecting stretches of road, you’re not required to traverse all of it. In the overworld hub, you can even choose which places you want to visit. This doubles as a chance to see your progress, with the Hidden ? Blocks showing up as yellow once you’ve found them. It’s a great way to see what’s been done versus what’s yet to be done, and it makes compartmentalizing objectives easier.

The P-Switch Challenges also vary in difficulty, yet are great primers for learning the overworld’s layout. They’re timed and are either objective-based or collect-a-thons, but they never feel monotonous. In some cases, I find myself gritting my teeth because of how nail-bitingly difficult they are, hoping that this time I might complete them. I can’t begin to describe how frequently I’ve replayed challenges, kept making the same mistakes for hours, and then miraculously completed them in a blind run without knowing how I pulled it off. And yes, the switches do change colour once the challenges are completed!

Of course, the penalty for failure’s non-existent, another feature that makes Free Roam compelling. Far too frequently, the penalty for failure in a game can be harsh. It often feels like you’re being mocked for failing. With Mario Kart World, the consequence for not completing a P-Switch Challenge is the option to try again. This makes failure feel less like a failing and more like an opportunity, this time (hopefully) learning from my mistakes. It’s also an opportunity to practice rote memory.

Above all else, touring the overworld is fun. Seeing the same enemies and cars for the umpteenth time can feel repetitive, especially when you know how to interact with them, but it’s worth it to see environments in a different time of day or weather condition. Nintendo collaborated with many other developers here, and it shows with the attention to detail. This hub of seemingly-unconnected areas feel alive and lived in, further enhancing the immersion. As does hearing remixes of classic Mario tunes, even if I wish you could control the different tracks.

Is the experience flawless? No. Lack of control over tunes aside, I don’t like how hard it is to slow down your vehicle. I also wish the ability to unlock costumes via lunch bags was more controlled, as opposed to being a lottery based on the various regions. Finally, I wish some of the collectibles weren’t tedious to find. I know the different areas have Binoculars to see the world from above, but they don’t always help with the Hidden ? Blocks and Peach Medallions.

However, those are minor inconveniences. Mario Kart World isn’t flawless, but no game is. Nevertheless, if these are its biggest issues, then I’ve got nothing to worry about. Free Roam did the impossible and made collecting fun! Even a month later, I’m still finding secrets and learning tricks, and I’ve yet to 100% complete it. If I’m not bored after a month, then this game’s doing something right!

A Corrupted Dream

I feel conflicted.

On one hand, I know the author The Sandman is an awful person, and he has no remorse. On the other hand, I owe plenty to Neil Gaiman, even using the format of The Ocean at the End of the Lane as a template for something I’m hoping to get published. He’s really talented, and he taught me a lot. So I’m upset and frustrated that one of my literary heroes let me down…again. But I guess that’s what happens when someone with Scientology affiliations writes British fiction.

I mention this as pretext for the second season of The Sandman. I wanted a second season for some time. I enjoyed the first season, and I was hoping to see a continuation of its cliffhanger involving Lucifer. But given what I’ve learned about Gaiman since, I was uncomfortable watching the newest season. Nevertheless, he was a small cog in the production, and everyone else seemed equally uncomfortable. That, and it’s a sin to waste a good dream, of which this show feels like in droves.

I won’t delve much into the season’s story arcs, of which there are several small ones, as well as two major ones. Instead, I’ll share my overall feelings, as well as what kept invested. Because while Gaiman’s involvement has left a sour taste in my mouth, it’s not like he has final control. He’s not JK Rowling, a woman who rules over her IP with an iron fist. Gaiman’s involvement feels secondary, really only there so that his comic translates to television. He’s not the be-all-end-all, so it was more palatable.

It's also easier to swallow because Gaiman could’ve been removed as overseer and little would’ve changed. The creative team’s the best you can get, and the end-result’s really powerful. It shows that, while not irrelevant, the author’s work often transcends them, and that audiences attach to it in ways that are personal. The Sandman, a dreamlike story about family, responsibility and imagination, is one such example, as it moved me.

