"The whole notion that it can be possible to not just beat a level, but also to beat it 'properly', is inherently inorganic. In the Super Mario World example it doesn't matter how you limp past the finish line, just that you pass it. That's organic, you set the basic task and let the players find their natural level. When you start bringing out a checklist and determining whether the goal has been reached the 'correct' way, that's when you're insisting that players toe the line, so you can squeeze them all into the same box. It's the precursor to the modern triple-A world of invisible walls, strictly linear paths, and the clamping down on creative thought and emergent gameplay. So basically, if you disagree, you're probably a communist."
But in a similar vein, didn't you praise 'Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood' in one of your Let's Drown Outs for the whole 'perfect synchronization' game mechanic when the previous two games let you approach the missions in the game in any manner you chose and from 'Brotherhood' on, you're expected to follow an exact path or you're repeatedly told that you failed even when you succeed? Yes, it makes sense for the story, but IMHO, I found it extremely annoying and intrusive.
I agree with you that gaming should have fewer restrictions, which is why I liked 'Assassin's Creed II' much more than 'Brotherhood' but I was just curious why you felt the mechanic in 'Brotherhood' was more agreeable than 'Yoshi's Island' or 'Woolly World'? Or has your opinion changed since then?