What are you talking about?
Super Paper Mario definitely benefited from being a game released near the launch of the Wii.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Paper Mario Color Splash seems to have same (bad) boss mechanics as Sticker Star
- Thread starter DNAbro
- Start date
Super Paper Mario definitely benefited from being a game released near the launch of the Wii.
Captain Europe
Member
There's numerical HP.
Hispanic! At the Disco
Member
I hated Sticker Star so much I called it my worst game of the year for 3 years. I hate everything about it and its really sad that this is the same.
*pre-orders*
*pre-orders*
mrmickfran
Member
So I won't have to waste my time with this. Thanks OP.
BurgerDicks
Banned
I dont know why nintendo is afraid of making a old school rpg on the console. Super Paper and Sticker Star were so mediocre. I know Mario & Luigi took the rpg mantle on the handheld, but man what I would do for a new P64/Thousand Year Door
mrmickfran
Member
This wouldn't have happened if TTYD sold 10 million more copies like it should have.
You people are the ones to blame.
You people are the ones to blame.
I asked about this in the other thread but didn't get a chance to see if anyone replied yet. From what I remember of Sticker Star, battling got you coins and better cards, and without those the game was going to be a lot tougher. Am I misremembering? Granted I haven't played it in a few years. Just figured there must be some kind of purpose to battling...seems so odd otherwise.
I didn't think enemies had numerical HP shown by default in any Mario RPGs? Might be misremembering, though.
Throwaway123456789
Member
Worst thing is the fucking story.
They had a survey asking people if they liked the story in Super Paper Mario, and most said no (because it's a shit story). Nintendo somehow made the connection that people didn't want stories in their Paper Mario games, and pretty much got rid of it and a coherent world.
Then Miyamoto tells the team to only use established Mario characters. Sticker Star was a clusterfuck in many ways, and they're repeating them here.
EDIT: Already covered above. Oh well!
TTYD sold fine.
Mario RPG series (M&L, Paper, RPG) usually sell around 2 million units which is the reason Nintendo keep churning out these games (the other reason is they have two dedicated team they trust to handle the franchises).
I don't think TTYD sales or critical reception are really the reason for Super Paper Mario.
Nor that Super Paper Mario sales are the reason for Sticky Star (different type of games despite SPM very good sales).
Dark Cloud
Member
So the way we grow our Paint Capacity is by participating in battles. There's a bar that pops up when you win a battle and I'm assuming that's an "experience" bar for your Paint Capacity.
friskykillface
Banned
I hated that so much, especially when I used it by accident in a different fight and had to get the sticker again after looking online
but I did just skip battles in each stage so that was kinda easy
idk man, I will just wait for the price drop for this game
but I did just skip battles in each stage so that was kinda easy
idk man, I will just wait for the price drop for this game
mrmickfran
Member
Yeah, I read earlier in the thread that they want to distance it away from its RPG mechanics because the M&L series already does that.
Which I would be fine with if M&L was still as good as it used to be.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
I've pretty much given up all hope on this game, it looks soo bad.
Well, it wouldn't hurt as much, but it would still suck.
Both series took quite different approaches to the same idea.
Green Mamba
Member
It seems to me a late release of a smaller series on a failed console would be the time to increase fan goodwill, but what do I know? At least their fans aren't mixing it up with M&L! How horrible would that be?
GabeTheGrouch76
Member
Saying the Paper Mario is now an IP to be weird and experimental with doesn't make sense to me when you have people criticizing Sticker Star as being less diverse and unique with its storytelling and characters compared to the previous PM titles.
And if Paper Mario being "experimental" means throwing out the original paradigm of Paper Mario games for something different...I gotta say, I think that's a pretty poor way with going at it. Tossing out the original paradigm of a IP entirely and replacing it with something different for the sake of it has hardly, if ever, turned out well in the long term for a game series. Remaining brand recognition / goodwill can only keep a series afloat for so long until backlash really sets in and takes things south. Just ask Star Fox.
This is also really baffling as well. It's very clear now that the current team in charge of the Paper Mario series want to do something different, but they also refuse to drop any pretenses of what they are doing is no longer being a faithful continuation of what was already established. Why not just make a new Mario IP in the genre/style they want to and simply set the Paper Mario brand aside.
Rodney McKay
Member
Sounds good to me!