The underlying core, about how dysfunctional families are still families (for better or worse), saves this from being a waste of time. The first season was a surprise hit for Warner Bros., and it had a tough act to follow. Its best episode, about an author abusing a muse to become famous, was about the dangers of artists preying on others. If that was Season 1’s apex, Season 2 had lofty expectations. It doesn’t entirely live up to it narratively, but thematically it works. It even got me to cry at the end.

Going back to the familial aspect, Season 2’s strength was leaning into Dream’s dysfunctional relationship with his siblings. Destiny, Death, Destruction, Dream, Desire, Despair and Delirium all have a tough time being together, yet they all share the same goal of working for humanity. Yet it’s their attitudes toward their work that creates conflict. Some, like Death, Desire and Despair, enjoy their tasks, while others, like Dream and Destiny, feel it an obligation. And then there’s Destruction, who desperately wishes to not be part of it. The entirety of Season 2, therefore, delves into why.

This dynamic is palpable to anyone who’s struggled with family. We all have different relationships with siblings and relatives, some healthier than others, and at times that causes conflict. Yet we regularly try to get by, occasionally offering olive branches for the sake of peace and harmony. It doesn’t always work, but it’s not without trying. And if Season 2’s MVP, Delirium, is indication, it’s the childlike innocence of the youngest member that creates balance.

It also speaks to me as someone who still lives with his parents. A while back, I wrote about Encanto and discussed one of its songs. Its dissection of expectations was powerful and sad, and I felt it as a middle sibling with the weight of societal expectations. Destruction in The Sandman hits home for similar reasons; after all, why conform to expectations when they make you feel guilty? It’s a reasonable question.

But while Destruction’s dilemma’s sympathetic, we’re not meant to agree with him. Not liking your role in life is understandable, but abandoning it is the wrong choice. Why neglect your skillset if it’s too difficult? No one said life would be easy, and Dream’s critique of Destruction is a reminder of that. Doubly-so when you remember Dream’s relationship with his own son, as well as its inevitable resolution. Without spoiling anything, that was where I cried.

I think that’s why I could somewhat overlook Gaiman’s involvement, even if I feel dirty. Because while an awful human being, he still created something timeless. Like my thoughts on Rowling and the Harry Potter series, I can’t deny the impact Gaiman’s work has had on me. He’s simply too influential to do that. I’m sure I’m not alone, either.

If it sounds like I’m dismissing what Gaiman’s done, that’s not intentional. Gaiman will have to answer for his behaviour, and it won’t be pretty. I also think his victims deserve justice, and that he should accept accountability. But I can’t pretend his work hasn’t impacted me. Because he truly touches on the power of dreams in a beautiful and honest way. And it’s a sin to waste a good dream, of which this show feels like in droves.

When Bigotry Prevails

Riri Williams was going to be controversial from the moment she was first introduced. Not only is she an Iron Man fan, she’s also black. And she’s a genius like Tony Stark. Combine that with many nerds being bigoted, see GamerGate and Comicsgate, and the hate basically wrote itself. One Twitter user even claimed that “melanin and estrogen” were viruses that infected Iron Man simultaneously, ignoring basic biology and hormones. Riri never stood a chance here, essentially.

Now that bigotry’s been extended to Ironheart, an MCU series that’s been well-received critically, but was review-bombed by trolls. You’d think sites like Rotten Tomatoes, which have dealt with this nonsense before, would be prepared, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t attacked. It’s was so bad that many of the reviews were also copy-pastes. It was embarrassing. Why does a black woman bother people?

Rhetorical question aside, this shouldn’t bother me specifically. And normally it wouldn’t, as the internet isn’t reality. However, this has ripple effects. Studio execs take notes of feedback, even when it’s trash, and they respond in kind. So while it shouldn’t matter, in the end it still does. That’s worrying, as I’ve watched Ironheart and think it’s great.

