It didn't have the same fun factor in your opinion. Not to go all Benoit with the FACTS, but just a brief glance at reviews, ratings and thoughts on the games, and most people seem to be of the opinion that the second game was even better then the first.
I too have never understood why people insist that everything must be new in games. Nowadays, no matter how good a Mario game is in every other way, I always seem nutjob who insists on whining because there's 'a grass world, an ice world, and a desert world'. Well, maybe they wanted parts of the game to take place in those settings? I mean, I suppose they could be more creative with their ice world, but what else are they going to do? They don't necessarily want to make super crazy out there worlds, especially when a lot of the games take place in Mushroom Kingdom- there generally isn't weird stuff in Mushroom Kingdom in most of the games. This just seems so odd that people complain about this. I've just never found myself playing a Mario game and being like, "Damn, an ice world, we've had an ice world before'.
The incessant need of some gamers to have things solely be brand new puts immense pressure on a design team I'm sure. It's probably part of the reason why Nintendo pulls this stuff with 'Can't make an F-Zero, can't figure out how to innovate it. Can't make a new Pokemon Snap, no way to make it 'new', and insists on being 'innovative' with controller schemes and things that most people would gladly have done without in return for just more, fun games. Why isn't having a new story with familiar faces you enjoy seeing good enough anymore?