I liked how Sticker Star took things in a new direction with a stronger emphasis on puzzle solving, sticker collecting, and exploration. The boss fights in that game were fun because they were more like puzzles to solve, instead of a harder-than-usual regular fight.
And as much as I thought I would, I never even missed the RPG leveling mechanics. You still needed to fight to get new moves to collect, but more than any other RPG I've played I almost never felt the need to grind battles to progress.
I'd love them to bring back multiple character parties again as well as a stronger emphasis on humor, but Sticker Star was a really fresh game and I'm happy we're getting at least 1 more Paper Mario game in this style.
I liked how Sticker Star took things in a new direction with a stronger emphasis on puzzle solving, sticker collecting, and exploration. The boss fights in that game were fun because they were more like puzzles to solve, instead of a harder-than-usual regular fight.
And as much as I thought I would, I never even missed the RPG leveling mechanics. You still needed to fight to get new moves to collect, but more than any other RPG I've played I almost never felt the need to grind battles to progress.
I'd love them to bring back multiple character parties again as well as a stronger emphasis on humor, but Sticker Star was a really fresh game and I'm happy we're getting at least 1 more Paper Mario game in this style.
ShironRedshift
Member
Very disappointing. 
Doubly so since it seems to have the same dilemma of Sticker Star, having what appears to be both wonderful aesthetics and music and stuff. Like seriously, I really wanted to give Sticker Star a chance since it had so many good points, but the gameplay just wasn't up to snuff, with Bowser being the worst offender, having several different phases which each demanded their own very specific Important Thing stickers to be able to defeat (which is compounded by the problem of having to fight Final Kamek right before him who, just like in the other fights with him in the game, turns all your stickers into Sandals stickers during the fight so unless you memorized where you put your important stickers you could very easily use stuff you intended to save for Bowser on accident and even if you avoid that the problem was further compounded by Kamek being able to use an attack that just wiped out an entire row of your stickers, including the ones you need for Bowser and if that happens, which you have no control over at all it's... definitely not a fun experience, to put it lightly. And if they're bringing back the item-checks for bosses like the Kooplaings, I can only imagine Bowser himself will play the same way again which wasn't very fun the first time, so...).
Gah, just so disappointed in this, since aesthetically it just looks so amazing! I really want to give it a chance, like I did Sticker Star. But if the item-check boss mechanic is back, I just can't, because I was burned by that the first time and can't be burned again. Either you have the item, and the bosses are pathetically easy, to the point where they might as well not even be "bosses" because you likely will have an easier time fighting them then you did some enemies (ugh, Sombrero Guys (an enemy in Sticker Star that can double the attack of all other enemies for several turns) in partnership with several other enemies *shudders*), and if you don't, they turn into a living hell.
Those should not be the only two options and the first two Paper Mario games prove it. With those, you had the Badge system, which gave you any number of options, which were all equally viable. Wanted to give Mario a "Dragoon" Jump-based build focused on using Jump-attacks on all kinds of different enemies? Great, works just fine! Want a Hammer Build? Equally viable. High-risk, high-reward "Peril" builds that make Mario do massive damage when in critical health? Works just fine, and is what the speedruns use during most of the games. Make Mario a tank instead with all kinds of HP and be able to endure anything that's thrown at him? Can do. Just invest in as much Atk and make every attack hurt as much as possible? Etc, etc, etc. Sticker Star and from what it appears, Color Splash, have none of that, and instead exist on a binary--either easy-peasy if you have the Important Thing sticker/card you need, or possible but a living hell if you don't.
And I can understand them wanting to differentiate the Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi Series (though between M&L being focused around Bro. Attacks and completely outright dodging enemy attacks, which you can't do in Paper Mario, and Paper Mario having its Badge system and its Partner system focused on characters outside of Mario & Luigi, I felt they had plenty of different, but that's really beside the point). That's all fine, if that's really want they want to do. But then why continue pretending the game is an RPG in that case? That is, why keep the turn-based battle system? That just slows the gameplay down and retains a similarity to the Mario & Luigi games that's completely unnecessary if they really want to differentiate them from one another. If that's really want they want to do, building on the real-time system from Super Paper Mario and using these paint-attacks and stuff in real time would be much more experimental and help them stand apart better.