Perhaps the best example of how online trolling has ruined a franchise is Star Wars. Star Wars has a history of caving to fans anyway, but the situation’s gotten worse under Disney. When the first entry in The Sequel Trilogy released, the underlying meta-narrative was about legacies and expectations. Rey and Kylo Ren were fans of the Jedi and Sith respectively, and The First Order was a hollow imitation of The Empire. None of this was subtle, even being called attention to in-movie.

Then the next entry took this meta-narrative to interesting places. If the first movie was “too familiar”, the sequel was “too unconventional”. Minor choices were chastised for bucking expectations, while bigger ones were considered character betrayals. I happened to like the movie, even if I took issue with some parts, but saying that out loud sparked backlash. It felt like the online world was influencing the real one.

This reached a fever pitch with the trilogy’s conclusion, which felt like Disney overcorrecting the meta-narrative. In particular, a key character, Rose, was relegated to the sidelines, making her character buildup be for nothing. Ignoring the hate her actress, Kelly-Marie Tran, received, shafting Rose, not to mention the weird choices the movie made, in order to please a militant-yet-small base was a slap to the face. I say that as someone who enjoyed the movie anyway.

This toxicity resurfaced with The Acolyte, a Star Wars series suggesting that The Jedi suck. This show was review-bombed because it starred a black woman. It got so bad that Acolytes, a property completely-unrelated, was also review-bombed, leading me to wonder if these trolls knew what they were mad about. It didn’t end up mattering, as Disney cancelled its second season, leaving us with a frustrating cliffhanger.

I mention this because Ironheart, at least initially, appeared to be following in the same footsteps. And yes, it’s not 1:1: not only was Ironheart meant to be self-contained, complete with a beginning, middle and end, it ended up having a flood of fans rush to its defence. Yet the hate for Riri Williams was persistent, showing that bigotry doesn’t disappear so easily. Considering that Disney has already cancelled several MCU projects recently, that Riri’s presence could be downplayed or erased is a real fear.

I’m not saying you have to love Ironheart. Every MCU venture has issues that hold it back from perfection. This show, which improves with each episode, is no different. However, if you dislike it, it should be for legitimate reasons. Hating Ironheart for starring a black woman isn’t one of them.

I’m also not an expert on Hollywood. I know they’re a business, and that they care about money, but I can’t claim to understand half of what goes on without sounding pretentious. I only know what I read, nothing more. But I know studio executives listen to feedback from audiences. They don’t always take the right lessons from it, but they listen. That’s why we should be careful.

As a final note, I wouldn’t be as frustrated if our current climate weren’t so hostile. Claims of “DEI hires” have made their way to the highest reaches of office, and they’ve been rubbing off on entertainment. Even Disney, who caved to their shareholders, had a brief period where they were sanitizing their output to not get into trouble, and we’re still seeing some of that. So while it stopped quickly, it can happen again.

The bigotry around Riri Williams and Ironheart is real. It’s real, pervasive and, unfortunately, concerning. And while it shouldn’t matter that much, as movies are about more than review scores, it’s troubling because studio executives take notes. They also often take the wrong lessons from the feedback they receive. That’s the real issue, and that’s why this bugs me so much…even if the trolls bit off more than they could chew here.

Young Pauline Debuts!

(Note: the following deals with sensitive subject matter. Please read at your own risk.)

You ever see a game that has you excited, only for its discourse to weird you out? That was me with Donkey Kong Bananza. The conversation around Young Pauline makes me weary of how people perceive teenagers. Because Young Pauline is 13 years-old in the game, and people are being gross about it. But let’s give context:

Pauline appearing in this game was a nice surprise. The initial footage had Donkey Kong travelling with a sentient rock, so Pauline was a great twist reveal. She actually goes back to Donkey Kong in 1981, having made her debut alongside Mario and DK, but she’d largely been forgotten until several years ago. So to feature alongside DK? That’s huge.

It's especially huge because while Pauline has had a popularity resurgence because of her cameo as Mayor of New Donk City in Super Mario Odyssey, she hasn’t really had depth or intrigue for a while. She could sing, but that was it. And while her adult design looked nice, showing a natural progression from her arcade days, everything about her was surface level. She didn’t even have a backstory for why she went into politics.