But yeah, just do disappointing since despite this the game very obviously does have a number of strong points like Sticker Star in the form of stuff like the aesthetics and the music and stuff. Like, it's very obvious that they did make the world look as much like various types of paper and cardboard and stuff, and that's amazing! And that's why I really wish this game and Sticker Star were truly good, so they could shine and be more recognzied for that stuff. But none of that really matters if the gamepaly isn't there to back it up, and I'm just not seeing that here so far, so this will have to be a pass for me again. Just can't make that mistake again, especially since I have much less free cash then I did when I tried Sticker Star and could take risks on this stuff.
Doubly so since it seems to have the same dilemma of Sticker Star, having what appears to be both wonderful aesthetics and music and stuff. Like seriously, I really wanted to give Sticker Star a chance since it had so many good points, but the gameplay just wasn't up to snuff, with Bowser being the worst offender, having several different phases which each demanded their own very specific Important Thing stickers to be able to defeat (which is compounded by the problem of having to fight Final Kamek right before him who, just like in the other fights with him in the game, turns all your stickers into Sandals stickers during the fight so unless you memorized where you put your important stickers you could very easily use stuff you intended to save for Bowser on accident and even if you avoid that the problem was further compounded by Kamek being able to use an attack that just wiped out an entire row of your stickers, including the ones you need for Bowser and if that happens, which you have no control over at all it's... definitely not a fun experience, to put it lightly. And if they're bringing back the item-checks for bosses like the Kooplaings, I can only imagine Bowser himself will play the same way again which wasn't very fun the first time, so...).Gah, just so disappointed in this, since aesthetically it just looks so amazing! I really want to give it a chance, like I did Sticker Star. But if the item-check boss mechanic is back, I just can't, because I was burned by that the first time and can't be burned again. Either you have the item, and the bosses are pathetically easy, to the point where they might as well not even be "bosses" because you likely will have an easier time fighting them then you did some enemies (ugh, Sombrero Guys (an enemy in Sticker Star that can double the attack of all other enemies for several turns) in partnership with several other enemies *shudders*), and if you don't, they turn into a living hell.
Those should not be the only two options and the first two Paper Mario games prove it. With those, you had the Badge system, which gave you any number of options, which were all equally viable. Wanted to give Mario a "Dragoon" Jump-based build focused on using Jump-attacks on all kinds of different enemies? Great, works just fine! Want a Hammer Build? Equally viable. High-risk, high-reward "Peril" builds that make Mario do massive damage when in critical health? Works just fine, and is what the speedruns use during most of the games. Make Mario a tank instead with all kinds of HP and be able to endure anything that's thrown at him? Can do. Just invest in as much Atk and make every attack hurt as much as possible? Etc, etc, etc. Sticker Star and from what it appears, Color Splash, have none of that, and instead exist on a binary--either easy-peasy if you have the Important Thing sticker/card you need, or possible but a living hell if you don't.
And I can understand them wanting to differentiate the Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi Series (though between M&L being focused around Bro. Attacks and completely outright dodging enemy attacks, which you can't do in Paper Mario, and Paper Mario having its Badge system and its Partner system focused on characters outside of Mario & Luigi, I felt they had plenty of different, but that's really beside the point). That's all fine, if that's really want they want to do. But then why continue pretending the game is an RPG in that case? That is, why keep the turn-based battle system? That just slows the gameplay down and retains a similarity to the Mario & Luigi games that's completely unnecessary if they really want to differentiate them from one another. If that's really want they want to do, building on the real-time system from Super Paper Mario and using these paint-attacks and stuff in real time would be much more experimental and help them stand apart better.
But yeah, just do disappointing since despite this the game very obviously does have a number of strong points like Sticker Star in the form of stuff like the aesthetics and the music and stuff. Like, it's very obvious that they did make the world look as much like various types of paper and cardboard and stuff, and that's amazing! And that's why I really wish this game and Sticker Star were truly good, so they could shine and be more recognzied for that stuff. But none of that really matters if the gamepaly isn't there to back it up, and I'm just not seeing that here so far, so this will have to be a pass for me again. Just can't make that mistake again, especially since I have much less free cash then I did when I tried Sticker Star and could take risks on this stuff.
A Link to the Past
Banned
What are you talking about?
Super Paper Mario definitely benefited from being a game released near the launch of the Wii.
I'd forgotten that SPM had sold as well as it did, but that only bolsters my argument that the best-selling PM games are on the best-selling consoles, and as such, it can't be argued that their shift in style benefited them. My issue is that SPM is the best-selling Paper Mario, but ultimately they went away from it with the idea that story isn't important to the series despite SPM being the most story-intensive game.