Pauline being a teenager in Donkey Kong Bananza, complete with a redesign and personality, changes everything. She has actual motivations, as well as depth. Sure, her desire to return to the surface world isn’t deep, but it’s something! This is Pauline as an actual character, not an avatar. What’s bad about that?

Leave it to the internet to make something creepy. And it starts with her design: she’s cute, she has freckles and she doesn’t wear shoes. This, apparently, is considered scandalous. I’ll ignore the freckles, because many people have them in real life, and focus on the first and third complaints. Because what gives?!

I’ll start with being cute. Okay, and? She’s a kid. Chihiro Ogino from Spirited Away looks cute, as does Kiki from Kiki’s Delivery Service. Vanellope von Schweetz in Wreck-It Ralph, whom Pauline probably takes inspiration, also looks cute. But they’re supposed to. I’d be worried if Pauline’s design wasn’t cute!

But I know what this is about: perverts might take advantage. To that, I have two responses. One, get your head out of the gutter. And two, even if Pauline were an adult, perverts would still take advantage. Considering what the internet did to Princess Peach after Princess Peach: Showtime!, it’s not unreasonable to assume that. I’m sure Nintendo knows this.

The overprotective backlash is gross. Yes, the internet has a new target. That can’t be helped, unfortunately. But shielding Pauline feels patronizing. Ignoring how Google has filters for inappropriate content, and we can argue its effectiveness, I can’t help wondering if this conversation would be taking place if she were a boy. I know she’s not real, but it’s worth pondering.

As for not having shoes? Give me a break. She’d recently been freed from a curse, and her not having shoes is the scandal here? No one’s asking how she became a rock, or how she’s able to bond with a gorilla? Her being barefoot is the big concern? Really?

I understand, again, that perverts will have a field day over this. But they were having a field day already with Adult Pauline, who wears stilettos. You can’t be naïve enough to assume that Young Pauline’s going to be treated any differently, right? Because if so, bless your heart. Also, touch grass.

Like with being cute, Pauline being barefoot has little to do with her character outside of aesthetics. Young Pauline’s a spirited, insecure and shy singer whose voice helps DK. She has all the characteristics of a gifted, teenaged girl who’s unsure of herself. We should be talking about how cool it is that teenaged girls have a role model their age to relate to, as opposed to complaining about her design. Not only is that creepy, but it sends the wrong message.

Perhaps I’m being too sensible here. Puritanical reactionaries once called the Harry Potter books “Satanic”, and said the Pokémon franchise was “heretical”. It doesn’t matter how “modestly” Pauline does or doesn’t dress, they’ll find something to complain about. They shouldn’t, it’s gross, but they will. And nobody can stop that.

Maybe that’s why this irks me. Ignoring how Young Pauline dresses more “modestly” than many celebrated adult heroines, the term “Male Gaze” comes to mind here. Because Pauline’s the antithesis of that, as her appearance, like her personality, actually contributes to the story. This is less Male Gaze than dressing like a teenager, and acting otherwise says a lot about you.

Look, Nintendo has many issues as company, some of which I’ve covered. Even storytelling-wise, they routinely overplay the damsel in distress card. Mario games in particular are guilty of this, with Princess Peach only being playable in a handful of mainline entries. So for a Mario-adjacent character like Pauline, who up until now wasn’t that well-known or interesting, to have a complete revamp of her character is something that should be celebrated, not criticized. Like with Donkey Kong’s recent redesign, I’ll take it…even if she’s cute and barefoot.

Super Snyder Bros.?

I sometimes wonder if Snyderbros live in reality. I know that’s harsh, but considering how they extorted Warner Bros. into releasing Zack Snyder’s version of Justice League, then tried (unsuccessfully) to do it again with David Ayer’s “true cut” of Suicide Squad, it doesn’t help their case. This isn’t accounting for attempts at “restoring The Snyderverse” following Warner Bros. cancelling The DCEU and starting fresh, implying that only Zack Snyder deserves to control the property. It as if Snyderbros don’t understand when to move on, and that’s bleeding into the new Superman movie from James Gunn. It’s pathetic.

The Snyderverse Subreddit had a post recently from someone requesting that the new Superman movie be review-bombed. Among the demands were writing bad reviews before release, as well as reserving tickets, but not paying. If this sounds petty, the post was immediately removed upon being brought to Gunn’s attention. Because of course. And while I applaud the admins for taking action, I’m in disbelief this got as far as it did.

I’ll state this upfront: I don’t know if Superman will be good. I want it to be good, and released footage shows promise, but it’s not out yet. It won’t be for a few weeks, and anything can happen. That said, even if it’s not good, I still want Gunn to have the opportunity that was afforded to Snyder. He did excellent work on the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, and he deserves to show us his take on Superman.

Perhaps the best indicator the movie might be good is its trailers. Instead of being angsty and violent, Superman’s upbeat and restrained. He tries to minimize casualties, often at his own expense. He has a dog named Krypto, and he uses the dual persona shtick Christopher Reeve perfected in the late-70’s. Everything about what’s been shown has me optimistic, including a remix of John Williams’s score. So while I can’t say for certain it’ll be good, I’ll be surprised (and disappointed) if it isn’t.

Nevertheless, I fail to see why this is so antithetical for Snyderbros and their vision of Superman. You want a brooding loner? That’s what Batman’s for. You want someone violent? That’s what Daredevil’s for. You want someone who kills criminals? That’s what The Punisher’s for. Superman isn’t any of that. So why must it be grafted onto him?

I know the Snyderbros will use Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns in defence. Two objections. First, the Superman in that story, while subservient to The Reagan Administration, is a kind-hearted boy scout. And second, the Batman in that story, while violent, isn’t a cold-hearted murderer, even calling attention to that frequently. Not only do Snyderbros not understand Miller’s work, it’s also a red herring.

You want to know the biggest irony here? Ignoring how Gunn was unfazed, or that Reddit deleted the original post, Snyder himself hasn’t weighed in. Yeah, Zack Snyder, The Messiah to his cultist fans, has said absolutely nothing so far. There’s good reason for that: he wants to move on. And considering he’s had success on Netflix recently, I honestly don’t blame him. Especially since his daughter took her life during production of Justice League, and the wounds are still fresh.

If the Snyderbros were convinced of their righteousness, assuming you’d even call it that, wouldn’t they want Snyder’s blessing? They’re not getting Ayer’s blessing, he’s made that known, but Snyder’s the big kahuna. And he regularly interacts with fans. This is a perfect opportunity for Snyderbros to get his approval before trashing another creative, assuming Snyder has beef with Gunn at all. But that’s thinking too in-depth, so…

Look, I get being disappointed that something you love was discontinued. I’m unhappy that GoldenEye: Rogue Agent isn’t getting a sequel, if only to conclude its story. On the DCEU front, I’m unhappy that Batgirl was written off before it was released, as it genuinely had promise. But I’m not sending death threats, extorting creatives or threatening to review-bomb future projects. Snyderbros, however, are guilty of all three. And it doesn’t look good.

The biggest insult here is that this made headlines. When I initially found out about this, it was through an IGN video and article. But Variety picked it up too, and I’m sure other outlets have covered it. Do Snyderbros have no shame? Are they that desperate to stay relevant that they’ll sabotage other creatives? Because I have news for them, and it’s not good…

Ultimately, Snyderbros have to make a decision. On one hand, they can move on and cherish the few years they had with Snyder, irrespective of overall quality or perception by the public. On the other hand, they can continue whining about how their beloved franchise was discontinued, attack people who disagree with them and be immature to others. Either way, the ball’s in their court. I only hope they know what to do with it.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’d like to focus on more positive developments, like how enjoyable Mario Kart World really is…

Switch 2 Go

The Switch 2 had it rough initially. First shown off without any fanfare, it had to overcome its price and justify that it wasn’t an extension of the Switch. To make matters worse, none of its new titles could be owned, instead using licenses. And then there was the Donkey Kong redesign controversy. Yeah. The odds were basically stacked against the Switch 2. But the original Switch’s reveal didn’t set expectations high either, and that’s Nintendo’s best-selling console right now. How bad could the Switch 2 be? Ignoring how hard it was to find, I managed to get my hands on one this week. And I have thoughts. Mostly positive ones, but thoughts.