Let me make the following points in reply:
1. Super Paper Mario doesn't get guff because people aren't simply angry about the RPG system being changed, they're upset because the change was from "something good" to "something terrible." Not everyone liked SPM, but at least what they tried to do had a modicum of effort to make it work. It also had the series' high-effort story and quality dialogue, as well as the partner system in tact (even though I don't like the partners nearly as well design-wise).
2. If we're talking about a lack of challenge, Super Mario RPG was just as guilty.
3. No memorable characters? Tubba Blubba was awesome, Crystal King was cool, the Koopa Bros. were pretty darn decent, Tutankoopa was neat, etc. And Bombette is great.
4. Paper Mario didn't sell well, it's the worst-selling Mario game on the N64 (due to its late release).
5. What are you talking about? "Certified"? The closest thing that comes to a certification are reviews, which do nothing to help your argument that Paper Mario isn't a good game. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the reason people hold Paper Mario so highly is because they liked a game you didn't like? Maybe as opposed to everyone else just being wrong, you just so happen to have a minority opinion on a quality game?
Pokemaniac
Member
Having Mario & Luigi be the only RPG series might not be so bad if Mario & Luigi hadn't also been going downhill lately (though not to the same degree... yet) and if it and Paper Mario weren't so completely different. It's not like the two series were really stepping on each others toes before.
ShironRedshift
Member
That's a point I hadn't considered, and is indeed valid. If they want Paper Mario to be an experimental series, that's great! Like, that's done a lot for the Kirby series and it results in some amazing, beloved games like Canvas Curse and all the various fun little modes in Kirby Super Star and that wouldn't happen if HAL didn't take those kind of risks with it. So, that's definitely the right spirit, and I wish them luck with that attitude and hope they keep it!
However, if that's how they really feel... then why the Toads everywhere? If they really want it to be an experimental series, then shouldn't part of that experimentation by trying out new types of characters and stuff and being willing to take risks with that stuff and just seeing how stuff goes? That's something Kirby does all the time--while having all kinds of references to old games and old characters and bosses, they also always have new enemies and bosses and supporting characters and stuff everywhere as well and aren't afraid to mess around with that stuff, which results in stuff like the Kirby series trend of having absolutely amazing final bosses and stuff! And that's wonderful, and is the type of experimentation that I loved and is one of the reasons the Kirby series is so loved. So if that's really how they feel, and the direction they want to go with the series, why do they seem to have so many reservations about it, ranging from keeping the turn-based battle system despite not wanting to be an RPG series anymore, to keeping the Toad and being hesitant to use new characters like the previous Mario RPGs?
This is especially true when considering some of Nintendo's other series. Like I mentioned the Kirby series, which is particularly known for it, but it's not limited to that. You can see that same level of innovation in many of Nintendo's other series as well. Even in the Legend of Zelda series, from the very beginning-Zelda 2 was nothing like Zelda 1 at all and from there you also had stuff like Majora's Mask and Wind Waker and stuff, which definitely weren't afraid to mix things up at all, and now The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild looks to be making some very large deviations, which at least so far, seem to be working out very well for it based on early reception! Hell, even Metroid is having Metroid: Federation Force coming out, which, despite the large misgivings and negative reception the idea has had, at least they tried mixing things up to that degree and tried to realize their vision with that game, regardless of whether it exactly was a popular one or not. At least they went all out with that idea. Though it's not my personal cup of tea, I can at least give them that and am satisfied that even if I personally don't enjoy it, at least it's very clearly a game that's exactly what the team wants it to be and is their ideas through and through, with nothing held back and can definitely appreciate that regardless of how it fits with my own personal tastes and preferences.
So, why the half-measure here, and the expressed desire to make Paper Mario a very different series from Mario & Luigi RPG and making it very experimental, but stopping so short and winding up being so conservative with it anyway? That definitely seems to be very odd to me and I'm not sure what's going on with that seemingly self-contradictory dichotomy they've walked themselves into there.
The battles are objectively not pointless.
(1) You get items. This is their least useful aspect.
(2) You get coins. You need coins to buy things, which gate progress. You can also use things to buy specific stickers. You also can use coins to use/slow the roulette wheel, which is a HUGE advantage in battle, and helps a ton in the boss fights that people complain about. If you're not using all the mechanics, you only have yourself to blame.