Let’s start with the console. Saying, “It’s a Switch…but bigger!” both does it justice, and doesn’t do it justice. Yes, it’s a bigger console than the Switch. Whether it’s the wider screen, or the bulkier controller, Nintendo’s takeaway design-wise was to go the WiiU route and make a bigger console. It feels that way too, as I’m more concerned about dropping and breaking it than I was with the Switch.

Nevertheless, that’s my only issue with the design of the console. While larger than the Switch, it’s also much more interesting. The Switch 2’s kickstand is far superior, and the joycon controllers attach and detach far more easily. They also have mouse controls, which take getting used to, but are actually pretty intuitive. Speaking as someone who recently purchased a wireless keyboard and mouse, as I was experiencing back problems prior, for when I’m at my desk, this feels like second-nature. Let’s not forget the HD resolution of the Switch 2’s screen in portable mode, something the Switch couldn’t do.

The interface of the Switch 2 isn’t much different from the Switch. It’s basic, but it has noises that play when you access the apps. The Switch 2 is also backwards-compatible with most of the Switch’s library, even letting you transfer save data. I didn’t overwhelm my Switch library anyway, but it’s nice knowing I could port over everything without it getting corrupted or lost. That I can play Switch games on my Switch 2 is a bonus.

New to the Switch 2 interface is voice chat. Simply set it up in the menu, make sure you have friends with a Switch 2, and you’re good to go. It reminds me a lot of Discord, in that it’s accessible for anyone with little-to-no knowledge of voice chat features. I’m a little worried about Nintendo’s strict guidelines, however. I don’t mind racial slurs being a no-no, but even dropping an f-bomb accidentally is a red flag. Considering how conversations can get heated during gameplay, that’ll be a difficult sell for me. Not even Twitch is that restrictive!

Another advantage the Switch 2 has is having classic GameCube titles in its NSO library. Perhaps it was a hardware limitation, but the original Switch couldn’t go beyond N64 titles, and even then they had lag issues. The Switch 2, however, can play GameCube games, even displaying them in HD. I love the GameCube, but its best games are impossible to find for a reasonable price nowadays. Them being on NSO removes that barrier.

Speaking of games, the Switch 2’s launch catalogue isn’t too impressive, but it has a gem in Mario Kart World, which is included as an optional bundle. I had to enter a code to download it, which took several tries, but I was blown away. Mario Kart Wii, while not a bad game, turned me off of the franchise because it reminded me that I can’t drive, so saying that about an open-world kart racer, something I never thought I’d be interested in, is impressive. And it’s great. I love how intuitive the overworld is, with challenges and collectibles that keep it lively and not boring. That’s something I wish more 3D Zelda games understood.

Also, the racing in the game is fun. The tracks have a lived-in feeling that previous entries couldn’t achieve due to technical limitations, and they’re quite expansive. They even have areas with branching paths, as well as rails and boosts for practicing parkour. I still don’t understand what purpose the coins serve, or why you can only hold up to 20 at once, but they’re a neat little novelty. They’re fun to collect, at least.

Other than that, this is a Mario Kart game, except with achievements and challenges that unlock characters and karts. Whether it’s the chaos of Battle Mode with 24 players, or hopping online and challenging friends, Mario Kart World has the potential to be another classic. And with the inevitable DLC, I can’t wait to see what the game has in store. I can’t get enough as is.

But that’s the Switch 2 in nutshell. Like the Switch, the Switch 2 has many cool features that make turning it on for even a few minutes, if only to check for updates, worthwhile. I’m only hoping the next few months make it more worth my time, as my one complaint is that it’s basically another Switch. A bigger, shinier and technically-superior Switch, but another Switch. And that’s not necessarily bad.