(3) Battles are often essentially mandatory. They gate progress when you can't just run by enemies, or when you run into a story battle. Calling them pointless is like calling the zombies in Resident Evil pointless.
So what most people are getting at is the fact that you don't get experience. With how crazy experience scales based on your level in the "real RPG" Paper Mario games, they become just as pointless for most players very quickly (unless you're one of those crazy people that will grind out 100 battles to gain a single level).
It's totally fair to say that you don't think that the battles are fun, or that you miss the more traditional RPG mechanics, but calling them "pointless" is objectively wrong. I'm not drawing this distinction to be a total pedant, but the way the people try to turn their totally subjective viewpoints into factual statements bugs me. Lots of people enjoyed this game and its mechanics. I'm elated that they're giving it another shot on Wii U. I hope they return to the TTYD paradigm at some point though, but that's one of those games that's never going to be outdone even if they go back to the exact same mechanics.
Refreshment.01
Member
i didn't understand the answer about other control options and off TV play. Can someone please explain to me what the producer said?
Green Mamba
Member
Nintendo arbitrarily decided there couldn't be two Mario RPG series so they gutted one.
As stated in that interview video. Which GameExplain made private now.
But basically their reasoning was that if you want Paper Mario's old gameplay you should play a completely different series.
....
Green Mamba
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlcNubU6bYA
Interview is back up. 6:15 or so for the reasoning behind Paper Mario's change.
Also:
Hit up new character(s?)
Interview is back up. 6:15 or so for the reasoning behind Paper Mario's change.
Also:
Hit up new character(s?)
A Link to the Past
Banned
Fight an enemy in Zelda: Get Rupees
Fight an enemy in Dragon Quest: Get EXP and gold
Fight an enemy in Paper Mario Sticker Star: Waste stickers and get things that you can get enough of while skipping as many battles as possible
The only valid point you make - valid in hyper quotations - is that some battles can't really be skipped. That's not an argument to say that they are pointless, because it essentially amounts to a "WELL TECHNICALLY" argument. Yes, you are right, and I am sad that I need to clarify that not all battles are pointless. You are being a pedant, so absolutely do not think you can avoid that accusation by saying "but I ain't".
No, you are objectively wrong. The battles are pointless, and it's pretty darned evident that you object to this not because you have a point to make, but because you like Sticker Star and get annoyed that people are bashing it. In Sticker Star, battles exist not to make you stronger or better, they exist to slow you down. They're boring, they disrupt the only remotely okay elements of the game, and you do not have a net gain from it. A good comparison would be to say that every battle in Sticker Star has as much a point to it as fighting a Goomba after you reach Chapter 8 in the first game.
Laying it on pretty thick to support your objectively wrong argument. I know how you get with this arguments so I'm just going to drop it <3
These are just some straight up bad design decisions. Where's the guy on the development team saying "Um... maybe we shouldn't do X?"
All this outrage and anger and backlash didn't take a genius to prevent. This isn't a case of "Please Nintendo turn Zelda in to Dark Souls" or "Bring back Dead Franchise that No One Actually Buys". This is more like "Those are some pretty odd design choices... maybe you should fix them? You didn't have this problem before..." kind of thing. It's baffling and it makes IntSys look out of touch or incompetent.
All this outrage and anger and backlash didn't take a genius to prevent. This isn't a case of "Please Nintendo turn Zelda in to Dark Souls" or "Bring back Dead Franchise that No One Actually Buys". This is more like "Those are some pretty odd design choices... maybe you should fix them? You didn't have this problem before..." kind of thing. It's baffling and it makes IntSys look out of touch or incompetent.
mullet2000
Member
Even more strangely, they say they want to be weird/experimental with the series and then...make a game extremely similar to the last game in the series. Huh?
Green Mamba
Member
It's alright though, because the assistant producer said to look forward to all sorts of dumb paper gimmicks as the central focus of the series going forward. After stickers and paint, who knows what fun and exciting directions they'll take this awful formula to?
Schnozberry
Member
After hearing the Risa Tibata interview I think I'm going to pick this one up eventually. It seems like a game my daughter and I could play together and have fun with.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Uh
k lol
I'd say this was a unique way to storm out of an argument, but it seems like anyone who tries to tries to pull the "my opinion is fact" angle usually is forced to leave with their tail between their legs.
Also, I forgot to mention how embarrassing it must be to have compared Sticker Star to Resident Evil to make the argument that battles are objectively important. You know, since RE actively does NOT benefit you to fight many of the zombies; zombies essentially drain your ammunition. The more you dodge and avoid, the better off you are later. Maybe you should play RE before you cite it like that again
ShironRedshift
Member
It really is odd though. Despite all their talk of treating the Paper Mario series as a place of innovation and experimentation with these games, it certainly doesn't appear to be the case at this point. I mean, Color Splash just appears to be Sticker Star with a new coat of pain (on multiple levels). The cards in the battle system just replace the stickers in Sticker Star and otherwise appears to work in the exact same fashion. It even seems to have kept the Coin Roulette from Sticker Star that let you use additional stickers in one turn at the cost of coins, just replacing stickers with cards. Paperization also seems to be back, like during the segment in the Treehouse stream where they found the hidden Luigi. Important Things that can be turned into stickers/cards are also back, both in terms of their use as item-checks in boss battles and solving puzzles with Toads. And the preponderance of Toads is also retained. Literally the only thing that appears to have changed is just Paint/Card instead of stickers, but functionally the gameplay appears the same on every possible level. Just bizarre.
Incitemaybe
Member
Same here, looks fun and I'm liking the graphics.
SolidChamp
Banned
The most appropriate image combo you'll ever need for the Paper Mario situation.
Sniffynose
Member
It looks just like a HD version of Sticker Star, I initially hated Sticker Star but saw it through, and I am not up for that again.
That interview in the other thread shows how clueless these guys are with stuff, so Mario and Luigi saga can only have rpg elements now cus reasons... /facepalm
No thanks guys, bring out the real Mario RPG already!
That interview in the other thread shows how clueless these guys are with stuff, so Mario and Luigi saga can only have rpg elements now cus reasons... /facepalm
No thanks guys, bring out the real Mario RPG already!
Refreshment.01
Member
Having not played Sticker Star, if i had to chose a point of view to chase for i would go with Leroyd's.
Is he objectively enumerating a series of facts and mechanics to describe how the game works? In that case that's not pedantic and he has maintained a respectful tone so far in this debate.
A Link to the past, it is very peculiar you chose Zelda as an example. Rupees are worthless in the majority of the series. And regular enemies are mostly boring battles made up to brake exploration, slowing the player down or gate progression. Basically, it's mostly similar to your complain about Sticker Star. More over, it seems Sticker Star adopted a Zelda like element for the boss battles, that is puzzles.
However, there seems to be very valid complains about Sticker, like runing out of important stickers for a boss battles and having to backtrack to get them. Yet we don't know if measures have been taken to remedy this in the game. Also, there's a experience level element with increasing the paint capacity of the hammer by entering battles, which some people complaining are happy to ignore.
Question:
Did someone understood what was said about the question to support other controllers besides Gamepad and off TV play?
A Link to the Past
Banned
He is not, no. The first two points are null because they are not only not the only source of stickers and coins, but they are often a less efficient source of stickers and coins. When I play, I avoid as many battles as I can and I always wind up with a full book of stickers and more coins than I can spend. The third point is where pedantry comes from - arguing that because there exist mandatory fights, battles are not pointless. The third point is a textbook example of a technical point, as it demonstrates either pedantry or obliviousness of what people are saying (that battles are inherently not rewarding to players). I should also note that I hardly consider the user's condescending tone (which, going back to his original post, was to dismiss people who lodge this criticism as having made idiotic criticism) to be respectful.
As for the Zelda thing:
1. Early on especially, rupees are valuable, and typically the only way to get them is to fight enemies or find chests that are often guarded by enemies.
2. Rupees do eventually become worthless, but that's something people actively complain about and Nintendo actively tries to fix. Skyward Sword had players spend more money more often, Twilight Princess tried (and failed) to create a Rupee-sucking suit of armor, A Link Between Worlds had the rental system, etc. It does appear that the game may have battle-exclusive rewards in the form of paint can upgrading, but it has yet to be seen if they are indeed exclusive and whether they are that worthwhile of ugprades.
That's an angle I didn't consider - they're essentially making a game that only the fans are paying attention to anyway, and I assume this gutting of story and characters is in part a way to make the game more accessible to a wider audience that never adapted to the Wii U and never will.