Switch in Reflection

In 2017, Nintendo, then struggling with the Wii U, debuted the Switch. Marketed as a portable-docked console hybrid, it became a hit, proving Nintendo, like the Wii, still had a few tricks up their sleeves. Despite an initially-emaciated library, with few launch titles worth buying, it quickly gained momentum and turned into a juggernaut capable of competing with the competition. And now, 8 years later, the Switch 2’s set to debut, taking the Switch and adding to it in subtle ways. With that said, I thought I’d reflect on my experience with this glorious machine.

Now, I didn’t buy a Switch at launch. I didn’t have the financial means to do so, and I had more pressing concerns at the time. Nevertheless, it was the first console I bought new with my own money, having saved up from my job in a warehouse. It felt like an accomplishment, especially since every Penny of that purchase was my own. It helped that the first game I bought, Super Mario Odyssey, was superb, redefining what Mario games were capable of.

The next few years would see my library grow slowly, as I got used to the system’s capabilities in docked and portable mode. I’d come to prefer docked mode, especially given the physical strain portable mode created, but both options had advantages. For the former, playing games on my flatscreen TV was magical, giving me a full-on experience the Switch was designed for. The latter was a novelty should I need to unplug from my TV, even if I was reliant on the console’s battery. Either way, there was something for me.

Perhaps the biggest draw, outside of portability, was its retro catalogue. The Wii did this over a decade prior, and possibly better, but the downside there was buying each title separately. The NSO, however, included everything for a flat fee, meaning no extra hassle. So long as you had a subscription and a working internet connection, you could play everything. This is something I’m glad the Switch 2’s incorporating too.

Another draw was the control scheme. Say what you will about the Wii U, but playing titles on a tablet controller, even if its range was limited, was something I’m glad was ported to and improved on by the Switch. Outside of that, the joycon and pro controllers were amazing, demonstrating how intuitive the games were to play. That the joycons could detach and be used in different ways was a bonus. Even the motion controls, something the Wiimote struggled with, were great.

But the Switch’s real legacy is its library. I don’t have a massive catalogue of titles, especially compared to the Wii, but quality’s its greatest asset. Whether its drafting new levels to play, or traversing Kanto in glorious HD, the Switch’s library was never boring. And whenever I was finished with a game, I could always fall back on classic titles. There was so much to do that simply turning on the system and browsing updates felt like an accomplishment. It was like the system had never-ending secrets waiting to be explored. That I kept discovering them via menial tasks helped.

That was the secret to the Switch’s success: it had something for everyone. That’s not to ignore its problems, especially the dreaded joycon drift, but none of the system’s limitations were dealbreakers. It was such a big game-changer that, honestly, I’m having a hard time picturing the Switch 2 outdoing it. Because it showed that the Wii U, from which it incorporated design ideas, had real potential that wasn’t utilized. In contrast, the Switch capitalized on its potential fully, such that I’m positive it hasn’t been pushed to its limits yet.

Does this mean the Switch 2 won’t live up to expectations? I honestly don’t know. Hefty price tag aside, it’ll definitely have its work cut out for it. Keep in mind that the Switch revived long-dormant and obscure franchises Nintendo had given up on due to sales numbers, which is no easy feat. For the Switch 2 to really do that justice, it’d have to continue the legacy of good decisions and marketability. And it’s still too early to tell.

Personally speaking, I don’t think it should try. The Switch, like the Wii, really does feel like lightning in a bottle, and trying to recapture that magic would be a waste of time and resources. The best option, one I hope Nintendo goes for, is leaning into the Switch’s success, except with some upgrades. Think less DS to the Game Boy and more Game Boy Color or Game Boy Advance. Especially since the Game Boy series was discontinued prematurely.

In the end, I’m excited for the Switch 2…assuming I can actually afford it. Yet while I’m ready for this new experience to debut, it’ll also be difficult to close the book on the Switch. So much about it has been baked into the last 8 years, and saying goodbye will feel bittersweet. Nevertheless, I’m optimistic the Switch 2 will be a worthy follow-up. Nintendo owes that much to everyone, myself included.